# reasons why fundamentalist aspects of religion need to go



## widows son (Sep 21, 2012)

Any thoughts??


----------



## jwhoff (Sep 21, 2012)

Plenty!  Surfice to say, fundamentalism, no matter where it shows it's ugle head is a curse on mankind.  

Franchise it or go it as a lone wolf ... it's one damn fine way to make money selling guns and holy books.

Great way for the opportunists to fill a power void or two.


----------



## widows son (Sep 21, 2012)

But do you agree it should be abolished? By the way you spelt ugly ugle, do you mean united grand lodge of England?


----------



## Tony Uzzell (Sep 22, 2012)

You'll never eliminate fundamentalism for the simple reason that there are too many people in society who can not be bothered (or perhaps, are not qualified) to think too deeply about the subject of religion. Such thought requires education, meditation, study, etc. These people will always be willing to buy the snake oil of the first convincing salesman to come through. When that salesman is selling simple solutions without talking about the intricacies of reality, their snake oil will be bought and drunk.

What we, as champions of light, must do is to continue asking people to think about what they believe. Do their actions truly reflect those beliefs? Have they thought about the consequences of their beliefs? Are they truly willing to do what those beliefs require?

We also must continue to preach and practice pluralism. We must champion the idea that multiple ideas and multiple opinions must be accepted and discussed before we come to a solution. We must teach people that we can disagree without being enemies and that we can argue without hating one another. We must, finally and in a world that has become so politically and socially divided, that it's okay to compromise sometimes. Show them that you may not get everything you want and I may not get everything I want, but we can both get some of what we want.

That's how you fight fundamentalism and the hatred it always seems to breed.

TU


----------



## widows son (Sep 22, 2012)

I agree brother but fundamentalism is actually holding back society, such as science, we could be years ahead of our time if it wasn't for irrational superstitious people who are narrow minded and hate being told that they're believing in something too literal


----------



## Tony Uzzell (Sep 22, 2012)

And that's why someone has to lead the way to the broadening of people's minds and ways of thought. People must learn to get beyond the automatic denial of ideas that conflict with their own. You mention that people hate being told they are taking something too literally, which is a very true statement. And, it is also a statement that displays the thought process at the very heart of fundamentalism. Fundamentalists tend to believe in "revealed truth" quite literally. And it is a thought process that must change to allow enlightenment.

My question then becomes: What role are we, as Freemasons, going to play in leading our fellow citizens/subjects/humans to enlightenment? Because, only in an enlightened society, a society that Americans once prided ourselves on being a part of, can we Asa a civilization ever truly advance.

TU



Sent from my iPad while I'm rocking' with Tapatalk.


----------



## widows son (Sep 23, 2012)

You are right, but try telling that to pat Robertson, he would go down burning than change his thought pattern. You can't eliminate fundamentalism unless all religion is gone, which will never happen


----------



## Tony Uzzell (Sep 23, 2012)

What you say is very true. And it doesn't help that so many people follow Pat Robertson (and the anti-Masonic ideas he continues to profess) and would follow him, if you'll pardon the conceit, to Hell and back blindly.

Here's the next question, though: Should every man be a Mason? Or is it an order that is not designed for everybody, but only those who are willing (by nature,, education, training, whatever) to welcome new thoughts and ideas?

Please understand that I'm not being flip. These are questions I struggle with and that are regularly part of the discussions I have with other Brothers in and about my Lodge and the other Masonic bodies I'm part of going all the way back to when I was in DeMolay.

TU


----------



## widows son (Sep 23, 2012)

Freemasonry is for ever man that ways to be in the lodge, participate in community events, love their fellow man, and want to divulge into the origins and history of the greatest organization ever to grace earth


----------



## T.N. Sampson (Sep 23, 2012)

widows son said:


> Any thoughts??


Would you care to define the term?  Cordially, Skip.


----------



## jvarnell (Sep 23, 2012)

T.N. Sampson said:


> Would you care to define the term?  Cordially, Skip.


This is odd that I agree with skip on this one.  Who will define what is a fundamentalist?  When stuff like this has to be defined to make a law it causes a real problem.  You know like what is rich.  That is why I think things are done because of envy not greed.  Is it envy that makes a man to want to limit the others by calling them fundamentalist?


----------



## widows son (Sep 23, 2012)

I don't think that a non fundamentalist would envy a fundamentalist simply because their reality is clouded and boxed in. The definition of fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines, this means no change, to room to grow, no advancement, just stagnant. Who would envy that?


----------



## T.N. Sampson (Sep 23, 2012)

widows son said:


> The definition of fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines, this means no change, to room to grow, no advancement, just stagnant. Who would envy that?


