# Is God universal?



## Blake Bowden (Jan 2, 2010)

Is God universal? For example, is the God of the Jews and Christians the same as Muslims and other faiths?


----------



## jonesvilletexas (Jan 2, 2010)

*Re: Is G-d...*

That is an honest question. 
If you believe in one true G_d and none other, then the god’s of others must be distorted. This could be answered in a lot of ways and I will not go into it here.


----------



## Traveling Man (Jan 2, 2010)

*Re: Is G-d...*



blake said:


> Is G-d universal? For example, is the G-d of the Jews and Christians the same as Muslims and other faiths?



From all of the research that I've done; all the Mosaic/Abrahamic beliefs share the same G_d. It's only the ardent extremist that believe differently.


----------



## HKTidwell (Jan 2, 2010)

*Re: Is G-d...*



Traveling Man said:


> From all of the research that I've done; all the Mosaic/Abrahamic beliefs share the same G_d. It's only the ardent extremist that believe differently.


 
The Jewish God, Muslim God, and Christian God are all the same from my research too.  They all believe in Abraham and so are the same with some technical differences.


----------



## drapetomaniac (Jan 2, 2010)

I've always thought if there is one Supreme God and 1 billion people address that Supreme God as God, even if they do it differently, that doesn't change the being they're addressing.

That's why you can find multiple biographies of one individual - sometimes with very different pictures.  If you think I'm a crook, my mother thinks I'm a saint, my boy scout troop sees me as a leader, my nonprofits see me as resourceful, my ex-girlfriends as a knave or gentlemen - then what is my true entity?

People are looking in the same place - God.

I suppose you can ask people to describe the Queen of England and get wildly different results based on their opinion, personal life and knowledge of different parts of the Queens life.  Even if you end up with a dozen wildly different accounts, it doesn't mean there is suddenly more than one Queen of England.  If people have multiple views of who or what I am and what I want to do - I don't multiply into multiple beings or cease to exist.

I understand the question, but always found it an odd one.  People around the world point to the same supreme throne and say "God."

While this is a common question, notice nobody asks if the God of the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterian are the same.  If we're going to divvy God up based on the mechanics of how he is viewed, these denominations split for a reason.  And I imagine many of us wouldn't join another vastly different church in the Christian family over certain beliefs.


----------



## JTM (Jan 2, 2010)

sure.  i'm fine with it being the same.  especially if you call it "the god of abraham"


----------



## ctp2nd (Jan 2, 2010)

The universality of God depends on the groups one wishes to encompass when using the term universal.  Limit one's scope to the God of Abraham, you find a universal deity.   Expand that scope to include the several pagan, naturalistic, asian, and new-age religions, and the universality becomes more complicated.  One might argue that Man's various names and definitions of God are necessary to help His people develop a closer and more personal relationship with Him.  At the same time, a "Good Baptist" will, at times, damn a "Good Catholic" to hell for not following his specific Christian denomination's set of rules.

The thing that makes Freemasonry so attractive to me is that we set aside, or should set aside, our religious particulars while in lodge and get to know each other for who we are.


----------



## drapetomaniac (Jan 2, 2010)

ctp2nd said:


> The universality of God depends on the groups one wishes to encompass when using the term universal.  Limit one's scope to the God of Abraham, you find a universal deity.   Expand that scope to include the several pagan, naturalistic, asian, and new-age religions, and the universality becomes more complicated



It sounds more like an Abrahamic deity than a "universal deity."  How can one group BC have a universal deity that excluded everyone else?

I've had people argue with me to tell me that even though I believe in a Supreme Being, the source of all creation and life and from whom all things flow - I did not believe in the actual God.

The reasons were "the dogma of God" because:
1) Jews don't believe in the Trinity
2) Christians do
3) Muslims don't

In an anthropological sense we all worship the God of Abraham, but, if, as a Christian, I don't believe in the Trinity in the traditional sense - I won't be considered a Christian by a healthy number of folks.

Yet, Jews don't believe in the trinity and they worship the same God in most any Christian's opinion.

If the Trinity isn't a separator on being the same God, what is?


----------



## JTM (Jan 2, 2010)

it's true.  jesus himself said that, according to christians.


----------



## Payne (Jan 3, 2010)

IMO  God is a "universal deity"


----------



## Blake Bowden (Feb 24, 2010)

Thank you for your responses. Very insightful.


----------



## Dave in Waco (Feb 24, 2010)

I think God is universal.  The diversity comes in the belief systems man has built around him.  Kind of like comparing Masonic Ritual.  The are all based on the same thing and share parts, but they all vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.


----------



## Jay (Feb 24, 2010)

Ask yourselfs this my Brothers: Dose GOD look at me as a "universal man"???


----------



## Raven (Feb 24, 2010)

My feelings are that, Religion is like a multi-colored lantern. Each person will chose the color glass that they wish to look through,... but the Flame is the same!


----------



## Dave in Waco (Feb 25, 2010)

Raven said:


> By feelings are that, Religion is like a multi-colored lantern. Each person will chose the color glass that they wish to look through,... but the Flame is the same!



Grest analogy!!


