|
Post by leonardo on Feb 21, 2008 11:36:19 GMT
Penfold wrong!?? Good Lord, man ;d
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 21, 2008 12:19:06 GMT
Faith Leo and Steve is the same as when you meet the person of your dreams, you just fall in Love, your trying to attach reason and logic to the unreasonable and illogical.
You are either in love or you are not, you cant see it touch it or indeed understand it you just are. The Child does not love its Father because he can see him and touch him, he trusts, he has Faith. Did you stop loving your father after he passed , of course not, you could not see him or touch him, but you still loved him.
You either have Faith or you do not. It is not a crime not to have it, but life is a lot better with it I find. Like life is better when your in love.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Feb 21, 2008 12:31:24 GMT
"Did you stop loving your father after he passed"
On a purely personal basis, whilst my Father is still alive, my Mother passed on in 2001. Now she is no longer in corporeal form as the person I knew. I do however believe that her "soul" lives on and have experiences which confirm that for me , but as to who or what that soul exists as now is not for me to know. I respect her memory and have fond recollections of her in my childhood but that is it.
As to "falling in love" I only made that mistake once, in my teens, got hurt and will not commit such a blunder again.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Feb 21, 2008 12:53:10 GMT
Bill, I am in love, but with someone I can see and touch. My wife.
Another thing on love. I find it difficult to love anyone who tells me I must obey him, someone who will only love me on condition I worship him, or that I will go the a fiery hell if I refuse to obey his commands, etc...
In my book such a God does not deserve my love or faith or deserving of my blind devotion. I want no part of any God who frightens me.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Feb 21, 2008 14:00:41 GMT
Bro. Patrick, you must keep in mind that the passages about Divine retribution and going to hell were not written by the hand of God himself, but were written by priests who wanted to keep the people in fear so they wouldn't have to get a real job.
Reading all that stuff in Liviticus etc., you can see that they had it made, living high on the hog off the offerings of the people.
I put no more stock in such things than I do the reptilian overlords.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Feb 21, 2008 14:12:26 GMT
Precisely, Brother! It was written by men! The God they describe does frighten me but I feel in my heart there is a God beyond the one in the old Testament that is pure love. My comments earlier were simply in response to Bill who is - as his right - defending the God of Moses, Abraham, etc...
That God I have no truck with.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 21, 2008 15:00:55 GMT
I do not defend God, he has no need of my help.
I defend the concept of Faith, I have tried to answer the questions as best I can, but it is like a beautiful painting or a wonderful morning you either see it or you do not.
As for love it is something you give without question or condition. The example of a child's love is to demonstrate the pure love given without demanding anything in return. If you worship Love then lucifer can not survive there. There are no evil children, they learn that as they grow.
I have to agree with maximus, the old Testament was from a harsh and desolate world and like a father talks to his child, God changed the language as the world changed and grew up.
Perhaps like the small child , if it always was good maybe the father would not have had to raise his voice.
So God and Lucifer are the two sides of the eternal balance. if Freemasonry demonstrates to the world that it has only Faith in love and understanding the idea of Lucifer being worshipped will be as laughable as Southend United winning the FA Cup.
Well I am sorry if you have been frightened. I have never felt that way at all. I look upon this as a question of pure Faith, mine happens to be the Abrahamic / Christian variety one but it can be any Faith.
When I was little my mum slapped me a few times, my Dad never laid a hand on me. But I was never afraid, I knew that my mum would never slap me if I had not ran into the road or something equally as stupid. If I do wrong I accept the punishment.
Then as now It was never a question of Blind Faith, blind Love maybe.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Feb 21, 2008 15:30:36 GMT
"I do not defend God, he has no need of my help.
I defend the concept of Faith, I have tried to answer the questions as best I can, but it is like a beautiful painting or a wonderful morning you either see it or you do not."