Not quite.  My problem is the number of comments on this without regard for the meaning of the term.  It strikes me as intellectual laziness.  This definition of the terms comes from Dictionary dot com:





> a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
> 2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
> 3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.


The 3rd point can be applied to any belief structure within the overall term.

I'm a fundamentalist in line with the first definition.  As an example, where the Bible makes this statement:





> Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."   (John 14:6)


I hold the view that he meant just what he said.

Masons are fundamentalists in their own way.  When a GL teaches that Masonry is not a religion, all Masons fall behind that statement and hold it up as a fundamental belief.  Same with the requirement that all candidates believe in a Supreme Being, in which the fundamental belief in such existence becomes clear.   So, your criticisms of fundamentalism seem premature as they do not reflect a proper understanding of the term.  As well, they undermine your own expressed beliefs.  Cordially, Skip.


----------



## CajunTinMan (Sep 24, 2012)

I take issue with a few things being said here. It sounds a lot like the Renaissance era when you had elitist groups who believed that they were right because they were, "Enlightened", and secular.  And those that were Christian and fundamentalist couldn't belong because they were ignorant and wrong.  I honestly never understood how some people can call themselves enlightened if they have such narrow views.


----------



## jvarnell (Sep 24, 2012)

widows son said:


> I don't think that a non fundamentalist would envy a fundamentalist simply because their reality is clouded and boxed in. The definition of fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines, this means no change, to room to grow, no advancement, just stagnant. Who would envy that?



When defining anything you need to first figure out who should define it because my def. may be deferent than yours.  What is clouded realaty? yours or mine? And boxed in the the defention of a defention. 

The person that envy's a defention is the person that gave the defention that was not used.


----------



## widows son (Sep 24, 2012)

To Skip, I don't think I'm a fundamentalist, but when I think of some one who is a fundamentalist I think of definition 3.  I don't think Jesus is my lord, saviour, or has anything to do with my path to God. My opinion on Christianity or any religion doesn't belong on this forum because : A I don't want to offend anyone and B: it goes against my own beliefs of If nothing good can be said then don't say it. Skip if you think your path lies with Christ then all the power to you and I hope your path is smooth. And as far as masonry goes, religion no but it's a spiritual institution, so in many aspects it resembles a religion, I take the spiritual lessons from the lodge and apply them to life as does any mason, and just like you or anyone who goes to church takes the lessons of the bible and apply them to life as well, but I don't go saying that Hiram Abiff walked the earth and that the temple of Solomon actually exsisted, as in the lodge these are but symbols of higher truths, as in the bible which is a book of morals and tradition, displayed using allegory. There may be some historical aspects of the bible but are usually exaggerated. The bible is not a history book, we have archeology for that. The topic of this chat was the reasons why fundamentalist aspects of religion need to go, and here are my reasons: 
1. There is no room for growth intellectually due to dogma being finite and constant
2. When new ideas are presented they are refuted if they go against the dogma
3. To combat those ideas that go against the dogma, new reasons are created, which may or
May not be entirely true( for example the biblical history museum in Kentucky that shows dinosaurs and humans living together even though the earliest bones of a human have been carbon dated to 4 million years and dinosaurs the earliest 65 million years)
4. Violence and oppression are usually used against other who disagree with the dogma
5. Fundamentalism tries in most cases to Influence the politics of its homeland, which in the western world is constitutionally forbidden. In the middle east it's tearing society apart.  Skip my beliefs are not concrete, stagnant or final, but are changing and evolving as I learn and grow as a human being, the only thing I can say is that GAOTU exsists, and from the galactic  to the sub atomic he/she/it has revealed itself to us.


----------



## widows son (Sep 24, 2012)

Jvarnell,
Everyone and anyone is what defines things, it doesn't matter who's defining something of something is what it is, then that's what it is, as humans we need to box things in order to understand them, but interpretation is up to you, and whether your mind is boxed in or not, and everyones reality is clouded, as nobody knows absolute truth, and as for "envying a definition", I'm not sure what you mean, but if referring to me, i gave a definition fundamentalism and Skip kindly expanded it. With out definition there would be no concepts to grasp


----------



## jvarnell (Sep 25, 2012)

widows son said:


> Jvarnell,
> Everyone and anyone is what defines things, it doesn't matter who's defining something of something is what it is, then that's what it is, as humans we need to box things in order to understand them, but interpretation is up to you, and whether your mind is boxed in or not, and everyones reality is clouded, as nobody knows absolute truth, and as for "envying a definition", I'm not sure what you mean, but if referring to me, i gave a definition fundamentalism and Skip kindly expanded it. With out definition there would be no concepts to grasp




When a statment is made about "Fundamentalist" and the need for them to go.  So with out a defintion what need to go.  It is to me a foundations which all reality's are built.  With out foundations nothing stands and it is amorphous.  Even freemasonery starts with a foundation or moral codes that are repsented by the working tools.  So that being said who's foundation of knowalage do you throw away.  Facts and data with faith are what all religions are built on.

