Why Masons do not worship Lucifer (or Satan)

page: 17
29
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by GreatOwl
 

All a theory you've cooked up not using anything Masonic to support yourself. Your idea is not based in reality.




posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
Regardless of your belief system, spiritual warfare does exist. There is more to humanity than flesh and bones.


I agree, but I do not feel this has anything to do with demons or possession.


You tell me. The only premise I had was that Satan was an Angel according to the Hebrew Bible.


Then it is obvious you have not read my quotes. They were quite clear in stating this.


Good grief. See above.


Same.


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.


I have read it, I have also read The Lord of the Rings. I am capable of recognizing that one is a complete work of fiction and the other has many fictional anecdotes.


Define truth.


Real.


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.


I am not interested in reading anything from anyone that proports to be on the legitimacy of demon possession. People like Martin are everything that is wrong with organized religion. They perpetutate the myths and legends that are used to help the Church keep control over its flock.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreatOwl
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.


Huh?

From the Online Etymology Dictionary:


Lewis
masc. proper name, Anglo-French form of Fr. Louis (see Louis).



Louis
masc. proper name, from Fr. Louis, from O.Fr. Loois, probably via M.L. Ludovicus, a Latinization of O.H.G. Hluodowig, lit. "famous in war" (cf. Clovis; for etymology, see Ludwig). Louis Quatorze (1855) refers to styles reminiscent of the time of King Louis XIV of France (1643-1715).


You really need to learn how to use a dictionary.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by GreatOwl
 


But, another warrior clan used a large breasted woman as their logo. And she was holding two great big beers. By using your logic, we as masons also use this symbolism? I mean, I am sure Augustus and his Yankee heathen buddies do, but not here in the Buckle of the Bible Belt. We would have no such thing!



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
But, another warrior clan used a large breasted woman as their logo. And she was holding two great big beers.


Is that you, God?



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


OK, I will. Let's look at this:


וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו מַה־שְּׁמֶךָ וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב׃
וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא יַעֲקֹב יֵאָמֵר עֹוד שִׁמְךָ כִּי אִם־יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי־שָׂרִיתָ עִם־אֱלֹהִים וְעִם־אֲנָשִׁים וַתּוּכָל׃

or, transliterated:

wai’yo’mer ey’law mah she’me’kha wai’yo’mer ya’a’qov
wai’yo’mer lo ya’a’qov yey’a’meyr od shim’kha ki im yis’ra’eyl ki sa’ri’ta im e’lo’him we’im a’na’shim wa’tu’khal

What we are interested in here, is Ysr. Given what has just occured in the story, it is most literally translated as "struggle" or "fight". El as a suffix here, it is most literally translated as "with God." Not with divine, but specifically with God.

Now it should be clear what my point is.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by GreatOwl
 

All a theory you've cooked up not using anything Masonic to support yourself. Your idea is not based in reality.


Well, ok. I see some saying French Freemasonry is not real Freemasonry. Apparently, the French are in a "grey area". Maybe they are the only "wolves?"

Who knows?

But, French Freemasonry is also supposed to have introduced the "Scotish Rite" to Freemasonry, according so some around here, so then maybe the wolf contamination only comes in with the higher degrees. And the lower masons are still sheep?

If I were judging, this is how I would determine the sheep from the wolf :

A true Christian would not ask another Christian to swear an oath under penalties, since that would clearly violate his Christian scripture. So, if I attempted to join Freemasonry, and some mason said to me, "Are you willing to swear", I would simply say, "I'd love to join you guys, but my religion forbids the swearing of such an oath, would you let me join on my own good words alone?" If then the mason says "Yes," then I would believe I had found the "Christian version of the Masonic Order" and I would be happy to join up. But, if the mason said, "No, you must swear this oath, otherwise you can't become a mason", then I would simply thank him for enlightening me, and explain that I cannot serve "two masters", my loyalties are only to one, for I fear that by swearing an oath to some other, I would be honoring one and dishonoring the other. Therefore, logically, I must choose.

