# Why does Freemasonry require a belief in God?



## pointwithinacircle2

Why do you think Freemasonry requires a belief in a Supreme Being?  Do you stick with the explanation given in the ritual that otherwise no oath would be binding on him?  What is it about an atheist or agnostic that makes them unsuitable to be made a Mason? 

How is a man that believes in a Supreme Being different from a man who does not?  Why is that difference important to Masonry?


----------



## NY.Light.II

As a person who has been a person of faith, no faith, and is now somewhere in between (believe in a God, but beyond that I run into roadblocks), I would like to take a stab (again, for those who do not know, I am not yet a mason, but will petition once I am 21) at this question. 

I think it is important to recognize that public masonry (via 1717) came out of a specific culture, time, and place.  Within the context of a Christian kingdom, few people were publicly atheistic. Public atheism is relatively novel. This context provided, I think, a primary reason for this requirement. 

Second, tradition. Most of the Masonic documents available reference a Supreme Being/God either explicitly or implicitly, and when traditions are broken, fractions occur (GODF split, for example). Reactions to fractions have many forms, but most prevalent is the tendency for groups to harden their stance on issues that cause a rift.  After GODF split, mainstream masonry defined itself by its fidelity to traditions/landmarks. 

Third, there is the stated reason you mentioned. The same reason in courtrooms people swear on the Bible is it serves, so the logic goes, as an impartial assurance of honesty (yet that honesty only depends on the integrity of the person).  

I don't think a man needs religion to be a good person, and I don't think a belief in God, however sincere, makes one person inherently "better" than another. I think Masonry requires belief because, with the above, there is an older (and IMHO, erroneous) understanding that the atheistic person cannot be moral, which is a steep indictment for a fraternity that prizes moral uprightness. 

Okay, I've said my piece.


----------



## MRichard

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> Do you stick with the explanation given in the ritual that otherwise no oath would be binding on him?



Yes, it is one of the tenets of freemasonry and a fundamental one at that.


----------



## Keith D. McKeever Jr.

I honestly don't believe that one that believe in a Supreme Being vs the one doesn't defines the character of a person. I think that it has mostly to do with tradition. Our fraternity is based off "Faith”, "Hope", and "Charity." For an E.A., faith correspond with trust and confidence, especially in God or Supreme Being.

My question would be, "What does an atheist or agnostic believe in?" "does an atheist or agnostic have faith?" "What generates ones faith?" "How can an atheist appreciate The Great Lights?

I know that thru time things tend to change. There have been so many barriers broken but always found a way to salvage as much of the tradition that we know of? How do we change everything to account for those that do not believe in something higher than yourself?

I'm still brand new to this, but I would like to know.


----------



## Bill Lins

Keith D. McKeever Jr. said:


> How do we change everything to account for those that do not believe in something higher than yourself?



We don't.


----------



## Roy_

When I was looking to see if FM would be something for me and my girlfriend (yes yes, I'm irregular), I got backed off by the fact that Le Droit Humain apparently works without the GAOTU. This proves to be not entirely true. Both Le Droit Humain and my own (little) order have three rites, one of which is atheistic and in both cases this "French Rite" is by far the smallest one. In Belgium only 2,5% of all Freemasons are regular, the rest either has no GAOTU, no Bible or discuss religion and politics in their lodges. Now in my own country, the Netherlands, there is a (relatively) huge regular Grand Orient, but there is a _very_ strong tendeny towards the Belgian-style "adogmatic" FM. Issue after issue the publication Thoth (for all Freemasons, not just those of the Grand Orient) publishes opinions in that direction. The reasoning is that when FM is: "a system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols", there is no need for (defined) Divinity since an atheist has morals too. 

Personally I prefer not to see FM as "a system of morality" because I certainly hope we all aim for something higher than morality. Hence I opted for a lodge that does require belief in the vague "something higher" (not necessarily Christian, otherwise it would not have been my place afterall). Not because I believe people without such a faith are different, less or however you would call it, but because I want to work with people aiming higher than morality. People who want to be FM without Divinity have options as well.


----------



## coachn

Perhaps there is an entirely different meaning associated with the word "Morality" that applies to what Freemasonry actually does!

Hint: It's a Play on Words and a Word on Plays.


----------



## Roy_

Back ontopic then 

In Thoth 2014/1 there is an article by the Belgian Freemason G. de S. about "The dogma of (a-dogmatic) Freemasonry". He concludes that the belief in God is a dogma in all three versions of Andersson's constitutions (however it went from the Christian God to a Noachite God) (and this only became a landmark with Mackey). Because this clear requirement he calls "Anglo-Saxon  FM "dogmatic". Later, what would be called "adogmatic" FM arose in France. De Soete's own Grand Lodge is that of Belgium (GLB, not to be confused with the Regular Grand Lodge of Belgium). Towards the end of his essay he writes:
The workplaces of the GLB labor in favour of the Grand Architect of the Universe and in the presence of the Book of Moral Law opened under Compass and Square, although the constitution of the GLB stipulates very explicitly that the interpretation of all symbols and the Grand Architect of the Universe and the Three Great Lights in particular, is completely free.​The GLB is not very big in Belgium. It has 15% of the Belgin Masonic membership under its wings. The Grand Orient of Belgium (42%) is irregular as well and also calls itself "adogmatic". This 'freer' way of looking at things is getting hold of Dutch FM as well. It does conform with the idea that a Mason should be able to think for himself and certainly in continental Europe this seems to be the way things are heading.


----------



## dfreybur

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> Why do you think Freemasonry requires a belief in a Supreme Being?



It can't be about being binding because that doesn't work when studied, so what must it be?  Here's what I think it is -

When each of us took our obligation we made promises to the divine.  All brothers who came before did that as well.  So we expect all candidates going forward to do the same.

So it's about who we made our promises to not whether the binding works.



> Do you stick with the explanation given in the ritual that otherwise no oath would be binding on him?



Because the statement when limited to those words is explicitly incorrect, I do not stick to it.  Statistically atheists and agnostics are have lower rates of immorality than theists.

But in my mother jurisdiction there is one extra word - considered.  That's an interesting extra word because that makes it not about the facts and not about the statistics.  It makes it about feelings probably held by many before their education, and sure enough the statement appears in the first degree not the second degree.

I have long been puzzled why this matter of feeling which is statistically incorrect is included in our degrees.  By mistake by people who did not have access to the statistics?  Probably.  As a deliberate contradiction like not including women?  Also probably.

I was raised in a science oriented family were we were supposed to look it up and act accordingly, so I looked up the statistics and learned otherwise.  But a lot of brothers are raised to believe that their morality comes from their faith, and as that is how they personally work to extend that opinion to others.  The fact that the statistics don't bear the conclusion out does not change the fact that many are raised to believe that way.

We have a system that takes into account a common teaching in society that does not survive study of the topic.  The point were is it taken into account is before we teach a brother to stud topics.  It is thus a culturally limited temporary point inserted into the lecture.

Our contradictions are many.  We are men of faith who led the world in religious freedom.  We are members of on order that excludes women who led the world in equal treatment.  We use elections to select our leaders then they are dictators during their terms.  We consider oaths more binding on men of faith than on others, not because the statistics work out but because so many of us were raised in a society that teaches it that we use the stance as an unlevel starting point on which to study it level to build a stable superstructure.


----------



## dalinkou

dfreybur said:


> Statistically atheists and agnostics are have lower rates of immorality than theists.



What statistics were measured, and when?


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

Keith D. McKeever Jr. said:


> I honestly don't believe that one that believe in a Supreme Being vs the one doesn't defines the character of a person. I think that it has mostly to do with tradition. Our fraternity is based off "Faith”, "Hope", and "Charity." For an E.A., faith correspond with trust and confidence, especially in God or Supreme Being.
> 
> My question would be, "What does an atheist or agnostic believe in?" "does an atheist or agnostic have faith?" "What generates ones faith?" "How can an atheist appreciate The Great Lights?


An agnostic acknowledges the fact that he has nothing _but_ faith. That is an important point, and it misunderstood by a great many. Agnosticism is _not_ "doubt". It is, literally, the absence of knowledge. So the answer to the question, "What does an agnostic believe in?" is "Anything he chooses to believe in."  

This is quite different from the atheist's belief that there are no gods. And make no mistake, the atheist has chosen this belief just as each of us has chosen his own belief that their is/are god(s). Oddly, most of the atheists I've known will stubbornly insist that their belief, in something that is unknowable, is more "rational" than any contrary belief. In other words, while the atheist denies he has any "faith", he still has his "beliefs".

What generates faith? Lots of things, usually, but when it comes to faith, it must be a choice.  

And, of course, an atheist can not appreciate the Great Lights. The path of a Mason is one that leads to enlightenment. Without that illumination and guidance provided by the things those symbols represent, that path could never completely leave the darkness.


----------



## coachn

1) Faith - a Choice to believe in a Possibility, no matter how improbable or lacking in evidence for or against.
2) Hope - Probability; a Choice to hold on to the Probability of that Possibility, no matter how slim the chance.
3) Agape - a Choice to Invest in that Possibility.

These are not exclusive to only those who believe in an all powerful, all knowing, all present being.

1) Square - A man's WORK (far too many Brothers don't realize this!)
2) Compasses - A Man's RELATIONSHIPS
3) Sacred Volume (represented by the Letter G) - A Man's Immutable and all Governing LAWS

None of what these represent are exclusive to only those who believe in an all powerful, all knowing, all present being.


----------



## LAMason

I will be the first to admit that I am not a great thinker and take most things literally, so often “veiled allegory” is lost to me even with hints.  That said, I also do not believe everything in Freemasonry is “veiled allegory” and many times it simply is what it is.

I personally like this explanation:





http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/freemasonry-supreme-being.html


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

I want to thank everyone who has taken the time to respond to this thread.  It has been fascinating to read the replies and consider the different viewpoints on this topic. 

This morning I was studying about the evolution of civilization from hunter/gatherer societies to farming societies and I came across an interesting quote that may bear on this subject.  The statement was made that "as civilization evolved the central purpose of society changed from ensuring the individuals physical survival to protecting their psychological well being".  Part of what provides security to the self, to the psychological part of us, is identification with the group.  And the group/groups with which we identify determines who our "self" becomes. 

So, acceptance of the G.A.O.T.U. may be seen as a test of belonging.  It may be a way of asking the candidate "are you in the right place?  Do you wish to conform to the standards of this group?".  At the same time we are informing the candidate of the standards of Masonry.  We are saying "We are men who live our lives according to a standard of morality determined, not by ourselves, but by a power greater than ourselves". 

And finally, there is the effect that reverence for something greater than myself has on that part of myself that the Greeks called the Psyche.  Today this might be referred to as the self, or as one's beliefs or personal psychology.  It is the search for the answer to the question "how do I fit in the world?" and ultimately the question "who am I?".  I think that finding answers these questions requires a lot of guidance, and to find correct answers it must be the right kind of guidance.   Perhaps ultimately that is the purpose of Freemasonry, to offer the right kind of guidance to those who seek it. 

Whew!  I have really begun to wax philosophical.  I had better stop here.  Thanks again for all your contributions.


----------



## dfreybur

dalinkou said:


> What statistics were measured, and when?



Crime rates among atheists and agnostics have been lower than crime rates among members of religion for as long as such statistics have been gathered.

Whether this is, is a matter of gathering the data and adjusting for biases that favor religious activity after conviction.  Why this is, sends us into discussions of religious policies and is thus not appropriate in our forums. The topic does quickly lead to why specific sects object to Masonry where most do not.


----------



## LAMason

dfreybur said:


> Crime rates among atheists and agnostics have been lower than crime rates among members of religion for as long as such statistics have been gathered.



Without seeing information on the validity and reliability of studies, who performed the studies and the design of the studies; I am skeptical of the results.


----------



## Roy_

I just think of something I am not sure you all know. In the initial Rite of Le Droit Humain, the Bible was prepared by the Declaration of Human Rights and 'human rights' is exactly what Le Droit Humain means. Outside regular FM there are now lodges who have either the Declaration or the constitution of their order to swear the oath on. I have not yet experienced such an atheistic Rite yet, but I would certainly not have sworn my oath on either of the two latter options. Yet, one can still argue if a Freemason who did swear his (/her) oath on either alternative, would be less able to work on himself and the world.
I guess it is a matter of preference and for those who hold the possibility of other-than-regular FM open, there is something to choose.


----------



## NY.Light.II

Important to keep in mind in this discussion is that Atheism is on the rise and has been for at least the last decade.