Faith is the only thing that can't be proven so what faith should be thrown away again.


----------



## widows son (Sep 25, 2012)

I never said anything about throwing away faith, the reasons I listed above are what I think should be thrown away, if you can't adapt to a changing world then you will be left behind in the dark( not you specifically jvarnell) all religions that display fundamentalism are just one sect of the religion, such as Christianity with the many sects that go with it, and not all of them are fundamentalists, they accept many ideas and beliefs from other sources than the bible. Catholicism and Protestantism condemn freemasonry. There is zero evidence to show that anything in the bible is fact, or "data."Certain things may be accurate, such as wars but are usually exaggerated in the favor of who's writing the story. Fundamentalism is one sided, bias, and in some cases contradictory to the religion it is a part of


----------



## jvarnell (Sep 25, 2012)

widows son said:


> I never said anything about throwing away faith, the reasons I listed above are what I think should be thrown away, if you can't adapt to a changing world then you will be left behind in the dark( not you specifically jvarnell) all religions that display fundamentalism are just one sect of the religion, such as Christianity with the many sects that go with it, and not all of them are fundamentalists, they accept many ideas and beliefs from other sources than the bible. Catholicism and Protestantism condemn freemasonry. There is zero evidence to show that anything in the bible is fact, or "data."Certain things may be accurate, such as wars but are usually exaggerated in the favor of who's writing the story. Fundamentalism is one sided, bias, and in some cases contradictory to the religion it is a part of



First look at the word fundamentalist know that it is the foundation not the outliers.

I see what you are saying but the fundimitals mean the foundation so should we agree to say outliers must go. Also I am still stuck on who are the outliers/fundamentlast that must go and how do we decide who they are.

Are the outliers those who don't beleive the way I do or those that don't beleive the way widows son if they are deferent. This is what I am trying to say is it the government, the pope, some imom.

I know I am being to legalistic but as a person that writes regulations word of art like this cause more problems than they help.

I am not saying widows son is wrong but how do we do this?


----------



## widows son (Sep 25, 2012)

The ones who refuse to accept the facts and not impose false information ( again the example of the Kentucky biblical museum) are the fundamentalists, Protestantism,Mormonism,Catholicism, rabbinical Judaism, Zionism, Hamas Islam, and scientology. These are the problematic sects that need to either reform or disband, the world is going to move on whether they do or not, hopefully they do. Change and reform are good and show that the organization in question is attempting to change because it knows that people will not buy into it. The catholic church would refuse to admit that the sun was the center of the solar system and now it has it's own observatories, because it knew what direction the world was going in and knew it had to reform its dogma. So to answer your question of the outliers, they are the ones who refuse to accept the concrete facts that cannot be disproven due to rigorous study and trial. Thy are the one who can't handle being told they are believing in something when it's not meant to be taken literally They are the ones who hate you and me, the mason


----------



## T.N. Sampson (Sep 25, 2012)

widows son said:


> The catholic church would refuse to admit that the sun was the center of the solar system and now it has it's own observatories, because it knew what direction the world was going in and knew it had to reform its dogma.


That is untrue, but you are not unique in making that mistake.  Galileo's conflicts were mainly with other scientists, not the church itself.  It's quite a complex story, but one well worth researching.  Cordially, Skip.


----------



## jvarnell (Sep 26, 2012)

widows son said:


> The ones who refuse to accept the facts and not impose false information ( again the example of the Kentucky biblical museum) are the fundamentalists, Protestantism,Mormonism,Catholicism, rabbinical Judaism, Zionism, Hamas Islam, and scientology. These are the problematic sects that need to either reform or disband, the world is going to move on whether they do or not, hopefully they do. Change and reform are good and show that the organization in question is attempting to change because it knows that people will not buy into it. The catholic church would refuse to admit that the sun was the center of the solar system and now it has it's own observatories, because it knew what direction the world was going in and knew it had to reform its dogma. So to answer your question of the outliers, they are the ones who refuse to accept the concrete facts that cannot be disproven due to rigorous study and trial. Thy are the one who can't handle being told they are believing in something when it's not meant to be taken literally They are the ones who hate you and me, the mason



You still have not got what I have been trying to say.  The word Fundamentalist is defind as the foundation or base and not the outer edges. that the early Cathlics thought the sun rotated around the earth is not the doundation.  The foundation is they beleive is the son of the living God.  The foundation of Islam is that Muhammad was a Profit and so on and so on.....  The news media is wanting to kill all religion by saying that Fundamentalistam (the foundation) is bad but what we need to think of is the fringe of religion is the problem that is willing to force someone to convert or die. The fundamitals of the USA is the constution and the amindments.  The fringe is the laws that were added after the 1929 crash that have taken away the states rights.


