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 AugustusMasonicus
Originally posted by Erbal
Do you ask new or old initiates to explain the details of their individual and personal faith/interpretation regarding God, beyond simply asking if they believe in God, at ANY point?
I already explained circumstances were this occured with candidates for initiation.
Is it possible for people to change faiths, or claim the wrong faith intentionally or unintentionally?
They could and it would then be incumbant upon the individual, if he found his faith is no longer compatible with Masonic teachings, to demit from lodge. A person who is not monotheistic would get very little from the lessons that Masonry teaches.
It seems like you guys are not concerned with knowing the specifics of each individuals faith and interpretations...
As long as the believe in a Supreme Being as we defined earlier then no, we do not care for the specifics.
...it seems like you are making assumptions and literally have no way to confirm what you are saying right now is in fact true.
We can confirm by asking which is the standard procedure.
Originally posted by Erbal
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Originally posted by Erbal
Do you ask new or old initiates to explain the details of their individual and personal faith/interpretation regarding God, beyond simply asking if they believe in God, at ANY point?
I already explained circumstances were this occured with candidates for initiation.
Is it possible for people to change faiths, or claim the wrong faith intentionally or unintentionally?
They could and it would then be incumbant upon the individual, if he found his faith is no longer compatible with Masonic teachings, to demit from lodge. A person who is not monotheistic would get very little from the lessons that Masonry teaches.
It seems like you guys are not concerned with knowing the specifics of each individuals faith and interpretations...
As long as the believe in a Supreme Being as we defined earlier then no, we do not care for the specifics.
...it seems like you are making assumptions and literally have no way to confirm what you are saying right now is in fact true.
We can confirm by asking which is the standard procedure.
What you are saying is a direct contradiction to everything I've heard and witnessed about the investigation interview and initiation of candidates into regular Freemasonry.
I am under the impression that when you are asked if you believe in a Supreme Being, you are not told how Freemasonry interprets Supreme Being and you are not asked for your interpretation of Supreme Being. No good explanations are given, no good explanations are requested... in fact, it's frowned up to ask specifics about a candidate's, or initiate's, interpretation of a Supreme Being. If they say the word yes to an extremely oversimplified question rife with unspoken implications and assumptions, they have satisfied the God requirement in spades.
You have no legitimate or reliable system or process to ensure all Masonic members are monotheistic. That is a fact.
You may strongly believe all Masons are monotheistic, and therefor no Mason could worship Lucifer, but that is your opinion and are failing miserably to support your opinion as fact. You can't be bothered to give a good explanation of why your claims are true.
It's like you are looking for people to accept your opinions as facts without question, good luck with that.
Originally posted by Erbal
Also, I don't know why being monotheistic means you must accept the premise that God would not or could not create a being more powerful than himself... you simply cannot be omnipotent if you lack the ability to do even 1 specific action, right?
Originally posted by Erbal
The OP's argument is completely invalid unless you can demonstrate regular Freemasonry is actively trying to maintain a purely monotheistic member base.
"Monotheism is the sole dogma of Freemasonry. Belief in one God is required of every initiate, but his conception of the Supreme Being is left to his own interpretation. Freemasonry is not concerned with theological distinctions. This is the basis of our universality."
~Source: Grand Lodge of Indiana, Indiana Monitor & Freemason's Guide, 1993 Edition, page 41
Originally posted by Erbal
What you are saying is a direct contradiction to everything I've heard and witnessed about the investigation interview and initiation of candidates into regular Freemasonry.
I am under the impression that when you are asked if you believe in a Supreme Being, you are not told how Freemasonry interprets Supreme Being and you are not asked for your interpretation of Supreme Being.
No good explanations are given, no good explanations are requested... in fact, it's frowned up to ask specifics about a candidate's, or initiate's, interpretation of a Supreme Being.
If they say the word yes to an extremely oversimplified question rife with unspoken implications and assumptions, they have satisfied the God requirement in spades.
You have no legitimate or reliable system or process to ensure all Masonic members are monotheistic. That is a fact.
You may strongly believe all Masons are monotheistic, and therefor no Mason could worship Lucifer, but that is your opinion and are failing miserably to support your opinion as fact. You can't be bothered to give a good explanation of why your claims are true.
It's like you are looking for people to accept your opinions as facts without question, good luck with that.