----------



## Stewart Cook (Mar 27, 2010)

http://www.torahveda.org/

There is always the possibility that Abraham, if he existed, was himself an adherent of a religion far older than all of the ages of the "big three" put together. This link raises some interesting questions, whether one chooses to believe the content and assertions or not.
One other point that is almost always glossed over, ignored and even violently denied is the undeniable fact that most tenets of "Christianity" proper are derived not from Judaism, but from Orphic (and Hellenic) tradition. A lot of people were murdered to keep that little fact under wraps back in the day, as they say.


----------



## LarryC (Jun 9, 2010)

drapetomaniac said:


> It sounds more like an Abrahamic deity than a "universal deity."  How can one group BC have a universal deity that excluded everyone else?
> 
> I've had people argue with me to tell me that even though I believe in a Supreme Being, the source of all creation and life and from whom all things flow - I did not believe in the actual God.
> 
> ...


 
I would like to interject here that the problem seems to be that we are not starting at the beginning. Before considering _anything _dogmatic or addressing any specific "beliefs" about the Deity, the question should first be considered: What is the nature of God? In other words, what _kind _of God do you believe in. Asked in a more philosophical form: What must God Be, in order to Be at all?

I think you will discover that most people express an understanding of Deity in one of about five ways:

-Theism
-Deism
-Pantheism
-Panentheism
-PanenDeism (a term I coined in 2001)

Discussing the nature of Deity allows us all to begin at the same level of understanding without addressing any specific religious beliefs.

Larry


----------



## PeterLT (Jun 12, 2010)

One has to be careful when answering the question. Is it the concept of "god" we are talking about or the concept of religion? All religions hold something sacred above all else, be it a deity or a state of being and in this respect God is universal (a Supreme Being). When we get into the "God of Abraham" we are now discussing theology and the mechanics of how a religion interprets God to be. If one looks at religion as something man has created to deal with something none can understand (God) then yes, God is universal, religion is not. And if we look at religion with a critical eye, one can say that* through* religion,_ man sets the conditions_ under which God exists and is accepted.

Yowza!


----------



## rhitland (Jul 2, 2010)

No matter where you are born or how you are raised you bodily makeup is made from the same stuff as mine and I believe the same God who loves us all no matter what we call Him is nothing less than universal.  
Below are the basic elements in the make up of the Human body.


----------



## owls84 (Jul 7, 2010)

In the words of an 18 year old candidate that came into my Lodge for information, "We are all traveling to the same city, we are just taking different roads." Sad thing is he never petitioned. Something I will never forget.


----------



## Dave in Waco (Jul 7, 2010)

owls84 said:


> "We are all traveling to the same city, we are just taking different roads."



I think that's about the best explaination you can have on it.


----------



## Willys (Jul 8, 2010)

To appreciate owls84, "_We are all traveling to the same city..._" and to draw from Raven's _flame_...

We are all travelers on planet earth, camping out along our varying roads to knowledge.  Our campfires are built according to beliefs, the flame we see is through that prism of our belief systems  through which one learns to accept G_d's lessons.

Reaching out to touch the flame is to reach to the face of G_d but is only through that designed prism.  If you can touch it, it isn't G_d but only a result of a belief system.

G_d is.  Belief is something you do.

Discard the prisms, become the flame.  Become the campfire.  Become knowledge.


----------



## cyd (Sep 11, 2013)

I feel God is god does not matter how the supreme is labeled and from what culture how they honor its all the same god.


Freemason Connect HD


----------



## Thorson (Sep 11, 2013)

Religion is a cultural celebration and recognition of Creator. Spirituality is the personal relationship one has with Creator. 


Freemason Connect HD


----------



## FlBrother324 (Sep 11, 2013)

God is God.

Think of a prism metaphorically,
God sits in His Kingdom from the center of all that is, to infinity and beyond. We all see Him from different perspectives through the prism, in our own color or hue of "Light". Our view is different yet we are all looking at the same GOD. 

It is said, "that God created man in His own image." Well, either God has a sense of humor, or man's interpretation is that we are what God looks like. 
Meaning: Each of us has their own view or perspective of what our God is to us. This doesn't mean there is multiple Gods, it just means the God we perceive,  is the same as everyone else's, we're just looking from different directions, or through a different part of the "Light" spectrum.  

Regarding what we call our God is irrelevant, no matter the "Name", we all consider Him to be the Supreme being that rules all. This of course doesn't include the fringe elements of religions that have a different belief system than that of one Supreme being or entity.

P.S.
Please understand that I am not a theologian, nor do I claim to be. The above statement is my own interpretation of MY Supreme God, or GAOTU, and in no way is meant to slight those of differing opinions. IMHO.

