Freemasonry.

[Light Without Heat]

Are the Freemasons (required to believe in a Supreme Being, but worship method is not necessary) sinners?

Is a Christian Freemason saved, but a Moslem Freemason not?

 

[Lifesaver]

No Christian should have anything to do with Freemasonry. They have a God who is not the Christian God (though they do try to make their society religion-friendly), and are a secret society.

Most Christian freemasons do not know this and can't really be blamed, though.

 

[Blissman]

No Christian should have anything to do with Freemasonry. They have a God who is not the Christian God (though they do try to make their society religion-friendly), and are a secret society.

Most Christian freemasons do not know this and can't really be blamed, though.

What you are argueing against is that one of the rules of Freemasonry is that you must believe in one God, the same God in the book of Genesis.

 

[Light Without Heat]

How can a non-Mason prove that their God (the Masonic God) is different than the Christian God? How can Christians say their God is different from Allah, or the Jewish God? It is all based upon a "Supreme Being;" how many Supreme Beings can their be?

Also, considering the amount of evidence that supports the hypothesis that the Freemasons actually routed from the Poor Fellow-Knights of Christ and the Temple of Solomon (Knights Templar)... it would most definitely be the same God, if this were proven true.

 

[Archivist]

No Christian should have anything to do with Freemasonry. They have a God who is not the Christian God (though they do try to make their society religion-friendly), and are a secret society.

Most Christian freemasons do not know this and can't really be blamed, though.

My father was both an active Mason and a devoted Christian. He would not have joined this organization if there was any possibility that it involved a diety other than the God worshiped by Jews and Christians.

 

[Lifesaver]

Information on Freemasonry, and why it is incompatible with Christianity.
By the way, I have no doubt that many otherwise good Christians have been freemasons, for they were unaware of the incompatibilities.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm

 

[Light Without Heat]

For one, that's a purely Catholic website. The reason this would be a bad place to read about it will be addressed later in my post.

First of all, it is generally accepted in modern Masonry that if Freemasonry very long existed before 1717, when it first became public, it was not associated with stonecutters or guilds; that in fact there is nothing in Old Masonic charges or the rituals of Freemasonry that support it as being a masonic guild when it "originated." That in fact, they were never actually Masons to begin with.

That said, there is a large expanse of evidence supporting the Freemasons originating from the Knights Templar, who, if anyone has looked into them at all, are known to have been rigid enemies of the Catholic church.

The Roman Catholics wouldn't put this on their website, because along with "very possibly routed from the Knights Templar" comes "who we brutally tortured and betrayed for their expanse of wealth in the 14th century."

Freemasons made their intentions public almost 200 years ago. No one can argue that it is un-Christian to be a member.

I'm not going to take the time to read through that entire New Advent definition, but if you have well enough to defend it, then I'd like to hear some of the alledged reasons against joining the Freemasons.

 

[Lifesaver]

The Roman Catholics wouldn't put this on their <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=website&v=56">website</a>, because along with "very possibly routed from the Knights Templar" comes "who we brutally tortured and betrayed for their expanse of wealth in the 14th century."

Wouldn't they?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm

I'd like to hear some of the alledged reasons against joining the Freemasons.

The Catholic Encyclopedia raises four:

-The peculiar, "unsectarian" (in truth, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian) naturalistic character of Freemasonry, by which theoretically and practically it undermines the Catholic and Christian faith, first in its members and through them in the rest of society, creating religious indifferentism and contempt for orthodoxy and ecclesiastical authority.

-The inscrutable secrecy and fallacious ever-changing disguise of the Masonic association and of its "work", by which "men of this sort break as thieves into the house and like foxes endeavour to root up the vineyard", "perverting the hearts of the simple", ruining their spiritual and temporal welfare.

-The oaths of secrecy and of fidelity to Masonry and Masonic work, which cannot be justified in their scope, their object, or their form, and cannot, therefore, induce any obligation. The oaths are condemnable, because the scope and object of Masonry are "wicked" and condemnable, and the candidate in most cases is ignorant of the import or extent of the obligation which he takes upon himself.

-The danger which such societies involve for the security and "tranquility of the State" and for "the spiritual health of souls", and consequently their incompatibility with civil and canonical law. For even admitting that some Masonic associations pursued for themselves no purposes contrary to religion and to public order, they would be nevertheless contrary to public order, because by their very existence as secret societies based on the Masonic principles, they encourage and promote the foundation of other really dangerous secret societies and render difficult, if not impossible, efficacious action of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities against them.

 

[Suzannah]

Well, I guess this is one area at least where Orthodoxy agrees with Rome.



Orthodoxy has declared anathema upon Freemasonry. Orthodoxy does not judge its adherents as to whether or not they are "saved"...it simply says that freemasonry is incompatible with Christianity and is to be shunned by Christians.

http://www.roca.org/OA/70/70t.htm

 

[Archivist]

-The danger which such societies involve for the security and "tranquility of the State" and for "the spiritual health of souls", and consequently their incompatibility with civil and canonical law. For even admitting that some Masonic associations pursued for themselves no purposes contrary to religion and to public order, they would be nevertheless contrary to public order, because by their very existence as secret societies based on the Masonic principles, they encourage and promote the foundation of other really dangerous secret societies and render difficult, if not impossible, efficacious action of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities against them.

If this statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia is so, how is it that 33 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were Masons. These 33 Founding Fathers were as follows: Abraham Baldwin, Gunning Bedford, John Blair, William Blount, David Brearley, Jacob Broom, Daniel Carroll, William R. Davie, Jonathan Dayton, John Dickinson, Oliver Ellsworth, Benjamin Franklin, Eldridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Alexander Hamilton, William Houston, William Samuel Johnson, Rufus King, John Langdon, John Lansing Jr., James McClung, James McHenry, James Madison, Alexander Martin, Robert Morris, William Paterson, William Pierce, Charles Pinckney, Edmund Randolph, George Read, Roger Sherman, George Washington and George Wythe.

I think that the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia need to reexamine their facts.

 

[Lifesaver]

Having important public figures and powerful men as members makes a secret society more dangerous, not less.

 

[Light Without Heat]

Wouldn't they?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm


The Catholic Encyclopedia raises four:

-The peculiar, "unsectarian" (in truth, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian) naturalistic character of Freemasonry, by which theoretically and practically it undermines the Catholic and Christian faith, first in its members and through them in the rest of society, creating religious indifferentism and contempt for orthodoxy and ecclesiastical authority.

How is it naturally anti-Catholic or anti-Christian? That doesn't even say anything! It says the peculiar unsectarian naturalistic character of Freemasonry is bad. What is that even saying? Because Freemasonry doesn't have a sect it creates contempt? It's promoting religious tolerance, for crying out loud.

-The inscrutable secrecy and fallacious ever-changing disguise of the Masonic association and of its "work", by which "men of this sort break as thieves into the house and like foxes endeavour to root up the vineyard", "perverting the hearts of the simple", ruining their spiritual and temporal welfare.

The secrecy doesn't play a role in the brotherhood today. But just like when the first Christians had to hide under the name of "fishermen," the Great Society that became Freemasonry posed as Masons, to be secretive; why? Because they originated as a group where if they didn't conduct things in secrecy, they could be arrested, tried, and tortured in the worst ways the Medieval mind could think up; that explains their secrecy. It also explains the bloody rites of their Charges; such as being "[ask to be] ...cut in half and buried where the tide draws in and out twice in twenty for hours ... to have my entrails burned to ashes." This isn't hardly as much as the Pope would have had his torturers do to them, if they were caught.

-The oaths of secrecy and of fidelity to Masonry and Masonic work, which cannot be justified in their scope, their object, or their form, and cannot, therefore, induce any obligation. The oaths are condemnable, because the scope and object of Masonry are "wicked" and condemnable, and the candidate in most cases is ignorant of the import or extent of the obligation which he takes upon himself.

The oath taken is to swear secrecy to protect the lives of your fellow brothers--as I explained above--rooting from a time when openess could get you tortured and put to death. Why did Freemasonry make itself known in 1717? Because that was just a few years after Protestantism had been more thoroughly formed in England, the Roman Catholic church didn't have absolute tyranny over all monarchs and ministries. What scope and object of Masonry are wicked and condemnable? That basically says the same gibberish as the previous reason. Give some words that say something, not just, "Hey, Freemasonry is bad because it's against the Catholic church. I'm serious, it's bad. Really." That's all that says to me.

-The danger which such societies involve for the security and "tranquility of the State" and for "the spiritual health of souls", and consequently their incompatibility with civil and canonical law. For even admitting that some Masonic associations pursued for themselves no purposes contrary to religion and to public order, they would be nevertheless contrary to public order, because by their very existence as secret societies based on the Masonic principles, they encourage and promote the foundation of other really dangerous secret societies and render difficult, if not impossible, efficacious action of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities against them.

They promote and encourage the foundation of other really dangerous secret societies? Christianity was once a secret society, too. Of course, from these statements, I guess Christianity encouraged and promoted all the religions that came after it by being secret at one point, and they are therein "really dangerous." Again, I see no logical argument against the existence or practices of Freemasonry.

I would hope you might think about it first instead of giving these answers right away, which appear to me to be rather automatic and depthless. I can't even sum up the points against Freemasonry other than "It's secret, it's not Catholic," and the presumption that a secret society that has been around for presumably 700 years is going to promote more secret societies or sects; hasn't happened yet.

