|
Post by palmereldritch on Dec 7, 2007 17:47:04 GMT
Some of the local lodges around here have a web site, and as part of the requirements they have to join is the belief in a living god.
Is this a normal distinction? I thought it was usually a belief in a supreme being.
And what is the difference?
|
|
|
Post by tws on Dec 7, 2007 17:55:01 GMT
Perhaps just a different turn of phrase. It would seem pointless to believe in a dead God. Supreme Being is how it is referred to here. I have heard Lodge prayer done in the name of JC in my Lodge, but it dosen't freak me out, even though we are supposed to refer to Deity in generic terms. I have bigger fish to fry.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Dec 7, 2007 18:41:55 GMT
This is the first time I've heard this phrasing in reference to Freemasonry but I am familiar with the phrase in my more Christian Fundamentalist circles. You might want to make some inquiries about this, with this lodge. For lodges come in many shapes and sizes and and types, which is fine - no need to be all standard and conformist. But use of this phrase *may* indicate the Brothers in this lodge have fundamentalist Christian leanings.
Which is OK, so long as you do, too. If you don't, it may cause some discomfort for you and disharmony for the lodge.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Dec 7, 2007 18:52:42 GMT
Well, for many, including yours truly, God is very much alive. There's no point believing in a dead one, is there But to return to the actual topic I would think the phrasiology is purely one of semantics, much of a muchness, really. but I appreciate there may be those who might find such wording objectionable, others won't be too concerned. I guess the main point is: Would such wording effect (negatively) ones Masonry?
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Dec 7, 2007 19:22:50 GMT
I have the word *may* in asterisks.
And I'm not at all suggesting it's objectionable (it isn't).
I am simply saying that this phrase is commonly used by my more Fundamentalist Christian friends (of whom I have many) and, so, may indicate the preference of the Brothers in that lodge. And **********IF************** this is a Fundamentalist Christian lodge, then it MIGHT not be the most comfortable lodge for someone who is not a Fundamentalist Christian. And IF that is the case, it MIGHT lead to disharmony in the lodge.
And so it's worth looking into.
And that's all.
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Dec 7, 2007 20:18:18 GMT
Sound advice from Karen, join a lodge that suits you and offers what you want from freemasonry - not too sure where you are, or what you are seeking, but there will be a lodge somewhere that meets that need
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Dec 7, 2007 20:40:33 GMT
I suspect the term living god is a translation of El Shaddai. Shad means breast. Presumably then El Shaddai possesses a breast and thus can breathe - hence is living
Genesis (B'resheet) 35:9 After Ya'akov arrived from Paddan-Aram, God appeared to him again and blessed him. 10 God said to him, "Your name is Ya'akov, but you will be called Ya'akov no longer; your name will be Isra'el."Thus he named him Isra'el. 11 God further said to him, "I am El Shaddai. Be fruitful and multiply. A nation, indeed a group of nations, will come from you; kings will be descended from you. 12 Moreover, the land which I gave to Avraham and Yitz'chak I will give to you, and I will give the land to your descendants after you." 13 Then God went up from him there where he had spoken with him. 14 Ya'akov set up a standing-stone in the place where he had spoken with him, a stone pillar.
The account above makes it clear that the god appeared to Jacob and had a conversation and then "went up". It may be that the god was human in appearance and thereby not requiring description.
But the god needed to identify himself - presumably indicating that Jacob did not know which god he was.
