The Dangers of Freemasonry

[Ishraqiyun]

No, what's even more strange is for a professing Christian pastor to give credence to Zoroastrian beliefs as the means that led them to discover the newly born true Savior, rather than attributing it to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Maybe the Holy Spirit had a hand in the formulation of the Zoroastrian beliefs that led the Magi to look forward to a coming savior and the heavenly signs that would signal his birth?

While the emphasis of a symbolic motif is stressed throughout the teachings of Freemasonry, nowhere in Masonry does it teach that Jesus Christ is the only true Savior to mankind.

Masonry isn't supposed to be a persons "religion". It doesn't demand that a person have such a view of Jesus nor does it demand that a person not have such views about him.

What you ignore there, we find Pike giving credence to Chrishna, the Hindoo Redeemer; and he says the first Masonic Legislator was Buddha; he also declares the Phœnician Cosmogony, like all others in Asia, was the Word of God; plus he says the doctrines of Ancient Sabeism being the faith of Hiram the King and his namesake the Artist, are of interest to all Masons; he calls the Chinese Lao-Tseu the mother of the Universe; he then proclaims Isis as the most exalted of the Deities; he gives credence to the Hindu Vedas' deity, Brahma; as well as giving credence to the Egyptian gods Amu_n and Osiris along with a host of other pagan gods; not to mention his support of the Kabalah, as well as the doctrines of Zoroaster.

Buddha wasn't a Mason. The Phoencians may very well have believed that the universe was created by the Word of God. Hiram Abif may have been Sabian (assuming he is an actual historical personage and not a myth). That doesn't imply that you have to be a Sabian in order to be a Mason. You don't have to agree with the religious views of Pike in order to be a Mason.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Just because the motif is an acknowledged fact among world religions doesn't exonerate Masonry from denying the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.

They don't deny it. Show me where "Masonry" makes any such denial.

While the emphasis of a symbolic motif is stressed throughout the teachings of Freemasonry, nowhere in Masonry does it teach that Jesus Christ is the only true Savior to mankind.

You might as well cricitize every organization in the world except the church, since the church is the only one that DOES teach this. But then, of course, there's a very good reason for that: the church was the only organization to which that Jesus gave that commission. It hardly seems in order to criticize a group for not doing that which the Lord Jesus commissioned only one organization to do.

The reason being is because they've used the acknowledged fact in order to establish the symbol of the motif (Hiram Abiff) so that its adherents can substitute it for the motif from any religion they wish to choose—and you know it!

People are always free to do whatever they're going to do in that regard. But Hiram Abif, like all of the allegories and symbolism of Masonry, derives from the Bible, and not from some other religion. And that, of course, can't be denied and can't be changed.

No, what's even more strange is for a professing Christian pastor to give credence to Zoroastrian beliefs as the means that led them to discover the newly born true Savior, rather than attributing it to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Nothing "strange" about that at all. These men have been called "magi" for a very good reason: the word is the plural of the Latin magus, which comes from the Greek Magos, which in turn derives from the Persian by way of the Avestan magauno. It refers to the priestly class of Zoroastrianism. In other words, these were not only Zoroastrians, they were priests of their religion, and thus were CLEARLY following the tenets of their religion, in which astrology was a central and fundamental part. They followed a star because their religion told them to seek for a star as the sign of this child to be born. It's that simple.

But stating that they followed the teachings of their religion in following the star, can hardly be deconstructed as you do, when you try to call that "giving credence to Zoroastrian beliefs." It's not the first time you've made the spurious presumption that to even mention another religion is the equivalent of approving it and adopting its beliefs as your own. I hardly see where you could draw such ridiculous inferences, but it's been pretty common from you for some time now.

And as Zoroastrian priests, it's clear who they were looking for:

He will come again from the distant heaven to judge the world, but he will come as man,--Sosios, the son of Zoroaster, the savior of the world. (Leighton Parks, His Star in the East: A Study in the Early Aryan Religions, p. 233-34)

Had they been following their Zoroastrian beliefs and astrological calculations to find "Sosiosch," they would have asked, "Where is Sosiosh the one who has been born son of Zoroaster? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

That would be a valid objection ONLY if they had come asking "Where is Jesus the one who has been born the king of the Jews?" They didn't, they only asked for a child, and told of following a star to find that child. Had they NOT been following their Zoroastrian beliefs and astrological calculations, they wouldn't have been "following a star" to begin with.

You don't really seem to have a grasp of the religion they followed. To them, astrology was the only thing that was pure, it was the only thing they would have followed, they had no concept of "following the Holy Spirit" as you falsely tried to attribute to them.

It's interesting to see how often you contradict yourself during these debates, and you don't even realize it. As I quoted from you above, earlier you said, "First of all, the discussion itself is talking about the Savior motif as it is found in many other religions." Now, seconds later, you say, "The discussion is about pre-Christian religions of antiquity." If you want maintain any amount of credibility, and have a "well-reasoned intellectual debate," you need to make up your mind pastor, as to what is actually being discussed in the material presented.

It would be quite refreshing if, just for once, you could actually follow a line of discussion. How you see the two statements as "contradictory" is beyond me. In the first, I was referring to PIRTLE'S discussion. In the second, I was referring to Pike's ORIGINAL discussion, which Pirtle misappropriated. In Pirtle's discussion, the Savior motif in other religions was clearly the matter being addressed. In Pike's discussion, the religions of antiquity were being discussed. Sorry you can't follow the fact that there were two separate discussions being referenced. Pirtle clearly misappropriated Pike, and he clearly added his own words to a Pike quote, treating it in a way Pike never intended. It's plagiarism, pure and simple

"Christians, Jesus" is there, so of course you meant what's missing is "Masons, Hiram."

Nope. "Christians, Jesus" is not there in the original Pike quote, just like I said. Pike was talking about "all antiquity," and thus was not so ignorant as to include Christianity as a religion of "antiquity."

