Freemasonry.

[Light Without Heat]

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".

You're against religious differences altogether? Oi. Maybe I've been making points to a stone wall.

It doesn't preach Christianity at all. And in the Christian sects, the members don't preach it, they're just Christians; they can read and interpret the Bible as well.

Would you care to substantiate your claims?

Gladly.

First of all, it is commonly known that during the Middle Ages, the Church (when I say Church here I mean Roman Catholic church) would seize land, property, and wealth from those people it had arrested or tried for heresy or treason (one in the same back then). It would burn down the homes of those proclaimed enemies of the church and claim the leftover land as its own. This happened all throughout the Middle Ages, you can find it in any unbias history text.

Let's cite the story of the betrayal of the Knights Templar, as long as we're on a subject so very close to them, though, for more pinpointed proof of this practice.

As you may or may not know, the Knights Templars developed the first "banking" system. They used it to help hold the gold and belongings of Christians, Moslems, and Jews alike. They were unbias in this endeavor, and would guard the holdings quite fervently.

King Philip I of France, around the 14th century or before (I don't have the date right off the top of my head) was heavily in debt with the Templars. He was also at war with England, and was at bad terms with the Pope Clement V, having been excommunicated some years earlier by a separate papal viscar.

The Knights Templar were also massively wealthy. King Philip saw this, and used it to his advantage, hatching a scheme with Clement and the Knights Hospitaller to join the two "Knights" groups and make himself sole controller of them, reaping their wealth and benefits, Clement saying he would agree to these terms because the Christian order, to be called the Knights of Christ, would pay tithes to the church.

Jacques do Molay, who was Grand Master of the Knights Templar at this time (and fervently dedicated to the Crusades), did not like this one bit; he refused, upsetting Philip I, the Knights Hospitaller (whose highest ranking Knight was supposedly going to be made head of all the Knights, once conjoined), and, obviously, Pope Clement V was upset as well.

So they conspired another plan; to frame the Knights Templar into such acts as homosexuality, heresy, degregation of the cross, and other such mistruths. Clement V agreed that when King Philip announced this publically, he would support it, thereby upholding that all in Christendom should recognize this as truth.

And so on Friday the 13th of October in 1307, all of the Knights Templar in France were arrested. But instead of King Philip seeing any of it, the Roman Catholic church interceded and seized all of the property of the Knights Templar; within a few months, Pope Clement V issued a papal bull stating that England and Scotland do the same thing. England was reluctant, and Scotland ignored the bull; but that is besides the point.

I'm not going to go into the gruesome torture methods; only know that Clement proclaimed that those administering them should "spare no known means of torture."

That right there is enough to make you question things, isn't it? I mean, the Pope is only human; Bishops and Priests are only human. And Catholicism has a bloodier past with more nasty secrets, from what I've seen, than any religion or brotherhood out there.

This, too, is in history books.

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

The main purpose of the oath is that they take the oath on their love and worship of God. They are inviting His condemnation should they break the secrecy, and the bloody trials cited are seemingly flimsy compared to what God could administer. So, yes, they do mean it, for the most part.

But it is also tradition. And it doesn't encourage men to say serious things they don't mean... that's stretching it, in my opinion. That's like saying that when Jesus tells us to "pluck out our right eye and cast it away" should it cause us to sin, which is more or less allegory (and there is no history of any Christian sect of monks or friars who did such a thing; self-flagellation was popular, on the other hand...), is encouraging men to accept serious things they won't act upon.

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.

Very secretive? Not really. Anyone who does research can find out plenty. I'm not a Mason, but look at how much I know, and I've hardly read more than one non-Masonic book, and looked through a few websites.

And, obviously, if it is still opposed to, it is threatened; not physically, but, as you are demonstrating, in a reputational sense.

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.

They don't have teachings. Religious and political debate and talk is forbidden. And obviously they're not too "secret;" they became public in 1717. Just because no one can just "walk in" to a Masonic Lodge doesn't mean that they're hiding things we shouldn't see.

This is also assuming; until you have any substantial proof with words that cite negative Masonic rituals, not rumors and anti-propoganda, I don't see what it is you're making a point of.

The Christian teaching to preach openly to all people? I think that's right in the Holy Bible. I'd rather interpret it myself, I don't need a mediator between God and me. This is my opinion, however.

And the Masons don't preach, so that hardly counts.

It seems to me like you might want to do a little research into your faith. Now, no sect of Christianity is perfect... but a LOT of Catholics refuse to see that.

Read some of the writings of John Wycliffe. Then get back to me about Christian teaching.

 

[Lifesaver]

You're against religious differences altogether? Oi. Maybe I've been making points to a stone wall.

LWH, Freemasonry imposes a religiosity on its followers. A very broad one, speaking only about a Great Architect or something to that effect, but it still does.
This broad and vague theology is indifferent to a whole lot of religions, and Freemasons may become indifferent about all the differences between the many faiths present there.

It doesn't preach Christianity at all. And in the Christian sects, the members don't preach it, they're just Christians; they can read and interpret the Bible as well.

When I say preach, I mean more on the lines of teaching.

First of all, it is commonly known that during the Middle Ages, the Church (when I say Church here I mean Roman Catholic church) would seize land, property, and wealth from those people it had arrested or tried for heresy or treason (one in the same back then). It would burn down the homes of those proclaimed enemies of the church and claim the leftover land as its own. This happened all throughout the Middle Ages, you can find it in any unbias history text.Let's cite the story of the betrayal of the Knights Templar, as long as we're on a subject so very close to them, though, for more pinpointed proof of this practice.As you may or may not know, the Knights Templars developed the first "banking" system. They used it to help hold the gold and belongings of Christians, Moslems, and Jews alike. They were unbias in this endeavor, and would guard the holdings quite fervently.
King Philip I of France, around the 14th century or before (I don't have the date right off the top of my head) was heavily in debt with the Templars. He was also at war with England, and was at bad terms with the Pope Clement V, having been excommunicated some years earlier by a separate papal viscar.The Knights Templar were also massively wealthy. King Philip saw this, and used it to his advantage, hatching a scheme with Clement and the Knights Hospitaller to join the two "Knights" groups and make himself sole controller of them, reaping their wealth and benefits, Clement saying he would agree to these terms because the Christian order, to be called the Knights of Christ, would pay tithes to the church.Jacques do Molay, who was Grand Master of the Knights Templar at this time (and fervently dedicated to the Crusades), did not like this one bit; he refused, upsetting Philip I, the Knights Hospitaller (whose highest ranking Knight was supposedly going to be made head of all the Knights, once conjoined), and, obviously, Pope Clement V was upset as well.So they conspired another plan; to frame the Knights Templar into such acts as homosexuality, heresy, degregation of the cross, and other such mistruths. Clement V agreed that when King Philip announced this publically, he would support it, thereby upholding that all in Christendom should recognize this as truth.And so on Friday the 13th of October in 1307, all of the Knights Templar in France were arrested. But instead of King Philip seeing any of it, the Roman Catholic church interceded and seized all of the property of the Knights Templar; within a few months, Pope Clement V issued a papal bull stating that England and Scotland do the same thing. England was reluctant, and Scotland ignored the bull; but that is besides the point.I'm not going to go into the gruesome torture methods; only know that Clement proclaimed that those administering them should "spare no known means of torture."That right there is enough to make you question things, isn't it? I mean, the Pope is only human; Bishops and Priests are only human. And Catholicism has a bloodier past with more nasty secrets, from what I've seen, than any religion or brotherhood out there.

Gross injustice has been done and perpetuated!! How could an institution so wretched as the Roman Popish Church, in yet another one of its vile plots with corrupt monarchs, brutally opressed the noble Templar knights. Such humble and honest men, true saints upon the Earth, and industrious capitalists as well, all these pious holy men wanted was to meet in secret and practice their religious tolerance.
But no, the Roman Pope, in his vile lust for the blood of the innocent, made up false charges against the Knights, who in reality were the only real Christians, so he could usurp their land and their gold.
Silly Catholics, still believing that Lord God the Pope is impeccable... Little do they know his robe is red with the blood of the innocent!!!

Is there any reason I should take your version over the one in the Catholic Encyclopedia?