Dam-it now I have gone and defind MY view of what is right and what is frindge in the USA. 

If you don't beleive that I am right about that defintion then you see why I was saying who is to defind what  makes up fundamenitlist.  Don't let the news media define it for you know the facts.


And yes that is my true belief about the USA.  And I would not deny my beleifs to save my life and take Islam as a religion as the Muslam frindge want me too.


----------



## T.N. Sampson (Sep 26, 2012)

widows son said:


> I don't think Jesus is my lord, saviour, or has anything to do with my path to God.


I do not see why anyone would be offended by your position.  We would disagree, obviously, but why would I, in exercising my free will by choosing to follow Jesus, be offended by those exercising their free will to refuse to do so?



> And as far as masonry goes, religion no but it's a spiritual institution, so in many aspects it resembles a religion, I take the spiritual lessons from the lodge and apply them to life as does any mason


Not many Masons would admit to the spirituality of Freemasonry, though many GL documents note its existence (e.g., Masonic Formation in CA).  But if a spiritual influence is being manifested during the ritual, what is it's source?  And by what authority does Freemasonry claim the ability to exercise a spiritual influence?



> The bible is not a history book, we have archeology for that.


But archeology has in many cases proven the Bible to be historically accurate.  Have you any instances of the Bible mis-stating historical fact?



> The topic of this chat was the reasons why fundamentalist aspects of religion need to go, and here are my reasons:
> 1. There is no room for growth intellectually due to dogma being finite and constant
> 2. When new ideas are presented they are refuted if they go against the dogma
> 3. To combat those ideas that go against the dogma, new reasons are created, which may or may not be entirely true
> ...


I disagree with most of the preceding, but it's not an issue I want to get into in any depth.  But let's use an example in Freemasonry.  A prime tenet of Masonry is that a man must believe in a supreme being of some type to join.  Where, then, are you, as a Freemason, allowed to grow intellectually about this finite and constant statement of dogma?  Why cannot you find an intellectual reason to admit the atheist?  Why do you expel the Mason who decides to become an atheist?  Why are you so intolerant?

At issue is the truth of the dogmatic statement.  The Christian fundamentalist has certain values that form the core of his beliefs, and these cannot be compromised.  Anyone choosing not to believe that is free to do so.  In my example, Freemasonry chooses such a dogma and lives with it; thus, negative comments about dogmatic statements blast Freemasonry as well as any other group making them.  If one really has a problem with fundamentalism, as many have described it, he had best clean his own house of fundamental beliefs before criticizing others.

To bring this to a conclusion, or at least an end, a fundamental statement is not wrong by definition.  All groups have them.  The key is the nature of the statement itself.  I think we'd all agree that such black and white statements must be carefully considered before making them one's own, especially in the area of religion.



> In the middle east it's tearing society apart.


Yet it is Islam that is doing it.  Islam has been at war with all other religions since its founding, and what we are seeing today is just the lastest chapter.  Ponder the following:  why does Freemasonry flourish in Christian nations but not in Islamic ones?



> Skip my beliefs are not concrete, stagnant or final, but are changing and evolving as I learn and grow as a human being, the only thing I can say is that GAOTU exsists, and from the galactic  to the sub atomic he/she/it has revealed itself to us.


Again, I do not object to that at all.  All religion, to me, centers around two questions:  1)  Is there a God?  2)  What does he want?  Sounds like you are on the second question.

Good commentary, btw.  I've enjoyed thinking about the points you raised.  Cordially, Skip.


----------



## Michael Hatley (Sep 26, 2012)

Fundamentalism is a sticky word.  It has been used in a lot of ways.  It isn't fundamentalism I have a problem with, it is intolerance.  

In general I think intolerance is a much broader set of behavior and views than most people give credit to.  One can be a fundamentalist in the modern sense and be an exceedingly tolerant of other people's views.  Curious, even.

One can also be progressive and very intolerant all at once and not even realize it. 

Humility is a universal virtue, and the cornerstone of tolerance.


----------



## T.N. Sampson (Sep 27, 2012)

Michael Hatley said:


> Fundamentalism is a sticky word.  It has been used in a lot of ways.  It isn't fundamentalism I have a problem with, it is intolerance.


I think you hit the nail on the head.  But even so, there are many shades of gray in assessing the term, and intolerance isn't always bad, nor is tolerance always good.  Cordially, Skip.


