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 GreatOwl
Then why do Freemasons proclaim their oaths are just "symbolic", and a remnant of the past ?
Originally posted by GreatOwl
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 ?
Originally posted by GreatOwl
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 BrianG
Well I kept reading crazy posts about masons NOT being Christian so I came across this as proof some MUST be Christian hence not devil worshipers
I am not going to apologize for not falling for the myth of Satan like other people have.
So Rambam is not considered one of the great Jewish Scholars?
Considering there is zero substantiating evidence for angels I would tend to think it is more than just my opinion.
I already threw most of it out a long time before I became a Mason. I decided my life was not going to revolve around unfounded religious guilt and dogma.
Forgive me if I do not believe in the ludicrousness of demon casting and other unproveable supernatural nonesense. The preposterousness of the premise is perpetrated by the pusillanimous to protect themselves from personal responsibility.
Considering I do not believe in either Satan or angels I would be really curious as to where I stated Satan was anything at all. Considering I made it clear earlier that good and evil are part of God I think you are quite mistaken.
Because he was asked to do so by our little CookieMonster, who considers the Talmud more important than the actual Torah
By the time 100 CE rolled around (and I'm being generous by about a century here) the game of Chinese whispers was long over, and hence we are left with the remnants of that game. Let's try and stick with the original material (Torah) for the purposes of your discussion with me, OK?
Let's also try and drop the emotional reaction you are hiding behind a wall of very thin sarcasm?
Now, I didn't ask you for the orthodox interpretation of the word Israel. I asked you, quite clearly, to tell me what those morphemes actualy translate to, given the context of the story. Indulge me, and answer?
Originally posted by CookieMonster09
You are certainly entitled to believe all you deem fit. However, I would caution you that the demonic is very real and is quite evident in our rapidly disintegrating culture. When you see some of the strange degeneracy and lunacy happening in our culture, I wouldn't chalk it all up to humanity. There are much, much stronger spiritual forces at play.
No, he is considered a Jewish Sage. He is well-revered in Chabad circles, but not in all of Orthodox Judaism. As I said before, he is quite a controversial figure - In fact, his books were banned because they diverged from the more mystical approach to theology and delved into more rationalist approaches. Yes - He's considered by some to be the greatest Sage - as in Chabad, but Rashi is considered by most to be his superior in theological thought.
There is evidence of angels in the Bible. Heck, even in the King James Masonic Bible there are angels.
Strange, considering that Masonry centers around the building of Solomon's Temple - a very biblical account.
There is demonstrable proof. Just as any Vatican exorcist. Or read their books.
The story goes that Satan's greatest invention and trick was to convince humanity that he doesn't exist. I guess he was successful in your case.
Originally posted by CookieMonster09
The story goes that Satan's greatest invention and trick was to convince humanity that he doesn't exist. I guess he was successful in your case.
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Originally posted by BrianG
Well I kept reading crazy posts about masons NOT being Christian so I came across this as proof some MUST be Christian hence not devil worshipers
I see your point. The Original Post is about all Masons not worshipping Satan (Lucifer) not because they are Christian but because Satan is not a Supreme Being regardless of how you opt to view the myth surrounding him.
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
I see your point. The Original Post is about all Masons not worshipping Satan (Lucifer) not because they are Christian but because Satan is not a Supreme Being regardless of how you opt to view the myth surrounding him.
Lucifer the light bearer, strange name to give the son of darkness . . . Lucifer, the son of the morning! . . . Is it he who bears the light, doubt it not! (pg. 321)
For the Initiates, this [Satan] is not a Person, but a Force, created for good, which which may serve for evil, It is the instrument of Liberty or Free Will . . . They represent this Force which presides over the physical generation, under the mythological and horned form of the God PAN; . . . thence came the he-goat of the Sabbat, brother of the Ancient Serpent, and the Light-bearer or Phosphor, of which the poets have made the false Lucifer of the legend. (pg 200)
The Masonic Religion should be, by all of us Initiates of the high degree, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine: If Lucifer where not God, would Adonay (sic) whose deeds prove his cruelty, perfidy, and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonay and his priests culminate him? . . .
. . . Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also god. For eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods: darkness being necessary for light to serve as its foil as the pedestal is necessary to the state . . .
Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is a heresy; and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil. (pg 217)
Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
May I remind you Masons that Solomon, whose knowledge you claim to possess (no pun intended), had the knowledge of controlling demons with which he used to build his great temple.
And, there are plenty of examples. The Torah gives many instructions and many varied rules. The oral tradition examines these carefully, and gives further explanation and commentary. Example: How do you bind tefillin? You are commanded to do so in the Torah, but the Torah doesn't tell you how. How do you keep the Sabbath? The Torah doesn't go into too much detail, so what are the rules and guidelines? What constitutes "work" on the Sabbath? It is only through the oral tradition that these answers are codified and explained.
So, no, I won't just "stick with the Torah", because it is the long-standing Jewish tradition that there are 2 laws - the written, and the oral law.