As a side note: "Jacob" if translated from Sumerian could mean: stone pillar dedicated to Ea (Ja)
Thus the Living God may be one who appears as a living creature (humanoid) to his chosen but has to identify which god he is
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by palmereldritch on Dec 7, 2007 22:02:48 GMT
Perhaps just a different turn of phrase. It would seem pointless to believe in a dead God. Supreme Being is how it is referred to here. I have heard Lodge prayer done in the name of JC in my Lodge, but it dosen't freak me out, even though we are supposed to refer to Deity in generic terms. I have bigger fish to fry. I wouldn't say it freaks me out, per se. Just a puzzling wording. And...if it's an indicator of what imakegarb brings up, I'd better steer clear of those lodges, as I'm not a fundamentalist, and it does seem to have that resonance to me. So, just wondering how common that is.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 7, 2007 22:55:30 GMT
I suspect the term living god is a translation of El Shaddai. Shad means breast. Presumably then El Shaddai possesses a breast and thus can breathe - hence is living Significant? Yes! However, you may be confusing "breast" with "chest" (which in Hebrew is " xaze"). Indeed, we read: But what was that old name, and what did it signify? To understand it, we might turn to a climactic moment in the life of Jacob. He is blessing his son Joseph after all the turmoil of their lives has been resolved (Genesis 49: 25): "May your father's God on high become your help, and may Shaddai become your blessing — Blessings of the heavens, from above; blessings of the deep, crouching below — blessings of the breasts [Hebrew: shadai'im] and of the womb." But the god needed to identify himself - presumably indicating that Jacob did not know which god he was. There is the Masonic tradition that the names ""El Elohim," "El Shaddai" and YHWH, respectively, represent the fuller revelation in successive epochs, of the same God.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Dec 7, 2007 23:01:04 GMT
Truly, I doubt the lodge would be insulted if you ask about the "Living God" thing. Even if it does indicate a Fundamentalist preference, I'm sure they'd be happy you checked and could even suggest a different lodge. Or it could be that the phrasing isn't what I think it might be and is just them being clever. Happens. Either way, I think it's worth checking. And lodges come in many shapes and sizes. I'm not sure one type is anymore common than another. All are Brothers
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Dec 7, 2007 23:34:11 GMT
My understanding, limited though it is, is that there aren't too many fundamentalist Christians involved in Freemasonry. Of course I may well be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Dec 8, 2007 0:04:53 GMT
My understanding, limited though it is, is that there aren't too many fundamentalist Christians involved in Freemasonry.
I suspect as much myself - having spent some time in a fundamentalist church - they are basically antiFreemasonry ranging from the extreme to the mild.
My question relates to the meaning of such terms. I know that the clause in the 18th D Rose Croix asked for a believe in the Undivided Trinitarian Faith. I would love to hear someone try to unravel that mouthful. I have heard theologians stumble over that and were far less than convincing in their explanation. I suspect as much with other such like clauses. Would someone like to explain what is the 'Living God'? Hans Kung might have accepted the challenge but it would take over 900 pages to do so.
In other words, these clauses are worn out expressions which the users articulate more through habit than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 8, 2007 0:32:44 GMT
Maybe the answer is in the Thomas Gospel.
77) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the All. From Me did the All come forth, and unto Me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there."
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Dec 8, 2007 8:20:42 GMT
Going by that quote Thomas' book seems very interesting. It's unfortunate his and other Gospels weren't deemed appropriate for acceptance into what did finally emerge as the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Dec 8, 2007 9:46:49 GMT
There is a reference to "the living God" in this quote:
Acts 14:15 (New International Version) "Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them.
|
|
|
Post by willied77 on Jan 30, 2008 9:48:23 GMT
I can't get my head around thier being a material 'living' God. God is part of everything and we as Humans have been warned several times in the past about worshipping 'false' Gods, whom walk the Earth.
I personally don't think that J.C was the Son of God either... A decendant from a unique lineage, possibly, and most definately a Prophet of the highest degree.
For if God sent Jesus, His son down to us, then God have contradicted his own teachings. For we would then worship Jesus and not God.....
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jan 30, 2008 10:47:47 GMT
Paulianity's god in the flesh is a greek concept.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jan 30, 2008 12:00:54 GMT
>I can't get my head around thier being a material 'living' God
It may be useful to make a distinction between the Creator of All and the multiple lords and gods who arrived to teach the human race. Every nation has its tradition of multiple gods arriving and teaching agriculture and all the aspects of civilisation and science
1Co 8:5 - For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
Psalms 89 - 6 For who in the skies can be compared with ADONAI? Which of these gods can rival ADONAI,
>For if God sent Jesus, His son down to us
Both Origen and Augustine (fathers of the early church) wrote about the prophet Jesus. Later the church voted that Jesus was God. (I have a suspicion that Origen's bones were dug up and burned as punishment for his views - but I can't find a reference at present)
If you want to get into the metaphysics - the story of Jesus teaching in the temple at age 12 seems to indicate that the Spirit could come and go - perhaps to another human. That may explain why a large sum of money was spent later to identify Jesus who was teaching daily in the temple.
Cheers
Russell
|
|