Masonic Forum Home Search Members Calendar Who's On Welcome Guest ( Login | Register ) Recent PostsRecent Posts Popular TopicsPopular Topics Home » General » Knobs & Excrescences » faith and tolerance 111 posts, Page 11 of 12«««89101112»» faith and tolerance Rate Topic Display Mode Topic Options Author Message M PerrottM Perrott Posted 11/03/2010 23:46 Fellow Group: Forum Members Last Login: 2 days ago @ 22:45 Posts: 291, Visits: 2,183 bod (11/03/2010)M Perrott (11/03/2010)If someone states "there is no god" does that not make them an atheist? Reversing that logically, an atheist is someone that states "there is no god".In that statement, there is further one. "Man" is the highest form of sentient life recognized by a person stating "there is no god". Therefore their life is totally egocentric and nothing is higher. I would dispute that an atheist (or 'non believer in god') is by default an egocentrist. Maybe bod. But consider the position of the person that states "there is no god". That implies they have considered all the data, have weighed up thier position in the food chain, and come to a conclusion that they are top of the chain. That is a fairly lonely spot. The statement is an absolute. There is no room for hedging your bets. They have completed the circle, and there they stand, in the middle. The world begins and ends with them. Every person outside the circle is equal to them, or lesser. That is either total confidence in their own abilities or complete arrogance. That is the egocentricity.If they have not weighed up all the data, the conclusion can not be reached...They may not ascribe anything to a 'divine power' but that doesn't mean they cannot see themselves as part of a greater wholeThat is the element of hedging their bets I suggested. There are two famous musicians that are known for their ambivalence. Sammy Davis Jnr and Bob Dylan. Both have stated publicly that they are either jewish, christian or atheist. It would have been easier if they had not said anything, but it does suggest that perhaps they were / are actually either undecided or non denominational theists. But it is after all no-one business.But to bring it back to the "masonic " context, what is the relevance of the question?It is after all, a "trust" question. Instead of asking outright, "can I trust you?" the question is made more other-worldly. And it is more than just a little white lie if someone does not answer truthfully because of that other-worldliness. "Do you belive in a supreme being?"By all means answer the question no. Or yes. But why cross your fingers (figuratively) and answer yes when you mean no? The question implies something that is above humanity, the mortal state that is not man made. A false answer is a poor foundation for any person to start with, and something others can not trust either. As I asked earlier, where does that attitude follow on? Such flexible integrity or morality would certainly make me think twice about leaving anything in their care. Money, valuables, personal matters... Post #19545 Cora BCora B Posted 12/03/2010 00:14 Fellow Group: Forum Members Last Login: Today @ 12:16 Posts: 389, Visits: 887 I am saddened to see this thread has been taken over by separatist, divisionist arguments. I have no desire to fuel that illusion, and I will therefore respectfully withdraw. Meanwhile, for those of you who are interested in that concept of "In Love and Unity" - have a look at this link:- Humanity's Team: 5 Steps to Peace As I said - it is something I am passionate about, and which is by no means limited to my masonic endeavours. Cora -- International Order of Co-Freemasonry "Le Droit Humain", British Federation Lodge Light of Amen-Ra No. 717, Orient of Surbiton Lodge St Francis No. 817, Orient of Camberley Mark Lodge Nephthys No. 32, Quarries of Surbiton HRA Triangle The Hidden Glory, Vault of Surbiton Post #19547 lauderdalelauderdale Posted 12/03/2010 05:37 Excellent Master Group: Forum Members Last Login: 04/07/2010 12:56 Posts: 2,238, Visits: 4,269 Such I have to say is the way of the Human Race. There will always be "camps", divisions, sides taken, postures struck and stances adopted. Look down through History, go as far back as one wishes, consider wars and civil wars, the various wars of religion still being fought today, tribal conflicts. I could go on and on. Unless we are invaded by hostile aliens from outer space, the "Independence Day" rather than the "Star Trek-First Contact" scenario, Humanity is unlikely to Unite, certainly not in my lifetime, there are far too many deep seated and long abiding differences and conflicts.The best that can