To ignore such discourse and jump 33 pages later to an area where he sounds more "Christian" and call it his conclusions as a whole is not only deceptive and blatantly false, it's totally ridiculous!

Didn't "ignore" anything at all, just followed his usual rambling and all-comprehensive lists of various points found in other religions, which he always does, before bringing it back to the system which happened to be his own, Christianity. And with Pike, it could be 33 pages, or 133, and it would still be the same, he would come back to the premise with which he started, and make the conclusions he intended, in elaboration of that premise. If you truly knew how to read Pike, you would understand that. The length of discourse need not prevent the ability to carry an argument through that many pages. St. Paul does the same thing (minus the comparative religions course) with arguments he begins in the first chapter of Romans, and carries throughout the entier 16 chapters of the epistle, using the first 8 chapters to build his argument about God's dealings with humankind, then following with 8 more chapters describing the practical outworking of everything he laid out in the previous half of the epistle. Depending on the font and the type of Bible you may choose to use, that can be 33 pages as well. And Paul is not "jumping 33 pages later" to the conclusions he reaches either.

Especially when you consider his actual conclusion, which follows afterward:

We belong to no one creed or school. . . All that teach the cardinal tenets of Masonry we respect. . . Masonry also has her mission to perform. . . she invites all men of all religions to enlist under her banners

Rather than reproduce the whole quote, I simply reposted that which you chose to highlight in bold. Funny thing is, nothing you just highlighted changes the conclusions he made, which I already posted. These are simply an elaboration upon what he had already concluded, and which I had already posted. And I guess you must have missed this part:

The Gospel of Love He sealed with His life. The cruelty of the Jewish Priesthood, the ignorant ferocity of the mob, and the Roman indifference to barbarian blood, nailed Him to the cross, and He expired uttering blessings upon humanity.
Dying thus, He bequeathed His teachings to man as an inestimable inheritance. Perverted and corrupted, they have served as a basis for many creeds, and been even made the warrant for in-tolerance and persecution. We here teach them in their purity. They ARE our Masonry; for to them good men of all creeds can subscribe.

Sorry, but I see no purpose served in doing what you did, taking the material that followed what I posted, since it appears in the same chapter AFTER what I posted, and pretending that somehow you came up with "Pike's REAL conclusion," or whatever it is you're trying to claim. All you showed was, that even those of other religions teach the "cardinal tenets of Masonry" as well. That does not change one whit the things Pike concluded in regard to the teachings of Christ being "our Masonry."

The fact still remains, that what Pike was saying in his conclusion, is that Masonry's tenets are the tenets taught by Christ, and that good men of all creeds can subscribe to them as well.

 

[wayseer]

The Church is just as dangerous as Freemasonry.

 

[ks777]

What degree were you in, may I ask?

 

[O.F.F.]

They don't deny it. Show me where "Masonry" makes any such denial.

You were shown this in my previous post, and many times in the past on other threads, and posts where the discussion has taken place. You are simply too blind to see it, or too stubborn to admit it. After all, it is you who insists that it’s a “thoroughly, completely, entirely symbolic system.” That obviously includes the savior motif, “Hiram Abif.” The fact that Hiram is a “symbol” of the savior motif as interpreted by the individual Mason according to his own religious faith, and NOT solely Jesus, denies the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as the one and only Savior of the World. You have affirmed this yourself:

Once again, these things are interpreted by the individual and for himself only. It is in error to say that it is a collective reckoning and that every Mason "accepts every concept of Messiah that exists in every religion." Nothing could be further from the truth, and Masonry at every turn refutes any suggestion of it. The Mason will interpret in the symbols the one that applies to his own religious faith. For the Christian Mason, that is Jesus Christ.

Although you view the symbol “Hiram Abif” as Jesus, by your own affirmation, Freemasonry denies the uniqueness of Jesus. Your Masonic membership, coupled with this statement of yours, shows that you support the fact that he [Hiram] can be another savior-figure to Masons who reject Jesus Christ as Savior.

You might as well criticize every organization in the world except the church, since the church is the only one that DOES teach this.

No not every organization, just every “religious” organization—especially Freemasonry—since it claims to be a purveyor of religious truth; and any pastor who supports the denial of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ by their participation in this religious fraternity.

Hiram Abif, like all of the allegories and symbolism of Masonry, derives from the Bible, and not from some other religion.

Thanks for confirming that Hiram is just a symbol in Masonry. But the name Hiram Abif is not found in the Holy Bible. That is blatantly false; a bald-faced lie; and you know it!

They followed a star because their religion told them to seek for a star as the sign of this child to be born. It's that simple.

You can continue to make blasphemous claims if you wish; but what you attribute to a demonic, pagan force that led them to Him, the Bible attributes to the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, earlier you claimed the following:

After all, if you look at the list, isn't it clear that these wise men were searching for "Sosiosch," but accepted that Jesus was the right one when they found Him?

So by your own admission, the child they sought was “Sociosch” of Zoroastrianism, NOT Jesus of Nazareth, born in Bethlehem; King of the Jews.

Nothing "strange" about that at all. These men have been called "magi" for a very good reason: the word is the plural of the Latin magus, which comes from the Greek Magos, which in turn derives from the Persian by way of the Avestan magauno. It refers to the priestly class of Zoroastrianism. In other words, these were not only Zoroastrians, they were priests of their religion, and thus were CLEARLY following the tenets of their religion, in which astrology was a central and fundamental part.

That’s your theory from a Masonic perspective relying on non-Christian sources. But there are others, from a biblical point of view:

We know that the magi were wise men from "the East," most likely Persia, or modern-day Iran. This means the wise men traveled 800 to 900 miles to see the Christ child. Most likely, the magi knew of the writings of the prophet Daniel, who in time past had been the chief of the court seers in Persia. Daniel 9:24-27 includes a prophecy which gives a timeline for the birth of the Messiah. Also, the magi may have been aware of the prophecy of Balaam (who was from the town of Pethor on the Euphrates River near Persia) in Numbers 24:17. Balaam's prophecy specifically mentions a “star coming out of Jacob.”

