Masons

[Rev Wayne]

The occult is not like "food", one doesn't need to taste test it.

That’s okay, you’ve just failed the symbols test. The food analogy I used was an analogy, which works just like symbology. Your reply on it, taking a literal stance on what I posted, seems to show evidence of a lack of ability to understand symbols and/or symbolic language. Without it, you can never hope to have any true understanding of Freemasonry.

I tend to take the words of Mason's and Former Mason's who are/were involved in the higher degrees more seriously and more convincingly that one who doesn't seem to know what actually goes on within the institute in which he is involved.

Okay, so cite your references and let’s talk about what they have to say, I’m very interested. But if they are the usual ones quoted here as “experts,” forget it, because they all have axes to grind and books to sell. I think they all went into Masonry thinking it was going to make them feel powerful and important, and then when it didn’t happen, they got teed off and started throwing rocks. And the key evidence of it is seen in the way most of them proudly proclaim, "I know what I'm talking about, I was a ___ degree Mason, you know!" Or in the bogus claims of people like Jim Shaw or Ken Blanchard, wanting people to think they had some kind of authority in Masonry. One prominent antimason boasts in great detail about his Masonic degrees, in his "Christian" testimony on his website, listing dates and places with great precision; yet he speaks sparingly, even confusingly, concerning his Christian testimony, with no definite experience or date for the conversion to which he witnesses. Apparently the lure of desired prominence never really left him, and the bitterness and vitriolic outbursts that remain are all he has left to try to lift himself up.
By way of contrast, the "high degree" Masons I have met, I never would have known it if somebody else had not pointed it out to me, because they were people of unassuming character whose attention was on things other than themselves. They have been men who readily and willingly sought out and served in places of service in both church and lodge that might be termed "menial."

So give this one the "taste test." Tell me which of these exhibits true fruit of the divine, and which does not.

Yes, and it turns out that if you ask a "Mason" in the know, then you get a Masonic answer

Cite your sources, as I said, so we can also see which masons you believe to be “in the know.” And you have not asked "Masons" in the know, by your own admission you have asked former Masons who are now anti-Masons. And considering what has posted even as I was composing this, apparently you are also consulting pseudo-Masons.

They are all one in the same, they all share the same beliefs when you get to the nitty gritty of it all. It's all false religion.

“One in the same,” eh? Well, that’s an eye-opener for sure. The only other people besides you that I have observed botching the phrase “one and the same” to make it “one in the same” were people who frequent the anti-mason website at ephesians5-11.org. You really haven’t been very forthcoming with any sources for your information, but perhaps that statement revealed more indirectly than you would have admitted anyway.

Since when did Jesus set up an organisation that was to embrace all religions?

Well, taking the liberty of rewording the challenge just a bit, I can certainly think of a building which He set up which was to embrace people of all religious persuasions: “It is written, my house shall be a house of prayer for all nations.” Maybe you don’t figure “all nations” embraces all religions, but there’s hardly any way around it. And He certainly wasn’t saying by that, that He embraced all religious teachings—but He sure expressed the idea that they could all come into one house and pray.

I find it significant too, that you don’t find Jesus railing against “false religions” in the way some Christians do; His remarks were aimed at “false people.”

"The Blazing Star in the centre", what?, the Sun?. Pure Sun worship.

That’s just plain bizarre. How on earth do you get “sun” out of “star,” especially in a symbolic system, where the two are worlds apart?

If you truly knew anything about what you accuse, you would know that the “blazing star” made its entrance into Masonry as a symbol of the star present in the sky at the Nativity. Macoy’s Dictionary of Freemasonry states:

The blazing star must not be considered merely as the creature which heralded the appearance of T.G.A.O.T.U., but the expressive symbol of that Great Being himself, who is described by the magnificent appellations of the Day Spring, or Rising Sun; the Day Star; the Morning Star; and the Bright, or Blazing Star.

Why would one want to commemorate the evil in our lives by placing a constant reminder of it on the floor,

Who said it “commemorated” anything at all? “Symbolize” and “commemorate” are not synonymous, I really have no idea where you’re coming from with this one. A symbol is simply one thing that represents another. It’s a given fact that in this life, both good and bad times come. The checkerboard pattern simply represents life as it is. And whether good comes or ill on any given day, we put our trust in the Divine Providence of God.

The message is so blatant here, and yet you don't see.

The only thing “blatantly” obvious is that you have not given this very much consideration beforehand, or you would check the information to see if the accusers knew what they were accusing, which “blatantly,” they don’t.

A short study on "the blazing star" would be very helpful.

Okay. Consider the quote from Macoy as a “short study.” It should be very helpful to you in showing that by G.A.O.T.U. Masonry spoke of Jesus, and that by “blazing star” may be meant either the star at Jesus’ birth, or Jesus Himself.

 

[Harlin]

Hello,

That’s okay, you’ve just failed the symbols test. The food analogy I used was an analogy, which works just like symbology. Your reply on it, taking a literal stance on what I posted, seems to show evidence of a lack of ability to understand symbols and/or symbolic language. Without it, you can never hope to have any true understanding of Freemasonry.

Well, sorry to disappoint you. Just because I answered the way I did, doesn't mean that I didn't understand your "analogy". True understanding of Freemasonry comes from being able to recognise symbols for what they truly mean, not what one is told to believe they mean. There is quite a difference.

Okay, so cite your references and let’s talk about what they have to say, I’m very interested. But if they are the usual ones quoted here as “experts,” forget it, because they all have axes to grind and books to sell. I think they all went into Masonry thinking it was going to make them feel powerful and important, and then when it didn’t happen, they got teed off and started throwing rocks. And the key evidence of it is seen in the way most of them proudly proclaim, "I know what I'm talking about, I was a ___ degree Mason, you know!" Or in the bogus claims of people like Jim Shaw or Ken Blanchard, wanting people to think they had some kind of authority in Masonry. One prominent antimason boasts in great detail about his Masonic degrees, in his "Christian" testimony on his website, listing dates and places with great precision; yet he speaks sparingly, even confusingly, concerning his Christian testimony, with no definite experience or date for the conversion to which he witnesses. Apparently the lure of desired prominence never really left him, and the bitterness and vitriolic outbursts that remain are all he has left to try to lift himself up.
By way of contrast, the "high degree" Masons I have met, I never would have known it if somebody else had not pointed it out to me, because they were people of unassuming character whose attention was on things other than themselves. They have been men who readily and willingly sought out and served in places of service in both church and lodge that might be termed "menial."

So give this one the "taste test." Tell me which of these exhibits true fruit of the divine, and which does not.

So, that is your personal experience, with a few Mason's or ex-Masons. The character "exhibits" or lack of, a few people does not change the "facts". I am talking about the obvious occultic meanings and associations that these Masonic Symbols have. These facts provide us with the true colours of the Masons.

Cite your sources, as I said, so we can also see which masons you believe to be “in the know.” And you have not asked "Masons" in the know, by your own admission you have asked former Masons who are now anti-Masons. And considering what has posted even as I was composing this, apparently you are also consulting pseudo-Masons.

