Bloke
Premium Member
Nope, it's called "Fair Use" and does not break copyright
My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
UGLE
- Thread starter JM-MWPHGLGA
- Start date
Nope, it's called "Fair Use" and does not break copyright
R
Ressam
Guest
The Supreme Being is -- inside you, Mr.James!
Piece of GAOTU! And it's called -- soul! Which is immortal.
Ripcord22A
Site Benefactor
James I have to thank you...this is the first post youve posted that made me think....i started to react and then I realized that ive always used those words interchangeably and I didnt know if they were the same...I also thought that the Soul is who the person is and the spirit is what the person is...i was kinda right but not really.......
The soul and the spirit are the two primary immaterial aspects that Scripture ascribes to humanity. It can be confusing to attempt to discern the precise differences between the two. The word “spirit” refers only to the immaterial facet of humanity. Human beings have a spirit, but we are not spirits. However, in Scripture, only believers are said to be spiritually alive (1 Corinthians 2:11; Hebrews 4:12; James 2:26), while unbelievers are spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1-5; Colossians 2:13). In Paul's writing, the spiritual was pivotal to the life of the believer (1 Corinthians 2:14; 3:1; Ephesians 1:3; 5:19;Colossians 1:9; 3:16). The spirit is the element in humanity which gives us the ability to have an intimate relationship with God. Whenever the word “spirit” is used, it refers to the immaterial part of humanity that “connects” with God, who Himself is spirit (John 4:24).
The word “soul” can refer to both the immaterial and material aspects of humanity. Unlike human beings having a spirit, human beings are souls. In its most basic sense, the word “soul” means “life.” However, beyond this essential meaning, the Bible speaks of the soul in many contexts. One of these is humanity’s eagerness to sin (Luke 12:26). Humanity is naturally evil, and our souls are tainted as a result. The life principle of the soul is removed at the time of physical death (Genesis 35:18; Jeremiah 15:2). The soul, as with the spirit, is the center of many spiritual and emotional experiences (Job 30:25; Psalm 43:5;Jeremiah 13:17). Whenever the word “soul” is used, it can refer to the whole person, whether alive or in the afterlife.
The soul and the spirit are connected, but separable (Hebrews 4:12). The soul is the essence of humanity’s being; it is who we are. The spirit is the aspect of humanity that connects with God.....http://www.gotquestions.org/soul-spirit.html
While the two words are often used interchangeably, the primary distinction between soul and spirit in man is that the soul is the animate life, or the seat of the senses, desires, affections, and appetites. The spirit is that part of us that connects, or refuses to connect, to God. Our spirits relate to His Spirit, either accepting His promptings and conviction, thereby proving that we belong to Him (Romans 8:16) or resisting Him and proving that we do not have spiritual life (Acts 7:51)..
http://www.compellingtruth.org/difference-soul-spirit.html
Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app
It's so easy to blame others for our own shortcomings. God doesn't have to do anything to make us speak different languages. We do this to ourselves by our arrogance, ignorance, preconceived notions and assumptions. Even when we supposedly speak the same language, there's still confusion in our temples. Yet we create scriptures blaming God for what we do to ourselves.
KUDOS! Although I add:
The soul is immortal; the spirit is eternal.
The soul is bound to space-time; the spirit transcends time-space.
The soul is immortal; the spirit is eternal.
The soul is bound to space-time; the spirit transcends time-space.
I'm going to just pass this here collection basket around we want a good offering today folks 
SimonM
Registered User
I disagree, the soul dies when the body does, but the spirit lives on.
The soul is life, our memories, personality, emotions etc and does not go on after our bodies die.
Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro
My faith, OTH, believes that the soul is the spirit and body combined. At death they are divided; at the resurrection they are again combined to form the soul.
I like that you disagree. I used to think and believe as you do. I thought: Soul is our thoughts and feelings. When we die, we stop thinking and feeling. End of story. The soul is dead.
Further reflection (yea "further perpending!!!!") had me reconsider this.
Spirit is a non-life form. Spirit does not exist as life. It cannot be alive or live. It only causes life. therefore, it cannot "live on". Furthermore, spirit is not dead either since it was never alive.
My personal understanding of the soul is that spirit animates the body and produces the soul. What you called "life, our memories, etc.". I agree with this.
I go one step further though and say that this animation impacts, influences and actually lives beyond the body even while that body is alive. It can't help but do this for the spirit that drives that animation cannot keep it contained within the body that is animated by it.