The wise men were guided to look for the King of the Jews by a miraculous stellar event, the "Star of Bethlehem," which they called "His star" (Matthew 2:2). They consulted with King Herod in Jerusalem concerning the birth of Christ and were so directed to Bethlehem (Matthew 2:4-8). They followed God's guidance joyfully (Matthew 2:10). Their gifts for Jesus were costly, and they worshiped Him. God warned them in a dream against returning to Herod, so, in defiance of the king, they left Judea by another route (Matthew 2:12).

So, the magi were men who 1) read and believed God's Word, 2) sought Jesus, 3) recognized the worth of Christ, 4) humbled themselves to worship Jesus, and 5) obeyed God rather than man. They were truly wise men!

What does the Bible say about the three wise men (Magi)? From GotQuestions.org

This theory makes more sense than yours, and it is more encouraging from a Christian perspective. On the one hand, I am appalled that a professing Christian pastor wouldn’t prefer it; but since you are a Mason, it makes perfect sense that you don’t. Nevertheless, if the Holy Spirit led them in the end (Matthew 2:12), it stands to reason that it was He who led them from the start (Matthew 2:1). It is also more in line with the rest of Scripture, namely John 14:6 and 16:13-14; as described by a brother in the Lord from South Africa:

Today wise people still seek to worship Jesus, the [real] Messiah. They look for ways to worship, willing to traverse great distances and overcome any obstacles to be in the presence of the Lord. I believe today too there is a Star shining in the expanse over humanity. A Star announcing the reality of the coming of Jesus, leading those who will follow Him to the very presence of the King of kings and Lord of lords. A Star who's main purpose is to lead people to Christ. This Star is the Holy Spirit! Jesus said: "He (The Holy Spirit) will guide you in all the Truth (John 16:13) Jesus is the truth! (John 14:6)" The Holy Spirit testifies about Jesus. He leads us to Jesus. He glorifies Jesus. If we follow Him we will find Jesus every time! [emphasis added]

Follow the Star: Living in the Spirit by Rudi Swanepoel

Too bad you don't seem to agree with either of these assessments.

But stating that they followed the teachings of their religion in following the star, can hardly be deconstructed as you do, when you try to call that "giving credence to Zoroastrian beliefs." …the spurious presumption that to even mention another religion is the equivalent of approving it and adopting its beliefs as your own...

Giving “credence” doesn’t have to be taken to the nth degree of the term. It can be as simple as in this case; you giving “credit” to a pagan religion for leading these men to Christ, rather than the Holy Spirit.

According to Matthew 12:22-32, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (the unpardonable sin) is knowingly and intentionally attributing a work of God to Satan, or attributing a work of Satan to God. — IndependenceBaptist.org. Although I do not believe you’ve adopted Zoroastrian beliefs as your own, your claim sounds blasphemous at best; even if there is no malice intent in your heart to speak blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

And as Zoroastrian priests, it's clear who they were looking for:

“He will come again from the distant heaven to judge the world, but he will come as man,--Sosios, the son of Zoroaster, the savior of the world.” (Leighton Parks, His Star in the East: A Study in the Early Aryan Religions, p. 233-34)

As I showed earlier, that would be a valid conclusion ONLY if you rely SOLELY on a non-Christian source, which is apparently all you did.

That would be a valid objection ONLY if they had come asking "Where is Jesus the one who has been born the king of the Jews?" They didn't, they only asked for a child, and told of following a star to find that child.

Again, let me point to the Bible verse in question to show you what king they were asking for:

Matthew 2:2

Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him. (emphasis added)

Unless you are trying to equate the “child” (the one who has been born king of the Jews) they were looking for with Sosios, the son of Zoroaster, your point makes absolutely NO sense!

Had they NOT been following their Zoroastrian beliefs and astrological calculations, they wouldn't have been "following a star" to begin with.

Oh really pastor, so if I understand you correctly, God can speak through the mouth of a donkey (Numbers 22:28-30); and heal a blind man with mud made from His holy saliva (John 9:6); but He didn’t lead men to the baby Jesus by a “star,” because that could have ONLY happened purely by them following their Zoroastrian beliefs and astrological calculations. That’s absurd, especially coming from one who professes to be a Christian pastor!

You don't really seem to have a grasp of the religion they followed.

Nor do I really want to; but that's not the issue. The problem is, you don’t really seem to have a grasp of the religion you claim to follow. The more you post, the more you seem to be following the Religion of Freemasonry, instead of Christianity.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Although you view the symbol “Hiram Abif” as Jesus, by your own affirmation, Freemasonry denies the uniqueness of Jesus. Your Masonic membership, coupled with this statement of yours, shows that you support the fact that he [Hiram] can be another savior-figure to Masons who reject Jesus Christ as Savior.

The fact that you try to accuse me because of what some non-Christian believes, rather than basing your accusation on my own beliefs, totally invalidates your entire objection. To illustrate: Marcus Borg, of the Jesus Seminar, does not believe in a literal resurrection. Would you agree, when someone raises the objection, that because HE believes as he does, that YOUR beliefs are affected? I hardly think you'd agree.

Then consider this: Marcus Borg also professes to be CHRISTIAN! So if YOU are not required to consider it a matter that affects YOUR beliefs, even though this belief is held by someone WITHIN the Christian faith: then how much MORE absurd is it, to be trying to insist that the beliefs of someone who is NOT EVEN CHRISTIAN, be the focal point of an accusation against a fellow Christian???

Let's face it, A Christ motif in some other religion, which leads that person to see Hiram as someone other than Jesus, no more affects MY beliefs, than the "non-literal resurrection motif" of someone professing Christianity, affects YOURS.

Freemasonry denies the uniqueness of Jesus.

