It jibes perfectly with the sort of "reasoning" espoused on a PBS special on faith in America last year wherein the talking heads spoke of how it's not important what we believe but only that Americans are a nation of "believers."
Insidious to the core. Particularly where we are talking about a nation that lacks the Euro Soviet's honesty in stripping the public square of all mention of God but seeks to keep the godly imprimatur for itself even as it wages unjust war, slaughters over one million of its own each year, leads the world in porn revenues and -- by federal mandate -- preaches evolutionism and "sex education" in schools.
But, given the fact most self-styled Christians these days likewise compartmentalize their lives and seek to exclude -- with the federally-mandated "rights" of birth control, artificial reproduction and abortion -- the Creator from their marriage beds, even, it's to be expected.
The Monsignor takes Masonry more seriously than you. A blueblood reared on Fifth Avenue and in London, he was late to his vocation. Very likely, it's his adult career as a mover and shaker in the world of Money which has caused him to become a point man of sorts for issues of Masonry within and outside the Church.
I find it somewhat curious that, on the one hand, gullible Masons can crow about the Founding Fathers having all been Masons, laid out our capitol in an occult fashion (pretending to themselves that astrology was yet then a "science" in the lobotomized "Age of Reason") and relied so heavily on the diabolicized and secularized France to wage the revolution.
Yet, on the other hand, they disavow any notion of this Masonic Revolution's being a conspiracy. At least the Bolsheviks -- particularly those a part of their predecessor organization the Narodnya Volya "will of the people" -- have more intellectual honesty.
Perhaps that too is a part of being conditioned to Compartmentalize like a good Mason and pretend that social work is the zenith of "morality." Is it any wonder that the "faithbased partnership" movement of our government reflects its Masonic roots so clearly as it denudes with illicitly gained federal funding those faithbased organizations stupid enough to feed at the federal trough and thereby obligate themselves -- like Masons -- to put their personal beliefs aside in favor of styling themselves somehow "moral" charities?
Masonry is utterly incompatible with Christ. If this thread weren't proof enough, my conversation with a Mason at the Monteleone Hotel the other night is still fresh in my mind. His group of Shriners has a special sub-group (here in town this past weekend) devoted to "Mirth". Which devotion (from what I could tell) included trying to pick up women in bars and returning to the hotel room in time to get a call from the weekend's liaison, which assignation did not appear to have much, if anything, to do with the man's "Christian" marriage.
"When is dogma "odious"?Ohhh... don't tempt me...
(And no... I wasn't being at all sarcastic.)
Nor am I. I suspect dogma is "odious" in the sense that it is actually binding in the same way objective Truth binds a man who accepts same.
Given the fact there is no Mason or Masonic sympathizer on this thread -- women being absolutely excluded, of course -- who has the supreme degree of Membership necessary to defend ALL of Masonry's rites, dogma or secrets, your spirited defenses of a rite you know only superficially are less than convincing.
Although, it is extremely interesting to see how devoted and reliable are the Useful Idiots content to defend as "moral", in particular, an organization they themselves are barred from knowing intimately.
This too is a most useful bit of conditioning where you expect the sheeple to "trust" (if not necessarily verify) the machinations they fund, the real lives they take and the Godgiven liberties they trade all in the name of State Security.
That you are so blinded by the massive amounts of tinfoil you're wearing,to be unable to do anything more than throw out baseless and by now quite aged, banal propaganda foisted upon the gullible,by the Catholic church,shows the shallowness of your arguments.
Why does it matter that your friend the Monsignor comes from a supposed wealthy family?
Was George Washington a "self-styled Christian"?
Are the Jewish and Buddhist Masons self-styled as well?
Are we to infer,from your postings,that a church,whose history is filled with intrigue,corruption,and hypocrisy has the right to not only condemn and bear false witness against men they do not know and an organization which they began to abjure and counsel against because of its own feared,greed,and lust for power, but to imbue some of its adherents with the will to also heap calumny upon others,for no valid reason,be taken as whole clothe? WHY?