 

[Light Without Heat]

Having important public figures and powerful men as members makes a secret society more dangerous, not less.

Men such as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were two of the best thinkers and smartest politicians/generals (Washington) that we've ever had in this country. It was hard to have a "public figure" in the 1700s, too. You had the delegates and politicians, but they didn't have mass control; rather, all of the men beginning the Government were not detached from the will of the people, rendering it the Democracy that it is. Did you ever think about that maybe they were members of Freemasonry because they wanted equality, and it promoted it?

And if anyone wants to spout that the founders of the country weren't Freemasons and it's just a long-lived rumor, take a look at the one-dollar bill. See the triangle with the eye upon it? That's one of the symbols, or was one of the symbols, of Freemasonry, due to the Triangle and their tie with Geometry.

 

[Suzannah]

Men such as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were two of the best thinkers and smartest politicians/generals (Washington) that we've ever had in this country. It was hard to have a "public figure" in the 1700s, too. You had the delegates and politicians, but they didn't have mass control; rather, all of the men beginning the Government were not detached from the will of the people, rendering it the Democracy that it is. Did you ever think about that maybe they were members of Freemasonry because they wanted equality, and it promoted it?

And if anyone wants to spout that the founders of the country weren't Freemasons and it's just a long-lived rumor, take a look at the one-dollar bill. See the triangle with the eye upon it? That's one of the symbols, or was one of the symbols, of Freemasonry, due to the Triangle and their tie with Geometry.

This is all very well and good, but using this sort of logic, i.e.: pointing to famous persons as adherents and therefore its a great thing, is fatally flawed.
I enjoy Kirstie Allie's movies. She's a Scientologist. Does that mean Scientology is all good too? I also think the Osmonds are just a really nice family. Should I go and join the LDS church also? I happen to appreciate Yanni's music (hey I'm OLD), but as I understand it, he's deep into the New Age thing...

 

[Light Without Heat]

This is all very well and good, but using this sort of logic, i.e.: pointing to famous persons as adherents and therefore its a great thing, is fatally flawed.
I enjoy Kirstie Allie's movies. She's a Scientologist. Does that mean Scientology is all good too? I also think the Osmonds are just a really nice family. Should I go and join the LDS church also? I happen to appreciate Yanni's music (hey I'm OLD), but as I understand it, he's deep into the New Age thing...

I wasn't the one who pointed to them; I was defending them from Lifesaver's saying they made things more dangerous.

But I agree, it is fatally flawed, which is why I didn't do that.

 

[Suzannah]

sorry I misunderstood the convo...carry on! Pay no attention to the woman behind that curtain!

 

[Light Without Heat]

sorry I misunderstood the convo...carry on! Pay no attention to the woman behind that curtain!

It's quite alright. I liked what you said, anywho!

 

[Lifesaver]

How is it naturally anti-Catholic or anti-Christian? That doesn't even say anything! It says the peculiar unsectarian naturalistic character of Freemasonry is bad. What is that even saying? Because Freemasonry doesn't have a sect it creates contempt? It's promoting religious tolerance, for crying out loud.

It does say it: religious indifferentism and contempt for orthodoxy and ecclesiastical authority.

The secrecy doesn't play a role in the brotherhood today. But just like when the first Christians had to hide under the name of "fishermen," the Great Society that became Freemasonry posed as Masons, to be secretive; why? Because they originated as a group where if they didn't conduct things in secrecy, they could be arrested, tried, and tortured in the worst ways the Medieval mind could think up; that explains their secrecy. It also explains the bloody rites of their Charges; such as being "[ask to be] ...cut in half and buried where the tide draws in and out twice in twenty for hours ... to have my entrails burned to ashes." This isn't hardly as much as the Pope would have had his torturers do to them, if they were caught.

It doesn't play a role in the brotherhood? Have they finally got rid of secret gestures, secret meetings, secret plans and secret oaths?

The oath taken is to swear secrecy to protect the lives of your fellow brothers--as I explained above--rooting from a time when openess could get you tortured and put to death. Why did Freemasonry make itself known in 1717? Because that was just a few years after Protestantism had been more thoroughly formed in England, the Roman Catholic church didn't have absolute tyranny over all monarchs and ministries. What scope and object of Masonry are wicked and condemnable? That basically says the same gibberish as the previous reason. Give some words that say something, not just, "Hey, Freemasonry is bad because it's against the Catholic church. I'm serious, it's bad. Really." That's all that says to me.

Even if that argument justified the kind of oath that is taken, why do they keep up with it today? Are they still under the threat of the evil popes of the Catholic Church (notice that the Orthodox Churches are against it as well, as many Protestants).