A patently false statement. Freemasonry doesn't declare it, that can certainly be stated, but "not declariing it" and "denying it" are two very different propositions.

No not every organization, just every “religious” organization—especially Freemasonry—since it claims to be a purveyor of religious truth; and any pastor who supports the denial of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ by their participation in this religious fraternity.

Wake up and smell the coffee: since you participate in the same organization as Marcus Borg, then by your own principle of association, you deny a literal resurrection by said participation. Or, at least, that's the way the principle works, the way you're applying this.

So by your own admission, the child they sought was “Sociosch” of Zoroastrianism, NOT Jesus of Nazareth, born in Bethlehem; King of the Jews.

Their religion told them to look for a child. But their religion did not specifically say, "Look for Jesus of Nazareth" (which would have been an anachronism anyway, since He was not "of Nazareth" until later). If they truly were looking for the one who in their religion would be comparable to "messiah" as in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, then it would have been Sosiosch.

Giving “credence” doesn’t have to be taken to the nth degree of the term. It can be as simple as in this case; you giving “credit” to a pagan religion for leading these men to Christ, rather than the Holy Spirit.

I don't know why you seem to think this has to be about "giving credit." I was simpy stating the reason they began their journey. But don't ask me, ask them:

The reason they came? "FOR we have seen His star in the east." "For," "Due to," "because," there are a number of other synonymous introductory words or phrases that might have introduced that sentence. The "FOR" is significant, because the use of it indicates their explanation for why they have come seeking: they saw the star, and they came. And there it is, in plain language, from the text itself.

As I showed earlier, that would be a valid conclusion ONLY if you rely SOLELY on a non-Christian source, which is apparently all you did.

Are you kidding??? Leighton Parks was an Episcopal CLERGYMAN! The book I cited from is written as a Christian theological work. Maybe you would have found that out if you had done any valid research rather than just depending on automatic denials and accusations.

Even so, I actually consulted a number of sources. And the reason that one was chosen was, he makes the direct connection between Jesus the Messiah and the Messiah motif of Sosiosch in Zoroastrian traditions. But of course, you can still get it from other Christian commentaries, even though they do not all have the awareness of other traditions, or do not bring it to bear on the discussion. I doubt you'll deny credibility to Matthew Henry on the passage in question, having cited him yourself in the past:

II. Who and what these wise men were; they are here called Magoi--Magicians. Some that it in a good sense; the Magi among the Persians were their philosophers and their priests; nor would they admit any one for their king who had not first been enrolled among the Magi; others think they dealt in unlawful arts; the word is used of Simon, the sorcerer (Acts 8:9,11), and of Elymas, the sorcerer (Acts 13:6), nor does the scripture use it in any other sense.

You would have them as Jewish believers; Matthew Henry does not:

This we are sure of, 1. That they were Gentiles, and not belonging to the commonwealth of Israel.

But of course, you REALLY should have been able to pick that up from the text itself, when they inquired, "Where is he that is born the king of the Jews?" Notice they didn't ask "where is he that is born OUR king," but instead "king of the Jews." "Jews" is spoken of in the text in a manner that clearly indicates they spoke of others, not themselves. Henry's comment about the consistent scriptural use of "Magoi" as magicians, only serves to support that even further.

Henry does, though, mention the theory you propose, he just doesn't necessarily agree with it, and in fact, seems to disagree:

Some think this star put them in mind of Balaam's prophecy, that a star should come out of Jacob, pointing at a sceptre, that shall rise out of Israel; see Numbers 24:17. Balaam came from the mountains of the east, and was one of their wise men. Others impute their enquiry to the general expectation entertained at that time, in those eastern parts, of some great prince to appear. Tacitus, in his history (lib. 5), takes notice of it; Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum literis contineri, eo ipso tempore fore, ut valesceret oriens, profectique Judæa rerum potirentur--A persuasion existed in the minds of many that some ancient writings of the priests contained a prediction that about that time an eastern power would prevail, and that persons proceeding from Judea would obtain dominion. Suetonius also, in the life of Vespasian, speaks of it; so that this extraordinary phenomenon was construed as pointing to that king; and we may suppose a divine impression made upon their minds, enabling them to interpret this star as a signal given by Heaven of the birth of Christ.

Unless you are trying to equate the “child” (the one who has been born king of the Jews) they were looking for with Sosios, the son of Zoroaster, your point makes absolutely NO sense!

Nobody's trying to "equate" anything at all. I was simply pointing out the most likely manner in which this probably transpired. They went looking for a prince, who was to be born of the Jews, but obviously was to be of greater significance than merely to the Jews. That doesn't mean they were under any compulsion of seeking out a biblical prophecy. Heck, it doesn't even necessarily mean they were seeking Sosiosch either, for that matter. Matthew Henry has it as a prince of some significance, so it need not mean their own Messiah motif at all. Sure, some translations say "worship," but what they said they were going to do was bow (proskunew), which was a part of their eastern customs of behavior in the presence of dignitaries.

Oh really pastor, so if I understand you correctly, God can speak through the mouth of a donkey (Numbers 22:28-30); and heal a blind man with mud made from His holy saliva (John 9:6); but He didn’t lead men to the baby Jesus by a “star,” because that could have ONLY happened purely by them following their Zoroastrian beliefs and astrological calculations. That’s absurd, especially coming from one who professes to be a Christian pastor!

I don't recall saying that it could "only" have happened that way, that's your words. I simply pointed out the most likely, and the one borne out by both internal and external considerations.

All you're trying to do is to substitute the opinions of those who feel a need to explain away the facts, in order to try to deny that God can deal with anyone but Jews or Christians. The funny thing is, they try to do this with Balaam, who was himself not Jewish! Now THAT'S the absurd position.

Nor do I really want to; but that's not the issue. The problem is, you don’t really seem to have a grasp of the religion you claim to follow.