Now why would anyone "swear an oath" under such penalties? They must be thinking that they will get some "benefit" from Freemasonry, that is "well worth" the risk of those penalties being enforced. But, entering seeking a benefit is the mindset of the wolf, not the sheep. The sheep, you see, already has all he needs, granted from God, and accepts his conditions of life, and whatever comes his way, he knows, is a gift from on high.

The wolf, on the other hand, must constantly be "seeking more light", because he has no light within him. So, it's natural for the wolf to eagerly swear any oath that might bring him more benefit. The sheep is more concerned with whom he can help, which needs no oath, since it's not seeking anything. There's no reward here on earth, the reward is in the hereafter.

So that masonic oath is critical, in that it "separates the sheep from the wolfs".

This is why one must enter Freemasonry of one's own free will. Because if you force a sheep to enter, that would not be evidence that you've found a true wolf.

The wolves don't need any "coercion" to join up. Already, within them is the urge to find more light, and get the benefit here and now that comes with that light. They are not waiting around for the hereafter. Who knows whether there's any hereafter anyway?

See? So that's why oaths are critical. They are like an "ID CARD" that tells who should join the pack and who should remain in the fold.






edit on 22-9-2012 by GreatOwl because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-9-2012 by GreatOwl because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-9-2012 by GreatOwl because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-9-2012 by GreatOwl because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Is that you, God?
Yes, Margaret.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreatOwl
Apparently, the French are in a "grey area". Maybe they are the only "wolves?"


Your own source says the this expression is only used in France. Did you even bother to read the entire article?



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GreatOwl
 

French Freemasonry is a grey area...just look at the quagmire they are in right now. Plus, you cited nothing that says Freemasons used this. I should clarify, you cited nothing of repute or accuracy, some random site that says it was used in the way you say it is does not mean that is how we use the term.

Many do believe that the Scottish Rite originated in France, but what does that have to do with the argument at hand about the term "lewis"? We shoot down one theory, you make up another. I bet you if we shoot down this theory, you'll then say it comes from the York Rite, and the cycle will continue because as I said, you're theories are not founded in reality, but in obsession.


And the lower masons are still sheep?

Then how do you know about it? Plus, with your tossing up theories, could you tell me what "higher degree" this is in?


But, if the mason said, "No, you must swear this oath, otherwise you can't become a mason", then I would simply thank him for enlightening me, and explain that I cannot serve "two masters", my loyalties are only to one, for I fear that by swearing an oath to some other, I would be honoring one and dishonoring the other.

Taking our Obligation doesn't bind us to "another Master." I swore everything to God and God alone; one Master.


Now why would anyone "swear an oath" under such penalties? They must be thinking that they will get some "benefit" from Freemasonry, that is "well worth" the risk of those penalties being enforced.

I fear no penalty as I'm a man of my word.


The wolf, on the other hand, must constantly be "seeking more light", because he has no light within him.

So seeking knowledge is wrong?
Wow. You're the kind of "christian" who perpetuates ignorance. Given your line of thinking we'd still be in the Middle Ages and thinking the world is flat. An enlightened mind is a mind for God.


The sheep is more concerned with whom he can help, which needs no oath, since it's not seeking anything. There's no reward here on earth, the reward is in the hereafter.

I never needed an oath or obligation to be charitable, no one has ever said that. Freemasonry says to be charitable to all mankind, regardless of their Masonic affiliation, and that charity is selfless.

"What we have done for ourselves alone dies with us. What we have done for others and the world remains and is immortal"


This is why one must enter Freemasonry of one's own free will. Because if you force a sheep to enter, that would not be evidence that you've found a true wolf.

The wolves don't need any "coercion" to join up.

Freemasonry is a voluntary organization made of free-men. What's wrong with that? Are you against freedom and liberty? You've proven nothing that "being a wolf" is a part of Freemasonry. This is just another pathetic attack on Freemasonry. Your ilk is getting desperate.
edit on 22-9-2012 by KSigMason because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason

So seeking knowledge is wrong?
Wow. You're the kind of "christian" who perpetuates ignorance. Given your line of thinking we'd still be in the Middle Ages and thinking the world is flat. An enlightened mind is a mind for God.


I find this seeking knowledge very strange. I mean, I went to school, then to university, and in all my years of learning, none of my school teachers or university professors ever required me to swear an oath, before he would introduce me to the light of knowledge he possessed.