I have provided many references for where I have obtained my information, these references have come from Mason's and Ex-Mason's. Both seem to say the same thing. I don't think you can be convinced of the truth concerning Masonry while you refuse to look at the astounding evidence.

“One in the same,” eh? Well, that’s an eye-opener for sure. The only other people besides you that I have observed botching the phrase “one and the same” to make it “one in the same” were people who frequent the anti-mason website at ephesians5-11.org. You really haven’t been very forthcoming with any sources for your information, but perhaps that statement revealed more indirectly than you would have admitted anyway.

My point is that all false religion is "one and the same". It stems from the same author, "the father of lies". This is plain and simple Bible truth, I haven't "botched" anything.

Quote:
Since when did Jesus set up an organisation that was to embrace all religions?


Well, taking the liberty of rewording the challenge just a bit, I can certainly think of a building which He set up which was to embrace people of all religious persuasions: “It is written, my house shall be a house of prayer for all nations.” Maybe you don’t figure “all nations” embraces all religions, but there’s hardly any way around it. And He certainly wasn’t saying by that, that He embraced all religious teachings—but He sure expressed the idea that they could all come into one house and pray.

I find it significant too, that you don’t find Jesus railing against “false religions” in the way some Christians do; His remarks were aimed at “false people.”

Nice try. I don't buy it. The temple was for all peoples and nations, NOT FOR ALL RELIGIONS AND WORSHIP OF ALL gods. The temple was for the worship of the Only True God, YHWH.

Again, nothing new here, just plain Bible truth. Stop twisting scripture to make Masonry fit within it's bounds. Jesus NEVER embraced the gods or ceremonies of false religion.

"Come out of her (Babylon, false religion) my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."Rev 18:4 was indeed His cry.

Quote:
"The Blazing Star in the centre", what?, the Sun?. Pure Sun worship.


That’s just plain bizarre. How on earth do you get “sun” out of “star,” especially in a symbolic system, where the two are worlds apart?

If you truly knew anything about what you accuse, you would know that the “blazing star” made its entrance into Masonry as a symbol of the star present in the sky at the Nativity. Macoy’s Dictionary of Freemasonry states:


Quote:
The blazing star must not be considered merely as the creature which heralded the appearance of T.G.A.O.T.U., but the expressive symbol of that Great Being himself, who is described by the magnificent appellations of the Day Spring, or Rising Sun; the Day Star; the Morning Star; and the Bright, or Blazing Star.

And yet here in your very own quote there is a reference to the "rising sun". How truly bizarre.

"the Blazing Star has been regarded as an emblem of Omniscience, or the All seeing Eye, which to the Egyptian Initiates was the emblem of Osiris, the Creator. With the YOD in the centre, it has the kabalistic meaning of the Divine Energy, manifested as Light, creating the Universe".
Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, op, cit, p 16

Osiris, the creator?????.......I don't think so.

"The Blazing Star in our Lodges, we have already said, represents Sirius, Anubis, or Mercury, Guardian and Guide of Souls. Our Ancient English brethren also considered it an emblem of the Sun......accordingly the Blazing Star has been regarded as an emblem of Omniscience, or the All Seeing Eye, which to the Ancients was the Sun"
Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, p. 506

Okay. Consider the quote from Macoy as a “short study.” It should be very helpful to you in showing that by G.A.O.T.U. Masonry spoke of Jesus, and that by “blazing star” may be meant either the star at Jesus’ birth, or Jesus Himself.

I will consider the "short study" from Macoy, if you will consider the "short study" from Pike.

Who said it “commemorated” anything at all? “Symbolize” and “commemorate” are not synonymous, I really have no idea where you’re coming from with this one. A symbol is simply one thing that represents another. It’s a given fact that in this life, both good and bad times come. The checkerboard pattern simply represents life as it is. And whether good comes or ill on any given day, we put our trust in the Divine Providence of God.

Albert Pike states that the black and white pavement symbolizes "the Good and Evil Principles of the Egyptian and Persian Creed. It is the warfare of Michael and Satan, of the Gods and Titans, of Balder and Lok; between light and shadow, which is darkness: Day and Night; Freedom and Despotism..."

Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry Prepared for the Supreme Council of the Thirty-Third Degree, for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States, and Published by Its Authority (Richmond, Virginia:L.H Jenkins, Inc., 1871, Reprinted 1944) p. 14.

The only thing “blatantly” obvious is that you have not given this very much consideration beforehand, or you would check the information to see if the accusers knew what they were accusing, which “blatantly,” they don’t.

Simply untrue. Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean I haven't done any homework before posting.

God Bless,
Harlin

 

[Harlin]

These are not true Masons, no wonder you're on such a bender. We don't really identify with these guys anyway.

Hello,

Albert Pike in Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, p. 632 states that the "generative principle" is "represented by the letter G..."

God Bless,

Harlin

 

[Rev Wayne]

My point is that all false religion is "one and the same". It stems from the same author, "the father of lies". This is plain and simple Bible truth, I haven't "botched" anything.

More feigning, DW? You botched the English phrase and revealed more than you knew in doing so.

True understanding of Freemasonry comes from being able to recognise symbols for what they truly mean, not what one is told to believe they mean. There is quite a difference.

Check out the discussion a bit further below and see Pike and Mackey's take on the matter, along with Masonry's. It affirms what Masons already knew anyway, Masons are free to draw their own interpretations of anything in Masonry.

Nice try. I don't buy it.

Of course you don’t—mainly because I’m not selling anything. Just straightening out misconceptions, as usual.

The temple was for all peoples and nations, NOT FOR ALL RELIGIONS AND WORSHIP OF ALL gods. The temple was for the worship of the Only True God, YHWH.

Like I said, Jesus does not speak of “false gods,” He speaks of false worship. He does not distinguish between YHWH and any other name in doing so, that is your interpretation and a reading into the text. When He began His ministry, people tried to throw Him over a cliff because of what He said in the synagogue at Nazareth. What He said was, that of all the lepers in Israel, God sent a prophet to minister to Naaman the Syrian, who was not a worshipper of YHWH; and that of all the widows in Israel, God sent a prophet to minister only to a Gentile widow at Zarephath. They were objecting for exactly the same reason you are: “Those people can’t possibly have anything to do with ‘OUR’ God.” Apparently, if you had been living in that day, you’d have been one of the crowd throwing Him over.

Jesus NEVER embraced the gods or ceremonies of false religion.

Thanks for confirming what I said in my last post. You seem to have missed:

He certainly wasn’t saying by that, that He embraced all religious teachings—but He sure expressed the idea that they could all come into one house and pray.

You also seem to have missed the implications of your objection:

(1) If Jesus called the Temple the “house of prayer for all peoples,” and;
(2) If in doing so, He considered their prayers to be offered to “false gods”; then
(3) How in the world can you even suggest that Jesus would say it was okay for all nations to come into the house of the One True God to pray, if He understood them to be praying to false gods??

