Why Masons do not worship Lucifer (or Satan)

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by Erbal
The title is: "Why Masons do not worship Lucifer (or Satan), "
The OP's argument clearly states: "All regular Masons are required to have a belief in a Supreme Being, i.e. God, and the planet Venus, whom the Romans refered to as Lucifer, certainly does not qualify. "

You are now clearly and definitively stating: "See above, not all forms of Masonry require belief in God."

Do you see the operative word there? I made it really easy for you to find

Good!

Look at the title of this thread... do you see the operative word there?
Is there a reason the title does not accurately reflect the content of the OP's argument? If a Regular Mason is a Mason and an Irregular Mason is a Mason, and the thread is about why specific Masons (those required to have a belief in a Supreme Being) do not worship Lucifer, why does the title imply it's regarding Masons in general?

Is that not misleading?

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by Erbal
If your OP argument doesn't hold water for Masonry in GENERAL, why did you make a conscious choice to not clarify in the title and the OP that you are only speaking about a SPECIFIC form of Masonry?

Because (and I'm just spit-balling here) the vast, vast majority of non-Masons do not (as you aren't) distinguish between Regular and irregular Masonry and choose to lump all in together even though it's in error. What's defined as "Regular" Freemasonry is by far and away representative of the vast, vast majority. However, like the word "Baptist", Regular Freemasonry doesn't have a lock on the use of the word and so can only distance itself from the irregular brands and hope that intelligent people without axes to grind will recognise and accept that there's a difference.

For the same reason that Baptists everywhere are (I'm sure) chagrined by the behaviour of the Westboro Baptist Church and ensure that non-Baptists understand that they aren't representative of the vast, vast majority of Baptists, Regular Masons likewise ensure the distinction between Regular and irregular Freemasonry is known and understood. There's nothing to stop you from going out and starting your own lodge and calling yourself a Mason or a Baptist church. But don't be too upset when Regular Masons or regular Baptists make sure that others understand that you aren't representative of the majority just because the majority can't prevent you from using a particular word.

Fitz

I have no axe to grind. What have I done to lead you to believe I don't distinguish Regular and Irregular forms of Masonry, and that I have made the choice to lump them together? Nothing. So why did you accuse me of such things?

I am objectively responding to a thread I did not make. I am pointing out that the OP of this thread has made a misleading title and/or has made an invalid argument to support the subject of this thread, and so I asked the OP for more information to get a better feel for the purpose of this thread... my requests were dismissed.

Even if I assume the title really says "Why Masons (who are required to believe in a Supreme Being) do not worship Lucifer/Satan", I still do not see how such an assertion has been supported by the OP. The OP made this thread and if this is expected to be considered as fact and not opinion, the burden of proof lies on the OP.

Belief and worship are 2 completely different concepts. I suppose you must believe in anything you chose to worship but there is nothing forcing you to worship what you believe in. It's pretty clear all forms of Masonry can and do worship some things which are less than a Supreme Being... so the logic of the OP holds no water.

What am I missing?

Originally posted by partycrasher
Although the secrets of who god is doesn't start until the 30th°, there aren't many masonz who attain all 33°. For instance, in 1907 the total number of active 33° mason's didn't exceed 100. Therefore, there are hundredz of thousandz of mason's who think they know, but really don't because they haven't reached the end where the truth is revealed.
What is your degree? your pedigree? perhaps you have been denied this knowledge because of some flaw not highly regarded among higher masons? perhaps you should be more luciferic like hall and less like you.

Most of the Masons here are 32° in the Scottish Rite. The Southern Jurisdiction awarded more than 400 33°s last year. And they award a similar number every other year. So it's selective, but hardly exclusive. I personally know more than twenty 33° Masons, and I'd count about a dozen among my good friends.

Originally posted by Erbal
Is there a reason the title does not accurately reflect the content of the OP's argument?

Since the largest group of what's deemed irregular Masons (Grand Orient of France) will admit atheists, by definition they wouldn't be worshiping anything. Period. Full stop. Regular F&AM and AF&AM insist on a belief in a Supreme Being. As AM and Sauras have already quite eloquently addressed the rest of the point, shall we continue?

Are you are you desiring to continue to harry the point endlessly?