----------



## hanzosbm

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> We are saying "We are men who live our lives according to a standard of morality determined, not by ourselves, but by a power greater than ourselves".



First and foremost, this is an excellent discussion and exactly the type of thing I came to Masonry for. 

In my opinion, a belief in something larger than ourselves, *and that we will face judgment by*, is necessary.  The in EA degree within the GL of Kentucky there is a portion that alludes to one day standing alone, naked, and penniless before the GAOTU in judgment.  This, as well as the memento mori and acacia all speak to something that I feel would be lost on an atheist.  That's not to say that an atheist cannot be moral or that the symbols of morality taught in our craft would be lost on him, but simply that the reasoning and scale of that morality and one's place in existence will not have the same meaning.


----------



## Keith D. McKeever Jr.

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> An agnostic acknowledges the fact that he has nothing _but_ faith. That is an important point, and it misunderstood by a great many. Agnosticism is _not_ "doubt". It is, literally, the absence of knowledge. So the answer to the question, "What does an agnostic believe in?" is "Anything he chooses to believe in."
> 
> This is quite different from the atheist's belief that there are no gods. And make no mistake, the atheist has chosen this belief just as each of us has chosen his own belief that their is/are god(s). Oddly, most of the atheists I've known will stubbornly insist that their belief, in something that is unknowable, is more "rational" than any contrary belief. In other words, while the atheist denies he has any "faith", he still has his "beliefs".
> 
> What generates faith? Lots of things, usually, but when it comes to faith, it must be a choice.
> 
> And, of course, an atheist can not appreciate the Great Lights. The path of a Mason is one that leads to enlightenment. Without that illumination and guidance provided by the things those symbols represent, that path could never completely leave the darkness.


Johnny Floatsam,

That is a great explanation!!! Thank you for breaking that down for me!


----------



## LAMason

More food for thought:

"Through years of simple, profound degrees, we weave the Mystic Tie. We cannot say of what it is composed. We cannot put a name to it. St. Augustine, asked of God, answered, 'I know until you ask me-when you ask me, I do not know.' In your heart you know, and I know, what the Mystic Tie is-what Freemasonry is. But you cannot say it, nor can I. It is too deep for words. It is the reason we use symbols, for words cannot express it.

"Deep in us is something which understands what brains cannot think; something which knows what our minds cannot comprehend. Masonry speaks to that something in its own language. If we must put it into words, God is the only syllable which seems to fit. But when we say God we mean no special deity, but all that is beautiful in life, in friendship, in charity, in brotherhood.

"So, my brother, there is no reason for you to be puzzled; no man can answer your puzzle. Freemasonry is loved by men because it strikes deep into the human heart, and supplies the answer to the question, the food for the hunger, which the tongue cannot express..."

http://www.themasonictrowel.com/masonic_talk/old_tyler_talks/ott_main_toc.htm


----------



## LAMason

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> An agnostic acknowledges the fact that he has nothing _but_ faith. That is an important point, and it misunderstood by a great many. Agnosticism is _not_ "doubt". It is, literally, the absence of knowledge. So the answer to the question, "What does an agnostic believe in?" is "Anything he chooses to believe in."



Your definition of an agnostic and faith are very different than mine.  My understanding is that an agnostic is a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not and that faith is a strong belief or trust in someone or something, if someone does not have a definite belief in something what do they have faith in?

Regrettably, I do not have a lot of original thoughts, so I like the writings of great Masons and great thinkers like Carl Claudy:

"That is different!" smiled the Old Tiler. "The agnostic is a mentally lazy person without enough energy to formulate a conception of Deity. The agnostic isn't satisfied with the God of Moses, or the God of Calvin, or the God of Luther, or the God of the Jews, or the God of Jesus Christ. He wants his own little God, made according to a formula which suits his kind of ego. But when he tries to make such a god he runs into so many contradiction that he gives it up and solves the problem by saying, 'I don't know what I believe!' Because he is then in a class by himself he gradually evolves a queer sort of pride in the negation; he is 'different' from his fellows, and therefore, 'superior.' But it's just a pose; let his child be desperately ill or he be in danger of drowning, and you'll hear him... yes, and the 'atheist,' too... cry to God for help."

http://the-lectern.blogspot.com/2008/10/old-tiler-talks-atheist-and-agnostic.html


----------



## coachn

LAMason said:


> "That is different!" smiled the Old Tiler. "The agnostic is a *mentally lazy person without enough energy to formulate a conception of Deity*. The agnostic* isn't satisfied* with the God of Moses, or the God of Calvin, or the God of Luther, or the God of the Jews, or the God of Jesus Christ. He *wants his own little God, made according to a formula which suits his kind of ego*. But when he tries to make such a god *he runs into so many contradiction that he gives it up* and *solves the problem* by saying, 'I don't know what I believe!' Because *he is then in a class by himself he gradually evolves a queer sort of pride in the negation*; he* is 'different' from his fellows, and therefore, 'superior.*' But it's just a pose; let his child be desperately ill or he be in danger of drowning, and *you'll hear him... yes, and the 'atheist,' too... cry to God for help*."
> 
> http://the-lectern.blogspot.com/2008/10/old-tiler-talks-atheist-and-agnostic.html


Interesting...

As I understand Agnosticism, it is merely an outward and honest acknowledgement of an inward not knowing AND believing too that such things cannot be known.  All that is underlined above is the ranting of someone who not only believes differently, but cannot accept that agnostic can come to an agnostic view without somehow being less for it.  Bro. Carl sure did have a lot of his personal biases, preconceived notions, assumptions and prejudices revealed in this. The sad aspect of all this is that his "baggage" is being used to instruct on generation after another as if it is right rather than an example of how such baggage clouds a man's view of others who believe and think differently.


----------



## LAMason

coachn said:


> it is merely an outward and honest acknowledgement of an inward not knowing AND believing too that such things cannot be known.



To me there is a difference in saying I know there is something greater than I am, I just don't know what it is and do not believe I am capable of understanding it and someone saying I do not know if there is anything.  Again based on my definition the first would not be an agnostic and does believe in and have faith in something even though they believe it is unknowable.  The second would be an agnostic and would not have belief or faith in anything. 

We apparently have very different understandings of what an agnostic is.  I also happen to share Bro. Claudy's opinion.


----------



## NY.Light.II

LAMason said:


> To me there is a difference in saying I know there is something greater than I am, I just don't know what it is and do not believe I am capable of understanding it and someone saying I do not know if there is anything.  Again based on my definition the first would not be an agnostic and does believe in and have faith in something even though they believe it is unknowable.  The second would be an agnostic and would not have belief or faith in anything.
> 
> We apparently have very different understandings of what an agnostic is.  I also happen to share Bro. Claudy's opinion.



First, there is no "my definition of agnostic" and "your definition of agnostic". Things are what they are. Your interpretation may differ, but truth is the same universally (I.e. One thing cannot be true for someone and not for someone else). Not to get too into the definitions of what constitutes being and existence, the whole discussion of "my definition" vs. "your definition" bothered me. 

Second, if you have faith, it is inherent in the definition that you don't *know* it. By definition, faith is belief or confidence in something in the absence of proof. If there was proof for something, we would *know*; believers have no objective proof of the divine, yet they have faith in its existence.  Knowing something is abjectly different than having faith in something.

I felt it necessary to define these so as to keep clarity in this discussion. As you were.


----------



## coachn

LAMason said:


> To me there is a difference in saying *I know there is something greater than I am, I just don't know what it is* *and do not believe I am capable of understanding it* and someone saying *I do not know if there is anything*.  Again based on my definition *the first would not be an agnostic and does believe in and have faith in something even though they believe it is unknowable*.  *The second would be an agnostic and would not have belief or faith in anything*.
> 
> We apparently have very different understandings of what an agnostic is.  I also happen to share Bro. Claudy's opinion.


Yes, we do have very different understandings and hence our differing comments and why I don't share Bro. Claudy's conclusions.

You have taken the division much further than I have.  *Merely not knowing AND believing too that such things cannot be known* doesn't appear to apply to what you understand of agnosticism.  You have taken it and added more to it than what I have.  Additionally, I cannot assume that an agnostic would not believe in anything or would not have faith of any kind (as in, seeing and believing in a possibility as opposed to having a religion of sorts).  I've known agnostics who do have beliefs and do exhibit faith, but just not along the lines of those who believe in God or practice religion.

But let me take a good look at what Bro. Claudy is preaching and respond in kind.

I do not believe that an agnostic is a *mentally lazy person without enough energy to formulate a conception of Deity*. Perhaps he has mentally exhausted himself trying to make sense of the whole in a rational way and has merely concluded that it cannot be rationally addressed and to do so would be futile. 

I cannot assume that the agnostic* isn't satisfied* with any religious view that has been offered by others.  Perhaps there is no drive to satisfy these desires as it exists in others. 

I cannot assume that he *wants his own little God, made according to a formula which suits his kind of ego*.  This assumes that he wants his own little God.  Perhaps this is merely the imaginings of someone who has his own little God and wants others to share in this with him.

I cannot assume that he tries to make such a God OR that  *he runs into so many contradiction that he gives it up* and *solves the problem* by saying, 'I don't know what I believe!'  Perhaps this is merely a wishful projection on the part of a believer upon someone who can't and won't be bullied into believing similarly and for all the right reasons.  Perhaps it is not a problem to solve for the agnostic BUT it is s problem for the believer who wishes to belittle the agnostic for knowing his own mind and heart.

I cannot assume that because *he is then in a class by himself he gradually evolves a queer sort of pride in the negation*; he* is 'different' from his fellows, and therefore, 'superior.*' Perhaps there is no negation whatsoever and that he hasn't developed any such notions and that he is being put down for merely having a different opinion on such matters.

I cannot assume that it's just a pose. I cannot assume that he shall change his view when he or his loved ones are put in harms way.  I cannot assume that such cries mean anything of significance other than an utter expression of hopelessness on the part of the person crying.

I want to believe that an agnostic has used God's given gift to rightfully conclude what is right for him and to do so without me assuming he is wrong for doing so.  His beliefs have no impact upon me whatsoever unless I do what Bro. Claudy has done, assume all sorts of things that may have nothing to do with the subject at hand and to teach others to make the same belittling and dismissive assumptions when confronted with someone who believes differently.

I would put his lecture into the category of uncircumscribed passions.  I believe he has gone over the line and was driven by his own unsubdued desires.

IMO


----------



## coachn

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> Why do you think Freemasonry requires a belief in a Supreme Being?



Because the founders of the GL version of the organization believed it would benefit the organization and its members to have such a rule in place as they made effort to niche market to future members.



pointwithinacircle2 said:


> Do you stick with the explanation given in the ritual that otherwise no oath would be binding on him?



No.  I have yet to see the majority of men change their way as a result of taking such an obligation.  If behavior change is any indication of such an explanation, it has failed miserably.



pointwithinacircle2 said:


> What is it about an atheist or agnostic that makes them unsuitable to be made a Mason?



They become a target and hence a reason for disruption, not because of who they are or what they believe but because of the intolerant behaviors of those who embrace something different.



pointwithinacircle2 said:


> How is a man that believes in a Supreme Being different from a man who does not?



I don't believe any thinking rational being exists that doesn't believe in a Supreme Being.  How that SB belief manifests though is sometimes dramatically different.  

*Example*: one person believes a SB is an exclusive Entity *(a Who or What!)* and another believes a SB is a manner only *(a How!)*.  The difference is worlds apart and so are the attitudes such men portray, especially toward one another.



pointwithinacircle2 said:


> Why is that difference important to Masonry?



As long as the majority uses and treats the issue negatively, it shall always be important to the Freemasonic order.


----------



## LAMason

It is not my intention to say that my interpretation of agnosticism is correct.  My purpose was to provide a stipulative definition for the purpose of discussion relative to the requirement of a belief in a Supreme Being, in doing so I used the following definition for agnostic:

“ a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

Again, I am approaching this discussion with my personal point of reference being the requirement of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana:

“The only requirement in regard to religious belief connected with a petitioner is that he profess his belief in a Supreme Being. No question of religious denomination shall be asked.”

http://www.la-mason.com/wp-content/themes/mason/documents/HOML-2013.pdf

My interpretation of this requirement is that a petitioner must answer the first question on the Grand Lodge of Louisiana “Petition for the Degrees in Masonry” “Do you believe in God?” with an unequivocal affirmative response to meet the requirement.

To me that does not mean he has to believe in any particular interpretation of what God is, just that he believe that there is one.  If someone can answer the question with an unequivocal affirmative response, even if he considers himself to be an agnostic, then he meets the stated requirement.

