Why Masons do not worship Lucifer (or Satan)

page: 16
29
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 

Well, to your first Pike quote, it is his opinion that he thinks it ironic that you name the Prince of Darkness the Light-bearer. As do I.

To understand the second quote, one needs to see the entire thing, not just the chopped mess (as you are missing some words out of it) and to read the quotes before and after.


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)

These quotes appear nowhere in Pike's book Morals & Dogma. This just shows me that you pulled from an unreliable source and have not done your research. Is it sloth or ignorance? Do you not realize it's pretty easy to check your quotes to see if they are true or not? The term "Satanism" appears nowhere in Morals & Dogma. The times Pike uses "Adonay" he spells it "Adonai". If you're going to lie, do a better job at it man.


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.

Was this not a gift given by God?

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 

No. We don't believe that.




posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by KSigMason
 


thanks KSigMason



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

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


Well, the Christian Bible also explains this paradox. The true Christians are warned of the "wolves in sheep's clothing", and are instructed to carefully observe the actions of the pretending "sheep" to see if they actually follow the instruction in the scripture. In the day of judgment many will come claiming they are good Christians and Jesus says he will say to them "I never knew ye" [Matthew 7:23].


So, not everyone who claims to be a Christian is actually a Christian. But anyone can determine who is "NOT" a true Christian by reading the scripture and making note of all the things Christians are supposed to do, then comparing those written things with the actual activities of those claiming Christian Faith as their own.

However, since men can still have secret activities, or be doing things out of sight of other men, we still can't be sure that a person "IS" a Christian, even if all outward signs we can observe seem to follow the text. This is why only Jesus can judge who "IS" a Christian, since he is the only one who can see the secret things.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreatOwl
So, not everyone who claims to be a Christian is actually a Christian. But anyone can determine who is "NOT" a true Christian by reading the scripture and making note of all the things Christians are supposed to do, then comparing those written things with the actual activities of those claiming Christian Faith as their own.



Well, by your information, I have only witnessed about three true Christians in my lifetime.
And none on this site. But in a strange way I do agree with you.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
Perhaps not Satan, but rather Lucifer, or his positive side Adonay;

Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma


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)


The above quotes are from the Taxil Hoax. WHy do you continue to use this as a reference?

The otehr quotes were addressed by Ksig.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
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)


Here is the entire book Morals and Dogma, by Albert Pike

Since you even have the page numbers listed with your quote, could you be so kind as to point out where on these pages your text is at? I read through the noted pages, but did not find your text at all.
Thanks in advance!



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   


This pathetic cop out ('the Devil made me do it'. 'he/she was possssed') completely undermines free will. We have the ability to choose for ourselves, when we start ascribing our actions to some mythical monesense then we really do have strange degeneracy lunacy happaening in our culture.

The possessed person doesn't necessarily recognize that they are possessed. They may not even complain that "The Devil made me do it". They also have no medical condition. The matter is entirely spiritual warfare.




You asked for a Jewish Sage, I gave you a Jewish Sage. It is not my problem that you do not happen to agree with the one I quoted. You outlined parameters, I fulfilled them.


You gave quotes from Jewish Sages that support my position that Satan was an Angel. You comically give quotes thinking they support your position, when they support mine. You either cannot read your own quotes you posted, or you have a hilarious sense of humor. Either way, you lost the argument, my friend. Nice try, though - It was fun to see you make a fool of yourself.



'Evidence' in the Bible? Really? The Bible is not a history book, nor is it a footnoted compilation of observable phenomenom. It is an anecdotal collection of moral and philosophical lessons. When people start taking the entire thing literally is where we run into issues of intellectual bankruptcy.


Not a history book? Huh? The Bible is replete with historical references. Observable phenomenon? Spoken like a true secularist.



It is an allegorical lesson, not a literal one, this is quite obvious in the Degrees.

The building of Solomon's temple is biblical.



Just because some nudnik writes a book the he exercised demons does not make it true.


