|
Post by edwmax on Dec 27, 2012 12:12:55 GMT 10
The complete quote as used in Freemasonry is "The Brotherhood of Man under the Fatherhood of God"; the qoute as used by the Church is " Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man". Regardless of which version of the quote used, they both have the same meaning. This is a Church metaphor originating in the mid/late 1800's. So to understand the metaphor, one only has to realize 'brothers' have the SAME father; therefore the 'Brotherhood of Man' all have a belief in the same God as father of all mankind. So exactingly where is there any statement that only a Christian can be Freemasons? It appears to me that Jews, Muslims, and Hindus fit in there too. They are not Christian ... My use of the above Brotherhood quote was to clarify a partially stated and miss-used quote to allude to something different; of which I'm not certain what that was. However, it wasn't in relation to a belief in God as the correct is quote is.
|
|
|
Post by edwmax on Dec 27, 2012 12:46:45 GMT 10
The complete quote as used in Freemasonry is "The Brotherhood of Man under the Fatherhood of God"; the qoute as used by the Church is " Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man". Regardless of which version of the quote used, they both have the same meaning.
This is a Church metaphor originating in the mid/late 1800's. So to understand the metaphor, one only has to realize 'brothers' have the SAME father; therefore the 'Brotherhood of Man' all have a belief in the same God as father of all mankind. This does not follow. A church metaphor from the 1800's is of too late an origin to be relevant here. Brothers may in a sense all share the same father but they do not necessarily share the same beliefs: Brothers do not necessarily agree on all things. Indeed, Freemasonry specifically seeks to, " to conciliate true friendship among those who may otherwise remain at a perpetual distance." It was used in the specific post that I quoted and reference to ... of which you have edited out to obscure the point of my comment. ... Whether you think the metaphor is relevant or not is immaterial to my comment. I am well aware the Brotherhood metaphor is not part of the Masonic Ritual, however it is stated in the preamble and statement of purpose of many US GLs Constitutions and used worldwide by many Freemasons
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 28, 2012 7:23:08 GMT 10
You have deliberately miss-quoted my post and taken my comment of context by removing part of the post. The above quoted comment was specifically about Torance's post where he was indicating Gnostics were Christian or was making his argument using Gnostic Christian as the basics.
Therefore, my statement stands ... not all Gnostics are Christian and as furthermore ... not all Gnostic even believe in a God. Gnostic itself is not a religion, it is an adjective meaning 'learned'.
So I suggest that you clarify what Gnostic you are referring too. The excerpt I used was chosen in good faith. You original post remains intact. If you feel I have misrepresented the spirit of what you wrote please cite the omitted text you think makes a difference. The reference to Gnosticism began not with Torence but with the Florida Grand Master, whose edict is the subject of this thread, so I suggest it is his reference to "Gnostic" which needs explication.
|
|
|
Post by edwmax on Dec 28, 2012 11:23:10 GMT 10
You have deliberately miss-quoted my post and taken my comment of context by removing part of the post. The above quoted comment was specifically about Torance's post where he was indicating Gnostics were Christian or was making his argument using Gnostic Christian as the basics.
Therefore, my statement stands ... not all Gnostics are Christian and as furthermore ... not all Gnostic even believe in a God. Gnostic itself is not a religion, it is an adjective meaning 'learned'.
So I suggest that you clarify what Gnostic you are referring too. The excerpt I used was chosen in good faith. You original post remains intact. If you feel I have misrepresented the spirit of what you wrote please cite the omitted text you think makes a difference.The reference to Gnosticism began not with Torence but with the Florida Grand Master, whose edict is the subject of this thread, so I suggest it is his reference to "Gnostic" which needs explication. Actually, I did exactly that, except for the missing quote from post #8... shown in red, this post and intact in your post and mine above. ... It is true the reference to Gnostic began with the GM of FL, however, my comment was to Torence's use of or reference to Gnostic Christians. ... If you need clarification of the GM use of Gnostic, then ask him. ... I can not speak for him, nor can I read his mind. Besides, Gnostic Christians, there are Jewish Gnostics and Gnostic Muslims; ... both non-christian ...