Originally posted by Erbal
If a Regular Mason is a Mason

He is

Originally posted by Erbal
and an Irregular Mason is a Mason,

He isn't though he sees himself as one and those with no particular interest in Masonry aren't going to bother to parse the difference

Originally posted by Erbal
and the thread is about why specific Masons

No, the thread is about why "Masons do not worship Lucifer". The logic of how it cannot be has been patiently explained to you repeatedly by others more eloquent than I. But still......

Originally posted by Erbal
(those required to have a belief in a Supreme Being) do not worship Lucifer, why does the title imply it's regarding Masons in general?

Because as I'm saying for the third time, most non-Masons neither see nor care to see in some cases that a clear difference exists. To them, they parse no difference between brethren under the Grand Orient of France and any F&AM/AF&AM Grand Lodge.

That's why I brought up the Westboro Baptist church as a comparable situation hoping that might help you understand. Alas...

Originally posted by Erbal
Is that not misleading?

No. Because despite the point being made that at the worst, members of a group that could be called by non-Masons "Masons" don't necessarily believe in anything at all. However, in the case of the vast, vast majority, they believe in a Supreme Creator of all that is, was and will be, a description that by definition Lucifer/Satan isn't/wasn't/can't be. However, a certain vocal group claims all Masons lie

Originally posted by Erbal
It's pretty clear all forms of Masonry can and do worship some things which are less than a Supreme Being

ORLY? And you draw this intelligence from......what precisely? When it has been stated repeatedly by many and sundry that a belief in a Supreme Being is a paramount requirement of what comes to mind of most people internationally, we seem to come back around to the same sort of baseless assertion that initiated this thread. This is a Möbius strip of a thread in that regard.

If you don't believe what Masons have told you, that's your prerogative. However, it isn't based on any information that's been conveyed in this thread.

Originally posted by Erbal
What am I missing?

Closure it would seem and for that, I suspect it will not come unless you pursue your researches yourself to which I bid you adieu and bon chance.

Fitz

reply to post by Fitzgibbon


Fitzgibbon: do you consider "belief in a supreme being" to be synonymous with "worship of a supreme being"? I do not.
Belief is a thought, worship is an action. Also, I do not agree that worship MUST be directed at a creator in order to be worship; people can and do worship all kinds of things.

I have not seen a valid explanation why a required belief in a Supreme Being means a Mason cannot worship something less than a Supreme Being.

Basically, it sounds like you guys are using the "there are no true Scotsman" fallacy to assert that a "real" Mason cannot worship Lucifer because a Regular (real) Mason is required to have a belief in something greater than Lucifer... but where is the explanation for why that is a true statement????

reply to post by partycrasher

Who is this apparent to? Freemasonry isn't competing or trying to compete with any religion. We are not a religion nor have we ever claimed to be.

reply to post by partycrasher

It just shows our toleration.

reply to post by partycrasher

Ah yes, because everything from a lazy Google search is true.

The Scottish Rite isn't the catch all, singular, authoritative branch of Freemasonry. It is one branch.

Please provide where in the 30° that we discuss the "secrets of who god is".

there aren't many masonz who attain all 33°.

Last year alone, 400 were elected to become 33° in the Southern Jurisdiction alone. LOL Maybe you should do some research before making such claims.

For instance, in 1907 the total number of active 33° mason's didn't exceed 100. Therefore, there are hundredz of thousandz of mason's who think they know, but really don't because they haven't reached the end where the truth is revealed.

See my above words of that the Scottish Rite is not the only body of the Freemasonry (there is much more about Freemasonry than the Scottish Rite or any other appendant body) and you have yet to provide any actual evidence, ritual evidence.

The Scottish Rite has no authority outside of the Scottish Rite and has no relevance to non-Scottish Rite Masons.

What is your degree?

For which body?

perhaps you have been denied this knowledge because of some flaw not highly regarded among higher masons?

And yet you think you know the information from a Google search?

reply to post by partycrasher

So yo truly believe everything you Google search? Okay, not everything, you choose to avoid pertinent, relevant, and truthful information.

reply to post by Erbal

When the OP talks of Masonry, he is obviously going to talk about the Masonry relevant to him which is mainstream, regular Freemasonry. The term "Freemasonry" is not copyrighted so anyone can use it, but those who do not conform to the traditional Ancient Charges are not considered regular and thus the OP is not, obviously, going to speak for them; he can only speak for regular, recognized Freemasonry.

Is really that hard of a concept to grasp?

Originally posted by Erbal

Do you see the operative word there? I made it really easy for you to find

What am I missing?