The main purpose of the oath is that they take the oath on their love and worship of God. They are inviting His condemnation should they break the secrecy, and the bloody trials cited are seemingly flimsy compared to what God could administer. So, yes, they do mean it, for the most part.

They mean it!?
Then they've taken an oath of death, a promise before God, over a human organization. No good either.

But it is also tradition. And it doesn't encourage men to say serious things they don't mean... that's stretching it, in my opinion. That's like saying that when Jesus tells us to "pluck out our right eye and cast it away" should it cause us to sin, which is more or less allegory (and there is no history of any Christian sect of monks or friars who did such a thing; self-flagellation was popular, on the other hand...), is encouraging men to accept serious things they won't act upon.

So it is allegorical?

Very secretive? Not really. Anyone who does research can find out plenty. I'm not a Mason, but look at how much I know, and I've hardly read more than one non-Masonic book, and looked through a few websites.

They are more open today, especially its lower ranks. Still a secret society with all of its secret practices, meetings, oaths, etc though.

And, obviously, if it is still opposed to, it is threatened; not physically, but, as you are demonstrating, in a reputational sense.

Err... this is really not sticking.
Their reputation is threatened BECAUSE they are secret.

They don't have teachings. Religious and political debate and talk is forbidden. And obviously they're not too "secret;" they became public in 1717. Just because no one can just "walk in" to a Masonic Lodge doesn't mean that they're hiding things we shouldn't see.

Come on, now. Of course they're hiding things, as they always have. If they didn't hide something, they wouldn't be secret.

The Christian teaching to preach openly to all people? I think that's right in the Holy Bible. I'd rather interpret it myself, I don't need a mediator between God and me. This is my opinion, however.

Let's not get into that discussion now. But personal interpretation creates just as many Christianities as there are Christians. How can one understand Scriptures perfectly (not just broad topics) without a teacher?

It seems to me like you might want to do a little research into your faith. Now, no sect of Christianity is perfect... but a LOT of Catholics refuse to see that.

The Church is perfect. Catholics are not.

Read some of the writings of John Wycliffe. Then get back to me about Christian teaching.

Wasn't he one of those heretics who first came up with something similar to Protestantism (though pre-dating the Reformation)?

 

[Light Without Heat]

LWH, Freemasonry imposes a religiosity on its followers. A very broad one, speaking only about a Great Architect or something to that effect, but it still does.
This broad and vague theology is indifferent to a whole lot of religions, and Freemasons may become indifferent about all the differences between the many faiths present there.

No, no, no. It doesn't impose any religion. Believing in a Supreme Being does not constitute a "religion;" for there is no set of creeds and/or doctrines. It is simply a prerequisite for joining. Freemasonry promotes the worship of God in any way the person chooses, be it through Muhammed, Jesus Christ, the Dali Lama, whichever. It isn't a religion that they're imposing; Freemasonry has been promoting religious tolerance for hundreds of years.

When I say preach, I mean more on the lines of teaching.

Okie dokie. They don't teach any doctrine or creed. That was one of the Catholic Church's problems with them in Pope Leo XIII's Humanus Genus.

Gross injustice has been done and perpetuated!! How could an institution so wretched as the Roman Popish Church, in yet another one of its vile plots with corrupt monarchs, brutally opressed the noble Templar knights. Such humble and honest men, true saints upon the Earth, and industrious capitalists as well, all these pious holy men wanted was to meet in secret and practice their religious tolerance.
But no, the Roman Pope, in his vile lust for the blood of the innocent, made up false charges against the Knights, who in reality were the only real Christians, so he could usurp their land and their gold.
Silly Catholics, still believing that Lord God the Pope is impeccable... Little do they know his robe is red with the blood of the innocent!!!

Is there any reason I should take your version over the one in the Catholic Encyclopedia?

That doesn't give any dates or factual information. What you fail to see is that mine isn't a version from a standpoint, it's just what happened.

They mean it!?
Then they've taken an oath of death, a promise before God, over a human organization. No good either.

If you say so.

So it is allegorical?

Now it is. Back in the Middle ages, it certainly wasn't.

They are more open today, especially its lower ranks. Still a secret society with all of its secret practices, meetings, oaths, etc though.

Yep.

Err... this is really not sticking.
Their reputation is threatened BECAUSE they are secret.

I cited those faiths as threats because they threaten them with ignorance. Many denominations have promulgated false claims against the Masons; maybe they had good intentions, but they were false none-the-less. That is what threatens reputation; what brings the threats is their secrecy. Among other things, such as their Monotheistic requirement in belief. Where's the Virgin Mary? Where is Jesus, our Lord? Not included, but not excluded either. Baptist, Methodist, and Adventist are to Christianity as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are to Monotheism. It's really quite simple, and promotes fellowship and brotherhood.

Come on, now. Of course they're hiding things, as they always have. If they didn't hide something, they wouldn't be secret.

They are secret by tradition. But what would they be hiding? WMDs? Anthrax? That seems a little far-fetched... not that you said it.

Let's not get into that discussion now. But personal interpretation creates just as many Christianities as there are Christians. How can one understand Scriptures perfectly (not just broad topics) without a teacher?

Study, dedication, and faith. How can one understand Scriptures perfectly anyway after they've been picked and chosen from over years, translated from Hebrew to Greek to English, and translated again into modern English? The Bible isn't hard to understand; but there are plenty of sources to better understand and interpret it yourself without a mediator.

In the Middle Ages they didn't even distribute Bibles to the peasants and serfs. I'd like to read it all myself; God will give me the understanding I seek, even if it takes a little work.

The Church is perfect. Catholics are not.

Okay. What is the Church? The idea of the Church is perfect. But mortality and humanity bungled it after about ten years... and look at us now. Split into denomination upon denomination. It's... not really cool. How can Moslems or Buddhists or Taoists or Shintoists or Pagans take us seriously if we squabble amongst each other as much as we might squabble with them?

Wasn't he one of those heretics who first came up with something similar to Protestantism (though pre-dating the Reformation)?

Heretic? Because he saw the truth that there is nothing about a Pope in the Bible, or giving tithes to the church, or having Bishops and Priests and such dress up in fancy clothes and be exalted? If he's a heretic, maybe it's good to be one.

Don't go on Catholic-propogated rumors about him. Read him, if you're interested in meriting from the knowledge. How could it do anything but help you better understand the mortal human history of Christianity, anyway, and decide where you stand?

 

[Lifesaver]

No, no, no. It doesn't impose any religion. Believing in a Supreme Being does not constitute a "religion;" for there is no set of creeds and/or doctrines. It is simply a prerequisite for joining. Freemasonry promotes the worship of God in any way the person chooses, be it through Muhammed, Jesus Christ, the Dali Lama, whichever. It isn't a religion that they're imposing; Freemasonry has been promoting religious tolerance for hundreds of years.

And should error be tolerated?

Okie dokie. They don't teach any doctrine or creed. That was one of the Catholic Church's problems with them in Pope Leo XIII's Humanus Genus.

Precisely. They teach the existence of one God, and presume all is fine once you accept that.

That doesn't give any dates or factual information. What you fail to see is that mine isn't a version from a standpoint, it's just what happened.

It gives plenty of factual information and dates AND references at the end (the Encyclopedia version, not my parody of the anti-Catholic version, by which you are clearly influenced).

Now it is. Back in the Middle ages, it certainly wasn't.

Do they or do they not mean what they say when they say the oaths?

I cited those faiths as threats because they threaten them with ignorance. Many denominations have promulgated false claims against the Masons; maybe they had good intentions, but they were false none-the-less. That is what threatens reputation; what brings the threats is their secrecy. Among other things, such as their Monotheistic requirement in belief. Where's the Virgin Mary? Where is Jesus, our Lord? Not included, but not excluded either. Baptist, Methodist, and Adventist are to Christianity as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are to Monotheism. It's really quite simple, and promotes fellowship and brotherhood.

And prohibits (or at least you said it does) discussion on the very important points those three religions still disagree on.

They are secret by tradition. But what would they be hiding? WMDs? Anthrax? That seems a little far-fetched... not that you said it.

I can only imagine the sort of machinations and schemes the high hierarchy of freemasonry has hidden throughout the institution's history.
Although not a proof of it, the number of influential people who were or are Freemasons is quite startling.