----------



## widows son (Sep 27, 2012)

Tolerance is 100% necessary in a global world, if we aren't then say good bye to civilization, everyone can believe in what they want without imposing their beliefs on other, such as Jehovah witness, skip I know your a devout Christian and it's not my place to tell you what your believing is wrong.  If I was interested in joining a faith then I will go to that faith, I dont need people knocking on my door to try and tell me that I'm going to hell because I'm not following Christ. In my opinion hell is just a means of control, and really has history that goes far beyond the roots of judaism and Christianity but that is another topic. Doesn't Jesus say love thy neighbor? Does that apply of your neighbor is Muslim? For me it does apply, though Jesus doesn't need to teach me that


----------



## HKTidwell (Sep 27, 2012)

T.N. Sampson said:


> ...there are many shades of gray in assessing the term...



Do you buy into "50 shades of gray"! Sorry I couldn't resist.


----------



## widows son (Sep 27, 2012)

Skip my question to you is have you ever stepped foot in a lodge?


----------



## widows son (Sep 28, 2012)

To reply to your statements skip, freemasonry is a spiritual institution, but spirituality is just recognizing your place in the universe. Freemasonry recognizes that we are part of a bigger picture, which all religions say. The idea of God is singularity, unity in all parts of existence, and consciousness, I don't believe God to be a being, but a universal essence, penetrating all of creation and consciousness and exists in other life forms either( I think it's ignorant to think we are alone in a universe that has a trillion more stars than single grains of sand on every beach on earth). Yes in some cases the bible has been proven by archeology to be accurate, but accurate in location maybe. Archeologist have building evidence to believe that king David and his empire was nothing more than a chiefdom. History has also proven that the likelihood of Jesus the Jewish revolutionary has more away than Jesus the messiah. We know the roman empire took over Judea and made it a province with its line of Hasmonean kings, until the revolts which started  in 66AD, apparently by Jesus and revolutionaries. There are many other instances where archeology and the bible have come together. The area where I'm allowed to grow is the fact that there is no stated God, GAOTU is such a broad statement that I can mean anything, if I were to believe that my single supreme being is Saturn, then that's my God, now I don't think Saturn is my God, but I dont have a God. Atheism is a reaction to fundamentalism, and freemasonry condemns both, and freemasonry has no dogma, it only asks that the brothers keep their secrets locked in their hearts and be a uplifting spiritual person, in life, and I think you do not need to be a mason to practice this. Islam isn't tearing the mid east apart politics from extremist groups are, coupled with western foreign policy it's a breeding ground for disaster. Freemasonry flourishes in Christian countries because it originated in Christian countries. Freemasonry exists in Algeria and Lebanon in the mod east. When pope clement XII excommunicated freemasonry on the grounds of atheism ( and among other reason) sultan mahmut 1 under pressure of his Christian subjects and the ulema or islamic theologians followed suit, and has forever been instilled in the minds of the people of the middle east, so the reason why freemasonry doesn't flourish in the middle east is because of Christianity! Skip I as well have enjoyed this convo
Fraternally
Widows Son


----------



## BryanMaloney (Sep 28, 2012)

The reason that Freemasonry doesn't flourish in the Middle East is twofold and has nothing to do with Christianity. First, it was brought by colonialist invaders from Europe. Thus, it is traditionally identified with foreign incursion and destruction of the native cultures. Second, the most common form of Freemasonry during the colonial period in that area was usually French--which by that time actually had become explicitly atheist. It's like someone who has only come across black-eyeliner wearing chronic Ecstasy users who call themselves "esoterics". Whenever they hear "esoteric", that is what they will think of, whether it's representative or not.


----------



## T.N. Sampson (Sep 28, 2012)

HKTidwell said:


> Do you buy into "50 shades of gray"! Sorry I couldn't resist.


Hadn't realized there were that few.   At any rate, i've avoided the series.  Can't teach an old dog new tricks, don't ya know.  Cordially,  Skip.


----------



## widows son (Sep 28, 2012)

Very good point Ryan. The grand orient of France is a different breed, I found it surprising that it's involved with French politics, and even the grand master has meetings with ministers


----------



## T.N. Sampson (Sep 28, 2012)

widows son said:


> Tolerance is 100% necessary in a global world, if we aren't then say good bye to civilization, everyone can believe in what they want without imposing their beliefs on other, such as Jehovah witness,


I agree in general with you on that.  I may oppose what the JW's teach, but I do not dispute their right to teach it.  Nor would they dispute my right to teach as well.



> it's not my place to tell you what your believing is wrong.


Why not?   If you saw me walking onto thin ice, would you not warn me?