I have stated previously that for the most part I take things literally, so it is not unusual for me to have an opinion that is different from someone who doesn’t.


----------



## LAMason

coachn said:


> I don't believe any thinking rational being exists that doesn't believe in a Supreme Being.



That is the meaning I took from Bro. Claudy saying "But it's just a pose; let his child be desperately ill or he be in danger of drowning, and you'll hear him... yes, and the 'atheist,' too... cry to God for help."


----------



## coachn

LAMason said:


> It is not my intention to say that my interpretation of agnosticism is correct.  My purpose was to provide a stipulative definition for the purpose of discussion relative to the requirement of a belief in a Supreme Being, in doing so I used the following definition for agnostic:
> 
> “ a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not”
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
> 
> Again, I am approaching this discussion with my personal point of reference being the requirement of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana:
> 
> “The only requirement in regard to religious belief connected with a petitioner is that he profess his belief in a Supreme Being. No question of religious denomination shall be asked.”
> 
> http://www.la-mason.com/wp-content/themes/mason/documents/HOML-2013.pdf
> 
> My interpretation of this requirement is that a petitioner must answer the first question on the Grand Lodge of Louisiana “Petition for the Degrees in Masonry” “Do you believe in God?” with an unequivocal affirmative response to meet the requirement.
> 
> To me that does not mean he has to believe in any particular interpretation of what God is, just that he believe that there is one.  If someone can answer the question with an unequivocal affirmative response, even if he considers himself to be an agnostic, then he meets the stated requirement.
> 
> I have stated previously that for the most part I take things literally, so it is not unusual for me to have an opinion that is different from someone who doesn’t.


Yup.  The discourse is for discourse sake.  Steel sharpening steel.  I hope that you are enjoying the ride as much as I am.


----------



## coachn

LAMason said:


> That is the meaning I took from Bro. Claudy saying "But it's just a pose; let his child be desperately ill or he be in danger of drowning, and you'll hear him... yes, and the 'atheist,' too... cry to God for help."


He may very well have had that intention my Brother, but (I felt that ) he truly didn't have to precursor this statement with all those other assumptions.  It presents a bad example of the Craft and to the Craft


----------



## LAMason

@ coachn

I don't think that Bro. Claudy was intolerant.  Although, I included the link to the "Old Tiler Talk" I quoted, I did not quote it in its entirety.  Here is how he concluded:

"Luckily for poor impotent humanity the Supreme Architect is a merciful God who hears the cries of His children in distress whether they are simple men you know and like, or strange-minded men like Smithkins, who distress us with their lack of understanding."

"Then you do not think Smithkins is a menace to the lodge because he is an... because he believes... differently from you and me?"

"I do not!" smiled the Old Tiler. "I know Smithkins pretty well. He doesn't lie so he must have some belief, or he wouldn't be a Mason. It doesn't concern us, or the lodge, or Masonry, what his belief is, so it is sincere. It takes all sorts of people to make a world, and if we all thought alike..."

"Why, then," interrupted the New Brother, "there would be no use for Old Tilers and their talks to the ignorant!"

"That would be terrible, wouldn't it?" agreed the Old Tiler, as he rose to answer knocks from within."

http://the-lectern.blogspot.com/2008/10/old-tiler-talks-atheist-and-agnostic.html


----------



## coachn

LAMason said:


> @ coachn
> 
> I don't think that Bro. Claudy was intolerant.  Although, I included the link to the "Old Tiler Talk" I quoted, I did not quote it in its entirety.  Here is how he concluded:
> 
> "Luckily for poor impotent humanity the Supreme Architect is a merciful God who hears the cries of His children in distress whether they are simple men you know and like, or strange-minded men like Smithkins, who distress us with their lack of understanding."
> 
> "Then you do not think Smithkins is a menace to the lodge because he is an... because he believes... differently from you and me?"
> 
> "I do not!" smiled the Old Tiler. "I know Smithkins pretty well. He doesn't lie so he must have some belief, or he wouldn't be a Mason. It doesn't concern us, or the lodge, or Masonry, what his belief is, so it is sincere. It takes all sorts of people to make a world, and if we all thought alike..."
> 
> "Why, then," interrupted the New Brother, "there would be no use for Old Tilers and their talks to the ignorant!"
> 
> "That would be terrible, wouldn't it?" agreed the Old Tiler, as he rose to answer knocks from within."
> 
> http://the-lectern.blogspot.com/2008/10/old-tiler-talks-atheist-and-agnostic.html


I had read this tiler talk many years ago and have reread it many times since, including when you posted it.  I have the same feeling and thoughts now about it as I did originally.  He's not intolerant in this talk; he's biased, opinionated, prejudiced and assuming.  He applies these personal traits of his view toward atheists and agnostics without reservation, and possibly unknowingly too.  His logically arguments are based on flawed premises.  As much as the talk is written to produce a feel good response toward those members who think and believe differently, it is still a poor example for the Craft, IMO, and far from neutral in its presentation.

Unfortunately, it perfectly reflects the attitudes, assumptions, biases, preconceived notions and judgments of quite a few members within the Craft, so I suspect he was writing for a specific target audience and successfully so.

BTW - I have met quite a few people who have very strong beliefs and still lie like there is no tomorrow when they believe the opportunity demands it... some without even knowing that they are!


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

It might also be wise to remember that Carl Claudy was born in 1879, and died in 1957, he became a Mason in 1908.  I am sure that his writings were influenced by the times in which he wrote.


----------



## coachn

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> It might also be wise to remember that Carl Claudy was born in 1879, and died in 1957, he became a Mason in 1908.  I am sure that his writings were influenced by the times in which he wrote.


FOR SURE!!!!


----------



## Roy_

LAMason said:
			
		

> “The only requirement in regard to religious belief connected with a petitioner is that he profess his belief in a Supreme Being. No question of religious denomination shall be asked.”
> 
> My interpretation of this requirement is that a petitioner must answer the first question on the Grand Lodge of Louisiana “Petition for the Degrees in Masonry” “Do you believe in God?” with an unequivocal affirmative response to meet the requirement.
> 
> To me that does not mean he has to believe in any particular interpretation of what God is, just that he believe that there is one. If someone can answer the question with an unequivocal affirmative response, even if he considers himself to be an agnostic, then he meets the stated requirement.



That sounds quite a bit like the quote from the Belgian "adogmatic" FM that I gave earlier:


> The workplaces of the GLB labor in favour of the Grand Architect of the Universe and in the presence of the Book of Moral Law opened under Compass and Square, although the constitution of the GLB stipulates very explicitly that the interpretation of all symbols and the Grand Architect of the Universe and the Three Great Lights in particular, is completely free.



Yet the GLB is irregular.
I have tried to find out how that came about. The GLB was founded on 4/12/59. They have been recognised by UGLE for a few years after 1965. I think the reason they are no longer is that the GLB uses the GAOTU and Bible on paper, but not 'in the hearts of the members' (I have found no reference that politics in the lodge caused the GLB to split off from the Grand Orient of Belgium).

In any case,


			
				Point In A Circle said:
			
		

> How is a man that believes in a Supreme Being different from a man who does not? Why is that difference important to Masonry?


When in the lodge (or at the table), it does not really make much difference to me what kind of interpretation the other member has of the GAOTU or the Rite as long as his presence does not interfere with the experience of other people present. When I look at the regular Grand Orient of the Netherlands, almost every single FM I met, tells me he does not believe in anything, yet all strive to be better men and everyone 'collects his wages' from the Rite. However I find all this a(nti)religious talking strange, it does not really hinder me personally.

(Little offtopic sidenote, there are Belgian Grand Lodges and Orients that you can *not *join when you are member of a church. Quite different from the USA, right? That would certainly not be my kind of lodge.)


----------



## NY.Light.II

Roy_ said:


> That sounds quite a bit like the quote from the Belgian "adogmatic" FM that I gave earlier:
> 
> 
> Yet the GLB is irregular.
> I have tried to find out how that came about. The GLB was founded on 4/12/59. They have been recognised by UGLE for a few years after 1965. I think the reason they are no longer is that the GLB uses the GAOTU and Bible on paper, but not 'in the hearts of the members' (I have found no reference that politics in the lodge caused the GLB to split off from the Grand Orient of Belgium).
> 
> In any case,
> 
> When in the lodge (or at the table), it does not really make much difference to me what kind of interpretation the other member has of the GAOTU or the Rite as long as his presence does not interfere with the experience of other people present. When I look at the regular Grand Orient of the Netherlands, almost every single FM I met, tells me he does not believe in anything, yet all strive to be better men and everyone 'collects his wages' from the Rite. However I find all this a(nti)religious talking strange, it does not really hinder me personally.
> 
> (Little offtopic sidenote, there are Belgian Grand Lodges and Orients that you can *not *join when you are member of a church. Quite different from the USA, right? That would certainly not be my kind of lodge.)


 
First, the Grand Lodge of Belgium, in 1989, signed an agreement of mutual recognition with the Women's Grand Lodge of Belgium and the Belgian Federation of Le Droit Humain.  Recognition from UGLE was withdrawn in 1979.  This agreement would probably preclude any talk of reinstating regular amity with other GLs, especially since a regular Grand Lodge is in existence in Belgium, the Regular Grand Lodge of Belgium. (️ info extracted from Wikipedia).

Second, areligious an anti-religious are not synonymous. 

Third, I favor the position you describe in regards to religious non interference among brothers.  It could be carried forward that an agnostic or atheistic position could perhaps be tolerated if it did not obstruct the personal convictions of another brother.


----------



## Warrior1256

I was informed that the reason was that in order to be properly obligated you had to have a belief in a Supreme Being so that you could place your hand on the VSL of your particular belief to swear to uphold the obligations.


----------



## hanzosbm

Warrior1256 said:


> I was informed that the reason was that in order to be properly obligated you had to have a belief in a Supreme Being so that you could place your hand on the VSL of your particular belief to swear to uphold the obligations.


I was told the same, and, much like the rest of Freemasonry, the literal answer sorta answered the question, but not really.  At least not to me. 

That particular justification, that without a Supreme Being to swear to, that we couldn't take a man's word, in my mind falls apart when we compare other examples, such as swearing any kind of oath in the secular world.  Giving testimony, enlisting in the armed services, upholding one's duties to an elected office, all of these are things where a person is required to swear an oath, but we don't bar anyone from enlisting because they're an atheist.  Granted, in the secular world, one might cry discrimination and get things changed, but ultimately, I feel that the argument that one can't be trust without an oath sworn to a deity they believe in is the same (in my opinion flawed) argument that an atheist cannot be a good person without the fear of divine retribution. 

After much searching, I have found that deep down, Freemasonry is about our relationship with the Supreme Being.  Taking a journey whose destination holds no value to you is pointless.  Not only would it waste the time of the person on the journey, it threatens to cheapen it for those who are truly interested.


----------



## NY.Light.II

hanzosbm said:


> I was told the same, and, much like the rest of Freemasonry, the literal answer sorta answered the question, but not really.  At least not to me.
> 
> That particular justification, that without a Supreme Being to swear to, that we couldn't take a man's word, in my mind falls apart when we compare other examples, such as swearing any kind of oath in the secular world.  Giving testimony, enlisting in the armed services, upholding one's duties to an elected office, all of these are things where a person is required to swear an oath, but we don't bar anyone from enlisting because they're an atheist.  Granted, in the secular world, one might cry discrimination and get things changed, but ultimately, I feel that the argument that one can't be trust without an oath sworn to a deity they believe in is the same (in my opinion flawed) argument that an atheist cannot be a good person without the fear of divine retribution.
> 
> After much searching, I have found that deep down, Freemasonry is about our relationship with the Supreme Being.  Taking a journey whose destination holds no value to you is pointless.  Not only would it waste the time of the person on the journey, it threatens to cheapen it for those who are truly interested.



Full disclosure, I am not yet a Freemason.  So yes, there's that.

From this limited perspective, I always assumed Freemasonry was more geared towards understanding the self and the self in relation to others. It could be argued that that would include your description of "our relationship with the Supreme Being", yet that seems to narrow.


----------



## coachn

I: Why does Freemasonry require a belief in God?
R: Because their Scripts call for it.


----------



## cemab4y

There are many good answers here.  When the subject comes up, about Masonry excluding atheists, I respond:

"Atheists, exclude themselves from Masonry". The fraternity is about many things, but most importantly, it is about Man's relationship with his fellow man (I include women, in this context). I call this "horizontal", and a man's relationship with Deity, as vertical.