Bill, just as you are welcome to your views I am to mine. Please don't try and tell me what to think or beleive. Like it or not you are coming across as defending the God of the old Testament, it is in every word you write. Be as blind in your faith as you wish but don't assume we all have to adhere to your way of seeing things in order to understand. Stick with what you believe if it brings you happiness, if not, change.
It's that simple.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Feb 21, 2008 17:19:05 GMT
Well I am sorry if you have been frightened. I have never felt that way at all. I look upon this as a question of pure Faith, mine happens to be the Abrahamic / Christian variety one but it can be any Faith. Bill, just to point out that the God that "frightens" me is the one made up by those who wrote the Old Testament. He doesn't literally scare me because I simply don't believe in him. The God I believe in is a non-judgemental, caring, loving, unconditional God. The God I believe in doesn't care what religion I follow
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 21, 2008 18:08:52 GMT
" Like it or not you are coming across as defending the God of the old Testament, it is in every word you write. Be as blind in your faith as you wish but don't assume we all have to adhere to your way of seeing things in order to understand. Stick with what you believe if it brings you happiness, if not, change. It's that simple. Don't be ridiculous I have said nothing to you to intimate anything of the sort, posters ask questions and I answer to best of my ability. Please point out where I have tried to impose on your beliefs. Why you wish to make such comments is absolutely beyond me. There is no reason to bring dissent where none is intended. I am sorry but I just can not see what I have said that you have found offensive.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 21, 2008 18:10:53 GMT
Bill, just to point out that the God that "frightens" me is the one made up by those who wrote the Old Testament. He doesn't literally scare me because I simply don't believe in him. The God I believe in is a non-judgemental, caring, loving, unconditional God. The God I believe in doesn't care what religion I follow Well you said it not me. I just replied to what you said.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 21, 2008 19:41:57 GMT
New Testament / Old Testament (Tanakh), while one may argue whether or not "fear" is stressed more than "love," or visa versa, in one than in the other, both are in both. I once wrote: Freemasonry teaches the antiquity of its teachings, alluding to '... the pure religion of Adam, that spiritual doctrine lost to mankind through the dissensions of religious factions' . Thus, at one level, it strives, not to be a religion, but to refer to religion itself.
In many sacred texts, (including the Holy Bible), we can trace two conflicting strands of theology. One strand, at first sight, often appears to be favored by the writers, namely a religion motivated by fear, which reveres the power to punish, destroy and to take life; ruled by a fierce and jealous God who, like a master from a slave, demands submission to His will. Then there is a more ancient strand, which a closer reading shows to hold a deeper truth, namely a religion motivated by love, which reveres the power to build, create and to give life; supported and sustained by the perpetual self-sacrifice of a compassionate God who, like a mother to her child, encourages growth. Freemasonry derives from and supports this more ancient tradition.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Feb 21, 2008 20:45:46 GMT
" Like it or not you are coming across as defending the God of the old Testament, it is in every word you write. Be as blind in your faith as you wish but don't assume we all have to adhere to your way of seeing things in order to understand. Stick with what you believe if it brings you happiness, if not, change. It's that simple. Don't be ridiculous I have said nothing to you to intimate anything of the sort, posters ask questions and I answer to best of my ability. Please point out where I have tried to impose on your beliefs. Why you wish to make such comments is absolutely beyond me. There is no reason to bring dissent where none is intended. I am sorry but I just can not see what I have said that you have found offensive. Sure Bill, no problem. You said: You either have Faith or you do not. It is not a crime not to have it, but life is a lot better with it I find. Here you are telling me that you are better than me by virtue of the fact you have a particular faith I do not have, that my life would be better if I simply accept blindly the same things you accept on faith. This is what you believe and it makes you happy but it doesn't necessarily follow that just because someone doesn't follow your faith, or that they might have no faith at all, that they are any less content. I have nothing but respect for whatever faith anyone follows, but I take exception to being told what to believe or that I must have a certain faith in order for my life to be better. I know this isn't true, at least not in my case. My God doesn't demand I worship Him, the God of the Old Testament does. If accepting such a God makes your life better in some way then that is fine for you, but He isn't the God I pray to. I do not share your faith Bill but I am pleased to know it brings you joy.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 21, 2008 20:55:23 GMT
Leo
Lets examine that sentance then
when I say " You either have Faith or you do not. It is not a crime not to have it, but life is a lot better with it I find. "
it means You either have Faith or you do not. It is not a crime not to have it, but life is a lot better with it I find.
nothing more. It is a statement of fact.