I imagine if my prof said to me "swear an oath" with these kind of penalties, I probably would have dropped out of school right there, and said "keep your knowledge".



edit on 22-9-2012 by GreatOwl because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by GreatOwl
 


If you want to know what Freemasonry is then I suggest you go to the Kabbalah and its Tree of Life.

Solomon's Temple is the center pillar, Jachin and Boaz are the two pillars standing beside it.

It has had many interpretations over the ages, yet all were a means to a 'coincidentally' similar end.

Peace.

PS

Don't get caught up in their BS about the lodges, there is no one lodge that dictates exactly what other lodges do or how they apply their practices. There are regular lodges which (until something comes out in the papers) are practitioners of the communally accepted rituals, then there are the irregular lodges (some are recognized by the Grand lodges) who seek 'light' through different means (like experimentation). The grand lodges are recognized as the 'official' face of masonry if you intend to pursue any legitimate research.

The masons on this board love to play with the specifics and manipulate perceptions until you demonstrate an understanding of the workings of the masonic organization.

For example one mason will say there are no coffins in their initiation ritual because it is not a physical coffin but an image on a mat while other members admit that they used a coffin. Many even denying a coffin or the skull and cross bones was even a masonic symbol until several images of masons (George Washington for example) were presented in which they were wearing such symbols. Ultimately this resulted in one self proclaimed mason declaring they intended to travel around to find out how masonic rituals differed in different regions.

Basically it is like a game of BS where you can not just call BS but have to have evidence of their BS in the shape of a cube with no cracks wide enough for them to slither through, or you must shake them from their common wavelength so their organization falls apart and their disorganization lets 'things' slip.
edit on 22-9-2012 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101


Also there is not much use to arguing with the masons the origins of their practices as they argue amongst themselves as to the origins.

But feel free to make fun of them for founding Mormonism. Another funny thing about Mormons is their magick underwear which comes from the Templar tradition of wearing lambskin under their raiment at (almost) all times. This is often presented as an explanation for the sheepskin apron of the modern Mason.

LoL at your magick lingerie!
edit on 22-9-2012 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: Why not?



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   


What we are interested in here, is Ysr. Given what has just occured in the story, it is most literally translated as "struggle" or "fight". El as a suffix here, it is most literally translated as "with God." Not with divine, but specifically with God.

Genesis 32:29: The verse explains the name Yisrael as a combination of yisrah, "to prevail", over El, "the Divine", i.e., the angel (Satan). (p. 54, The Stone Edition of the Tanach)

Why would Israel struggle against G-d? Doesn't make sense. The whole story of Israel - both the person in the Hebrew Bible - as well as the people of Israel (i.e., the Jews) --- is a struggle against evil - Satan.

Otherwise, you would be suggesting that somehow Israel's destiny was to struggle against and combat G-d. This is completely contrary to the Hebrew Scriptures.

So, sorry, I won't bite. I will take the interpretation of the Jewish Sages over your interpretation any day of the week.
edit on 22-9-2012 by CookieMonster09 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


Because he struggled with his own God all night, in a visionary episode, until he understood his own failings. Hence:
YSR.
EL.
I'm sorry you and your sages can't understand the spiritual significance of that.
I'm sorry that you and your sages didn't learn from your patriarch,
because you and they can't understand the fact that even Jacob tells you this himself.
How could he face Esau before he had even dealt with himself?
Every day is a spiritual struggle with our own Gods, in order that we might learn and stay on our own spiritual paths, not straying, but improving.
The singularly most powerful lesson bequethed to you by your own God in your own scriptures, and it's squandered.
Unfortunate, but utterly unsurprising, given the human tendency toward self-aggrandizing and laying of blame anywhere but ourselves.

edit on 23-9-2012 by CodyOutlaw because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
For example one mason will say there are no coffins in their initiation ritual because it is not a physical coffin but an image on a mat while other members admit that they used a coffin.

BTW, that was me, and I said I don't know of any coffin in the lecture. I then asked you to point to where it might be, and I did it nicely. Since then, I was at a third degree and sat in on the lecture and did in fact see a coffin and it was referenced to contain our earthly remains. Very brief mention. So I apologize for not having a good memory. You were right and I was mistaken.


