Freemasonry vs. Christianity

Mike
First if Tennessee Freemasorny is racist than why does it have Africain Americain Memebers. Just because it does not recongnize Prince Hall Masonry does not make it racist. Plus Tennessee Grand Lodge recognizes the following Lodges in Africa. Benin, Gabon, Madagascar, South Africa and Senegal Grand Lodges. This Lodges are integrated just Tennessee Grand Lodges states that a few Lodges are Integrated. I will fully admitt that not all some Masons are racist But not all of them. Just as some Christians are Racist but not all are.

(If by "the issues of the Board" you are referring to the incompatibility of Freemasonry & Christianity, I have provided sufficient enough evidence to prove this fact.)

Mike you said I did not address your post. I presented Documents from Grand Lodges that state

God in the Threefold Aspect of the Trinity
God being called Jehovah
Blue Lodge was once a Christian Only Frat.


Masonic Bible: States that the Lion of the Tribe of Judah in Freemasonry is Jesus Christ.

I gave you three refrences to Christ from Freemasonry.

Morning Star (Rev 22:16 2Peter 1:19 Matt 2:2 Num 24:17)
Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Rev 5:5)
God in the Threefold Aspect of the Trinity (John 1:1 John 10:30)

I also gave Biblical refrences backing up my statements.

Now Mike if you would like to stay on topic than stop going off toic every time The Worm post. Instead of Attacking reply to what is post.

(Your current post and the Worm's current PM appears to be a diversionary tactic)
Mike you attack me and The Worm you are the one taking the Thread off topic Please stay on topic and address the issues at hand.

 

I very much used to be in the Anti Freemason Camp, go do a search on my previous posts on the Baptist Board.

What happened was that I went to college and learned about what Primary Documents are and how they are used to prove things conclusivley. What I realised about Freemasonry was that the information used to sledge Fremasonry was secondary documentation and when it came down to it there were no Primary Documents to prove the claims made by Anti Masons. I came to that conclusion after looking for those documents myself. I have a number of books written about Freemasonry both for and against. Yet as I looked for Primary Documents, I found that there simply are none.

All Grand Lodges are different, what one states may not neccessaraly apply to another, rituals are based on nationality and worded differently.

What is factual is that Freemasonry comes from the Teutonic Knights a Tritarian Christian Order that were persecuted and went to Scotland where they took refuge within the Stone Masons Guilds, hence the Christianity in Freemasonry as a Historical perspective. Yet todays Masonry is not a religion and Grand Lodges across the Globe are quick to point that out.

Freemasory does have orders that are Fellowships of Christians, as they have fellowships that are no religion, just like the Elks or the Buffaloes (ROAB).

I might point out that Baptists make up the majority of Christian Freemasons in the U.S. Freemasonry is popular in SBC and in particular IFB circles. There are a number of Freemasons that simply choose not to bother debating it. With the same idea that why bother, the other side has made up their own mind anyway.

 

This was the standard policy of Freemasons at the time the internet began to flower, and because of it, antimasonic material had a free run in grabbing a nearly 10-year head start on the information market. By the time enough Masons had seen enough of the nonsense to decide to do something about it, the damage was already severe, since the first thing anyone would pull up on the screen for an internet search of Freemasonry was a solid page of nonsense websites. The older days saw quite a few sites that were far out in left field with their accusations; today’s more careful conspiracy buffs have dressed up their formulas to weed out the immediately discreditable theories. The result has been a new look, with carefully crafted arguments that seem plausible to those who have no real knowledge of Masonry, and “support” from Scripture quotes, mainly quoted out of context, that can be made to fit with their arguments to give them a veneer of truth. Others are more blatant in their disregard for truth, and don’t really care whether anybody refutes their nonsense or not, they just keep spouting it.

Most of them are just plain illogical in their premises, and inconsistent in the application of them. Freemasonry has designs on world dominion? Seems a strange way to go about it, donating their monies to charitable organizations like children’s hospitals, or eye foundations, or Masonic homes, and devoting themselves to community causes and to taking care of widows. Freemasonry is satanic in the higher degrees? The only way they seem to be able to try to make it stick, is by suggesting that those in the lower degrees are “deceived,” even though they are not “in on” the conspiracy of the higher levels. Yet we have a former 32nd degree Mason who posts here regularly, who himself has admitted when confronted with the question of Satanism at the top, that he never saw any evidence of it whatsoever—yet he still insists that it exists.

