This blog explores both historical and current events guided by the thought of the leading thinkers, past and present, of this school or movement of theology. Refer to the Classic Posts, Great and Contemporary Thinkers, various links of all kinds, in addition to the Archives themselves. David is the founder and manager of this website, but many friends contribute to it on a regular basis.
Amazing the degree that is traveled to say something is bad. Also, I find references from 150 years ago to be as hard to digest as I do hilarious to read.
Shaw, whom the author quotes frequently, is a liar, and Pike, when read out of context to the degrees, is just as confusing.
I’m surprised there isn’t a quote from Taxili in there.
The simplicity I see is that if your faith is such that you perceive the divine by such a narrow slice then so be it. But how can one say what another “should” see too? Even Pike addressed this saying, from the 14th degree(p. 222 ):
“Man's views in regard to God, will contain only so much positive truth as file human mind is capable of receiving; whether that truth is attained by the exercise of reason, or communicated by revelation. It must necessarily be both limited and alloyed, to bring it within the competence of finite human intelligence. Being finite, we can form no correct or adequate idea of the Infinite; being material, we can form no clear conception of the Spiritual.”
In this same degree, Pike goes on to say: “For every man's conception of God must vary with his mental cultivation and mental powers. If any one contents himself with any lower image than his intellect is capable of grasping, then he contents himself with that which is false to him, as well as false in fact. If lower than he can reach, he must needs feel it to be false.”
Isn’t it our obligation, Christian or otherwise, to seek out knowledge of the divine?
I'm no fan of biased reporting on freemasonry; and yet masonry is at best superfluous to a Christian. See, for instance Colossians 2.
To the above quotes, I would respond with St. Anselm of Canterbury, that God is greater than that which can be conceived; and with St. Augustine who said that if you can conceive it, it's not God. The best that man can achieve unaided is enclosing God in a greater or lesser measure (or compass if you will) - and thus, man ends up worshipping his own idea.
Man is limited in his ability to approach God. And yet the infinite God is capable of revealing Himself to man. This revelation has become incarnate in Jesus Christ: He is not only the truth and the life, but also the way - such a path does not allow us to cling to Christ or reduce Him to our measure, but we may follow Him in our daily circumstance. Only this free person who is the truth is worthy of obedience. Everything else is a signpost on the road which heads either toward or away from the Word made flesh. ~Fred
2 comments:
Amazing the degree that is traveled to say something is bad. Also, I find references from 150 years ago to be as hard to digest as I do hilarious to read.
Shaw, whom the author quotes frequently, is a liar, and Pike, when read out of context to the degrees, is just as confusing.
I’m surprised there isn’t a quote from Taxili in there.
The simplicity I see is that if your faith is such that you perceive the divine by such a narrow slice then so be it. But how can one say what another “should” see too? Even Pike addressed this saying, from the 14th degree(p. 222
):
“Man's views in regard to God, will contain only so much positive truth as file human mind is capable of receiving; whether that truth is attained by the exercise of reason, or communicated by revelation. It must necessarily be both limited and alloyed, to bring it within the competence of finite human intelligence. Being finite, we can form no correct or adequate idea of the Infinite; being material, we can form no clear conception of the Spiritual.”
In this same degree, Pike goes on to say:
“For every man's conception of God must vary with his mental cultivation and mental powers. If any one contents himself with any lower image than his intellect is capable of grasping, then he contents himself with that which is false to him, as well as false in fact. If lower than he can reach, he must needs feel it to be false.”
Isn’t it our obligation, Christian or otherwise, to seek out knowledge of the divine?
I'm no fan of biased reporting on freemasonry; and yet masonry is at best superfluous to a Christian. See, for instance Colossians 2.
To the above quotes, I would respond with St. Anselm of Canterbury, that God is greater than that which can be conceived; and with St. Augustine who said that if you can conceive it, it's not God. The best that man can achieve unaided is enclosing God in a greater or lesser measure (or compass if you will) - and thus, man ends up worshipping his own idea.
Man is limited in his ability to approach God. And yet the infinite God is capable of revealing Himself to man. This revelation has become incarnate in Jesus Christ: He is not only the truth and the life, but also the way - such a path does not allow us to cling to Christ or reduce Him to our measure, but we may follow Him in our daily circumstance. Only this free person who is the truth is worthy of obedience. Everything else is a signpost on the road which heads either toward or away from the Word made flesh.
~Fred
Post a Comment