I know enough to know when someone witnesses that they came following a star. Sure, God could have been guiding that process, but there is no indication that they knew that. they followed a star, and did so because a tradition within their religion told them this star was of great import. You don't really seem to have a grasp of this Bible you claim to read.

The more you post, the more you seem to be following the Religion of Freemasonry, instead of Christianity.

Coming from someone who called my source "non-Christian," who ignored the plain indication found in the wise men's own words, that they came because they saw the star, and who can't see in a comment about "king of the Jews" that the one stating it is obviously not Jewish, I can see why you'd feel that way, since you haven't gotten anything else right either.

 

[LanceCohen]

I am rather late in this discussion, but this is what I understand.

If there is a golf club where anyone of any beliefs can be members, and a pastor is a member of such a club, there would not be any problem, would it?

Now suppose another kind of club, where people who believe ignorance, evil and misunderstanding ought to be eliminated amongst people and in the world, and they gather to discuss these, and how their beliefs can become reality in the world.

And as these values are often related to and perhaps only meaningful in religions, moral teachings, and philosophies, it is most likely people joining the club, and holding the club's beliefs and values, have some religious affiliation, and other philosophical inclinations, and certainly not only Christian. So now if a pastor is to be member of this club, is there a problem?

I suppose it depends what is the real motive of the pastor, and what are the fruits of this club and of the pastor. If the pastor intention is to share his Christian ideas and knowledge, and what he sees as truth, as it may be helpful to the club, and each man is free to believe what he wants or not, is that a problem?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

For the matters of evil and so on, are spiritual matters, and action on these matters involve the spiritual realm too, and there is a need to identify spirits and so on, eg Satan the Father of Evil, and to rid of Evil is to rid it of Satan or at least challenge amd oppose him.

But then others of other religious persuasions or philosophical inclinations may find such notions ludicrous and even to be the very opposite, ie Satan is not Evil, but the harbinger of Light, and so on. The pastor can of course leave as such, say what he has to say, but make no attempt to try to reconcile light and darkness. Then it is no problem, is there?

But of course when there is a compulsion for all members of the club to believe, ie to submit and commit one's spirit to, and thereby act accordingly, a doctrine that seeks to reconcile, if not just passively accept the validity of any such reconciliation, then it is certain a line is crossed.

For the apostle Paul warned:

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers.
For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common?
Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

Further if this club makes itself a secret club, in that not everything that goes on behind its closed doors are all public knowledge, does it make a difference? I suppose it does, very much, as whatever declared publicly, eg fight against ignorance, misunderstanding, etc, may just be smoke screen, to deceive, to confuse, a veneer for public acceptance, but behind which to hide the real truth, for which something totally contrary cannot be at all discounted, if not a certainty. For how else can the need for secrecy be explained?

 

[ks777]

In case people didn't see Haziel's thread:


YouTube - HOT - William Cooper interviews a 32 DEGREE FREEMASON (CAJI INFILTRATOR) - Part 3
Part 3 of 9.

 

[O.F.F.]

If there is a golf club where anyone of any beliefs can be members, and a pastor is a member of such a club, there would not be any problem, would it?

No it wouldn't, but we are NOT talking about a "golf club" or just any club, we are talking about a "religious institution." As such, if the religious beliefs of the institution are NOT solely Christian, then NO Christian should be part of it, especially a Christian pastor. It destroys their witness and undermines the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[O.F.F.]

The fact that you try to accuse me because of what some non-Christian believes, rather than basing your accusation on my own beliefs, totally invalidates your entire objection.

No it does NOT! You stand accused because you know Freemasonry is a "religious institution" that implies by its teachings that all religions are valid and true, regardless of their inconsistencies with each other. To participate in it, while acknowledging its members as spiritual brothers is anathema to the Body of Christ. Your membership in the Masonic Order gives tacit approval to those who worship false gods. It's as simple as that. Ignore it as much as you want, it won't change that fact.

To illustrate: Marcus Borg, of the Jesus Seminar...

It's ridiculously foolish of you to claim that the "Jesus Seminar" cult is Christian. It's as ridiculously foolish as claiming that the Mormon Church, Jehovah Witness' Watch Tower Society, or Freemasonry is Christian. Therefore, the remainder of your post is NOT worthy of merit for a reply.

 

[Rev Wayne]

You stand accused because you know Freemasonry is a "religious institution" that implies by its teachings that all religions are valid and true, regardless of their inconsistencies with each other.

False again. Masonry has stated from the beginning that there is a core of religious truths common to all religions. Do good to others, help those who need help, intervene for the oppressed, etc. Jesus said that all these are best summed up in the general instruction, "you shall love your neighbor as yourself." Not surprisingly, Masonry says the same thing.

There are three great duties which, as a Mason, you are charged to inculcate—to God, your neighbor and yourself To God, in never mentioning his name but with that reverential awe which us due from a creature to his Creator; to implore his aid in all your laudable undertakings, and to esteem him as the chief good. To your neighbor, in acting upon the square, and doing unto him as you wish he should do unto you. And to yourself, in avoiding all irregularity and intemperance, which may impair your faculties, or debase the dignity of your profession. A zealous attachment to these duties will insure public and private esteem. (Ahiman Rezon, 2010, p. 107)

Every Free Mason is required to worship God in the manner and form which he conscientiously believes to bemost acceptable in His sight, and most conformable toHis word. In short, the Mason’s moral and religiousduties are comprised in this command: Thou shalt love theLord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself. (Ahiman Rezon, 2010, p. 168)

Wow, three great duties, one being "do to your neighbor as you wish done to you"; and a summation of all Masonic duties that is described as "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself."

Since a Mason's duties are basically summed up in the same statement which Jesus said was the summation of Christian duties, I don't understand what your problem is, unless it's voluntary myopia.

To participate in it, while acknowledging its members as spiritual brothers is anathema to the Body of Christ.

