Satanism and Freemasonry.

[Albion]

Our colleague "seashale" raised the issue of oath-taking on another forum and this is my reply to it. Incidentally, I consider this to be one of the more reasonable of the many anti-Masonic criticisms that are often made. But while Masons do make certain promises, so do we all. We take oaths in court and swear on the Bible to tell the truth and only the truth. You take an oath if you are naturalized as a US citizen. And you take an oath when joining the military.

Hardly any denomination prohibits its members from doing any of that. Why so? It is because the verse that was cited from Matthew has a different focus and so does oath-taking in history, and that is the way the church looked at the matter.

It used to be the case that taking an oath meant not that you were promising to keep your word but that you were committing yourself to the overlordship of some suzerain to whom you were a vassal, and so on. Obviously, I'd say, anything like that falls into a different category, even though formal promises are made.

 

[Rick Otto]

Our colleague "seashale" raised the issue of oath-taking on another forum and this is my reply to it. Incidentally, I consider this to be one of the more reasonable of the many anti-Masonic criticisms that are often made. But while Masons do make certain promises, so do we all. We take oaths in court and swear on the Bible to tell the truth and only the truth. You take an oath if you are naturalized as a US citizen. And you take an oath when joining the military.

Hardly any denomination prohibits its members from doing any of that. Why so? It is because the verse that was cited from Matthew has a different focus and so does oath-taking in history, and that is the way the church looked at the matter.

It used to be the case that taking an oath meant not that you were promising to keep your word but that you were committing yourself to the overlordship of some suzerain to whom you were a vassal, and so on. Obviously, I'd say, anything like that falls into a different category, even though formal promises are made.

Wow. Alarmingly weak defense.
Everybody does it, eve in court (one of the more blatantly satanic institutions of society).

Citing a vague "different focus" and the fact that "...that is the way the church looked at the matter" doesn't stirrup my worship for authority very much, either.

 

[Albion]

Wow. Alarmingly weak defense.
Everybody does it, eve in court (one of the more blatantly satanic institutions of society).

.

Well, knowing your high personal standards, is it the case that you yourself have refused to swear in court, in the military, or in any other position where such is called for routinely? And why should Masons feel that doing this is wrong when almost all the Christian denominations are OK with the above examples of oath-taking?

 

[Rick Otto]

Well, knowing your high personal standards, is it the case that you yourself have refused to swear in court, in the military, or in any other position where such is called for routinely? And why should Masons feel that doing this is wrong when almost all the Christian denominations are OK with the above examples of oath-taking?

Incredible! In spite of my pointing out the fallacy, you try to apply it to me personally as if the position has no merit if an individual espousing it has a moment of compromise for whatever possible reason including being a victim of fraud or coercion.

"And why should Masons feel that doing this is wrong when almost all the Christian denominations are OK with the above examples of oath-taking?"

Why should anyone feel wrong about being sexually attracted to children when so many celebrities and politicians are doing it?

 

[Albion]

Incredible! In spite of my pointing out the fallacy

You must think that you actually pointed out some fallacy.

you try to apply it to me personally as if the position has no merit if an individual espousing it has a moment of compromise for whatever possible reason including being a victim of fraud or coercion.

I "applied it" to you (if that is correct to say; it really was nothing more than two questions) because I was interested to know if you took your own advice.

It appears from the non-answer that it is "no."

And with that, one more breathless accusation falls flat.

 

[Rick Otto]

You must think that you actually pointed out some fallacy.


I "applied it" to you (if that is correct to say; it really was nothing more than two questions) because I was interested to know if you took your own advice.

It appears from the non-answer that it is "no."

And with that, one more breathless accusation falls flat.

LOL! Just Like the police investigating themselves, you have found that you have done nothing wrong.
How can anyone not find that adorable?

 

[Albion]

LOL! Just Like the police investigating themselves, you have found that you have done nothing wrong.
How can anyone not find that adorable?

First, I have found out that the churches have found nothing wrong with this and, second, you can't say that you abide by your own professed standards. You would do so, however, if you actually thought oaths were wrong, period. So it looks like your point is made just for the sake of keeping the debate pot stirred.

That's a far cry from your speculation that I examined my own situation, took no account of any other evidence, and then declared my conclusion to be acceptable.

 

[americanvet]

Perhaps you're in the dark about "the builders" who rejected the true cornerstone.

I'm not.

 

[americanvet]

Gen 26:3, Num 30:1-2, Deut 23:21, Ps 132:11, Acts 18:18, Rev. 10:5-6

To name a few verses in addition to the one posed above regarding oaths.