Consider this:  a JW comes to your door because he is convinced that your soul is in imminent danger.  In a very real way, he's expressing his love for you be taking the time to convey his warning.  The Mormon views it the same way.  But neither of these visitors crash your door down, tie you up and threaten to shoot you if you do not convert.  You are tolerant of their right to believe as they wish and to act out on that belief, and they are just as tolerant if you don't want to hear their warnings.  That they can go door to door unmolested is the direct result of their living in a society as tolerant as the U.S.

A Muslim might be a horse of different color (or a hearse of a different caller, if you've heard the joke).  Radical muslims feel it is required by Allah to either convert the infidel, or to enslave or kill him, and too many other muslims feel their actions are justified.  It is a tenet taught clearly by Mohammad, and thus endorsed by Allah.  Such intolerance is unacceptable to us, but a way of life in some Muslim countries.  Ask the few Jews remaining in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the Coptic Christians in Egypt about how tolerant the Muslims are.  That kind of intolerance, thankfully, does not exist here in the U.S., and is, I believe, a direct result of our Christian heritage.



> To reply to your statements skip, freemasonry is a spiritual institution, but spirituality is just recognizing your place in the universe.


I'd be interested if you have any GL documents that describe just what spirituality exists within the Lodge.  My view is that it goes far deeper than you have noted.  Just consider the concept of the spiritual temple that the Mason is supposed to be building and you'll start to see what I mean.



> I don't believe God to be a being, but a universal essence, penetrating all of creation and consciousness and exists in other life forms


Yet Lodges are erected to God, opened in his name, give obligations in which the man asks for his help and so forth.  In these instances, are the use of the word 'God' referring to that in which you believe?



> Yes in some cases the bible has been proven by archeology to be accurate, but accurate in location maybe.


I think it more than that.  Over the years, various folks have opined over Bible errors, only to be contradicted by facts.  My view is that there are no errors of fact in the Bible.



> History has also proven that the likelihood of Jesus the Jewish revolutionary has more away than Jesus the messiah. We know the roman empire took over Judea and made it a province with its line of Hasmonean kings, until the revolts which started  in 66AD, apparently by Jesus and revolutionaries.


Where are you getting this information from?  I think your sources are very flawed.  BTW, Jesus died around 33AD, so I don't think he was involved in revolts over three decades later.



> GAOTU is such a broad statement that I can mean anything,


I accept that as a fact.  It is Masonry's special name for 'god' so that anyone can use it regardless of his beliefs.



> Atheism is a reaction to fundamentalism, and freemasonry condemns both


I think you are wrong on both counts.  Atheism is just the belief that there are no gods and has nothing to do with fundamentalism.  "Freemasonry," meaning the various GL's, does indeed condemn atheists by denying them membership, but does not condemn fundamentalism in the same coin.  BTW, isn't your view of freemasonry condemning them both constitute a judgment on their part?  I thought your view was that no one should judge.



> freemasonry has no dogma


Oh, I think it does.  If dogma refers to "an offical system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals and behavior," I'd say it very much has its own dogma.  Otherwise, someone will have to rename Albert Pike's classic.  Cordially, Skip.


----------



## widows son (Sep 28, 2012)

If I were to tell you what to believe then that would make me a tyrant, however If i were to solicit you i can only show you information that might change your thought process, that could expand on your own beliefs or change them for something even higher. believe in what you want just keep it to yourself is what I think. that can go for Mormon statement as well. the GL has no specific documentation on the aspect of spirituality in the lodge, other than the recognition of a higher power. the beauty of it is that its your interpretation thats make it special and thats shared with my fellow brethren. I'm aware of what the lodge teaches about the erecting of the  temple, so yes I know what it means. Lodges are opened in the name of the GAOTU , not God specifically as that would be conforming to something specific as there are many different interpretations unique to humans relating to God. all religions that have a single deity are essentially the same in the end. The bible is not a history book. I would like to hear your facts for that statement, because theres a lot of research being done there that is proving that the stories in the bible aren't accurate, and are mostly over exaggerated in the favor of the Hebrews/Christians. Whoever is the victor is writing the history. The bible was written down in actual history, so names, places, and the lot are bound to show accuracy and in that I will agree to,  but there is a level of exaggeration that proves itself when closely examined, such as the dead sea scroll, which at my next point helps in the Jesus revolutionary theory. I find it impossible for anything, in the history of the universe, to die and return from the dead. I can see the metaphor to it but that's it. Now I'm not saying that Jesus was a revolutionary against the Roman Empire, but the theory is plausible. Some sources on the Roman/Jewish wars are: The Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus Flavius
The life of Josephus Flavius. Same as above and both are transcribed by William Whiston
Encyclopedia Judaica.
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians, by Robert Eisenman. 
Jesus and the Zealots, SGF Brandon
My sources are not flawed because they are conducted and formulated with scientific method, however the theory which is present may or may not be true about Christ, but as far as the Romans in Judea suppressing revolts, this happened from 66AD to almost half of the 2nd century AD and is historically factual. Jesus may have died in 33AD, but who's to say his followers gained enough strength and 30 years later a united revolt happened. True? Maybe not but the possibilities and the evidence is overwhelming.  Constantine also created the status of Jesus with other bishops on Nicea, in what is now Turkey. And constantine has also been proven to be both Christian and a high priest of the cult of Mithras and Sol Invictus, and both Mithras and Jesus have many attributes that are identical. As for my view on atheism and fundamentalism is the lodge, I still believe no. I am not judging them. Some of my best friends are atheists and I would give them the same love and respect as I would to any brother in the lodge. I believe spirituality is necessary in a persons life and belief that reality stems from something much higher, and should be a requirement for  freemasons to be. What it is that our reality stems from I don't know, it would be ignorant to say that I do,  I just know through observation of nature and the universe we can see the works of what it is. I can't control the politics of freemasonry on matters of atheism, or fundamentalism, as this is a world politic, but i think that freemasonry produces better men, than spirituality and tolerance should be mandatory.