The answer is simple, Jesus obviously did not share your understanding in the matter, that they were praying to “false gods.” It’s pretty well established that He would not do so anyway, as He never mentions “false gods” anywhere in the gospels. (He speaks only of "false christs and false prophets" in the endtimes.) Jesus was always including people in the Kingdom of God that everyone else had decided did not belong. It was what got Him in hot water with the Jews, particularly the Pharisees. Affirming a Syrian and a Gentile widow, eating with publicans and sinners, drinking water with a Samaritan woman, even telling the Pharisees that prostitutes were going into the kingdom before them!

I have provided many references for where I have obtained my information, these references have come from Mason's and Ex-Mason's. Both seem to say the same thing. I don't think you can be convinced of the truth concerning Masonry while you refuse to look at the astounding evidence.

Nothing astounding about it. And as long as you quote antimasons and pseudomasons, it never will be astounding, because all you will have is anti- and pseudo-evidence.

Jesus NEVER embraced the gods or ceremonies of false religion.

Again, I said neither. I said He considered the Temple a place where they could all pray.

And yet here in your very own quote there is a reference to the "rising sun". How truly bizarre.

When Jesus comes, He will split the eastern sky. Does that remind you of anything? (I’ll give you a hint, it’s where the sun rises.) And “as the sun rises in the east, so rises the Master,” etc. etc. But I’m sure you won’t be convinced by these, so I’ll get on with the real evidence for it in the biblical witness:

But to you who fear my name the Sun of Righteousness shall arise with healing in His wings; and you shall go out and grow fat like stall-fed calves.” (Malachi 4:2)

My own Bible footnote says simply, “A beautiful figure fulfilled by Jesus Christ.” I don’t know what yours says, but I have not seen one yet that translates this “Rising Sun of Righteousness” as anything but Jesus Christ. All you have to do is couple that with the “Blazing Star” which was the Nativity Star, and the image is consistent in pointing to Jesus Christ in both the first two ornaments.

Osiris, the creator?????.......I don't think so.

Neither do I. Nor, for that matter, did Pike. Pike does a lot of that, discussing world religions and the things they have taught. You seem to have missed a key point:

which to the Egyptian Initiates was the emblem of Osiris, the Creator.

The EGYPTIANS considered Osiris creator, not Pike. Pike was a Christian, Episcopalian by denomination.

I will consider the "short study" from Macoy, if you will consider the "short study" from Pike.

I have. I “consider” Pike’s “short study” to be a short study in what one world religion taught in Egypt. I “consider” Macoy’s short study to be a short study in what Masonry says—since it does in fact come from a Masonic Dictionary published by one of the most respected Masonic publishers in the world.

Albert Pike states that the black and white pavement symbolizes "the Good and Evil Principles of the Egyptian and Persian Creed. It is the warfare of Michael and Satan, of the Gods and Titans, of Balder and Lok; between light and shadow, which is darkness: Day and Night; Freedom and Despotism..."

You must have missed the part where Pike stated what it actually IS in Masonry and not his own speculations, which these certainly are. From the same page, a paragraph earlier:

The Mosaic Pavement, chequered in squares or lozenges, is said to represent the ground-floor of King Solomon’s Temple;

So he notes what it “is said” to represent, and then speculates on what “he” thinks it is supposed to mean. In spite of his speculations, though, Masonry has said what it represents, and if Pike differs, then so be it.

Even Albert Mackey is not the spokesman on the matter either. It was his interpretation that says it represents life, “checked with good and evil.” And it was Mackey that Pike referred to when he said, in the context of what you just quoted,

It is completed by tassels as ornaments at the corners. If these and the bordering have any symbolic meaning, it is fanciful and arbitrary.

Because Mackey had said:

“the beautiful border which surrounds it is emblematical of those manifold blessings and comforts which surround us” (Ahiman Rezon, p. 94)

But the thing Masonry has said for longer than the friendly little picking between these two, is that the pavement represents, as Pike says, to the ground floor of Solomon’s Temple. It was one of three “ornaments of the Lodge,” the other two being the Indented Tessel and the Blazing Star. The Blazing Star was said to represent the middle, and the Indented Tessel was said to represent the border around it. It’s been in Masonry for quite awhile, too:

Q. Have you any furniture in your Lodge?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it?
A. Mofaick Pavement, Blazing Star and Indented Tarfel.
Q. What are they?
A. Mofaick Pavement, the Ground Floor of the Lodge, Blazing Star the Centre, and Indented Tarfel the Border round it.

(Samuel Prichard, Masonry Dissected, 1730, p. 13)

Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean I haven't done any homework before posting.

I’m sure you have, you just didn’t get a very good grade on it.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Albert Pike in Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, p. 632 states that the "generative principle" is "represented by the letter G..."

Since when did Pike become "Freemasonry?" And where did you get the idea that what he said there had to do with Freemasonry? It's another of his many discussions of the history of various religions and their symbology. And of course, the full sentence reads:

"In the centre is the Hebrew Jod (initial of YHWH), the Animating Spirit of Fire, the generative principle, represented by the letter G, initial of the name of Deity in the languages of the North, and the meaning whereof is Generation."

So what is wrong with a generative principle describing the one who generated all the universe? But no matter, once again we turn to a source telling us both how long it has been in Masonry, and its meaning:

Q. When you came into the middle, what did you fee?
A. The Refemblance of the letter G.
Q. Who doth that G denote?
A. One that's greater than you.
Q. Who's greater than I, that am a Free and Accepted Mafon, the Mafter of a Lodge.
A. The Grand Architect and Contriver of the Univerfe, or He that was taken up to the top of the Pinnacle of the Holy temple. (Samuel Prichard, Masonry Dissected, 1730, p. 22)

The letter G for Grand Architect, plus an explanation of who the Architect is: Jesus Christ, who was taken up to the top of the pinnacle by the devil, and tempted there. No other person fits, nor any "other god."

 

[Harlin]

Hello,

Quote:
My point is that all false religion is "one and the same". It stems from the same author, "the father of lies". This is plain and simple Bible truth, I haven't "botched" anything.


More feigning, DW? You botched the English phrase and revealed more than you knew in doing so.

I don't know what you are going on about here, and neither do I want too, it seems you are grasping at straws by criticising my use of some "English Phrase", to avoid facing the real issue, Pagan/false religion.

Why don't you show me from the Bible, where false religion isn't all "one and the same" and not instigated by Satan under the guise of many different names, then we might actually have something worth discussing, instead of my apparent "botching" of the "English Phrase".

Like I said, Jesus does not speak of “false gods,” He speaks of false worship. He does not distinguish between YHWH and any other name in doing so, that is your interpretation and a reading into the text. When He began His ministry, people tried to throw Him over a cliff because of what He said in the synagogue at Nazareth. What He said was, that of all the lepers in Israel, God sent a prophet to minister to Naaman the Syrian, who was not a worshipper of YHWH; and that of all the widows in Israel, God sent a prophet to minister only to a Gentile widow at Zarephath. They were objecting for exactly the same reason you are: “Those people can’t possibly have anything to do with ‘OUR’ God.” Apparently, if you had been living in that day, you’d have been one of the crowd throwing Him over.

Nice twisting of what I said. Here is what I said:

My point is that all false religion is "one and the same". It stems from the same author, "the father of lies". This is plain and simple Bible truth, I haven't "botched" anything.


