|
Post by Antonius on Feb 2, 2008 14:09:18 GMT
that sounds like a contradiciton to me. offcourse those things are aspects of god, else he would not have created them as aspects of us. as above so below after all. the creator of all things should logical reflect all things, as it didnt have anything other then the self to refer to. i dont think it is for us to say that this or that aspect of creation is somehow less divine because we do not experiance it as comfortable.
and lets face it, the god of the old testament had plenty of ghetto in im. in the old book he was allways smiting people, destroying entire cities indiscriminatly killing men women children and their pets. look at the way he treated moses, or what of the story of job? i dunno what happened between the old and new testament, wether he took some anger management courses or maybe just having the kid calmed him down, but before that he was out of controll. but seriously, the old testament god was nothing if not jealos and vengefull.
i think its a matter of progress. first people are too stupid to see anything but the obvious. then they get smarter and start seeing deeper meaning in the world around them and they start attributing gods to elements of nature. but then after some more development, they start to look even deeper and wonder if there is not something behind it driving it all, and where do we come from and things like that. and monotheism is born.
so the way i see polytheism is not different from monotheism as such, but simply a more primitive and shallow way of looking at the situation, dealing only with those things readily apparent, whereas monotheism takes contemplation one step further into the unseen.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Feb 3, 2008 5:29:26 GMT
Well, we've not heard from Bro. Mike in a bit (yup, still a Bro. A Freemason cannot be unmade) and this thread seems to be taking on its own direction. But I just wanted to pause, reflect and say . . . Antonius, you've made a lot of progress. I like the way you stated your opinion here. I think you'll go far Have you got a lodge picked out yet or are you still testing the water?
|
|
|
Post by Antonius on Feb 3, 2008 10:09:18 GMT
thxz ive decided i need to take care of some other issues in my life before i petition. things like getting a job, and applying some sort of structure to my life, wich it is utterly devoid of at the moment. but when i feel im ready, im considering the local loge of LDH, if i can ever figure out how to pronouce that. a mixed loge would make the most sense for me considering my views on balance of the masculine and feminine and things like that.
|
|
|
Post by corab on Feb 3, 2008 13:03:19 GMT
but when i feel im ready, im considering the local loge of LDH, if i can ever figure out how to pronouce that. Trust me -- you'll stand a better chance of getting it right than most of our English-speaking friends and Brn:. Dutch is phonologically much closer to French than English is. And when the time's right, it would be my pleasure to introduce you to our Dutch Brn:. -- just let me know. All the best, Cora
|
|
|
Post by atikbif on Feb 3, 2008 14:11:38 GMT
ive decided i need to take care of some other issues in my life before i petition. things like getting a job, and applying some sort of structure to my life, wich it is utterly devoid of at the moment. I recall having similar feelings just before I joined. I had this idea that I did not have it together enough to join, or something like that. But what I noticed after I joined was, that was never an issue any more, things began to fall into place like never before. I've always figured since then, that there's an automatic kind of ordering of things that goes hand-in-hand with Masonry. You know, dividing the day into three parts, structured into degrees, etc. Not trying to sway you one way or the other, just a thought to keep in mind.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Feb 4, 2008 5:48:24 GMT
Hi Atikbif and welcome to MFOL
|
|
|
Post by atikbif on Feb 4, 2008 13:34:11 GMT
Hi Atikbif and welcome to MFOL Thanks! And may I say, I like what you've done with the place.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 4, 2008 15:49:02 GMT
I recognise that avatar.
Welcome to MFoL old friend.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Feb 5, 2008 15:10:06 GMT
Well, we've not heard from Bro. Mike in a bit (yup, still a Bro. A Freemason cannot be unmade) I agree, but is this also true even if he doesn't wish to be referred to as one. Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by atikbif on Feb 5, 2008 15:50:03 GMT
I think I would be more inclined to ask whether someone is a Mason even when their being made didn't "take?" The question is asked, "Where were you first made a Mason?" and his own words seem to suggest that this did not occur (although I would not say so dogmatically or emphatically).
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Feb 5, 2008 18:08:47 GMT
This is the old "Once a Catholic" syndrome.
To my mind only the person who has been Initated into Freemasonry can un-make themself if they abjure The Craft and reject it in their Heart, which is where they where first prepared to be made a Mason.
So if someone was Initated (and possibly Passed, Raised, Installed in the Chair etc) but then freely and of themselves rejects Freemasonry, perhaps for some religious reason, then if they no longer wish to be considered to be a Freemason, who am I to tell them otherwise?
On the other hand, just because a Lodge, Province or Grand Lodge have expelled someone from their particular part of Freemasonry does not mean that they are no longer a Mason if they still continue to consider themselves to be such, unless of course they have committed such a crime as to render them no longer fit and proper to be considered a Mason.
That's my take on this matter, for what it is worth.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Feb 5, 2008 19:00:53 GMT
Thanks Bro. Steve.
