Originally posted by Saurus
I must agree with Masonic Light here. Even the Bible tells us...

Hear, O Israel: The Lord thy God is one.
Mark 12:29

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If you mean that the eye represents a singular source, then the Bible says that God has neither a beginning nor and end, which means that the presences of God has no limit.

Originally posted by MR.FELIZ
I find it funny how people use the bible for everthing.....any how i must agree that the masons do not care for this god...there are very little secret societies which do...if you look at it its almost like they are religions except for the whole believing in god....paganism was one of the first quote on quote religions to exist..they did not believe in a god rather they believed in the universe and nature...centuries later came catholics which added the whole creator god image....now look at freemasons....are they not doing exactly the same thing but in a different way....they are beginning fresh from paganism and then adding their own set of laws and commandements to the story...in my opinion

I've quoted the Bible because Freemasons claim that Masonry can be practiced alongside Christianity, which is absolutely false.

...and yet somehow Masons the world over somehow manage to do it.

Are they especially clever, do you think?

No, actually, it comes down to a rather simple concept: Christianity is their religion. Freemasonry is their fraternity. Freemasonry does not attempt to dictate how they should worship, nor does it ever attempt to govern any other aspects of a man's faith.

I don't really understand why people can't grasp these things... One of life's mysteries, I guess.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Christian symbolism depicts parts of God (such as his power), or the Trinity, but not God himself. The Bible says that He is infinite and invisible, which would be pretty tough to draw on paper.

Untrue. Christian art has always depicted God as anthropomorphic.

The Statue of Liberty has a torch. And why must the torch be 33 inches long?

It was my understanding that the torch measures over 12 feet long. Where in the world did you get it was only 33 inches?

This site says that the Halliwell Regius MS was published in 1840. James Halliwell, the guy who published it, says that it originated in the 1300's

You've missed the point. It is recognized that the Regius was copied from an older document, and the document itself describes a Masonic gathering in York, England in the year 980 A.D.

The Illuminati infiltrated Masonry and changed its practices.

Nonsense. The Illuminati neither "infiltrated" Freemasonry, nor influenced the practices of the Craft a single iota. Freemasonry's practices predate the founding of the Illuminati in 1776, and Freemasonry continues long after the Illuminati ceased to exist.

The Ancient Egyptian heiroglyph for the "m" sound was the owl

So?

Moloch was also known as Ba'al

So was Jehovah, and all the Semitic gods. "Baal" was a generic term signifying "great one".

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Christian symbolism depicts parts of God (such as his power), or the Trinity, but not God himself. The Bible says that He is infinite and invisible, which would be pretty tough to draw on paper.

Untrue. Christian art has always depicted God as anthropomorphic.

If you mean God as in Jesus.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
The Statue of Liberty has a torch. And why must the torch be 33 inches long?

It was my understanding that the torch measures over 12 feet long. Where in the world did you get it was only 33 inches?

The torch that George W. Bush held was 33 inches long.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
This site says that the Halliwell Regius MS was published in 1840. James Halliwell, the guy who published it, says that it originated in the 1300's

You've missed the point. It is recognized that the Regius was copied from an older document, and the document itself describes a Masonic gathering in York, England in the year 980 A.D.

The site also says that the physical evidence was dated in the 1500's.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
The Illuminati infiltrated Masonry and changed its practices.

Nonsense. The Illuminati neither "infiltrated" Freemasonry, nor influenced the practices of the Craft a single iota. Freemasonry's practices predate the founding of the Illuminati in 1776, and Freemasonry continues long after the Illuminati ceased to exist.

Contributions by the recent (19th and 20th century) writers reflect a rather gruesome image of Freemasonry. Many Masons themselves deny that this is part of their practice. This disagreement about what is acceptable within Masonry is evidence of either tampering on the part of some of the members, or lying on the part of most of them.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
The Ancient Egyptian heiroglyph for the "m" sound was the owl

So?

Symbolism

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Moloch was also known as Ba'al

So was Jehovah, and all the Semitic gods. "Baal" was a generic term signifying "great one".

Moloch was a sun god of the Canaanites, who inspired Freemasonry. His name has also been used throughout history to symbolize human sacrifice.

Ba'al actually means "lord," and Melek means "king" in Hebrew. Melek became Molech and then Moloch.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen


So was Michaelangelo a Freemason?

No.

The irony is that this painting appears in the Sistine Chapel, even though it is completely blasphemous.

Christians do not think it is blasphemous nor ironic.

So you don't disagree with the writings of Albert Pike and company?

About what?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Moloch was a sun god of the Canaanites, who inspired Freemasonry.

The Canaanites inspired Freemasonry, not Moloch.

And how exactly did they do that?

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen


So was Michaelangelo a Freemason?

No.

He was a member of the Enlightenment movement.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
The irony is that this painting appears in the Sistine Chapel, even though it is completely blasphemous.

Christians do not think it is blasphemous nor ironic.

Catholics who like pretty paintings, maybe. It's right there in the Ten Commandments, not to worship a gray-haired man with sticky fingers.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
So you don't disagree with the writings of Albert Pike and company?

About what?

The whole Lucifer thing

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
The Canaanites inspired Freemasonry, not Moloch.

And how exactly did they do that?

In Canaanite mythology, Ba'al is aided by a craftworker-magician named Kosar-wa-Khasis (כושר וחסיס). Canaan was later influenced by Ancient Egyptian culture. Canaanite culture then spread north, and eventually into ancient Greece.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

He was a member of the Enlightenment movement.

No, he was a member of the Renaissance. The Enlightenment came later.

It's right there in the Ten Commandments, not to worship a gray-haired man with sticky fingers.

Nope, doesn't say that.

The whole Lucifer thing

I agree with Pike about Lucifer, and most of his other theosophical notions.

In Canaanite mythology, Ba'al is aided by a craftworker-magician named Kosar-wa-Khasis (כושר וחסיס). Canaan was later influenced by Ancient Egyptian culture. Canaanite culture then spread north, and eventually into ancient Greece.

That's true, but so what?

i love how easily this goat situation gets dodged. explain to me why masonic packrats had this gruesome thing in the first place.

Originally posted by exjobie
i love how easily this goat situation gets dodged. explain to me why masonic packrats had this gruesome thing in the first place.

The "goat situation" gets dodged easily because it is so stupid.

George Washington was a notorious stickler for personal dignity. He was considered to be something of a kill-joy and a prig by many of his contemporaries. He went through, substantially, the exact same Masonic ceremonies as I did. If he did it, you may be assured that it was entirely consistent with a very highly developed sense of personal dignity and courtesy.

The whole goat thing is a result of a stupid misunderstanding and, perhaps, some teasing in poor taste. That other organizations then picked up on the idea and turned a fantasy into a reality is an unfortunate complication in the story.

As for why Masonic collectors might have such an item in their collection, the answer is that it relates to the history of fraternalism in this country and has a thin -- albeit mistaken -- connection to the Fraternity.

You have my word as a gentleman, no Masonic ceremony involves riding a goat in any way, shape, or form. The very idea is... well, frankly, idiotic.

Not credible at all.