May the God of your choosing, bless you and keep you under his protection and care.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Sep 12, 2013)

Is God universal?
Yes. Otherwise, He would be a lesser being, unworthy of being considered God.
Any "god" that can be circumscribed by anything other than His own Will is not God, but some sort of inferior being.
That being said, is the God I worship this God?
I certainly hope so. At least that's what I'm going with as far as I know--but I am human, I could be getting it wrong.
Are the various "gods" of other religions God?
If they are, I praise God for His wisdom in meeting everyone as they need to be met. If they are not, I pray to God that He will be merciful and welcoming to those who honestly seek Him even if they do not know it is He they seek, and even if they have appeared to have rejected Him due to the sins committed by His would-be followers. Beyond this, I do not try to "explain" the incomprehensible, since it would only create yet another layer of error and heresy. If I did not believe my Church were correct, I would have rejected it. What I question is how correct I might be. Thus, while I say that my Church has the "best method", I cannot be arrogant about it. When one asks "What about the X?", the only answer I can give is that God is the sole Judge. I must act as I think is required of me, but in addition to evangelization and faith, humility is required of me.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Sep 12, 2013)

drapetomaniac said:


> It sounds more like an Abrahamic deity than a "universal deity."  How can one group BC have a universal deity that excluded everyone else?
> 
> I've had people argue with me to tell me that even though I believe in a Supreme Being, the source of all creation and life and from whom all things flow - I did not believe in the actual God.
> 
> ...



The same Christians who would say that a non-Trinitarian Christian doesn't worship the same God would also be likely to somehow twist things around to say that Jews "actually" don't worship the same God, either. Likewise, my own Church doesn't say that non-Trinitarian Christians likely worship the same God, or at the very least want to, but that they aren't doing it properly--and this could imperil their souls and lead them astray. Ultimately, God's justice and mercy are ineffable and inscrutable. He is the sole Judge.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Sep 12, 2013)

rhitland said:


> No matter where you are born or how you are raised you bodily makeup is made from the same stuff as mine and I believe the same God who loves us all no matter what we call Him is nothing less than universal.
> Below are the basic elements in the make up of the Human body.



But this does not mean that every person actually is every other person or that we are all merely "expressions" of a single person, with no distinct identity or existence. Such a "universal human" is merely the barest bones of union and can encompass the most virtuous and the vilest. To say that this means there is a "universal person" is to equivalate Mother Theresa or the First Responders in NYC in 2001 with a child molester. In one sense, there are common traits, but that does not mean they are all the same person, no more than God is identical to Satan.


----------



## jwhoff (Sep 12, 2013)

Let's see.  

God created

man in his own image.

Man is such an egotistic animal that yes, you might say, God may have meant man's image of himself.  WOW!  That interpretation has kept us in hot water for many a millennium ... now hasn't it?

hmy:


----------



## dfreybur (Sep 13, 2013)

Let's go to Mars.  When we experience God there, that's one more step to confirming he's everywhere.  It's a different more literal meaning for the word "universal".  For a really good confirmation we'd need to go to other galaxies and experience him there, but one step outwards at a time.


----------



## Zaden (Sep 13, 2013)

A lot of this reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Sep 13, 2013)

Six blind elephants were discussing the nature of sages, when they decided to examine a sage and find out for themselves. Upon carefully feeling the sage with their feet, all six elephants agreed. Sages are very flat.


----------



## jwhoff (Sep 13, 2013)

So Mote it Be!

:sneaky2:


----------



## Zaden (Sep 13, 2013)

:001_smile:





BryanMaloney said:


> Six blind elephants were discussing the nature of sages, when they decided to examine a sage and find out for themselves. Upon carefully feeling the sage with their feet, all six elephants agreed. Sages are very flat.



Lol!


----------



## dfreybur (Sep 14, 2013)

Zaden said:


> A lot of this reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant.



A very powerful story about how close together monotheism and polytheism really are, told from one of the two perpsectives.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Sep 14, 2013)

If we are intellectually honest, we must admit that we can't truly _know _that Deity exists. Given that, it is absurd then to suggest that we can know the _nature _of that Deity. All we are left with then, is belief in something far greater than ourselves, indeed far greater than we can likely even fully grasp. That's the nature of faith - steadfast belief in the absence of any proof. Once we have the humility to admit that, we are free to pursue a deeper understanding of G_d, or as some might say, a deeper relationship with G_d. So starting at that point, G_d is pretty "universal". The steps that each of us chooses to take from there are where the differences creep in, and that's OK. That those choices result in so many different opinions is how it should be, IMO. A deep and abiding faith is a very personal thing. You can't buy it, rent it, or borrow it. It must come from within.


----------



## dfreybur (Sep 14, 2013)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> If we are intellectually honest, we must admit that we can't truly _know _that Deity exists.



There are folks who have had direct personal observation of the divine.  So by "we" here you mean a large percentage of humanity but you don't mean all of humanity.  Gnosis comes in various forms some of which are direct personal observation of the divine.



> Given that, it is absurd then to suggest that we can know the _nature _of that Deity.



That part remains.  What *was* the nature of the experience?  Why are such experiences not observed by a majority?  The list of questions just keeps coming.



> All we are left with then, is belief in something far greater than ourselves, indeed far greater than we can likely even fully grasp. That's the nature of faith - steadfast belief in the absence of any proof. Once we have the humility to admit that, we are free to pursue a deeper understanding of G_d, or as some might say, a deeper relationship with G_d. So starting at that point, G_d is pretty "universal". The steps that each of us chooses to take from there are where the differences creep in, and that's OK. That those choices result in so many different opinions is how it should be, IMO. A deep and abiding faith is a very personal thing. You can't buy it, rent it, or borrow it. It must come from within.