It is an issue that has confused me but your,
To my mind only the person who has been Initated into Freemasonry can un-make themself if they abjure The Craft and reject it in their Heart, which is where they where first prepared to be made a Mason.
makes sense to me as it suggests it is a personal choice.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Feb 5, 2008 23:33:25 GMT
Once a Freemason always a Freemason, whether you want to be one or not, is silly. What's free about telling someone they are hooked for all eternity?
Maat
|
|
|
Post by atikbif on Feb 6, 2008 3:32:32 GMT
I recognise that avatar. Welcome to MFoL old friend. Always good to see you, Bill.
|
|
|
Post by atikbif on Feb 6, 2008 5:42:35 GMT
Getting back on track, from the thread starter: Is it appropriate for a Christian to acknowledge a symbol, which is supposed to represent a "generic" God in order to satisfy any Mason's concept of deity, including but not limited to Baal, Allah, Ra, Buddha, Jehovah, Vishnu, and Krishna, etc. as well as Jesus Christ, and solely be acknowledging the God of the Bible alone? This is biblically impossible. For such a symbol (or representation) is an idol or false god. And, such tacit approval of this symbol is a violation of the First Commandment:
Exodus 20:3-4
You shall have no other gods before [instead of, representative of, or in addition to] me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything . . . [emphasis added] As you can see, Freemasonry denies and contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture on more than one issue. As a result, a Christian should not be a member of any organization that causes him/her to knowingly or unknowingly violate the clear teaching of Scripture. You missed the mark for sure, when you equated GAOTU with idol worship. Masonry makes no images, nor sets any such thing up and proclaims it to be "god." The difference becomes fundamentally clear when Masonry's most common prayers are considered. One example is the opening prayer: Most holy and glorious Lord God, the Great Architect of the Universe: the giver of all good gifts and graces: Thou hast promised that where two or three are gathered together in Thy name, Thou wilt be in the midst of them. In Thy name we assemble, most humbly beseeching Thee to bless us in all our undertakings, that we may know and serve Thee aright, and that all our actions may tend to Thy glory and to our advancement in knowledge and virtue; and we beseech Thee, O Lord God, to bless this our present assembling, and to illuminate our minds by the divine precepts of Thy Holy Word, and teach us to walk in the light of Thy countenance; and when the trials of our probationary state are over, be admitted into THE TEMPLE "not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens." Amen. "Giver of all good gifts and graces" is New Testament language. Most readers will recognise that "beseech" is pure King James Bible language. God is not set up as an idol in front of them, but in the same fashion as the Bible, and in the words of its promise of the same, God is there "in the midst." Give it a go anywhere you like, you will find that in Masonry where God is addressed, those prayers carry the very language and flavour of biblical prayer, directly modeled upon and quoted from the most widely published Protestant Bible ever. That makes it all the more recognisable, and the source of this prayer all the more unmistakable. It has continued for well over a century in Masonry in its present form, dating to at least as early as John Pennell's Masonic Constitutions, 1730. Can you show anyplace in Masonry where this prayer is not used to open the Lodge? From what this prayer says, and in consideration of the title of the thread, the answer to your question appears to be, "the biblical God."
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Feb 6, 2008 12:18:01 GMT
Can you show anyplace in Masonry where this prayer is not used to open the Lodge?
UGLQ ritual does not have this prayer or anything like it.
|
|
|
Post by atikbif on Feb 6, 2008 15:59:28 GMT
Well, the UGLQ is one that does not, then, despite their derivation from the UGLE which does. I still doubt that my overall point is negated by that difference: Give it a go anywhere you like, you will find that in Masonry where God is addressed, those prayers carry the very language and flavour of biblical prayer, directly modeled upon and quoted from the most widely published Protestant Bible ever. However, I have no example of whatever form the Queensland lodges might use. Nor am I requesting one, as I understand and respect the fact that your members exercise a stricter view of publishing such content. The position of Masonry is, of course, neutral. My only point is, that despite Masonry's neutrality, even the most cursory examination of ritual content easily reveals its biblical foundation, and primarily because of Masonry's preservation of archaisms through its use of KJV citations. Even so, I speak in general terms and do not deny the existence of some exceptions, and my own personal observation tells me that Queensland's use of another prayer at opening better fits a description of exception than of the general rule.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Feb 6, 2008 16:15:07 GMT
You know that a fundamentalist would say that the Devil quotes scripture to further his own aims.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Feb 6, 2008 16:17:52 GMT
You could take a fundamentalist into the lodge and show them about, show them the VSL on the altar, but it would not convince them. They would claim that we hid the statue of Baphomet before they came.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Feb 6, 2008 16:24:35 GMT
You could take a fundamentalist into the lodge and show them about, show them the VSL on the altar, but it would not convince them. They would claim that we hid the statue of Baphomet before they came. Good point but I would wager none, fundamentalists, that is, would even set foot in a Lodge in the first place.
|
|