Wrong again. The relationship is fraternal:

By the exercise of brotherly love, we are taught to regard the whole human species as one family; the high and low, rich and poor; who, as created by one Almighty Parent, and inhabitants of the same planet, are to aid, support, and protect each other. On this principle, Masonry unites men of every country, sect, and opinion, and conciliates true friendship among those who might otherwise have remained at a perpetual distance. (Ahiman Rezon, 2010, p. 103)

"Masonry unites MEN," not religions, and does so for the purpose of "true friendship," not "spiritual brotherhood."

Your membership in the Masonic Order gives tacit approval to those who worship false gods.

My membership in the Masonic Order says no such thing. I haven't met a man in lodge YET who "worships false gods." Many of the same men I see in lodge, I will see in church on Sunday morning. The rest of them I probably won't, but not because they are "worshipping false gods"; they simply belong to churches other than my own.

It's ridiculously foolish of you to claim that the "Jesus Seminar" cult is Christian. It's as ridiculously foolish as claiming that the Mormon Church, Jehovah Witness' Watch Tower Society, or Freemasonry is Christian. Therefore, the remainder of your post is NOT worthy of merit for a reply.

Since your accusation is made, either partially or wholly, because of your personal views of affiliations, I was simply trying to pick a situation that would be completely analogous. If you don't like the example chosen, then choose any Christian denomination you wish. I'm sure you don't see eye to eye with Methodism, yet you have never tried to make the ridiculous claim that they are a "cult." The point was, and is, I bet you STILL would not wish to have your Christian beliefs called into question on the basis of what Methodists believe, nor on the basis of what anyone believes, other than you yourself. And if you claimed any differently, I'd have to figure you were lying.

It's the same with me, you can't judge me by someone else's beliefs. I affirm all points of the Nicene Creed, and consider myself a true believer in Christ. Now, if you wish to call the Nicene Creed "cultic," that's quite another matter.

 

[O.F.F.]

"Masonry unites MEN," not religions, and does so for the purpose of "true friendship," not "spiritual brotherhood."

Nothing could be further from the Masonic truth! It unites men from ALL RELIGIONS, not only for friendship, but as a "SPIRITUAL BROTHERHOOD." There are a myriad of Masonic sources that declare, in some form or fashion, their spiritual brotherhood.

It is spiritual in that every Mason must believe in a Supreme Being of personal choice and in the immortality of the soul; a Volume of Sacred Law must be open on every lodge altar; a candidate takes his Obligations upon his knees at this altar; and they are told before engaging in any important undertaking a Mason must seek aid and guidance through prayer from the Great Architect of the Universe (GAOTU).

They are told; at the altar of Freemasonry all men bring their most votive offerings. Around it all men, whether they have received their teachings from Confucius, Zoroaster, Moses, Mohammed or the founder of the Christian religion - just as long as they believe in the universality of the fatherhood of God and universality of the brotherhood of man - meet upon a common level. Furthermore, they are told, that a Mason may with clear conscience worship at any altar in the world, for he finds the touch of the Grand Architect in every one.

They are told this is religion, but it is not a religion. They’re told this is faith, but it is not a faith confined to any one creed. They are told this is worship, but it is not a worship chained to any one Altar. And, in the great words of the First Book of Constitutions, they are told, it is the religion in which all men agree. It is the ground which underlies all religions, all churches, and all creeds.

Every candidate for Masonry is dedicated to the Lodge through a prayer of sanctification by the principles of Freemasonry. The Grand Lodge of California, which is recognized by yours of South Carolina, tells its newly made Entered Apprentices that the goal of Masonic initiation is—that of spiritual rebirth. One prominent Masonic author put it this way, "You have entered a new world. Symbolically and spiritually you have been reborn. This started the moment you were prepared to become a Freemason."

Freemasonry applies spiritual significance to the working tools of every Masonic degree. The term "brother" in Freemasonry is considered a "sacred appellation." Masons like to describe the special quality of their fraternalism as the "Mystic Tie," a phrase which acknowledges the spiritual quality of their associating and working together.

Freemasonry is the only fraternity in the world that I am aware of, which offers funeral services for its deceased members. If there is any other fraternity that offers them as well, then they too are a spiritual brotherhood. The Master Mason learns that true Freemasonry gives to a man a well-spent life, and assurance of a glorious immortality. You cannot deny that these things are said of the Masonic Order. Therefore, to say that Freemasonry is not a spiritual brotherhood is a gross falsehood; and you know it!

As one Christian apologist concluded; "Freemasonry takes men of different religions, initiates them into its spiritual fold in the name of GAOTU, provides for them a way of salvation and, as we have seen in more than a few cases, declares that its deceased brethren have entered the Celestial Lodge above. Since belief in Christ is absolutely necessary for one to be saved, Freemasonry, if it continues to promulgate such teachings, will always be at odds with the Christian faith. Christians, therefore, should have nothing to do with Freemasonry because it undercuts the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

 

[Rev Wayne]

There are a myriad of Masonic sources that declare, in some form or fashion, their spiritual brotherhood.

Of what type, Michael? The ones you are always labeling as "personal opinion" whenever WE post them, but seem to have authority enough when YOU post them? Or from rituals and monitors, which seem to be the requirement only when WE are the ones posting?

You can't ever seem to get the standard right on the matter anyway, so why try? What I posted was from our Ahiman Rezon, the manual used for South Carolina, and it is current up to the year 2010. I posted from the monitor to avoid your eternal attempts to challenge the validity of sources other than monitors and rituals; and I posted from that particular one, more for the value of its 2010 date than for its being more connected to me personally, to avoid yet another accusation you always make, that if material is accompanied by an older date it is somehow not good enough.

As for the content of your post, you are simply re-hashing old, multi-refuted arguments you have been trying to justify for years, and without success. I notice you provide no support for them, and with good reason: if you do, you know it will simply be refuted again as it always has been.

