giovanni
Member
odi profanum vulgus, et arceo
Posts: 2,627
|
Post by giovanni on May 15, 2006 17:12:36 GMT
One of UGLE’s requirements to recognize a foreign Grand Lodge is
That a belief in the Great Architect of the Universe and His revealed will shall be an essential qualification for membership.
Most of the mainstream Freemasonries share such a requirement.
I think it’s wrong.
In fact, if you read the Old Charges 1723, you’ll find that
A Mason is oblig’d by his Tenure, to obey the moral law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious Libertine.
I add that the Old Charges had to be read
At The Making of New Brethren, or when the MASTER shall order it.
So, if I well understand it, the profane had already been initiated.
The creed in a Supreme Being is not, therefore, a discriminating criterion, but, rather a warning: the neophyte would have never understood the art, had he been a stupid atheist or an irreligious libertine.
Requiring a belief in a supreme being and his revealed will (the Book?) is therefore in contradiction with Anderson’s constitutions.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on May 15, 2006 17:34:34 GMT
Obviously it is a discriminatory criterion, Bro Gio as wherever this requirement is mandatory someone who does NOT believe in a Supreme Being, if they answer honestly, cannot join a Lodge which demands that of them a priori, even if they have been validly Initiated into a Lodge in a Constitution which makes no such requirement, such as Grand Orient of France.
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on May 15, 2006 17:50:44 GMT
One of UGLE’s requirements to recognize a foreign Grand Lodge is That a belief in the Great Architect of the Universe and His revealed will shall be an essential qualification for membership.Most of the mainstream Freemasonries share such a requirement. I think it’s wrong. In fact, if you read the Old Charges 1723, you’ll find that A Mason is oblig’d by his Tenure, to obey the moral law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious Libertine.I add that the Old Charges had to be read At The Making of New Brethren, or when the MASTER shall order it.So, if I well understand it, the profane had already been initiated. The creed in a Supreme Being is not, therefore, a discriminating criterion, but, rather a warning: the neophyte would have never understood the art, had he been a stupid atheist or an irreligious libertine. Requiring a belief in a supreme being and his revealed will (the Book?) is therefore in contradiction with Anderson’s constitutions. Gio, please provide actual factual reference to where it says that UGLEs requirement is a belief in a TGAOTU please. I think your source material is wrong.
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on May 15, 2006 17:52:46 GMT
But we are asked at our interview AND before we are initiated if we believe in a Supreme Being.
So by the time we get to hear the old charges either at the making as a brother or when the master orders it will be in open lodge maybe BUT we would have nott been initiated in the first place had we answered no to the SB question.
SO maybe from another angle if after initiation you at some later date become a "stupid Aetheist" or irreligious libertine do you then stop being a mason and should you then resign.?
Are we all not libertines in our own little way just by being free men ?
|
|
|
Post by Siontific on May 15, 2006 18:40:51 GMT
Gio, please explain what you mean by "dicriminant".
I want to make sure I answer the question the right way.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on May 15, 2006 18:42:23 GMT
I read it to mean discriminatory and framed my answer accordingly.
|
|
giovanni
Member
odi profanum vulgus, et arceo
Posts: 2,627
|
Post by giovanni on May 15, 2006 18:43:22 GMT
Sorry, I meant discriminatory.
In other words, who has not it he cannot even petition
|
|
giovanni
Member
odi profanum vulgus, et arceo
Posts: 2,627
|
Post by giovanni on May 15, 2006 18:45:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by a on May 15, 2006 19:52:10 GMT
From the perspective of the Supreme Being as he has created everything, then there is a part of Divinity in everything and everyone. Whether a man believes this or not is a separate question, but even if he does not believe it does not make it any less true. And he may not understand it but be aware of it.
Let me tell you a true story about myself, which I have mentioned before, but it is relevant here.
When I was once chatting to a couple of Freemasons some years ago now I was asked something to the effect of "in times of trouble in whom do you place your trust".
I answered "in myself"
there was a stony silence in the room.
I then explained that "in myself because I undertstand that God is within each and every one of us, and in everything around us. hence when we need to place our trust in God we only have to look into the deepest recesses of ourselves."
This was an acceptable answer. And one which I now understand is not only acceptable but also taught in some higher degrees of Freemasonry.
Should what I know about God have prevented me from joining Freemasonry given that I already knew what relatively few in the system knew and presumably spend many years coming to understand? Well actually no it was not a bar as it turns out. In fact me expressing this opened so many doors Masonically speaking.
But it would have been amusing if I had been discriminated against because I knew things as a lost man knocking on the door, which are taught within certain orders that many simply dont get into.
Giovanni your question is worthy of much thought.
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on May 15, 2006 19:53:12 GMT
Gio, here is part : Freemasons under its jurisdiction must believe in a Supreme BeingIT DOES NOT MENTION GAOTU !!!!!!
|
|
giovanni
Member
odi profanum vulgus, et arceo
Posts: 2,627
|
Post by giovanni on May 15, 2006 22:00:59 GMT
Staffs, it is still worse. GAOTU is a symbol, while Supreme Being a person. From Bessel's: www.bessel.org/masrec/recstand.htmSome USA GGLL speak about GAOTU, some others about God tout-court
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on May 16, 2006 0:39:33 GMT
>it is still worse. GAOTU is a symbol, while Supreme Being a person.