Some have different step one because of the different experience, but we all indeed share that next step.  Those people who chose to not step down the path of faith do not become a part of "us" in that sense.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Sep 14, 2013)

dfreybur said:


> There are folks who have had direct personal observation of the divine.



I would say that there are folks who _believe_ that they have had such an observation, but then I am, among other things, a dyed-in-the-wool agnostic. Yes, I use the term agnostic advisedly, adhering to Huxley's original definition of the term. Unlike Huxley, my belief is quite strong. I see evidence of the Divine almost everywhere. While that evidence yields a faith that is pretty much unshakable, I will not deceive myself by equating that with knowledge.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Sep 15, 2013)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> If we are intellectually honest, we must admit that we can't truly _know _that Deity exists. Given that, it is absurd then to suggest that we can know the _nature _of that Deity. All we are left with then, is belief in something far greater than ourselves, indeed far greater than we can likely even fully grasp. That's the nature of faith - steadfast belief in the absence of any proof. Once we have the humility to admit that, we are free to pursue a deeper understanding of G_d, or as some might say, a deeper relationship with G_d. So starting at that point, G_d is pretty "universal". The steps that each of us chooses to take from there are where the differences creep in, and that's OK. That those choices result in so many different opinions is how it should be, IMO. A deep and abiding faith is a very personal thing. You can't buy it, rent it, or borrow it. It must come from within.



If we are intellectually honest, we must admit that we can't truly _know_. Given that, it is absurd to suggest that we can know the _nature _of anything.

See also, David Hume, "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding"


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Sep 15, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> If we are intellectually honest, we must admit that we can't truly _know_. Given that, it is absurd to suggest that we can know the _nature _of anything.



Rubbish. I get so tired of that existentialist cop-out.  
Fine. So stipulated. _Within the confines, then, of our questionable existence and consciousness..._
I can "know" a great many things, in that I can test and observe. More importantly, anyone else can also know those same things by using the same method. I absolutely can _not _know something which can not be so tested and observed.


----------



## dfreybur (Sep 16, 2013)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> I would say that there are folks who _believe_ that they have had such an observation, but then I am, among other things, a dyed-in-the-wool agnostic.



Direct personal observation is the basis of personal knowledge.  Lack of direct personal observation by one does not invalidate the direct personal observation of another.  Those of us with direct personal observation know.  I acknowledge that we may be in error.  I long ago accepted that - Being in error puts me in good company so I don't worry about it.  The issue of error is entangled with the problem of instrumentation.  If the possibility of being in error when you state that I believe but don't know, that's your assertion for yourself and I am not required to accept it for myself.

Knowledge does not mean infallibility.  I know.  Extension of knowledge comes with further uncertainty - I have faith that others know.  I have faith that others believe.  I have faith that others disbelieve.  All depending on the individual and on their own personal observations.

There are those among the atheists who do not have direct personal observation who take the further step of asserting that those of us who do are either lying or deluded.  I long ago realized - Do unto others ...  Why should I not conclude that those who take the stance are not themselves lying or deluded.



> Yes, I use the term agnostic advisedly, adhering to Huxley's original definition of the term. Unlike Huxley, my belief is quite strong. I see evidence of the Divine almost everywhere. While that evidence yields a faith that is pretty much unshakable, I will not deceive myself by equating that with knowledge.



General semantics - All knowledge is provisional.  Science - All data has error bars and all theories require evidence.  Those of us who chose to see the hand of the Divine in nature see that hand everywhere - Something like observational relativity?


----------



## BryanMaloney (Sep 17, 2013)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Rubbish. I get so tired of that existentialist cop-out.
> Fine. So stipulated. _Within the confines, then, of our questionable existence and consciousness..._
> I can "know" a great many things, in that I can test and observe. More importantly, anyone else can also know those same things by using the same method. I absolutely can _not _know something which can not be so tested and observed.



It's not existentialist. It's not a cop-out. It's honesty. Hume was not an existentialist. As for "test and observe", Newtonian physics was the end-all and be-all of "test and observe" for a while. Now it's just a "special case" taught to first-year undergrads. What was "certain knowledge" about "natural law" is now just a first-order approximation.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Sep 17, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> It's not a cop-out.


It most certainly is. Knowable things are objectively knowable by anyone who chooses to look. If you hear G_d speak and nobody else does, that is, by definition, a subjective "experience", not an observation. 
This is exactly what I mean when I refer to intellectual honesty. Falling back on something like, "you can't prove it wasn't 'real' for me, because we don't really know what 'real' is..." is, well, lame.


----------



## dfreybur (Sep 17, 2013)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> I can "know" a great many things, in that I can test and observe. More importantly, anyone else can also know those same things by using the same method. I absolutely can _not _know something which can not be so tested and observed.



This is what I called the problem of instrumentation in my other post.  The problem of instrumentation is not an existentialist cop-out but there are people who treat it as such.

In philosophy everything begins with direct personal observation.  In science everything begins with instrumental detection.  Vast numbers of people have direct personal observation of the divine but no instrument has ever been able to record the divine.  It's a problem that leads to a possible clash between science and religion.

