> Ask Jesus. He’s the one who made the proclamation.
I’d rather ask you.
> Transparency and Secrets are contradictory terms.
How so? Like all organizations, Freemasons have things that are confidential and not to be disclosed to non-members. Believe it or not, you do not have a Constitutional “Right to Know”. If busybodies wrote your Constitution, you would have that right. But they didn’t, so you don’t.
If you think it thru carefully, you would probably agree that is a good thing.
> So far, other than saying “well that is their opinion” you have done nothing to refute what has been said
I don’t have to refute it, beyond noting that it is his opinion to have and to hold and to spruik forth as much as he likes. I don’t share his opinion, I don’t have to share it, and I don’t have to argue it — it is there on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and I choose to leave it. I am free to argue the toss with Pike if I felt his Opinion important enough to refute, but frankly why waste the time?
> A financial institution will not make you swear upon getting your throat slit if you break the promise.
Neither does Freemasonry. Once again demonstrating the futility of trying to delve into things that are really of no legitimate concern to you. As I said, the analogy is perfect.
> Jah Bul On is not compatible with Christianity.
Again demonstrating the futility of delving into matters that do not concern you. “Jah Bul On” plays no part of the three degrees of regular Freemasonry. And you would be thoroughly disappointed if you knew what it did pertain to, and why.
As Alexander Pope (a famous Catholic Freemason) once famously wrote:
“A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.”
And that, really, is very sound advice, both for life in general and for Freemasonry in specific.
> Any “penalty” short of disfellowshipping to a mere fraternal organization is an exercise in control that nobody should be willing to take. A fraternal group should have the right to say who is included in their organization and who isn’t. They shouldn’t have penalties beyond that.
Who says we do? And what do you think happens to Freemasons who break their promises and tell our Secrets?
> Not the same situation.
> Not the same situation again.
Identical situations. If you disagree, then in what ways are they different? They are the same: the analogy fits perfectly!
> Freemasonry is not a legal entity subject to governmental laws if you break a secret.
Neither is a bank, neither is any organization for which you must sign a Confidentiality Agreement.
> You may have civil damages, but unlike a bank, or an insurance company, it stands alone and is a different breed of cat if you will.
In what way? Seriously, you Conspiracy Theorists are talking out of your hat!