Quote:
Since when did Jesus set up an organisation that was to embrace all religions? Quote:


Well, taking the liberty of rewording the challenge just a bit, I can certainly think of a building which He set up which was to embrace people of all religious persuasions: “It is written, my house shall be a house of prayer for all nations.” Maybe you don’t figure “all nations” embraces all religions, but there’s hardly any way around it. And He certainly wasn’t saying by that, that He embraced all religious teachings—but He sure expressed the idea that they could all come into one house and pray.

I find it significant too, that you don’t find Jesus railing against “false religions” in the way some Christians do; His remarks were aimed at “false people.”

Did Jesus ever say it was okay for all religions to unite and worship together each to their own gods?....You have completely ignored the scripture in Revelation which states to "come out of Babylon" or false religion, and be not a partaker of her sins, if Jesus had said it was okay to be joined with those in services to other gods he would have been sanctioning sin.

Jesus' Father was not Satan, hence the only True God that is worthy of Worship is YHWH. I don't have to add to the text to get that one right. There is either the true religion of God, or the false ones set up by the antichrist. The people of all nations were free to come and pray to God in His temple, they were not free or sanctioned by Jesus to come and unite with God's worshippers and in His temple and pray to Baal or any other of the pagan gods.

Again, I said neither. I said He considered the Temple a place where they could all pray.

Yes, to God, not to Satan. It is the Lords House.

When Jesus comes, He will split the eastern sky. Does that remind you of anything? (I’ll give you a hint, it’s where the sun rises.) And “as the sun rises in the east, so rises the Master,” etc. etc. But I’m sure you won’t be convinced by these, so I’ll get on with the real evidence for it in the biblical witness:

Yes, I understand that Jesus is referred to as the "Sun of Righteousness" in the scriptures. However, He is not referred to as the "Blazing Star" though.
They are not talking of the same being here. Let's see what Pike says again:

"The Blazing Star in our Lodges, we have already said, represents Sirius, Anubis, or Mercury"

None of these are Jesus as you are so desperately trying to suggest. These deities are all "one and the same", they are all Satan, worshipped under various titles and represented by the Blazing Star, they are all sun gods.

Quote:
Osiris, the creator?????.......I don't think so.


Neither do I. Nor, for that matter, did Pike. Pike does a lot of that, discussing world religions and the things they have taught. You seem to have missed a key point:

No, I got that point. Pike makes it quite clear who he believes the Blazing Star to be. The Egyptians believe it to be Osiris, and Pike states that it is Sirius, Anubis and Mercury. The sun is always the life give/creator in paganism, it is always the strongest god.

Quote:
The Mosaic Pavement, chequered in squares or lozenges, is said to represent the ground-floor of King Solomon’s Temple;


So he notes what it “is said” to represent, and then speculates on what “he” thinks it is supposed to mean. In spite of his speculations, though, Masonry has said what it represents, and if Pike differs, then so be it.

Quite a staggering difference in representations wouldn't you agree. I find it interesting how you pick and choose whom you are going to believe, when they are all Mason's.

If a Mason is "free" to interpret the symbols however he chooses to, then I would have to say you are having fellowship with those who choose to be Occultists, and believe that Masonry is the worship of Lucifer. These include Albert Pike and Albert Mackey, in fact in one Short Talk Bulletin about Mackey, lodge members were told: "Never did he read into a Masonic Symbol a meaning which is not actually there"
"Albert Gallatin Mackey", Short talk Bulletin (Feb 1936; Vol 14, No 2; Reprinted July 1980) p.7

I’m sure you have, you just didn’t get a very good grade on it.

I am quoting what Masons are saying, not me. Masons are saying what they believe the symbols to mean, high well respected within Masonry Masons infact.

Albert Pike was huge in Freemasonry, his philosophy was widely upheld. Lucien V. Rule describes Morals and Dogma as "the greatest single work on Masonic philosophy ever given to the world"
God Bless,
Harlin

 

[Rev Wayne]

I don't know what you are going on about here, and neither do I want too, it seems you are grasping at straws by criticising my use of some "English Phrase", to avoid facing the real issue, Pagan/false religion.

In a nutshell, charades isn’t your forte, and it doesn't take an idiot to recognize an idiom. If you still don’t understand, you might reference your own comments about “Satan under the guise of many different names.”

Why don't you show me from the Bible, where false religion isn't all "one and the same" and not instigated by Satan under the guise of many different names

Quit trying to change the subject. We’re talking about Freemasonry and you keep rambling about Satan and false religions.

But I see you move away from “false gods,” perhaps because you found it to be as I said where Jesus is concerned, that He doesn’t mention them? So you wish to switch the angle now to “false religions.” And it has nothing to do with Masonry, which simply affirms religious truths found in all religions.

Mackey puts it this way:

Its religion is that general one of natural and primitive revelation,--handed down to us from some ancient and patriarchal priesthood, --in which all men may agree and none may differ. (Encyclopedia, p. 729)

Pike describes this religious quality:

None can deny that Christ taught a lofty morality. “Love one another:
forgive those that despitefully use you and persecute you: be pure of
heart, meek, humble, contented: lay not up riches on earth, but in
Heaven: submit to the powers lawfully over you: become like these little
children, or ye cannot be saved, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven:
forgive the repentant; and cast no stone at the sinner, if you too have
sinned: do unto others as ye would have others do unto you:” such, and
not abstruse questions of theology, were His simple and sublime
teachings.
The early Christians followed in His footsteps. The first preachers of the
faith had no thought of domination. Entirely animated by His saying, that
he among them should be first, who should serve with the greatest
devotion, they were humble, modest, and charitable, and they knew how
to communicate this spirit of the inner man to the churches under their
direction. These churches were at first but spontaneous meetings of all
Christians inhabiting the same locality. A pure and severe morality,
mingled with religious enthusiasm, was the characteristic of each, and
excited the admiration even of their persecutors. Everything was
in common among them; their property, their joys, and their sorrows. In
the silence of night they met for instruction and to pray together. Their
love-feasts, or fraternal repasts, ended these reunions, in which all
differences in social position and rank were effaced in the presence of a
paternal Divinity. Their sole object was to make men better, by bringing
them back to a simple worship, of which universal morality was the basis;
and to end those numerous and cruel sacrifices which everywhere
inundated with blood the altars of the gods. Thus did Christianity reform
the world, and obey the teachings of its founder. It gave to woman her
proper rank and influence; it regulated domestic life; and by admitting the
slaves to the love-feasts, it by degrees raised them above that oppression
under which half of mankind had groaned for ages.
This, in its purity, as taught by Christ Himself, was the true primitive
religion, as communicated by God to the Patriarchs. It was no new
religion, but the reproduction of the oldest of all; and its true and perfect
morality is the morality of Masonry, as is the morality of every creed of
antiquity. (M&D, p. 540-541)

• Love one another; (John 15:12)
• Forgive those who despitefully use you; (Luke 11:4)
• be pure of heart, meek, humble, contented; (Matt. 5:5, 5:8, Heb. 13:5)
• lay not up riches on earth, but in Heaven; (Matt. 6:20)
• submit to the powers lawfully over you; (Heb. 13:7)
• become like these little children, or ye cannot be saved, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven; (Mark 10:14-15)
• forgive the repentant; (Matt. 18:22)
• cast no stone at the sinner, if you too have sinned; (John 8:7)
• do unto others as ye would have others do unto you; (Matt. 7:12)
• whoever among you is first, should serve with the greatest
  devotion; (Mark 10:43)
• meet for instruction and to pray together; (Heb. 10:25, James 5:16)

“This, in its purity, as taught by Christ Himself, was the true primitive
religion, as communicated by God to the Patriarchs. It was no new
religion, but the reproduction of the oldest of all; and its true and perfect
morality is the morality of Masonry, as is the morality of every creed of
antiquity.”