No, these are credible authors with their reputations at stake. These are people - such as Fr. Malachi Martin - that have quite a pedigree of theological training and education.



Maybe you're not reading your Torah properly? Both Exodus and Deuteronomy make the purpose of the Sabbath quite clear (the only one named in the actual Commandments): Observe and remember. Try Deuteronomy 5:12 and 5:15, and Exodus 20:8 and 20:11, and especially 31:11-15. The key is in understanding the word melachah. This is how to understand what constitutes work on the Sabbath. No need to look outside the Torah.


No, the Torah gives the basics. It doesn't cover the nuances, the complicated scenarios that arise while trying to fulfill one's Sabbath obligation. These are all worked out in the oral tradition.

For example, we see in the Torah that you are not supposed to burn a fire on the Sabbath. This raises lots of questions. What if burning the fire would save someone's life, as in cooking food for a hungry person about to die? Is a fire ever permitted to be burned on the Sabbath, and under what circumstances? The Torah is silent on these nuances.

Halachic authorities in our modern era wrestle with issues such as whether using electricity constitutes burning a fire on the Sabbath, etc.



The Torah also expressly tells you where to bind your tefillin. You will find everything you need in there, again in Exodus (13:9 for example) and in Deuteronomy (11:18 for example). Any ritualistic complication of this act is only man-made, hence Talmudic.


See above. Again, the general rules are given, not the specifics. There are literally hundreds of halachic requirements for binding and wearing tefillin not outlined in the Torah.

And, the oral tradition is not man-made - It was given by G-d himself to Moses. What do you think Moses was learning for 40 days and nights on the mountain? Meditating?



So, if you stick with the textbook you get all your answers. You just have to learn how to read it first.

See above. The Orthodox Jews know the Torah better than any other religious group on the planet. They also know the oral tradition. It's just not as well-known among the non-Jewish religions.



Now, could you at least link me to your prior post on the morphemes? It's a simple question, and if you can't answer it twice, at least save me the trouble of having to search out your answer within your other posts.


What's your point? Why don't you just explain your point instead of making me repeat myself?



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by shamanix2012
Screwed up is not the term for that family, I have my reasons to believe they were deeply involved in the occult, they tried to use it on me, had me gaslighted, call it what you want witchcraft ? satanic ? all I know is that it spooked the hell out of me and it was draining my soul. She was incapable of loving even her own children and her only strength was to turn everyone around her against each other in order to be in control. Now to me,if there ever was an evil force in this world, it would work in these ways. I'm not blaming masons, but every part of society, every group has the potential for corruption in some of their ranks, not just masons.



See i think your story is true, you were told about these things by members of the family and something strange did happen to you, usually at least once or twice in a persons life something of the unexplained happens to you, this was that time for you, you probably were gaslighted by members of the family or cult or whatever or it was majik if you want to go there or a host of other things that could of lead to this, i don't know what masons got to do with this unless your saying that this cult/family was masons or had a history there.

As far as the OP the blanket statement that Masons don't worship Luucifer or by pure defenition the christian Lucifer/Satan isn't 100 percent true because i'm sure at some point some member some where and place and time did just by pure mathematics.

But i agree no where in the by laws of Masonry dose it state "YOU MUST BELIEVE IN SATAN" what people do on the side or whatever basically falls under the saying "what you do is on you"....

So i agree with the statement sure.


edit on 20-9-2012 by King Seesar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by r2d246
Not like what you see on tv or movies. He explains that it's just an addiction one gets to blood once they reach very high levels of satanism and they have to choose that.




Outrageous? Of course not. Demon possession is so normal, why, I think you have one, and it caused you to post a wall of text. It seems to be an anti-paragraphical demon of the highest order.

Ha I like that one

[



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
The possessed person doesn't necessarily recognize that they are possessed. They may not even complain that "The Devil made me do it". They also have no medical condition. The matter is entirely spiritual warfare.


No matter how you try to 'logically' explain it I am still going to find demon possession to be completely nonesensical and rather absurd in its premise.


