Why Masons do not worship Lucifer (or Satan)

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
Well this is about Masons not worshiping Lucifer or Satan.

Historically the constellation Capricorn has been ruled by the planet Saturn. Capricorn is the sea-goat across several civilizations. Aleister Crowley has explained the Baphomet that the Templars were accused of worshiping was Capricorn.

And what does that have to do with Masonry?

The pillars Joachim and Boaz resemble the constellation Gemini which are also known as the gates through which spirits pass to the spirit world leading to the gates of rebirth Cancer.

Acutally the pillars of Boaz and Jachin represent the pillars of Boaz and Jachin. This is explained quite clearly in Masonic ritual. There is not room for reinterpretation as the explanation mentions each by name and denotes their symbolism to Masonry and their original location in Solomon's Temple.

This is tied to Masonic symbolism seen as the coffin with a (usually) acacia plant sprouting from it and the ladder (or staircase) rising between two pillars to the heavens.

The explantion of the coffin is also clearly detailed in the Master Mason lecture and is not related to the two pillars at all.

This is acted out in a masonic ceremony where the mason is 'struck' in the forehead and later raised from 'grave' by the lion's paw.

Hiram Abiff's death has nothing to do with rising to heaven. It has more to do with integrity and ones ability to be virtuous.

Many have shown the the square and compass of Masonry to form a hexagram, commonly on a ring which symbolizes the rings of Saturn.

The only way it can do that is if you are very sloppy with your geometery.

So why is any of this relevant? You use Biblical terms to describe what Masons do not worship so one must recognize the close relationship between Masonry and religious institutions which worshiped the stars and recall that the Bible specifically denounces such things.

Actually I am using the Roman Catholic codified version of Satan. It is quite clear that the concept of a fallen angel that rules in hell and acts as a opposing force to God was never a Hebrew concept and was strictly a Christian invention.

I am not saying all Masons are devil worshipers, as I have stated earlier you all are developing you own interpretations. I am merely pointing out interesting coincidences in symbolism and allegory.

And I am saying that by defintion no Masons can be 'devil worshippers' as this would be in direct conflict of their requirement to believe in a Supreme Being.

Originally posted by GreatOwl
Inability to distinguish between belief and knowledge.

Well, since you, unlike me, have 'knowledge' of Satan maybe you can share how you accurately acquired it and what it means to you.

Originally posted by GreatOwl
So, you have officially dated the scriptures to 1213.

This has nothing to do with dating scripture and everything to do when the Roman Catholic Church codified the mythology of Satan and demons. After 1213 there was only one interpretation of Satan, his history, domain, mission and minions. The Church simplified the process of fear-mongering the ignorant by unifying the various mythologies that existed about this fabled being and his equally fabled servants and translating this into reasons for persecution and additional required ritual to alleviate the so-called possessed.

And all such references to Satan, must have been interpolated into the scriptures in 1213, to give reference to the character called Satan, and then to "patch up" the scriptures to link him back to the "serpent" in Genesis.

All this modification of the scriptures was done in 1213?

Please read about Fourth Lateran Council and its guidelines for belief in Satan, Hell and demons.

The devil and the other demons were indeed created by God good by nature but they became bad through themselves; man, however, sinned at the suggestion of the devil. This Holy Trinity in its common essense undivided and in personal properties divided, through Moses, the holy prophets, and other servants gave to the human race at the most opportune intervals of time the doctrine of salvation.

...

Who all shall rise with their own bodies which they now have that they may receive according to their merits, whether good or bad, the latter eternal punishment with the devil, the former eternal glory with Christ.

I have no desire to believe what some ignorant, manipulative, fear-mongering, 13th Century cretins have to offer.

since the mason "use" the acacia plant as part of masonic symbolism ( many groups use the acacia symbol )
Acacia contains '___' dimethyltryptamine mankind has "used" plants containing tryptamines for eons to experience its mind altering properties.
'___' can be used by the human body as serotonin is used by the human body.
Users claim and medical research agrees '___' is non habit forming mostly because the visions one may experience can be quite shocking.
These plants have been used as "initiation" sacraments to communiate with spirits, deities, see the otherside etc.
Related to masonrys "seeking light" '___' use can ultimately lead to a fullblown "light" initiation / experience.