In other words, the body is the seat of the soul, but the soul once created transcends the body that generates it. It can't help but happen!
An example of this is as follows: the soul (life) of Joseph Campbell is still alive and ever present in the lives of millions of his followers even though his body is dead. In fact, we might be tempted to say, "His works have taken on a life of their own", but that is merely our way of making effort to separate the man from his work. This is an artificial division and the fact is, his life WAS his work and his work was his life. We may also say that the spirit of Jo Campbell is kept alive by his followers, but this too is not the case since Joe never has a personal spirit; he just had a soul that was generated by spirit.
Although a body eventually dies, the animation and what caused the animation, doesn't. Once a soul is created, it continues to live long after the body that generated it expires. Is it exactly the same as it was while the body was generating it? No. It gets transformed and lives within whatever it influenced while the body was alive. It seeds itself within the fabric of time and space and is nurtured by the very body that generated it while it is alive.
These are some thoughts for you to consider.
acjohnson53
Registered User
You Brothers getting Deep. Keep Grinding like what i'm reading...
BullDozer Harrell
Registered User
A good starting point in your research is to acknowledge that the Grand Lodge of 1717 was titled, the Premier Grand Lodge of England.
The title United Grand Lodge of England came into existence 97 yrs later with the merger of the Antients & Moderns in 1813.
Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app
BullDozer Harrell
Registered User
Unfortunately there will always be 3 classes of Freemasonry; Regular, Irregular and Clandestine.
But no sweat for Prince Hall.
The issue of regularity was settled a looooooong time ago. PGM Upton of Washington State Freemasons wrote a book on the issue which publicized the Regular origins of PHA Freemasonry.
The last issue which was recognition has recently been settled as well except in 9 Southern States of the U.S.
You're fairly new to Freemasonry so i must ask, are you aware of the difference between the concepts of Freemasonic Regularity & Recognition?
They're two very different issues.
Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app
Last edited:
BullDozer Harrell
Registered User
The men are trying to explain that the Premier Grand Lodge of England established itself as the governing body of Freemasonry at that time.
They had followed an agreed principle of organizing in Freemasonry at that time which still holds true today that 3 or more lodges can assemble to form a Grand Lodge.
It's at this time that those lodges agree to be known as a GL. They can declare themselves to the world to be a Sovereign organization unto itself.
Then set about creating their Constitution and By-laws.
Also at this stage of forming and establishing themselves, there is no such document as a Charter or Warrant. THEIR CONSTITUTION & BY-LAWS ARE THEIR WARRANT.
The Law which they've created is their Charter,so to speak.
Although to use Charter at this stage of organization is out of place. A Grand Lodge is usually not chartered but instead issues Charters(Warrants) to subordinate lodges later.
Is this clear?
Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app
BullDozer Harrell
Registered User
This might be too complex for the new MM to understand.
Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app
Possibly, but they are always welcome to ask questions.
The Traveling Man
Registered User
The 4 Lodges that formed the Premier Grand Lodge of London and Westminster were:
- Goose and Gridiron Lodge (which then became West Indian and American Lodge and then Lodge of Antiquity # 2)
- Crown Ale-house Lodge
- Apple Tree Tavern Lodge (which then became Lodge of Fortitude and then Lodge of Fortitude and old Cumberland # 12)
- Rummer and Grapes Lodge (which then became Horn Lodge, merged with Somerset House Lodge and then Royal Inverness Lodge, then became Royal Somerset House and Inverness Lodge # 4)
JM-MWPHGLGA
Premium Member
Yes of course I understand regularity and recognition. I'm not bashing the start time of that at that particular time. I know during that set time that grand lodge was praised as the first. But my only concern was really lets get down to acknowledging the "Real" first grand lodge or lodges. I've done more research which is leading me towards Prince Edwin. I'm sure it goes past his time as well.
Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro
The Traveling Man
Registered User
You are referring to the York Legend. I'm not sure if any Grand Lodge existed in 926, but that Grand Lodge does seem to have existed in 1705. Not sure of how it was formed or how it operated, but it doesn't appear to have ever been a real force in Freemasonry.
I'm unaware of any reliable source for Prince Edwin
JM-MWPHGLGA
Premium Member
I believe Legends have to be based on some type of authentic story. In relation to the York legend that's something the freemason world hasn't paid attention to because we settle for 1705 and 1817. You mention you wasn't sure of how it was form, actually everyone's answer about that lodge was the same. Who gave them power to the craft? Where's their charter? But we still acknowledge them cause of "time immemorial". This doesn't fit right in my book.
Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro