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!

Freemasonry AS religion?

usar123

Registered User
Interesting ! A lot of Scripture references in our work never took to heart about the Religion aspect !
 

Elexir

Registered User
We're in agreement Elexir! It is impossible to take every single factor into account every time, but that doesn't mean it's not impossible to discount most factors using simple deduction - especially by perceiving the "bigger picture" first, before drilling down into the detail. Of course, unless you have taken every single factor into account on at least a few occasions, there's no reason to "know" that that shortcut would work.

I have no idea how the discussion regarding AI is proceeding, but I'd imagine there's no doubt it will eventually be perceived as beneficial. "Follow the money" is another shortcut that works...

Yes and the factors that you disregard should be and are published as well as the weaknesses of the study/thing that has developed in the actual paper. This means that someone else can use that as a starting point for another study. That is the whole basis of the scientific/academic discussion as things eventually move on and change due to the internal discussion. An example of a interesting discussion is in regards to whether the term gnosticism should be used or if the another term should be used.

You are mistaking two different discussion as well as the complexity. The current stance is actually more along the lines of "it depends", there are some things that AIs could be useful for and other instances where it's not. Again several separate discussions can be held in a subject and it's altogether a high chance that some researchers will see different problems and publish them.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Freemasonry cannot be considered a religion because there's no basic idea of some kind of supreme god in Freemasonry. Freemasons believe only in the power of man over nature, other people, all religions, and probabilities. So you might want to think about it yourself before asking such questions. Or you can go to some church like First Church Love on the day of glorification to understand the basic features of any religion. My Christian sister goes to this church. I also came to this church with her several times. All the people there are wonderful and kind and have never accused me of atheism. Besides, I liked the priest from this church. But my good attitude toward believers doesn't mean I belong to any religion.
Looks like we just got spammed by a drive by! Time to ignore yet another one.
 

Brother JStoffo

Registered User
I moved this from a different conversation as this one is more appropriate. Sorry to revive a one year old conversation.

After going through the Scottish Rite rituals, honestly, I don't know which specific organized religion would be a good fit as there are great lessons in all of them. Clearly the Catholic Church will not have me now that I am a Freemason. Not my call. I don't know of a Hebrew, Christian, Stoic, Taoist, Buddhist, Hindu Temple. Still looking. Open to suggestions. Is not salvation attained by striving to be a good, God-fearing man and one who follows all of our Masonic virtues? Believing that we do have an immortal soul and that we must act appropriately in this life on this planet to enable said soul to move on to a better place? Isn't that salvation?
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
I moved this from a different conversation as this one is more appropriate. Sorry to revive a one year old conversation.

After going through the Scottish Rite rituals, honestly, I don't know which specific organized religion would be a good fit as there are great lessons in all of them. Clearly the Catholic Church will not have me now that I am a Freemason. Not my call. I don't know of a Hebrew, Christian, Stoic, Taoist, Buddhist, Hindu Temple. Still looking. Open to suggestions. Is not salvation attained by striving to be a good, God-fearing man and one who follows all of our Masonic virtues? Believing that we do have an immortal soul and that we must act appropriately in this life on this planet to enable said soul to move on to a better place? Isn't that salvation?
Salvation? Please, explain this.
 

Brother JStoffo

Registered User
My view of Salvation is described as the eternal spirit in us on this plane in this dimension moving on to a better place. A place where the souls of our departed family and friends await us to assist in a transition to some next phase of the soul. There is absolutely no way to prove this. It is only my understanding of what Salvation is. From there, according to some beliefs, we may come back to Earth as a Cow or move onto some other plane in a different dimension and have a completely different physical form. But our soul would remain the same and continue to operate from within some living body. Where it ends? I surely do not know. I would like to think that we become someone else's Guardian Angel. Yes, kind of like in "It's a Wonderful Life". I am waiting to hear the bells chime...
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
My view of Salvation is described as the eternal spirit in us on this plane in this dimension moving on to a better place. A place where the souls of our departed family and friends await us to assist in a transition to some next phase of the soul. There is absolutely no way to prove this. It is only my understanding of what Salvation is. From there, according to some beliefs, we may come back to Earth as a Cow or move onto some other plane in a different dimension and have a completely different physical form. But our soul would remain the same and continue to operate from within some living body. Where it ends? I surely do not know. I would like to think that we become someone else's Guardian Angel. Yes, kind of like in "It's a Wonderful Life". I am waiting to hear the bells chime...
I'm not really reading about salvation. I'm reading about your view of the afterlife. What is salvation?
 

