My Masonic journey begins...

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Most of the symbols of the Scottish Rite are limited to one degree. Indeed, this is probably the reason that initiation into the fraternity is divided into degrees, so that each one can concentrate on its own meanings, without rambling.

I was thinking more about why the sun had a face and conclussions from that investigation. I'm sure there's good reason for degrees in the same way the military has ranks or a company as grades. Different jobs and responsibilities I'd presume, though could be wrong. I don't find anything inherently evil with heirarchy, just prefer a level playing field myself.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Only that most, if not all, all of the above were founded by Masons.

Masons or ex-Masons? I don't know if there's such a thing, but would be interesting if they were still Masons at the time of founding these groups.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I can't respond to your point about those games because I know absolutely nothing about them. I can only assume that they're a result of people having fun with conspiracy theories.

That's what I thought in the beginning. I do think though, in their research to create a fun game, they stumbled onto some things that weren't entirely fiction. Perhaps there are certain games designed for one of the secret societies, but one can not really tell. The one you've referenced is quite interesting. Still have to look into Rosicrucian Chess.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I would have to disagree. Levi accurately predicted, for example, global communication which we're using right now, along with many other results. To fully appreciate his contribution, it is of course necessary to read his book, but I think you may be intrigued with what he had to say.

Perhaps my statement was a bit hasty, but it did some good in testing the metal of yours. I went by only what I knew so it would be wise of me to take your recommendation and read up on it more. So many books, so little time. He'd have to be pretty specific for me to believe in any form of predictions though. I'm one who believes 'Science Fiction' always existed within mankind about the marvels of technology we would be able to achieve. If someone told me an ancient trader in china envisioned teleportation to Rome instead of travelling the Silk Road, I would not be surprised. Nevertheless! I should research before flapping my trap any more. I've seen no try to steer me wrong on anything thus far and answered many unanswered questions I had.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I personally agree with Einstein, inasmuch as the theory of relativity does not allow anything with mass to break the speed the light. This is because, according to relativity, the closer an object comes to the speed of light, the more mass it acquires, and therefore the more energy it will take to move it faster. By the time the object is almost at light speed, its mass will have become infinite, and therefore the amount of energy required to push it faster will have become infinite.

Nevertheless, Einstein gave us a hypothesis concerning a way to cheat. even though we can't travel at light speed, we don't have to be limited by our primitive way of thinking that space and time are somehow "real", and that they exist somewhere outside of our own minds (and this is also where science meets occult philosophy). According to Einstein's conclusions, instead of there being space between two point, and a period of time taken to travel between them, there is a "space-time continuum", with a variable, unknown factor. Since space and time are in essence illusionary, it would seem possible to warp space-time, thus allowing us to travel the same distance in the same amount of time as if we were traveling at the speed of light, though we were not. This subject is also dealt with by Dr. Stephen Hawking in his excellent science book "A Brief History of Time", one of the first books that I recommend to beginning students of occultism. The subject is too vast to elaborate on here, but perhaps it would be fun to mention that the Starship Enterprise traveled at "warp speed" instead of "light speed".

I did very well in General Relativity but lousy in Special Relativity. Fascinating study nonetheless and will not claim to know how to travel faster than light, but will say that with the way mankind has historically trended, we've not been defeated by an obstacle we truly wish to overcome. Folding space...like on Dune or warp speed like Star Trek, hmmmm. I will say this though. "Time and space is relative" and all matter is within it. Therefore, we all matter and we're all related.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
To paraphrase the Apostle Paul, who eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh unto damnation. A good analogy would be fire, another natural force. It can be used for good (warming us in winter and cooking food), or it can be used for evil (the KKK burning down black churches in 1967 Mississippi).

But it would be wrong to assume that me or you or anyone else is keeping a great secret concerning occult knowledge from everybody else. Indeed, the literature on the subject is so vast that it could fill a nation of libraries, and anyone interested in the sacred mysteries need only to have a library card and a disposition toward deep thinking.