So there verses saying to take oaths and verses saying no to take oaths. I believe a logical God would not and does not instruct us to do opposite things at the same time. What I do suggest is the issue at hand is a little more complex and something that individual Christians disagree on and entire denominations disagree on. Being it is such it should be no surprise that a Christian who belongs to a denomination that swears for religious purposes would see no issue with swearing for other purposes.

Note: For the purpose of this discussion only by denomination I am referring to RC, Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant.

 

[Rick Otto]

I'm not.

Thank you for your response.
BTW, did you feel flamed or goaded by me asking the question?

 

[Rick Otto]

First, I have found out that the churches have found nothing wrong with this and, second, you can't say that you abide by your own professed standards. You would do so, however, if you actually thought oaths were wrong, period. So it looks like your point is made just for the sake of keeping the debate pot stirred.

That's a far cry from your speculation that I examined my own situation, took no account of any other evidence, and then declared my conclusion to be acceptable.

Of course I'm all for stirring debate (as if that was naughty)!

 

[Rick Otto]

Gen 26:3, Num 30:1-2, Deut 23:21, Ps 132:11, Acts 18:18, Rev. 10:5-6

To name a few verses in addition to the one posed above regarding oaths.

So there verses saying to take oaths and verses saying no to take oaths. I believe a logical God would not and does not instruct us to do opposite things at the same time. What I do suggest is the issue at hand is a little more complex and something that individual Christians disagree on and entire denominations disagree on. Being it is such it should be no surprise that a Christian who belongs to a denomination that swears for religious purposes would see no issue with swearing for other purposes.

Note: For the purpose of this discussion only by denomination I am referring to RC, Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant.

Thank you for that.
Would you please post any or all of the oaths you have taken?

 

[americanvet]

Thank you for that.
Would you please post any or all of the oaths you have taken?

I will not. I made a promise to keep certain things private and I do my best to keep my promises.

 

[Rick Otto]

I will not. I made a promise to keep certain things private and I do my best to keep my promises.

Can you understand how a "free & open" society might have a problem with that?
I'm recalling the speech of JFK where he said secret societies were antithetical to the American spirit.

 

[Albion]

Can you understand how a "free & open" society might have a problem with that?
I'm recalling the speech of JFK where he said secret societies were antithetical to the American spirit.

There are few societies that freerer and more open in practice than Masonry, and most people understand that Masonry is not actually an example of a "secret society" merely because members promise not to divulge--themselves, that is--a few passwords or phrases, etc.

You can find almost everything online or on TV for yourself, if truth be told, much of which comes from Masonic sources, given in the interest of dispelling the silly myths that have been propagated against Masonry. Just try finding what goes on in the meetings of the Knights of Columbus or any college fraternity, if you really are interested in openness, and see how little you get!

What's more, there is nothing that would strike the onlooker as deserving of being kept secret if it were to be divulged--except that it's a token of one's commitment and sincerity to keep a trust. I certainly do not think that a member has any need to respond to a pointless dare, even if the material in question were not private.

 

[americanvet]

Can you understand how a "free & open" society might have a problem with that?
I'm recalling the speech of JFK where he said secret societies were antithetical to the American spirit.

Can I see how a free and open society might have a problem with a private club having private matters? No I cannot. All groups have private matters. All people have private matters. Keeping things private is 100% normal.

I recall a speech in which Christ mentioned a certain event which only the Father knew the time.

 

[Albion]

Can I see how a free and open society might have a problem with a private club having private matters? No I cannot. All groups have private matters. All people have private matters. Keeping things private is 100% normal.

Good point. What you say is certainly true...and no one calls such organizations "secret societies" because of it.

 

[Rick Otto]

There are few societies that freerer and more open in practice than Masonry, and most people understand that Masonry is not actually an example of a "secret society" merely because members promise not to divulge--themselves, that is--a few passwords or phrases, etc.

You can find almost everything online or on TV for yourself, if truth be told, much of which comes from Masonic sources, given in the interest of dispelling the silly myths that have been propagated against Masonry. Just try finding what goes on in the meetings of the Knights of Columbus or any college fraternity, if you really are interested in openness, and see how little you get!

What's more, there is nothing that would strike the onlooker as deserving of being kept secret if it were to be divulged--except that it's a token of one's commitment and sincerity to keep a trust. I certainly do not think that a member has any need to respond to a pointless dare, even if the material in question were not private.

So the whole oath is pointless because there is nothing behind the commitment.
How noble. Where do I sign up?

 

[Albion]

So the whole oath is pointless because there is nothing behind the commitment.

I didn't say, suggest, or imply that there's nothing behind the commitment.

 

[Rick Otto]

I didn't say, suggest, or imply that there's nothing behind the commitment.

If the dare is pointless, so is the oath.
Interstingly enough, "silly myths" are "propagated" by ex-masons:
ex- freemason testemony - Bing