It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Surfeit
As an individual neck deep in wonder and following endless amounts of information regarding all of the big questions, I would feel like I would be missing the "show of the times" if I made a commitment to any one perspective, especially the 100% belief in God.
Masonry doesn't tell you who your god is or what you must believe. But as an open-minded person, full of wonder, you have to admit that there's a higher chance of something that put the laws of the universe in order than the very narrow view that nothing did. It's not our place to know what the something is; how to define it or describe it; only to have faith that it's out there somewhere and if we look long enough we might find it.
Now, a few words on looking for things. When you go looking for something specific, your chances of finding it are very bad. Because of all the things in the world, you're only looking for one of them. When you go looking for anything at all, your chances of finding it are very good. Because of all the things in the world, you're sure to find some of them.—Daryl Zero, Zero Effect
One could argue that without a codified religious belief, there are no consequences to hold your morals in check.
Having said that I am of good moral character and I strive to share and create my experiences with good intent.
Why would I not be qualified to contribute?
Could someone please expand as to why there is such a requirement?
Knowledge can neither be controlled nor contained. There's nothing stopping a group of atheists starting their own clubs and talking about almost identical allegorical lessons. Of course, I say almost because all references to God would be removed…
Should knowledge be reserved only for those who believe in a deity....or any deity at that?
Originally posted by Surfeit
Should knowledge be reserved only for those who believe in a deity....or any deity at that?
One could argue that without a codified religious belief, there are no consequences to hold your morals in check.
Don't go hatin' on Rockpuck, it's my quote you pulled. Then again, don't go hatin' on me either… I didn't say I would make that argument. I'm simply saying it's an argument that has been made by some. I don't agree with it either, but I don't consider myself religious in the slightest.
Originally posted by RuneSpider
One could argue that without a codified religious belief, there are no consequences to hold your morals in check.
One could, and such logic would be faulty, as most morals are derived from the society you are raised in, which usually includes religious traditions. However, they are usually separate from the actual religious doctrine, save for places of high fundamentalism.
Which is probably a good thing, all things considered.
...
No offence Rockpuck, y'know I like y'all. I just find that particular statement to be fairly simple and offensive.
Personally, one of the issues I take with religious folks is that some of them (several that I've met, but that makes up a small portion universally) feel that without God, there would be no reason to be moral.
Don't go jumping to conclusions that I agree with them, but you can't deny that there are people who think that.
I happen to be one of those that feel without God there is no reason to be moral.
Originally posted by Quickfix
reply to post by Masonic Light
Then I am thinking of another book then.
And if you read what i said about Napoleon NOT being in the book, but a SIMILAR hand gesture taken in portraits, you wouldn't of had to write another line......
To be on topic, Freemasonry does tell us that without a belief in GAOTU, there can be no "bond" and a man cannot be trusted at his word alone.