I will say I know some things from my history that I do not want to share because I am afraid that someone will test or pursue the power and functionality of it. I will also admit that I have shared nearly all of that information throughout the threads on ATS. Fortunately for me, we're a house full of skeptics and those who did understand also heard me say all around it "don't do this, don't do this, don't do this". Last thing I want to do is invite someone to harm when I'm here to do just the opposite, which is to help.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I do not believe the two can be separated, if, indeed, they're not the same thing to begin with. For example, I do not consider the definition of science to be exploring and utilizing what is known. It was not known that the earth revolved around the sun until Copernicus discovered it, nor was it known that two objects of the same shape but different weight would fall at the same rate until Galileo. Science, in my opinion, is the process of discovering the great mysteries of this universe we inhabitat, and this also appears to be the definition of occultism.

Looking back at the dictionary and using the word as written, I see what you mean in that it's considered supernatural and unknown. However, there are some other words associated with occult which I think are worthy of consideration when using the word. I'll bold them on the cut & paste and ask why they are included in the definition:

Main Entry: 2oc·cult
Pronunciation: &-'k<, ä-; 'ä-"k<
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin occultus, from past participle of occulere to cover up, from ob- in the way + -culere (akin to celare to conceal) -- more at OB-, HELL
1 : not revealed : SECRET
2 : not easily apprehended or understood : ABSTRUSE, MYSTERIOUS
3 : hidden from view : CONCEALED
4 : of or relating to the occult
5 : not manifest or detectable by clinical methods alone ; also : not present in macroscopic amounts
- oc·cult·ly adverb
www.m-w.com...

I don't understand why the word "Hell" is thrown into there. I also don't know why anyone would want to keep a "secret" to the universe secret. Seems a bit selfish, does it not?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I would say there is only One Source of all things. Even if one literally believed in the devil, and that the devil was somehow powerful or had power, the devil would still have nothing that God, the One Source, did not permit him to have.

God permitted the devil to inflict suffering upon Job. Would it then be fine to use the power of the devil to inflict likewise suffering?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
But I'm not of the opinion that the devil gives black magicians all sorts of weird, mystical powers. Instead, I refer back to the fire analogy. It is a creation of God in Nature, but is a blind force, and is amoral. One must be taught to handle fire properly, and we do not give fire to children or those with childish minds. Only those responsible should handle fire; otherwise, our houses may burn down. The analogy here with magic is that those who mishandle fire often get caught in the blaze themselves.

How do you know whether such power when originally intended for good won't get you caught in a blaze?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Several of the early Mormon leaders, including Smith, were Masons (at least for a short time). A large number of Mormons (including Smith) were given the first three degrees by a Lodge in Navoo. Neighboring Lodges complained about the irregularity of it to the Grand Master of Illinois, prompting the Grand Lodge to expell the Mormon members (apparently, the chief concern was that the Mormons practiced polygamy, which was considered unmasonic).

Why is polygamy unmasonic? Did Smith & crew properly pay for the Temple?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
That is basically the extent of the relationship between Masonry and Mormonism officially. However, when Smith sat down to write the Mormon Temple Ritual, he plagiarized Masonic ritual very heavily.

Are Masons and Mormons incompatible to this day?

Thanks again for all the information. This is so much faster and credible than researching on my own.


[edit on 18-8-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

I was thinking more about why the sun had a face and conclussions from that investigation. I'm sure there's good reason for degrees in the same way the military has ranks or a company as grades. Different jobs and responsibilities I'd presume, though could be wrong. I don't find anything inherently evil with heirarchy, just prefer a level playing field myself.

I would agree, and would stress again that this is exactly why the Level is such an important symbol in Masonry. Indeed, it is worn as a Jewel by the Senior Warden, the second highest official of the Lodge. The Level is used by operative Mason to lay out brick or stone in a manner by which they will lie evenly on the wall. In Masonry, of course, it is the symbol of Equality.

Concerning hierarchy, once again, there is no Masonic hierarchy based on divisions of degrees. Masonic government is elected by popular vote to fixed terms of office, not in accordance with the degree system. Besides, it isn't difficult to "rack up degrees". Practically any member of the fraternity can take all the degrees he wants, all he has to do is apply for them and pay an initiation fee. But going through a degree and understanding it are two very different things.

