Why Masons do not worship Lucifer (or Satan)

Originally posted by GreatOwl
But, masons do not worship.

Freemasonry requires a "belief" in a supreme being, but doesn't require you to "worship" that supreme being.

Masonry, not being a religion, does not proscribe the realtionship you have with God, that is between you and the Creator.

Freemasons only worship themselves. There's a "Worshipful Master"...

Nice try. 'Worshipful' is Old English for respected. It would actually help if you looked up the etyomolgy of words before you used them.

Originally posted by shamanix2012
This thread and its authors thought looping is boring me.

Yet you continue to post here.

reply to post by shamanix2012

Did I say it was?

reply to post by shamanix2012

lol I have plenty of common sense, but I reject the wacky theories that are proven to be fallacies, hoaxes, or just plain illogical. I've stopped counting how many non-sequiturs I've seen on this website.

reply to post by network dude



reply to post by TheMindWar

Who was not a recognized Mason and never had an impact in any way to Freemasonry.

Clearly showing that Rashi understood that ha-satan was a minion of God, not a challenger.

You have a rather strange and unusual habit of trying to put words in my mouth that I never said. I only pointed out that the modified concept of the Christianized Satan is Jewish in origin. I have stated numerous times now that Christianity changed the meaning. The original reference to Satan as a sentient being is Jewish in origin, not Christian. Good grief.

Any way you present it ha-satan or Satan are not worthy of worship as they are not and never will be Supreme.

I never said Satan was worthy of being worshiped. I said that the origin of these theological ideas and concepts are Jewish in origin.

Clearly showing that Rashi understood that ha-satan was a minion of God, not a challenger.

The Sages believed that Satan was the guardian angel of Esau, and manifested himself as a sentient being that fought Jacob, not G-d.

The concept is much more than modified, it is wholly different. From a servant of God to a challenger of God. Both are not divine.

No, it's modified according to Christian interpretation. They are linked concepts, different in nature, with the modified Christianized interpretation stemming originally from Jewish theology. Christianity just magnified the concept of Satan to a whole new level.

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by TheMindWar

 

Who was not a recognized Mason and never had an impact in any way to Freemasonry.

Aleister Crowley, English occultist, Anglo-Saxon Lodge No. 343, Paris

reply to post by TheGreatDivider

He was a part of an irregular, unrecognized body of Freemasonry, but even in that Lodge never amounted to anything that impacted Freemasonry.

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by TheGreatDivider

 

He was a part of an irregular, unrecognized body of Freemasonry, but even in that Lodge never amounted to anything that impacted Freemasonry.

This is what I love about masonry. Whenever you point to a true mason who does things they don't want to publicly acknowledge as part of masonry, they call him "irregular". They can't deny that he's a mason, so they introduce a new term "irregular" to separate him out from the rest.

I wonder how many "irregulars" are masquerading around within "regular" masonry, that just haven't been "outed" as of yet?

When will the irregulars all come out of the closet?

Originally posted by network dude

So each mason is free to practice his own religion, but you know for sure that they all change religions once joined and start jumping on the Satan bandwagon. This super secret information that only the high up 33rds know, you somehow know as well. I think you are an incarnation of Satan. That is the only way you could know this. BE GONE SATAN! SERPENT OF HELL! DEMON SPAWN!

I don't think that all masons know they are actually changing their religion when they join Freemasonry.

They are told, for example, that masonry is not a religion, but a system of morals, illustrated by symbols and allegory. But, then what is religion? Each religion specifies the laws that determine a person's morals, so why does the candidate need another set of "morals" if he already has his own religion?

Can he teach "his" religious morals to the other brothers in Freemasonry?

Or, must he accept the moral instruction "from" Freemasons instead?

Once he accepts moral instruction, he automatically changes his own, wherever the two differ, and thus modifies his own religious instruction as a result.

Thus, bit by bit, step by step, the candidate is lead blindfolded through a new pathway, given new instruction at each step, that modifies his beliefs, until he no longer has the same moral religious doctrine in his mind, which he entered the fraternity with.