They promote and encourage the foundation of other really dangerous secret societies? Christianity was once a secret society, too. Of course, from these statements, I guess Christianity encouraged and promoted all the religions that came after it by being secret at one point, and they are therein "really dangerous." Again, I see no logical argument against the existence or practices of Freemasonry.

Christianity is, by its own nature, an expansive and broad religion, meant for everyone; not a little group of doctrines to be given only to some enlightened fellows in secretive meetings.

I would hope you might think about it first instead of giving these answers right away, which appear to me to be rather automatic and depthless. I can't even sum up the points against Freemasonry other than "It's secret, it's not Catholic," and the presumption that a secret society that has been around for presumably 700 years is going to promote more secret societies or sects; hasn't happened yet.

The site I linked you to claimed there was a link between Freemasonry and Carbonari.
We even have Freemasonry for kids/teens here (it's called Demolay, perhaps you've heard about it).

 

[Light Without Heat]

It does say it: religious indifferentism and contempt for orthodoxy and ecclesiastical authority.

Okay, it says that. What does that constitute? Where is the bloody proof? And where is ecclesiastical authority even justified, in all of history? For hundreds of years ecclesiastical authority seized up land and money like some kind of big, bad conglomerate.

It doesn't play a role in the brotherhood? Have they finally got rid of secret gestures, secret meetings, secret plans and secret oaths?

You miss my point. They still use them, but it's simply tradition now. Perhaps it adds to the allure, but it's all in good will anyways.

Even if that argument justified the kind of oath that is taken, why do they keep up with it today? Are they still under the threat of the evil popes of the Catholic Church (notice that the Orthodox Churches are against it as well, as many Protestants).

Tradition again. And apparently, if Catholics, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism are against it as well, they still have some threat, don't they?

It's people like you who misinterpret it that threaten it.

Christianity is, by its own nature, an expansive and broad religion, meant for everyone; not a little group of doctrines to be given only to some enlightened fellows in secretive meetings.

They aren't a little group. While not as "expansed" as Christianity (and this is because they allow all religions, and therefore are not so well advertised/presented [as one might see in our series of posts]). And how can you say "meant for everyone?" Are Buddhists welcome? Are Moslems? I don't think so. I've heard many of my Kentucky-bred fellows spouting things about "Accept Jesus or go t' Hell." Now, Jesus wouldn't want that kind of negative imput, that is for sure... but Christianity propagates it anyway. Catholics, historically, especially.

And there are no doctrines in Freemasonry, except that one believes in a Supreme Being. There are even specific Christian "sects" of Freemasonry, such as Chivalric Masonry, which is Christian exclusive. Worship is left to the individual, and all members are considered equal; no ecclesiastic hierarchies. And they aren't given, they're sought after.

The site I linked you to claimed there was a link between Freemasonry and Carbonari.
We even have Freemasonry for kids/teens here (it's called Demolay, perhaps you've heard about it).

People have been linking Freemasonry to things since the beginning of time. Some of them are plausible, most aren't. Steven Knight, in his book The Brotherhood, tried to argue that Masonry was based off of Satanism.

You haven't yet proven anything against Christian Freemasonry, or Freemasonry itself. Can anyone else try?

 

[Lifesaver]

Okay, it says that. What does that constitute? Where is the bloody proof?

They accept people of all religions under the same oath to the same Deity. It leads them to believe religious differences are okay, afterall, they're all members of the Lodge.
It doesn't preach the truth of Christianity, but an incomplete version of it, allowing for people of all religions to be grouped under the same "faith".

And where is ecclesiastical authority even justified, in all of history? For hundreds of years ecclesiastical authority seized up land and money like some kind of big, bad conglomerate.

Would you care to substantiate your claims?

You miss my point. They still use them, but it's simply tradition now. Perhaps it adds to the allure, but it's all in good will anyways.

Very well. It encourages men to say things, serious things, when they don't mean it.

Tradition again. And apparently, if Catholics, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism are against it as well, they still have some threat, don't they?

From whom? The Papal army? The Holy Office? The Jesuit assassins? The Crusaders? The witch-burners?
It has no threat at all, and it is still very secretive.

They aren't a little group. While not as "expansed" as Christianity (and this is because they allow all religions, and therefore are not so well advertised/presented [as one might see in our series of posts]). And how can you say "meant for everyone?" Are Buddhists welcome? Are Moslems? I don't think so. I've heard many of my Kentucky-bred fellows spouting things about "Accept Jesus or go t' Hell." Now, Jesus wouldn't want that kind of negative imput, that is for sure... but Christianity propagates it anyway. Catholics, historically, especially.

They are a secret group. As with all secret group, their teachings and activities are restricted only to its members and those invited, hidden from the rest of the population. It does not follow the Christian teaching to preach openly to all people.