be achieved is Peaceful Co-existence, be that on a Forum such as this, in a country such as the UK where a very bitter and divisive General Election is about to be fought, or in the World at large. I am sorry to be Dismal Willie, but I have always been a pragmatist and a realist and as an ordinary citizen I play the hand that Life has dealt me as best as I can and within the compass of my abilities and in those matters which come within my rather limited sphere of influence. Post #19552 dpdp Posted 12/03/2010 09:29 Past Master Group: Forum Members Last Login: Today @ 11:26 Posts: 903, Visits: 2,597 bod (11/03/2010)M Perrott (11/03/2010) If someone states "there is no god" does that not make them an atheist? Reversing that logically, an atheist is someone that states "there is no god". In that statement, there is further one. "Man" is the highest form of sentient life recognized by a person stating "there is no god". Therefore their life is totally egocentric and nothing is higher. I would dispute that an atheist (or 'non believer in god') is by default an egocentrist. They may not ascribe anything to a 'divine power' but that doesn't mean they cannot see themselves as part of a greater whole. This is an interesting illustration on why clarity of definition is so important on a text based forum. In the context Mark was speaking in I took egocentric to mean the belief that there was no sentient being higher than mankind and ergo the human ego must be the ultimate. This would not preclude an Atheist from being a humanist. Just from believing that there there was any higher intelligence than humankind. This I can go along with although I recognise the fact that you could believe in a higher form of life than mankind without that being God. I would also like to point out that there is no reason that an Atheist could not believe in God. It would just have to be a God created by man rather than visa versa... This would be as opposed to someone who was ego-maniacal... However, live by the dictionary, die by the dictionary: e·go·cen·tric [ee-goh-sen-trik, eg-oh-] Show IPA –adjective 1. having or regarding the self or the individual as the center of all things: an egocentric philosophy that ignores social causes. 2. having little or no regard for interests, beliefs, or attitudes other than one's own; self-centered: an egocentric person; egocentric demands upon the time and patience of others. I would not believe that an Atheist would by definition fit with the above... Post #19556 dpdp Posted 12/03/2010 09:53 Past Master Group: Forum Members Last Login: Today @ 11:26 Posts: 903, Visits: 2,597 M Perrott (11/03/2010) I think I was too vague in the first place and you may have misunderstood me. In your analogy, the DNA (gametes, zygotes, whatever) is made up of elements already known to scientists.I was meaning fundemental raw elements not on the periodic table that have never existed before. Fresh, point of collison, materials. If and when a person can say they have created something that unique, using no other existant building blocks, then they can say they have "god" in them. Well, I have never seen that. However I do believe unity. I do believe that all is one. I do believe in creation at different levels in different planes. I also believe in a Supreme Being. M Perrott (11/03/2010) On an emotional level is love not something that is created from nothing? Erm. no, for the readon stated above. On another level, love is not logical, can not be defined and is often its own minefield of untruth. How often for instance is undying love sworn just to acheive sex? The question of belief in god and the reply is far more important than an emotion. We will have to disagree here. Because something can be misused. Misunderstood and corrupted does not mean it is impure or even illogical. Although I believe that pure love would transcend human logic. I could go on here but this is not a thread on what dp believes... M Perrott (11/03/2010) Can the consistent and focussed energy of the mind bring the non physical into the physical. I think so yes. M Perrott (11/03/2010)Is not the arguing that god is exactly what you can describe it to be just clever semantics for:I am used to getting what I want and will lie to get it? If that is the case, what else will that person lie to get? Does it not suggest a certain sociopathic tendency that ignores the feelings, needs and rights of others to achieve personal gain? In the "masonic" context, is that not contrary to the basic unwritten and essentially unspoken precept of being self aware but not to the detriment of others? I would say so yes and on one