That "blindfold" is symbolic of the fact that Freemasons do not tell you "in advance" what you will meet with on the journey through the brotherhood. You "discover" this, only in a "just-in-time" manner. Therefore, a candidate cannot "appraise" the path before the undertaking, to reflect and establish in his own mind first, whether it is suitable for himself, given his own religious morals.

By the time he discovers that this stuff is not for him, he is deep in the doo doo land, and there is no turning back. Once a mason, always a mason. Don't let anybody tell you different. It's like being born. Once you are born, you have taken that birth, and cannot undo the birthing. Once raised from the dead, you cannot be dead again. They have no power to "put you back" into your previous state. The bible does warn of this also:

And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them. == KJV Revelation 9:6

Beware of being "raised".

Originally posted by GreatOwl

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by TheGreatDivider

 

He was a part of an irregular, unrecognized body of Freemasonry, but even in that Lodge never amounted to anything that impacted Freemasonry.

This is what I love about masonry. Whenever you point to a true mason who does things they don't want to publicly acknowledge as part of masonry, they call him "irregular". They can't deny that he's a mason, so they introduce a new term "irregular" to separate him out from the rest.

I wonder how many "irregulars" are masquerading around within "regular" masonry, that just haven't been "outed" as of yet?

When will the irregulars all come out of the closet?

That is because "irregular" Masonry IS NOT Masonry . Anyone can start up a lodge in their basement and make the claim it is "Freemasonry" , when it is not .

There are NO "irregulars" masquerading within "regular" Masonry because they have to provide the proper dues cards or letter from their Grand Lodge that is affixed with the seal of their lodges/Grand Lodge , be vouched for by other REGULAR Masons , among other tests to enter a lodge of real Masons . Just a few years ago we had two men try to get into my lodge with fake dues cards , I was the Master Mason trying them and figured them out very quickly and sent them packing .

reply to post by GreatOwl

It's not like we recently started calling him irregular. He has never been a recognized Freemason as he had always belonged to irregular bodies of Masonry. History shows this, particularly when the Grand Lodge of England refused to allow him to visit any Lodge under their authority. American Grand Lodges also denied him if I remember right. Since he never was ever recognized I can sure say he was not a Mason.

The difficult thing with irregular Masonry is that the term "Freemasonry" (and all the variations such as "Masonry") is not copyrighted so any group can use the terms. Even though they are nothing like recognized Freemasonry and often their actions are deplorable, there is little Freemasonry can do except show that they are not like us, but your ilk doesn't care, you'll lump us in all the same. Truth and fact seem immaterial to you, only what supports your agenda against us matters in your eyes.

Again though, as I've said before, he never amounted to anything even in the clandestine Lodge. His mark is with the OTO, not a Masonic body.

reply to post by GreatOwl

Who are you to presume to know our relationship with God? Who are you to know what is in our heart? It is not you who decides what my religion is so don't even attempt such a foolish act.

Freemasonry isn't a religion for a great many reasons:

- Freemasonry advocates no sectarian faith or practice.
- We seek no converts.
- We solicit no new members.
- We raise no money for religious purposes.
- We have no dogma or theology. Religious discussion is forbidden in a masonic lodge thereby eliminating the chance for any masonic dogma to form.
- It offers no sacraments and does not claim to lead to salvation by works, by secret knowledge, or by any other means. The secrets of Freemasonry are concerned with the modes of recognition only and not with the means of salvation.
- By any definition of religion accepted by our critics, we cannot qualify as a religion.
- Freemasonry supports religion. Freemasonry is far from indifferent to religion. Without interfering in religious practice, it expects each member to follow his own faith.

Or, must he accept the moral instruction "from" Freemasons instead?

So what instructions of Freemasonry are wrong? To be just? To practice moderation? Temper our thoughts, words, and actions with prudence? To be courageous (fortitude)? To be charitable to all mankind? To tell the truth? To be a man of honor and integrity?

Nothing in Freemasonry contradicts my Christian beliefs. If anything my religious faith has only strengthened since I joined the Freemasons (not sure if it causation or correlation).