Some in science have failed to learn that science never has come with a guarantee that science can or should explain every direct personal observation, and that it might never do so.  Maybe someday someone will invent a "Star Trek life signs detector".  They will point it at a prayer group and it will detect that extra entity many experience and religion will gradually transition into a branch of science.  Maybe no one will ever invent such an instrument.

Some in science think that if science does not explain something then it did not happen.  That's not how science has ever actually worked.  The incorrect notion has lead to some in science denying the experiences of many and that has lead to conflict.  Those of us who learned what science really is supposed to be know not to make this error.  Those of us who have had the experiences know that the divine exists because for us it's a matter of direct personal observation.  There should be no conflict.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Sep 18, 2013)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> It most certainly is. Knowable things are objectively knowable by anyone who chooses to look. If you hear G_d speak and nobody else does, that is, by definition, a subjective "experience", not an observation.
> This is exactly what I mean when I refer to intellectual honesty. Falling back on something like, "you can't prove it wasn't 'real' for me, because we don't really know what 'real' is..." is, well, lame.



Quote SPECIFICALLY where I made such a statement. I never said any such thing. Respond to what I write, not what you wish I had written. It has been shown quite nicely that actual knowledge is likely to be impossible and can only at best be approximated. Admitting to this is not a cop-out.


----------



## CStevenson (Sep 18, 2013)

What a question!  In my belief, God is absolutely universal. I respect others beliefs, but have always wondered why some feel the need to draw a boundary around God.  To say he is this or that, looks like this or that, call him by this name or that name only.  I believe that God is all power, all knowing, and all present.  There is nothing but God.


----------



## dfreybur (Sep 18, 2013)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Knowable things are objectively knowable by anyone who chooses to look.



That's a definition for objective not for knowable.  Knowable things include problems that require infinite calculation which can therefore only be approximated to an arbitrarily chosen precision.  Objective things can be predictably observed by others.

[/QUOTE]If you hear G_d speak and nobody else does, that is, by definition, a subjective "experience", not an observation.[/QUOTE]

Being subjective does not make it not an observation.  Being subjective makes it an observation that so far no one has been able to duplicate by instrumentation.

[/QUOTE]This is exactly what I mean when I refer to intellectual honesty. Falling back on something like, "you can't prove it wasn't 'real' for me, because we don't really know what 'real' is..." is, well, lame.[/QUOTE]

The problem with the fact of direct personal observation of deity being subjective is the vast numbers of people who have it and who have had it since before writing was invented.  While it is true that every experience of the divine is personal and unique, it is also true that such experiences fall into definite categories.  Many of them can be explained by cultural bias but not all.  Many seers, mystics or whatever term you chose who could not have known something in religion report it independently.

Even though there is no instrumental detection, calling billions of mystics across time all deluded or all lying just doesn't make sense.  The science can not detect the cause of their experiences is not contrary to science, it's only outside of today's science.  Not only is each subjective experience an observation that does not produce objective evidence, these experiences keep coming and keep coming generation after generation.

Calling these experiences not knowable works for those who don't have them, but it fails to work for those who do.  Calling these experiences subjective works for those who do not have them, but it's a stretch among those who do.  Calling these experiences not observations, not a definition I'll accept thanks.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Sep 19, 2013)

dfreybur said:


> Calling these experiences not knowable works for those who don't have them, but it fails to work for those who do.  Calling these experiences subjective works for those who do not have them, but it's a stretch among those who do.  Calling these experiences not observations, not a definition I'll accept thanks.




Lots and lots of folks have such experiences, ...and are subsequently hospitalized and medicated until they don't. <i>For them</i>, the "experience" was as real as anything can be. While we must admit to the possibility that "the voice" really was that of the Divine, the fact remains that the experience was not perceived via the individual's sense organs. As such it can't be validated any more than it can be dismissed. So we are, at best, left with nothing more than <i>belief</i> regarding the nature of the experience.


----------



## dfreybur (Sep 19, 2013)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Lots and lots of folks have such experiences ...



By your fruit shall ye be known.  I'm okay with observing those who have not had direct personal observation of the divine and noticing what effect that has had on them across the decades.  I'm okay with observing those without direct contact who have chosen faith and noticing what effect that has had on them across the decades.  I'm okay with observing those who have had direct personal observation of the divine and noticing what effect that has had on them across the decades.

We aren't going to agree on this point.  You're on one side of the problem of instrumentation; I'm on the other.


----------



## FlBrother324 (Sep 21, 2013)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Lots and lots of folks have such experiences, ...and are subsequently hospitalized and medicated until they don't. For them, the "experience" was as real as anything can be. While we must admit to the possibility that "the voice" really was that of the Divine, the fact remains that the experience was not perceived via the individual's sense organs. As such it can't be validated any more than it can be dismissed. So we are, at best, left with nothing more than belief regarding the nature of the experience.



Br. Flotsam, 

I say this with the highest respect to you as a Brother:

Though I may agree with some of your views, your approach can be a bit "sharp" to those who don't agree. 

I understand your zeal for making a point during these discussions, posted in these forums. However, it seems no matter who is relating otherwise to " your" point of view, you seem to go on an all-out aggressive stance hoping to make those who oppose your views change their minds. 