At the EMFJ website, there is a statement on the frontpage insisting that many Christians are also Masons, and that it is entirely possible. Yet if you read through any of the arguments in which they defend their positions, it becomes clear that if anyone on their staff truly believes there are Christian Masons, the only kind they believe is possible is one who by definition would hardly fit the definition of a Christian at all. They will heartily support antimasonic theories that have no credibility, then quickly disown anything that gets to be shown for the ridiculous nonsense that it is (the Leo Taxil hoax, for example). They have joined in heartily with those who suggest that Freemasonry’s beginnings truly went back to ancient times—mainly because they thought it would be a simple thing to move from there to suggest ties with Egyptians and their gods. When it became clear that the approach opened some increasingly supportable ties to the Old Testament and Solomon’s Temple, they abandoned their theories and are now in favor of notions that Freemasonry is fairly young, perhaps no older than medieval times. Theories about the dollar bill and its hints at the “Masonic foundation of the U.S.” are pretty widespread, and most antimasonic sites will support the idea. But after it was pretty soundly refuted in another Christian forum (christianforums.com), our Mr. Gentry (O.F.F.) came out in denial, declaring categorically that he nor his organization have ever supported the “Masonic dollar” theory. Yet after his arrival on this forum, he has posted at least once in total support of it, and that coming after his fervent denials.

Please don’t read this as personal attack. I think if you consider what I’ve said here, you will see that I deal with the issues themselves, with the nature of such theories themselves, and the manner and means of debating them. Leaving aside ad hominem accusations, which both sides apparently feel they can point to and justify—what exactly is the nature of the debate at the moment? Well, for the moment here on this board, it seems an attempt is being made to derail any conversation on the subject, or so it seems. Corey has presented some solidly Christian concepts found within the rituals, a “Christian interpretation” of the rituals has been found set forth by Pike, Ben has suggested an originally Christian venue for Freemasonry, which just may be the case. And Mike’s reaction has been to try to get the debate limited and put in another thread, or to suggest debating the issue privately, or to refuse to discuss it simply because of my presence—all of which give the distinct appearance that he has no answer for the solid presentation of facts, and wishes to remove the debate from public view.

I would offer the challenge to simply post to the topic, present what each of us knows or feels to be so, and the case for it, and let’s put it here and consider each one for what it is and where it fits in the puzzle, and stay off the personal stuff. I hope there are those who are interested in doing so, and who can resist the attempts to derail when things don’t go as well for their arguments—myself included, should that prove to be the case.

 

The following is an example of antimasonic work that has been around for awhile, and is typical of the outlandish nature of some of the accusations to be found on the internet.

Very strange interpretation. I haven’t seen anywhere in any source the idea that a five-pointed star is one of the Masonic jewels. But the handling of Remphan is the real curiosity. “Rapid eye movement,” a term which was not coined until the 20th century, as part of the meaning of a word which is actually a Hebrew derivative? Not to mention the unheard-of practice of separating the word in half, then interpreting the halves! Strong’s actually says the word is from 3594, “guide or lead,” and was mis-transliterated. Strong’s lists it as 4481, and attributes it to Egyptian idol Kidrun.

All reputable sources, Masonic or antimasonic, pretty much agree, Freemasonry had no earlier origins than early medieval times. Late 1300’s is the date generally given, Regius and Cooke manuscripts generally the earliest writings with any Masonic significance.

These verses [Isaiah 14:12-17] reveal how Satan wants to exalt himself above the living God, to claim the heavenly throne as well as the earthly Throne of David. He will fail miserably and be thrown into hell, or the lake of fire and brimstone. He will bring the nations to a disastrous ruin, desolation and all those who follow him will end up in the same place, for God has spoken this judgment. (p. 51)

Now this is one of the more common accusations, and based mostly on a poor bit of translation by the KJV translators, who saw fit to simply adopt wholesale a word for “morning star,” that came from the Vulgate Bible, namely “Lucifer.” The passage she quotes has nothing to do with the “fall of Satan,” but declares in the text that it speaks of the fall of the king of Tyre. Verse 19 of that same chapter makes it very clear it is not Satan, who could not be said to be “cast out of his grave,” having never had one.