Brother JStoffo

Registered User
Good point. My use of the word Salvation was in response to a post by Brother Glen Cook. Personally, I would not use the word as in my view one should only need Salvation if one did not live a good life and required some third party to "Save" them. Jesus to Christians. Mohammed to Islamists. I do not even know at there is a comparable word in Buddhism or Taism. In fact, I do not even think that believing in a Supreme Being is a requirement for either of those other named Eastern Religions. I would imagine that the word "Salvation" is purely a Judeo-Christian idea. But I am sure that we will hear from someone more knowledgeable in these matters.
 

Brother JStoffo

Registered User
"Freemasonry offers no salvatory path or ordinances." This is where the word was introduced into the discussion...on a different thread.
 

Winter

Premium Member
I would imagine that the word "Salvation" is purely a Judeo-Christian idea. But I am sure that we will hear from someone more knowledgeable in these matters.
Not a Judeo-Christian concept or idea. As Jews, we have no need of salvation in the Christian sense because we have no concept of original sin to be redeemed from.
 

Brother JStoffo

Registered User
I didn't know that. Being raised a Christian, we were taught that "Original Sin" was Eve taking a bite out of the apple and Adam following. That is purely Jewish. Written way before the 2nd "New" testament Christian version of the Bible perhaps 1,000 years later. I will read more on that and please share anything applicable here. As you all are aware, many of the basic concepts and lessons in Freemasonry are Jewish in nature. In fact, if you were to remove any hint of Hebrew history from Freemasonry, we wouldn't have much of a story for the building of the Temple in our degrees. I am not claiming that our story as Masons is fact based. Merely stating that our studies and in fact entire Masonic history is based on the Jewish Bible. Until we get into the Scottish or York Rites, Masonic legend is entirely Hebrew. I can't think of one instance of Christianity. Am I correct in stating this? Solomon, Solomon's Temple, Hiram, etc.?
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
Salvation? Please, explain this.
"Freemasonry offers no salvatory path or ordinances." This is where the word was introduced into the discussion...on a different thread.

The full comment:
Brother JStoffo said:
Andrew the Disciple, sorry. Let me rephrase to Beliefs rather than Religions. Would you consider philosophy and belief? I think it was Earnest Borgnine 33* who said that the Scottish Rite is all the Religion he needs. Does Zombie thread mean we should just stop now? I am kind of new to this forum.
It does not consider all beliefs or philosophies.

If Borgnine said that I would be most disappointed. Freemasonry offers no salvatory path or ordinances. The 33 doesn’t add anything to one credibility.

It appears we have joined you in the zombie zeitgeist.

G A Cook
F&AM of Utah
UGLE
AF&AM of the State of Oklahoma
QuoteReply
ReportEditDelete
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
I didn't know that. Being raised a Christian, we were taught that "Original Sin" was Eve taking a bite out of the apple and Adam following. That is purely Jewish. Written way before the 2nd "New" testament Christian version of the Bible perhaps 1,000 years later. I will read more on that and please share anything applicable here. As you all are aware, many of the basic concepts and lessons in Freemasonry are Jewish in nature. In fact, if you were to remove any hint of Hebrew history from Freemasonry, we wouldn't have much of a story for the building of the Temple in our degrees. I am not claiming that our story as Masons is fact based. Merely stating that our studies and in fact entire Masonic history is based on the Jewish Bible. Until we get into the Scottish or York Rites, Masonic legend is entirely Hebrew. I can't think of one instance of Christianity. Am I correct in stating this? Solomon, Solomon's Temple, Hiram, etc.?
The doctrine of original sin is purely Christian, and not acce by all Christian sects. . The narrative of Adam and Eve is certainly part of the Tanach.

There is no Jewish Bible. It is the Tanach.

Many parts of masonic ritual are Old Testament.

The Mark Degree is Christian in part. It is conferred in the Lodge in Scotland.
 
Last edited:

Spiro D'Estini

Registered User
Feeding the poor and helping the people are much important the praying in a church, or circling around the kaaba, or crying at the Wailing Wall.
Im saying this here because i believe that religions focus more on rituals than how people should treat each others and treat animals.
hell yeah for mentioning animals
 

Manwell

Registered User
Yes and the factors that you disregard should be and are published as well as the weaknesses of the study/thing that has developed in the actual paper. This means that someone else can use that as a starting point for another study. That is the whole basis of the scientific/academic discussion as things eventually move on and change due to the internal discussion. An example of a interesting discussion is in regards to whether the term gnosticism should be used or if the another term should be used.