1) "You either have Faith or you do not." - it does not say my Faith or yours does it. just Faith.
2) "It is not a crime not to have it - it means I am not saying you have to have Faith, again I do not say my Faith do I.
3) "but life is a lot better with it I find. " - means I find having a Faith is better for me.
You have read into a simple couple of lines far more than anyone else has. If I am wrong please someone else tell me.
I have not said one word about anyone else's Faith or indeed that they would be wrong not to have any. You are expanding and adding far more than that which was actually said.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Feb 21, 2008 20:58:57 GMT
Bill, that is how I saw it, but thank you for taking the time to clarify what you meant.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Feb 21, 2008 22:36:12 GMT
Faith, Lucifer & Believe Are all words I never use. Believe - I Know things - things I don't know are things I don't understand. If I was to believe something it would be against the concept of Personal Responsibility - Faith - Something will happen because I Know it will happen because I understand how it can be. If something happens in a way I didn't expect, I seek to understand why.
Lucifer - Well apart from a match I am happy Lucifer is a creation of Man for purposes of Control .
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Feb 24, 2008 23:53:54 GMT
Indeed Lucifer was once the chosen Archangel of God according to the Christian religion but was expelled from Heaven for staging an unsuccessful insurrection against the Deity.
Is Lucifer one and the same as Satan or that other commonly used name "The Devil"? I would be interested to know.
Other faiths have their personifications of good and evil, the Parsees have Ormudz and Arhiman for the powers of Light and Darkness respectively.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Feb 25, 2008 2:20:50 GMT
Is Lucifer one and the same as Satan or that other commonly used name "The Devil"? I would be interested to know. Lucifer only came into usage after Dante's Inferno.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Feb 25, 2008 6:54:18 GMT
Original message - Do Freemasons worship Lucifer?
Freemasons are free to worship whom they choose and as Freemasons are never asked to explain their belief you will probably never really know.
Of course by Lucifer one may assume you mean the Devil - which as you will be aware was invented by those terrified of their next door neighbours and had to generate some sort of excuse to slaughter them. As Freemasons don't generally go around raping, killing and pilliaging you might draw your own conclusion - that they certainly don't worship the G-d that lays waste the countryside. In other words, Freemasons probably do worship Lucifer who is opposite that vengeful wastefully G-d that those so-called peace loving neighbours live in fear thereof.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 25, 2008 14:33:26 GMT
John is absolutely right. if a man says I worship Satan [lucifer], that in itself is no reason to prevent his membership of Freemasonry.
However you could point out that Lucifer /Satan was cast out of Heaven to he therefore can not be the Supreme being. The person could join any of the masonic groups that do not require belief in a supreme being.
Lucifer is a Latin word meaning "light bearer" - Passage 14:12 from the Book of Isaiah referred to one of the popular honorific titles of a Babylonian king; however, later interpretations of the text, and the influence of embellishments in works such as Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost, led to the common interpretation in Christian belief that Lucifer was a poetic appellation of Satan. Lucifer is a fallen angel who is Satan.
Mark 8:33. But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.
So although Dante's Inferno expanded upon the description if we accept that Lucifer is Satan then he was there long before.
The question is the name Lucifer, light bringer or as some might say the Morning Star, both descriptions have been used with Christ.
So who is the 'bearer of Light' ?
|
|