Oh goody goody gum drops...you met a Shriner who fed you a line of bovine excrement and you are now damning mill;ions of men,alive and dead,with that.Okay,let's talk about the Catholic priests and Nuns,going back millenia who molest/ed young children,shall we? What about The open licentiousness of millions of Catholics throughout the ages? Revolutions and torture and crimes of all sorts? Wanna beigin with the baseless imprisonments,torture,and murders of people from the Knights Templar to Jews to innocent people called witches,who weren't,to the fact that even through the 1950s,your church was still preaching to the faithful that Protestants were NOT Christians,had no religion at all,were just heretics,and other such vile propaganda?
You can believe whatever you want to,no matter how misguided and false those opinions ma be;however,when you espouse them in public and libel good men and true and their families,Askel,don't expect to do so with impunity.
And Askel,ignoring me and my posts,really isn't a good reflection on you. ;^)
Would you care to point out where anybody implied that you should? If you are referencing my statements on Albert Pike I have to warn you. You are comparing your beliefs to the opinions of one man. You have just insulted your own religion.
...while requiring that its members "believe" in some supreme being -- put that faith (Christianity, Judaism, etc. etc.) second while presuming to put the organization's own bland Social Works and personal Success morality first.
A very old and tired argument. When a man petitions a lodge, he is told very plainly that, if the Fraternity causes any disharmony in his family, his religion, or his vocation, then it is not for him. As for not discussing religion, we do not discuss sectarian religious beliefs. Just as we do not discuss sectarian politics within the lodge. For if there are two subjects that are sure to cause a fight, it's those two. (Note the mudslinging over on the Religious Forum over which flavor of Christianity is the right one.) BTW Elaborate on your earlier 'amusement' on Jews being Masons.
Particularly where we are talking about a nation...< snip >...preaches evolutionism and "sex education" in schools.
You lost me on that whole paragraph other than you seem to have used it as an opportunity to make the obligatory reference to abortion that you place in nearly every one of your posts irregardless of the subject.
...and [the Founding Fathers] relied so heavily on the diabolicized and secularized France to wage the revolution.
France at the time was a monarchy and the state religion was Catholicism. Many nations were approcahed in our fight against the British ;France, Germany, Spain, Russia and others. The French obliged. They had the supplies we needed and they were looking at any excuse to needle the Brits. It worked.
At least the Bolsheviks -- particularly those a part of their predecessor organization the Narodnya Volya "will of the people" -- have more intellectual honesty.
There are alot of dead Jews and Christians who would take issue with that statement.
Perhaps that too is a part of being conditioned to Compartmentalize like a good Mason and pretend that social work is the zenith of "morality."
No one ever said it was. Much less Masons. Good works are merely one way in which to put one's faith into practice. ONE.
Masonry is utterly incompatible with Christ. If this thread weren't proof enough, my conversation with a Mason at the Monteleone Hotel the other night is still fresh in my mind. His group of Shriners has a special sub-group (here in town this past weekend) devoted to "Mirth". Which devotion (from what I could tell) included trying to pick up women in bars and returning to the hotel room in time to get a call from the weekend's liaison, which assignation did not appear to have much, if anything, to do with the man's "Christian" marriage.
As you failed to provide any evidence that the man you were speaking to was actually engaging in such activities, I'll put that down to your own pre-conceived notions of Masons. It reminds me of my late Grandmother who thought for a long time that, the mere fact that I rode a motorcycle, I must be doing drugs. (The fact that I was in law enforcement at the time didn't occur to her.) It was amusing, to say the least. ;-)
I suspect dogma is "odious" in the sense that it is actually binding in the same way objective Truth binds a man who accepts same.
It becomes odious when it is done by habit and not with regard to the deeper meaning of the practice. It also becomes odious when one tries to figuratively beat others over the head with it.
Given the fact there is no Mason or Masonic sympathizer on this thread -- women being absolutely excluded, of course -- who has the supreme degree of Membership necessary to defend ALL of Masonry's rites, dogma or secrets, your spirited defenses of a rite you know only superficially are less than convincing.
And what, pray tell, would be the 'supreme degree of Membership neccessary' to convince you? Call it a hunch but, judging from your 'encounter' the other night, I have the sneaky suspicion that degree does not exist for you.
And as for having only superficial knowledge, I find it endlessly humorous that you, not hving any affiliation with the Fraternity, know aaaaaaaalllll about it!
Your arguments don't hold water, but the more I read your cyber-vitriol, I get the feeling that you are retaining it.