of my earlier posts you can see that I personally believe God to be undefinable. You are probably right, it can not be proven either way. And in the absolutes, "yes I beleive in god" or no, I am an atheist" there is no misunderstanding, no ambiguity and certainly no intellectual falsehood. Political or soclal expediency, answering a question with a statement you know to be untrue, or just fudging with quasi philosophy it just to get in, that is where the problem lies. Sure, and that is why in my opinion the question "Do you believe in a Supreme Being." Is simple and concise. Post #19557 dpdp Posted 12/03/2010 10:06 Past Master Group: Forum Members Last Login: Today @ 11:26 Posts: 903, Visits: 2,597 Cora B (12/03/2010)I am saddened to see this thread has been taken over by separatist, divisionist arguments. I have no desire to fuel that illusion, and I will therefore respectfully withdraw. Meanwhile, for those of you who are interested in that concept of "In Love and Unity" - have a look at this link:- Humanity's Team: 5 Steps to Peace As I said - it is something I am passionate about, and which is by no means limited to my masonic endeavours. ????????????? Surely reasoned opposition is the heart of debate? Otherwise there wouldn't be much debate. I would oppose your statement that this thread has been taken over as anyone with a contrary opinion to whatever any party has stated is totally free to clearly state their position. I again state my original opposition to the premise that UGLE and Amity Freemasonry should change their entry requirements and again state that there are enough different forms of Freemasonry to give anyone who is genuinely interested access to the Craft. Post #19558 lauderdalelauderdale Posted 12/03/2010 12:21 Excellent Master Group: Forum Members Last Login: 04/07/2010 12:56 Posts: 2,238, Visits: 4,269 "I again state my original opposition to the premise that UGLE and Amity Freemasonry should change their entry requirements and again state that there are enough different forms of Freemasonry to give anyone who is genuinely interested access to the Craft."That sums it up beautifully DP and on this we can agree 100% Post #19564 NosameerfNosameerf Posted 12/03/2010 12:26 Master Group: Forum Members Last Login: 25/07/2010 10:38 Posts: 418, Visits: 7,598 lauderdale (12/03/2010) The best that can be achieved is Peaceful Co-existence, be that on a Forum such as this, in a country such as the UK where a very bitter anddivisive General Election is about to be fought, or in the World at large. I wholeheartedly agree! dp (12/03/2010)[quote]Surely reasoned opposition is the heart of debate? Otherwise there wouldn't be much debate. Indeed. You are a gentleman DP. Strength of manhood and beauty of spirit need combination. Masonry thus needs strength with gracefulness, stability with courtesy, and firmness with gentleness. Sapere aude; incipe! Post #19565 bodbod Posted 12/03/2010 12:41 Fellow Group: Forum Members Last Login: 26/07/2010 00:18 Posts: 302, Visits: 566 M Perrott (11/03/2010)bod (11/03/2010)M Perrott (11/03/2010)If someone states "there is no god" does that not make them an atheist? Reversing that logically, an atheist is someone that states "there is no god".In that statement, there is further one. "Man" is the highest form of sentient life recognized by a person stating "there is no god". Therefore their life is totally egocentric and nothing is higher. I would dispute that an atheist (or 'non believer in god') is by default an egocentrist. Maybe bod. But consider the position of the person that states "there is no god". That implies they have considered all the data, have weighed up thier position in the food chain, and come to a conclusion that they are top of the chain. That is a fairly lonely spot. The statement is an absolute. There is no room for hedging your bets. They have completed the circle, and there they stand, in the middle. The world begins and ends with them. Every person outside the circle is equal to them, or lesser. That is either total confidence in their own abilities or complete arrogance. That is the egocentricity.If they have not weighed up all the data, the conclusion can not be reached...They may not ascribe anything to a 'divine power' but that doesn't mean they cannot see themselves as part of a greater wholeThat is the element of hedging their bets I suggested. There are two famous musicians that are known for their ambivalence. Sammy Davis Jnr and Bob Dylan. Both have stated publicly that they are either jewish, christian or atheist. It would have been easier if they had not said anything, but it does suggest that