You gave quotes from Jewish Sages that support my position that Satan was an Angel.


And Jewish beliefs are that all angels are part of God so what is the issue?


You comically give quotes thinking they support your position, when they support mine. You either cannot read your own quotes you posted, or you have a hilarious sense of humor. Either way, you lost the argument, my friend. Nice try, though - It was fun to see you make a fool of yourself.


So now Rambam, who you decried as not a good source to use because of his contemporaries view of him, suddenly supports you? Let me see if I understand, when I quote him to support my point he is not worthy, yet you use the same quote to support your point and he is suddenly legitimate. Seems someone else is behaving foolishly.


Not a history book? Huh? The Bible is replete with historical references. Observable phenomenon? Spoken like a true secularist.


Oh, I am sure it is replete with historical references, like demon-casting and Satan/demon belief.


The building of Solomon's temple is biblical.


And again, not all stories in the Bible are true.


No, these are credible authors with their reputations at stake. These are people - such as Fr. Malachi Martin - that have quite a pedigree of theological training and education.


Reputation at stake from what? Do you honestly think outside the clergy that an Exorcist is some sort of legitimate occupation? This is a role used to sucker the distressed and take advantage of them, they are snake oil salesmen clothed in albs.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


As I said, any ritualistic complications of the clear instructions given in your Torah are man-made and completely unnecessary. Do you think he spent time communing with your God in order to discuss how to interpret these already clear instructions, only to then omit them from the written Law? I don't think so.

As to my question, it is really quite simple. Let me say it again, in the rather vain hope that you may actually answer me this time: What do the actual morphemes mean, when placed within the context of the story itself? It's OK to repeat yourself - I have had to do so numerous times in this discussion with you.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by GreatOwl
So, not everyone who claims to be a Christian is actually a Christian. But anyone can determine who is "NOT" a true Christian by reading the scripture and making note of all the things Christians are supposed to do, then comparing those written things with the actual activities of those claiming Christian Faith as their own.



Well, by your information, I have only witnessed about three true Christians in my lifetime.
And none on this site. But in a strange way I do agree with you.


What is really interesting, is that in some places Masons openly refer to themselves as the "wolves".



LEWIS, OR LouvrrnAu. The words Lewis and Louveteau, which, in their original meanings, import two very different things, have in Masonry an equivalent signification...

the son of a Mason is in England called a lewis,...

The learned reader will also recollect that in the Greek language /alms signifies both the sun and a wolf. Hence, as the can didate in the Isiac mysteries was called a wolf, the son of a Freemason in the French lodges is called a young wolf or a louvetutu. The louveteau in France, like the lewis in England, is invested with peculiar privileges He also is permitted to unite himself with the order at the early age of eighteen years.



SOURCE: gluedideas.com...

So, since the Lewis is a young wolf, and the son of a Freemason, we are led to the implication that the Masonic father is an old wolf.

The only question remaining, is whether there are any "sheep in wolf's clothing".

That would seem to be the necessary condition for there to be Christians who are also Masons.

Why would a sheep disguise himself as a wolf?

Would this afford some kind of protection from the other wolves?

edit on 21-9-2012 by GreatOwl because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by GreatOwl
 


You officially lost me with that one.
2 out of three ain't bad.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by GreatOwl
 

Where have we referred to ourselves as "wolves"?

French Freemasonry is grey area, but maybe you could cite Masonic literature.


That would seem to be the necessary condition for there to be Christians who are also Masons.

Except these two religions believe in two different Abrahamic lineages.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by GreatOwl
 

Where have we referred to ourselves as "wolves"?

French Freemasonry is grey area, but maybe you could cite Masonic literature.


That would seem to be the necessary condition for there to be Christians who are also Masons.

Except these two religions believe in two different Abrahamic lineages.