Exactly where in this do you find “false religions?” You might as well be making the Bible out to be false, the religion Masonry affirms is straight from the Bible--and so says Pike, your chosen source to accuse.

Did Jesus ever say it was okay for all religions to unite and worship together each to their own gods?

No, and neither did I. You’re trying to twist “coming to the same place for prayer” with “coming together to unite religions.” That is a false characterization. Freemasonry does not “unite religions.” Freemasonry emphasizes the truths found in all religions, as outlined above. Straight from your apparently preferred choice, Pike.

You have completely ignored the scripture in Revelation which states to "come out of Babylon" or false religion, and be not a partaker of her sins,

Of course I’ve ignored it, it has nothing to do with the subject. The thread title is Masons, not “Babylon.”

if Jesus had said it was okay to be joined with those in services to other gods he would have been sanctioning sin.

You have misconstrued the point:

Jesus said the Temple is the house of prayer “for all nations,” or “peoples,” depending on the translation. That means it is a house where all people of the world—and by necessary inference, all religions of the world—may come to pray. This has been the gist of arguments against Masonry in regard to those of other religions being in Masonry, that we cannot gather in the same place together and pray. Apparently Jesus says they can, and you choose to disagree with Him.

So if your objection is valid, then why does Jesus say they can?

Yes, to God, not to Satan. It is the Lords House.

At least we’re in agreement on that point, since I never said they were praying to Satan in the first place. Please keep your words in your mouth and quit trying to put them in mine.

If a Mason is "free" to interpret the symbols however he chooses to, then I would have to say you are having fellowship with those who choose to be Occultists, and believe that Masonry is the worship of Lucifer.

In fact, the people in my lodge are Christians, one of them is a Baptist minister. We regularly end extemporaneous prayers with “in Jesus’ name.” Perhaps you’re speaking once again of some clandestine or pseudo-Masonic group. Unless you somehow believe Jesus is Lucifer, your remarks have totally missed any target here for sure.

Jesus' Father was not Satan, hence the only True God that is worthy of Worship is YHWH.

Once again, I am glad we find such points of agreement:

G.A.O.T.U., celebrated in the lectures of Masonry, is the same Jehovah who declared his name to Moses at the burning bush, appeared on earth at the time and in the place, which had been foretold by the Jewish prophets, divested of his external splendor; attested the truth of his mission by the most stupendous miracles, and terminated his efficacious atonement by a public ascension into the cloudy pillar, or Shekinah, which hovered over the Mount of Olives; and the consecutive steps of this great scheme have been embodied in the system of Freemasonry. It can therefore be shown, that the historical landmarks consist of certain prominent facts recorded in the Jewish scriptures, which have been received in all ages, both before and after the advent of Christ, as typical of the Redeemer of man, and of him only. (Robert Macoy, Dictionary of Freemasonry, New York: Gramercy, 1989, p. 524-25)

The people of all nations were free to come and pray to God in His temple, they were not free or sanctioned by Jesus to come and unite with God's worshippers and in His temple and pray to Baal or any other of the pagan gods.

An objection with no relevance, since the passage I quoted said nothing about anyone praying to Baal or any pagan gods. But the statement was left open as Jesus stated it, saying it was a house of prayer “for the nations.” It would be a logical contradiction to suggest that none of these people were from other religions. It would be even more illogical to suggest Jesus was speaking of Baal worship, which had passed by the wayside long before Jesus came upon the scene. It would probably be illogical to suggest that people of other religions were coming into the temple and beginning their prayers with “O Lord JHWH. . .” Yet Jesus still affirmed that it was a house of prayer for them. I’m not the one who has the problem with that, if Jesus said it, I’m good to go with it. If you think these people should not be doing what Jesus said it was all right for them to do, despite their being of other religions, take it up with Him.

I find it interesting how you pick and choose whom you are going to believe, when they are all Mason's.

I find it interesting, too, that you pick and choose which ones you will quote to make accusations. I find it even more interesting that you think Masons should all be cut from one cloth. I’d find that to be just as odd as a suggestion that Christians are all of one unanimous opinion on every topic.

Albert Pike was huge in Freemasonry, his philosophy was widely upheld.

I don’t dispute that. But what was true 150 years ago is not true today. You missed the operative word, “was.” Very few Masons ever read Pike these days, except in response to weak arguments from antimasons trying to establish for Masonry a series of invented arguments, mostly drawn from comparative religions discussions in Morals and Dogma that Pike never intended as authoritative anyway. Pike clearly stated in the Preface:

The teachings of these Readings are not sacramental, so far as they go beyond the realm of Morality into those of other domains of Thought and Truth. Every one is entirely free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound. Of course, the ancient theosophic and philosophic speculations are not embodied as part of the doctrines of the Rite. (p.iv)

“Ancient theosophic and philosophic speculations” is extremely accurate in describing the nature of material used to make accusations based on Pike. Such arguments are invalid from the start.

 

[Harlin]

Hello,

In a nutshell, charades isn’t your forte, and it doesn't take an idiot to recognize an idiom. If you still don’t understand, you might reference your own comments about “Satan under the guise of many different names.”

??? More rambling without addressing the issue. Is Satan the instigator of false religion or not?......You could just answer instead of insulting my intelligence.

Quit trying to change the subject. We’re talking about Freemasonry and you keep rambling about Satan and false religions.

But I see you move away from “false gods,” perhaps because you found it to be as I said where Jesus is concerned, that He doesn’t mention them? So you wish to switch the angle now to “false religions.” And it has nothing to do with Masonry, which simply affirms religious truths found in all religions.

You have to be kidding me right?.........Freemasonry is a false religion, they have three bibles or holy books on the same altar in their lodges, it is instigated by Satan because it does embrace false gods, which are still all Satan, under various different names. I haven't changed the subject or my view since embarking on this strange discussion with you.

In Matt 12:24-29 Jesus acknowledges that Satan and Beelzebub are the same. The Jews knew Satan to be Beelzebub, the "prince of the devils". Jesus goes on a little further and affirms they are talking of Satan.

I think a little less study of Masonry philosophy and a little more of the Bible is in desperate need here.

Exactly where in this do you find “false religions?” You might as well be making the Bible out to be false, the religion Masonry affirms is straight from the Bible--and so says Pike, your chosen source to accuse.