Study, dedication, and faith. How can one understand Scriptures perfectly anyway after they've been picked and chosen from over years, translated from Hebrew to Greek to English, and translated again into modern English? The Bible isn't hard to understand; but there are plenty of sources to better understand and interpret it yourself without a mediator.

Sure, sure. How many Protestant denominations are there, again?
Not one of those fully agrees with the others, and many on essential matters such as "is baptism necessary for salvation?" or "are people predestined to Hell?".

In the Middle Ages they didn't even distribute Bibles to the peasants and serfs. I'd like to read it all myself; God will give me the understanding I seek, even if it takes a little work.

Most people couldn't read in the Middle Ages, and to make a copy of a book was a long and difficult process. However, as far as I know, most churches had one Bible in exposition.
God will give you the understanding you seek? Do you have any particular reason to believe you'll be truly guided by the Holy Spirit when the legion of personal interpreters of Scriptures, all as honest as you, have come to different conclusions than you?

Okay. What is the Church? The idea of the Church is perfect. But mortality and humanity bungled it after about ten years... and look at us now. Split into denomination upon denomination. It's... not really cool. How can Moslems or Buddhists or Taoists or Shintoists or Pagans take us seriously if we squabble amongst each other as much as we might squabble with them?

Yes, it is a shame that there is so much squabbling within Christianity; it does indeed make it harder to make a good impression on other religions.
However, while people still think of themselves as the highest authorities on biblical matters, things will at best remain the same.

Heretic? Because he saw the truth that there is nothing about a Pope in the Bible, or giving tithes to the church, or having Bishops and Priests and such dress up in fancy clothes and be exalted? If he's a heretic, maybe it's good to be one.

Ah, it is about time your anti-Catholicism is brought into the open. I won't turn this thread in a debate about the validity of the Church's doctrines; rather, I'll ask you to read about them from serious sources, and think about which Church is the Church Jesus founded when he gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven and promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against it, and where is this Church today.

Here, I hope this great site helps you and other members with your problems like it helped me.
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZINDEX.HTM

 

[cauchy3]

God and Gods would be some things that are only got by words

 

[Suzannah]

God and Gods would be some things that are only got by words

I'm so sorry...please forgive me...but what the heck does this mean???? Please "esss-plaaaaaaaaaaaaaane." (explain).

 

[Light Without Heat]

And should error be tolerated?

What error?

Precisely. They teach the existence of one God, and presume all is fine once you accept that.

No, they require that the members believe in one God. They aren't going to teach you to believe that if you don't, because you won't be a Freemason.

It gives plenty of factual information and dates AND references at the end (the Encyclopedia version, not my parody of the anti-Catholic version, by which you are clearly influenced).

Why would I need to read a Catholic version of it when I know what happened in my mental faculties historically? I'm not influenced by anything other than what happened. Where I read the recount of the arrest of the Knights Templar was not biased in any way. How could I be influenced by a parody that I've never read, anyway?

Do they or do they not mean what they say when they say the oaths?

They swear that they will keep secrecy. But seeings as there have been no records of those things occuring, as far as my knowledge reaches, then perhaps they don't mean it. I don't know, though. You'll have to ask a Mason.

And prohibits (or at least you said it does) discussion on the very important points those three religions still disagree on.

Well, the Masons aren't in Masonic meetings all the time. It doesn't keep these disagreed upon points from being discussed outside of a Masonic lodge or meeting place, so members are free enough to discuss things and determine things elsewhere. It simply keeps it from disrupting the natural fellowship of the brotherhood.

I can only imagine the sort of machinations and schemes the high hierarchy of freemasonry has hidden throughout the institution's history.
Although not a proof of it, the number of influential people who were or are Freemasons is quite startling.

Okie dokie.

Sure, sure. How many Protestant denominations are there, again?
Not one of those fully agrees with the others, and many on essential matters such as "is baptism necessary for salvation?" or "are people predestined to Hell?".

It's not the place to address those right now. But how does that change the fact that I can adequately read and interpret the Scriptures myself? If I don't understand something, there are plenty of sources. How would a Priest, Rabbi, or preacher understanding it any better than me, other than through Divine mediation and study? I have plenty of time for that.

Most people couldn't read in the Middle Ages, and to make a copy of a book was a long and difficult process. However, as far as I know, most churches had one Bible in exposition.

Sure. But it was in Latin. John Wycliffe did help in translating them into English. Much to the fury of the Pope.

God will give you the understanding you seek? Do you have any particular reason to believe you'll be truly guided by the Holy Spirit when the legion of personal interpreters of Scriptures, all as honest as you, have come to different conclusions than you?

Who better for it than me?

Yes, it is a shame that there is so much squabbling within Christianity; it does indeed make it harder to make a good impression on other religions.
However, while people still think of themselves as the highest authorities on biblical matters, things will at best remain the same.

I agree with you there. No one should be an "authority" on Biblical matters; it should be mutual amongst Christians. Some day, perhaps, it will be.

Ah, it is about time your anti-Catholicism is brought into the open. I won't turn this thread in a debate about the validity of the Church's doctrines; rather, I'll ask you to read about them from serious sources, and think about which Church is the Church Jesus founded when he gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven and promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against it, and where is this Church today.

You know, back in the Middle ages, it wasn't heresy against the Scriptures, it was heresy against the teachings of the Church. Obviously, regarded as important as or equal to the Scriptures.

The Church Jesus founded is long delapidated by now. I do, however, see a long, long string of ecclesiastical "password" where the message has been changed and changed and changed, since day 1. It doesn't seem the Church could, for long, drink from the cup Jesus drank from. (allegory)

And I'm not anti-Catholic. I respect many things about Catholicism, but I'm not going to try and fool myself into thinking we need a Pope. Jesus Christ is the only acceptable Pope. And no mortal is more fit to speak with God or understand the Scripture than me, for myself; I don't doubt my own faculties. And no one can understand or forgive my sins other than God Himself, for me.

I am, however, anti-"Using your high political or ecclesiastical power to usurp the wealth of a lesser organization for yourself," and naturally, anti-"Adhering only to a specific chain of propogated rumors about something and not learning for yourself what it is about and what it stands for," ... which is why I started this thread in the first place. Call me anti-Catholic if you would like, though. I am simply seeking righteousness and brotherhood in the name of Jesus, Christ, and the good will of mankind; I'm pretty sure He said a little persecution came with it.

Here, I hope this great site helps you and other members with your problems like it helped me.
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZINDEX.HTM

I'm insulted that you would say "problems." I am not bound in ignorance to many truths, nor bound in serf-morality fealty to a single idea or thought to where I shun all those that don't accept it. Plenty of things are wrong with me, but spiritually, I know exactly where I stand. I don't need the Pope telling me what and what not to do; he is not my shepherd, Jesus is.

 

[Lifesaver]

What error?

Tolerance of false religions. Promotion of an extremely secular world-view.

No, they require that the members believe in one God. They aren't going to teach you to believe that if you don't, because you won't be a Freemason.

They profess Deism, and stop at that. That's all I'm saying, and you agree with it. Do they also profess faith in Jesus Christ? No, they don't.
Anyone who believes in one God (Christian, Muslim, Hindu and others) will be received arms open. Those who don't, or who believe in more than one God, won't.
The very broad and secular Masonic religion allows for many kinds of anti-Christian errors to coexist with the truth.
And since religion discussion is forbiddened, the organization's stance on any form of clearly defined religion becomes very clear: it should be left isolated from one's public life, in favour of more important things such as their Masonic relations.

Why would I need to read a Catholic version of it when I know what happened in my mental faculties historically? I'm not influenced by anything other than what happened. Where I read the recount of the arrest of the Knights Templar was not biased in any way.

And would you be so kind as to share this unbiased source with me?
It is good that you admit not having read the Catholic Encyclopedia. You don't need to be affraid; if your knowledge is indeed true you'll easily point out the errors of the Encyclopedia.

Well, the Masons aren't in Masonic meetings all the time. It doesn't keep these disagreed upon points from being discussed outside of a Masonic lodge or meeting place, so members are free enough to discuss things and determine things elsewhere. It simply keeps it from disrupting the natural fellowship of the brotherhood.

