posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 07:40 PM
>>>Actually Freemasonry holds the requirement of belief in a Supreme >>>Being because, since most of the lessons come from the Old >>>Testament, the
teachings of Freemasonry would not mean a whole lot >>>to someone who does not hold this belief. They would be rather >>>>insignificant and pointless.
Hmmm..... but non-believers (and I do mean that the masons
fables sound more like fables than historical facts), are
able to understand moral beliefs, aren't they ?
I think the issue that "if you don't believe
you have no reasons to be moral" is wrong,
because they are simple philosophical
logics based on simple organicor cosmologic
princibles as homeostasis or osmosis
that would guide anyone with a fair mind
to understand them.
Personally I would suggest any non-believer
interested in the "brotherhood appeal"
of freemasonry, and which hold strong
philosophical agreements with certain morals,
to lie about any belief in a supreme being
upon entry in the Fraternity.
In the end, they are the ones that would
be able to say if Masonry is unfit to
them, because believers tend to
considers unbelievers as lost sheeps
A system similar as masonry,
say that such system was some sort of "humanitarian
assurance" (help others so you get helped),
sounds totally logical.
When I first heard about masonry many years ago
I thought they started as a community of intellectuals
meeting in secret to talk about their religious concerns,
under the light of historical doubts concerning the bible.
Sort of a melting pot between philosophers, esoterists,
agnostics, stuff like that.
I thought it was a neat idea but
then I realized I was kind of very wrong
when I started reading more about it.
Since I had done a lot of research
concerning philosophy and spirituality,
I thought it was more about "come here
and see what we can teach you", but
I had this condescending sentiment of
thinking "Huh...What ?...I know these things
already ?..Thank you".
I am pretty certain that some people
would be deceived by masonry
knowledge because they are "already
prepared" before entering masonry.
I mean....let's face it...to serious
esoterists and theologians the experience
could come out as ridicule.
Just like not everyone enjoys
playing a pc game like Myst.
Of course, they can take advantage
of the brotherhood, but...that doesn't
mean the system can't be critiqued.
Or let's call it tradition
for tradition's sake.
Maybe it's also a fetischism.
What about if masons were able
to discuss politics and religions,
but that entering the fraternity
meant they made agreement to stand
above these topics and respect
everyone's matters on the subject ?
What about comparing a fraternity
to a forum like this one,
where people are (idealistically)
forced to respect each others until
they are banned ?
Is a forum where posters must be registered,
and most using avatars and hidden identities,
a form of fraternity ?
Are masons or members of other groups
coming here because they think
the exchange is more fruitful
than discussing only with members
of their fraternities ?
Why, finallly, are people so curious to know
what each others think ?
Cedric The Ephiminate