And yet, it is this same Pike who describes the "Blazing Star" in his lodge to represent "Sirius, Anubis and Mercury" whom I am supposed to believe to be Christian.......please, what kind of fool do you take me for. I do not believe that I worship the same "Christ" as Pike. Have you never heard of the term "the Christ" spoken of in the New Age Religions, that is not Jesus. Not all who speak of "Christ" are talking of the Son of God.

For instance on the magazine from theTheosophical Society called Lucifer (edited by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky and Annie Besant) is the following:

"I Jesus....am the bright, the Morning Star, (lucifer)". They add: "The light bearer is the Morning Star or Lucifer"

Quote:
You have completely ignored the scripture in Revelation which states to "come out of Babylon" or false religion, and be not a partaker of her sins,


Of course I’ve ignored it, it has nothing to do with the subject. The thread title is Masons, not “Babylon.”

"To the Law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is NO light in them" Isa 8:20

Again, Pike recognises three pagan dieties in his lodge, and yet we are told there is only One True God in the Bible. The others are Satan and all his false religion systems.

You have misconstrued the point:

Jesus said the Temple is the house of prayer “for all nations,” or “peoples,” depending on the translation. That means it is a house where all people of the world—and by necessary inference, all religions of the world—may come to pray. This has been the gist of arguments against Masonry in regard to those of other religions being in Masonry, that we cannot gather in the same place together and pray. Apparently Jesus says they can, and you choose to disagree with Him.

So if your objection is valid, then why does Jesus say they can?

Complete and utter rubbish: Jesus never said that it was alright for all to pray to other gods in God's house, he said they were free to come and pray, all people from all nations. To God alone. Full Stop.

"He said unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do,

14. Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD'S house which was toward the North, and behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.

15.Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thous shalt see greater abominations than these.

16. And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD'S house,and , behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east" Eze 8:13-16

The Lord calls this an abomination, and yet you are suggesting that I am disagreeing with Jesus. Sorry, but you are way off the mark here.

An objection with no relevance, since the passage I quoted said nothing about anyone praying to Baal or any pagan gods. But the statement was left open as Jesus stated it, saying it was a house of prayer “for the nations.” It would be a logical contradiction to suggest that none of these people were from other religions. It would be even more illogical to suggest Jesus was speaking of Baal worship, which had passed by the wayside long before Jesus came upon the scene. It would probably be illogical to suggest that people of other religions were coming into the temple and beginning their prayers with “O Lord JHWH. . .” Yet Jesus still affirmed that it was a house of prayer for them. I’m not the one who has the problem with that, if Jesus said it, I’m good to go with it. If you think these people should not be doing what Jesus said it was all right for them to do, despite their being of other religions, take it up with Him.

Baal worship was alive and kicking, as is evident in the book of Matt, chapter 12. The temple was not to be filled with the abominations of the pagans: ie worship and prayer to thier gods. Look at Simon Magus, and many other characters of the Bible, many were into false religion, or occultish practices.

I find it interesting, too, that you pick and choose which ones you will quote to make accusations. I find it even more interesting that you think Masons should all be cut from one cloth. I’d find that to be just as odd as a suggestion that Christians are all of one unanimous opinion on every topic.

I guess if we just take the opinions and understanding of the Mason's that were good "Christian" Mason's, everything will be just fine and dandy and we can continue to have fellowship with Masons and have them lead our churches with a clear conscience.

The Bible determines who are Christians and who aren't, not our own personal understandings. Those who openly acknowledge and embrace the occult or pagan deities are not Christians. By the way, there has been more Luciferian worshippers in Masonry than just Pike, however, if we just choose to ignore this fact, it might all go away.

If there was this kind of dispute between the doctrines in the Christian Churches it would be laughable. If some "Christians" also acknowlegded the Occult, they would no longer be considered Christians would they?...obviously not so in Freemasonry.

God Bless,

Harlin

 

[Rev Wayne]

You could just answer instead of insulting my intelligence.

Playing tag-team now, are we? How nice. And a hearty welcome too, by the way.

The people of all nations were free to come and pray to God in His temple

Thank you for the frank acknowledgment that this can happen. You never have admitted to it in the past. I should think this ought to disarm several of your accusations all by itself.

 

[Rev Wayne]

The Bible determines who are Christians and who aren't, not our own personal understandings.

Gee, this is pretty revealing, too. Talk about bibliolatry! Last time I checked, God was the one who made this determination.

 

[Harlin]

Quote:
You could just answer instead of insulting my intelligence.
Playing tag-team now, are we? How nice. And a hearty welcome too, by the way.

???? Again, no answer. Is it more than you can honestly manage?. A simple yes or no would suffice.

Quote:
The people of all nations were free to come and pray to God in His temple
Thank you for the frank acknowledgment that this can happen. You never have admitted to it in the past. I should think this ought to disarm several of your accusations all by itself.

I have admitted this all along, I don't know whose posts you have been reading, but obviously not mine. I have highlighted the principle point that I have also been making whilst acknowledging the above point. It is God's house of prayer, and all who would pray to another god in God's house are clearly committing an abomination unto the Lord.

So......to draw the obvious conclusion, the Masonic Lodge is not the same as the Lord's house of prayer, seeing as Masons are free to pray to whomever they choose, or believe to be the "Supreme Being".

I think/hope you are all too well aware that not all religions pray to the same god. Your comparison of the lodge/organisation to God's temple just doesn't gel and you know it, that is why you refuse to answer that simple question.

God Bless

Harlin

 

[Harlin]

Hello,

Why don't you explain to me in plain english what you think this reveals then, because I don't know what you are insinuating here.

As I quoted before, Isaiah 8:20, "to the law and the testimony...etc".........What does that consist of? God's law obviously and the testimony of Jesus, all of which are in the Bible, God's Word.

The Bible is our guide and our sure foundation, it is by God's Word that we can discern what is truth and what is error, and of course God's Holy Spirit. What have I said that is bibliolatry?.

To work out whether something or someone is Christian, we have to ask, do they follow Christ according to the Bible account or not. "By their fruits ye shall know them"

Your lack of use of the Word of God, is truly concerning. You also not being able to answer as to whether false religion comes from Satan or not, is also equally concerning.

God Bless,

Harlin

 

[Rev Wayne]

Your lack of use of the Word of God, is truly concerning

So is your selective vision:

None can deny that Christ taught a lofty morality. “Love one another: forgive those that despitefully use you and persecute you: be pure of heart, meek, humble, contented: lay not up riches on earth, but in Heaven: submit to the powers lawfully over you: become like these little children, or ye cannot be saved, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven: forgive the repentant; and cast no stone at the sinner, if you too have sinned: do unto others as ye would have others do unto you:” such, and not abstruse questions of theology, were His simple and sublime
teachings. The early Christians followed in His footsteps. The first preachers of the faith had no thought of domination. Entirely animated by His saying, that he among them should be first, who should serve with the greatest devotion, they were humble, modest, and charitable, and they knew how
to communicate this spirit of the inner man to the churches under their direction. These churches were at first but spontaneous meetings of all Christians inhabiting the same locality. A pure and severe morality, mingled with religious enthusiasm, was the characteristic of each, and excited the admiration even of their persecutors. Everything was in common among them; their property, their joys, and their sorrows. In the silence of night they met for instruction and to pray together. Their love-feasts, or fraternal repasts, ended these reunions, in which all
differences in social position and rank were effaced in the presence of a paternal Divinity. Their sole object was to make men better, by bringing them back to a simple worship, of which universal morality was the basis; and to end those numerous and cruel sacrifices which everywhere inundated with blood the altars of the gods. Thus did Christianity reform
the world, and obey the teachings of its founder. It gave to woman her proper rank and influence; it regulated domestic life; and by admitting the
slaves to the love-feasts, it by degrees raised them above that oppression under which half of mankind had groaned for ages. This, in its purity, as taught by Christ Himself, was the true primitive religion, as communicated by God to the Patriarchs. It was no new religion, but the reproduction of the oldest of all; and its true and perfect morality is the morality of Masonry, as is the morality of every creed of
antiquity. (Morals and Dogma, p. 540-541)