The reason for our ceremonies is explained to every candidate during the explanatory lecture. If a candidate feels uncomfortable he can stop at any time.

Once a mason, always a mason.

False.

Also note, there is no rebirth or resurrection. You are putting out lies.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


You should try and use a bit of maturity. Like I mean seriously. Who's gonna wanna debat you if the best you can come up with are various personal insults toward the commens? Like why even post a comment on ATS? You obviously don't want to hear any rational arguments from other people. What you think everyone is just gonna agree with posts you come up with? Like I'm not gonna bother replying to you or...

Sigmason...

or anyone else who the best responce they can come up with is just personaly directed insults. Like grow up.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
I only pointed out that the modified concept of the Christianized Satan is Jewish in origin.

Again, there is no concept of Satan in the Hebrew Bible, ha-satan is a job, not a being. This is the reason why ha-satan is never capitilized.

I never said Satan was worthy of being worshiped. I said that the origin of these theological ideas and concepts are Jewish in origin.

The aspect of worship is what was outlined in the Original Post and is relevant to the ongoing conversation. If Masons are charged to have belief in a Supreme Being then the fact that ha-satan was never considered a rival to God is germain.

The Sages believed that Satan was the guardian angel of Esau, and manifested himself as a sentient being that fought Jacob, not G-d.

Ha-satan was still beholden to God, not a challenger.

No, it's modified according to Christian interpretation. They are linked concepts, different in nature, with the modified Christianized interpretation stemming originally from Jewish theology. Christianity just magnified the concept of Satan to a whole new level.

Which is the point. In the Hebrew Bible ha-satan is not a pronoun. The concept is not even remotely the same.

Originally posted by r2d246
You obviously don't want to hear any rational arguments from other people.

Where was your rational arguement?

Oh, right....

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
I only pointed out that the modified concept of the Christianized Satan is Jewish in origin.

Again, there is no concept of Satan in the Hebrew Bible, ha-satan is a job, not a being. This is the reason why ha-satan is never capitilized.

Job 1:7 7 And HaShem said unto Satan: 'Whence comest thou?' Then Satan answered HaShem, and said: 'From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.'

How is a "job" walking around and going to and fro?

Originally posted by TheGreatDivider
Job 1:7 7 And HaShem said unto Satan: 'Whence comest thou?' Then Satan answered HaShem, and said: 'From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.'

How is a "job" walking around and going to and fro?

Are you using the King Jimmy or some other crummy translation of the Old Testament? In Hebrew the word used is ha-satan, not Satan. Ha-satan in the Hebrew Bible is uncapitilized and means 'accuser' in the sense of a prosecutor, that is the job of this particular angel that answers to God.

Try going to the source material instead of relying on millenia of garbage that has been fluffed and reworded.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by TheGreatDivider
Job 1:7 7 And HaShem said unto Satan: 'Whence comest thou?' Then Satan answered HaShem, and said: 'From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.'

How is a "job" walking around and going to and fro?

Are you using the King Jimmy or some other crummy translation of the Old Testament? In Hebrew the word used is ha-satan, not Satan. Ha-satan in the Hebrew Bible is uncapitilized and means 'accuser' in the sense of a prosecutor, that is the job of this particular angel that answers to God.

Try going to the source material instead of relying on millenia of garbage that has been fluffed and reworded.

Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?

Originally posted by TheGreatDivider
Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?

The fact that it contains glaring mistranslations (such as ha-satan the thing to Satan the being) it becomes readily apparant that it is quite fallible.

Again, there is no concept of Satan in the Hebrew Bible, ha-satan is a job, not a being. This is the reason why ha-satan is never capitilized.

Nonsense. In the quote given about Jacob wresting with the Satan, Satan very much takes the guise of a sentient being. He takes the guise of a human being that wrestles with Jacob. I've already outlined this quite clearly in my quotes earlier from the Jewish Sages.

In fact, if you read any Orthodox Judaic theology, the term Satan is used quite frequently. And it is used with a capital "S", and even referred to as "Satan" as opposed to "ha-satan", as you suggest.