----------



## daddyrich (Sep 28, 2012)

Biblical archaeology? Seriously? Other than places being verified...please enlighten us. Good luck with Noah 's Ark. Wow.


----------



## widows son (Sep 28, 2012)

As for dogma in freemasonry, I would still disagree, there. I would scratch out faith, masonry is not a religion. And behavior, as 
A mason you are asked to uphold the good name of the order, and protect its secrets, and help your fellow brother and citizens. I'd say this more like a common understanding of compassion and humility than a dogmatic ideal that is enforced. You can sit in lodge all you want, not participate or advance and still be a member, (though not encouraged ) but what you put into masonry is what you get


----------



## widows son (Sep 28, 2012)

Freemasonry is at the founding of America, to destroy it would be to destroy Your history,skip


----------



## phulseapple (Sep 29, 2012)

widows son said:


> Skip my question to you is have you ever stepped foot in a lodge?


This question still goes unanswered, and whether he believes it or not, it is a very relevant question to which we all would like to know the answer to.  However, he conveniently avoids the question.


----------



## T.N. Sampson (Sep 29, 2012)

widows son said:


> Lodges are opened in the name of the GAOTU , not God specifically as that would be conforming to something specific as there are many different interpretations unique to humans relating to God.


Most opening prayers with which I am familiar go along these lines:





> Most holy and glorious Lord God, the great Architect of the Universe, the giver of all good gifts and graces:  Thou hast promised that where two or three are gathered together in thy name thou wilt be in the midst of them.  ...  and we beseech thee, O Lord God, to bless this our present assembling...


What I find most interesting is the phrase "where two or three are gathered together in thy name" is an almost a direct cite from Matthew 18:20.  It would appear more is involved in that opening than you might wish to admit.



> all religions that have a single deity are essentially the same in the end.


As noted before, I do not agree with that.  The God of the Bible is defined quite differently than is the god of Islam or that of Mormonism.  We'd like to think all views are of the same God, but that's simply not the case.



> The bible is not a history book. I would like to hear your facts for that statement, because theres a lot of research being done there that is proving that the stories in the bible aren't accurate, and are mostly over exaggerated in the favor of the Hebrews/Christians.  ...  but there is a level of exaggeration that proves itself when closely examined, such as the dead sea scroll,


Since you've raised the issue, provide the instances.  I've already stated that I believe the Bible to be without material error.  Here's your chance to show me where I'm wrong.



> I find it impossible for anything, in the history of the universe, to die and return from the dead.


Reason would certainly dictate that you are right.  Yet medical history shows where persons who are clinically dead have been brought back to life, some with pretty interesting stories about their experiences.  In Jesus' case, though, it is strictly a matter of faith, even though the event has been testified to by those who were there.



> My sources are not flawed because they are conducted and formulated with scientific method, however the theory which is present may or may not be true about Christ,


The key point is that you are addressing theories as though they were facts.  They remain theories; i.e., unproven. 



> Constantine also created the status of Jesus with other bishops on Nicea


I'd dispute that.  The status of Jesus was clear from both the gospels and Paul's letters long before Constantine's time.  The council of Nicea "affirmed the deity of Jesus Christ and established an official definition of the Trinityâ€”the deity of The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit under one Godhead, in three co-equal and co-eternal Persons."  In so doing, it merely recognized what the Bible had taught.



> both Mithras and Jesus have many attributes that are identical.