I strongly suggest all of the symbolism and verbage related to acacia, mimosa, "grass of the field" (canary reed grass) etc. is due to ancient and modern mans use of these many plant sources to experience the things that led mankinds support for the idea of deities.

per masonic humiliating ritual: for a man to be blindfolded, bound, partially unclothed etc after being told only "freemen" can join is humiliating and i am just explaining this one circumstance.

if you use the name adonai, emmanual etc you are invoking a deity, an angel by name. You are acknowledging it, respecting it (or disrespecting?) not much different than worshipping an angel

just 2 examples.

and I am an atheist I do not "believe in" g-d luck I do not recognize this word as a deities name even though this pagan name has become widely accepted.

Pike in one of his books states " the masons would unleash the atheist and nihilist upon the world and then the world would see and accept the masonic supermen" ( i know i misquoted but the gist is the same )

well the atheists are here and as the deist and theist masons are held suspect

just because I am well read and do religious/mythological and secret society research does not mean i recognize a supreme being either.

Although I may entertain the idea.

Originally posted by partycrasher
per masonic humiliating ritual: for a man to be blindfolded, bound, partially unclothed etc after being told only "freemen" can join is humiliating and i am just explaining this one circumstance.

Yes, and if that is all the farther you have thought about it, it may well seem humiliating. But lucky for us, we are smart enough to explain the symbolism involved in the ritual. And while from the uneducated, it may seem unnecessary, as a mason, I can assure you it's very necessary. And since you hold such a strong belief that you know all there is to know about masonry and it's not for you, I guess we never will have to waste our time trying to explain why someone would do those things.

Haters gotta hate.

Originally posted by partycrasher
Although I may entertain the idea.

it's amazing that someone so admittedly learned in theological studies would not know the difference between atheism and agnostic. I guess that fits with the rest of your "knowledge".

Originally posted by partycrasher
if you use the name adonai, emmanual etc you are invoking a deity, an angel by name. You are acknowledging it, respecting it (or disrespecting?) not much different than worshipping an angel

Where in Masonic ritual does either of these names appear?

Why do you insist on derailing my thread with unfounded opinion? Can you not see that people are trying to have an intelligent discussion without you interjecting pointless inuendo?

Originally posted by partycrasher
Pike in one of his books states " the masons would unleash the atheist and nihilist upon the world and then the world would see and accept the masonic supermen" ( i know i misquoted but the gist is the same )

You paraphrasing is grammatically retarded. Where does this appear in Pike's writings?

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by GreatOwl

 

So are all public servants bad Christians?

While Satan adds confusion, to lead men astray, the Lord provides clarity to lead the faithful back into the fold.


Now, the old testament did permit swearing of oaths.

If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. KJV Numbers 30:2

But, oaths were very serious matters, not to be taken lightly. You wouldn't swear an oath to have tongue cut out, heart ripped from chest, and be disemboweled, unless you really meant it. There are no "symbolic" oaths. A man's word is important, especially when "swearing an oath".

When Jesus came, he introduced a number of further "restrictions" on the activities of the faithful, so that they would not be easily led astray. While it was "righteous" to swear an oath, and to pay up according to that oath, by the laws of the old testiment, Jesus also said,

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. KJV Matthew 5:20

Then he goes on to give various restrictions that modify the old laws, where all modifications were intended to limit the faithful from falling afoul of the old laws. That is to say, the old laws were still in effect, but one would act in such a manner that one would not have to worry about them.

One of these restrictions referred to the swearing of oaths, which we are reminded again by James,

But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation. KJV James 5:12

The swearing of oaths was so serious, that James tells us "BUT ABOVE ALL THINGS", swear not.

Remember, there are no "symbolic oaths" in the Old Testament.

Jesus' solution to the severity of the swearing was to advise men not to make any oath, meaning not to make any oath that you didn't fully intend to fulfill. For again, in the New Testament, there are no "symbolic oaths", either.

Jesus understood Satan's trickery, to lead men astray, by telling them, "Oh, don't worry about the oath, it's just symbolic." That way, men are deceived into taking action that they would not take otherwise.

By not swearing an oath at all, one could not fall into "condemnation", by running afoul of the old testament law.