perhaps they were / are actually either undecided or non denominational theists. But it is after all no-one business.But to bring it back to the "masonic " context, what is the relevance of the question?It is after all, a "trust" question. Instead of asking outright, "can I trust you?" the question is made more other-worldly. And it is more than just a little white lie if someone does not answer truthfully because of that other-worldliness. "Do you belive in a supreme being?"By all means answer the question no. Or yes. But why cross your fingers (figuratively) and answer yes when you mean no? The question implies something that is above humanity, the mortal state that is not man made. A false answer is a poor foundation for any person to start with, and something others can not trust either. As I asked earlier, where does that attitude follow on? Such flexible integrity or morality would certainly make me think twice about leaving anything in their care. Money, valuables, personal matters... Sorry Mark, I strongly disagree with you - saying their is no god is not equal to believing that man is the top of the food chain. Neither is it 'quasi-philosophy' - in judging such thought as 'quasi' anything one is setting oneself up in judgement over another individuals belief system, something I don't feel comfortable with and something I don't feel we are asked to do in freemasonry. After all, when asked 'Do you believe in a Supreme Being' we do not then invite the candidate to qualify the statement - why would we? More importantly how can one sit in judgement of another individuals definition of the universe? Post #19567 M PerrottM Perrott Posted 14/03/2010 22:57 Fellow Group: Forum Members Last Login: 2 days ago @ 22:45 Posts: 291, Visits: 2,183 bod (12/03/2010)Sorry Mark, I strongly disagree with you - saying their is no god is not equal to believing that man is the top of the food chain. Neither is it 'quasi-philosophy' - in judging such thought as 'quasi' anything one is setting oneself up in judgement over another individuals belief system, something I don't feel comfortable with and something I don't feel we are asked to do in freemasonry. After all, when asked 'Do you believe in a Supreme Being' we do not then invite the candidate to qualify the statement - why would we? More importantly how can one sit in judgement of another individuals definition of the universe?bod, you should not worry about disagreeing with me, however strongly. Our "masonic bond of friendship" can stand the strain, I am sure. Besides which, I am sure neither of us need constant confirmation of our worth to each other. It would creep me out if you followed me around telling how you agreed with me all the time. (Mind you, I appear to have set off the hate brigade again, the phone calls to my home have started again, after a few months of peace. During day time hours now, they are getting braver. Never mind, if they had anything worthwhile to say, they would say it, not just hang up. I have the numbers, but have no intention of ringing them, just as I have not replied to the endless stream of emails over several years.) Back to the topic in hand. You have misread me I think. I was making no judgement, I was stating that its a yes or no answer. The lifetime that gets the person to the question is their own personal journey, and there is no need to qualify the answer with details of the deity, modes of worship or the reasons for the denial of the existence of "god". Simple question, even simpler answer. For entry to UGLE, the question is asked. The answer yes gains entry. The answer no denies entry. I was actually meaning that if a person prevaricates by justifying their denial of god into a long drawn out story of hocus pocus just so that entry can be achieved, then the problem is not with the person asking the question, or the question itself. Post #19644 « Prev Topic | Next Topic » 111 posts, Page 11 of 12«««89101112»» Reading This Topic Active Users: 0 (0 guests, 0 members, 0 anonymous members) Forum Moderators: Mike Martin, Stu Thorpe, Tom Cherup Forum Jump... ---------------- Forum Home Search Members List Calendar Who's Online ---------------- Site Announcements |-- Announcements General |-- Greetings to our New Forumites |-- General Masonic Discussion |-- Masonic History (Legend -V- Fact) |-- Ritual - Esoteric & Symbols |-- Travellers' Diary & Dates |-- The Reading/Watching Room |-- The Appendant Degrees and Orders |-- Feminine & Co-Masonry |-- Knobs & Excrescences All times are GMT, Time now is 4:08pm Powered By InstantForum.NET v4.1.4 © 2010 Execution: 0.072. 8 queries. Compression Disabled.