If there is one group which seeks to separate religion and public life it is Freemasonry; and through its broad and vague theology of the Great Architect, who is far away and doesn't interefere with the workings of the world, they have accomplished it.

It's not the place to address those right now. But how does that change the fact that I can adequately read and interpret the Scriptures myself? If I don't understand something, there are plenty of sources. How would a Priest, Rabbi, or preacher understanding it any better than me, other than through Divine mediation and study? I have plenty of time for that.

The Holy Spirit doesn't let the Church fall into error in matters of religion and morals.
Really, you are putting faith in yourself, and in your opinions. Many people have different opinions on Jesus Christ.
One's opinions don't matter on this issue, though.

Sure. But it was in Latin. John Wycliffe did help in translating them into English. Much to the fury of the Pope.

You do know the Church approved translations to the vernaculars, right?

Who better for it than me?

There are millions of people who think just like you...
And they all disagree on religious matters. All reading from the same books.

I agree with you there. No one should be an "authority" on Biblical matters; it should be mutual amongst Christians. Some day, perhaps, it will be.

Not while people think prophecies are of personal interpretation, or that they can understand the Bible without a teacher.

You know, back in the Middle ages, it wasn't heresy against the Scriptures, it was heresy against the teachings of the Church. Obviously, regarded as important as or equal to the Scriptures.

One can't be in conflict with each other, so the distinction is meaningless.

The Church Jesus founded is long delapidated by now. I do, however, see a long, long string of ecclesiastical "password" where the message has been changed and changed and changed, since day 1. It doesn't seem the Church could, for long, drink from the cup Jesus drank from. (allegory)

Jesus said the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church founded on Peter.
Did Jesus lie?

And I'm not anti-Catholic. I respect many things about Catholicism, but I'm not going to try and fool myself into thinking we need a Pope. Jesus Christ is the only acceptable Pope. And no mortal is more fit to speak with God or understand the Scripture than me, for myself; I don't doubt my own faculties. And no one can understand or forgive my sins other than God Himself, for me.

You would do better if you would doubt your own faculties.
By not doubting them, you believe that they are inerrant. They are not.

I am, however, anti-"Using your high political or ecclesiastical power to usurp the wealth of a lesser organization for yourself," and naturally, anti-"Adhering only to a specific chain of propogated rumors about something and not learning for yourself what it is about and what it stands for," ... which is why I started this thread in the first place. Call me anti-Catholic if you would like, though. I am simply seeking righteousness and brotherhood in the name of Jesus, Christ, and the good will of mankind; I'm pretty sure He said a little persecution came with it.

If you truly seek righteousness and brotherhood, turn to the Church. If you seek a religion that agrees with your opinions, keep turned only to yourself and your "undoubted" faculties.
It is also interesting you see yourself as "persecuted"...
I don't think a little discussion in a message board is what Jesus had in mind when He said it. You seem to interpret it otherwise.

I'm insulted that you would say "problems." I am not bound in ignorance to many truths, nor bound in serf-morality fealty to a single idea or thought to where I shun all those that don't accept it. Plenty of things are wrong with me, but spiritually, I know exactly where I stand. I don't need the Pope telling me what and what not to do; he is not my shepherd, Jesus is.

Currently, though you search Jesus honestly, your shepherd is your personal interpretation of Jesus. Each person who approaches the Bible like you has a slightly different Jesus.
There is only one, though.

 

[Light Without Heat]

Tolerance of false religions. Promotion of an extremely secular world-view.

That they are false religions is your own opinion.

They profess Deism, and stop at that.

They do not profess Deism in the sense that most Deists believe God is no longer active in the world. Nowhere have I seen a Mason speak of the "Divine Watchmaker" concept, only of the Great Architect.

Do they also profess faith in Jesus Christ? No, they don't.

No, but they don't disregard it either. Christian Masonic sects profess this.

And certainly a lot of the earlier Masons, like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and some of the others mentioned before, were Christians.

The point is, they don't restrict or promote anything within Monotheism. They only require something, and leave the rest up to the individual.

The very broad and secular Masonic religion allows for many kinds of anti-Christian errors to coexist with the truth.

And what truth is that?

And since religion discussion is forbiddened, the organization's stance on any form of clearly defined religion becomes very clear: it should be left isolated from one's public life, in favour of more important things such as their Masonic relations.

Religious discussion often cites anger/disruption between two or more persons. That is why it is forbidden. On the same level as political discussion. That is all there is to it.

And would you be so kind as to share this unbiased source with me?
It is good that you admit not having read the Catholic Encyclopedia. You don't need to be affraid; if your knowledge is indeed true you'll easily point out the errors of the Encyclopedia.

Actually, there are numerous different sources.

One was the book "Born in Blood: The Lost Secrets of Freemasonry" by John J. Robinson, a non-Mason.

One was "The Dictionary of Christian Lore and Legend," and no author is given.

Also, numerous websites, such as http://www.templarhistory.com, http://www.thelodgeroom.com, http://www.pharo.com, http://www.duke.edu/~jbm1/templar.html, http://heru-ra-ha.tripod.com/topics/templars.html ... I could go through Google and find hundreds of websites, all citing the same story I did (except I made a mistake; it was Philip the Fair (the IV King Philip), not Philip I... I was giving the story by memory). Only the Catholic Encyclopedia says that Clement V did not conspire with King Philip, and rightly so, because it makes them look bad. Every other source... bias Templar sources, bias Masonic sources, non-bias historical sources, non-bias "mysteries of history" sources, etc., all cite that Clement V conspired or was convinced by King Philip to accuse the Templars.

It is generally accepted by historians as truth, this story. Whether Clement V was being a greedy, land-hungry tyrant or was just politically influenced by Philip is hard to know; but the fact that so many sources say he conspired with Philip or was convinced means that there is at least some truth in it, as much as you'd like to deny it.

And what have I to be "affraid" of?

If there is one group which seeks to separate religion and public life it is Freemasonry; and through its broad and vague theology of the Great Architect, who is far away and doesn't interefere with the workings of the world, they have accomplished it.

You seem to be confusing the doctrine-less theory of a Supreme Being with Deism. Nowhere do the Masons say anything about being Deists. And not all Deists believe that God is no longer present in the world; it was an early theory but has changed since the 1800s.

To further that, why would the Masons say "worship how you wish" if God was no longer a part of the world? What would they be worshipping?

The Holy Spirit doesn't let the Church fall into error in matters of religion and morals.

Opinion.

Really, you are putting faith in yourself, and in your opinions. Many people have different opinions on Jesus Christ.

Good for them!

One's opinions don't matter on this issue, though.

I agree. But before pointing out the speck of sawdust in my eye, take a look at some of your own responses...

You do know the Church approved translations to the vernaculars, right?

Sure, after Wycliffe's efforts to translate them into English in the 14th century. They were in Latin and strictly for the regular and secular clergy for years and years, restricted to the common people. Probably fearing they would believe that the Church isn't even necessary by reading the truth, or at least what they interpreted as the truth, in the Scriptures.

There are millions of people who think just like you...

I doubt that. I don't think any single one person finds God in the same way unless they try and latch onto a title and a doctrine.

And they all disagree on religious matters. All reading from the same books.

So, what? They should join into a sect or denomination of Christianity, that disagrees with other sects? Or join into a specific religion, that disagrees with other religions? In my honest opinion... enough with religion. God is there, God is wonderful. And He is everywhere, not just in Christianity, or not just in Judaism; not just in Catholicism, mind you. You can't disprove this, so you can't tell me I'm wrong. The mortal men in the church, who have sinful desires and misinterpretations like any man... how can they know God any better than I can? Or understand the Scriptures, or profess love for Jesus Christ? I just don't see the logic in prescribing to something that went rotten in its course not just in 1307, but well before then.

Not while people think prophecies are of personal interpretation, or that they can understand the Bible without a teacher.

Tell me, what does a Bible teacher do that makes he or she any more apt to teach the Bible? And then, consider why all of us cannot do that.

One can't be in conflict with each other, so the distinction is meaningless.