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 28, 2012 19:29:11 GMT 10
Actually, I did exactly that, except for the missing quote from post #8... shown in red, this post and intact in your post and mine above. ... Actually, your "except for" was what was required: Not all Gnostics are Christians or Jewish for that matter. Gnostic is an adjective meaning 'learned'. As you stated, 'Gnostic Christians' are acceptable. They are Christian. In stating that "Gnostic Christian' are acceptable. They are Christian", I suggest most readers would suppose you were suggesting other Gnostics were not acceptable. Moreover, just because the adjectival form "gnostic" has an independent, meaningful derivation does not mean that its use as a proper noun is identical with that derivation. For instance, here the conservative party calls itself the "Liberal Party of Australia"!?
|
|
|
Post by edwmax on Dec 28, 2012 20:57:35 GMT 10
Actually, I did exactly that, except for the missing quote from post #8... shown in red, this post and intact in your post and mine above. ... Actually, your "except for" was what was required: 1st. I believe you are full capable of reading the English language and my comment. 2 ... I also believe you know how to scroll up to read the missing quote if you have a question as to the exact wording. I see no reason to excessively clutter up a thread with repeated quoting of the same quoted text. Not all Gnostics are Christians or Jewish for that matter. Gnostic is an adjective meaning 'learned'. As you stated, 'Gnostic Christians' are acceptable. They are Christian. In stating that "Gnostic Christian' are acceptable. They are Christian", I suggest most readers would suppose you were suggesting other Gnostics were not acceptable. Moreover, just because the adjectival form "gnostic" has an independent, meaningful derivation does not mean that its use as a proper noun is identical with that derivation. For instance, here the conservative party calls itself the "Liberal Party of Australia"!? You can 'suggest' and 'suppose' all you want; and you would be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 29, 2012 7:14:03 GMT 10
1st. I believe you are full capable of reading the English language and my comment.
2 ... I also believe you know how to scroll up to read the missing quote if you have a question as to the exact wording. I see no reason to excessively clutter up a thread with repeated quoting of the same quoted text. While I can read English and scroll (sarcasm noted), I am not a mind reader. When you claim to have been misrepresented, I cannot be expected to automatically know to which text you refer, especially when it turns out you have not actually been misrepresented at all. While you “see no reason to excessively clutter up a thread with repeated quoting of the same quoted text”, I avoid that clutter by citing only the relevant text. This is NOT misrepresentation unless the omitted text changes the spirit of the quoted text. You can 'suggest' and 'suppose' all you want; and you would be wrong. I suggest it is for “most readers” (not you) to say if, when you write, “Gnostic Christians are acceptable. They are Christian”, whether or not (whatever your intended meaning) they would ordinarily understand that to mean the converse would not be acceptable to you.
|
|
|
Post by edwmax on Dec 29, 2012 8:39:11 GMT 10
1st. I believe you are full capable of reading the English language and my comment.
2 ... I also believe you know how to scroll up to read the missing quote if you have a question as to the exact wording. I see no reason to excessively clutter up a thread with repeated quoting of the same quoted text. While I can read English and scroll (sarcasm noted), I am not a mind reader. ... . You don't have to be. I write concise statements with specific points. Which was the reason for the quoted text to begin with. To be specific as to what the comment was about and to what was being referred to.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 29, 2012 8:43:24 GMT 10
While I can read English and scroll (sarcasm noted), I am not a mind reader. You don't have to be. I write concise statements with specific points.That is for readers to decide: It has not been my experience of your posts.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 29, 2012 9:27:35 GMT 10
To clarify matter, let me direct your attention to a retrospect of several key posts:
In the introductory post, Bro. Torence alerted us to an edict of the Florida GM, proscribing certain religious practices, including gnosticism. In Reply #2, Bro. Torence observed that, “Gnostics are usually Christians...” In Reply #8, Bro. edwmax stated that, “As you stated, 'Gnostic Christians' are acceptable. They are Christian.” In Reply #10, Bro. edwmax , argued in the context of a Church metaphor, “... therefore the 'Brotherhood of Man' all have a belief in the same God as father of all mankind.” In Reply #11, Bro. Jebidiah asked Bro. edwmax, “Are you saying only Christians ought to be Freemasons?” In Reply #12, Bro. edwmax replied bluntly, “No I didn't.” In Reply #13, I said, “Right glad I am to be thus assured, especially as your earlier posts had seemed to point in that direction.” Please note, this was a statement of perception not one of objective fact. In Reply #14, to support my previous post, I referred to Bro. edwmax’s Reply #8: I said, “Likewise, non-Christian Gnostics who believe in a supreme being are acceptable." In Reply #17, in response to my comment in Reply #13, Bro. edwmax declared, “There is no such post!” (ignoring Reply #14). In Reply #18, Bro. Smithee showed there was another post which might be thus read by directing readers to Reply #10. In Replies #19, #20 & #21, Bro. edwmax claimed to have been misrepresented, despite specific, verbatim examples having been given.
|
|