The solution is simple, Jesus' lordship is mild and gentle, don't swear and live free.

To operate in society, men are often called to swear oaths for various things. None of these oaths are "symbolic". They are all serious, and generally refer to the upholding of things we consider "good".

These are easily identified...a man swears an oath to the Lord in Church that he will look after his wife in sickness and in health..etc..swearing an oath to help other people, with full intention to do so, meaning every word that proceed out of your mouth, etc..is all ok with the Lord. It is better to do these things without having to swear an oath, but if a man swears an oath to protect, serve, help, etc..to the best of his ability..etc..the Lord would not be angry with that man.

So the content of the oath is an issue.

You don't need to swear an oath to do good things.

So, if the heart is pure, swear not. That's the essential message of the New Testament.

If you must swear, then make sure the content of the oath is something you can deliver, or a debt that you fully intend to pay, because you're still under the Old Testament law also.

The worst thing you can do, is swear an oath that you have no intention to deliver on, or which refers to a debt that you will not pay, because that is making a "mockery of oaths".

A man who would mock with his own words, cannot be trusted with any word, so a man who would make a "symbolic oath" is one who's word means nothing.

Once Satan gets the Christian to change his moral values, from the speaking of truths, to the uttering of "symbolic oaths", he has subtly changed that person's mind to accepting the telling of lies, to speak the unguarded word, and the Christian falls into the devil's camp. He may say to himself "I am still a Christian", but he no longer "speaks like a Christian." And since the words come from the "heart", he no longer feels the way a Christian feels, when he speaks. The light of the holy spirit has gone out, and another spirit has entered in it's place.

That Christian may not even know that he has changed. But, some others can see it, clearly.

re to network

Yes, and if that is all the farther you have thought about it, it may well seem humiliating. But lucky for us, we are smart enough to explain the symbolism involved in the ritual. And while from the uneducated, it may seem unnecessary, as a mason, I can assure you it's very necessary. And since you hold such a strong belief that you know all there is to know about masonry and it's not for you, I guess we never will have to waste our time trying to explain why someone would do those things.

Haters gotta hate.

network, sounds like you are an expert at sales tactics, if you run into someone who does not want to disrobe, you have a rebuttal, you are prepared to debate. Just another thing i DISLIKE about fm it uses sales and recruiting strategies.

I have family and ancestors who were / are masons I do not hate them. I just wish they never got involved because it has changed them, i feel like part of those people "died" in the lodge and now their is something "else" inside them. the weirdest thing i notice is that for something they claim is nothing they are so defensive of. its like they are ready to freak out to defend masonry like a religious zealot, its like they would do anything to defend fm? weird.

reply to post by partycrasher


Yea, It's like if someone followed you around and told everyone around you that you were gay when you were not. After a while, you might get a bit annoyed at the people telling lies about you. Hell, you might even try to set them straight. (pun intended)

I have seen the same things you speak of with regards to religion. When someone is "born again" they seem to change dramatically. They think for the better, but everyone around them sees it differently.

But I don't worry about the lies you tell about masonry. There have been many before you,and there will be many after you doing the same thing. Just as there will always be masons around to explain away the BS so intelligent people can learn the truth. (those are the ones that make the best masons anyway)

Originally posted by GreatOwl
But, oaths were very serious matters, not to be taken lightly. You wouldn't swear an oath to have tongue cut out, heart ripped from chest, and be disemboweled, unless you really meant it.

What other reason is there to "swear an oath" unless you mean it? Unless you lack integrity, then I suppose things like that might bother you.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

Your opinion of our symbols does not mean that is how we see them or use them.

reply to post by partycrasher

Except we Masons do not use the acacia to hallucinate, it is a symbol not an instrument. There are no hallucinogens used during our ceremonies. You guys come up with all of these different theories and yet they fall short as they are unfounded and none of you provide evidence to back it up. An opinion is not always a fact.

reply to post by partycrasher

Nothing in our ceremonies is humiliating or demeaning.

Where do we use these names? Please show me the rituals.

reply to post by partycrasher

The only reference to your "atheist and nihilist" quote is found in the Pike-Mazzini Hoax to which has been proven to be a non-existent communication and yet many still perpetuate it ignorantly. This particular quote was fabricated by William Guy Carr, but could never prove this message ever existed.