Masonry enables SOME men, to better understand his vertical relationship. Masonry can (and does) give its adherents the "working tools", to enhance their  religious lives.

Masonry enable SOME men, to better relate to others (horizontal).

By embracing men from a whole "rainbow" of faiths, and religious traditions, we teach ourselves the blessing of religious liberty and religious pluralism.

( I feel very strongly about this, I have lived in a communist country, and an Islamic kingdom. Masonry is forbidden in these nations. Communism is officially atheist, and Saudi Arabia forbids ALL religions except Islam)

Our democratic nation is the result of many things, but most importantly the Masonic traditions.

"Democracy is the worst from of government, except for all the others"
=Winston Churchill, Freemason


----------



## NY.Light.II

cemab4y said:


> There are many good answers here.  When the subject comes up, about Masonry excluding atheists, I respond:
> 
> "Atheists, exclude themselves from Masonry". The fraternity is about many things, but most importantly, it is about Man's relationship with his fellow man (I include women, in this context). I call this "horizontal", and a man's relationship with Deity, as vertical.
> 
> Masonry enables SOME men, to better understand his vertical relationship. Masonry can (and does) give its adherents the "working tools", to enhance their  religious lives.
> 
> Masonry enable SOME men, to better relate to others (horizontal).
> 
> By embracing men from a whole "rainbow" of faiths, and religious traditions, we teach ourselves the blessing of religious liberty and religious pluralism.
> 
> ( I feel very strongly about this, I have lived in a communist country, and an Islamic kingdom. Masonry is forbidden in these nations. Communism is officially atheist, and Saudi Arabia forbids ALL religions except Islam)
> 
> Our democratic nation is the result of many things, but most importantly the Masonic traditions.
> 
> "Democracy is the worst from of government, except for all the others"
> =Winston Churchill, Freemason



I think what the OP and others have been hinting at is whether the rainbow you describe is so expansive to include those of no religious tradition.


----------



## montkun

According to the Oaths and Obligations, I would say no to Atheists but yes to Agnostics. Though I think using the name God would create an internal conflict for an Agnostic.


----------



## Glen Cook

montkun said:


> According to the Oaths and Obligations, I would say no to Atheists but yes to Agnostics.....


That would not be correct in my jurisdictions.


----------



## NY.Light.II

While I am not accusing anyone here of this, there is a broader cultural fear of the term and state of "atheism" now, as was certainly the case during the time of the writing of Anderson's constitutions.  This is a fear that should be extinguished in the modern age.


----------



## Classical

There's a greater fear of theism!


----------



## NY.Light.II

Classical said:


> There's a greater fear of theism!



I don't follow. If it's a joke, I didn't get it. If it's serious, I disagree.


----------



## Warrior1256

hanzosbm said:


> After much searching, I have found that deep down, Freemasonry is about our relationship with the Supreme Being. Taking a journey whose destination holds no value to you is pointless. Not only would it waste the time of the person on the journey, it threatens to cheapen it for those who are truly interested.


This sounds good to me.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

NY.Light.II said:


> I think what the OP and others have been hinting at is whether the rainbow you describe is so expansive to include those of no religious tradition.


Actually the OP (that's me) was thinking about how the psychology of the human mind is affected by the acceptance of the concept of God.  
I am currently reading a book by the psychologist Carl Jung.  It amazes me how often he will explain some complex psychological concept and then offer a quote from some story about god as an example.  I use the phrase "some story about god" purposely because he does not limit his references to god to one religion.  He seems to think that the stories, myths, and legends that men tell about god are reflections of our human nature.  One of my favorite examples comes when he is explaining a particularly thorny psychological concept and then he says something like "That explains why Isis is both mother and wife to Horus".  Wow, Egyptian Mythology explained as a PhD level class in human psychology.  That's one I didn't see coming.

So, it seems possible that belief in god opens up new possibilities for understanding and working with one's self.


----------



## hanzosbm

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> So, it seems possible that belief in god opens up new possibilities for understanding and working with one's self.



That's assuming that there is a difference.


----------



## NY.Light.II

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> Actually the OP (that's me) was thinking about how the psychology of the human mind is affected by the acceptance of the concept of God.
> I am currently reading a book by the psychologist Carl Jung.  It amazes me how often he will explain some complex psychological concept and then offer a quote from some story about god as an example.  I use the phrase "some story about god" purposely because he does not limit his references to god to one religion.  He seems to think that the stories, myths, and legends that men tell about god are reflections of our human nature.  One of my favorite examples comes when he is explaining a particularly thorny psychological concept and then he says something like "That explains why Isis is both mother and wife to Horus".  Wow, Egyptian Mythology explained as a PhD level class in human psychology.  That's one I didn't see coming.
> 
> So, it seems possible that belief in god opens up new possibilities for understanding and working with one's self.



According to that description (I am only topically familiar with Jung, and, by extension, to Freud), any story from any religion is an abstraction of the human psyche. Jung's philosophy, based on your description alone, is man-centered, not, as is the case in most revelatory religions(Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) God-centered. I stand by my post as I do indeed think the conversation ha evolved in that direction, although I credit your critique. The question should stand alone.  Is the rainbow of ecumenical acceptance (to continue the use of this metaphor) broad enough to account for those who have no faith tradition?


----------



## NY.Light.II

JamestheJust said:


> This is an interesting question.  Is it possible for a man to recognise God without having been taught to do so?  If that is possible then a  faith tradition is not required.
> 
> Did Adam have a faith tradition?




While that is an interesting question, that's not quite what I was getting at. When I used the phrase I was referring to atheists.


----------



## hanzosbm

NY.Light.II said:


> While that is an interesting question, that's not quite what I was getting at. When I used the phrase I was referring to atheists.


No.

Freemasonry isn't about acceptance.  Everyone spouts that because it sounds good, but it's not the case.  Freemasonry requires a belief in a Supreme Being and that's all the further it goes.  That doesn't mean it is accepting of this religion and that religion, it means that those particular religions satisfy the requirement.  Atheists do not.

It would be like saying that this particular restroom is accepting and welcoming to all religions and philosophical beliefs.  It's a men's room.  It doesn't matter what their beliefs are; only that they are men.  Upon satisfying the requirement for entry, everything else is irrelevant.  This is the same situation with Freemasonry.  The Craft is not accepting of various religions, it simply does not care.   As long as the man has a belief in a supreme being, he's good to go.  Atheists do not.  There is no ecumenical acceptance.


----------



## NY.Light.II

hanzosbm said:


> No.
> 
> Freemasonry isn't about acceptance.  Everyone spouts that because it sounds good, but it's not the case.  Freemasonry requires a belief in a Supreme Being and that's all the further it goes.  That doesn't mean it is accepting of this religion and that religion, it means that those particular religions satisfy the requirement.  Atheists do not.
> 
> It would be like saying that this particular restroom is accepting and welcoming to all religions and philosophical beliefs.  It's a men's room.  It doesn't matter what their beliefs are; only that they are men.  Upon satisfying the requirement for entry, everything else is irrelevant.  This is the same situation with Freemasonry.  The Craft is not accepting of various religions, it simply does not care.   As long as the man has a belief in a supreme being, he's good to go.  Atheists do not.  There is no ecumenical acceptance.



I do not mean to suggest that Freemasonry should lower its standard of admission, or to put in other words, abandon the west gate.  I would argue that it may be possible to admit atheists on a moral grounds. Replace the bible for oaths with the Phaedo, the Nicomachean Ethics, Or some other appropriate godless ethicist text. Perhaps the bill of rights.


----------



## hanzosbm

I understand.  I don't agree with the idea, but we are free to have different ideas. 

As I put forth earlier, what is the purpose of giving a man the tools necessary to understanding his relationship with the Supreme Being if he doesn't believe in it to begin with?


----------



## coachn

JamestheJust said:


> Is it possible for an atheist to be a deist?
> 
> Are deists acceptable?


What does your Grand Lodge say about it?


----------



## NY.Light.II

JamestheJust said:


> Is it possible for an atheist to be a deist?
> 
> Are deists acceptable?



No. A deist is one who believes in a supernatural creative force. A theist believes in a supernatural creative force that is also a personal deity/ies (depending on your religion). An atheist rejects the a priori assumption of a supernatural creative force.

Many of the founding fathers, most notable Thomas Jefferson, were deists and believed in a firm separation of church and state (one of the great treasures of this constitutional republic).

Whether a deist could be a Freemason, I leave to the wisdom of the actual Masons here.


----------



## Classical

In Texas Freemasonry a man must also profess belief in the immortality of the soul.


----------



## NY.Light.II

JamestheJust said:


> This is quite important.  Without life after death there is no access to the temple in the heavens.


 Sounds like a possible story/metaphor to demonstrate a deeper point (see above Jung discussion).


----------



## MarkR

I'm making my way through Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry.  I just read his reason (and like all Masonic interpretations, it's his, and no one else is required to accept it) which is that someone who doesn't believe in a supreme being then necessarily considers himself to be the highest power in his own life, and thus is not receptive to the teachings aimed at improving him.  That's a rough paraphrasing, anyway.


----------



## coachn

NY.Light.II said:


> JamestheJust said: ↑
> This is quite important. Without life after death there is no access to the temple in the heavens.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a possible story/metaphor to demonstrate a deeper point (see above Jung discussion).
Click to expand...

_His disciples said to him, "When is the Kingdom of the Father going to come?" (Jesus said), "It is not by expectation for that it is going to come. They are not going to say, 'Here it is' or 'There it is.' Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread upon the earth, and people do not see it."_ -- The Gospel of Thomas​According to this, you already have access.


----------



## NY.Light.II

coachn said:


> _His disciples said to him, "When is the Kingdom of the Father going to come?" (Jesus said), "It is not by expectation for that it is going to come. They are not going to say, 'Here it is' or 'There it is.' Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread upon the earth, and people do not see it."_ -- The Gospel of Thomas​According to this, you already have access.



And according to this, I might burn or be in a garden after I die:

Quran 47:12

Verily Allah will admit those who believe and do righteous deeds, to Gardens beneath which rivers flow;
while those who reject Allah will enjoy (this world) and eat as cattle eat;
and the Fire will be their abode.

Scripture is not a reliable source to make an argument as one can pretty much find anything in it to support any argument. From any holy book.


----------



## NY.Light.II

MarkR said:


> I'm making my way through Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry.  I just read his reason (and like all Masonic interpretations, it's his, and no one else is required to accept it) which is that someone who doesn't believe in a supreme being then necessarily considers himself to be the highest power in his own life, and thus is not receptive to the teachings aimed at improving him.  That's a rough paraphrasing, anyway.



This argument is an assumption based on a specific contingency, and smacks a bit like the false adage "Atheists cannot be moral."  I would reject Mackey's assertion on its whole.


----------



## hanzosbm

NY.Light.II said:


> Scripture is not a reliable source to make an argument as one can pretty much find anything in it to support any argument. From any holy book.




Of course scripture is a reliable source to make an argument.  This argument is around belief systems.  Most of the world's main belief systems have a scripture of some sort.  And to go further, what Brother Nagy was talking about was about a specific reference to where to find the Kingdom of Heaven.


----------



## hanzosbm

coachn said:


> _His disciples said to him, "When is the Kingdom of the Father going to come?" (Jesus said), "It is not by expectation for that it is going to come. They are not going to say, 'Here it is' or 'There it is.' Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread upon the earth, and people do not see it."_ -- The Gospel of Thomas​According to this, you already have access.


To go further, my personal favorite:

Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."--Gospel of Thomas


----------



## coachn

NY.Light.II said:


> And according to this, I might burn or be in a garden after I die:
> 
> Quran 47:12
> 
> Verily Allah will admit those who believe and do righteous deeds, to Gardens beneath which rivers flow;
> while those who reject Allah will enjoy (this world) and eat as cattle eat;
> and the Fire will be their abode.
> 
> Scripture is not a reliable source to make an argument as one can pretty much find anything in it to support any argument. From any holy book.


LOL!  Who's arguing.  It was offered merely to provoke insight into other possibilities to perpend.


----------



## dfreybur

Classical said:


> In Texas Freemasonry a man must also profess belief in the immortality of the soul.



Necessary in some states not others.  I've never studied why that divergence happened in different regions.

When I read the term "faith tradition" I thought of someone who has decided to believe in the existence of a supreme being but who has decided to not participate in any particular religion.  Such an individual is welcome into our family because our requirement is belief in the existence of a supreme being.  Deciding to participate in a particular religion is common but not universal in our family.  It would never occur to me to use the term "faith tradition" in association with atheism.


