Complete Proof Of Freemasonry Being Satanic?

Sebatwerk:

Those are asshxle comments.

It's extraordinary how many busy little bees will come out to defend when their hive is threatened

Originally posted by freudling


Those are asshxle comments.

In what way?
He's answered the question truthfully and the trolls refuse to see that truth. It is a pure and utter ignorance of the English language. To make it worse, it is being twisted to suit a malignant agenda.
I worship no man, yet I refer to the master of my Lodge as the Worshipful Master. My town in England has a Worshipful Mayor yet I certainly don't pray to him. I would no more expect to worship them in the religious sense that I would expect them me.

The dictionary definition has already been given here. Those who choose to ignore it can't complain if they are accused of ignorance.

Originally posted by freudling
Sebatwerk:

Those are asshxle comments.

Why's that? If, like NotMindControlled stated, people get offended that masons call other masons "worshipful", a term of respect, because they think it only means someone that you worship, then that is wrong. I'm not trying to be a prick, but masons are doing nothing wrong by using the term, yet they are being demonized for it, only because people don't realize that it's only a term of respect and nedearment, and has been for a long time!

Hey guys, I agree that people should not be spouting their mouth off about semantics in the context of spiritual and academic practice, particularly of practice derived from 100's of years ago. However, you know what I am talking about. And "proper"? Proper is learning language we use today, not 100's of years ago. As an inverse example, the word "wicked" in its everyday informal use means something contrary to what it meant just a few hundred years ago. Language changes. It would have been better to just say that the poster should investigate the etiology of certain words associated with Religion and ancient societies.

Originally posted by freudling
Hey guys, I agree that people should not be spouting their mouth off about semantics in the context of spiritual and academic practice, particularly of practice derived from 100's of years ago. However, you know what I am talking about. And "proper"? Proper is learning language we use today, not 100's of years ago.

You're contadicting yourself there dude.
You admit that the practice is hundreds of years old yet you deny the historical context that the word is used in.
One of the strengths of Freemasonry is tradition. That means the language it uses as much as it does anything else. The interpretation of the word is certainly "proper" as far as Freemasonry is concerned and as the subject here is precisely about Masonic intepretation, I believe that the word "proper" is entirely pertinent for use here.

[edit on 13-2-2005 by Leveller]

Originally posted by freudling
Hey guys, I agree that people should not be spouting their mouth off about semantics in the context of spiritual and academic practice, particularly of practice derived from 100's of years ago. However, you know what I am talking about. And "proper"? Proper is learning language we use today, not 100's of years ago. As an inverse example, the word "wicked" in its everyday informal use means something contrary to what it meant just a few hundred years ago. Language changes. It would have been better to just say that the poster should investigate the etiology of certain words associated with Religion and ancient societies.

Perhaps you're right, I could've stated what I said differently... but my comments were not "asshxle", per say. They were strong, because I feel strongly about it. I find it to be a great injustice that masonry be slandered because of other people's mistakes. And I wasn't trying to insult NotMindControlled when I said that like him, other people don't know the true meaning of the word. I was underthe impression that he didn't know it's true meaning until it was posted by a few guys. And if he did, then it's wrong of him to still try to slander masons with something he knows to be false.

Sebatwerk:

I agree with most everything you said in the latter post.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

No. Neither does Boy Scouts of America, Lions Club, or PTA. We are not a Christian organization, we are a fraternal organization. The Lodge is not a church.

The boys scouts, lions club, pta do not require it's members to believe in a god. That disqualifies them as a religious orginization. You can't use them or the girl scouts, unions, baseball teams, or any orginization to defend your "freemasonry is not a religion" stance. You think about it, if an orginization were to be born today, and required it's members to believe in a god, does it qualify it to be a religious sect? THAT IS THE ONE REQUIREMENT THAT WOULD QUALIFY ANY ORGINIZATION TO BE CONSIDERED A RELIGOUS ORGINIZATION. It would be a secular orginization if you weren't required to believe in a god. Freemasonry can't qualify as a secular orginization uless it drops it's requirement of belief in a god. Why does freemasonry require a belief in a god anyway? I guess you can't be a secularist and a freemason. I guess you have to be religious to be in the fraternal order. I guess the fraternal order and religion are one in the same in the case of freemasonry. I don't see it any other way.