Strange thing to see someone linking together Freemasons and Catholics in some kind of conspiracy, since Catholics have been, and remain, staunch and outspoken critics of Freemasonry.

This is basically the same thing, with a couple of different twists, as the British Israelism espoused by Herbert W. Armstrong.

She also speaks of people who were Freemasons, including "seventeen American Presidents from George Washington to Ronald Reagan and scores of others." (p. 63)

From everything I have been able to find on the matter, it has been determined that Ronald Reagan was never a Freemason.

From what I’ve seen of this book, It can only be described as bizarre. A lot of it seems to be pure speculation, and I find it significant that there are very few documented positions in it at all. Also, if the section she quotes from Pike is actually from Pike, it is far different than the online version of it. There is a large section omitted, there are changes in the wording, and inclusion of material I could not find there. It may not be a case of misrepresentation so much as poor documentation, or poor source material. Poor source material is often the culprit, and in comparing among such extreme antimasonic websites, often the same errors that appear in one appear in another, a strong indication that original documents are not being consulted firsthand, but are simply read as they are quoted from one site to another, passing along any errors that may have been made. The result is that errors are not just passed along, they are compounded—all the while, being read and accepted as the “truth” about Freemasonry. .

 

Mike
First you insult a person three times. You say the person is lying about the issue of Anti Masons but do not present any proof other wise which is what you are suppose to do in a debate.

I have shown you Christ in the lodge, Be W has given you statements about how He was once Anti Masonic. The Worm presented Anti Masonic ideals to Bens post.

Yet You did not address any off the issue. You came out an attacked got off subject. Please remain on subjet and contuine wit the debate. Please review our post and come back wiht an answer pretaining to them.

The Worm is still able to post here. I guess the Mods are not that upset as you may be. As a Christian please stop with the insult and show a Witness for Christ. Address the Issues so we may contuine the debate.

 

Obviously a point of contention, so let's take a look. We'll start with the organization first.

I mentioned a statement at Ephesians 5:11, and a position taken by the members that contradict it. The statement, found in a piece titled, “Leading a Christian out of the Lodge,” says,

Makes the whole thing sound like they speak gently with them, witnessing to them, the Holy Spirit guides them, everything is all positive. Yet if you read the forums and get a better picture of their "witnessing," you generally find something like this response by Mr. Kunk:

Such harsh judgementalism is really more the norm than the exception.


I also mentioned you in the above-mentioned post, so I'm sure you take exception to that one as well. So: lies or truth? Here's how it went down:

On May 14, 2004 7:37 AM, you posted on the “Freemasonry” thread:

No one had posted anything at all on this, it was something that was introduced flat-footedly into a conversation on other issues. That makes it pretty clear you were setting this out as your position also, especially since you provided the link and invited everybody to have a look.

This came after you had posted at Christianforums.com on the “Christianity and Freemasonry” thread, April 3 at 6:24 PM, in reply to similar challenges to your practices:

One position on one board, another position on another, and not that terribly far apart, barely over a month. Contradictory, as I already pointed out. But I notice you said "us," so I assume you refer to the others in your camp. Let's see about Eph. 5:11, whether they support such theories:

Sounds like to me Mr. Kunk supports it pretty strongly. It might be pretty interesting to see this "source" he details, he's the only person I've heard mention it. Must be a pretty small "circle" it travels in.

One of the most recent was Mr. Washum at Ephesians 5:11 forums. He and Wayne had gotten into a heated discussion after Wayne posted some solid Christian statements that came from the reference and glossary sections of a Masonic Bible. First Skip Sampson, and then Duane Washum questioned the authority of the Masonic Bible, even posting a facetious list of "authoritative Masonic sources," with Skip's choice of the rituals in the top spot, and the Masonic Bible in the bottom spot. Duane commented:

Yet in the heat of another argument a year earlier with Charles Pyle, he made these comments:

Not just quoting it authoritatively to Mr. Pyle, but gloatingly so.

My guess is, you fellows just go with the flow, and whatever happens to float your boat at the moment, go with it, as long as you sell the next video or cassette. I think that goes a long way toward explaining why, in spite of forum rules against advertising, you still manage to mention your organization or post links to it on most of the pages where you have posted here. Only trouble is, some people aren't buying any of it. And in fact, many of them are wise to you, and don't mind standing up to you, and wind up exposing themselves to your character defamation, slander, and hateful accusations. In the meantime you continue to troll forum boards across the net, peddling to each one whichever of your wares they will be gullible enough to accept.

