|
Post by curiosity on May 18, 2012 8:30:16 GMT
Well... being a new person.... I thought this could be a great place to start asking questions about how these two subjects merge or indeed diverge from each other.
I have some alternative views about the universe and almost feel forced to consider this area quite intensely at times.
How inline with current science principles on evolution are the Free Mason's generally speaking?
I understand easily that "the Masons' " are groups of people. I also believe they would also remain as individuals too but .... it seems more likely there would be some commonalities as far as the organisation's views on creation and evolution generally speaking.
What would be a summary on this particular area?
I also noted that someone (forget whom) referenced the Mason's delving into the psychic aspect of life the universe and everything.
Fact or Fiction?
|
|
|
Post by curiosity on May 20, 2012 0:38:43 GMT
I query something about Quantum time and reality as defined by the speculative theories of entanglement. I was pleased to have that area of QM briefly and simplistically explained to me over time.
But I am guessing there might be a simpler explanation to how some people perceive reality , time and events. In particular the order and relevance to their perceptions of reality.
Okay - the point behind the question was to try and ascertain whether the Masons are a religious organization /order in the ways that churches are , for example.
I have read a little about The Templars , the Teutonic Knights as well as , the history surrounding "The Wars of the Roses" , for another example. The churches had influences in all of the orders mentioned above and likewise relevance with the Mason's orders, as far as I can tell.
Has the historical beginnings been left behind in preference of another priority? The newer found focus has since gone onto being what encapsulates the mantra of what the Mason's orders are and reflects their more liberal views far more accurately?
Thank you.
Yes - I am aware of the differences between creation and evolution. It wasn't my awareness I was querying and nor yours specifically. I am simply enquiring about the foundation of the Mason's. Ie , is it fundementally religious or not?
History suggests yes and your answer indirectly suggest not really.
Okay.
Neither fact nor fiction. Again, it is up to the individual.[/quote]
So they could be liberal in the acceptance of people having interests in these areas and it wouldn't be contrary to the values of the Mason's organisations?
|
|
|
Post by curiosity on May 21, 2012 6:48:59 GMT
"Okay, you should have just asked outright. Freemasonry is not a religious organization, like a church. One is required to have a belief in deity, but that deity is not specific - it is the individual's choice as to what religion he belongs. Masonry encourages spiritual growth and participation, that is all."
Fair point , I try and tread carefully when asking questions about creation and evolution as it can incite heated discussions. I was attempting to ease into the question!
:-)
"Some ascribe to the "Templar Transmission Theory," most do not. It sounds good on paper, at any rate."
Thanks . after reading your pov . I can recall a comment previously about the link with the Templars as a theoretical suggestion.
"Masonry came into England from Scotland. I highly suspect the Jacobite rebellion has much to do with the direction Masonry eventually took. "
I'll research this further. Thanks for the direction of enquiry for me to follow.
"Modern Masonry is not "fundamentally religious," but uses the Old Testament story of the building of Solomon's Temple as an allegory."
Hah! I was coincidentally reading about the songs of Solomon quite recently and left wondering about one of the passages in particular.
|
|
|
Post by nventr on Jun 2, 2012 15:10:28 GMT
IMHO - Freemasonry is a method of psychological development. This path is all about dissolving the ego. Having a belief in a deity further helps to dissolve the ego by excepting that there is a power greater than me.
When the path is consciously and consistently followed to completion, it creates a balanced compassionate being. A person who can lead with maturity and wisdom(thinking of others or the organization first), as apposed to one who leads out of selfishness and greed(thinking of me first).
While psychological development was the purpose of religion long ago, religion has moved to being more dogmatic(telling me what to think) and cultish(requiring everyone to have the same views).
|
|
|
Post by curiosity on Jun 3, 2012 6:04:42 GMT
IMHO - Freemasonry is a method of psychological development. This path is all about dissolving the ego. Having a belief in a deity further helps to dissolve the ego by excepting that there is a power greater than me. When the path is consciously and consistently followed to completion, it creates a balanced compassionate being. A person who can lead with maturity and wisdom(thinking of others or the organization first), as apposed to one who leads out of selfishness and greed(thinking of me first). While psychological development was the purpose of religion long ago, religion has moved to being more dogmatic(telling me what to think) and cultish(requiring everyone to have the same views). A limitation born from the limitation of interpretation more than anything - I suspect. Words can be ambiguous especially when they are someone else's and the authors are no longer with us.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Jun 3, 2012 13:20:44 GMT
Is this kind of what your thinking of?