Hi Erbal

Perhaps I can clear things up a little in this regard...

Point 1:

Regular Masons do not consider 'irregular masons' to be Masons.
As the OP is a regular mason, anyone who is not 'regular' in the Masonic sense in simply not a Mason according to him (or us).

Joe Blow down the street could open a Lodge, make up some rituals, and call himself a Mason.
We would then call him 'irregular' or 'not a mason' (irregular = not a Mason, but calls himself a Mason).

Point 2:

Irregular Masons (people who call themselves Masons, but aren't really) consider themselves to be Masons, and also consider 'regular Masons' to be Masons.

This leads to much confusion among non-masons, because the converse is not true.

Point 3:

In Masonic terms, 'operative freemasonry' is as compared to 'speculative freemasonry', not 'regular freemasonry'.


P.S. The problem is further compounded by Masons like our dear Brother "no1smoother" who was a regular Mason, but left and joined an irregular constitution. Things like this tend to completely confuse non-Masons, who are unaware that although he calls himself irregular, but was still initiated into regular Freemasonry. So blame it all on no1smoother!

P.P.S. Don't worry no1smoother, we still love you, Brother...

Originally posted by Saurus

Originally posted by Erbal

Do you see the operative word there? I made it really easy for you to find

What am I missing?

Hi Erbal

Perhaps I can clear things up a little in this regard...

Point 1:

Regular Masons do not consider 'irregular masons' to be Masons.
As the OP is a regular mason, anyone who is not 'regular' in the Masonic sense in simply not a Mason according to him (or us).

Joe Blow down the street could open a Lodge, make up some rituals and call himself a Mason.
We would then call him 'irregular' or 'not a mason' (irregular = not a Mason, but calls himself a Mason).

Point 2:

Irregular Masons (people who call themselves Masons, but aren't really) consider themselves to be Masons, and also consider 'regular Masons' to be Masons.

This leads to much confusion among non-masons, because the converse is not true.

Point 3:

In Masonic terms, 'operative freemasonry' is as compared to 'speculative freemasonry', not 'regular freemasonry'.


P.S. The problem is further compounded by Masons like our dear Brother "no1smoother" who was a regular Mason, but left and joined an irregular constitution. Things like this tend to completely confuse non-Masons, who are unaware that although he calls himself irregular, but was still initiated into regular Freemasonry. So blame it all on no1smoother!

P.P.S. Don't worry no1smoother, we still love you, Brother...

edit on 8/10/2012 by Saurus because: (no reason given)

Below is a quote from the OP on page 3 of this thread. Take note of the use of Mason in the title of the thread and the use of Masonry in the quote below. Zero effort was made to avoid using the same exact generic labeling for two distinctly different groups that happen to share the same name and virtually the same teachings, those groups being regular and irregular Masonry.

It creates the impression the OP, who is a Mason, feels both groups are still Masonry to the point it's not justified to mention there is a distinction.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by ManjushriPrajna
I don't necessarily agree, personally, on the kind of secrecy and exclusivity the Freemasons have...

There is no exclusivity, nearly everyone can join some form of Masonry or another and learn pratically the same thing as anyone else. There are groups that allow men, women, or both, there are even obdiences that allow atheists. The only preclusion I can think of is convicted felons.

You guys might not consider an irregular mason to be a real mason but you guys do your arguments a huge disservice when you fail to give a good explanation as to what you are talking about. Are you guys directing the message of this thread at Masons, non-Masons, or clairvoyant people?

Spend the extra effort to make it crystal clear exactly what YOU GUYS are talking about. Spend at least a minimal effort to make the distinctions that avoid sending mixed messages.

And has anyone in this thread given a logically valid explanation as to WHY being required to BELIEVE in a supreme being means you cannot WORSHIP something less than that one supreme being? Is that not the OP's argument in a nutshell? So WHY is the OP's argument true and valid?

How many times have I asked this simple question and how many times has someone replied without attempting to address the question of why is the OP's argument valid and true?

..

Originally posted by Erbal

And has anyone in this thread given a logically valid explanation as to WHY being required to BELIEVE in a supreme being means you cannot WORSHIP something less than that one supreme being? Is that not the OP's argument in a nutshell? So WHY is the OP's argument true and valid?

How many times have I asked this simple question and how many times has someone replied without attempting to address the question of why is the OP's argument valid and true?

I will try and answer your question in an objective way from the way I understand the OP's argument...


