Why Masons do not worship Lucifer (or Satan)

Originally posted by TheGreatDivider
If you don't believe a painting of Pike wearing one(why would they paint his portrait with it if it wasn't there?) you clearly won't believe a painting of Baphomet wearing one either...

I take it that means you failed in your search to turn up Baphomet wearing a Salem Cross. Nice try though, bye now.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Egyptia
I find it interesting how all your rituals exclude the NAME by which you make proclamation to your G-d.

Being that we are in English-speaking lodges we call God, God. What else should someone be calling God?

You just validated what we know to be true in this one little sentence. G-d has a NAME and HIS SON also has a name!

Originally posted by Egyptia
You just validated what we know to be true in this one little sentence. G-d has a NAME and HIS SON also has a name!

Sorry, I am not a Christian so as far as I am concerned God did not get laid.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by shamanix2012
I never accused YOU of worshipping satan, but thanks for finally confirming that men can be corrupted...... and you see this is my point, the freemasons are a group of men and some may be worshipping unclean spirits.

Then they are no longer Masons as explained by my Original Post. You cannot be a Mason and believe that anything other than God is worthy of worship.

And what is God's name ? besides God that is lol.

Some believe satan / lucifer is the God of this realm, so you can see the confusion.

Originally posted by shamanix2012
And what is god's name ? besides God that is lol.

As far as I am concerned that is the only name.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


I'm not a christian either, as much as my parents tried, but I don't think they believe god "got laid" either, being a god you would think it would be redundant.

Originally posted by Egyptia

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Egyptia
I find it interesting how all your rituals exclude the NAME by which you make proclamation to your G-d.

Being that we are in English-speaking lodges we call God, God. What else should someone be calling God?

You just validated what we know to be true in this one little sentence. G-d has a NAME and HIS SON also has a name!

Few links for your pleasure:

Names of God in Judaism
Check it all out, it's quite interesting.

Also, here are some more related lists to open the flood gates:

Lists of
Sky deities
Thunder deities
War deities
Night deities
Death deities
Water deities
Fire deities
Lunar deities

Of course there are plenty more, but that should be enough for now.
Also those are from wiki and have all sorts of related links to follow so feel free to dig in.

Plus I have a little bit more for an additional post upcoming in a moment.

Originally posted by shamanix2012
I'm not a christian either, as much as my parents tried, but I don't think they believe god "got laid" either, being a god you would think it would be redundant.

Exactly my point, God does not have to magically knock someone up. But certain posters feel you need to shout Jesus' name in lodge otherwise you just might be worshipping the Devil (which I do not believe in but ironically they do).

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by shamanix2012
I'm not a christian either, as much as my parents tried, but I don't think they believe god "got laid" either, being a god you would think it would be redundant.

Exactly my point, God does not have to magically knock someone up. But certain posters feel you need to shout Jesus' name in lodge otherwise you just might be worshipping the Devil (which I do not believe in but ironically they do).

I think it is believed something along the lines of..... Jesus is gods incarnation on earth in the flesh, being a god you would need a vessel (body) to accomplish certain tasks in a physical realm, like spreading truth and love to mankind. I could be entirely mistaken though because I try not to think about religion lol.

Originally posted by shamanix2012
...being a god you would need a vessel (body) to accomplish certain tasks in a physical realm...

Really? Then I would not consider that God to be ominpotent if that God had to change form just to accomplish certain tasks.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by shamanix2012
...being a god you would need a vessel (body) to accomplish certain tasks in a physical realm...

Really? Then I would not consider that God to be ominpotent if that God had to change form just to accomplish certain tasks.

I think the point of it all is to test those souls who are faithful, by sending a man to spread the word it requires faith, rather then just descending as an omnipotent frightening god and making it no contest that he exists.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


I suppose that it could be understandable that people will be easily confused by the plethora of ideals, imagery, mountains of written material, etc. We are dealing with handfuls of languages, conflicting issues, abstract metaphors, etc.

In a very similar way I am also confused about entities like Dionysis , Horus, Mithras, Attis, and the whole December 25th "coincidence" among others.

Of course there are many different deities that fill various components, it's far too similar a correlation to dismiss. We could spend years compiling lists of hundreds of comparisons, etc. (As a comparison to the modern 'westernized' personification of this figure/deity).

Some side info you may be interested in (stuff I have been reading today):

Back in Rome, Feb 17th was "Quirinalia", derived from Quirinus, which is said by some to be the deification of Romulus. Also associated with Janus.

Etymology of the word we use today in English "God":

God

O.E. god "supreme being, deity; the Christian God; image of a god; godlike person," from P.Gmc. *guthan (cf. O.S., O.Fris., Du. god, O.H.G. got, Ger. Gott, O.N. guð, Goth. guþ), from PIE *ghut- "that which is invoked" (cf. O.C.S. zovo "to call," Skt. huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke." But some trace it to PIE *ghu-to- "poured," from root *gheu- "to pour, pour a libation" (source of Gk. khein "to pour," also in the phrase khute gaia "poured earth," referring to a burial mound; see found (2)). "Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" [Watkins]. Cf. also Zeus.

Ok so here we have an interesting meaning, "to call", or "to invoke", or various forms of those ideas.
Also we see "pour" "poured" comes up.