Masons or ex-Masons? I don't know if there's such a thing, but would be interesting if they were still Masons at the time of founding these groups.

I know that the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elk, Knights of Pythias, and Woodmen of the World were founded by Masons. If I recall correctly, the Knights of Columbus and Order of Foresters were founded by ex-Masons who were Roman Catholic, for the purpose of providing a non-Masonic fraternity for Catholic men. The latter group, the Foresters, have a very interesting initiation ceremony based on the legend of Robin Hood and the Merry Men. If I were a Catholic, I'd join.

Folding space...like on Dune or warp speed like Star Trek, hmmmm. I will say this though. "Time and space is relative" and all matter is within it. Therefore, we all matter and we're all related.

Warping space is possible (theoretically) through the opening of a wormhole. Relativity suggests, and many astrophysicists including Hawkins agree, that wormholes exist by nature, but could also be arbitrarily created by men someday for the purpose of space travel.

God permitted the devil to inflict suffering upon Job. Would it then be fine to use the power of the devil to inflict likewise suffering?

It's important to note that I don't take that story literally. Many scholars have suggested that it is the oldest book of the Bible, and certainly bears a likeness to other fables, meant to teach a certain moral (such as the work of Aesop). I do not think that God would allow a man's entire family to be destroyed over a bet with the devil, nor do I believe that God giving him a new family would make up for the loss of the old one.

Why is polygamy unmasonic?

It is in violation of criminal law.

Did Smith & crew properly pay for the Temple?

Do you mean the Mormon Temple?

Are Masons and Mormons incompatible to this day?

It is my understanding that the Mormons do not allow their flock to join the Masons. The Grand Lodge of Utah lifted its ban on Mormons in the 1950's.
The reason for the ban was that they considered the Mormon Church to be a clandestine pseudo-Masonic organization, because of the Temple Ritual, which does indeed seem to be a plagiarism.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I would agree, and would stress again that this is exactly why the Level is such an important symbol in Masonry. Indeed, it is worn as a Jewel by the Senior Warden, the second highest official of the Lodge. The Level is used by operative Mason to lay out brick or stone in a manner by which they will lie evenly on the wall. In Masonry, of course, it is the symbol of Equality.

I have a love for architecture, specifically Greek and fascades. In building itself, I find it most fascinating though have little education on it and no practical experience. Fun to design and draw though. I know this is entirely irrelevant to the discussion we're having but find the techniques of building an interesting science.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Concerning hierarchy, once again, there is no Masonic hierarchy based on divisions of degrees. Masonic government is elected by popular vote to fixed terms of office, not in accordance with the degree system. Besides, it isn't difficult to "rack up degrees". Practically any member of the fraternity can take all the degrees he wants, all he has to do is apply for them and pay an initiation fee. But going through a degree and understanding it are two very different things.

Different degrees have different levels of knowledge accordingly, do they not?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I know that the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elk, Knights of Pythias, and Woodmen of the World were founded by Masons. If I recall correctly, the Knights of Columbus and Order of Foresters were founded by ex-Masons who were Roman Catholic, for the purpose of providing a non-Masonic fraternity for Catholic men. The latter group, the Foresters, have a very interesting initiation ceremony based on the legend of Robin Hood and the Merry Men. If I were a Catholic, I'd join.

I have a friend in the Knights of Columbus who enjoys doing the charity works. He said (no joke), "I'll do whatever they want me to when they have an event for the community, but I'm not going to parade around in a costume with a unsharped sword. I don't have time for that bullsh*t" . I wonder if he's going to drop the swearing habit when he starts seminary this fall.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Warping space is possible (theoretically) through the opening of a wormhole. Relativity suggests, and many astrophysicists including Hawkins agree, that wormholes exist by nature, but could also be arbitrarily created by men someday for the purpose of space travel.

Farscape! Yes!