Let's start with your argument - it is understandable, and is similar to the following typical example from Hindu belief...

Sridhara Swami explains the worship of lesser gods (based on teachings from the Bhagavad-Gita) as follows:

"Some Hindus question that since the Supreme Lord Krishna is the exclusive awarder of liberation from the cycle of birth and death; then why is it that most people are obliviously worshiping lesser gods instead of Him? People worship the lesser gods because they desire material benefits, which is what the lesser gods can give. Worshiping lesser gods for wealth, dominion, a beautiful wife, a powerful son, such efforts easily bring quick results and the desired rewards. But liberation is only achieved as a result of cultivating Vedic knowledge about the Supreme Lord and thus it is hard to attain. "
Source: Interpretation of Bhagavad-Gita, Chapter 4, Verse 12

My guess is that your argument is based along these lines.


However, the OP does not subscribe to such belief. The OP has said that if lesser gods do exist then...

"This would imply a situation where God is neither omnipotent nor unique and not worthy of the respect and adoration due to God by every Mason. It therefore becomes quite obvious why any Mason obligated to believe in God would not and could not call God by the name Lucifer or Satan."
Source: Original Post

From numerous posts by the OP, he believes in the existence of only one deity (and does not believe in Satan or any other lesser gods). In his opinion, a deity is only worthy of worship if that deity is omnipotent. The OP's argument is based on this premise.


Let me try and re-phrase the OP's argument as I understand it...

-Supreme = Omnipotent
-Masons believe in a Supreme being (and therefore an omnipotent being).
-A deity which is not omnipotent is not worthy of worship.
-Therefore, masons will not worship any other than the omnipotent being.

This is the OP's argument, based on premises which he belives.
The Hindu argument above is a different argument because it is based on different premises (in other words, to them, a non-omnipotent deity can be worshiped for reward.) The OP does not believe this premise.

Therefore, the debate is based on a questioning of the premises, which is why the OP posted the thread.
If it were as clear as A=B, B=C, therefore A=C, there would be no discussion or confusion in the first place.

As I understand it, the OP is challenging people to dispute his premises. Failure to do so means that his argument holds.

Originally posted by Erbal
Your first post in this thread makes the argument that regular Masons are required to have a belief in a Supreme Being, and you define Lucifer/Satan as less than a Supreme Being to come to the conclusion that no regular Mason required to have a belief in a Supreme Being can worship Lucifer/Satan. You then went on to say not all Masons are required to have a belief in a Supreme Being, and now you say those Masons are irrelevant.

They are irrelevant to the topic because Irregular Masonry that admits Atheists is Atheistic in nature. Irregular Masonry that does not admit Aethists will follow the same belief systems as Regular Masonry. How many more times do I need to explain this to you? Are you being purposefully obtuse?

If this is your entire argument in a nutshell, it's incredibly lazy and disingenuous. You are basically saying "because I said so", I don't see a valid explanation for this subject of this thread.

Are you just trolling?

No, it would seem that you are as after repeatedly explaining the difference between several different types of Irregular Masonic groups you still seem to fail to grasp the nuiances.

Do you believe you've given a good explanation to your argument and it's logically sound? I don't see it, what am I missing?

The ability to understand the difference between certain Irregular Masonic groups and Regular Masonry.

Originally posted by Erbal
You guys might not consider an irregular mason to be a real mason but you guys do your arguments a huge disservice when you fail to give a good explanation as to what you are talking about. Are you guys directing the message of this thread at Masons, non-Masons, or clairvoyant people?

As you opted to participate in this forum and further, in this thread, you should really have a passing knowledge of the subject gorup being discussed, it is not incumbant upon me to provide a caveat of what Regular and Irregular Masonry are for the non-Mason. Do some reading, learn something on your own.

Spend the extra effort to make it crystal clear exactly what YOU GUYS are talking about. Spend at least a minimal effort to make the distinctions that avoid sending mixed messages.

I am not here to spoon-feed disctinctions that are fairly easy to uncover with a minimal amount of leg work. When I encounter a term or phrase I do not understand I look it up. It seems to offer a much quicker solution to ignorance than bemoaning the fact that someone else did not bother to do it for me.

And has anyone in this thread given a logically valid explanation as to WHY being required to BELIEVE in a supreme being means you cannot WORSHIP something less than that one supreme being? Is that not the OP's argument in a nutshell? So WHY is the OP's argument true and valid?