This is interesting because in many mythologies creation myths it is related that the supreme creator as breathing, speaking, or poured everything into existence.
"Calling" or "invoking" could be translated as 'speaking' I would presume.

Examples such as Ptah, the Egyptian personification of the creator God, illustrate this correlation very well.

Ptah is the creator god par excellence: He is considered the demiurge who existed before all things, and by his willingness, thought the world. It was first conceived by Thought, and realized by the Word: Ptah conceives the world by the thought of his heart and gives life through the magic of his Word.

Ok let's go to "Zeus" which is directly associated with "Deus", which is another term for "God".

supreme god of the ancient Greeks, 1706, from Gk., from PIE *dewos- "god" (cf. L. deus "god," O. Pers. daiva- "demon, evil god," O.C.S. deivai, Skt. deva-), from root *dyeu- "to gleam, to shine;" also the root of words for "sky" and "day" (see diurnal). The god-sense is originally "shining," but "whether as originally sun-god or as lightener" is not now clear.

So even the words "sky" and "day" that we use currently are closely related to these terms. (As anyone digging into etymology will realize a vast proportion of modern English terminology has ancient mythological roots).

Let's go to 'Deus'...

"God, a god," see Zeus; c.1300 as a French interjection; never nativized, but appearing in adopted Latin expressions such as deus absconditus "hidden god."

Yes this deus is absconditus, I am getting the run around now, it sent be back to Zeus.

Let's try 'dies', however there is no entry but I did find diurnal.

late 14c., from L.L. diurnalis "daily," from L. dies "day" + -urnus, an adjectival suffix denoting time (cf. hibernus "wintery"). Dies "day" is from PIE root *dyeu- (cf. Skt. diva "by day," Welsh diw, Bret. deiz "day;" Arm. tiw; Lith. diena; O.C.S. dini, Pol. dzień, Rus. den), lit. "to shine" (cf. Gk. delos "clear;" L. deus, Skt. deva "god," lit. "shining one;" Avestan dava- "spirit, demon;" Lith. devas, O.N. tivar "gods;" O.E. Tig, gen. Tiwes, see Tuesday).

Now we can see the connections between "shining one", "god", "demons/spirits", and "day".

My point is that the majority of the confusion over these problems is at it's root an etymological confusion, a misunderstanding and accidental mixing of the meanings of terminology and the separation of those words into distinct meanings over time. A result of linguistic corruption.

It should be clear with evidence in hand, that there is a deep connection here between all of these terms/ideas which plays at a deep subconscious level within our minds.

Also check above in the etymology for diurnal, it lists "Diva" as one of the terms, usually interpreted to mean "day".

Now what is interesting, is that in our modern language the word "Diva" is used to denote a famous female performer, however in the diurnal etymological information above, we can connect this directly with the terminology "shining" or "shining one", as it relates to a person or entity.

So I would have to say the odds are quite heavily in favor of the possibility that the word "Diva" used today actually means "shining one" in a literal sense. The modern use and meaning of the word match up quite well with this set of translations.

Oh and I just discovered, in Latin "Diva" means Goddess. There we go.
Amazing how similar Latin is to Sanskrit.

Hmmm...what will I find next?

shining one... star

astarte

astor

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Something to consider: "The mind is ever the Builder." The Builders who reject the Chief Cornerstone and the minds that reject Christ, the Word that can be found. It was never lost. No influence is greater than man's will, except for that of God's. This can work in favor of the individual or against depending on what is being built. Look at the symbols. The builder's are those possessing minds.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by shamanix2012
...being a god you would need a vessel (body) to accomplish certain tasks in a physical realm...

Really? Then I would not consider that God to be ominpotent if that God had to change form just to accomplish certain tasks.

I would frame my understanding in these terms for best effect.

The goal here is to find words that fit well with "God" and describe it accurately.
And I refer to the potential possibility that there is an intelligence behind the cosmos.

It will have to be:
Omnipotent (All powerful)
Omnipresent (All localities)
Omniscience (All knowing)
Infinite and Eternal (Never ending/beginning)

Here are two candidate terms to fill this terminology gap:

"Universe", which is uni (one) + versus (turn or against).
So literally "One turning" or "One against (itself)".

And
"Holos", which means "Whole, complete, entire" in Greek.

But of course, I am attempting to actually understand what the hell I am talking about so it's important I find out what the words I say mean, where they came from, what they used to mean, etc.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by shamanix2012
...being a god you would need a vessel (body) to accomplish certain tasks in a physical realm...

Really? Then I would not consider that God to be ominpotent if that God had to change form just to accomplish certain tasks.

...therein lies the gaping hole, filled with the fluff of man - those who in one sentence, insult and deny the truth of what it means to ascribe (and believe) in an all powerful creator...

A99

Originally posted by Danbones
shining one... star

astarte

astor

Correct.

That is why we associate these deities with "star" (which includes planets or even asteroids), and why we use the terminology "astr", "astor", "aster", etc.

It goes way back.
It's a really important facet explaining how exactly our language operates at a subconscious level, almost pictorially. Our brains are fascinating computers in a sense.

My heart weeps/bleeds for many of you...why must you fight to stay so divided...

Thank you for this brother, you are very gifted in knowledge and you possess great tolerance...

I am beside myself with some of this non sense...

I cannot read anymore...

Good luck brother...