In stating this, Pike was not making a statement of Masonic opinion, he was citing a statement of Christian theology, first found in the writings of Augustine:

"That, in all times," says St. Augustine, "is the Christian religion, which to know and follow is the most sure and certain health, called according to that name, but not according to the thing itself, of which it is the name; for the thing itself, which is now called the Christian religion, really was known to the Ancients, nor was wanting at any time from the beginning of the human race, until the time when Christ came in the flesh; from whence the true religion, which had previously existed, began to be called Christian; and this in our days is the Christian religion, not as having been wanting in former times, but as having, in later times, received this name." The disciples were first called "Christians," at Antioch, when Barnabas and Paul began to preach there. (M&D, p. 262)

• Love one another; (John 15:12)
• Forgive those who despitefully use you; (Luke 11:4)
• be pure of heart, meek, humble, contented; (Matt. 5:5, 5:8, Heb. 13:5)
• lay not up riches on earth, but in Heaven; (Matt. 6:20)
• submit to the powers lawfully over you; (Heb. 13:7)
• become like these little children, or ye cannot be saved, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven; (Mark 10:14-15)
• forgive the repentant; (Matt. 18:22)
• cast no stone at the sinner, if you too have sinned; (John 8:7)
• do unto others as ye would have others do unto you; (Matt. 7:12)
• whoever among you is first, should serve with the greatest
  devotion; (Mark 10:43)
• meet for instruction and to pray together; (Heb. 10:25, James 5:16)

“This, in its purity, as taught by Christ Himself, was the true primitive religion, as communicated by God to the Patriarchs. It was no new religion, but the reproduction of the oldest of all; and its true and perfect morality is the morality of Masonry, as is the morality of every creed of antiquity.”

You also not being able to answer as to whether false religion comes from Satan or not, is also equally concerning.

Exactly where in the above do you find “false religions?” The above is the religion Masonry affirms, and it is straight from the Bible--and so says Pike, your chosen source to accuse. So the religious teaching that is the foundation of Masonry, which is the above, does not come from Satan, and your meandering musings about Satan's false religion has no relevance whatsoever to Freemasonry, much like your musing about Blavatsky and other pseudos, especially the (*heh*) female variety, who never were Masons.

The Bible is our guide and our sure foundation, it is by God's Word that we can discern what is truth and what is error, and of course God's Holy Spirit. What have I said that is bibliolatry?.

That's easy. You said:

The Bible determines who are Christians and who aren't, not our own personal understandings.

The Bible does nothing of the sort, God does.

"The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God." (Rom. 8:19)

It didn't say "the Bible" does this, but the Spirit. The Spirit is always the agent in regeneration in Scripture, not the Bible.

Your lack of use of the Word of God in seeing this is concerning. It shows:

(1) A lack of any foundation for making comments about someone else's "lack of use of the Word of God," and

(2) A lack of understanding of basic Christian concepts, which shows a lack of any foundation for making accusations against Masonry from a Christian standpoint.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

So are you implying that Christianity is FreeMasonry? I have spent two long brutal years refuting the sins of the occult and I know for certain that FreeMasonry is the worship of Satan. Titles don't really matter, all these radical groups live for the same line of manipulation and love the twist everything they can in order to deceive every nation. I have witnessed this evil and warn you or however is reading not to get into this trap by buying into this propaganda because you will lose your soul by doing so.

Wow.

So you believe that the Masons are Satan worshippers? To believe that after some study, you must believe that you understand exactly what Satanism is.

What similarities do you see exactly?

 

[Rev Wayne]

Just a note to address a point I missed in an earlier reply:

Baal worship was alive and kicking, as is evident in the book of Matt, chapter 12. The temple was not to be filled with the abominations of the pagans: ie worship and prayer to thier gods. Look at Simon Magus, and many other characters of the Bible, many were into false religion, or occultish practices.

I never said there were no such practices existent, you misconstrue my comments. I said baal worship disappeared. The following statement in the Catholic Encyclopedia confirms it:

The Babylonians invasions dealt to the Baal-worship in Palestine a deadly blow. At the restoration Israel shall be Yahweh's people, and He their God (Ezekiel 14:11) and Baal will become altogether a thing of the past.

This is absolutely correct. After being deported to Babylon and held captive 70 years, upon their release, as we say it here in the south, "that broke the dog from sucking eggs," and idol worship among the Israelites was history. You still see an occasional reference here and there, but usually in the epistles, and in places where the gospel was taken to people other than the Jews.

My only claim was that baal worship ceased. Show me baal worship in the NT, and I will stand corrected and retract the statement. But "idols" or "occultish practices" or "abominations of the pagans" is not evidence that baal was still worshipped.

 

[Rev Wayne]

14. Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD'S house which was toward the North, and behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.

15.Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thous shalt see greater abominations than these.

16. And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD'S house,and , behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east" Eze 8:13-16

The Lord calls this an abomination, and yet you are suggesting that I am disagreeing with Jesus. Sorry, but you are way off the mark here.

Well, if I'm off the mark, you led me there.

What in the world does an OT reference to worshipping the sun in the Temple, have to do with Jesus' comment that people of all nations can come to the temple and pray?

I think it's about time for the mischaracterization of my remarks to stop.

 

[JasonV]

Hello,

I tend to agree that most all symbols are pagan. Therefore I believe that they have no such place in Christianity, God and Satan do nothing in partnership, pagan symbols represent false dieties and also many have lewd sexual connotations, which also were practiced and embraced in pagan ceremonies, they do NOT belong in Christianity, even if most of the "Christian" world have adopted many of them.

Of course, since everything under the sun is from God, I have a hard time believing that anything can be truly or uniquely pagan in the strictest sense.

And I don't believe that "satan" is evil. I accept that Satan is as the Book of Job states, a partner of God's in fulfulling his will. Anything else is speculation.

The way we pray was demonstrated by Jesus himself, I do not believe it to be Pagan.

Fair enough. I was referring to kneeling, folding arms, bowing heads, reading from prayer books, that sort of thing. The actual content of the prayer is not what I was speaking about.

The Word of God was given by God, I do not consider it to be Pagan. God is Holy, His Word is Holy, I have no problem with that.

Ok. So I don't believe the Bible to be the infallable word of God. I consider it the highly flawed, grossly manipulated word of Men who may or may not have been inspired by God.