If a person, in a religious or spiritual context, worshipped anything other then God while still holding a belief in God, it would make them pantheistic and not able to join Masonry. Worship of a being other than a God (who is by defintion ominpotent) implies belief in said being and therefore belief in a non-supreme being.

This is so logically simplistic I cannot believe you needed an explanation.

Originally posted by Saurus
Let me try and re-phrase the OP's argument as I understand it...

-Supreme = Omnipotent
-Masons believe in a Supreme being (and therefore an omnipotent being).
-A deity which is not omnipotent is not worthy of worship.
-Therefore, masons will not worship any other than the omnipotent being.

This is the OP's argument, based on premises which he belives.
The Hindu argument above is a different argument because it is based on different premises (in other words, to them, a non-omnipotent deity can be worshiped for reward.) The OP does not believe this premise.

Therefore, the debate is based on a questioning of the premises, which is why the OP posted the thread.
If it were as clear as A=B, B=C, therefore A=C, there would be no discussion or confusion in the first place.

As I understand it, the OP is challenging people to dispute his premises. Failure to do so means that his argument holds.

edit on 8/10/2012 by Saurus because: (no reason given)

BS. The OP hasn't bothered to establish his premise as valid, what is there to dispute? No one else is willing to establish the OP's premise as valid, what is there to dispute?

Read the first post in this thread. It's the OP's argument. There is nothing that explains why "A = C", nothing. Don't go off on a tangent about Hinduism, stay on topic to discuss why Masons cannot worship something less than a supreme being.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Erbal
You guys might not consider an irregular mason to be a real mason but you guys do your arguments a huge disservice when you fail to give a good explanation as to what you are talking about. Are you guys directing the message of this thread at Masons, non-Masons, or clairvoyant people?

As you opted to participate in this forum and further, in this thread, you should really have a passing knowledge of the subject gorup being discussed, it is not incumbant upon me to provide a caveat of what Regular and Irregular Masonry are for the non-Mason. Do some reading, learn something on your own.

Spend the extra effort to make it crystal clear exactly what YOU GUYS are talking about. Spend at least a minimal effort to make the distinctions that avoid sending mixed messages.

I am not here to spoon-feed disctinctions that are fairly easy to uncover with a minimal amount of leg work. When I encounter a term or phrase I do not understand I look it up. It seems to offer a much quicker solution to ignorance than bemoaning the fact that someone else did not bother to do it for me.

And has anyone in this thread given a logically valid explanation as to WHY being required to BELIEVE in a supreme being means you cannot WORSHIP something less than that one supreme being? Is that not the OP's argument in a nutshell? So WHY is the OP's argument true and valid?

If a person, in a religious or spiritual context, worshipped anything other then God while still holding a belief in God, it would make them pantheistic and not able to join Masonry. Worship of a being other than a God (who is by defintion ominpotent) implies belief in said being and therefore belief in a non-supreme being.

This is so logically simplistic I cannot believe you needed an explanation.

You missed my points... I'm not asking you to explain the caveats of regular and irregular, I'm asking you to not label them as the same thing, Masonry, if YOU do NOT consider them to both be the same thing. Is that asking too much, that you say what you mean so the reader doesn't have to make big assumptions? Have you considered the possibility the reader can't read your mind and your written words are your message, even if you miswrite them?

Now, on to my main question, which you are still dancing around. We are not talking about a regular, spiritual context, we are specifically talking about a Regular Masonic context. Stop deflecting.

Does Regular Masonry deny Pantheistic people into their ranks? Assuming the answer is no as you are implying despite the fact my research explicitly says otherwise, how do the Masons know someone is Pantheistic so they can be denied membership?

WHY does a required belief in a supreme being equate to a required WORSHIP of ONLY the supreme being? No one has answered this simple question that I've asked over a dozen times now.

I'm starting to think you guys have no answer because that premise is total and complete BS. Why do you refuse to demonstrate why your premise is valid and skip to asserting your premise is established truth that must be debunked? What are you not telling me?

Originally posted by Erbal

WHY does a required belief in a supreme being equate to a required WORSHIP of ONLY the supreme being? No one has answered this simple question that I've asked over a dozen times now.

Because only one deity exists.

Originally posted by Erbal
You missed my points... I'm not asking you to explain the caveats of regular and irregular, I'm asking you to not label them as the same thing, Masonry, if YOU do NOT consider them to both be the same thing.

