Search results

As already noted, the answer is no. At the risk of sounding presumptuous, there some other requirements though, for membership in a "regular and recognized" lodge, at least. Is your interest personal or more "academic"?

Ah, but it was the "ring" that did it for me, not the source. Who said that the source matters? I did not. I am saying that, for the thinking person, any given source should not automatically be accepted as a fount of truth. An earnest search for truth demands effort. It can not be made through...

I would not say that. Truth is exists independent of our knowledge of it; whether we are able to prove it, to establish it as fact, or not. A better question might be, "Why should we accept any self-proclaimed authority's version of 'the truth' without any facts to support it?"

The "specific, cherished practices" are not at all incompatible with the definition of agnostic. Again, gnosis and faith are not the same thing at all. If your faith carries you in a particular direction, does it matter whether or not anyone (including you) can "prove" your path is the "right" one?

We're splitting hairs here, but you are correct. Still, I see a huge gulf between the believer mistaking gnosis for faith and the agnostic's (arguably) incorrect conclusion that this or that thing can not be known. The latter still commands a certain humility that the former simply can not abide.

The atheists are not at all different from the truest believer of <insert religion here>. And yes, Brother, you are spot on about the need to "...admit the possibility that our most cherished beliefs..." are imperfect. There's even a term for the person who has mustered the courage to admit as...

No..., but I can safely include religion with all the other things in the list that are often used to define "the other". I guess you missed that part.

And that particular qualification makes them no more of an authority on the matter than any other Mason. We are all entitled to our own opinions, of course, but not to our own facts. I have yet to see the opinions on the matter, of even the most erudite Brethren (Pike, Mackey, Wilmhurst, et al)...

Sigh... "Is <insert religion here> compatible with Freemasonry?" is a question that can not be answered. We don't (or shouldn't) make such judgements. We ask one question about belief of our candidates and that doesn't include any specifics about the form or practice of that belief. There is no...

Sorry, but no, it does not qualify as a religion, the unimpeachable font of truth, Wikipedia, notwithstanding. Any conflation of what Freemasonry offers and religion is the result of a less-than-full understanding of our fraternity and it's purpose, or of the deliberate twisting of the meaning...

Science, as it has been understood through the ages (even before it had that name), has always assumed that there were things that we did not, and perhaps could not, know about "the way the world works". "The stuff we don't know" is a very long list and to me, it has always seemed more than a...

The problem here (yet again) is that the author of the article would like to have us believe that the interpretation of "the rules" which he presents is the only one that counts. Note that I did not say his interpretation. I rather doubt that he's actually given a lot of independent thought to...

Damn, dude. Give it a rest!

Actually it goes a little further back than that. Freemasonry lost much of it's prestige when it became a social club in the post-war years of the mid-twentieth century. Wherever you place the date though, the transformation that accompanied that membership boom has marred the fraternity to this...

Thanks for sharing that. It is indeed interesting. I'm not sure what to make of the level of ignorance demonstrated by the author, but I rather suspect it's just that the truth is so hard to come by in societies that have allowed themselves to be ruled by religious zealots. I mean, I believe the...

Sorry, but the logical fallacies are just too glaring to let go. Not that it isn't a seductive argument, but the student should have stopped at "I have only my faith". Science demands that the things in it's domain be approached empirically. Things must be examined and measured to be "known"...

It is true that religion is but one thing among many that are used to define "the other" in order to justify violence and any number of other injustices. Race, language, diet, all manner of cultural differences, and even gender have always been thrown up as reasons to treat "the other"...

B.S. The particular religious doctrine has nothing to do with the question. There are plenty of examples of other religious doctrine giving rise to violence. Let's said aside all the defensive "my religion is not a violent one" whining and answer the question in non-sectarian terms. What is it...

Please answer the question. Yes or no will do.

So does that make it OK, or not? More precisely, is the adjuration to "kill them all because God said so" ever something worth seriously considering?