As a Christian, would one truly want to adopt symbology into your religion that traditionally embraces and is recognised in Satanism.

Is that possible? How?

 

[Harlin]

Hello,

None can deny that Christ taught a lofty morality. “Love one another: forgive those that despitefully use you and persecute you: be pure of heart, meek, humble, contented: lay not up riches on earth, but in Heaven: submit to the powers lawfully over you: become like these little children, or ye cannot be saved, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven: forgive the repentant; and cast no stone at the sinner, if you too have sinned: do unto others as ye would have others do unto you:” such, and not abstruse questions of theology, were His simple and sublime
teachings. The early Christians followed in His footsteps. The first preachers of the faith had no thought of domination. Entirely animated by His saying, that he among them should be first, who should serve with the greatest devotion, they were humble, modest, and charitable, and they knew how
to communicate this spirit of the inner man to the churches under their direction. These churches were at first but spontaneous meetings of all Christians inhabiting the same locality. A pure and severe morality, mingled with religious enthusiasm, was the characteristic of each, and excited the admiration even of their persecutors. Everything was in common among them; their property, their joys, and their sorrows. In the silence of night they met for instruction and to pray together. Their love-feasts, or fraternal repasts, ended these reunions, in which all
differences in social position and rank were effaced in the presence of a paternal Divinity. Their sole object was to make men better, by bringing them back to a simple worship, of which universal morality was the basis; and to end those numerous and cruel sacrifices which everywhere inundated with blood the altars of the gods. Thus did Christianity reform
the world, and obey the teachings of its founder. It gave to woman her proper rank and influence; it regulated domestic life; and by admitting the
slaves to the love-feasts, it by degrees raised them above that oppression under which half of mankind had groaned for ages. This, in its purity, as taught by Christ Himself, was the true primitive religion, as communicated by God to the Patriarchs. It was no new religion, but the reproduction of the oldest of all; and its true and perfect morality is the morality of Masonry, as is the morality of every creed of
antiquity. (Morals and Dogma, p. 540-541)

I have a problem with the statement above. Where is the Biblical reference for Jesus ever saying that he who serves with the most "devotion" will be first. That is a works based theology, and not Biblically supported. Jesus said, he who desires to be greatest will be the least.

As for the statement about the "inner man", that is New Age language, not Bible language. It was the Holy Spirit which worked in the Disciples that brought all into one accord, not the inner man.

This statement leaves out a very important part of Christianity, it is alright to forgive others, love them and so forth, but one can only do this if one is "in Christ". Love God and put Him first isn't mentioned, that is true Christianity, the rest just falls into place if you have that right.

Freemasonry doesn't put the emphsis on this point because within it's organisation it isn't important. AGAIN, I put to you, do you expect me to believe that this Albert Pike character is a Christian, as you would suggest, when he openly acknowledges pagan deities in his lodge, in direct violation to the 1st commandment of God. Sorry, just doesn't wash. I am also taking your silence on this matter as you don't have an explaination for that contradiction of his.

Exactly where in the above do you find “false religions?” The above is the religion Masonry affirms, and it is straight from the Bible--and so says Pike, your chosen source to accuse. So the religious teaching that is the foundation of Masonry, which is the above, does not come from Satan, and your meandering musings about Satan's false religion has no relevance whatsoever to Freemasonry, much like your musing about Blavatsky and other pseudos, especially the (*heh*) female variety, who never were Masons.

That is only one quote from one book that even only so slightly hints of Christianity, however, when placed within the context of many other Mason writers, and many other quotes by Pike himself, a clearer picture is seen. Anyway, just for the record, didn't you specifically state in the other thread about Masonry that "Freemasonry is not a religion, or not a religious organisation?" I think you even provided screeds and screeds of quotes to support your statement, and now you are so desperately trying to provide me with evidence that the Mason's are infact Christian. You seem really confused as to what the Mason's actually believe and its not helping your argument any.

A successor to Helena Petrova Blavatsky, Alice A Bailey, was a prolific New Age writer, she was considered a Prophet and her husband Foster Bailey was a high degree Mason, they both shared the same beliefs, those beliefs are shared by many Masons.

Quote:
The Bible determines who are Christians and who aren't, not our own personal understandings.

The Bible does nothing of the sort, God does.

"The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God." (Rom. 8:19)

It didn't say "the Bible" does this, but the Spirit. The Spirit is always the agent in regeneration in Scripture, not the Bible.

Your lack of use of the Word of God in seeing this is concerning. It shows:

(1) A lack of any foundation for making comments about someone else's "lack of use of the Word of God," and

(2) A lack of understanding of basic Christian concepts, which shows a lack of any foundation for making accusations against Masonry from a Christian standpoint.

I explained what I meant by this statement, and the Commandments and Testimony of Jesus are our way of knowing what is of God and what isn't. The Bible is how we, not God, know if someone is Christian, whether they are following Jesus and His instructions given by the Prophets and Himself. I don't disagree with the scripture you have provided. We are told to "test the spirits" to see if they are of God or not. How do we do this?..........By the light of God's Word, the Bible.

God Bless,

Harlin

 

[ReluctantProphet]

The Bible is but evidence of the light that is being reflected off it's hard surface. The Bible is much like the Moon where faces can be seen that aren't really there. Without the Sun, the Moon would be nothing but darkness, so it is worthy in its place for reflection into the darkness that which the Earth would hide from every heart.

But how can you test the purity of a light against what you see from the Moon? Until you truly see the Sun and it shines fully upon the Earth, your comparisons will be for naught.

"Judge not lest ye be judged" in the brightest of all light when the day arises.

"Condemn not lest ye be judged" by the lustful presumptions of your own heart.

Assumption is the Son of Lust and Lust the Father of all Sin. Why rush into assumptions and judgments before your calling to need?

If you but state was is false even once, how have you not forsaken Truth and stand against it? How long will you be drawn to defend your presumption against ever growing condemnation of the truth surrounding your future?

Strike at a serpent in the pale darkness and become one yourself. The angered wariness of the wolf is transmitted by his bite only to create more of the deception he feared.

Be not of only truth and you are only of the disease and the dying darkness incapable of holding light within you nor shining it unto others.

 

[Harlin]

I never said there were no such practices existent, you misconstrue my comments. I said baal worship disappeared. The following statement in the Catholic Encyclopedia confirms it:

What I have been trying to explain to you is this: Whether the pagans worshipped Baal, Beelzebub, Osiris, Mercury, Anubis, etc, it doesn't matter, they are all one and the same, they are all false gods, they don't exist, it is all Satan who has instigated worship for himself under these guises.

Okay, I accept that Baal Worship had disappeared for the sake of this discussion, but whoever it was that they, the pagans "divined", or worshipped, in whatever shape or form it was still Satan.

The name of the deity doesn't matter, infact there were many in the NT times who worshipped the goddess "Diana", this is still Satan being worshipped, for as in the pagan religion many gods and goddesses are shown to have dual sexual natures. Mercury, called the "male-female" was an androgyne, just for example.

So, it doesn't matter who you worship, if you are not worshipping the One True God, you are worshipping Satan.

God Bless,

Harlin