In many ways there are the same thing, they use similar ritual and may have all the same landmarks, the only major one that pertains to the Original Post is the inclusion of Aethists which precludes the requirement for belief in God. It comes down to recognition, most Masons on this forum (and in the world) do not recognize them as regular.

Is that asking too much, that you say what you mean so the reader doesn't have to make big assumptions? Have you considered the possibility the reader can't read your mind and your written words are your message, even if you miswrite them?

You seem to be the only person who has a serious issue in grasping the concept, again, it is not up to me to educate you on what you are obviously ignorant regarding.

Now, on to my main question, which you are still dancing around. We are not talking about a regular, spiritual context, we are specifically talking about a Regular Masonic context. Stop deflecting.

There is no such thing as worshipping in a Masonic context as there is no worship in a Masonic lodge, regualr or ortherwise.

Does Regular Masonry deny Pantheistic people into their ranks? Assuming the answer is no as you are implying despite the fact my research explicitly says otherwise, how do the Masons know someone is Pantheistic so they can be denied membership?

I made it clear Pantheisim is not an option.

We would know because each candidate is specifically asked if they believe in a Supreme Being, Pantheism by its nature does not recognize a Supreme Being.

WHY does a required belief in a supreme being equate to a required WORSHIP of ONLY the supreme being? No one has answered this simple question that I've asked over a dozen times now.

Did you miss my above post? If someone believes in God, who, by definition, is omnipotent, and then decide to worship Jupiter Optimus Maximus as a god, then by your very action you do not recognize the omnipotence of God and therefore do not have a belief in a Supreme Being.

I'm starting to think you guys have no answer because that premise is total and complete BS. Why do you refuse to demonstrate why your premise is valid and skip to asserting your premise is established truth that must be debunked? What are you not telling me?

I think it has more to do with your inability to comprehend that if you believe in God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent then there is no other thing to worship.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
If a person, in a religious or spiritual context, worshipped anything other then God while still holding a belief in God, it would make them pantheistic and not able to join Masonry. Worship of a being other than a God (who is by defintion ominpotent) implies belief in said being and therefore belief in a non-supreme being.

This is so logically simplistic I cannot believe you needed an explanation.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

I made it clear Pantheisim is not an option.

We would know because each candidate is specifically asked if they believe in a Supreme Being, Pantheism by its nature does not recognize a Supreme Being.

It seems you are using two contradictory definitions of Pantheism at the same time.
You first said if you believe in God but worship something other than God, you are pantheistic.
Then you said pantheism does not recognize God.

You contradicted yourself.

Originally posted by Saurus

Originally posted by Erbal

WHY does a required belief in a supreme being equate to a required WORSHIP of ONLY the supreme being? No one has answered this simple question that I've asked over a dozen times now.

Because only one deity exists.

I thought your argument is only 1 supreme being exists... do you feel deity is synonymous and interchangeable with supreme being? I do not.

Is Freemasonry a religion? If Freemasonry is not a religion, how exactly does it require it's members to worship ONLY the supreme being?

Question: WHY does a required belief in a supreme being equate to a required WORSHIP of ONLY the supreme being?
Answer: Because only one deity exists.

How is that a valid answer to the question? Belief =/= Worship

Originally posted by Erbal
It seems you are using two contradictory definitions of Pantheism at the same time.
You first said if you believe in God but worship something other than God, you are pantheistic.
Then you said pantheism does not recognize God.

You contradicted yourself.

You seem to have a massive reading comprehension issue. I said Pantheism does not recognize that God is a Supreme Being by its very nature.

Neither of my statements, for those who can read and understand, are even remotely contradictory.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Erbal
It seems you are using two contradictory definitions of Pantheism at the same time.
You first said if you believe in God but worship something other than God, you are pantheistic.
Then you said pantheism does not recognize God.

You contradicted yourself.

You seem to have a massive reading comprehension issue. I said Pantheism does not recognize that God is a Supreme Being by its very nature.

Neither of my statements, for those who can read and understand, are even remotely contradictory.

False, and here is why.

I asked this: And has anyone in this thread given a logically valid explanation as to WHY being required to BELIEVE in a supreme being means you cannot WORSHIP something less than that one supreme being?

YOU responded with this: If a person, in a religious or spiritual context, worshipped anything other then God while still holding a belief in God, it would make them pantheistic and not able to join Masonry.