But then, that's just my opinion. But at least I deal in specifics, and I do back up what I say.

T
o tell you the truth, I would have revealed to you who I was much earlier, had it not been for you coming out with all that talk about URL's and tracking and making it sound like you had the same capabilities and intentions as a stalker type. Having dealt with that once, I had no desire to go there again, had no idea what you were capable of, and from your track record was extremely distrustful of you. And the only reason I eventually came out when I did, was a change of servers and purchase of equipment to provide a better sense of security. So please don't insult me with comments designed to boost your own integrity, it comes across as pretty hollow.

I stand by what I've posted, believe me, there's a lot more there than just this little bit. I have watched for over a year while Wayne has dealt with your insults and accusations and attacks on his character, without any provocation other than standing up for what he believes, a position held by Christian Masons all over the country, and the world. I took it on myself, when he would not, to come to this forum and post, and if my decision actually has backfired and brings down criticism, then so be it, but it is as I said, an action that was done in direct mockery of your own actions elsewhere. I have tried to deal with this with you privately, yet you insist on continuing to bring it forth to the forum. I can only assume you have been trying to derail any discussion of such inconsistencies as the above before I had the chance to post any. The irony is that I wouldn't have even gone that direction, had it not been for the accusations.

When will enough be enough, Mr. O.F.F.-topic?

The Worm

 

Such harsh judgementalism is really more the norm than the exception.

[/QUOTE]

Here is an excellent example of the Gnostic Teachings of the anti movement.

Does Jesus not break all curses and forgive all sin when people are Born Again? Note that the article openly states that they are Christians already.

Who gets into heaven? Jesus specifically tells us not to judge others. Yet people like these are only to happy to set themselves up as judges over people in direct violation of Scripture.

The Freemasons openly state they are not in any way a religious organisation, there is no Gospel to preach, except to refer people back to there own church for guidance.

How many masons are in heaven? A mason is anyone that has worked in Stone Masonry over the centuries, including all Trade Guilds, all have Secret signs so that they can recognise one another, all refer to God, so that their members are known to be accountable to one another, these practices can be very easily proven to have been occuring scince the 16th Century. In fact these people actually built many of the churches in the world today. And resultingly because of there involvement in Masonry they are not saved? Get a grip.

 

The issue of judging is not so cut and dry. When it comes to those who claim to be Christian we are to judge. See 1 Corinthians 5.

 

Mike
I lot of Mason will say that you are not a Real Master Mason until you go thru the York Rite of Freemasonry.

It has also been said the the Blue Lodge Degrees are like a half Sung Song with out the York Rite.

That being said the York Rite goes and explains and completes the stories of the Blue Lodge. You receive a even better understanding of the first three degrees of Freemasonry. I am a Kinights Templar we close and open Lodge in the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. He is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah He is the Morning Star and He is the second Person in the Trinity.

As far as Judgeing Other Christians I have told those at the E5-11 how I felt about them and their stateing a Christian Mason will burn in Hell.

 

Then maybe you need to clarify your definitions a bit. Exactly what does it mean to be “sealed by the Holy Spirit?” Is one who has been sealed thusly considered to be a “true” Christian or not? You really sound like you are saying two irreconcilable things, same as I saw Larry saying. Anyone sealed by the Holy Spirit, as I see it, is a “true” Christian. And this is what the website’s statement declares. Yet both Larry and you insist that there are, among those who are sealed by the Spirit, some who will not be allowed in heaven. Please explain how this can be, as this is the heart of the matter where this issue is concerned.

Maybe they can’t, but I can. “The US dollar does not contain many Masonic symbols.” There, that wasn’t hard. The pyramid has never been a Masonic symbol. It gets mentioned by Masons, Pike called it a universal symbol of eternal life, but he didn’t note any Masonic significance. And if you truly wish to distance yourself from the conspiracy theories, why do you provide links to sites that support them?
A good, solid refutation of the entire dollar mess may be found at http://www.savingsmagic.com/story/dollar.htm#hate

All I can say to that is to refer to your own post at thelodgeroom.com titled "IT'S ABOUT INSULIN, NOT ICE CREAM”:

The link to see it firsthand is http://p212.ezboard.com/fmasonicdiscussionatthelodgeroomfrm9.showMessage?topicID=102.topic

1/8/04 19:11---You first entered the post.

