Bloke
Premium Member
..I also sincerely hope that I break no laws regarding copyright here as I'm excerpting only a few sentences.
Nope, it's called "Fair Use" and does not break copyright
..I also sincerely hope that I break no laws regarding copyright here as I'm excerpting only a few sentences.
I agree with that proposition. The next question is whether the Supreme Being hung around watching or went off to play elsewhere.
Grand Lodges seem to like the latter hypothesis.
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.......I agree - although I would distinguish soul from spirit
I disagree....he made us speak different languages to drive us appart so we couldn't finish the tower of babel....so essentially we are just carrying on exactly what he wanted
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
I disagree, the soul dies when the body does, but the spirit lives on.Although I add:
The soul is immortal; the spirit is eternal.
The soul is bound to space-time; the spirit transcends time-space.
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 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
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.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.
A good starting point in your research is to acknowledge that the Grand Lodge of 1717 was titled, the Premier Grand Lodge of England.As I was doing research it states the first Englishman to become a SPECULATIVE mason was Elias Ashmole in the 1600's. But that was before the UGLE which was in 1717. It then goes on to mention that Four Lodges created UGLE, unfortunately nobody know about these four lodges names.
Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro
Unfortunately there will always be 3 classes of Freemasonry; Regular, Irregular and Clandestine.So, the mind frame of irregular and regular concept has to be destroyed to say the least. (Even though that's not going to happen) I have only been a Master Mason for a couple of months if not that. I love the craft at a early age, but I see many downsides that breaks up a UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD. This is cause number one. It could be broken if we all meet on the level, and act upright.
Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro
The men are trying to explain that the Premier Grand Lodge of England established itself as the governing body of Freemasonry at that time.All great answers. Nothing like good education concerning Masonic talk. There has to be a beginning , I just can't connect the dots of what was the real origin? Who warrant those warring Grand lodges? I hope I'm not sounding to far fetch. But eventually we have to start from some where.
Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro
This might be too complex for the new MM to understand.No problem with wanting change, and that is a desire if many of us.
To be more precise, UGLE is not in amity because of a lack of treaty between GLGA and PHA GA, which is in part due to racism, but problematic based on an understanding that PHA GA is in amity with GLdF.
Possibly, but they are always welcome to ask questions.This might be too complex for the new MM to understand.
Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app
Can we find those names to any lodge that supposedly came together to form UGLE?
Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro
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.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
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
I'm unaware of any reliable source for Prince EdwinYes 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
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.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.