Originally posted by Masonic Light
It's important to note that I don't take that story literally. Many scholars have suggested that it is the oldest book of the Bible, and certainly bears a likeness to other fables, meant to teach a certain moral (such as the work of Aesop). I do not think that God would allow a man's entire family to be destroyed over a bet with the devil, nor do I believe that God giving him a new family would make up for the loss of the old one.

I see, so throw the Bible out then, because you can't take anything literally, yes?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
It is in violation of criminal law.

That's a good reason.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Did Smith & crew properly pay for the Temple?

Do you mean the Mormon Temple?

Yes.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
It is my understanding that the Mormons do not allow their flock to join the Masons. The Grand Lodge of Utah lifted its ban on Mormons in the 1950's.
The reason for the ban was that they considered the Mormon Church to be a clandestine pseudo-Masonic organization, because of the Temple Ritual, which does indeed seem to be a plagiarism.

So there was a fight. That's interesting.

Thanks again!

[edit on 18-8-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God


Different degrees have different levels of knowledge accordingly, do they not?

I guess that would depend on what you mean by "level of knowledge." The first three degrees of Masonry comprise the sum of all Masonic teaching and philosophy. But this school of thought is so vast that it cannot be elaborated upon fully in a 90 minute ceremony.

For example, the lesson of charity is given in the First Degree, but so are many other lessons. What the so called "higher degrees" do is take one of the lessons from the Blue Degrees (in this case, charity), and dedicate an entire degree especially to it. These "higher degrees" simply elaborate on what one has learned in the three original degrees. This is why I've said before that the higher degrees cannot make a man more of a Mason than he already is, but they can make him a better Mason.

I see, so throw the Bible out then, because you can't take anything literally, yes?

I don't see how that would equate to throwing the Bible out, especially if the author of Job had meant it to be a fable with a moral to begin with. All other ancient cultures taught morality via myths and fables, I don't see why we would think the ancient Hebrews of the same period would not have done the same.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I don't see how that would equate to throwing the Bible out, especially if the author of Job had meant it to be a fable with a moral to begin with. All other ancient cultures taught morality via myths and fables, I don't see why we would think the ancient Hebrews of the same period would not have done the same.

The reason is that God is quoted and had conversations with Job. If God being quoted in one spot is not valid, how can it be valid in any spot? This is different than the parables that Jesus spoke of. The Hebrew people in their oral tradition were very detailed and specific for a reason. Even when Jesus told a parable, he made it pretty clear he was doing so and was asked to explain exactly what he meant in just about everyone one. Since the law of Moses, everything had to be to the letter of the law, else risk blasphemy which wasn't as readily accepted in a countries like ours today. In Jesus' teachings, they had a hard time with these parables because they were not used to them. God didn't speak to them in parables in the past.

Now, as far as the devil and his power goes, one only has to look a Revelation to see that not only does he exercise power, but has a lot of followers doing the same. It may be by God's allowance for them to have powers, but they have their limits which can be overridden if we invite them in to utilize that power to us, with us, and through us. That's the danger of accepting power without considering the source, else there would be no danger at all. Then there would be no need for secrecy and fire analogies when it comes to majik.

I'm very surprised that you're considering "God said" as found in Job a myth. Moreso because of Job's Daughters, which I used to think was a great program for young females to learn about the Bible.

Originally posted by saint4God

The reason is that God is quoted and had conversations with Job.

I realize that God is quoted in the book of Job. He is also quoted in the Qu'ran, where He had supposedly had conversations with Muhammed in the same manner as with Job. As far as that goes, numerous gods are quoted in the works of Homer, as they held conversations with Achilles, Ulysses, etc.

If God being quoted in one spot is not valid, how can it be valid in any spot?

I think our trouble understanding each other here is that we're approaching the matter differently. From my viewpoint, anybody with a quil pen and papyrus can "quote" God. Your belief in the literality of Job does not come from the fact that God is quoted or that Job is purported to have had conversations with Him (if your belief was based on that, then by necessity you would also have to believe in the literality of the Qu'ran and Homeric epics).

