Joining Freemasonry

It seesm to me that when you post something, you usually either believe it, or are posting to refute it. But to offer up a lame argument that has been endlessly refuted, and then to "back away quickly" when the argument is (again) refuted makes you look like a troll. You may be, you may not be, but the essence of trollism (trollanity?) is to toss out words intended to incite, rather than to engender or promote rational discourse.

Some may see this as trolling. Perhaps that was not your intent. As for hitting a soft spot, that comment in itself serves to make you look further the troll. It would be as if I were to post that the Pope is the Antichrist... the argument has endlessly been refuted, and I do not believe it, yet on a forum full of staunch Roman Catholics, the commnet would stir quite a storm up.

Now, masonry is not a religion, this is a position we have posted manifold times. Great Architect of the Universe is a TITLE, a position that has endlessly been hashed over by Masonic Critics, and one we have endlessly answered with the same arguments.

So, when corned on these arguments, you post that, well, I really don't believe those argument but I tossed them out to stir discussion. To what end? To poke the mason witha sharp stick and see how he reacts? I hope you are happy with the reaction... it has been considerate, straightforward and honorable.

InterceptorKnight, you also wrote:

When the Catholic Church and the Protestant organizations accept freemasonry without protesting the way of recognizing the diety, then you can state that there is no Christian bias. You can state that not all Christians object, but there is a bias out there.

These organizations don't accept EACH other's version of Christianity, why would they accept Masonry, that takes no position on religion at all, without bias?

Its really simple: Masonry takes no position on Christianity. A MASON may take a position, but no one man represents masonry.

Originally posted by AlexKennedy
The reason you're being labelled a troll is because you are bringing up an argument which is de facto settled.

That is to say, the people who believe it's unChristian to refer to God as "The Great Architect of the Universe" have their belief, and the people who don't believe that have their belief. As long as neither group tries to enforce their belief on anyone else, I don't see what there is to argue. I don't, no, only my deeply held belief that they are wrong. So what is there to discuss?
See, the problem, IK, is that you're confusing fractiousness about faith with actual reasoned arguement. Now, if you presented an arguable thesis such as "I do not believe that Christians should be allowed to be Freemasons," then we'd have something to discuss. Instead, you're writing "Well, here's the opinion some Christian groups have about Freemasonry. How do you feel about that?" Well, I feel it's a foolish belief and that it's wrong. What else is there to say?
[edit on 18-6-2004 by AlexKennedy]

I have to take issue with you personally attempting to hang a label on me.
At no point to I attack you personally or make an offense at the Lodge. To do so would risk my status as a Master Mason.
Maybe my techniques were not as refined as you would like, but I see no problem with drawing you out and getting you to express your opinion on the subjects at hand. I am not interested in this being a debate format where the goal is to have one opinion judged as a winner and the other a loser. You obviously have strong opinions regarding this matter, and you should not be offended when asked to present them.
At this point I am not prepared to begin a debate with either "There should be no objections by any Christian groups regarding membership to a Masonic lodge" or "Christians should not belong to Masonic lodges because xxx". What I am doing is asking for feedback from yourself and others regarding these beliefs. The methods I have used have produced more information than just merely stating "So...what do you guys think about xxxx?"


I was looking for more of an answer than............

Originally posted by AlexKennedy
Well, I feel it's a foolish belief and that it's wrong. What else is there to say?

Originally posted by InterceptorKnight
My original statement refers to this prayer invoked to the Supreme Architect of the Universe. I bring this up in order to promote discussion as a response to the Christian bias that this prayer is somehow not proper because of the inferrence of this god being ambiguous.

Exactly how is the term �Grand Architect of the Universe� more ambiguous than any other terms used to denote the Deity, such �God�, �Lord�, etc.?
I�ve heard this argument used many times before, but still am unable to make any sense of it. The term Grand Architect refers to God in his aspect of Creator. It isn�t any more �ambiguous� or �willy nilly� than any other term used to describe Him.
All Masons believe in God. We only sometimes differ as to what we believe about Him. Those differences are of religion, and are out of place in a fraternal association, whose purpose is to unite men in intellectual knowledge, and to impress upon their minds the principles of morality.