Originally posted by notmindcontrolled
It would be a secular orginization if you weren't required to believe in a god. Freemasonry can't qualify as a secular orginization unless it drops it's requirement of belief in a god.

It would help if you understood what the word "secular" means.

sec·u·lar P Pronunciation Key (sky-lr)
adj.

Worldly rather than spiritual.
Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
Relating to or advocating secularism.
Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
Lasting from century to century.

Explain to me how having a belief in a Supreme Being makes me religious even if I profess to follow no religion.

Originally posted by Leveller


In what way?
He's answered the question truthfully and the trolls refuse to see that truth. It is a pure and utter ignorance of the English language. To make it worse, it is being twisted to suit a malignant agenda.
I worship no man, yet I refer to the master of my Lodge as the Worshipful Master. My town in England has a Worshipful Mayor yet I certainly don't pray to him. I would no more expect to worship them in the religious sense that I would expect them me.

The dictionary definition has already been given here. Those who choose to ignore it can't complain if they are accused of ignorance.

Would it be o.k. to refer to all people that you respect to be called worshipful? People, accept masons, here in the U.S. don't refer to any authority as "worshipful" and for good reason. Masons are the only people that use the term loosley. And christian masons should know better then to call any man "worshipful". Stick with christian principle and drop the silly time honored traditions of man. That shows that you are strong in your faith and that freemasonry doesn't have a stranglehold on you. Ex 20:3, "you shall not have other gods besides me". God is to be worshiped, therefore he is "worshipful", your leader in the lodge is not to be worshiped, therefore deny him the title of "worshipful master" and stand by your faith. This is directed at the christian masons.

Originally posted by notmindcontrolled

The boys scouts, lions club, pta do not require it's members to believe in a god. That disqualifies them as a religious orginization. You can't use them or the girl scouts, unions, baseball teams, or any orginization to defend your "freemasonry is not a religion" stance. You think about it, if an orginization were to be born today, and required it's members to believe in a god, does it qualify it to be a religious sect? THAT IS THE ONE REQUIREMENT THAT WOULD QUALIFY ANY ORGINIZATION TO BE CONSIDERED A RELIGOUS ORGINIZATION. It would be a secular orginization if you weren't required to believe in a god. Freemasonry can't qualify as a secular orginization uless it drops it's requirement of belief in a god. Why does freemasonry require a belief in a god anyway? I guess you can't be a secularist and a freemason. I guess you have to be religious to be in the fraternal order. I guess the fraternal order and religion are one in the same in the case of freemasonry. I don't see it any other way.

I would refer you to www.bsalegal.org...

This is the Boy Scouts Legal Issues website...where they state why atheists and agnostics cannot be scouts, where they take an "oath" to God (non-secretarian ie God of your choice)....

hrmm starting to sound familiar isn't it?

Research research research......

Originally posted by Golfie

I would refer you to www.bsalegal.org...

This is the Boy Scouts Legal Issues website...where they state why atheists and agnostics cannot be scouts, where they take an "oath" to God (non-secretarian ie God of your choice)....

hrmm starting to sound familiar isn't it?

Research research research......

You got me there on the boy scout thing. I guess they are to be considered "religous". But how can a young boy understand what god is anyway? Oh well, doesn't matter.

Originally posted by Leveller






Explain to me how having a belief in a Supreme Being makes me religious even if I profess to follow no religion.

www.masonicinfo.com...


Because the "grande architect of the universe" and the god of christians are considered by christians to be the same deity. The god of christians is the creator of the universe. Unless the grand architect of the universe isn't considered by masons to be the creator of the universe. Anyone?
What was with the secular definition post? I know what secular means. I don't get why you felt the need to define it for me.

Firstly, I am English. We invented the language. I use the word "worshipful" in the same context as that which I have already explained.
I honestly don't see how you could disagree with my interpretation. As the definition of the word is all down to the individual who uses it and his interpretation, I find it ignorant and arrogant of you to try and define my vocabulary for me - especially when you seem to be having so much trouble with your own.

Secondly, your link does not prove that Freemasonry is a religion. In fact, it shows the opposite.

"The major 'bone of contention' for some detractors, Masonry does not attempt to define or delineate how a person should pray or to whom worship should be addressed."