Rather, it seems that your belief in the book's literality stems from the fact that's it's found in the Bible. I understand your belief here, but do not agree with it. The Bible itself is a collection of miscellaneous books that, with the exception of the Tanakh, was organized into a single collection by a Roman Catholic Council. These guys were perhaps inspired, but certainly not divine. There is a movement in modern, conservative Protestantism going on at the present that I call "biblioloatry", wherein it appears, at least to me, that the Bible has become some sort of totem or idol, completely infallible and completely literal, unless otherwise specified in bold letters.

The problem with this is that it doesn't seem to be what the authors of the Bible originally intended. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, for example, was written for the express purpose of submitting assistance to the church at Galatia at that particular time. Paul did not envision it becoming a part of a new holy book.

And that's how I look at Job. An oral tradition written down, much like Aesop's work. This isn't denigrating the Bible, it's only an attempt to ascertain what it's trying to teach.

Consider, for example, the story about the kids making fun of Elijah's bald head. In revenge, God sends a wild bear to maul the children into pieces. Now, did God really do this? Was the Bible quoting God accurately in this instance?

One I thing I do know about God is that he gave each of us the ability to reason. Indeed, this is my interpreation of us being made in His image and likeness. It does not seem rational that an All-Powerful, All-Holy Being is going to pitch a temper tantrum and kill some kids because they laughed at one of his friends. Rather, it seems rational that the story is told to teach a certain lesson, i.e., that it's wrong to make fun of people.





[edit on 18-8-2005 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by Masonic Light
There is a movement in modern, conservative Protestantism going on at the present that I call "biblioloatry", wherein it appears, at least to me, that the Bible has become some sort of totem or idol, completely infallible and completely literal, unless otherwise specified in bold letters.

The problem with this is that it doesn't seem to be what the authors of the Bible originally intended.

(snip)

An oral tradition written down, much like Aesop's work. This isn't denigrating the Bible, it's only an attempt to ascertain what it's trying to teach.

(snip)

One I thing I do know about God is that he gave each of us the ability to reason. Indeed, this is my interpreation of us being made in His image and likeness. It does not seem rational that an All-Powerful, All-Holy Being is going to pitch a temper tantrum and kill some kids because they laughed at one of his friends. Rather, it seems rational that the story is told to teach a certain lesson, i.e., that it's wrong to make fun of people.

Brilliantly explained, if I do say so myself. I wish more people could comprehend this clear and simple logic.

"You have voted Masonic Light for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month."

Originally posted by Masonic Light
From my viewpoint, anybody with a quil pen and papyrus can "quote" God.

Yes, but if they did not hear God say it, then they would be liars.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Your belief in the literality of Job does not come from the fact that God is quoted or that Job is purported to have had conversations with Him (if your belief was based on that, then by necessity you would also have to believe in the literality of the Qu'ran and Homeric epics).

I didn't think Homer wrote non-fiction of the gods, could be wrong.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
There is a movement in modern, conservative Protestantism going on at the present that I call "biblioloatry", wherein it appears, at least to me, that the Bible has become some sort of totem or idol, completely infallible and completely literal, unless otherwise specified in bold letters.

That would make sense if:
A.) I worshipped the Bible, which I do not.
B.) I didn't find God first. He was the One who directed me to the Bible.
C.) If I never talked to God nor asked for help on things I didn't understand. I do both. 9 out of 10 times, the answer was already in print.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
The problem with this is that it doesn't seem to be what the authors of the Bible originally intended. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, for example, was written for the express purpose of submitting assistance to the church at Galatia at that particular time. Paul did not envision it becoming a part of a new holy book.

And this is a problem because...why?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Consider, for example, the story about the kids making fun of Elijah's bald head. In revenge, God sends a wild bear to maul the children into pieces. Now, did God really do this? Was the Bible quoting God accurately in this instance?

I'm still a student of the Word. What book & chapter please?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
One I thing I do know about God is that he gave each of us the ability to reason. Indeed, this is my interpreation of us being made in His image and likeness. It does not seem rational that an All-Powerful, All-Holy Being is going to pitch a temper tantrum and kill some kids because they laughed at one of his friends. Rather, it seems rational that the story is told to teach a certain lesson, i.e., that it's wrong to make fun of people.