----------



## hanzosbm

dfreybur said:


> It would never occur to me to use the term "faith tradition" in association with atheism.


Agreed.  Atheism is the absence of faith.  That'd be like categorizing vegetarianism as a meat tradition.


----------



## NY.Light.II

hanzosbm said:


> Agreed.  Atheism is the absence of faith.  That'd be like categorizing vegetarianism as a meat tradition.



I don't believe I classified atheism as a faith tradition. I think what I said was "no faith tradition". I apologize for any confusion.


----------



## coachn

Some have argued, and done so quite convincingly, that Atheism is a Religion.  To some degree, I agree, especially in regard to the practices of the radical in-your-face promoters of their faith.


----------



## Classical

Well, atheists have sects and heresies. They have disparate schools of thought and are engaged in public disputation. They also place their current lives and future prospects in the hands of this system of thought. If this is not the very definition of religion, what is?


----------



## coachn

Classical said:


> Well, atheists have sects and heresies. They have disparate schools of thought and are engaged in public disputation. They also place their current lives and future prospects in the hands of this system of thought. If this is not the very definition of religion, what is?


And the most humorous aspect of this is how much focus on God is actually involved in their efforts.  Quite Ironic.


----------



## dfreybur

coachn said:


> Some have argued, and done so quite convincingly, that Atheism is a Religion.  To done degree, I agree, especially in regard to the practices of the radical in-your-face promoters of their faith.



Atheism is a religious choice, whether you consider it a religion or not.  There are atheists who argue that we are all born atheists but an infant's lack of knowledge is definitely not a decision to not believe nor a decision to not participate.

Religion has a list of sufficient but not necessary features.  Among them is dogma.  The in-your-face type of atheists definitely have dogma.


----------



## Glen Cook

So, they set up a prayer line for atheists: you call but no one answers. 

They set up another for agnostics. You call, but you just don't know if anyone answers


----------



## NY.Light.II

dfreybur said:


> Atheism is a religious choice, whether you consider it a religion or not.  There are atheists who argue that we are all born atheists but an infant's lack of knowledge is definitely not a decision to not believe nor a decision to not participate.
> 
> Religion has a list of sufficient but not necessary features.  Among them is dogma.  The in-your-face type of atheists definitely have dogma.



This is false on its face.  Atheism is not a religion. It is the complete rejection of religious belief or practice predicated on a lack of evidence for religious belief.   Even if one could establish a belief in a supernatural belief (deists), all their work is still ahead of them to tie it to a specific faith tradition (that term again). Atheism rejects both of these hypothetical explanations.  

I concede that some Atheists may be as close-minded in argumentation style and personality. But to label atheism as a religion is objectively false. I think Classic's description of atheism as a school of thought, one that is supported by evidence, is most accurate.


----------



## NY.Light.II

Classical said:


> Well, atheists have sects and heresies. They have disparate schools of thought and are engaged in public disputation. They also place their current lives and future prospects in the hands of this system of thought. If this is not the very definition of religion, what is?



Religion is defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." Atheism is more properly a school of thought.


----------



## hanzosbm

NY.Light.II said:


> Religion is defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." Atheism is more properly a school of thought.


That is ONE definition of religion, and it does  not fit with one of the world's largest religions (Buddhism), so I am apt to dismiss it.


----------



## NY.Light.II

hanzosbm said:


> That is ONE definition of religion, and it does  not fit with one of the world's largest religions (Buddhism), so I am apt to dismiss it.



Buddhism

The belief in: Gautama Buddha and his nirvana. Is he a personal God/enlightened prophet? Not sure (I'm not a member of or an expert in Buddhism).
Worship: meditation (the common ritual throughout all religious strains of Buddhism).

It should be noted that many debate whether Buddhism is more a religion or a philosophy.

Regardless. This is a side-point.  I fail to see why an absence of belief in deity should preclude a man being made a mason, outside of "well the landmark says so."  That's a valid reason, but if that's the only reason provided, one must admit that it's fails objective scrutiny. Saying "that's just how it is" is not an objectively driven defense.


----------



## coachn

NY.Light.II said:


> ... I fail to see why an absence of belief in deity should preclude a man being made a mason, outside of "well the landmark says so."  That's a valid reason, but if that's the only reason provided, one must admit that it's fails objective scrutiny. Saying "that's just how it is" is not an objectively driven defense.


The scripts call for believers.  Believers are not only the target market, but it is what other members want as a qualifier for entry and participation.


----------



## Classical

I'm just an EA waiting for FC, so I am not a scholar on this matter. But I will say this: I joined Freemasonry in part because of its being rooted in divine wisdom (however the mason chooses to define that). Upholding my belief in a Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul upon my initiation was a profound experience. If God had been left out it would have been an empty ceremony. 

I don't understand people who join something so that they can transform its fundamentals into something else. If you don't like an organization's commitments, then find another one. That's my opinion. Interesting discussion!


----------



## coachn

JamestheJust said:


> In my view the issue is not whether the candidate is a theist or a deist or a believer in The Force.
> ...


----------



## hanzosbm

NY.Light.II said:


> I fail to see why an absence of belief in deity should preclude a man being made a mason, outside of "well the landmark says so."  That's a valid reason, but if that's the only reason provided, one must admit that it's fails objective scrutiny. Saying "that's just how it is" is not an objectively driven defense.



I have stated several times throughout this thread why an athiest should not be made a Mason outside of the landmark, as have several others.

I'm going to go ahead and take a wild leap and say that you are an atheist who wants to become a Mason.  I was once in your shoes.  I also didn't like it and argued that it shouldn't be that way and was frustrated about it.  Now, from the other side looking back, I am telling you, there is a good reason for it and it's not going to change.  I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well, but believe me when I tell you that without belief in a Supreme Being, an atheist would soon find himself bored by Freemasonry anyway.  Sometimes, it's just not a good fit, no matter how badly you want it to be.


----------



## Glen Cook

JamestheJust said:


> In my view the issue is not whether the candidate is a theist or a deist or a believer in The Force.
> 
> The issue seems to me that the candidate must be committed to some higher good than him/herself.  This higher good can be conceptualized as a divine plan or stewardship of the planet or serving the Light or carrying out dharma or the perfection of humanity.
> 
> In the Christian context this commitment to a higher good is put in terms of God and Christ, but for those from other traditions it is framed differently.
> 
> It is recognition of a higher obligation that is critical rather than the words used to represent that obligation.


That is not correct in regular Freemasonry


----------



## Glen Cook

coachn said:


> The scripts call for believers.  Believers are not only the target market, but it is what other members want as a qualifier for entry and participation.


Pretty much sums it up.


----------



## Glen Cook

NY.Light.II said:


> Buddhism
> 
> ....  I fail to see why an absence of belief in deity should preclude a man being made a mason, outside of "well the landmark says so."  That's a valid reason, but if that's the only reason provided, one must admit that it's fails objective scrutiny. Saying "that's just how it is" is not an objectively driven defense.



Because it's what we want.  No "defense" is required.  It need not pass any rationality test.  There are fraternities which have no religious test.  No defense is required for those fraternities either.  There are fraternities which are Christian (Masonic and non-Masonic).  No defense required for them.


----------



## coachn

Glen Cook said:


> coachn said: ↑
> The scripts call for believers. Believers are not only the target market, but it is what other members want as a qualifier for entry and participation.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much sums it up.Pretty much sums it up.
Click to expand...

This message brought to you by the script writers at Consolidated F&AM Inc.


----------



## Derek Barclay

So much of what we speak is clouded by interpretation. I think that's why I'm inclined to speak with 'robust' words - in a futile attempt to simplify what it is I'm trying to convey.

I am atheistic. It is not a choice.
I understand the importance of honesty and humanism without an exterior guide.
The thing I call 'I' will no longer exist when my life comes to an end, so it seems.

Why are these thoughts a deterrent to your wanting to fraternize with someone like myself?
If you say you can be a friend to someone like myself but simply don't think I could be a good mason, why is that?
How can you compartmentalize life?

I'm aware these questions have probably been addressed ad nauseum, and I'm genuinely sorry if that annoys yall.


----------



## Glen Cook

I can be friends with an atheist.  Heck, I can even be friends with a Texan.    . 

See John Nagy's post above as to why we have the requirement.  

Let me ask this:  why would you want to devote a significant part of your life and wealth to a  system based upon religious writings, promises made in the name of Deity, and lectures based upon the immortality of the soul?


----------



## Derek Barclay

Well I should hope so!  We Texans are a friendly bunch.

I'm aware that the order does not want non-believers to be members. I'm trying to figure out why. Again, please don't misinterpret my tone. I'm not upset. Just curious. So far, the only reason yall seem to give is 'because they said so.'

I'm currently looking for something bigger than myself to contribute my time to. I think that that's what gives people genuine happiness, to be a part of something bigger. I, unfortunately, do not have a deity to turn to. I'm forced to turn to my fellow human beings. I'm not so much trying to join the fraternity anymore. I stated in the other thread that I've all but written off the possibility of my joining the group. Again, just curious.

The moment yall tell me to f*** off, I will. haha


----------



## Derek Barclay

I petitioned an order of La Droit Humain based out of Colorado, and was accepted, but their presence in Texas is only virtual. At the time I felt like I needed a physical lodge to attend, but I'm re-thinking this. I've also found a couple of irregular masonic groups on Meetups so that's something I may pursue.

My vision of a successful future for our species is one that lacks division, in any and all respects. If I were to join an irregular order, I'm sure a priority concern of mine would be to consolidate all of the lodges.


----------



## Derek Barclay

I've often wondered why people put an emphasis on ritual. It's a symbol. The meat is underneath. Of course, when it comes to masonry, EA come to understand that quickly, I'm sure, once they are shown what the symbols represent, but I've never heard anyone come out and say that symbols are just symbols. They have only the power we give them. Money is a prime example. It is literally nothing. Our beliefs make it into something greater. Few seem to understand that and even fewer seem to want to talk about it.


----------



## coachn

Derek Barclay said:


> I've often wondered why people put an emphasis on ritual. It's a symbol. The meat is underneath. Of course, when it comes to masonry, EA come to understand that quickly, I'm sure, once they are shown what the symbols represent, but I've never heard anyone come out and say that symbols are just symbols. They have only the power we give them. Money is a prime example. It is literally nothing. Our beliefs make it into something greater. Few seem to understand that and even fewer seem to want to talk about it.


The same compelling forces drive far too many men to worship a law giver, teacher and general wisdom provider, rather than what these individuals try to provide.  Such is the general demeanor of many.  Highly Organized Superficiality is an Art-form and it is sought after in mass at times.


----------



## hanzosbm

Derek Barclay said:


> I'm aware that the order does not want non-believers to be members. I'm trying to figure out why. Again, please don't misinterpret my tone. I'm not upset. Just curious. So far, the only reason yall seem to give is 'because they said so.'



I have given reasons, but since those reasons have been overlooked by yourself and others, I'll repeat them.

As others have mentioned, Freemasonry teaches us lessons to guide our thoughts and actions. As others have pointed out, the lessons help guide us on how to conduct ourselves in terms of interacting with our fellow humans, and the world as a whole. However, ultimately, when one digs deeply enough, it also teaches us how and where we fit into the grand scheme of things and I would go so far to even saying the meaning of life. And all of that centers around our relationship with God, by whatever name one chooses to use. 
If the end goal is to explain our relationship with something that you don't believe in, what is the point? Furthermore, having someone arguing against the basic tenets from within would be destructive.


----------



## coachn

hanzosbm said:


> Derek Barclay said: ↑
> I'm aware that the order does not want non-believers to be members. I'm trying to figure out why. Again, please don't misinterpret my tone. I'm not upset. Just curious. So far, the only reason yall seem to give is 'because they said so.'
> 
> 
> 
> I have given reasons, but since those reasons have been overlooked by yourself and others, I'll repeat them.
> 
> As others have mentioned, Freemasonry teaches us lessons to guide our thoughts and actions. As others have pointed out, the lessons help guide us on how to conduct ourselves in terms of interacting with our fellow humans, and the world as a whole. However, ultimately, when one digs deeply enough, it also teaches us how and where we fit into the grand scheme of things and I would go so far to even saying the meaning of life. And all of that centers around our relationship with God, by whatever name one chooses to use.
> If the end goal is to explain our relationship with something that you don't believe in, what is the point? Furthermore, having someone arguing against the basic tenets from within would be destructive.
Click to expand...

Frankly Derek,

Your persistence on this matter is astounding.  It makes no sense whatsoever.  Think about it...