1/9/04 11:55---Theron Dunn first called you on it, listing two URL's for the websites from which you plagiarized the material.

1/9/04 17:14---You edited the post, putting in a hasty, generalized statement of "attribution" which even then did not give Gregory Koukl (the author) credit by mentioning his name.

1/9/04 19:11---After a few further comments by others about your indiscretion, the only comment you had was "Whether you accept it or not, I qualified the sources of my post at the end of it."

You followed this in the same post by quoting from the North Dakota Monitor, comparing the use of a line of Scripture in their Common Gavel lecture, with your own practice of plagiarism. I guess by your reasoning John Wesley was one of the world's worst plagiarists. I've seen some of his sermons, it's incredible how many lines of scripture flow from his pen during the course of just one sermon, without ever giving chapter and verse, and usually without even quotation marks. Besides not coming anywhere close to being the same thing, the whole attempt to use the Bible to try to justify what you did was pretty lame.

1/11/04 16:40---After reading your "explanation," Stephen Dafoe posted to you, "Could have saved yourself a good deal of grief and credibility if you had put this in the original post instead of as an afterthought once you were caught."

Your silence from that point, and the end of that thread from that point, are a pretty good indication of the truth of the matter. I guess you were hoping nobody noticed something as obvious as a dated edit.

How can you plagiarize material, then simply try to gloss over it...

And yet come back from that a short time later and accuse someone of dishonesty for quoting her husband's material WITH PERMISSION?

Especially after you and your good buddy were caught at the same thing, and defended it by saying you "gave each other permission?" That's a pretty convenient double standard.

Why not? After all, you’re the one that set the precedent.

And as I've mentioned already, it has everything to do with my being here, to parody the same actions back to you and see what your reaction is to the same things. Your vigorous condemnation and criticism are nothing but a sound critique and condemnation of your own behavior. Besides, since you now make the accusation that my quoting his material now makes it appear that I am simply "The Rev" posting under my nickname here--how do we truly know that you fellows weren't doing the same thing you make accusation of? In fact, your accusation might simply be an indication that you guys were not “borrowing each other’s material” as you put it, but borrowing and posting under each other’s nics. It stands to reason that if you were, then you would be quick (and you were) to accuse someone else of it.

You forgot your “imo.”

Besides, “exposed to it indirectly” is counter to the claim you have always made, that it is hidden in symbolism in the lower degrees, those in the lower degrees are deceived, and then it is overt in the “higher” degrees. As always, when the truth is presented, your story changes to make it appear truthful.

There are errors in your understanding of Freemasonry, even more in your understanding of Pike, and a complete lack of self-perception at the very core of your strong predilection for determining who and/or what is Christian or not. You continually strain at gnats and swallow elephants. And once again you fail to see that your actions tell everyone quite a different story than your words.

 

As I’ve said already, you misunderstand Pike terribly. His own preface to the work reveals that 50% or better of the book is not even his material, and that he has included it so interspersed with his own that he would not even care to try to go back and sort it all out. And much of that material is of the nature of a “History of Religions” 101, it simply takes themes and symbols and beliefs and traces them back as far as they can be traced, with his main objective being to establish his premise that religion is a universal impulse, and has concepts that are universal in their application across practically all religions. “Descendant” or “reincarnation” are your descriptions, not his. “Symbolism rooted in pagan darkness?” It has already been shown, quoted from Pike himself, that a Christian interpretation of the symbolism of Freemasonry is not only possible, but just may be the system that the symbols fit best. That would be no surprise, really, since it arose in a country that was thoroughly Christian at the time of its development, and continues to this day to flourish greatly in countries where Christianity is the predominant religion. If it had truly developed in the time frame you suggest, then why are there no preservations of any of the language? In a fraternity with the mindset of Freemasonry, that the preservation of the rituals and symbols and forms as they were received is of the utmost importance, then why are there no ancient Egyptian examples of the language preserved?