Or maybe you just know, that what I said was true, and can be supported from practically any place you care to look in Masonry. For instance:

There are three great duties which as a Mason you are charged to inculcate—to God, to your neighbor and to yourself. To God, in never mentioning His name, save with that reverential awe which is due from a creature to his Creator; to implore His aid in all your laudable undertakings, and esteem Him as the chief good. To your neighbor, in acting upon the square, and doing unto him as you would that he should do unto you. And to yourself, in avoiding all irregularities and intemperance which may impair your faculties or debase the dignity of your profession. A zealous attachment to these duties will insure public and private esteem. (Arkansas Monitor, p. 38-39)

As a Mason you are to regard the volume of the Sacred Law as the great light in your profession, to consider it as the unerring standard of truth and justice, and to regulate your actions by the divine precepts it contains. In it you will learn the important duties that you owe to God, your neighbor, and yourself. TO GOD, by never mentioning his name but with that awe and reverence which are due from the creature to his Creator, by imploring his aid in all your lawful undertakings, and by looking up to him in every emergency for comfort and support. TO YOUR NEIGHBOR, by acting with him upon the square, by rendering him every kind office which justice or mercy may require, by relieving his distresses and soothing his afflictions,and by doing to him as, in similar cases, you would that he should do unto you. And TO YOURSELF, by such a prudent and well-regulated course of discipline as may best conduce to the preservation of your corporeal and mental faculties in their fullest energy, thereby enabling you to exert the talents wherewith God has blest you, as well to his glory as to the welfare of your fellow-creatures. (Arizona Monitor, p. 22-23)

There are three great duties which, as a Mason, you are charged to inculcate to God, your neighbor, and yourself. To God, in never mentioning His name but with that reverential awe which is due from a creature to his Creator; to implore His aid in all your laudable undertakings, and to esteem Him as the chief good. To your neighbor, in acting upon the square, and doing unto him as you wish he should do unto you. And to yourself, in avoiding all irregularity and intemperance, which may impair your faculties or debase the dignity of your profession. A zealous attachment to these duties will insure public and private esteem. (Maine Blue Book, p. 12-13)

There are three great duties which, as a Mason, you are charged to inculcate—to God, to your neighbor and to yourself. To God, in never mentioning His name but with that reverential awe which is due from a creature to his Creator, to implore His aid in all your laudable undertakings, and esteem Him as the chief good. To your neighbor, in acting upon the square, and doing unto him as you wish he should do unto you. And to yourself, in avoiding all irregularity and intemperance, which may impair your faculties, or debase the dignity of your profession. A zealous attachment to these duties will insure public and private esteem. (Colorado Monitor, p. 35-36)

There are three great duties which, as a Mason, you are charged to inculcate: to God, your neighbor and yourself. To God, in never mentioning His name, but with that reverential awe which is due from a creature to his Creator; to implore His aid in all your laudable undertakings, and to esteem Him as the chief good. To your neighbor, in acting upon the square, and doing unto him as you wish he should do unto you. And to yourself, in avoiding all irregularity and intemperance, which may impair your faculties or debase the dignity of your profession. A zealous attachment to these duties will insure public and private esteem. (Georgia Monitor, p. 33)

There is very little difference other than minor changes in wording. And this is only a smidgin, a small cross-section accomplished in a search that took less than ten minutes to assemble. Do this same search in a broader, more comprehensive manner, and you will find that this statement is used throughout the Masonic system. It is included in the Entered Apprentice charge, and is a statement of the primary duties Masonry teaches.

Since belief in Christ is absolutely necessary for one to be saved, Freemasonry, if it continues to promulgate such teachings, will always be at odds with the Christian faith.

"Doing unto your neighbor as you wish he should do unto you" is "at odds with the Christian faith?"

How do you propose to make this stand, dear heart, when: (1) its emphasis upon reverence before God is built upon the same model as the OT--reticence for pronouncing the sacred name (YHWH); (2) its central tenet in regard to relationships with others is the same as that offered by Jesus--to "do unto others as you wish he should do unto you"; and (3) its model of self-discipline and temperance is also upheld by Christian teaching?

This is standard fare for the Entered Apprentice charge that is given during the degree work to every Mason who takes even the first degree. These are considered to comprise the gist of Masonic teaching, its three greatest duties. You have yet to show what is "at odds with the Christian faith" about these things.

 

[O.F.F.]

Do this same search in a broader, more comprehensive manner, and you will find that "this statement" is used throughout the Masonic system. (quoted emphasis added)

The 'golden rule' statement does NOT nullify Freemasonry from being a SPIRITUAL BROTHERHOOD of a multiplicity of religions! It is simply your futile attempt to create a 'red herring' in order to avoid the facts presented to you in my last post. Sorry, but it won't work; but your deception is duly noted.

You have yet to show what is "at odds with the Christian faith" about these things.

No, the problem is, you have yet to show how what was presented in my last post is NOT "at odds with the Christian faith." Why? Because you CAN'T!

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Nothing could be further from the Masonic truth! It unites men from ALL RELIGIONS

So does the USA. People of different religions united under the same flag and government. Fellow brother and sister- Americans. Is that bad as well?

 

[O.F.F.]

So does the USA. People of different religions united under the same flag and government. Fellow brother and sister- Americans. Is that bad as well?

That is a false analogy; the US government is NOT a religious fraternity. People are born Americans, or become one through naturalization. We are NOT initiated to become a citizen of this country. More importantly, the US doesn't require belief in a Supreme Being, nor do we kneel at a common altar, or say or do any of the other things I addressed in my earlier post.

 

[ghendricks63]

Membership requirements


Freemasonry initiation. 18th century



Contrary to common misconception, joining Freemasonry is not by invitation only. In fact, in many jurisdictions, the brothers of the lodge are not allowed to ask potential candidates to join (in these jurisdictions, the brethren must wait for the potential candidate to inquire).Other jurisdictions allow for varying degrees of solicitation.
However the initial introduction is made, the official process of becoming a Mason begins when a candidate for Freemasonry formally petitions a lodge. The brethren will then investigate the candidate, to assure themselves of his good character, and hold a secret ballot election (often using an old fashioned ballot box). The number of adverse votes needed to reject a candidate varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (in some, one "black ball" is enough to reject, in others up to three are required).