There is also many other sciences that can guide someone. It all depends on whats included on your goals "focus". To me every science is a work of our "diety", it simply explains how he did it. It just means we figured it out too, not it never happened.
Which also shows a natural intelligence in any mass that has potential to move. Which is everything realy, take for instance a sharp large hard rock, a coconut, and a man dying of thirst. Our natural elements only have potential through intelligence. Anything moved to make the scenario, played an equal part in the act.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Jun 3, 2012 16:11:29 GMT
Pike writes of 'ego' in Morals and Dogma
The Despot will occasionally act upon noble and generous impulses, and help the weak against the strong, the right against the wrong. But commercial avarice is essentially egotistic, grasping, faithless, overreaching, crafty, cold, ungenerous, selfish, and calculating, controlled by considerations of self-interest alone. Heartless and merciless, it has no sentiments of pity, sympathy, or honor, to make it pause in its remorseless career; and it crushes down all that is of impediment in its way, as its keels of commerce crush under them the murmuring and unheeded waves.
He who truly loves his brother respects the rights of his brother; but he does more, he forgets his own. Egoism sells or takes. Love delights in giving. In God, love is what it is in us; but in an infinite degree.
We each have some dominant defect, by which the enemy can grasp us. In some it is vanity, in others indolence, in most egotism. Let a cunning and evil spirit possess himself of this, and you are lost. Then you become, not foolish, nor an idiot, but positively a lunatic, the slave of an impulse from without. You have an instinctive horror for everything that could restore you to reason, and will not even listen to representations that contravene your insanity.
|
|
|
Post by curiosity on Jun 5, 2012 8:05:00 GMT
Our ego is an essential element of our psychological makeup. Integration and balance are key. Why do you think that? When I think of integration and psychology.... I think of personalities integrating. What do you mean in the context above?
|
|
|
Post by curiosity on Jun 5, 2012 19:15:31 GMT
Pike writes of 'ego' in Morals and Dogma We each have some dominant defect, by which the enemy can grasp us. In some it is vanity, in others indolence, in most egotism. Let a cunning and evil spirit possess himself of this, and you are lost. Then you become, not foolish, nor an idiot, but positively a lunatic, the slave of an impulse from without. You have an instinctive horror for everything that could restore you to reason, and will not even listen to representations that contravene your insanity. Interesting. When I was viewing some points of views from researchers on what the ego is .... the enemy is the ego itself and when we think of others being the enemy and externalize what identifies the enemy, that is when we are mistaken - allegedly.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Jun 5, 2012 20:28:48 GMT
Ego is like Salt, required to live but too much, out of control and it will kill you
|
|
|
Post by 345 on Jun 5, 2012 22:02:45 GMT
Our ego is an essential element of our psychological makeup. Integration and balance are key. Why do you think that? When I think of integration and psychology.... I think of personalities integrating. What do you mean in the context above? The ego provides the foundations of a sense of personal identity, it also orders and contextualises information and stimulus. Without the ego we would be little more than beasts acting purely on impulse and slaves to the subconscious and primitive parts of the brain. Not such a fantastic way to lead life. Of course, the enthronement of the Ego leads to problems as well, hence the desirability of integrating the functioning of all aspects of the psyche. Peter Gower
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Jun 6, 2012 5:36:11 GMT
We should I suggest specify what it is you mean by ego. e·go noun, plural e·gos. 1. the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.
nothing wrong with this use
But then Egotistic or Egotistical has a far different slant e·go·tis·tic adjective 1. pertaining to or characterized by egotism. 2. given to talking about oneself; vain; boastful; opinionated. 3. indifferent to the well-being of others; selfish.