Fiat Lvx.


[edit on 18-6-2004 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by InterceptorKnight
I was looking for more of an answer than............

Originally posted by AlexKennedy
Well, I feel it's a foolish belief and that it's wrong. What else is there to say?

Well, honestly now, what more can I say? Really, what more of an answer do you expect? The idea that you're talking about is that calling God "The Great Architect of the Universe" is somehow wrong or somehow demeans God. The only response I have to this is that I believe that idea is foolish and wrong. I have no proof that the idea is foolish and wrong, because the idea itself does not reference anything provable or unprovable. I merely have my belief that the idea is foolish and wrong.

Note, I also said that if you believe that way, you should seriously consider whether you want to be in a Lodge that has that practice or not. If you disagree with something the Lodge is doing, then why stay?

You claim you are just trying to bring up a topic of discussion. Let me ask you something: if I said that I believe that people using the name "InterceptorKnight" on bulletin boards are instantly and universially cut off from grace, and trapped in their sins, and unable to commune with God... would that just be "creating discussion?" Now, of course I don't believe so patently absurd an idea. Nor do I believe the patently absurd idea that using the title "The Great Architect of the Universe" is somehow wrong, whereas using the title "God" is right.

Oh, I guess that is one point to note... you do know that the word "God" is also a title, right? Perhaps you mean you'd prefer to give God some name in Lodge. I'll tell you right now, giving God a name sounds an awful lot like blasphemy to me.

Originally posted by theron dunn
It seesm to me that when you post something, you usually either believe it, or are posting to refute it. But to offer up a lame argument that has been endlessly refuted, and then to "back away quickly" when the argument is (again) refuted makes you look like a troll. You may be, you may not be, but the essence of trollism (trollanity?) is to toss out words intended to incite, rather than to engender or promote rational discourse.
Some may see this as trolling. Perhaps that was not your intent. As for hitting a soft spot, that comment in itself serves to make you look further the troll.

My comment about hitting a soft spot was in reaction to the hasty labeling of myself as a troll. I bought up opinions of which other people hold, and I am considering the validity of. I generated a lot of positive discussion in a very quick manor, without direct personal attacks or attacks on the Lodge. I did not intend on offending yourelf or others on a personal level, which I obviously did. This isn't war, this is recon.

Originally posted by theron dunn
So, when corned on these arguments, you post that, well, I really don't believe those argument but I tossed them out to stir discussion. To what end? To poke the mason witha sharp stick and see how he reacts? I hope you are happy with the reaction... it has been considerate, straightforward and honorable.

I did not realize the level of a strong response in offense to my line of discussion. I will now step back and approach this subject with different methods if at all. I personally see a difference between inciting discussion and inciting people personally. My intention has not been to offend. I apologize to any personal offense taken and any percieved attacks on the Lodge.

I enjoy the ceremonies of the Blue Lodge, and I have held the position of JD, which I enjoyed, but I because of family and work responsibilities, I have not been able to continue to advance through the positions.
I have not had a problem with conscience thus far with the issue of the Supreme Architect in the lodge. The subject of religion is prohibited to be discussed within the Lodge. I saw the forum here as an appropriate place to discuss the opposing views in a civil manor. My methods apparently have not been received well. I will take note, and use different methods in the future.

Originally posted by AlexKennedy
Nor do I believe the patently absurd idea that using the title "The Great Architect of the Universe" is somehow wrong, whereas using the title "God" is right.

I have failed to present my line of thought in a manor which is easily understood. It is not the title, it is the concept inferred. As I said, I will abstain from continuing on this line of discussion until I can present my points in a more acceptable manor, if at all.