General requirements


Generally, to be accepted for initiation as a regular Freemason, a candidate must:

• Be a man who comes of his own free will.
• Believe in a Supreme Being (the form of which is left to open interpretation by the candidate).
• Be at least the minimum age (from 18–25 years old depending on the jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions the son of a Mason, known as a "Lewis", may join at an earlier age than others).
• Be of good morals, and of good reputation.
• Be of sound mind and body (Lodges had in the past denied membership to a man because of a physical disability; however, now, if a potential candidate says a disability will not cause problems, it will not be held against him).
• Be free-born (or "born free", i.e., not born a slave or bondsman). As with the previous, this is entirely an historical holdover, and can be interpreted in the same manner as it is in the context of being entitled to write a will. Some jurisdictions have removed this requirement.
• Be capable of furnishing character references, as well as one or two references from current Masons, depending on jurisdiction.

Some Grand Lodges in the United States have an additional residence requirement, candidates being expected to have lived within the jurisdiction for a certain period of time, typically six months.

Membership and religion

Freemasonry explicitly and openly states that it is neither a religion nor a substitute for one. "There is no separate Masonic God", nor a separate proper name for a deity in any branch of Freemasonry.
Regular Freemasonry requires that its candidates believe in a Supreme Being, but the interpretation of this term is subject to the conscience of the candidate. Consequently, Freemasonry accepts men from a range of faiths, including (but not limited to) Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Sikhism. As a result, Freemasonry uses Volume of the Sacred Law (VSL) as a generic term for a religious book. As UGLE-based Freemasonry also requires that a VSL be present on the Altar, many Lodges have multiple VSLs available, and a candidate can be obligated on his book of choice.

Wikipedia

 

[Rev Wayne]

The 'golden rule' statement does NOT nullify Freemasonry from being a SPIRITUAL BROTHERHOOD of a multiplicity of religions!

Nor are they any such thing, on your merely claiming it to be.

It is simply your futile attempt to create a 'red herring' in order to avoid the facts presented to you in my last post.

Actually, the "red herring" is on your part. I had already presented that material in post #33, BEFORE your last post. So the material in YOUR last post is the red herring, posted in lieu of an actual response to the citation of the three great duties of Masonry--which I can't help but notice, you STILL have no real counter for, from Grand Lodge sources, which by your own multiplied claims in the past, is SUPPOSED to be the real source of authority in Masonry. Strange--you USED to be concerned with what "Freemasonry itself teaches." That's exactly what I presented, with citations from the documented Grand Lodge sources.

Freemasonry's principles are derived from the Bible. And one of the surest indications is found in exactly what I presented: a statement declaring the "three great duties" of a Mason, with the clearest indication that at the heart of it is the teaching to "do unto others as you wish they should do unto you." They declare it to be central; Jesus declares it to be central.

And so far, all you've managed to offer to counter that, is bluster, which won't cut it as a "refutation."

No, the problem is, you have yet to show how what was presented in my last post is NOT "at odds with the Christian faith." Why? Because you CAN'T!

"What was presented in your last post" was primarily YOUR words. And even what was NOT your words, you failed to provide proper citation to show the source. And in fact, all one has to do is look at this page in full (which actually with this post now becomes the previous page), and the posts you have presented, in their entirety, to see that you have not documented one single thing. Why is that, Michael? Could it be, because you can't find any such thing in the only place you have typically allowed for "authority" in Masonry in the past--the rituals and manuals?

So as it stands regarding your posts on this page, so far you are incorrect in stating that I "can't" counter; the fact is, until you actually PRESENT something, I haven't seen anything that needs countering. In short, it's your words and your claims, not "what Freemasonry teaches." And even if you got the sources from some Masonic source, you have not shown that source to be equivalent to the source I've quoted from.

So far, sum total, you seem to have presented one quote, from Henry Pirtle, one which you don't really seem to have understood even as you read it--and which was itself a falsified quote from Pike's Morals and Dogma, which you didn't seem to know despite having been told so, repeatedly, during the last three or four years you have been repeating it.

Not an envious track record. Adding blustery attempts to reverse the polarity to aim the charge back at me, solves nothing for you.

 

[ALX25]

So does the USA. People of different religions united under the same flag and government. Fellow brother and sister- Americans. Is that bad as well?

If It's a direct contradiction of Gods word then its a contradiction and in this case Masonry is that contradiction against the God of the Holy Bibles Word...

 

[Rev Wayne]

That is a false analogy; the US government is NOT a religious fraternity. People are born Americans, or become one through naturalization. We are NOT initiated to become a citizen of this country. More importantly, the US doesn't require belief in a Supreme Being, nor do we kneel at a common altar, or say or do any of the other things I addressed in my earlier post.

Let's try a REAL analogy then, to the Boy Scouts. They follow the principles of Masonry in quite a number of respects, and in a remarkable parallel as well: no particular religion required of members--despite emphasis upon belief in God; no particular book defined as the book of their religious faith; all join together in prayer to "God"; a leader who is "master" (Scoutmaster), etc. etc.

And do you still have in your organization a member who has not only served as Scoutmaster, but who is a member of a church denomination which is a staunch supporter of scouting? How do you reconcile that, when the principles are so remarkably similar, even identical in some cases? And why is it you do not raise such railing accusations against scouting, since as an organization which has as its membership boys at the youngest and most formative age, it has such potential to inculcate those principles in the minds of those not yet at an age where they have the ability of discernment of such things?

Somehow all the railing against Freemasonry seems hollow, when you fail to apply the same accusations when another organization is shown to have adopted the same principles.