We as Brothers are obligated to keep control over such zeal, so as not to create a sense of "hostility" amongst our Brethren. Sometimes we just have to Agree to Disagree, and move on to helping each other as Brothers. This, by no means makes either of the individuals involved perceived to be more right than the other. It just means there are differing opinions or statements being levied in the discussion.

You may very well be correct in your arguments, or not, but we aren't discussing how to prevent the next World War in these posts. It is supposed to be a forum for our Brethren to discuss in a Brotherly fashion, those issues we as Masons relate to on another level, compared to those less enlightened.

We are all Brothers for the most part in this forum, what kind of message does it send to those non-Masons observing our actions here, if we appear to be unable to work past our differences? 

I appeal to your sense of Brotherly respect, and honor of the Fraternity to realize we are all in this together, and that there are many non-Masons ready, willing, and anxious to see to our demise as a Fraternity.

May you be blessed by the GAOTU, and He light your path from above.

Yours, in His service.

Br. Corcoran



My Freemasonry HD


----------



## dfreybur (Sep 22, 2013)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Lots and lots of folks have such experiences, ...and are subsequently hospitalized and medicated until they don't.



Let's step back and think about that for a bit.  How many people do you know in each of the two states?

Folks who've been to a big city may have seen someone on the street corner ranting.  There's a spectrum of functionality all the way to Nash being a Nobel laureate.  If you know someone who sees things it can become obvious anywhere from the first second to a few weeks of friendship depending on their level of function.  The percentage of schizophrenics is low among the general population and the lower the social functioning the less social contact they have.  I don't know how many have never encountered a schizophrenic, likely  very many people.  I knew a college friend who went schizophrenic and in  his case it was obvious as well as very sad.

As a percentage of the population at least 30% have a religious experience in their life.  There are several types so it runs closer to 10% who have direct personal observation of deity.  You definitely know several such people.  In most cases you don't even know because there's no way to tell without asking.  And since we don't discuss religion in our assemblies you don't know which brothers are among them.

I suggest that your preconceived notions don't match the population percentages and you have made an erroneous presumption that sane people around you have not had direct personal observation of deity.  Many have.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Sep 22, 2013)

dfreybur said:


> I suggest that your preconceived notions don't match the population percentages and you have made an erroneous presumption that sane people around you have not had direct personal observation of deity.  Many have.



I suggest that your assumptions about me and my understanding of mental illness are in error. I have more than a little first-hand experience in dealing with those poor souls who suffer from schizophrenia and other debilitating mental disorders, usually when they are most acute. While there is much about the function of the brain that we don't understand, it is pretty well established that the hallucinations experienced by some of the mentally ill (not to mention those who have otherwise had their brain's chemistry altered) are as "real" as anything perceived via one's "normal" senses. I have been told as much by more than one (when they were in a more "stable" state). And yes, some of them can be quite functional, on most levels, while suffering profoundly from "first-rank" symptoms like hallucinations (auditory being the most common), delusions of being controlled, "thought insertion", etc.
Again, I will not pretend to know that such experiences are, or are not, Divine in nature. There is, to understate it again, too much that we don't not understand about how our brains work to make such conclusions. And that is my whole point. There is no knowing that an "experience" one has, when it's genesis is apart from our normal senses, is or is not "real". The exact same goes for "religious experiences". Those of us who have had them choose to believe, or not. Mind you, I make no judgement whatsoever about such choices, nor should anyone. Such is the nature, and privilege, of faith. By the same token, I would not cheapen anyone's faith by equating that with knowledge of the kind that can be acquired by sight, sound, touch, etc.


----------



## jwhoff (Sep 22, 2013)

The supreme being is universal.  We, however, are tribal in nature.  We see through a prism alright.  

Peter, Paul, and Mary put it best: "When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn?"


----------



## FlBrother324 (Sep 22, 2013)

Brothers,
Is visitation the same as God being Universal? Maybe we would be better off putting this discussion in a different thread ?
Both of you seem to have lumped "visitation" from one's God or Deity into  His being Universal.

Not to confuse the issue, but what about those that have had "visitation" while in a "dream state" ?

 Not during a conscious state but during sleep, or while in a "comatose" condition due to trauma or medical emergencies, or near death experiences? 

Some claim "out of body experiences"...?
Seeing the white light calling them, reassuring them, etc...?
Having visited with their Deity or other Holy Spirits?  
Many have probably just kept it to themselves for fear of others not believing them, or trying to rationalize it to themselves.

I don't believe they are being classified as "crazy" because of these types of situations are they?

Just curious?




My Freemasonry HD


----------



## FlBrother324 (Sep 22, 2013)

FlBrother324 said:


> Brothers,
> Is visitation the same as God being Universal? Maybe we would be better off putting this discussion in a different thread ?
> Both of you seem to have lumped "visitation" from one's God or Deity into  His being Universal.
> 
> ...



Have started a different thread if you'd like to answer some of these questions above for me?
 I'd be quite interested in some Brotherly dialogue regarding them .

Yours, in His service. 


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## Mosaic (Sep 22, 2013)

Brothers, I dont mean to detract from this wonderful discussion, but why do some elect to omit the letter o in God? (As in, G_d)?

Pardon my darkness...