Trying to make Freemasonry foundational upon Egyptian concepts is an anachronism The language of the rituals is the language of medieval English. The only solid evidence and writing that exists comes from the medieval English period. The rituals in their roleplay format are a throwback to an early art form, the morality play, from which Shakespeare adopted some of his format and material—again, from medieval English. And the one factor that tops it all off more than anything else is, its teaching on bodily resurrection. Such a concept is foreign to systems outside of Christianity. A thorough examination of this concept as relates to both Freemasonry and the Church was set forth in The Origin and Evolution of Freemasonry by Dr. Albert Churchward, from around 1920.

 

Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good.

(7. The all-seeing eye, as explained to me in the first degree lecture coming from Proverbs 15:3.)

Mike this is interesting because I had forgotten to present the All Seeing Eye as one of the Symbols of Freemasonry. What is even more interesting is that You presented it and stated that it was explained to You to represent YHWH and you were even given a Bible verse for refrence. It is presented as being YHWH so the God represented in the Ritaul according to the above statement presented by you is YHWH.

 

Pretty vague “proof” if you truly seek to make a point with it. Being “mentioned” in no way makes the symbol “Masonic.” All the Masonic symbols that are truly such, are defined within Masonry in no uncertain terms as symbols that Masonry considers Masonic. No matter what source I have found on the matter, it has all been the same, there are places where it gets mentioned, but not truly designated and defined in the same way as, say, a square and compass.

Irrelevant. He also appears on the quarter, but it hasn’t received the same notoriety. Lincoln was not a Mason, yet he appears on the five. Hamilton was not a Mason, yet he appears on the ten. And strangely, though I’ve seen considerable mention of Washington’s lodge membership, you’re the first I’ve heard refer to him as a “Masonic symbol.”

Francis Hopkinson, designer of the original seal, was not a Mason. It would be strange indeed for him to be intentionally including Masonic symbols. Besides, what you describe as a square is actually a chevron, the same type of insignia worn on the shoulder designating various military ranks, and appearing quite often, as here, as a design emblem on many types of shields. Here the chevron serves as the field for the 13 stars representing the 13 original colonies.

A key is simply a symbol designating someone operating in an official capacity. Visiting dignitaries to large cities, in a practice not as common today, were often given the “keys to the city,” an acknowledgment of the weight of authority shown by their very person and presence. The key on this seal, in the department’s own explanation of the symbols, likewise refers to the authority vested in the Department of the Treasury, and was also likewise designed by non-Mason Hopkinson. The chevron and stars refer to the original colonies, and the scales to justice.

This is so ludicrous I can’t even imagine where to start—except to say that I never realized until this posted, that my children have been playing on a Masonic playground, with the swing sets forming the square on the ends, circles on the merry-go-round, horizontals on the monkey bars, and perpendiculars everywhere you look. Get real—the bill is rectangular, which dictates four right angles from the start. The only circles I see that you could refer to would be the circles encompassing the seals, which are actually not part of the design itself, and are simply the common form of border. The rest of them are ovals.

“Could?” You choose a word denoting only the possibility, and try to set this forth as something evidentiary? There are many other things it “could” be: for example, in Tarot, “1” is symbolic of beginnings, of the prime force of creation and creative energy; in Hebrew symbolism, “1” indicates God, the immutable divine unity; in Vedic numerology, it indicates ambition and leadership, represented by the sun and Zodiac sign Leo; in the Kabbalah, it also denotes leadership, as well as independence and strength, represented by signs Aries and Scorpio; in basic numerology, it stands for initiative, originality, and individuality.

But when speaking of the basic monetary unit of the dollar, it simply tells us the value of this specific unit, which is one dollar—much the same way the “five” on the five dollar bill tells us it is worth five times as much.

(I notice you didn’t attempt to complete the set, offering us the same logic with the two-dollar-bill for the second degree, and the…………….hmmm, guess the lack of a three explains your omission, huh?)

“In God We Trust” did not appear on the dollar bill until 1957. Considering the timing of the phrase’s appearance, and its subsequent appearance on all U.S. currency by 1963, it probably had more to do with McCarthyism than anything else, much the same as the phrase “Under God” made its first appearance in the Pledge of Allegiance in the mid-50’s, also at the peak of heightened concerns about Communism.

So it’s a biblical symbol then. Which is all it was ever intended to be anyway, even as a Masonic symbol, simply representing the all-seeing eye of God. Why do you have a problem with God being omniscient?

As for any Masonic significance in its placement, there is none. The designers (non-Masons) placed it as a symbol of all the ways that God had already guided the young nation.