So then the flood didn't happen 'cause He wouldn't really wipe out the earth, that's just mean and His son really was crucified because that's an unsightly thing to imagine too? Again, throwing out the whole Book.

[edit on 18-8-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God


Yes, but if they did not hear God say it, then they would be liars.

Or schizophrenic (which is something I've considered in the case of Muhammed and Joseph Smith).

But Job is a little different. The author was writing from oral tradition, not because he claimed the Almighty dictated it to him word-for-word.

I didn't think Homer wrote non-fiction of the gods, could be wrong.

Homer's works were considered the "scriptures" by the Greeks. Although it was poetry, the Psalms are poetry too, but are considered "scriptures" by us.

And this is a problem because...why?

Not a problem, just an observation. It seems unlikely that any of the men who wrote the Bible would have considered their own words completely infallible.

I'm still a student of the Word. What book & chapter please?

II Kings 2:23 - 2:24. In this little story, Elisha curses the children in the name of God, who then sends the bears to do the dirty work. So, we have both a curse and a result of bloodshed. Talk about "black magic"!

So then the flood didn't happen 'cause He wouldn't really wipe out the earth

Well, according to Genesis, the flood was the first time that it ever rained. Apparently, the author of Genesis was not well acquainted with the necessities of rain in the field of botany (not to mention evolutionary biology!).

[edit on 18-8-2005 by Masonic Light]

That will teach those little ingrates!

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Or schizophrenic (which is something I've considered in the case of Muhammed and Joseph Smith).

I cannot speak for Muhammed or Joseph Smith, but I guess from Genesis to Revelations, we got a whole lot of schizophrenics! Thousands upon thousands in fact because there were so many witnesses according to the Book. Besides, I've had serious discussions with someone with the condition. No, they did not think God spoke to them (although they were a believer). Add me to the list of "schizophenics" then (even though I am not) who did hear God and test me however you like.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
But Job is a little different. The author was writing from oral tradition, not because he claimed the Almighty dictated it to him word-for-word.

Oral tradition is a little different than what we consider it to be these days. We're so dependent on print and pc, we do not practice accuracy in passing down facts of the past verbally. We get a fact, we write it down instead of repeating it and paying close attention to the details. History, science, math, music, etc. were all done the same way with the Hebrew people. It may not have been dictated, but is a far cry from 'legendary tales' told around the campfire.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Homer's works were considered the "scriptures" by the Greeks. Although it was poetry, the Psalms are poetry too, but are considered "scriptures" by us.

Psalms are songs. Lyrics. I don't know of anyone who believes it is a record of events and quotations from God.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Not a problem, just an observation. It seems unlikely that any of the men who wrote the Bible would have considered their own words completely infallible.

I'm sure you'll find a range of Christians who say "letter for letter the word of God" to those who say "the events and quotes from God (and Jesus) are true, though described by man's perspective". To say the events and quotes are not true renders the Book useless.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
II Kings 2:23 - 2:24. In this little story, Elisha curses the children in the name of God, who then sends the bears to do the dirty work. So, we have both a curse and a result of bloodshed.

Thanks! There are 5 books I'm least familiar with and II Kings is one of them. I appreciate this being pointed out and am reminded I have to do more reading daily.

Of the "some childern", 42 were mauled which is not to say "killed" nor "bloodshed". I refer to my friend Merriam-Webster for a defintion:

Main Entry: 2maul
Function: transitive verb
1 : BEAT, BRUISE
2 : MANGLE 1
3 : to handle roughly
- maul·er noun
www.m-w.com...

Going further back to the root of the definition, it was used to mean "to beat with a hammer". Maybe they were killed, but it is neither stated nor implied. What is stated was they were beaten down. Thems the facts. I do not agree with Elisha cursing them, that's not nice, but then again, I'm not Elisha.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Talk about "black magic"!