Opin... opin... opin... ion, ion, ion, ion... opinion! Many of the Medieval church teachings were contrary to the Scriptures or had nothing to do with them whatsoever!

Jesus said the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church founded on Peter. Did Jesus lie?

They didn't. But human corruption and ignorance and pride did.

You would do better if you would doubt your own faculties.

Opinion.

By not doubting them, you believe that they are inerrant. They are not.

You realize what is meant by faculties? Not my knowledge or opinions, but my ability to interpret and constantly learn; this I don't doubt, because every human who seeks something shall find it. Jesus said "seek and ye shall find." I'm not doubting what my Christ said.

If you truly seek righteousness and brotherhood, turn to the Church.

Hm. Why? Haven't I just demonstrated at least one possible corruption of the Church? And it was like that all throughout the Middle Ages. How can I trust that? Sure, it's different now, but it doesn't have a spotless record; therefore it is cast out of spiritual purity, in my eyes.

If you seek a religion that agrees with your opinions, keep turned only to yourself and your "undoubted" faculties.
It is also interesting you see yourself as "persecuted"...
I don't think a little discussion in a message board is what Jesus had in mind when He said it. You seem to interpret it otherwise.

I wasn't speaking for myself when I said that.

I prayed to God to give me the understanding to know if I was on the right course; this is where I believe He led me. If it isn't the right course for me, then eventually I will find a different path again. I refuse to live in fear, because everything in God's world has purpose.

So I'm not turned to myself, at all. My face is lofted heavenward in wait and question, and I seek only to better do God's will.

Currently, though you search Jesus honestly, your shepherd is your personal interpretation of Jesus. Each person who approaches the Bible like you has a slightly different Jesus.
There is only one, though.

Like me? How do you know how I approach the Bible? Because I don't approach it while receiving communion or going through the stations of the cross?

This is degenerating from my original desire, it seems to me. Could you maybe summarize your case against the Masons, considering what you may have learned about them from me? I'm open to your honest opinion, of course. And I will consider what you say, Lifesaver.

Only requesting so because this isn't the place for us to swap religious differences or opinions, as far as I can tell. But if you want to contact me privately about it, feel free.

 

[Lifesaver]

That they are false religions is your own opinion.

I'm not giving you opinion, LWH. I'm giving you the infallible teachings of the Church.

They do not profess Deism in the sense that most Deists believe God is no longer active in the world. Nowhere have I seen a Mason speak of the "Divine Watchmaker" concept, only of the Great Architect.

Do you deny Freemasonry has been one of the intelectual driving forces for the secularization of society?

No, but they don't disregard it either. Christian Masonic sects profess this.

Poor Christian freemasons. Honestly trying to follow Christ's teachings while at the same time supporting an organization which seeks to take Christ away from the public sphere completely.

The point is, they don't restrict or promote anything within Monotheism. They only require something, and leave the rest up to the individual.

Religious discussion often cites anger/disruption between two or more persons. That is why it is forbidden. On the same level as political discussion. That is all there is to it.

Of course they often incite anger. Two people disagree on fundamental things concerning religion. Necessarily, one of them is wrong.

One was the book "Born in Blood: The Lost Secrets of Freemasonry" by John J. Robinson, a non-Mason.One was "The Dictionary of Christian Lore and Legend," and no author is given.Also, numerous websites, such as http://www.templarhistory.com, http://www.thelodgeroom.com, http://www.pharo.com, http://www.duke.edu/~jbm1/templar.html, http://heru-ra-ha.tripod.com/topics/templars.html ... I could go through Google and find hundreds of websites, all citing the same story I did (except I made a mistake; it was Philip the Fair (the IV King Philip), not Philip I... I was giving the story by memory). Only the Catholic Encyclopedia says that Clement V did not conspire with King Philip, and rightly so, because it makes them look bad. Every other source... bias Templar sources, bias Masonic sources, non-bias historical sources, non-bias "mysteries of history" sources, etc., all cite that Clement V conspired or was convinced by King Philip to accuse the Templars.It is generally accepted by historians as truth, this story. Whether Clement V was being a greedy, land-hungry tyrant or was just politically influenced by Philip is hard to know; but the fact that so many sources say he conspired with Philip or was convinced means that there is at least some truth in it, as much as you'd like to deny it.
And what have I to be "affraid" of?

Apart from one book, you cite innumerable Masonic sources.
As for the book, here are its reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/104-0856639-8398330?v=glance&s=books
You'll have to agree with me that is in no way the most reliable information one could want. Plus, the Encyclopedia had many sources as well.
Last, the point whether or not the Pope conspire against the Templars or not is secondary. What are you trying to prove with it?

You seem to be confusing the doctrine-less theory of a Supreme Being with Deism. Nowhere do the Masons say anything about being Deists. And not all Deists believe that God is no longer present in the world; it was an early theory but has changed since the 1800s.To further that, why would the Masons say "worship how you wish" if God was no longer a part of the world? What would they be worshipping?

Is there any worshipping of God in Masonic rituals?

Good for them!

Terrible for many of them, LWH!
If people have many different opinions, many of them are wrong. Being wrong means believing a lie to be true. Lies are terrible, and they can't be tolerated or loved.

I agree. But before pointing out the speck of sawdust in my eye, take a look at some of your own responses...

I'm not giving you any opinions of mine. It would be a waste of time to do so. All I'm doing is giving you what the inerrant Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ says.

Sure, after Wycliffe's efforts to translate them into English in the 14th century. They were in Latin and strictly for the regular and secular clergy for years and years, restricted to the common people. Probably fearing they would believe that the Church isn't even necessary by reading the truth, or at least what they interpreted as the truth, in the Scriptures.

http://www.knology.net/~gardnerda/Truth/bible.htm
http://www.didyouknow.cd/Bible/Bible.htm
It seems there was an English (actually, one of English's ancestor languages) translation 700 years before Martin Luther was even born.

I doubt that. I don't think any single one person finds God in the same way unless they try and latch onto a title and a doctrine.

There is only one God. Only one Jesus. If two people find different "Gods", there is error present in someone's interpretation.
God is averse to error. That is why doctrines are so important: to know clearly what is heresy (false teaching) and what is not.

So, what? They should join into a sect or denomination of Christianity, that disagrees with other sects? Or join into a specific religion, that disagrees with other religions? In my honest opinion... enough with religion. God is there, God is wonderful. And He is everywhere, not just in Christianity, or not just in Judaism; not just in Catholicism, mind you. You can't disprove this, so you can't tell me I'm wrong. The mortal men in the church, who have sinful desires and misinterpretations like any man... how can they know God any better than I can? Or understand the Scriptures, or profess love for Jesus Christ? I just don't see the logic in prescribing to something that went rotten in its course not just in 1307, but well before then.

So the truth is lost and dilluted among many religions, all of them being incomplete on their own? This is a chaotic and nightmarish vision, the ultimate realization of the Tower of Babel.
Don't fear, though. Jesus promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. We can be confident on that. No need to look for sects or other religions. The whole truth can be found in the Church.

Tell me, what does a Bible teacher do that makes he or she any more apt to teach the Bible? And then, consider why all of us cannot do that.

The Holy Spirit, which doesn't let the Pope issue a false teaching on religious or moral issues.

Opin... opin... opin... ion, ion, ion, ion... opinion! Many of the Medieval church teachings were contrary to the Scriptures or had nothing to do with them whatsoever!

No, I didn't give you any opinion...
And your second statement is completely false. A lie perpetrated by Protestants.

You realize what is meant by faculties? Not my knowledge or opinions, but my ability to interpret and constantly learn; this I don't doubt, because every human who seeks something shall find it. Jesus said "seek and ye shall find." I'm not doubting what my Christ said.

If you look only within you, it is yourself you'll find, and not Christ. Man can constantly learn, though imperfect his ability to interpret is. It's a good thing we have the Church. Imagine if it were up to each faithful to figure out the Trinity...

Hm. Why? Haven't I just demonstrated at least one possible corruption of the Church? And it was like that all throughout the Middle Ages. How can I trust that? Sure, it's different now, but it doesn't have a spotless record; therefore it is cast out of spiritual purity, in my eyes.