1) Would it make sense to try to sell anything to someone who doesn't a) believe in or b) need what you are selling? 
2) And furthermore, does it make any sense to try to explain yourself to those who do not need or want what you have to offer? 
3) To handle an objection from someone who doesn't need or want what you're selling makes as much sense.​
This is simple business 101.  The target market is the target market.  Anyone that falls outside this target market is not a target.  The program offers what it offers to the target market and no one outside this range is a viable target for product and services.  Once a person filters themselves out, they are no longer a target.  To waste any effort upon a non-viable target would be nonsense.  To justify the filtering to a non-target is also nonsense. 

In other words, you're either a believer or not.  The reason "why" is already provided therein.  You simply are trying to make a bigger deal of this by continually asking "why" and not accepting the reasons provided.  Chose and move on.

Coach


----------



## Derek Barclay

hanzosbm said:


> As others have mentioned, Freemasonry teaches us lessons to guide our thoughts and actions. As others have pointed out, the lessons help guide us on how to conduct ourselves in terms of interacting with our fellow humans, and the world as a whole. However, ultimately, when one digs deeply enough, it also teaches us how and where we fit into the grand scheme of things and I would go so far to even saying the meaning of life. And all of that centers around our relationship with God, by whatever name one chooses to use.



If all people understood the meaning of life and the optimum way of interacting with the world and its' people, wouldn't that make for a better world for all? Why sell a cure when you can give it away? If the teachings of Freemasonry helped convince one of God's presence, would it not be better to welcome all, especially the doubters?

My lack of belief in God is not a choice. Freewill is akin to being a train conductor - yeah, you're in control alright. I tried to make it clear that I'm not making a big deal out of this. I still ain't. I'm not annoyed, and I'm sorry that yall are. I apologize.
I told yall to let me know if you wanted me to leave it alone.  I think now I will.


----------



## NY.Light.II

Derek Barclay said:


> If all people understood the meaning of life and the optimum way of interacting with the world and its' people, wouldn't that make for a better world for all? Why sell a cure when you can give it away? If the teachings of Freemasonry helped convince one of God's presence, would it not be better to welcome all, especially the doubters?
> 
> My lack of belief in God is not a choice. Freewill is akin to being a train conductor - yeah, you're in control alright. I tried to make it clear that I'm not making a big deal out of this. I still ain't. I'm not annoyed, and I'm sorry that yall are. I apologize.
> I told yall to let me know if you wanted me to leave it alone.  I think now I will.



Lack of belief is a choice. It's not genetic; it is an intentional decision to place faith in something or not to.  I respect your atheistic thought. But don't degrade by falsely claiming it is not a choice.


----------



## Derek Barclay

NY.Light.II said:


> Lack of belief is a choice. It's not genetic; it is an intentional decision to place faith in something or not to. I respect your atheistic thought. But don't degrade by falsely claiming it is not a choice.



I'm sincerely confused by this position. It isn't the first time I've heard it, and I often try to get at the core of what people mean when they say it, and why they believe it to be so. The irony is I don't believe it was your choice to think that way.

Everything about me - my looks, my desires, my thoughts and my intentions - they are all predicated on the events and environments that have made up my life. How can I choose to not believe in something? Again, I genuinely do not understand the sentiment.

I know I said I'd leave it alone, but your post seemed to warrant a response.


----------



## Ressam

Derek Barclay said:


> If all people understood the meaning of life and the optimum way of interacting with the world and its' people, wouldn't that make for a better world for all? Why sell a cure when you can give it away? If the teachings of Freemasonry helped convince one of God's presence, would it not be better to welcome all, especially the doubters?
> 
> My lack of belief in God is not a choice. Freewill is akin to being a train conductor - yeah, you're in control alright. I tried to make it clear that I'm not making a big deal out of this. I still ain't. I'm not annoyed, and I'm sorry that yall are. I apologize.
> I told yall to let me know if you wanted me to leave it alone.  I think now I will.



It's very bad ! Bad that -- you are an atheist!
You're may be a good guy! But, if you don't believe in God -- you are not able to take -- "God's Grace",
God's help, God's power. When you're prayin'.
This is important. Fraternity is Energy. It has The Egregore.
If you are an atheist -- you'll break The Lodge Harmony, moreover,
you'll not be able to "feed" The Egregore by your Energy!
Regular Masonry is not for you! That's true!
May be "Droit Humain" is what you need! Good luck!


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

NY.Light.II said:


> Lack of belief is a choice. It's not genetic; it is an intentional decision to place faith in something or not to.  I respect your atheistic thought. But don't degrade by falsely claiming it is not a choice.


I know that I should not be responding to NYL's post.  The reason that I should not be responding is that the post itself is about God, and not about logic.  And my problem with the post is not about anyone's stance on God, it is about the logic of the argument that is being used.  Interestingly, I have the same logic problem with Derek's statement;


Derek Barclay said:


> Everything about me - my looks, my desires, my thoughts and my intentions - they are all predicated on the events and environments that have made up my life. How can I choose to not believe in something? Again, I genuinely do not understand the sentiment.


Both of these statements appear to me to be predicated that on the idea that "I" have all the information.  Or at least that I have all the information that I need to make the decision.  To NYL I would propose the idea that a person is not truly making a choice unless they have all the information.  If they do not have all the necessary information they are simply guessing, not choosing.  To Derek I would point out that "Everything about me" is predicated on far more than "the events and environments that have made up my life".  Both statements are based on the idea that the the person making the statement knows everything.  
There, now I have offended everyone.  Lucky me!


----------



## Derek Barclay

I think you guys are too smart for me. Don't let the intermediate vocab fool you - I am an ignoramus... yet it is not my choice 

I do appreciate all of the responses. These kinds of discussions amuse me. Never stop amusing yourself.


----------



## hanzosbm

Derek Barclay said:


> If all people understood the meaning of life and the optimum way of interacting with the world and its' people, wouldn't that make for a better world for all? Why sell a cure when you can give it away? If the teachings of Freemasonry helped convince one of God's presence, would it not be better to welcome all, especially the doubters.



As a non believer, if I told you that the meaning of life was wrapped up in one's relationship with God, would you believe me? Of course not. It would be foolish to accept a conclusion based on what you feel to be incorrect rationale. 

As for your questions, I can't speak for everyone, but for me, I welcome earnest questions. However, when my responses to those questions are challenged, there is the beginning of a shift from sharing knowledge to arguing. The prior I'm happy to do, the latter I have no interest in.


----------



## Derek Barclay

hanzosbm said:


> As a non believer, if I told you that the meaning of life was wrapped up in one's relationship with God, would you believe me? Of course not. It would be foolish to accept a conclusion based on what you feel to be incorrect rationale.


I think I would accept a proposition given enough evidence for the case. Perhaps one has to believe first for the evidence to come to light - though I'm not sure how that would work because I don't appear to form my convictions consciously.



hanzosbm said:


> As for your questions, I can't speak for everyone, but for me, I welcome earnest questions. However, when my responses to those questions are challenged, there is the beginning of a shift from sharing knowledge to arguing. The prior I'm happy to do, the latter I have no interest in.



I don't intend to be argumentative or challenge your responses, merely extrapolate. I really am just trying to have a conversation, and I'm sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Derek Barclay

Maybe I'm just not mature enough yet. Maybe I will never be. I don't really know what you're trying to say with that last post. I understand the words invdividually, to a degree, but to read them arranged as you have them leaves me confused. Your attempt to explain it to me does show your concern however, and for that I'm appreciative.


----------



## Glen Cook

Derek Barclay said:


> Maybe I'm just not mature enough yet. Maybe I will never be. I don't really know what you're trying to say with that last post. I understand the words invdividually, to a degree, but to read them arranged as you have them leaves me confused. Your attempt to explain it to me does show your concern however, and for that I'm appreciative.


I doubt if most of us understood it.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

Disclaimer: I have no idea if James' intent is the same as my interpretation.


JamestheJust said:


> Actually the process of recognizing that Life has a meaning is not based on reason or evidence but on experience.


I say something similar when I tell people "Life does not have meaning, it has purpose.  When you find your purpose and begin working toward it you create meaning in your life".   


JamestheJust said:


> The human experiences Life through a body of both subtle and dense matter.


Dense matter refers to the physical world.  Subtle matter refers to the non-physical self; thoughts, emotions, inspiration, intuition, etc.


JamestheJust said:


> Freemasonry encourages progressive control over the various desires that manifest through the physical body and that leads to recognition of the reality of the meaning of Life.


A person who does not control themselves is not able to direct the course of their life.  If a person does not find a purpose or focus for their life they will find less meaning than someone who does.


JamestheJust said:


> The meaning (source) of Life in some cultures is labelled God.  This is not to be confused with the various gods of human traditions, where the theologians commonly claimed that their tribal god was God.


This is a caution against confusing God with religion.  Sometimes people will see the many faults found in religion and think that God must not exist.  Religion is a vehicle that is intended to get what James refers to as the "subtle matter" to it's best possible destination.  This is like driving a 1998 Ford to Chicago.  Sure the car will get you there, but you should never allow yourself to believe that Chicago IS a 1998 Ford just because that is how YOU got there.


----------



## Derek Barclay

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> I say something similar when I tell people "Life does not have meaning, it has purpose. When you find your purpose and begin working toward it you create meaning in your life".


I can agree with that. Currently, my purpose is to figure out what would be the best way to live my life and to provide a certain level of comfort for my mom so that she doesn't have to work until she dies. I also feel like my purpose to to make sure I don't lose my mind because frankly, sometimes my grasp on reality is slippery.



pointwithinacircle2 said:


> A person who does not control themselves is not able to direct the course of their life. If a person does not find a purpose or focus for their life they will find less meaning than someone who does.


I agree with this as well, though I'm no longer convinced that I'm in control as much as our subjective experience lets on.
I don't consider my Self to be something riding behind my eyes. I don't consider my Self to have a body; rather 'I' am my body, my mind, & even the world at large because it appears to all be interconnected.



pointwithinacircle2 said:


> This is a caution against confusing God with religion. Sometimes people will see the many faults found in religion and think that God must not exist.


I try not to fall victim to that fallacy. I lack a belief in an overseeing conscious entity, guiding the happenings of our lives. If that were to be the case, I'd imagine the world and its' people would be more at peace, but I'm also aware that that could simply be a failure of perception on my part.


----------



## Ressam

JamestheJust said:


> Actually the process of recognizing that Life has a meaning is not based on reason or evidence but on experience.
> 
> The human experiences Life through a body of both subtle and dense matter.  As the human establishes control over the  various physical desires, the human necessarily recognizes that it has existence beyond the levels on which those desires exist.
> 
> The highest of the desires related to the physical world is the desire for power over that physical world.  Once the human has that desire under control, the human necessarily understands that it exists beyond the physical world - because the physical world is now seen as less than the human.
> 
> The human then recognizes that Life has meaning, but still has no idea of the nature of that meaning.
> 
> The meaning (source) of Life in some cultures is labelled God.  This is not to be confused with the various gods of human traditions, where the theologians commonly claimed that their tribal god was God.
> 
> Freemasonry encourages progressive control over the various desires that manifest through the physical body and that leads to recognition of the reality of the meaning of Life.


 
Life of Human Beings is -- Belief/Faith. Belief=Life.
It's the function of our immortal "souls". To believe.
"Soul" is the "small part of God" inside of us.
God's Desire is that: He wants his Children to be happy.


----------



## Derek Barclay

JamestheJust said:


> You are probably aware of the Gaia Theory http://www.gaiatheory.org/ in which the Earth is seen to have been so responsive in rebalancing after external stimuli that it is useful to think of it as alive. This is a scientific rediscovery of the ancient belief in the aliveness of the Earth Mother.
> 
> So if the Earth is alive then most of the other planets must be also. Then we ask if the solar system behaves as if it is alive - and the galaxy and the universe.


I've certainly viewed this as a possibility. Atoms form cells which form my body, including my brain, which results in consciousness. I can see how the concept could be expanded to include the world, the galaxies, and the universe as a whole - and perhaps it too results in a consciousness.



JamestheJust said:


> So we have possibility that universe itself may have an indwelling intelligence. In Freemasonry this intelligence is referred to as the Great Architect of the Universe.


But here is where I hit a speedbump. Are plants & animals intelligent? They are alive, no doubt, but to say they are aware the way that we are aware may be a mistake. And maybe it's true. I can't say I believe one way or the other. To aspire for absolute honesty, I must say "I don't know."



JamestheJust said:


> I doubt that the GAOTU sees individual humans unless their light is unusually bright.


