Why Masons do not worship Lucifer (or Satan)

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

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.

It's worked out well for him thus far.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Poignant, well said and acutely ascertained DeadSeraph.......... Erbal is definitely on the ball with excellent points raised!

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?

This is an impossible argument...

If God was omnipotent, then, by definition, he could create a being more powerful that himself.
However, by definition, omnipotent means that nothing can be more powerful than God.
Logic therefore prescribes that the two cannot exist in the same universe, and that God cannot be omnipotent.

It's the same as asking what happens if an irresistible force meets an immovable object. The two cannot both exist in the same universe.

However, logic is something defined by man, and just because something is incomprehensible to us, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, especially when describing God.

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.

How about this...

"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.

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 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?

God could not be omnipotent if he created a being more powerful than himself. He would become subservient to the omnipotent being that he created. And if that were possible then that cycle could go on forever.

Masonry doesn't seek to confuse people or to lie to them so it's requirements for monotheism are basic. The reason for a belief in God or a creator is that no oath or obligation would be binding if not for a belief in a higher power. It's just that simple. I can see that you enjoy a good debate, but as far a freemasonry goes, we don't get that deep into it.

But Augustus likes a debate just as well as you, so enjoy yourself.

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.

reply to post by network dude


Yes, the debate with Erbal has been indeed refreshingly interesting. It's been a while since someone's had me thinking hard on ATS.

I haven't enjoyed an ATS thread this much in a long time.

Look guys, I did not interject the argument of omnipotence and creating something more powerful than yourself, one of you Masons did. (At this point there are enough Masons jumping in that I feel it's not disrespectful to lose track of who made a single comment and for me to just say "you Masons" in reference to the group in this thread that I am conversing with.)

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.

I'm not going to be so arrogant as to try and rationalize what God thinks and why he would or would not do anything, but from a purely logical viewpoint, if you define omnipotent as unlimited power, it's completely illogical to ever limit the power of God by saying he simply could not perform a certain action despite wanting to for whatever reason.

Perhaps our concept of omnipotence is just a human concept and we are not capable of comprehending the full scope of God, but I do believe omnipotence is literally impossible for humans to verify so for us to pretend we know the limits to God's omnipotence when it suits our arguments, well, that's just ridiculous.

Now, back to Augustus' most recent comments.

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.

This is a true statement because if it were not true it creates a logical paradox.

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!

reply to post by Erbal


I was speaking hypothetically as I can no more understand God than I can the grandfather paradox of time travel. But as far as masonry goes, it's based on a monotheistic belief. Could there be those who simply don't understand that? Sure. And some of them may in fact be masons. I have yet to meet anyone like that, but I will not rule it out.

I will say this and not bother to interject my opinion any further, if a person is monotheistic and believes in God as an omnipotent creator, then worshiping any other object or deity would be wasted effort. (IMHO)

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.

It's pretty simple, Augustus... regular Masonry either consciously and actively attempts to ensure the interviewer and interviewee are on the same exact regarding the God requirement, or it does not consciously attempt to ensure such a thing.

If it's the latter, you are not in a position to accurately tell me what the member base of regular Freemasonry does or does not contain. If it's the former, you are in a pretty good position to accurately tell me what the member base consists of.

Earlier, you make the bold implication that all regular Masons have PROFESSED MONOTHEISM. I do not see any evidence of that being a fact for even a minority of Masons let alone the entire group. In fact, your statement is so unsupported, and in conflict with countless first hand accounts written by Masons and ex-Masons, that I question whether or not you even believe your own claim.

And lastly, I have not seen anyone here give a valid explanation of why the title of this thread and the OP's argument, that a required belief in a Supreme Being equates to no worshiping of anything else. I've about given up hope on this one, every single time I ask for an explanation of why this is true, I'm met with a response that steers the conversation into a different direction.

I'm just a skeptic who is seeing all kinds of statements and claims being presented as fact without sound arguments to support them. Despite all the BS I keep getting fed, I still believe that if what you say is the truth, it's possible for someone to explain why or how it's true. I also believe that if what you say is not the truth, it will be incredibly difficult for anyone to give a good explanation of why or how it's true. As you can see, no good explanations have been given... what's it gonna be, guys?

Originally posted by Erbal
what's it gonna be, guys?

punt!

Originally posted by no1smootha

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.

This is a true statement because if it were not true it creates a logical paradox.

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)

I disagree.

If God simply cannot create something more powerful than Himself, that suggests there is a limit to His power, and if there is a limit to His power then we must conclude He does not have unlimited power (omnipotence).

If God can create something more powerful than himself but does not create it, his omnipotence remains intact.

It sounds like you are falsely assuming if God can do something, God will do it.

reply to post by Erbal
I don't see how what you have written here is in disagreement with my post at all. Perhaps I should ask you to define "disagreement", as what you wrote here seems to be paraphrasing my previous post.

It's a rhetorical question, I am not making any assumptions about what God can or can not do. I am exploring the paradox that this line of inquiry exposes.

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?

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)

I didn't say that you were incorrect, I am saying there is no correct answer because either contradicts the premise that God is Omnipotent. You are presenting the other side of this paradox, thus I contend we are not in disagreement at all.

Omnipotence Paradox

Consider this well known paradox.

"This statement is false"

The statement cannot be false and true at the same time. If the statement is false then the statement is true, but if it is true then the statement is false.

reply to post by no1smootha


Strange. I consider anything which lacks the power to do even 1 thing as something which is less than omnipotent. Thus, if God is omnipotent, he MUST posses the ability to create something more powerful than himself, whatever that means. If you lack this one ability, you lack unlimited power.

Now, whether or not God remains omnipotent once he "creates something more powerful", whatever that actually means, well, that seems like a whole other can of worms. I would be interested in hearing why a being with unlimited powers downshifts into a being with limited powers simply because it created something more powerful than unlimited power. That, perhaps, might be the only true paradox here.

So I guess we disagree on the definition of omnipotent: you feel it has at least 1 known limit to our human comprehensions, I feel it has zero limits.

It just goes to show that each and every person has their own interpretation of what a Supreme Being actually is, even the Masons who believe limited powers are the same thing as omnipotence... but hey, remind me again why Masons simply do not worship anything less than a Supreme Being. That's my main question.