You didn't understand the word "secular" and you seem to be having the same problem with the word "religion". Religion is a laid down set of rules regarding the worship of god. It is a doctrine - otherwise it is a belief. Freemasonry does not lay down that doctrine, it does not define the god, it is therefore not a religion.
Your quote that Freemason's all worship the Christian god is in itself contradicted by the link that you gave.


Tell me something. If I don't believe in a Christian god, Islamic god, Jewish god, or any other god from a recognised religion, yet I still believe in a Supreme Being, is my belief a religion? If so, do you have a problem with that?

Originally posted by notmindcontrolled

Because the "grande architect of the universe" and the god of christians are considered by christians to be the same deity.

Yep...you're getting it.....

The god of christians is the creator of the universe.

If you are a christian, Yes. Otherwise probably not.

Unless the grand architect of the universe isn't considered by masons to be the creator of the universe. Anyone?

He is. G.A.O.T.U is just a universal title that can REPRESENT any said Supreme Being. Whether it be christian/jewish/islamic/whatever.....don't try to make more out of it than what it is.....

Originally posted by notmindcontrolled
Stick with christian principle and drop the silly time honored traditions of man.

I would dare say that most Masons do stick with the "Christian principle".

Who are you to call another man's time-honored traditions silly? Who are you to tell another man which definition he means when he uses a word? I noticed that nowhere in the definitions of the word in question did it say "one who is worshipped", did you? If so repost it for me, I must have missed it.

Originally posted by notmindcontrolled

Ex 20:3, "you shall not have other gods besides me". God is to be worshiped, therefore he is "worshipful", your leader in the lodge is not to be worshiped, therefore deny him the title of "worshipful master" and stand by your faith. This is directed at the christian masons.

Yep very familiar with that passage....And I do WORSHIP HIM. And by ONE definition of the word I find him Worshipful.

I don't know any masons that call the leader of thier lodge God, nor pray to them nor ask them to deliver them into salvation. Therefore they do not WORSHIP the master of the lodge. I do know masons that call thier leader "Worshipful Master" (here's that hard part to understand) out of RESPECT (there's that darned old OTHER meaning of the word again)

I understand that you may not like the idea that the word Worshipful has multiple meanings....take it up with Websters....it is how it is...and I don't think it's going to change.

Do I dare mention the use of the words Lord and Saviour?

Originally posted by Leveller
Firstly, I am English. We invented the language. I use the word "worshipful" in the same context as that which I have already explained.
I honestly don't see how you could disagree with my interpretation. As the definition of the word is all down to the individual who uses it and his interpretation, I find it ignorant and arrogant of you to try and define my vocabulary for me - especially when you seem to be having so much trouble with your own.

Secondly, your link does not prove that Freemasonry is a religion. In fact, it shows the opposite.

"The major 'bone of contention' for some detractors, Masonry does not attempt to define or delineate how a person should pray or to whom worship should be addressed."

You didn't understand the word "secular" and you seem to be having the same problem with the word "religion". Religion is a laid down set of rules regarding the worship of god. It is a doctrine - otherwise it is a belief. Freemasonry does not lay down that doctrine, it does not define the god, it is therefore not a religion.
Your quote that Freemason's all worship the Christian god is in itself contradicted by the link that you gave.


Tell me something. If I don't believe in a Christian god, Islamic god, Jewish god, or any other god from a recognised religion, yet I still believe in a Supreme Being, is my belief a religion? If so, do you have a problem with that?

I don't know. What is the supreme being to you? Is it the creator of the universe? If so, then the supreme being that you believe in is a divinity or a being of supernatural power. Also, if your supreme being fits this description, then you believe in a god, divinity, supreme being, supernatural entity. If not please define supreme being for me. Thanks.
www.hyperdictionary.com...
Also like I said before, "worshipful" isn't used by non-masonic christians to refer to any athourity. You want to use it to reference yourself and you superiors, fine. Use it in that context, but me as a christian have only one "worshipful master" and that is Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by notmindcontrolled
You want to use it to reference yourself and you superiors, fine. Use it in that context, but me as a christian have only one "worshipful master" and that is Jesus Christ.

Great. Good for you, that's your right. But others have the right to use the word when and how they deem it appropriate.

You have already been given instances where this word is used in a non-religious context. Just because you refuse to recognize or acknowledge that isn't anyone's problem but yours.