This statement has me convinced that Masons do not in fact talk about religion in their gatherings, else claims like this one would have already been answered by those Methodist and Presbyterian brothers mentioned before. I'd venture to say you already know, but like to "prod the Christian" to see if s/he will jump.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Well, according to Genesis, the flood was the first time that it ever rained.

Really? Where's that at?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Apparently, the author of Genesis was not well acquainted with the necessities of rain in the field of botany (not to mention evolutionary biology!).

So you don't believe in supernatural occurences then? This is contradictory to your previous assertion about the existence of unexplained happenings, does it not?

[edit on 19-8-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God


This statement has me convinced that Masons do not in fact talk about religion in their gatherings, else claims like this one would have already been answered by those Methodist and Presbyterian brothers mentioned before. I'd venture to say you already know, but like to "prod the Christian" to see if s/he will jump.

But isn't the very definition of "black magic" to invoke supernatural causes to inflict harm upon others? And isn't this exactly what Elisha did in this passage?

Really? Where's that at?

Genesis 2:5-7. Later in the book, it is claimed that rain becomes the normal way for watering plants and trees after the deluge.

So you don't believe in supernatural occurences then? This is contradictory to your previous assertion about the existence of unexplained happenings, does it not?

No, I never claimed that unexplained phenomenon was supernatural. Actually, if you reread my post, my assertion was that everything in the universe, including the occult forces, are natural.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
But isn't the very definition of "black magic" to invoke supernatural causes to inflict harm upon others? And isn't this exactly what Elisha did in this passage?

Nope. "Black" majik utilizes evokation, and he did not do that. He wished them harm (which again isn't very nice at all) and God by His own will beat down the kids. Nor did Elisha invoke or implore God to help. Finally, different source of power than majik (though you've made it clear you don't agree with that).

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Genesis 2:5-7. Later in the book, it is claimed that rain becomes the normal way for watering plants and trees after the deluge.

Thanks for pointing to where you've arrived at that conclusion. It says "and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground," But! The then formed man and "Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.' (Genesis 2:8) There's more after that, but what I'm getting to is the reason why the rain was not on the earth was because there were no plants and shrubs, nor man to work the ground. After man is made, a garden is planted (not a forrest, but a garden). Merriam-Webster will back me up on what a garden is here:

Main Entry: 1gar·den
Pronunciation: 'gär-d&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English gardin, from Old North French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German gart enclosure -- more at YARD
1 a : a plot of ground where herbs, fruits, flowers, or vegetables are cultivated
www.m-w.com...

If there were herbs, fruit, flower, or vegtables, then the rains must have come because "no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain ". Additionally, nowhere in Genesis 6 does it say the flood was the first rain.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
No, I never claimed that unexplained phenomenon was supernatural. Actually, if you reread my post, my assertion was that everything in the universe, including the occult forces, are natural.

So is God then natural or supernatural? I'm getting tangled up in what you're defining as natural and supernatural, sorry.

Originally posted by saint4God

Nope. "Black" majik utilizes evokation,

Nope "black" magick can utilize any magical technique. It's the intent that makes the "color."

Originally posted by Cug
Nope "black" magick can utilize any magical technique. It's the intent that makes the "color."

...or so that's how it's packaged and sold. I'm gonna disagree as to why it is considered the "color" to say it's the method that's the distinguishing characteristic, whereas in the beginning of both there is the "do as you will" intent, but will stop there 'cause I think I can see where this is heading. I'll agree to disagree because I'm not interested in promoting exploration into it. I'm not saying a practioner can't use both, though I don't know a reason why they would unless they get a kick out of switching it up or something. Time for me to be slammed, told how little I know again, and we can call it a day.

Originally posted by saint4God
...or so that's how it's packaged and sold. I'm gonna disagree as to why it is considered the "color" to say it's the method that's the distinguishing characteristic, whereas in the beginning of both there is the "do as you will" intent, but will stop there 'cause I think I can see where this is heading. I'll agree to disagree because I'm not interested in promoting exploration into it. I'm not saying a practioner can't use both, though I don't know a reason why they would unless they get a kick out of switching it up or something. Time for me to be slammed, told how little I know again, and we can call it a day.