Wolf began with the tribe of Benjamin, a fierce warlike tribe, whose symbol was the wolf, and from there we can trace the lineage down through Rome, the Cult of Mithra, to the various fighting Knights, like Knights Templar, into Freemason proper. We can trace them by their "activities and behavior", but not by records of birth.
edit on 21-9-2012 by GreatOwl because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GreatOwl
 


Could you explain your position a bit?
A tribe used a wolf as their logo. And since they predated Freemasonry, masons are wolves?

See, I need a bit of help here.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GreatOwl
 

So your citing a theory as fact? Plus this theory isn't very factually sound or logical.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
"During the fourth century when Jerome was translating from the Greek of the Septuagint to the Latin of the Vulgate, the planet Venus was called Lucifer. It was called the same in Roman Astrology"

I thought to worship Lucifer was to worship the planet venus?.. maybe already mentioned but I couldnt be bother to read every post.


Theres a thread on the subject here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 21-9-2012 by Horus12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   


No matter how you try to 'logically' explain it I am still going to find demon possession to be completely nonesensical and rather absurd in its premise.

Regardless of your belief system, spiritual warfare does exist. There is more to humanity than flesh and bones.



And Jewish beliefs are that all angels are part of God so what is the issue?


You tell me. The only premise I had was that Satan was an Angel according to the Hebrew Bible. Then you quote Jewish Sages that only reiterate what I just said. Then you somehow magically believe you have made some incredibly persuasive argument against me. Frankly, it's a bit bizzarro world.



So now Rambam, who you decried as not a good source to use because of his contemporaries view of him, suddenly supports you? Let me see if I understand, when I quote him to support my point he is not worthy, yet you use the same quote to support your point and he is suddenly legitimate. Seems someone else is behaving foolishly.

Good grief. See above.



Oh, I am sure it is replete with historical references, like demon-casting and Satan/demon belief.


You might try reading the Good Book once in awhile. After all, Masons in some parts of the country hand out the King James Bible to newly initiated Master Masons.



And again, not all stories in the Bible are true.

Define truth.



Reputation at stake from what? Do you honestly think outside the clergy that an Exorcist is some sort of legitimate occupation? This is a role used to sucker the distressed and take advantage of them, they are snake oil salesmen clothed in albs.


Fr. Malachi Martin was a serious priest, with serious academic and theological credentials. He was a scholar, and very well respected. Hardly a snake oil salesman. Read some of his books sometime, and you will find a brilliant and intelligent theologian.




As I said, any ritualistic complications of the clear instructions given in your Torah are man-made and completely unnecessary. Do you think he spent time communing with your God in order to discuss how to interpret these already clear instructions, only to then omit them from the written Law? I don't think so.


Your theological stance to reject the oral tradition is not the majority opinion in Orthodox Judaism. We can agree to disagree, but your opinion is a minority opinion in Orthodox theological circles. The Torah is simply the class notes from the lectures that G-d gave to Moses, not the lecture itself. It's like reading a student's class notes from a chemistry class, and missing the lecture. The lecture is oral - The class notes are written.




What do the actual morphemes mean, when placed within the context of the story itself? It's OK to repeat yourself - I have had to do so numerous times in this discussion with you.

I have already given you a theological interpretation and definition of the word "Israel" according to Orthodox Jewish sources, as originally requested. I will not repeat myself. I have already broken the word down for you, and given its meaning in a prior post, which you continue to choose to ignore.

If you care - for the tenth time - to actually comment on this definition, or to expand upon your own definition of the term, "Israel", have at it.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by GreatOwl
 


Could you explain your position a bit?
A tribe used a wolf as their logo. And since they predated Freemasonry, masons are wolves?

See, I need a bit of help here.


Masons are wolves, because they refer to themselves as wolves. When we ask why the wolf? And look backwards through time, we then see the connection to all the warrior cults that pre-existed before Freemasonry. And Freemasonry even still uses much of the symbolism of the pre-existing cults, even having degrees of Knight Templar etc.., and the three pillars of the Cult of Mithra, etc.., so they are not hiding the facts, only trying to confuse the "cowans" looking in.



new topics
 
29
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join