----------



## Brother JC (Sep 22, 2013)

A matter of reverence. For many, the name of Deity is inneffible, and to say or spell out one of 72 (ad infinitum) names is improper.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Sep 23, 2013)

Mosaic said:


> Brothers, I dont mean to detract from this wonderful discussion, but why do some elect to omit the letter o in God? (As in, G_d)?
> 
> Pardon my darkness...



It's a custom that was adopted by those who think that "God" actually is the name of the being we refer to as "God". Observant Jews are to never speak the name of God, but it is represented as יהוה or "YHWH" using Latin letters, some English-speakers believe that they are acting accordingly. What they are ignorant of is that the omission of vowels in יהוה is not a matter of piety but of historical preservation. At the time Torah was written and assembled, it was not usual for vowels of any sort to be written in Hebrew. It used a strict abjad, not a full alphabet. Later, vowel signs were added, but they were not added to יהוה out of historical reverence. I consider it to be a harmless affectation since at no time in any Scripture used by Christians, is the Name of God stated to be "God". English makes matters more confusing vs. Greek, for example. In Greek, one refers to "Ὁ Θεος"
("the" God), distinct from any ordinary "θεος" (god). Hebrew uses the plural word "אֱלֹהִ֔ים" (Elohim) but treats it as if it is singular to mean what is meant in English by "God" and as plural to mean what is meant in English by "god". However, neither Greek or Hebrew speakers treat these as the actual Name of God.

English, on the other hand, has never had a native Name. Thus, people mistake the term that refers to Him by function and rank as His name.


----------



## usmcvet (Oct 30, 2013)

Raven said:


> My feelings are that, Religion is like a multi-colored lantern. Each person will chose the color glass that they wish to look through,... but the Flame is the same!



I am going to steal that one!  My son has asked a few times and I tried sports as an analogy.  Their are different teams but it's all the same game.  I like yours better.


----------



## BroBook (Oct 30, 2013)

Blake Bowden said:


> Is God universal? For example, is the God of the Jews and Christians the same as Muslims and other faiths?



Yes the wisest , strongest and most beautiful Being we can imagine is universal and according to our Bible HE will one day come and destroy the gods that did not create the earth !!! 


My Freemasonry


----------



## Tann3100 (Nov 2, 2013)

Haven't had a chance to read all the responses.  Yes I think God is universally the same God with different names in different cultures.  In exodus 6 it says Exodus 6:3 KJV[3] And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them.

so therefore I think we could say the great spirit had multiple names across cultures just from this txt in the bible.


----------



## CajunTinMan (May 16, 2014)

No. I believe that the Grand Architect is the God of Abraham.  As a Christian I also believe the Jesus was the one begotten son of God.


----------



## jjjjjggggg (May 16, 2014)

Is God universal? Without parsing the question into an endless philosophical debate over the meaning of each word... my reply is "yes".


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## BryanMaloney (May 19, 2014)

God is universal.
Which "god" we each perceive is that universal God?
Don't ask me! I'm just a little biologist who can barely count on his own fingers some mornings.


----------



## dfreybur (May 19, 2014)

CajunTinMan said:


> No. I believe that the Grand Architect is the God of Abraham.  As a Christian I also believe the Jesus was the one begotten son of God.



I took universal in the sense of present everywhere.  I do figure the divine is present everywhere.

I hadn't considered universal in the sense of all deities being one.  We all believe in the existence of a supreme being and I don't want to get into the theology of how that works with the fact that we have brothers of every religion any of us have heard of and many none of us have heard of.  I would rather welcome a Shinto Mason as a brother and not deal with the theological issues involved in religious differences.


----------



## BroBook (May 20, 2014)

I always took Supreme Being to mean the Highest of the High, every thing else that's called god is His servant or His enemy!!!


Bro Book
M.W.U.G.L. Of Fl: P.H.A.
Excelsior # 43
At pensacola


----------



## Lowcarbjc (May 20, 2014)

Is satan and Buda etc. considered Supreme Beings? 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## dfreybur (May 20, 2014)

Lowcarbjc said:


> Is satan and Buda etc. considered Supreme Beings?



The Buddha explicitly taught that he should not be viewed as a deity, but he did not teach whether his followers should believe in a supreme being.  I don't know enough about the other topic to judge.


----------



## Willys (May 20, 2014)

Lowcarbjc said:


> Is satan and Buda etc. considered Supreme Beings?
> 
> 
> Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


You can get a multitude of varying responses to this.  Most will only be interpretive since no one actually has clear cut facts, including myself.  Unless of course God has spoken personally to said person, and I would tend to not believe that without a YouTube video as proof.

My understanding is that Lucifer was a well positioned Angel in the hierarchy of heavenly things and thought he was cool enough to challenge God on the subject of the way thing out to be.  So he got thrown out.  Then he set about making trouble and is sometimes referred to as Satan.  Seems the name Lucifer has something to do with 'bearing light' and Satan the name of his alter-ego.

Buddha is a name for an enlightened one but not considered a God.

These responses are from things I've absorbed over the years but give very little credence as they tend to be human application to spiritual ideals.

Your mileage may vary...


----------



## BryanMaloney (May 21, 2014)

Lowcarbjc said:


> Is satan and Buda etc. considered Supreme Beings?