Here we go again—“can” be? Surely you’ve noticed, it can also be viewed as an intricately detailed design around the borders of the dollar bill.

Wow, I’m not sure if “arguably” takes us up or down the scale from “can” be and “could” be. Maybe you could take a few pointers from ol’ Bill about what the definition of “is” is.

Ain’t that the truth. And you’ve obviously chosen to see this one as you choose to see it.

My count comes out quite different than yours:


1 indisputable Masonic symbol, the “all-seeing eye”
5 definitely discounted
3 wannabe’s described variously as could, can, and arguably
1 honorable “mention”


Maybe antimasonry needs to be further subdivided, along the same subdivisions of Freemasonry’s divisions of “operative” Masonry and “speculative” Masonry—yours, of course, falling under the latter category, since the bulk of your commentary is easily seen for the pure speculation it truly is.

Strange, too, seeing someone who so ardently rejects the notion of a “Masonic Dollar” who also strenuously defends it.

Your failure to ever quite address me correctly is well noted. Your diversionary tactic of never quite mentioning any specifics or denying the obvious truth of them, is also well noted. Kind of hard to argue with the facts, especially with direct links provided.

You've never "proven" it "time," much less "time again," though you certainly get an "A" for effort. Rather than repost what has already been posted on the matter, I will simply provide the link for the post on 7/26 of Pike's thorough description of the Christian interpretation of the Blue Degrees of Masonry. His explanation fully supports what his position has been all along, that the fraternity of Freemasonry is fully compatible with the religion of the Christian Mason.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2732/4.html?

[ August 19, 2004, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: TheWorm ]

 

I am interested in the idea of a Christian being "sealed" by the Holy Spirit. How is this explained in Scripture?

As I see it, everyone who is Born Again does belong to the Lord. It seems to me that when you are Baptised in the Holy Spirit, that is at the same time that you give your life to Jesus, not as a secondary event.

 

Mike you stil have not address the issues I presented Clear Christian refrences to Christ in Freemasonry and also that you were told that the All Seeing Eye was YHWH by your Lodge.

(Again, in my view as well as those of many FORMER Masons)

Again you are correct in it is your view not fact but your view. But you contuine to stand with those who state a Mason who is a Christian will goto Hell.


If Freemasonry teaches:
Lion of the Tribe of Judah
God in the Threefold aspect of the Trinity
GAOTU is Jehovah

Some of People you stand with teach:
A Christian Mason will burn in Hell

Which is Compatible with the Teachings of Christianty

 

Getting Mike to answer that one might be interesting, Ben. As a Baptist, you can probably guess where I stand on the issue of eternal security. That's one of the places where me and hubby have to simply part ways--although we're not all that far apart on a lot of it. It has a lot to do with basic terminology more than anything.

But you might catch Mike in a position he'd rather not be in. If he denies that the person "sealed with the Spirit" is a Christian who will be in heaven, then he contradicts his belief system, which is Calvinist from what little I've seen of it. But if he agrees the person is "sealed," then he has to deny the position he has set forth about Christians who join the lodge. And if he simply decides this person was not someone who was truly sealed, then he puts himself at odds with the forum at which he is a moderator.

But Mike has already made his position known, so we know which part of his set of beliefs needs "adjustment."

E-5 website statement:

And now Mike's last post:

Notice in particular Mike's definition of what a TRUE Christian is, in his phrase, "true Christians (those sealed by the Holy Spirit)." And he makes it clear that in order to be a true Christian, a Mason has to accept his view that Freemasonry is incompatible with Christianity, and respond accordingly by leaving the lodge.

Yet only two posts earlier on this same page, he had already declared:

So in this latest post, he's reversed himself, and now he considers the TRUE Christian Mason to be the INFORMED one. He gives the appearance of making this up as he goes along. Once again, the other side of his mouth has caused his position to come unglued.

Of course, there is one other option, and that would be to argue that "sealed" does not indicate what has been stated here. But that would run against the Word:

2 Cor. 1:22 "Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts."

Eph. 4:30 "And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby you are sealed unto the day of redemption."

Eph. 1:13 "In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,"

Perhaps the wisest choice of all would be to simply drop it like a hot potato, sorta like what he did (and wisely so) with the Masonic dollar that isn't so Masonic after all.