Maybe bod. But consider the position of the person that states "there is no god". That implies they have considered all the data, have weighed up thier position in the food chain, and come to a conclusion that they are top of the chain. That is a fairly lonely spot. The statement is an absolute. There is no room for hedging your bets. They have completed the circle, and there they stand, in the middle. The world begins and ends with them. Every person outside the circle is equal to them, or lesser. That is either total confidence in their own abilities or complete arrogance. That is the egocentricity.
If they have not weighed up all the data, the conclusion can not be reached...
That is the element of hedging their bets I suggested. There are two famous musicians that are known for their ambivalence. Sammy Davis Jnr and Bob Dylan. Both have stated publicly that they are either jewish, christian or atheist. It would have been easier if they had not said anything, but it does suggest that perhaps they were / are actually either undecided or non denominational theists. But it is after all no-one business.
But to bring it back to the "masonic " context, what is the relevance of the question?
It is after all, a "trust" question. Instead of asking outright, "can I trust you?" the question is made more other-worldly. And it is more than just a little white lie if someone does not answer truthfully because of that other-worldliness.
"Do you belive in a supreme being?"
By all means answer the question no. Or yes. But why cross your fingers (figuratively) and answer yes when you mean no? The question implies something that is above humanity, the mortal state that is not man made. A false answer is a poor foundation for any person to start with, and something others can not trust either. As I asked earlier, where does that attitude follow on? Such flexible integrity or morality would certainly make me think twice about leaving anything in their care. Money, valuables, personal matters...
Unless we are invaded by hostile aliens from outer space, the "Independence Day" rather than the "Star Trek-First Contact" scenario, Humanity is unlikely to Unite, certainly not in my lifetime, there are far too many deep seated and long abiding differences and conflicts.
The best that can be achieved is Peaceful Co-existence, be that on a Forum such as this, in a country such as the UK where a very bitter and divisive General Election is about to be fought, or in the World at large.
I am sorry to be Dismal Willie, but I have always been a pragmatist and a realist and as an ordinary citizen I play the hand that Life has dealt me as best as I can and within the compass of my abilities and in those matters which come within my rather limited sphere of influence.
That sums it up beautifully DP and on this we can agree 100%
Sorry Mark, I strongly disagree with you - saying their is no god is not equal to believing that man is the top of the food chain. Neither is it 'quasi-philosophy' - in judging such thought as 'quasi' anything one is setting oneself up in judgement over another individuals belief system, something I don't feel comfortable with and something I don't feel we are asked to do in freemasonry.
After all, when asked 'Do you believe in a Supreme Being' we do not then invite the candidate to qualify the statement - why would we? More importantly how can one sit in judgement of another individuals definition of the universe?
bod, you should not worry about disagreeing with me, however strongly. Our "masonic bond of friendship" can stand the strain, I am sure. Besides which, I am sure neither of us need constant confirmation of our worth to each other. It would creep me out if you followed me around telling how you agreed with me all the time.
(Mind you, I appear to have set off the hate brigade again, the phone calls to my home have started again, after a few months of peace. During day time hours now, they are getting braver. Never mind, if they had anything worthwhile to say, they would say it, not just hang up. I have the numbers, but have no intention of ringing them, just as I have not replied to the endless stream of emails over several years.)
Back to the topic in hand. You have misread me I think. I was making no judgement, I was stating that its a yes or no answer. The lifetime that gets the person to the question is their own personal journey, and there is no need to qualify the answer with details of the deity, modes of worship or the reasons for the denial of the existence of "god".
Simple question, even simpler answer.
For entry to UGLE, the question is asked. The answer yes gains entry. The answer no denies entry.
I was actually meaning that if a person prevaricates by justifying their denial of god into a long drawn out story of hocus pocus just so that entry can be achieved, then the problem is not with the person asking the question, or the question itself.
For Email Marketing you can trust