You are mistaking two different discussion as well as the complexity. The current stance is actually more along the lines of "it depends", there are some things that AIs could be useful for and other instances where it's not. Again several separate discussions can be held in a subject and it's altogether a high chance that some researchers will see different problems and publish them.
That may be the case, Elixir. However, the term gnositicism literally means the act, practice, or process of knowing, since gnosis means knowing, and ism as a suffix means the act, practice, or process of. Scientism means the same thing, since science means knowing too, as in omniscience meaning all knowing. However, to KNOW whether another term should be used, it's important to know what knowing means.

Consider the hierarchy of knowledge, beginning with belief and opinion down the bottom, informed opinion a bit further up, and knowledge gained from experience next. At the very top of the list is knowing, which implies that something has been independently proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. In biblical terms, "Prove all things. Hold fast that which is good." In other words, don't "believe" a word anyone tells you, not even the words in this book, unless and until you've proven them beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Another phrase from the Bible completes the picture. "Then ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." In the biblical context, that was when Jesus was telling everyone that if they followed his teachings, the would be set free, however, Jesus' complete teachings aren't contained in the Bible, although just those two phrases are enough to set us free, if we're of a mind to get there.

However, putting the two together, once you've proven everything beyond the shadow of a doubt, you will KNOW THE TRUTH, and that will set you free. It seems to me that Jesus was implying that if his disciples followed his advice strictly, they'd eventually know the truth, which is obviously so profound that it cannot be accepted only in part. However, it gets interesting when you consider what it actually does set us free from. The only thing the truth could set us free from is our own most cherished illusions about ourselves and the world. Voltaire put it this way, "It's difficult to free fools from the chains they revere!! They're the chains we dare not break, because we have grown to love the comforting illusions they represent.

I guess what I'm saying is that changing gnosticism to something else would only obscure it's true meaning and significance. Unless, of course, we're quite happy with our chains, and don't see why anyone else should want to be free of them...
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
That may be the case, Elixir. However, the term gnositicism literally means the act, practice, or process of knowing, since gnosis means knowing, and ism as a suffix means the act, practice, or process of. Scientism means the same thing, since science means knowing too, as in omniscience meaning all knowing. However, to KNOW whether another term should be used, it's important to know what knowing means.

Consider the hierarchy of knowledge, beginning with belief and opinion down the bottom, informed opinion a bit further up, and knowledge gained from experience next. At the very top of the list is knowing, which implies that something has been independently proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. In biblical terms, "Prove all things. Hold fast that which is good." In other words, don't "believe" a word anyone tells you, not even the words in this book, unless and until you've proven them beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Another phrase from the Bible completes the picture. "Then ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." In the biblical context, that was when Jesus was telling everyone that if they followed his teachings, the would be set free, however, Jesus' complete teachings aren't contained in the Bible, although just those two phrases are enough to set us free, if we're of a mind to get there.

However, putting the two together, once you've proven everything beyond the shadow of a doubt, you will KNOW THE TRUTH, and that will set you free. It seems to me that Jesus was implying that if his disciples followed his advice strictly, they'd eventually know the truth, which is obviously so profound that it cannot be accepted only in part. However, it gets interesting when you consider what it actually does set us free from. The only thing the truth could set us free from is our own most cherished illusions about ourselves and the world. Voltaire put it this way, "It's difficult to free fools from the chains they revere!! They're the chains we dare not break, because we have grown to love the comforting illusions they represent.

I guess what I'm saying is that changing gnosticism to something else would only obscure its true meaning and significance. Unless, of course, we're quite happy with our chains, and don't see why anyone else should want to be free of them...
While I have no idea why you went down this road, you have chosen the wrong definition for the suffix of ism. In this instance, it is a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory, thus Gnosticism, the idea that only through attaining secret knowledge can people find their salvation and overcome the material world. It is not a process as defined, but a doctrine, one deemed hetertical by the Christian Church.

And I’m not sure how the rest of your thoughts follow.

May I ask about your higher education?
 

Elexir

Registered User
That may be the case, Elixir. However, the term gnositicism literally means the act, practice, or process of knowing, since gnosis means knowing, and ism as a suffix means the act, practice, or process of. Scientism means the same thing, since science means knowing too, as in omniscience meaning all knowing. However, to KNOW whether another term should be used, it's important to know what knowing means.

Gnosticism was used as an example of academic disscusion where one academic writes an argument why the term (as its defeined by academia) is wrong to use. I tend to see terms as contextdependent and not universal. This is why words in academic context is highly explained.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rethinking_"Gnosticism" is the book Im refering to
 

Manwell

Registered User
Thanks for putting that in context, Elexir. I'd agree that context is fundamentally important, but that it can be universal as well. In this case, the Gnostics don't seem to care what they're called, so it is purely an academic discussion, although changing the term would have implications on our perceptions about them over time.
 
Top