What do you mean by 'light'?


----------



## Derek Barclay

JamestheJust said:


> The spirit in the human manifests through a system of progressively denser energy bodies, down through mental, emotional and physical.
> 
> Each of these energy bodies comprises a spectrum or octave from densest to most ethereal substance/energy.
> 
> Thus a human whose energy bodies exist at the dense end of each spectrum, in common parlance, has heavy vibes, because that is what the energy bodies contain and transmit - heavy thoughts and feelings.
> 
> As the human refines its physical body (lifestyle and diet) and emotional body (right relationships) and mental body (creative thoughts), those bodies shed the unused heavy substance to become progressively lighter.



I read this and re-read it multiple times - all while looking up definitions of many of the words. I still am not sure what you are trying to convey.



JamestheJust said:


> Freemasonry teaches the brethren to improve emotional and mental patterns and this allows a natural increase in the internal light of each brother.



If my thought processes keep me from believing, it seems yall could help me see the light by showing me the way to improve my emotional and mental patterns.

Can't you just tell me what to do, in layman lingo?  Perhaps I'm giving myself too much credit, but I think if I had a cure to what ails someone, I'd just give it to them.


----------



## Glen Cook

Derek Barclay said:


> I read this and re-read it multiple times - all while looking up definitions of many of the words. I still am not sure what you are trying to convey.
> 
> 
> 
> If my thought processes keep me from believing, it seems yall could help me see the light by showing me the way to improve my emotional and mental patterns.
> 
> Can't you just tell me what to do, in layman lingo?  Perhaps I'm giving myself too much credit, but I think if I had a cure to what ails someone, I'd just give it to them.


No, you are giving us too much credit. We do not have the abilities of which you indicate you are in need. You may be surprised at the number of mentally ill Masons whom I've represented.


----------



## Derek Barclay

I'm relatively clean. I consume cannabis, though lately not so much. I've quite smoking cigarettes after being a pack/day smoker for more than 6 years. I still need to excercise more, though I can't seem to do it.

Over the last several years I have grown a great appreciation for the people in my life; unfortunately it has been the result of people dying and my mother losing her foot. Sometimes I hate myself for that.

Most of my thoughts are generally optimistic, and I try to create music on a daily basis, but I often fail on that front.

Morality, in my mind, is epitomized in the Golden Rule, which I strive to adhere to... but I often fail on that front as well.

Much of my frustration comes from my seemingly lack of free will. Is this just an error in judgment? How do yall think I could change this?


----------



## Bill Lins

Derek Barclay said:


> Most of my thoughts are generally optimistic, and I try to create music on a daily basis, but I often fail on that front.
> 
> Morality, in my mind, is epitomized in the Golden Rule, which I strive to adhere to... but I often fail on that front as well.
> 
> Much of my frustration comes from my seemingly lack of free will. Is this just an error in judgment? How do yall think I could change this?


It is not a "lack of free will", it IS free will. What is lacking is the self-discipline needed to accomplish those things one desires to accomplish. No one else can do it for you- you must, if it is important enough to you, do it for yourself.


----------



## coachn

Derek Barclay said:


> ...Much of my frustration comes from my seemingly lack of free will. Is this just an error in judgment? How do yall think I could change this?


Let's cut the BS with a simple syllogism Derek,

*If*_ 
1) you do indeed believe that you do not have free will, _
*
Then*_ 
2) you do believe that you're not in control of asking how you can change your free will,_
and_ 
3) you do believe that you are not in control of your doubt over your judgments,_
and_ 
4) you do believe that you are also not in control of your will to not accept free will_
and
5) _you do believe that_ _you are not in control of your non-belief in free will.  _
*
Furthermore*,_ 
6) you do believe that you are not in control of your belief in God not existing.  
_
*Therefore*,_ 
7) Should we precede down this path _
and
_8) not waste precious resources, 
9) first convince me through sound premise and sound argument that you have free will _
and
_10) that you can exercise this free will fully, _
and
_11) without any excuses that something outside your control has greater influence over your thinking, reasoning, emotions, decisions and choices than you, _
and_ 
12) I shall seriously entertain the notion that you are indeed in control of your request.
_
*Otherwise,*
_13) I shall have to *take it on faith* that, from what you share, you are not in control and *something or someone else who is more powerful* *than you* is using you as a sock-puppet and this conversation is a waste of time for those participating on this thread._

_Are you doing the math?

_


----------



## coachn

Derek Barclay said:


> JamestheJust said: ↑
> I doubt that the GAOTU sees individual humans unless their light is unusually bright.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by 'light'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JamestheJust said: ↑
> The spirit in the human manifests through a system of progressively denser energy bodies, down through mental, emotional and physical.
> 
> Each of these energy bodies comprises a spectrum or octave from densest to most ethereal substance/energy.
> 
> Thus a human whose energy bodies exist at the dense end of each spectrum, in common parlance, has heavy vibes, because that is what the energy bodies contain and transmit - heavy thoughts and feelings.
> 
> As the human refines its physical body (lifestyle and diet) and emotional body (right relationships) and mental body (creative thoughts), those bodies shed the unused heavy substance to become progressively lighter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read this and re-read it multiple times - all while looking up definitions of many of the words. I still am not sure what you are trying to convey.
Click to expand...

You are not alone in that unsuredness.  Be forewarned: the fertility is not in the words you ponder herein; it lay in ultimately concluding that there are much more powerful ways to communicate simple ideas without using esoteric words that only appear to be communicating something of substance.

He could have simply said, "_I believe_ _God only sees those who appear brighter than others", _rather than, "_I doubt that the GAOTU sees individual humans unless their light is unusually bright."_



Derek Barclay said:


> Can't you just tell me what to do, in layman lingo?


No.  I cannot.  I shall not.  I will not.


----------



## hanzosbm

My belief is very similar to the one given by James the Just; that we are born with natural, animalistic impulses.  We are also given free will and have been given, by some avenue or another, instruction on what is right and what is wrong.  It is up to us to use our free will and, as Bill_Lins put it, our self discipline, to overcome those instincts and do what we know is right. 
In Freemasonry we often say that we give men tools to make themselves better.  The fact of the matter is, every man already has the tools.  Explaining to a man that he should be a good person by way of metaphors doesn't give him any more direction than just telling him he should be a good person.  To me, the benefit of Freemasonry is putting into context WHY he should be a good person.  I've heard it said that current generations don't know the difference between right and wrong.  I call BS on that.  They/we know, they/we just choose to ignore it.  Let's be honest, the carnal pleasures of life are fun.  I could spend the weekend knocking over a liquor store and using the money to buy hookers and blow and have a great time, so why don't I?  Because I know it's wrong (and some other reasons, but it's an example, just go with it).  So, what is the benefit of doing the right thing?  Ready for the bombshell?  Okay, here it is...in MY opinion...not a damn thing.  There is absolutely no benefit (in terms of the big picture) to right action.  HOWEVER, there is infinite benefit to becoming a good person, and becoming a good person has to do with diligently working to rid oneself of those base instincts that serve as motivation to do bad things.  It is only through the constant application of self discipline that we can hope to ultimately transform ourselves.  And I honestly believe it is the most difficult task that someone can ever undertake, but also the most important. 
I work on it every day, and I fail everyday.  Some days I do great, others, I mess up.  But I keep working at it relentlessly and I can say for certain that I am better today than I was a year ago, and if I remain vigilant, I'll be better in a year than I am today.  My goal is to someday be perfect.  Impossible you say?  Maybe, but I can guarantee that I'll fail if I don't try.

(For the brothers here, yes, I realize how similar all of this sounds.  I could've written the whole thing with Masonic symbolism, but I refrained for non-Masons.  If you are a Freemason and don't know what I mean, reread it, think about our symbols, particularly from the 3rd section of the 1st degree)


----------



## NY.Light.II

hanzosbm said:


> My belief is very similar to the one given by James the Just; that we are born with natural, animalistic impulses.  We are also given free will and have been given, by some avenue or another, instruction on what is right and what is wrong.  It is up to us to use our free will and, as Bill_Lins put it, our self discipline, to overcome those instincts and do what we know is right.
> In Freemasonry we often say that we give men tools to make themselves better.  The fact of the matter is, every man already has the tools.  Explaining to a man that he should be a good person by way of metaphors doesn't give him any more direction than just telling him he should be a good person.  To me, the benefit of Freemasonry is putting into context WHY he should be a good person.  I've heard it said that current generations don't know the difference between right and wrong.  I call BS on that.  They/we know, they/we just choose to ignore it.  Let's be honest, the carnal pleasures of life are fun.  I could spend the weekend knocking over a liquor store and using the money to buy hookers and blow and have a great time, so why don't I?  Because I know it's wrong (and some other reasons, but it's an example, just go with it).  So, what is the benefit of doing the right thing?  Ready for the bombshell?  Okay, here it is...in MY opinion...not a damn thing.  There is absolutely no benefit (in terms of the big picture) to right action.  HOWEVER, there is infinite benefit to becoming a good person, and becoming a good person has to do with diligently working to rid oneself of those base instincts that serve as motivation to do bad things.  It is only through the constant application of self discipline that we can hope to ultimately transform ourselves.  And I honestly believe it is the most difficult task that someone can ever undertake, but also the most important.
> I work on it every day, and I fail everyday.  Some days I do great, others, I mess up.  But I keep working at it relentlessly and I can say for certain that I am better today than I was a year ago, and if I remain vigilant, I'll be better in a year than I am today.  My goal is to someday be perfect.  Impossible you say?  Maybe, but I can guarantee that I'll fail if I don't try.
> 
> (For the brothers here, yes, I realize how similar all of this sounds.  I could've written the whole thing with Masonic symbolism, but I refrained for non-Masons.  If you are a Freemason and don't know what I mean, reread it, think about our symbols, particularly from the 3rd section of the 1st degree)



I agree with most of this.  The question is if you need to place faith in a conceptualized God to behave morally? As I have said elsewhere in this thread, I contend morality can be achieved outside of the intellectual scheme of a God-ordered/created universe.  On the point of free will, of course we have free will. We have no choice to not have it . The more central to all these concepts seems to be whether a moral man, who is atheist, is fit for freemasonry. This is where the disagreement is.  I will concede to those regular Masons here that the current landmarks and subsidiary rules prohibit this.  Could it be opened up to include atheists? I think so.  

But of course, I am young, not a mason (in any sense, regular or irregular), and still have much to learn about many topics, not only freemasonry.


----------



## hanzosbm

NY.Light.II said:


> I agree with most of this.  The question is if you need to place faith in a conceptualized God to behave morally? As I have said elsewhere in this thread, I contend morality can be achieved outside of the intellectual scheme of a God-ordered/created universe.  On the point of free will, of course we have free will. We have no choice to not have it . The more central to all these concepts seems to be whether a moral man, who is atheist, is fit for freemasonry. This is where the disagreement is.  I will concede to those regular Masons here that the current landmarks and subsidiary rules prohibit this.  Could it be opened up to include atheists? I think so.
> 
> But of course, I am young, not a mason (in any sense, regular or irregular), and still have much to learn about many topics, not only freemasonry.



Well, let me start off by saying that I did not intend to suggest that atheists can't be moral.  My last post was written, deleted, rewritten, and revised several times as I kept going off on unintended tangents.  Somewhere, in one of those versions, I had talked about the moral differences between atheists and believers.  In short, of course, an atheist can be just as good of a man as a believer.  In fact, an argument could be made that an atheist doing the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do holds the moral high ground against a believer who does the right thing out of fear of divine retribution. 
All of that aside, in terms of atheists in Freemasonry, it is still my contention, as it has been from the beginning, that belief is still necessary.

As I said before, Freemasonry, in my opinion, is more about WHY to be a good person.  And Freemasonry's rationale behind the 'why' has to do with our place and our purpose on Earth as it relates to a Supreme Being.  To me, this is roughly the same thing as a priest telling you 'do the right thing because God wants you to'.  If you don't believe in God, that means absolutely nothing to you, so why go to church to be told what God wants you to do?  Granted, the 'why' is far more complicated than that, but it still revolves around our relationship with God.  What is the point of joining a group that focuses on doing God's will if you don't believe in God?


----------



## Derek Barclay

JamestheJust said:


> There are various well-known disciplines that can help, including yoga, martial arts, meditation, and memorization.


I have wanted to practice meditation for quite a while now. It all comes back to the absence of volition. I had struggled with getting/keeping a job for most of adult life. My family would always say, 'Just do it.' I failed to understand how to do that; they failed to understand my shortcomings. Only quite recently have I been able to stay employed, and though I'm not certain of the reason, it appears that I just outgrew the social anxiety, atleast enough to keep the job. I still have panic attacks.



Bill_Lins77488 said:


> It is not a "lack of free will", it IS free will. What is lacking is the self-discipline needed to accomplish those things one desires to accomplish. No one else can do it for you- you must, if it is important enough to you, do it for yourself.


I agree. I tell myself, "Do it." It's as though I'm paralyzed by fear. Fear is a constant theme of my daily life. I'm slowly becoming desensitized, and perhaps that's all it takes. Repetition and time.



coachn said:


> Let's cut the BS with a simple syllogism Derek,
> 
> *If*_
> 1) you do indeed believe that you do not have free will, _
> *
> Then*_
> 2) you do believe that you're not in control of asking how you can change your free will,_
> and_
> 3) you do believe that you are not in control of your doubt over your judgments,_
> and_
> 4) you do believe that you are also not in control of your will to not accept free will_
> and
> 5) _you do believe that_ _you are not in control of your non-belief in free will. _
> *
> Furthermore*,_
> 6) you do believe that you are not in control of your belief in God not existing.
> _
> *Therefore*,_
> 7) Should we precede down this path _
> and
> _8) not waste precious resources,
> 9) first convince me through sound premise and sound argument that you have free will _
> and
> _10) that you can exercise this free will fully, _
> and
> _11) without any excuses that something outside your control has greater influence over your thinking, reasoning, emotions, decisions and choices than you, _
> and_
> 12) I shall seriously entertain the notion that you are indeed in control of your request.
> _
> *Otherwise,*
> _13) I shall have to *take it on faith* that, from what you share, you are not in control and *something or someone else who is more powerful* *than you* is using you as a sock-puppet and this conversation is a waste of time for those participating on this thread._



It's no bullshit. Possibly mistakes, but not bullshit. I am being sincere, and you appear to be losing your patience. I don't like to be annoying or pedantic, but it appears those are the results of discussing these things in the only way I know how. I am sorry.

On your final point, #13: I, and everything else, is at the mercy of circumstance. So I would say, yes, I am controlled by somethings... but 'someone'? I've yet to see a reason to believe that.

We may be going in circles saying the same things, just in different ways.



hanzosbm said:


> Let's be honest, the carnal pleasures of life are fun. I could spend the weekend knocking over a liquor store and using the money to buy hookers and blow and have a great time, so why don't I?


I don't do bad things because I'm aware - not through my will but by chance - of what they lead to. It could be said that selfless acts are done on a selfish basis, which may be true, but I see no problem with this. The ends can sometimes justify the means.



NY.Light.II said:


> On the point of free will, of course we have free will. We have no choice to not have it


See, we may actually be in agreement much more so than my words let on. I've often said we need a new language...


----------



## Ressam

JamestheJust said:


> *Freemasonry teaches the brethren* *to improve emotional and mental patterns* and this allows a natural increase in the internal light of each brother.
> 
> When* brethren from the temple in the heavens cooperate with a human brother,* the intensity of the internal light may become quite great, even visible to other humans.  Traditionally this is depicted as a halo.



Very nice! 
Explanation please!


----------



## hanzosbm

First and foremost, regarding your anxiety, I can relate, though only in a very minor sense.  I know how controlling it can be as well as how infuriating it can be for those without experience to tell you to 'just do it' or 'just get over it'.  You mentioned being at the mercy of circumstances and while I see what you mean, I would offer that the end results don't matter, only what is in your heart, so while the circumstances (anxiety or otherwise) may stack the deck against you more than others, and you may see this as unfair, what really matters is what you are able to do with the situation you find yourself in.  And in that regard, you have an infinite amount of free will.  As the old expression goes, you ALWAYS have a choice.  That choice might be small, it might also be extremely difficult, but it is there for you.
You'll likely never be fully free from the social anxiety, but don't look at the choice as whether to conquer the world today or give up.  Instead, look at the small choices.  You have the choice to get out of bed in the morning or not.  Choose the right one.  Then you have the choice to shower and get dressed for work, or not.  Choose the right one.  Then you have the choice to drive to work today, or not.  Choose the right one.  It's a constant battle, but in my opinion, our success or failure isn't based on where we end up, but rather, how often we made the right choice, regardless of how big of a choice that was.  I hope that at some point, the small choices become easier and make way for the bigger choices.  I also hope that at some point, one of those choices is whether or not to speak with someone who might be able to help your anxiety issues, and when that day comes, I hope you choose the right one. 



Derek Barclay said:


> I don't do bad things because I'm aware - not through my will but by chance - of what they lead to. It could be said that selfless acts are done on a selfish basis, which may be true, but I see no problem with this. The ends can sometimes justify the means.



What if I told you that the two could not be separated?


----------



## Derek Barclay

hanzosbm said:


> First and foremost, regarding your anxiety, I can relate, though only in a very minor sense. I know how controlling it can be as well as how infuriating it can be for those without experience to tell you to 'just do it' or 'just get over it'. You mentioned being at the mercy of circumstances and while I see what you mean, I would offer that the end results don't matter, only what is in your heart, so while the circumstances (anxiety or otherwise) may stack the deck against you more than others, and you may see this as unfair, what really matters is what you are able to do with the situation you find yourself in. And in that regard, you have an infinite amount of free will. As the old expression goes, you ALWAYS have a choice. That choice might be small, it might also be extremely difficult, but it is there for you.
> You'll likely never be fully free from the social anxiety, but don't look at the choice as whether to conquer the world today or give up. Instead, look at the small choices. You have the choice to get out of bed in the morning or not. Choose the right one. Then you have the choice to shower and get dressed for work, or not. Choose the right one. Then you have the choice to drive to work today, or not. Choose the right one. It's a constant battle, but in my opinion, our success or failure isn't based on where we end up, but rather, how often we made the right choice, regardless of how big of a choice that was. I hope that at some point, the small choices become easier and make way for the bigger choices. I also hope that at some point, one of those choices is whether or not to speak with someone who might be able to help your anxiety issues, and when that day comes, I hope you choose the right one.



I appreciate that. That was encouraging to read. It is a very slow growth, it seems, and I have often been unable to explain my continued optimism. I suppose I tell myself, "What choice do I have?" haha oh the irony.



hanzosbm said:


> What if I told you that the two could not be separated?


Well that's an interesting thought.  I'll have to roll it around a little bit.


----------



## Classical

Your life is a sum total of your choices. Realizing this can give you plenty of humility and grace, towards yourself and others.


----------



## Derek Barclay

JamestheJust said:


> You may be familiar with the writings of Carlos Castaneda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Castaneda In his writings he recounts that his teacher, a Mexican sorcerer, explains to him that the human mind is a foreign installation. This is a most important proposition that is not well explained in Western literature.


No but I'll look into them.



JamestheJust said:


> The intelligence that operates as the mind of the personality in humans is committed to its own preservation and not to the spiritual development of the human.


In my experience with meditation (one episode in particular) I felt as though my ego dissolved completely, and it was... terrifying. I've also had the experience with drug use, and I think that's what is deterring me from using.



JamestheJust said:


> One is distracting your line of thought. Another is blurring the memory so that you forget what you intend to do.


This rings true. My memory is quite poor. Though I cannot blame it entirely on the cannabis use because it's been that way my whole life.



JamestheJust said:


> The panic attacks indicate unresolved internal trauma. Often the mechanisms enabling the specific trauma to exist can be diagnosed and direct therapy undertaken, but competent practitioners are rare. Mostly a clean lifestyle etc and regular effective meditation will allow the human to grow out of the problems, by healing the internal intelligences and gradually discarding the dense energy in which the trauma exists.


It's certainly a result of trauma, a sexual one, that happened in childhood. I have sought therapy in the past but could not afford competent care. My experience with the free clinic wasn't a pleasant one. The "doctors" there seemed more interested in drowning the issue with pills. The therapists I did speak to seemed less intuitive than myself, and I hate saying that because I don't want to be presumptuous but I often said, "I need to talk to someone smarter than me." I'm trying to clean up. Again I'm optimistic for the future. And again, thanks for the encouragement. Good things. Namaste you guys


----------



## coachn

Derek Barclay said:


> ...It's no bullshit.


BS = Bogus Specifics; and there are plenty of them.   Look for them; learn from them; correct them.


Derek Barclay said:


> Possibly mistakes, but not bullshit.


Agreed.  See above.


Derek Barclay said:


> I am being sincere, and you appear to be losing your patience.


LOL!  I am being sincere too and blunt.  What may appear to be impatience is my letting you know you're not making any sense when one actually connects your dots.  Personal responsibility AND accountability are the hallmarks of a person who believes in Free-Will.  You appear to be dismissing your personal responsibilities and accountabilities in subtle and consistent ways.


Derek Barclay said:


> I don't like to be annoying or pedantic,


Yet, you appear to be this way in spite of your professed dislike for this manner.


Derek Barclay said:


> ...but it appears those are the results of discussing these things in the only way I know how. I am sorry.


*Translation:* _It ain't your fault once again.

The organization's premise is Free-will.  Its literature may not say that upfront, but it is implied and inferred.  It is foundational to its members and prospects.  It does sound like this organization will not be understood by you, much less too is it not right for you._


Derek Barclay said:


> ...On your final point, #13: I, and everything else, is at the mercy of circumstance.


On average, 80% of the stuff that occurs in most people's lives is caused by their acted out choices and decisions.  The random 20% that is beyond their control still can be dealt with by choice and decision.  You do not appear to want to accept this aspect of life.  Hence you have the life you have created.


Derek Barclay said:


> So I would say, yes, I am controlled by somethings... but 'someone'? I've yet to see a reason to believe that.


It matters not.  The results are the same.  When you believe something other than yourself controls you, you are a sock-puppet.  And by default, you are claiming *a power greater than yourself *controls you, even if it is only "sometimes" and "something".  Do the math.  You sound like a personified god is out, but a higher power is definitely alive and kicking the heck out of you.


Derek Barclay said:


> ...We may be going in circles saying the same things, just in different ways...


Perhaps, but I am truly clear that you are not aware of what you are actually saying and the implications.


----------



## Derek Barclay

coachn said:


> Yet, you appear to be this way in spite of your professed dislike for this manner.


Did you choose to be annoyed? Is that the best choice?



coachn said:


> The organization's premise is Free-will.


I don't think we agree on the definitions of terms.



coachn said:


> It does sound like this organization will not be understood by you, much less too is it not right for you.


I've already conceded this point.



coachn said:


> It matters not. The results are the same. When you believe something other than yourself controls you, you are a sock-puppet. And by default, you are claiming *a power greater than yourself *controls you, even if it is only "sometimes" and "something". Do the math. You sound like a personified god is out, but a higher power is definitely alive and kicking the heck out of you.


It seems to be a combination of fate & free-will. I'm not sure, nor of the ratio of one to the other if it is so.



coachn said:


> Perhaps, but I am truly clear that you are not aware of what you are actually saying and the implications.


We've found a point of agreement, brother.


----------



## Derek Barclay

JamestheJust said:


> You still existed even though the ego dissolved. So what part of you was terrified?


Hmm... I suppose the ego just appeared to dissolve. Or perhaps something else... I don't know. Interesting.


----------



## NY.Light.II

Derek Barclay said:


> Hmm... I suppose the ego just appeared to dissolve. Or perhaps something else... I don't know. Interesting.



I suggest a new thread on meditation for this aspect of the conversation.


----------



## Derek Barclay

NY.Light.II said:


> I suggest a new thread on meditation for this aspect of the conversation.


Yeah, that's probably a good idea. I'll take a gander; perhaps start it if there isn't one.


----------



## coachn

Derek Barclay said:


> Did you choose to be annoyed? Is that the best choice?


Annoyance tells people that what they perceive is grating.   I agree that your assessment of your behavior is spot on, that is all.  I, on the other hand, see your behavior as irresponsible coupled with the expressed desire to not accept accountability for it.


Derek Barclay said:


> I don't think we agree on the definitions of terms.


But how do you know that it is you that is actually thinking, or merely circumstance contriving and driving you to believe that you are? How do you know that your thinking is merely circumstance making you want to dismiss this thinking as a circumstance beyond your control?  What if there is actual agreement and you can't compel yourself to agree because it would indicate you have free-will?


Derek Barclay said:


> It seems to be a combination of fate & free-will. I'm not sure, nor of the ratio of one to the other if it is so.


Perhaps fate shall bring that assurance to you some day.


----------