Originally posted by Erbal
Also, I don't know why being monotheistic means you must accept the premise that God would not or could not create a being more powerful than himself... you simply cannot be omnipotent if you lack the ability to do even 1 specific action, right?
Originally posted by network dude
But Augustus likes a debate just as well as you, so enjoy yourself.
This is a true statement because if it were not true it creates a logical paradox.
Originally posted by Erbal
I believe the original argument was if God is omnipotent, he would not and could not create something more powerful than himself. I do not see why this is a true statement, and I'm losing track of how many flimsy and unsound assertions you guys have tossed my way.
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Originally posted by network dude
But Augustus likes a debate just as well as you, so enjoy yourself.
Why do you sell yourself short? You are a masterdebater.
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Originally posted by Erbal
What you are saying is a direct contradiction to everything I've heard and witnessed about the investigation interview and initiation of candidates into regular Freemasonry.
Once again, if a candidate happens to question what we mean by Supreme Being it is only proper to explain. What do you propose, just stand there and act mute?
Addtionally, the signers of the candidates petition will typicall ask the candidate if he is aware of this (and several other requirements) prior to signing his petition. As I explained, I have had petitioners explicitly ask me if the fact that they believe in God, but not a Christian/Jewish/Muslim God, is this acceptable.
I am under the impression that when you are asked if you believe in a Supreme Being, you are not told how Freemasonry interprets Supreme Being and you are not asked for your interpretation of Supreme Being.
As I said, if the candidate asks, it is proper to repsond with some sort of broad defintion. It would be improper to respond with, 'The God you need to believe in sent his son to die for our sins'.
No good explanations are given, no good explanations are requested... in fact, it's frowned up to ask specifics about a candidate's, or initiate's, interpretation of a Supreme Being.
Nobody said we asked during the investigation, I am addressing the situation if the candidate asks unprompted.
If they say the word yes to an extremely oversimplified question rife with unspoken implications and assumptions, they have satisfied the God requirement in spades.
As I said above, the candidate and his signers typically will have discussed the requirements for joining and part of this is the prerequisite of belief in God. Signing a petition is a rather important act. The signer typically will know the person he is vouching for and will answer as many questions regarding the Fraternity and the act of petitioning as he can. Signing for a person you do not know personally is a rather rare act and it is incumbant upon the lodge to ensure that each candidiate fully understands the requirements setforth in our respective constitutions.
You have no legitimate or reliable system or process to ensure all Masonic members are monotheistic. That is a fact.
Unless they happen to lie I think the question and answer portion is fairly straight forward.
You may strongly believe all Masons are monotheistic, and therefor no Mason could worship Lucifer, but that is your opinion and are failing miserably to support your opinion as fact. You can't be bothered to give a good explanation of why your claims are true.
It's like you are looking for people to accept your opinions as facts without question, good luck with that.
What we happen to be discussing at this moment is your opinion, devoid of facts. As you are not a Mason, nor have petitioned a lodge, you obviously have not first hand input, as I, or the other Masons posting here, have to offer.
Originally posted by no1smootha
This is a true statement because if it were not true it creates a logical paradox.
Originally posted by Erbal
I believe the original argument was if God is omnipotent, he would not and could not create something more powerful than himself. I do not see why this is a true statement, and I'm losing track of how many flimsy and unsound assertions you guys have tossed my way.
Think about it...
If God is Omnipotent (possessing unlimited power), God could not create something more powerful than God...OR ELSE GOD WOULD NOT BE OMNIPOTENT!edit on 10-10-2012 by no1smootha because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Erbal
reply to post by no1smootha
I am explicitly talking about potential to perform an action, you are talking about the consequence of an action. You told me I am incorrect, I disagree with your assertion that I am incorrect. We are in a disagreement.
You are saying you can not do it and remain omnipotent because once you do it, you are no longer omnipotent. (why you no longer have unlimited power simply by creating 'something more powerful' is not a self-evident concept)
I am saying if you cannot do something because it's beyond your powers, you are already less than omnipotent. (self-evident concept, if you have unlimited power then your powers have no limits, if your power has a limit then you do not have unlimited power)
(I assume you understand the different between cannot and can not)
Does this make sense to you now?
edit on 10-10-2012 by Erbal because: (no reason given)