Giovanni
I agree that historically while there was at least one Great Architect (Toth) we do use the term as a symbol of the patterning intent that forms the universe.
But the Supreme Being may not be a "person" as person derives from "persona" which was a mask covering the head of an actor in a drama. Hence person strictly means a role rather than an identity.
In which case, if the Supreme Beingness is acting out a role (as a creator) then it is proper to call it a person.
So if the Supreme Beingness is play acting, who or what is it when it is not?
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by ingo on May 16, 2006 9:29:46 GMT
A supreme being must be a person if you referr to the bible - genesis - where the human being is created like the supreme being - GOD.
The GAOTU is so to say a wider perspective, because it referrs to the old believe that "GOD" - which mostly is a melange of different supreme beings male and female - cannot be seen, described etc. Idols or symbols of supreme beings are only interpretations but GOD is something where everything comes together, all differences, every opposite.
So to say also atomic structures, the nature etc. can be the GAOTU.
For that reason the belief in a supreme being is discrimination.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on May 16, 2006 23:19:14 GMT
>A supreme being must be a person if you referr to the bible - genesis - where the human being is created like the supreme being - GOD.
Ingo
I understand that in Genesis the word translated as God is Elohim - a female word Eloha (goddesses) with a male plural ending "im"
So there are lots of supreme beings.
And the word Eloha probably comes from the Sumerian "ilu" which literally means lofty.
And even today, statistically, tall people get paid more - at least in a US study - $750 per year per inch.
Thus El Elyon can be translated as Tall of the Tall Ones - or more commonly as The Most High
Osiris is recorded (I am told) as being 17 feet tall. But human bones have been found indicating skeletons up to 25 feet tall. So I doubt that Osiris (husband of The Widow) was really TMH.
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by maat on May 17, 2006 0:04:40 GMT
Russell - this would be a goody for the 'Heard it on the Grapevine...' I didn't know about the 25' tall skeletons - though I had read before that the very tall statues found in abundance in Egypt were supposed to actual size representations.
Big space-ships or are we malnourished these days?
Maat
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on May 17, 2006 1:50:03 GMT
Maat Here are some urls www.thesolomongiants.com/"Giant-sized man-like fossil footprints, preserved in mudstone, have turned up all over Australia. They include examples found near Kempsey in northern New South Wales up to 50 cm in length by 37 cm width across the toes; and as much as 60 cm length by 25 cm or more in width." www.returnofthenephilim.com/GiantBonesDiscoveries.html"Even more impressive were fossil deposits found by naturalist Rex Gilroy around Bathurst. He excavated from a depth of 6 feet (2 m) below the surface a fossil lower back molar tooth measuring 67 mm. in length by 50mm. x 42 mm. across the crown. If his measurements are correct, the owner would have been at least 25 ft. tall, weighing well over 1,000 lbs! " www.internetezy.com.au/~mj129/australiacradleofcivilisation.htmlMaat, Currently I am unable to sugguest why we are smaller than earlier humanoids. But I will contemplate the matter Cheers Russell
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on May 18, 2006 0:03:19 GMT
Be sure to give it Sirius consideration.
|
|
|
Post by cezarek on May 18, 2006 13:15:39 GMT
Worth remembering that in GLs which don't have a belief requirement, there aren't necessarily hordes of 'stupid atheists', and that most masons, whatever their jurisdiction, wouldn't have a problem with the belief requirement.
One issue perhaps is that the concept of a supreme being or primal cause is very subjective. A primal cause could be scientific rather than divine. Or both.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on May 18, 2006 15:33:02 GMT
Worth remembering that in GLs which don't have a belief requirement, there aren't necessarily hordes of 'stupid atheists', and that most masons, whatever their jurisdiction, wouldn't have a problem with the belief requirement. One issue perhaps is that the concept of a supreme being or primal cause is very subjective. A primal cause could be scientific rather than divine. Or both. I'm not particularly fond of the term "stupid atheists." No one group of people has the monopoly on stupidity or, for that matter, the monopoly on intelligence With each possessing their own way of uniquely expressing their individual perspective it's becoming increasingly difficult for many of us to distinguish between the atheist and the believer. I can say this because It has been my assumption for quite a number of years now that irrespective of one's beliefs, that whatever one believes in, it is true for them. But this brings us to the question of "ultimate truth" but even this approach is always going to be a matter of opinion. Krishnamurti said it best when he said: "the opposite of every truth is equally as valid." The belief in a Universal Consciousness is perhaps easier for some to accept than it is for others, but essentially most people will recognise that the Universe - and all it contains - is somehow or another inextricably linked so therefore we are all connected.
|
|
Munro
Member
Lodge St. Andrew Livingston Station No.1587
Posts: 27
|
Post by Munro on Dec 31, 2006 21:04:42 GMT
The is no Truth ultimate in the face of all others, in my opinion. Man's truth changes with him; with the individual.
I have voted YES in this poll, as at the moment, I think it should and always should be a criteria whenst joining the fraternity.
On very basic grounds, would the ritual mean anything to a man whom did not believe in a Supreme Being?
An Agnostic might accept the possibility of one -but is this enough? I suppose he is searching, and that should be enough. But on the other hand, an atheist is someone who is adamant that there is nothing; a believer in "there is nothing there to believe in". Defined not only as "one who does not believe in God" but "someone who denies the existence of god".
Would masonic teaching benefit persons of these categories?
|
|