Satan is never supreme, even to Satanists (except for a teeny little minority of make-it-up-as-they-go Satanists). For the non-Satanist who accepts that Satan exists, he is a secondary entity, just another created being. For the majority of Satanists, Satan doesn't even exist. The majority of Satanists are atheists--no gods exist at all in their eyes. Satan is just a symbol for "Do whatever you can get away with."

Prince Siddhartha, later called the Buddha, is not a "supreme being" in any sense of the word. According to Buddhist teachings (except, perhaps, for a tiny minority), the Buddha is a being that has left the cycle of existence and left instructions on how to follow. The Buddha rules and controls nothing. The Buddha has no powers except over his own desire. In Buddhist cosmology, all suffering is the result of desire, thus, if one extinguishes desire, one extinguishes the hold of the world (suffering--and pleasure is suffering, since lack of pleasure leads to desire for pleasure, which, if unquenched, is suffering).


----------



## Lowcarbjc (May 21, 2014)

Interesting responses thanks.

Not to start a religious debate, but can I conclude that the Supreme Being (GAOTU) in Freemasonry will then always refer to the God of the old Testament/Quran/Torah (of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), regardless if viewed from a Christian, Jewish or Muslim point of view? 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (May 22, 2014)

Lowcarbjc said:


> Interesting responses thanks.
> 
> Not to start a religious debate, but can I conclude that the Supreme Being (GAOTU) in Freemasonry will then always refer to the God of the old Testament/Quran/Torah (of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), regardless if viewed from a Christian, Jewish or Muslim point of view?


You may, but only for yourself.


----------



## Willys (May 22, 2014)

Lowcarbjc said:


> Interesting responses thanks.
> 
> Not to start a religious debate, but can I conclude that the Supreme Being (GAOTU) in Freemasonry will then always refer to the God of the old Testament/Quran/Torah (of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), regardless if viewed from a Christian, Jewish or Muslim point of view?
> 
> ...


To bear an agreement with *JohnnyFlotsam* - above, you may conclude your reply to be applicable for yourself.  From my Christian rearing I might draw a like conclusion.  I cannot speak from a Jewish or Muslim point of view but would lean towards understanding that to be inherent in the intent of Freemasonry.  But then, from  my Masonic perspective, GAOTU might refer to my God but no necessarily the God of an other person.  That would be their own perspective to inpterpret.


----------



## dfreybur (May 22, 2014)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> You may, but only for yourself.



It is true that there are many brothers who are members of faiths outside of the JCI family.  Those brothers do not view it that way.  Is there an underlying unity of deity that makes it work that way anyways?  Far too theological a question with potential answers that are far too devisive to start down that road.


----------



## BryanMaloney (May 23, 2014)

Lowcarbjc said:


> Interesting responses thanks.
> 
> Not to start a religious debate, but can I conclude that the Supreme Being (GAOTU) in Freemasonry will then always refer to the God of the old Testament/Quran/Torah (of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), regardless if viewed from a Christian, Jewish or Muslim point of view?



Hindus can be Masons. Buddhists can be Masons, as well. A Buddhist can admit to the existence of a Supreme Being, but it's not the Buddha, it's something greater than the Buddha. Shinto can be Masons. There are Odinist Masons.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (May 23, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> Hindus can be Masons. Buddhists can be Masons, as well. A Buddhist can admit to the existence of a Supreme Being, but it's not the Buddha, it's something greater than the Buddha. Shinto can be Masons. There are Odinist Masons.


I think the confusion arises from the frequent use of passages from Judeo-Christian scripture in our various rituals. It is little wonder then, that many, if not most, Masons in this part of the world make the assumption that the word "god" means the same thing for all. Incorrect, but certainly understandable.


----------



## dfreybur (May 23, 2014)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> I think the confusion arises from the frequent use of passages from Judeo-Christian scripture in our various rituals. It is little wonder then, that many, if not most, Masons in this part of the world make the assumption that the word "god" means the same thing for all. Incorrect, but certainly understandable.



It is necessary for a brothers who are members of religions outside of the JCI family to be secure enough in their faith that they are open to learning from stories out of someone else's scripture.  That's an extra step compared to brothers who are members of religions inside of the JCI family.  There are parts of the world where this distinction is necessarily common knowledge and there are parts of the world where it is not.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (May 26, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> It is necessary for a brothers who are members of religions outside of the JCI family to be secure enough in their faith that they are open to learning from stories out of someone else's scripture.


Well..., yeah. But in my experience, its the brothers whose path is part of the "JCI family" who have a hard time grasping that anyone not of that path could do such a thing.


----------



## rebis (May 27, 2014)

The logo for the grand lodge of israel contains the star of the jews, the crescent moon of the muslims and the cross of the christians.

In a place where they would've remained at a perpetual distance, they all meet as brothers in the lodge room. That is the essence of freemasonry.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## rebis (May 27, 2014)

rebis said:


> The logo for the grand lodge of israel contains the star of the jews, the crescent moon of the muslims and the cross of the christians.
> 
> In a place where they would've remained at a perpetual distance, they all meet as brothers in the lodge room. That is the essence of freemasonry.
> 
> ...








Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------