The term, "Satan", is even used in the Bedtime Shema which is said every night by Orthodox Jews:

"........Hashem (literally, "The Name", referring to the Lord) said to the Satan (Note: not "hasatan", but the "Satan", with a capital "S"), "Hashem shall denounce you, O Satan, and Hashem, who selects Jerusalem, shall denounce you again."........" (Art Scroll Siddur, Bedtime Shema)

The Bedtime Shema is recited every single night by Orthodox Jews all over the world.

So, are you trying to tell me that the millions of Orthodox Jews that recite this prayer nightly have no theological concept of Satan?

Or do you still believe that the Hebrew Bible makes no mention of Satan?

Or that somehow Orthodox Judaism borrowed the term "Satan" from Christianity?

And, if, as you suggest, there is no concept of Satan in the Hebrew Bible, then why on earth do Orthodox Jews mention Satan in their night-time prayers every single night? Your logic does not follow.

The term Satan is very commonly used even today in Judaism, and as I have stated before, the concept of Satan preceded Christianity. You are simply misinformed, unfamiliar with traditional Judaism, or purposely trying to mislead others in this thread. Either way, you are simply mistaken.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by SUBKONCIOUS
“When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onwards and upwards he must prove his ability to properly apply (this) energy.”

‘Lost Keys of Freemasonry’ page 48, Manley P Hall 33rd degree.\
quotes.liberty-tree.ca...

way to shoot yourself in the foot there... I think you just lost a couple credential points...

Hey genius, did you bother to notice that Hall wrote that more than 30 years before he became a Mason? Thought not....

Yes.. 31 years before becoming a mason.. He was 21 years old... and it was published 50 years before he was given an honorary 33rd degree, by the Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction), December 8, 1973.

You see, Hall discovered many masonic secrets without having to get his hand held through the masonic process.. secretes which are esoteric in nature... If your lodge does not apply esoteric principles.. than your are getting a very diluted version of authentic free masonry..

Ultimately... Lucifer, in the appropriate context related to secret societies and masonry, is a form of symbolism that stands for knowledge.. It has nothing to do with being an evil devil worshiper.. which is why the title of this thread is so misleading... you might as well be saying.. "why masons do not worship knowledge" I am almost embarrassed for you, given your attempts to try to debate the reality of this subject matter... I think most of us can agree that free mason's (for the most part) are not evil devil worshipers.. for this was never, at any point, my claim... If you are really so stubborn to try and, once again, twist this around and disregard whats actually relevant to the topic.. than I am very sorry for you... or take it for what its worth and realize the huge public misconception regarding the concept of "Lucifer/Jah**lon"

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
Nonsense. In the quote given about Jacob wresting with the Satan, Satan very much takes the guise of a sentient being. He takes the guise of a human being that wrestles with Jacob. I've already outlined this quite clearly in my quotes earlier from the Jewish Sages.

Which your own sources repudiate as evidenced by the quotes that codyoutlaw and myself linked. The Biblical Hebrews did not believe that Satan (big 's') was a being, they believed ha-satan (small 's') was a job and that job was directed by God.

The term, "Satan", is even used in the Bedtime Shema which is said every night by Orthodox Jews:

"........Hashem (literally, "The Name", referring to the Lord) said to the Satan (Note: not "hasatan", but the "Satan", with a capital "S"), "Hashem shall denounce you, O Satan, and Hashem, who selects Jerusalem, shall denounce you again."........" (Art Scroll Siddur, Bedtime Shema)

Wowwie, wow. 'Ha' in Hebrew means 'the', hence the reason why the wording reads 'said to the Satan. 'Ha-satan' in Hebrew means 'the satan', 'the accuser'.

So, are you trying to tell me that the millions of Orthodox Jews that recite this prayer nightly have no theological concept of Satan?

That is exactly what I and they would tell you. They do not believe in Satan.

And, if, as you suggest, there is no concept of Satan in the Hebrew Bible, then why on earth do Orthodox Jews mention Satan in their night-time prayers every single night? Your logic does not follow.

It follows quite well. It would really help if you understood the Hebrew translation prior to accusing me of misleading people. That was a rather profound error that you could have avoided.