First of all why do you think your going to be "slammed?" I may have a polar opposite view on things, but that's no reason to slam you.

Next, the the "do as you wilt" stuff only applies to a small group (me included) of occultists. The majority of them have nothing like that saying.

As for the color thing you have got me confused. Are you saying it's not black magick to try to harm someone as long as you don't evoke something? but if you say evoke to heal someone that is black magick?

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Masonic Light
But isn't the very definition of "black magic" to invoke supernatural causes to inflict harm upon others? And isn't this exactly what Elisha did in this passage?

Nope. "Black" majik utilizes evokation, and he did not do that. He wished them harm (which again isn't very nice at all)

Theres no such thing as ''black'' ''white'' ''red'' ''blue'' or ''pink with brown polka dots'' majick. Cug was right by saying its the intent that gives the color. Therefore, If u are using any single one force at your disposal to cause harm to someone, you are practicing ''black majick'' (by your definition). And evocation can also be used to invoke good entities to do good things.

[edit on 19-8-2005 by moonchild]

Originally posted by saint4God


Nope. "Black" majik utilizes evokation, and he did not do that. He wished them harm (which again isn't very nice at all) and God by His own will beat down the kids. Nor did Elisha invoke or implore God to help. Finally, different source of power than majik (though you've made it clear you don't agree with that).

The common, accepted definition of black magick is magick used for the purpose of causing intentional harm. Curses fall into this category, regardless if an evocation is performed.

Although, on a side note, the practice of evocation is almost purely an operation of High Magick, not black magic. Although this is off the subject, evocation sort of demonstrates what I was saying earlier, viz., that occult forces are always eventually recognized by profane science. In modern psychology, evocation has been partially understoof throgh Freudian and Jungian psychoanalysis.

So is God then natural or supernatural? I'm getting tangled up in what you're defining as natural and supernatural, sorry.

I would say that nothing could be more natural than God. In order to define my position more completely, it would be necessary to state that I am a pantheist, with strong leanings toward Buddhism and Taoism.

Originally posted by Cug
First of all why do you think your going to be "slammed?" I may have a polar opposite view on things, but that's no reason to slam you.

Then I have a great deal of respect for you. I guess it's a flinch from getting hit so many times. Thank you for not throwing stones.

Originally posted by Cug
Next, the the "do as you wilt" stuff only applies to a small group (me included) of occultists. The majority of them have nothing like that saying.

It depends on how it's advertised from what I've seen. It's a great hook to get people interested and rationalizing doing things potentially dangerous. Puts the corks on forks so that when we get used to handling them and the corks come off, we think we can't get hurt from stabbing ourselves. Odd analogy, I know, best I can do for now.

Originally posted by Cug
As for the color thing you have got me confused. Are you saying it's not black magick to try to harm someone as long as you don't evoke something? but if you say evoke to heal someone that is black magick?

I'm sure it's possible conceptually, though never practiced it myself. Perhaps someone more qualified could answer.

Originally posted by moonchild
Theres no such thing as ''black'' ''white'' ''red'' ''blue'' or ''pink with brown polka dots'' majick.

Hey, not my term or any Christians. It's borrowed from the practioners themselves. If they're confused, that's no fault of mine.

Originally posted by moonchild
Cug was right by saying its the intent that gives the color.

Which is it, do they or do they not have color?

Originally posted by moonchild
Therefore, If u are using any single one force at your disposal to cause harm to someone, you are practicing ''black majick'' (by your definition). And evocation can also be used to invoke good entities to do good things.

Evoke and invoke are do different processes. Are you boiling or freezing? Can't do both. You can transition from one to another but at some point it's gotta change. I suppose you could evoke something "good" but that's inconsistent and "good" becomes very, very subjective at that point.

I don't want to advocate this stuff, quite the contrary, nor am I concerned whether or not what I'm saying is considered valid except that it's not harmless, nor is it what it initially represents itself to be. Just posting rthe warning, that's all.

[edit on 20-8-2005 by saint4God]