No, you have given evidence (not demonstrated) one possible corruption of the men of the Church. I have no doubt that there have been many corrupt popes. Some of them had lovers, children, orgies and even practiced idolatry.

I prayed to God to give me the understanding to know if I was on the right course; this is where I believe He led me. If it isn't the right course for me, then eventually I will find a different path again. I refuse to live in fear, because everything in God's world has purpose.

It is good that you prayed. Just don't think that wherever you are led in life is because God wanted it. God wants you to find the truth, and to reject all error.

So I'm not turned to myself, at all. My face is lofted heavenward in wait and question, and I seek only to better do God's will.

You seek to, but you still have not managed to look outside of you for the truth. You are vainly trying to figure it all out on your own, and obviously you will never do it. If it weren't for the Church, you wouldn't (and me too) would have no Bible, no concept of Trinity, etc.
You must accept that you are incapable of understanding God's words on your own, no matter what you feel. Millions don't accept that, and they all come to different conclusions.

Like me? How do you know how I approach the Bible?

You read it and take the conclusions which seem to be the correct ones from your point of view, right?

This is degenerating from my original desire, it seems to me. Could you maybe summarize your case against the Masons, considering what you may have learned about them from me? I'm open to your honest opinion, of course. And I will consider what you say, Lifesaver.

They promote religious indifferentism and secularism, as already shown. Its members make oaths for unworthy things or oaths they don't intend to keep. It is involved in many kinds of secret rituals, meetings and activities.

 

[Light Without Heat]

I'm not giving you opinion, LWH. I'm giving you the infallible teachings of the Church.

That you thing the teachings of the Church are infallible shows a lot of your own denying the truth.

Which is opinion.

Do you deny Freemasonry has been one of the intelectual driving forces for the secularization of society?

On one hand, you state that it's dangerous because it is secret.

Now, you're telling me that it is a main influence in something.

And yes, I deny that Freemasonry has been one of the intellectual driving forces for secularizing society. Your Catholic church has done a lot more to turn people away from Christianity, and, more importantly, from Christ. This, in turn, leads to secularization.

Poor Christian freemasons. Honestly trying to follow Christ's teachings while at the same time supporting an organization which seeks to take Christ away from the public sphere completely.

You mean take the Church away? If at all.

Here is where we will always disagree, and why this may never settle, if it ever had the chance: I will never believe that Christ and any Church are inseparable, that the Church teachings are inerrant.

Of course they often incite anger. Two people disagree on fundamental things concerning religion. Necessarily, one of them is wrong.

Not really.

My father and my great uncle often argue over rather Jesus was Jewish. Mortally, He was. But as the Son of God, he didn't really prescribe to any set religion, because He was God, and therefore could not participate in religion, because He was all such religion.

Both are valid points. Both are right, in a sense.

Apart from one book, you cite innumerable Masonic sources.
As for the book, here are its reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0871316021/qid=1086566319/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0856639-8398330?v=glance&s=books
You'll have to agree with me that is in no way the most reliable information one could want. Plus, the Encyclopedia had many sources as well.
Last, the point whether or not the Pope conspire against the Templars or not is secondary. What are you trying to prove with it?

Both books were non-Masonic sources.

And it wasn't innumerable, it was like... 3, if I recall.

Tell me where you find the story otherwise, besides the Catholic Encyclopedia. (Stop calling it "the Encyclopedia." It is a bias source of information, as one would expect. It is not an offical Encyclopedia.)

Is there any worshipping of God in Masonic rituals?

Obviously. The whole organization itself is a worship of God. That's why they require it. They're a lot less "secular" than most other organizations.

Terrible for many of them, LWH!

Why?

If people have many different opinions, many of them are wrong. Being wrong means believing a lie to be true. Lies are terrible, and they can't be tolerated or loved.

That's awfully close-minded.

God gave us free will for a reason. And no, that reason wasn't only to accept or not to accept Him.

I'm not giving you any opinions of mine. It would be a waste of time to do so. All I'm doing is giving you what the inerrant Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ says.

Can you not see that that statement itself is an opinion? The Church obviously isn't inerrant! You said it yourself!

"No, you have given evidence (not demonstrated) one possible corruption of the men of the Church. I have no doubt that there have been many corrupt popes. Some of them had lovers, children, orgies and even practiced idolatry."

http://www.knology.net/~gardnerda/Truth/bible.htm
http://www.didyouknow.cd/Bible/Bible.htm

It seems there was an English (actually, one of English's ancestor languages) translation 700 years before Martin Luther was even born.

Did I say anything about Martin Luther?

There is only one God. Only one Jesus. If two people find different "Gods", there is error present in someone's interpretation.
God is averse to error. That is why doctrines are so important: to know clearly what is heresy (false teaching) and what is not.

Re-read. I didn't say anything about two different Gods. If you misunderstood, it must be a concept you've never considered...

So the truth is lost and dilluted among many religions, all of them being incomplete on their own? This is a chaotic and nightmarish vision, the ultimate realization of the Tower of Babel.
Don't fear, though. Jesus promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. We can be confident on that. No need to look for sects or other religions. The whole truth can be found in the Church.

Why do you again tell me not to fear? I have nothing to fear.

And, as opposed to that opinion, in my opinion, the many religions of the world are what make the whole of God. I do not see that God could propegate something incorrect, because He is a good God. You may be aversed to such an opinion; in fact, I'm sure you are.

The Holy Spirit, which doesn't let the Pope issue a false teaching on religious or moral issues.

The Pope is just an old man in a robe and a big hat. He is no more inclined towards God than any other human being on the face of our planet.

No, I didn't give you any opinion...
And your second statement is completely false. A lie perpetrated by Protestants.

That's an opinion.

"Ah, your anti-Protestantism finally comes to light..."

Are you saying that paying the Church for your sins is the right thing to do?

If you look only within you, it is yourself you'll find, and not Christ. Man can constantly learn, though imperfect his ability to interpret is. It's a good thing we have the Church. Imagine if it were up to each faithful to figure out the Trinity...

I don't just look into me. I peer towards God, and God directs me thusly. Just because you're doing what millions of other people are doing doesn't make yours right and mine, or anyone else's, radical.

I don't need the Church. Christ is the one who makes love to my Divinity-inclined soul; I am in His hands, His love, and give Him my faith, and love in return.

The Church didn't give me that! And you can't ever deny it. The Pope can issue all the papal bulls he once and never even dull the luster of such a thing.

No, you have given evidence (not demonstrated) one possible corruption of the men of the Church. I have no doubt that there have been many corrupt popes. Some of them had lovers, children, orgies and even practiced idolatry.

I'm not going to get into Catholicism, or the Church system, right now. Wrong thread for it.

It is good that you prayed. Just don't think that wherever you are led in life is because God wanted it. God wants you to find the truth, and to reject all error.

I wish you wouldn't speak to me like you knew what God wanted for me better than I did. I understand you seek to enlighten me, but so far you seem to be showing me a vision of my own past, a mindset I once had, that I don't wish to return to; God is showing me the truth. And it is between God and I. I do not need the ask the Pope to do it for me, because he cannot summon the words I can for God, nor can he utter with eloquence the love I intend for my Creator.

You seek to, but you still have not managed to look outside of you for the truth. You are vainly trying to figure it all out on your own, and obviously you will never do it.

No offense, but how in the world can you presume to know those things?

If it weren't for the Church, you wouldn't (and me too) would have no Bible, no concept of Trinity, etc.

Okay. But if it weren't for the Church, we would have no concept of Hell, no concept of Televangelism, and a whole lot less bias and prejudice.

You must accept that you are incapable of understanding God's words on your own, no matter what you feel. Millions don't accept that, and they all come to different conclusions.

Not only is that insulting, but it makes me pity you.

You read it and take the conclusions which seem to be the correct ones from your point of view, right?

No. If I read something, and I don't understand it, I have sources. I have many books on what's in the New Testament besides the Bible itself. And I pray to understand it.

How can a priest, Bishop, or the Pope do more than that? What right have they to think they are any more blessed by God's Grace than I?

They promote religious indifferentism and secularism, as already shown.

You only gave opinionated evidence, and I countered it each time. Not already shown.

If you equate indifferentism with tolerance, or acceptance, then by someone being tolerant of something they don't like, are they indifferent to it, i.e., they don't care about it? There's just no logic there.

Its members make oaths for unworthy things or oaths they don't intend to keep.

Unworthy or who or what?

I explained that one, too. They make the oath on their fealty to God. Because of tradition, they keep the old oathspeak, even if times have changed; the meaning is no less, but we don't live in the Middle Ages, where the papal tyranny would get worse things done to you than those cited in the oaths.

No, they don't intend to be cut in half and burned from the inside out, but they do intend to remain secret, which is the meaning the oath incites, allegorically or not.

It is involved in many kinds of secret rituals, meetings and activities.

So is a club of 10-year olds who want to keep girls out...

They're unsecretive enough for me to know enough to be able to join them if I wanted, without much trouble. Just because they don't announce every single thing they do to inquiring minds doesn't mean they're doing something wrong.

That's like thinking that, because the Goverment keeps most of what it does under wraps, all it's doing is plotting and conspiring.

I still see no valid points against the Free and Accepted Masons. Nor do I see any against my religious (what a nasty word) choices.

Perhaps because...

There are no points against either of these things?

If you can give me, in as many words as it takes, a written-out and explained reason, cause and effect if you will, of how Freemasonry poses any kind of threat to CHRISTIANITY (not Catholicism, not the Church) itself, it would be greatly appreciated.

Otherwise, this discussion continues to go nowhere, and I see no reason to keep it up.

Thank you. Remember, I love you.

 

[Lifesaver]

On one hand, you state that it's dangerous because it is secret.
Now, you're telling me that it is a main influence in something.

And does the first contradict the second?
Not at all. I have no idea what high degree Masons are doing right now, and what their plots are, but I do know some of their influence on society.

Here is where we will always disagree, and why this may never settle, if it ever had the chance: I will never believe that Christ and any Church are inseparable, that the Church teachings are inerrant.

So you believe the complete truth has been lost forever, and that each individual has but a little part of it?

Tell me where you find the story otherwise, besides the Catholic Encyclopedia. (Stop calling it "the Encyclopedia." It is a bias source of information, as one would expect. It is not an offical Encyclopedia.)

The Catholic Encyclopedia cites its extensive sources and bibliography. Perhaps you could have a look at it.

Obviously. The whole organization itself is a worship of God. That's why they require it. They're a lot less "secular" than most other organizations.

Do they worship God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit (the Holy Trinity) or the Great Architect only?

Can you not see that that statement itself is an opinion? The Church obviously isn't inerrant! You said it yourself!

"No, you have given evidence (not demonstrated) one possible corruption of the men of the Church. I have no doubt that there have been many corrupt popes. Some of them had lovers, children, orgies and even practiced idolatry."

The men of the Church are not impeccable, that's what I said. I continue to maintain that the Church is infallible and inerrant, until you show me one instance on which she, and not the clergymen personally, erred.

Did I say anything about Martin Luther?

I just showed you that Wycliffe wasn't the first to translate the Bible to English; the Church had a translation to the vernaculars long before him.

And, as opposed to that opinion, in my opinion, the many religions of the world are what make the whole of God. I do not see that God could propegate something incorrect, because He is a good God. You may be aversed to such an opinion; in fact, I'm sure you are.

So when someone says there is only one God, and someone else says there are many gods, are they both correct? Afterall, God wouldn't let them be wrong, would He?

Are you saying that paying the Church for your sins is the right thing to do?

What?

I don't just look into me. I peer towards God, and God directs me thusly. Just because you're doing what millions of other people are doing doesn't make yours right and mine, or anyone else's, radical.

You do know that everyone who interprets the Bible personally come to very different and often contradictory conclusions, don't you?

I don't need the Church. Christ is the one who makes love to my Divinity-inclined soul; I am in His hands, His love, and give Him my faith, and love in return.

So... why did Jesus make the Church if we don't need it?

God is showing me the truth.

You are not reaching the truth in many respects, LWH. If you say that you have the truth in all respects, then many other people have it not.
So, either God hasn't shown you the truth, or He hasn't shown it to many many other people.
But God cannot lie, so the only reasonable explanation is that God has let you and many others delve into personal interpretation and form your own opinions; He has not led you and the others into such a thing, for there is error in many interpretations, and God is averse to error.

Okay. But if it weren't for the Church, we would have no concept of Hell, no concept of Televangelism, and a whole lot less bias and prejudice.

Ah, you don't even believe in Hell. Do you believe in the Holy Trinity, though?

No. If I read something, and I don't understand it, I have sources. I have many books on what's in the New Testament besides the Bible itself. And I pray to understand it.

Every, or most, personal intepretator prays. It is not leading them all to correctness.

If you equate indifferentism with tolerance, or acceptance, then by someone being tolerant of something they don't like, are they indifferent to it, i.e., they don't care about it? There's just no logic there.

Should we tolerate error? No. We should not be indifferent about it.

So is a club of 10-year olds who want to keep girls out...

Good image. Freemasonry is all about big men playing a boy's game; a dangerous boy's game, because it deals with serious things, like worship to a deity and very possibly political issues.

I still see no valid points against the Free and Accepted Masons. Nor do I see any against my religious (what a nasty word) choices.

THat depends on what your religions choices (nasty word when it comes to religions) are.

If you can give me, in as many words as it takes, a written-out and explained reason, cause and effect if you will, of how Freemasonry poses any kind of threat to CHRISTIANITY (not Catholicism, not the Church) itself, it would be greatly appreciated.

Religious indifferentism; secularization. I've been telling you all along, but all you do is try to make it seem they worship the Christian Triune God, which they don't.

 

[Light Without Heat]

And does the first contradict the second?
Not at all. I have no idea what high degree Masons are doing right now, and what their plots are, but I do know some of their influence on society.

I have no idea either. But there has never been proof that they would be doing anything wrong, only rumor, that's what I'm trying to say, man.

So you believe the complete truth has been lost forever, and that each individual has but a little part of it?

Sadly, yes. The complete truth is long lost, from my experience with Catholicism and other sects of Christianity. Just how I feel, though. Trust me, I'd like to see it differently.

The Catholic Encyclopedia cites its extensive sources and bibliography. Perhaps you could have a look at it.

Alright, I will. I don't doubt it. I would like to see a source that didn't condemn the pope in the Knights Templar trials, too.

Do they worship God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit (the Holy Trinity) or the Great Architect only?

They, as a group, don't worship anything. They require members to accept a monotheistic God; but worship is left up to the individual. I'm sure many Freemasons believe in the Triune Lord.

The men of the Church are not impeccable, that's what I said. I continue to maintain that the Church is infallible and inerrant, until you show me one instance on which she, and not the clergymen personally, erred.

The Church isn't a living entity. Whatever it does is done by its clergymen. So if they are in error, the Church is in error.

I just showed you that Wycliffe wasn't the first to translate the Bible to English; the Church had a translation to the vernaculars long before him.

Then why was the pope so angry when he did it?

So when someone says there is only one God, and someone else says there are many gods, are they both correct? Afterall, God wouldn't let them be wrong, would He?

Is it not possible that God has made himself present in ways that led the person who believes there are many Gods to see Him this way? That all spirituality indefinitely leads to one single, Supreme Being, and worship is up to the individual alone?

What?

The reason Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic church is because it was having people pay it to buy time out of Purgatory, and he thought it to be morally wrong, which it was.

You do know that everyone who interprets the Bible personally come to very different and often contradictory conclusions, don't you?

Maybe so. But don't many who interpret the Bible personally come to similar conclusions as well? There are only so many things to be contradicted.

And logically, because we are not omniscient, we can not prove either outcome. Can you see the future of this religion to see that no one who searches independantly will ever find the truth over a believer latched to the Church?

There are reasons why the Church has been criticized for thousands of years.

So... why did Jesus make the Church if we don't need it?

We do need it. But no one ever said the Church had to be in a specific building with certain hierarchies and specific hymns to sing, nor on a certain day. Jesus said, "When two or more of you who believe come together in my name, lo, I am there among you." (Paraphrased). Certainly, this is easily considered "church" as well.

You are not reaching the truth in many respects, LWH.

Sorry, but that's still your opinion.

If you say that you have the truth in all respects, then many other people have it not.