I tend to doubt that.  I don't recall Jesus ever killing a bull.  I think one can make a case from the paucity of data on Mithraism, that it tends to share some attributes with Freemasonry.



> I still believe no. I am not judging them. Some of my best friends are atheists and I would give them the same love and respect as I would to any brother in the lodge.


But you have judged them as unacceptable candidates for Freemasonry.  I don't see how anyone can rationally dispute that point.  Cordially, Skip.


----------



## T.N. Sampson (Sep 29, 2012)

widows son said:


> Freemasonry is at the founding of America, to destroy it would be to destroy Your history,skip


That is untrue.  Given that logic, one can just as easily say that slavery was at the founding of America, and to destroy it would be to destroy our history.  My view is that Freemasonry's influence on American political and social development is vastly over-rated.

What is at the founding of America are the ideals of such men as John Locke and Montesquieu, and the basic view that there is a God and our rights are found in him, not in government.  Cordially, Skip.


----------



## phulseapple (Sep 29, 2012)

T.N. Sampson said:


> > I still believe no. I am not judging them. Some of my best friends are atheists and I would give them the same love and respect as I would to any brother in the lodge
> 
> 
> But you have judged them as unacceptable candidates for Freemasonry.  I don't see how anyone can rationally dispute that point.  Cordially, Skip.


They simply do not have one of the basic requirements to be a Mason.


----------



## widows son (Sep 29, 2012)

I would beg to differ, But I'm not wasting anymore time talking to you.  Your evasive and have an agenda and can't honestly say there is any sort of respect that I have for you. I can't control the fact that you are on this this forum. The fact that you want to take down freemasonry is enough for me to consider you an anti mason and therefore an enemy. Nobody cares about your clouded, narrow minded view point of freemasonry or religion. Idealists such as Voltaire, Thomas Hobbes, Plato, Socrates, all influenced the American republic. They advocated the necessity of separation between church and state. God has no place in government. But again I'm done discussing things with you cuz its just leading nowhere


----------



## T.N. Sampson (Sep 29, 2012)

widows son said:


> I would beg to differ, But I'm not wasting anymore time talking to you.  Your evasive and have an agenda and can't honestly say there is any sort of respect that I have for you. I can't control the fact that you are on this this forum. The fact that you want to take down freemasonry is enough for me to consider you an anti mason and therefore an enemy. Nobody cares about your clouded, narrow minded view point of freemasonry or religion. Idealists such as Voltaire, Thomas Hobbes, Plato, Socrates, all influenced the American republic. They advocated the necessity of separation between church and state. God has no place in government. But again I'm done discussing things with you cuz its just leading nowhere


Egad....


----------



## phulseapple (Sep 29, 2012)

Are things that slow here that you now need to invade a decent site trying spread your misguided and fanatical views in hopes of attempting to lead men away from the lodge?


----------



## BryanMaloney (Sep 29, 2012)

T.N. Sampson said:


> What is at the founding of America are the ideals of such men as John Locke and Montesquieu, and the basic view that there is a God and our rights are found in him, not in government.  Cordially, Skip.



Freemasons would say the same thing--God is the foundation of our rights, not government. That is a very Masonic sort of statement.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Sep 29, 2012)

T.N. Sampson said:


> Oh, I think it does.  If dogma refers to "an offical system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals and behavior," I'd say it very much has its own dogma.  Otherwise, someone will have to rename Albert Pike's classic.  Cordially, Skip.



Freemasons are free to reject Pike. Pike is not a "Pope of Freemasonry". Indeed, outside the USA, Pike is virtually unknown. I don't buy everything Pike claims, nor do I have to.


----------



## T.N. Sampson (Sep 29, 2012)

phulseapple said:


> Are things that slow here that you now need to invade a decent site trying spread your misguided and fanatical views in hopes of attempting to lead men away from the lodge?


Where on this site have I attempted to do so?  Cordially, Skip.


----------



## widows son (Sep 29, 2012)

Great point BryanMaloney, Pikes insights are brilliant, but not concrete. He definitely is no any sort of Pope


----------



## CajunTinMan (Sep 30, 2012)

_They advocated the necessity of separation between church and state. God has no place in government._ 

Now you see brother I totally disagree with you on that point. If that person truly follows the teachings of Christ he will lead with honesty and integrity. And be a servant to those he represents. (Not to imply in any way that a non-Christian cannot lead with honest and integrity). Our system of government allows for everyone to be able to express their personal views and for those views to be respected, or at least accepted. The lodge must be the same way. It is good that you and I can disagree on this topic and still call each other Brother.


----------



## widows son (Oct 1, 2012)

Yes you are right, on that my friend , don't get me wrong I dont hate religion, just because I dont believe in Christ. I respect people of faith, but only in good standing and not imposing.


----------