YOU are saying it's Pantheistic to BELIEVE in a supreme being while WORSHIPING something LESS THAN a supreme being.

Then YOU said this: We would know because each candidate is specifically asked if they believe in a Supreme Being, Pantheism by its nature does not recognize a Supreme Being.

YOU contradicted YOURSELF. You interjected pantheism as the label for when someone believes in a supreme being that they do not worship, then you said pantheism doesn't have a belief in a supreme being. That is a contradiction in the American-English language.

You don't have to agree with me but those are the facts of our conversation in this thread, it's documented here for you to reread if you want. Perhaps your first statement was an error on your part but without you correcting yourself, I must consider your contradiction to be something you do not wish to correct at this time.

Show some accountability for your own words.

Unless you have something more to contribute to your argument, at this time I will conclude your argument holds no water and is not logically valid. I will also conclude, at this time, you have contradicted yourself and have no interest in holding your own words to a reasonable standard of integrity and honesty.

Perhaps next time you will actually try to support your opinions before presenting your opinions as irrefutable facts... I'm sure you don't approve when other people do the same thing to paint Masonry in a light you don't approve of.

Enjoy your religion and hypocritical defense thereof.

Originally posted by Erbal
I asked this: And has anyone in this thread given a logically valid explanation as to WHY being required to BELIEVE in a supreme being means you cannot WORSHIP something less than that one supreme being?

How can you profess to be monotheistic (which is the requirement of belief in a Supreme Being) and then go and worship something other then that Supreme Being?

You interjected pantheism as the label for when someone believes in a supreme being that they do not worship, then you said pantheism doesn't have a belief in a supreme being.

I see my mistake, I meant to say Polytheistic. Apologies for the confusion. Please substitute Polytheistic for Pantheistic in the above posts.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Erbal
I asked this: And has anyone in this thread given a logically valid explanation as to WHY being required to BELIEVE in a supreme being means you cannot WORSHIP something less than that one supreme being?

How can you profess to be monotheistic (which is the requirement of belief in a Supreme Being) and then go and worship something other then that Supreme Being?

Who is professing to be monotheistic and how did they profess they are monotheistic?

I'm not a Mason but I am under the impression a few things take place for Masons initiated into regular Freemasonry... please correct me if my "common knowledge" information is inaccurate.

When you are initiated into Regular Freemasonry, you are not asked specifics about your faith beyond whether or not you believe in a God. It's not good "Masonic etiquette" for Masons to ask each other about their individual faith, that is between them and their God. As long as you claim to believe in God or a Supreme Being, that is good enough to fulfill that requirement for regular Masonry.

So who is professing to be monotheistic and how do they profess it?

And my question remains unanswered... I will repeat the question, for clarity. (I know, it's getting old, but no one is willing to answer the simple question)

Why does being required to BELIEVE in a Supreme Being mean you cannot WORSHIP anything less than a Supreme Being?

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Erbal
You interjected pantheism as the label for when someone believes in a supreme being that they do not worship, then you said pantheism doesn't have a belief in a supreme being.

I see my mistake, I meant to say Polytheistic. Apologies for the confusion. Please substitute Polytheistic for Pantheistic in the above posts.

You attacked my reading comprehension more than once... now you are telling me that my lack of comprehension regarding your message is not completely unfounded because in at least 1 case you were using the completely wrong word to express yourself? Like it or not, Augustus, this hasn't been your first error that I've encountered in your thread. This thread isn't based on what I think, it's based on what YOU think, it's your thread, it's your argument... spend more effort on saying what you mean.

I'm not a mind reader, Augustus. When you write a message and refuse to revise it for clarity when a reader tells you that your message isn't adding up, and in fact you go as far as to attack their reading comprehension for not understanding you, that reader is likely to operate under the impression what you wrote was your intended message despite whether or not you are personally aware your intended message was not properly communicated.

This is what CONVERSATIONS are for, to ensure all parties involved reach a well enough understanding of each others thoughts/perspectives so that everyone is on the same page and is talking/thinking about the same thing.

I've been trying to explain to you that your main argument is missing the necessary aspects to make it logically valid. I'm not at the point where I can question whether or not your conclusion is true or false; you haven't even explained your main argument in a way that makes sense.

As far as I have seen, you have not even attempted to explain why "Why Masons do not worship Lucifer (or Satan)", you have only explained why Lucifer/Satan is not a Supreme Being.

Do you understand my question?