I didn't say I had it in all respects; I'm certainly still determining some things. This is new to me, whether I present it that way or not.

But of course many people have it not; look at how secular society has become. Oh, wait, I guess Freemasonry did all of that...

So, either God hasn't shown you the truth, or He hasn't shown it to many many other people.

Well, just because something has been around for thousands of years, and many many other people have participated in it, doesn't mean it's right. I'm not saying any of them, necessarily, are out of God's grace, but I think there is much truth to be taught in ecclesiasm today. And it is not up to the Church to decide what is truth and what isn't, for the Church is mortal, and, in my opinion, far from Christ.

But God cannot lie, so the only reasonable explanation is that God has let you and many others delve into personal interpretation and form your own opinions; He has not led you and the others into such a thing, for there is error in many interpretations, and God is averse to error.

Why is the Church's opinion any more valid than mine? I still don't understand that.

Ah, you don't even believe in Hell. Do you believe in the Holy Trinity, though?

Yes, I do. But I don't believe Hell is possible.

Every, or most, personal intepretator prays. It is not leading them all to correctness.

What do Priests do to lead them to correctness that I cannot do? What do preachers do, or Rabbis?

Should we tolerate error? No. We should not be indifferent about it.

If you would go on and say that you think every other religion besides Christianity is completely wrong, this point would be easier to discuss.

Good image. Freemasonry is all about big men playing a boy's game; a dangerous boy's game, because it deals with serious things, like worship to a deity and very possibly political issues.

Haven't I been pointing out that it doesn't promote those things? Egad!

THat depends on what your religions choices (nasty word when it comes to religions) are.

I support religious choice. I wish you did, too, but I can't change you alone. Nor do you need to be changed.

Religious indifferentism; secularization. I've been telling you all along, but all you do is try to make it seem they worship the Christian Triune God, which they don't.

That's not all I try to do, actually. I address your points, and I will again.

How do they make religious indifferentism any more prominent than any other organization outside of parochial or ecclesiastic ones?

They at least promote religion. I'm sure many Freemasons go to church on Sunday, I'm sure many are Catholics. They are included because they believe in One God. That's all there is, religiously, to normal Freemasonry. Christian Freemasonry is different, but in obvious ways.

 

[Lifesaver]

I have no idea either. But there has never been proof that they would be doing anything wrong, only rumor, that's what I'm trying to say, man.

Perhaps not; but the number of powerful people involved with it is enough to cause suspicion.

Sadly, yes. The complete truth is long lost, from my experience with Catholicism and other sects of Christianity. Just how I feel, though. Trust me, I'd like to see it differently.

If the truth is lost, then the gates of Hell have prevailed; Jesus was wrong. And if He was wrong, He was not God. And if He was not God, faith in Him is useless and we are still in our sins.

If you have doctrinary problems with the Catholic Church, which you seem to, I can recomend you a great site to solve all your doubts. The truth is not lost, and if you do some research you will find that out. Here (haven't I linked to it already? If so, sorry):
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZINDEX.HTM

They, as a group, don't worship anything. They require members to accept a monotheistic God; but worship is left up to the individual. I'm sure many Freemasons believe in the Triune Lord.

So there is no ritualized worship in Masonic meetings?

The Church isn't a living entity. Whatever it does is done by its clergymen. So if they are in error, the Church is in error.

And its clergymen are impossibilitated of issuing false teachings regarding faith and morals.

Then why was the pope so angry when he did it?

Because he promoted many heretic doctrines.

Is it not possible that God has made himself present in ways that led the person who believes there are many Gods to see Him this way? That all spirituality indefinitely leads to one single, Supreme Being, and worship is up to the individual alone?

You are saying that, even though a person believes in many false things (polytheism, pantheism, etc) they still somehow reach God, which is, by His own nature, averse to error. This doesn't make sense.

The reason Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic church is because it was having people pay it to buy time out of Purgatory, and he thought it to be morally wrong, which it was.

You are quite right. Many corrupt priests, and even popes, sold indulgences. A deplorable practice, which made Luther outraged.
However, that doesn't excuse him at all from having made up many heretic doctrines to justify his breaking away from the Church because of the corruption of its men.

Maybe so. But don't many who interpret the Bible personally come to similar conclusions as well? There are only so many things to be contradicted.

You'd be surprised at the huge difference between protestant denominations. Fundamental things such as "is baptism necessary for salvation?" and "are people already predestined for Hell?" are not agreed upon.

And logically, because we are not omniscient, we can not prove either outcome. Can you see the future of this religion to see that no one who searches independantly will ever find the truth over a believer latched to the Church?

Anyone who searches independently and indeed reaches the truth proceeds to become in full communion with the Church.

But of course many people have it not; look at how secular society has become. Oh, wait, I guess Freemasonry did all of that...

Not all of it, but it was certainly one factor.
And I was talking about people who are not secular; people who honestly want to follow and believe in God, and who base their faith solely on their own personal conclusions.

And it is not up to the Church to decide what is truth and what isn't, for the Church is mortal, and, in my opinion, far from Christ.

The Church doesn't decide what is true; She communicates what is true to us all.

Why is the Church's opinion any more valid than mine? I still don't understand that.

Because She is the bride of Christ, made inerrant by Him.

Yes, I do. But I don't believe Hell is possible.

There. We have already spotted one huge abyss between your beliefs and the beliefs of millions of others who also use personal interpretation.

What do Priests do to lead them to correctness that I cannot do? What do preachers do, or Rabbis?

Priests follow the Church's teachings, which is correct. Of course, many priests don't, and these won't lead you to correctness.

If you would go on and say that you think every other religion besides Christianity is completely wrong, this point would be easier to discuss.

Not completely wrong. Each religion probably has some fraction of truth to it. Though some certainly have very little.

I support religious choice. I wish you did, too, but I can't change you alone. Nor do you need to be changed.

I also support religious choice. This is why I'm here discussing and not trying to pass on a law forcing Catholicism on everyone.
However, I'm very much against bad choices, and will try my best to turn people away from them.

How do they make religious indifferentism any more prominent than any other organization outside of parochial or ecclesiastic ones?

By swearing belief to one Great Architect, not present in the world, and being against religious discussion among those who believe in the Supreme Architect; by being in favour of complete separation of religion (left to each individual) and the public sphere.

They at least promote religion. I'm sure many Freemasons go to church on Sunday, I'm sure many are Catholics. They are included because they believe in One God. That's all there is, religiously, to normal Freemasonry. Christian Freemasonry is different, but in obvious ways.

Sadly, many Catholics are Freemasons. They are not aware they are under the threat of excommunication.
Even more sadly, many of these Catholics, if made aware of that, will probably leave the Church and remain in the lodge.

Anyway, this discussion has already gone pretty far. If you wish to continue, fine by me, though I don't think anything new will come from either side.
It's clear to me that you are an honest good man truly searching for the truth, but I also think you put your own personal understanding of Scriptures in a too high stand. You can't go wrong by reading serious apologetics works, such as can be found in the site I linked you to.

 

[Pastor_Benjamin]

Hmmm

 

[Rorshack]

point 1 Are the Freemasons (required to believe in a Supreme Being, but worship method is not necessary) sinners?

Freemasons must believe in a Supreme Being but no particular method is regarded as being better than another. As to their being sinners, in the Christian book it is said that all a sinners.


Point 2 Is a Christian Freemason saved, Over 90 percent of the Freemasons are Christian. That is higher than the general population. As to if they are saved or not, that is between the individual and God.

Point 3 but a Moslem Freemason not?
I do not know. Freemasonry does not propose to offer salvation. It is an interfaith fellowship of men who like to do good works for the pleasure of doing good works.

Point 4 The Roman Catholic Church HATES Freemasonry and has killed Freemasons. The RCC has perpetuated frauds about Freemasonry. Freemasonry is an association of men beyond the reach of the RCC. See the "Scarlet Book of Freemasonry" For details.

Point 5.Freemasons are militantly tolerant of religious differences. This is due to the history of the origins of the order and its disgust with the use of religion to justify wars in Europe between Christians. While Freemasonry was at one time an exclusively Christian organization, and still is in some places, It now tolerates all religions here in the USA.