|
|
|
Post by nventr on Jun 7, 2012 15:16:05 GMT
A limitation born from the limitation of interpretation more than anything - I suspect. Words can be ambiguous especially when they are someone else's and the authors are no longer with us. These methods were well developed and documented all the way back to Sumerian times in the Tales of Gilgamesh. Most commonly called “The Hero’s Quest.” (The path for intellectuals or men to build compassion and caring) Once this quest is complete, then and only then should the Quest for the Grail begin. (The path of creatives or women to build understanding) The sour and suspicious nature of your reply may come from the fact that, as a woman, The Hero’s Quest does not fit with your inner being’s nature. Women for the most part need to follow the Quest for the Grail first. This builds their abilities to think, organize, and strategize. Like Paul said, “Ladies you are just not going to get what I am saying, because it is so outside your inner nature. So sit quiet and don’t be disruptive, I’m addressing the menfolk. If you really want to understand ask your husbands later at home.” That is why Freemasonry, for the most part, is a men only organization. What’s sad is that many take Paul’s words as literal and do not even offer the option of empowering women, mostly because they do not know or understand that there is a special path meant specifically for women.
|
|
|
Post by curiosity on Jun 8, 2012 9:32:01 GMT
Well - no surprises that I would strenuously contest this point of view and not just because of feminist views either.
Skill sets aren't purely gender based.
|
|
|
Post by nventr on Jun 8, 2012 15:57:25 GMT
Psychology and belief systems are all gender based. It matters as to whether you consider the Supreme Being to be God the Father or The Goddess/Virgin. Both are valid. The road runs both ways.
To bring forth the best possible outcome and enhance the psychological and/or spiritual experience, a person must follow the two paths in the order that is in harmony with their psychological or inner nature.
The detrimental effects of mismatching the inner nature with the inappropriate system or path has been recorded from the earliest human writings. Going up the down stair case creates a Medusa, Kali, Pele, or a Sekhmet, depending on the spiritual system you prescribe to. Going down the up staircase describes the plight of Atlantis and The Tower of Babel.
So, in essence the Apostle Paul was not being sexist when he tells the women in the group to sit down and shut up. He was being practical. The fact that this statement has been misinterpreted and misused over two millenniums is not the fault of the speaker.
|
|
|
Post by curiosity on Jun 8, 2012 19:39:11 GMT
It was advantageous to many to do so though - I suspect "easily"!
|
|
|
Post by nventr on Jun 9, 2012 14:53:58 GMT
Many historians believe that there are the writings of the Apostle Paul and then there are the writings of Pseudo Paul. They also point out that the writings of both of these authors were intermingled as the versions of the stories were copied over time, which makes it very hard to distinguish the real from the fake.
Yep, the Pharisees used the opportunity to keep women out of leadership positions. Phrases like, “As the law proscribes,” prove they were using the Law of Moses to keep the status quo.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Jun 9, 2012 18:54:28 GMT
This is what you refer to
1 Corinthians 14:33-35 King James Version (KJV)
The role of Women in society and in all Religions was subservience, it would seem to be a statement of fact rather than a personal command.
i won't write a list but here is a snip on Womens rights after 1870 years. The Married Women's Property Act 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c.93) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that allowed women to be legally the rightful owners of the money they earned and to inherit property.
|
|
|
Post by nventr on Jun 10, 2012 4:06:28 GMT
The women of Rome were allowed to hold property and inherit money. This was viewed as totally disgraceful by the Jewish community. They had to beef up their reminders of the Jewish law, once the Romans came to town.
Paul did communicate with and praise women in leadership positions. He was a Roman tax collector and must have had knowledge of and accepted Roman customs.
It is in the later writings of Pseudo Paul that really pulls the rug out from under women’s rights. The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown us that women were having a period of freedom and leadership in the first 200 years of Christianity. However, once the Councils of Nicaea took place all the rights were revoked and society went back to the patriarchal model.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Jun 10, 2012 13:45:01 GMT
Yes but he was talking to Corinthians. When Rome demanded the dissolution of the Achaian League, Corinth, the leader, resisted and so Lucius Mummius, the Roman consul, leveled the city in 146 BCE, killed the men and sold the women and children into slavery. www.abrock.com/Greece-Turkey/corinth.htmlThese were not Women of Rome. But I take the point about Nicaea re-writing or more correctly re-directing history to please the male dominated Priesthood, which is still there in Rome.
|
|