Many even denying a coffin or the skull and cross bones was even a masonic symbol until several images of masons (George Washington for example) were presented in which they were wearing such symbols. Ultimately this resulted in one self proclaimed mason declaring they intended to travel around to find out how masonic rituals differed in different regions.

Basically it is like a game of BS where you can not just call BS but have to have evidence of their BS in the shape of a cube with no cracks wide enough for them to slither through, or you must shake them from their common wavelength so their organization falls apart and their disorganization lets 'things' slip.
edit on 22-9-2012 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101


Also there is not much use to arguing with the masons the origins of their practices as they argue amongst themselves as to the origins.

But feel free to make fun of them for founding Mormonism. Another funny thing about Mormons is their magick underwear which comes from the Templar tradition of wearing lambskin under their raiment at (almost) all times. This is often presented as an explanation for the sheepskin apron of the modern Mason.

LoL at your magick lingerie!
edit on 22-9-2012 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: Why not?


Yes, by all means, lets make fun of other religions! It's a blast to laugh at that which we do not understand!

I noticed you forgot to point out where that text was in Morals and Dogma. We will wait.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Is "Morals & Dogma" recommended for general audiences?

G!
PG!
PG 13!
NC 17!
MA!
NR!



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
Why would Israel struggle against G-d? Doesn't make sense. The whole story of Israel - both the person in the Hebrew Bible - as well as the people of Israel (i.e., the Jews) --- is a struggle against evil - Satan.


Isreal struggled with itself, hence the reason that God says to Amos he will judge them by the plumb line. If they were merely being lead astray by Satan then why does God just not eliminate Satan and end their suffering? They were the cause of their own suffering and struggle.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
For example one mason will say there are no coffins in their initiation ritual because it is not a physical coffin but an image on a mat while other members admit that they used a coffin. Many even denying a coffin or the skull and cross bones was even a masonic symbol until several images of masons (George Washington for example) were presented in which they were wearing such symbols. Ultimately this resulted in one self proclaimed mason declaring they intended to travel around to find out how masonic rituals differed in different regions.


It was clearly explained to you in that thread that Masonic ritual is not identical in all jurisdictions, there are minor variations.

What did any of your comments have to do with my Original Post and this thread's topic?



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus


Isreal struggled with itself, hence the reason that God says to Amos he will judge them by the plumb line. If they were merely being lead astray by Satan then why does God just not eliminate Satan and end their suffering? They were the cause of their own suffering and struggle.


Exactly!



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GreatOwl
 
I am a Freemason under the Jurisdiction of a Continental European Grand Lodge, perhaps I can shed Light on this subject. In my Order, we refer to the children of Masons as Lykideas or Lykideon, which also means "wolf cub". They may join Freemasonry the age of eighteen instead of twenty-one as other candidates must be. They have some duties toward the Fraternity and also have it's support but they are not yet Freemasons.

A young wolf has two potentials, one may hungrily threaten the shepherds flock, the other with the right guidance may loyally serve the shepherd and protect the flock even from other wolves. I am reminded of the Cherokee Parable of the Two Wolves.



An old Grandfather said to his grandson, who came to him with anger at a friend who had done him an injustice, "Let me tell you a story.

I too, at times, have felt a great hate for those that have taken so much, with no sorrow for what they do.

But hate wears you down, and does not hurt your enemy. It is like taking poison and wishing your enemy would die. I have struggled with these feelings many times." He continued, "It is as if there are two wolves inside me. One is good and does no harm. He lives in harmony with all around him, and does not take offense when no offense was intended. He will only fight when it is right to do so, and in the right way.

But the other wolf, ah! He is full of anger. The littlest thing will set him into a fit of temper. He fights everyone, all the time, for no reason. He cannot think because his anger and hate are so great. It is helpless anger,for his anger will change nothing.

Sometimes, it is hard to live with these two wolves inside me, for both of them try to dominate my spirit."

The boy looked intently into his Grandfather's eyes and asked, "Which one wins, Grandfather?"

The Grandfather smiled and quietly said, "The one I feed."
edit on 23-9-2012 by no1smootha because: (no reason given)



new topics
 
29
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join