Yet another fabrication—often repeated by anti-masons and conspiracy theorists—is the claim that Albert Pike was in correspondence with Giusseppe Mazzini. First claimed by Edith Starr Miller, the accusation was later repeated by William Guy Carr, who cited Cardinal Caro y Rodriguez of Santiago, Chile, author of The Mystery of Freemasonry Unveiled. In Pawns in the Game Carr claims that this correspondence was on display in the British Museum but didn't provide the source of his information. Later, in Satan, Prince of this World, Carr includes the following footnote:

"The Keeper of Manuscripts recently informed the author that this letter is NOT catalogued in the British Museum Library. It seems strange that a man of Cardinal Rodriguez's knowledge should have said that it WAS in 1925".

In fact, the accusation—although not the specifics— can be traced to the earlier writings of the self-confessed hoaxsters Domenico Margiotta and Leo Taxil. There is no evidence that any correspondence ever existed. The British Museum has recently confirmed in writing to researcher Michael Haupt that such a document has never been in their possession.

SOURCE

reply to post by GreatOwl

Thanks for not answering my question.

I'm a man of my word so I have no fear of reprisal from man or my God.

Our Obligations do not conflict with my conscience or my Faith. My Obligations do not lead me astray and uphold things I consider to be good and moral. Nothing I have done could be considered Satanic or unChristian.

Originally posted by KSigMason

I'm a man of my word so I have no fear of reprisal from man or my God.

Our Obligations do not conflict with my conscience or my Faith. My Obligations do not lead me astray and uphold things I consider to be good and moral. Nothing I have done could be considered Satanic or unChristian.

edit on 18-9-2012 by KSigMason because: (no reason given)

Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? A man who will swear an "symbolic oath" is a man who will say anything.

One day he says the "oath's are just symbolic", and the very next day he will deny this, and proclaim "the oaths are really serious."

After having seen him swing one way then the other, with the ease of pre-historic man swinging through the trees, one then comes to wonder how much "civilization" hath really descended into him, for how could he have lost it all?

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by GreatOwl
But, oaths were very serious matters, not to be taken lightly. You wouldn't swear an oath to have tongue cut out, heart ripped from chest, and be disemboweled, unless you really meant it.

What other reason is there to "swear an oath" unless you mean it? Unless you lack integrity, then I suppose things like that might bother you.

Then why do Freemasons proclaim their oaths are just "symbolic", and a remnant of the past ?

reply to post by GreatOwl

You can call me false, but my integrity and honor is intact. Please show me my hypocrisy.

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by partycrasher
per masonic humiliating ritual: for a man to be blindfolded, bound, partially unclothed etc after being told only "freemen" can join is humiliating and i am just explaining this one circumstance.

Yes, and if that is all the farther you have thought about it, it may well seem humiliating. But lucky for us, we are smart enough to explain the symbolism involved in the ritual. And while from the uneducated, it may seem unnecessary, as a mason, I can assure you it's very necessary.

In other words, without Freemasons "telling you" what it is you are going to see, the newly entered candidate would have no clue how to interpret the events for himself.

He is "prepared psychologically", so that he can "correctly" interpret his experiences, according to the manner in which Freemason's interpret them.

This is necessary, because there are "other ways" to interpret the very same experiences. And Freemasons need to make sure the candidate thinks only of the masonic interpretation.

This then indicates that the candidate is not being introduced to "truth", which would be self-evident from the direct experience itself, but is being fed a "false interpretation" of what he is about to experience in the masonic lodge.

When a baby is born into the world, no one "preps" him in advance, on what he is about to see. He comes into the new experience raw and fresh, and he develops an understanding of the world simply through his own direct contact with nature.

To have to prepare an individual for a new experience, suggests that the individual is being intentionally misled instead, through subtle cues and symbols, that would suggest to his mind an interpretation that would make the experience "acceptable" to him.

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by GreatOwl

 

You can call me false, but my integrity and honor is intact. Please show me my hypocrisy.

You just said it, yourself. What more can I add. My words stand there. Your responses stand there. Anyone can read them and see. I could not show a blind man, nor would I need to lift the eyelids of the sighted one.

The truth is plain as the light of day.