Talk:Great Architect of the Universe

message: Ok, there are a couple of weird errors on this page.  First of all, there is no evidence that Francis Bacon was ever a Freemason.  And second of all, it was Roger Bacon who was the early developer of the [scientific method], not Francis.  There's a 300 year difference there. Pymander Jones 19:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors

message: As I write this, 'Supreme Being' redirects here. I'm changing it to redirect to God. --Andymussell 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted, and altered back. Supreme Being need not imply G*d and it may be felt offensive to some to assert that they are one and the same.ALR 15:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Supreme Being now has its own article, since it neither refers specifically to a god, nor specifically to the Great Architect of this article, it explains the relations well I think. Tyciol (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: I do not really think it is appropriate to have Speculative Commentary in an encyclopedia...  At least not in the way done here.  It is fine to report on the speculations of Masonic Scholars and "experts" in the field of Masonry (provided we can properly cite the material), but what is written here is the speculation of an editor, and not that of a recognized Masonic scholar.  The section either needs to be majorly re-written or deleted.  If the statements can be backed by a noted scholar, then much more needs to be cited.  I will add citation requests for now, but if nothing is changed or added after about a week, I will delete. Blueboar 18:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I divided it up and headed it as such, since nobody else was paying much attention here at the time I was wary of deleting it without notice and never got back to it.  I'd be comfortable with getting rid.ALR 02:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I will delete now and not wait longer.  If someone objects they can revert. Blueboar 21:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculative commentary

message: No objections... Just a comment.  About the only other information I could see adding might be that the term first appeared in Anderson's Constitutions ... and that Brent Morris says that Anderson seems to have taken it from the writings of John Calvin (who refers to either the "Great Architect" or "Architect of the Universe" several times.)  I don't think my info will add enough to change the prod nom. However if you think it will help I can provide refs. Blueboar 22:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prod

message: As much as I am enjoying our exploration into the teachings of Freemasonry... they really are besides the point.  I have another issue with the two sentences under dispute, an issue that is more directly relevant to whether it can be included in the article or not... As written the material fails Wikipedia's WP:Verification policy.  Unless you can provide a reliable source that says: "Freemasonry often includes concepts of God as an external entity, however, esoteric masonic teachings clearly identify God as the individual himself, the perceiver. We are all God and as such we create our own reality." you can not say it in the article.  In fact, without a source, it also violates our WP:No original research policy. Blueboar (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. We part upon the square. As some "mouth to ear" advice, for the future, if someone objects something you add to an article, just discuss the issue on the talk page... don't keep trying to reinsert your material. Doing so is very much frowned on at Wikipedia, and some people will not be as patient about it as I was. Blueboar (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh... one last thing... I note that you do provide a cite for other parts of your addition (the citation to Mary Slipper)... I will convert it to the standard format for you (by adding .... around the citation), but to make it a better citation (one that will withstand challenges from others) and conform it to standard Wikipedia guidelines, it could use the full publishing info... Just add the publisher, and date of publication at the end). Blueboar (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Another problem with the text

message: It is still under discussion. Have some patience please. Blueboar (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop edit warring by adding the removed material 

message: I think the article should explicitly mention Jahbulon as one of the possible interpretations of GATU. I know some Masons may not agree with this, but I think it would be NPOV for all the non-Mason critics of the Lodge, especially on the part of British author Stephen Knight, who was one of the more scholarly and intellectual writers to openly discuss this view or hypothesis. ADM (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not per WP:FRINGE. end of discussion. Blueboar (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jahbulon

message: The editors of the article should consider asking whether the cult of the Supreme Being has something to do with the cult of the Great Architect of the Universe found in Freemasonry. The cult of the Supreme Being intervened during the most difficult and anti-Christian moments of the French Revolution and some anti-Masonic writers such as abbé Augustin Barruel have taken it as evidence that Freemasonry is radically incompatible with Christianity. ADM (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK... let's consider it...  One is a term invented by a Catholic theologian (Aquinus), expanded upon by a Protestant theologian (Calvin) which which was first used in a Masonic context by a Protestant Minister (Anderson) in a fraternity that at the time was distinctly Christian... and which has subsequently been expanded (as Freemasonry expanded to allow non-Christians to join) to so that it is now a non-denominational term explicitly supporting all religious faiths.  The other was invented by atheists (or at best deists) and used in a distinctly anti-religious framework.  Hmmmm.... nope, no connection.   Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cult of the Supreme Being

message: Böri (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what your question is here?  If your question is: "Does the term Great Architect of the Universe refer to Satan?" then the answer is... No.  As the article notes, the term was coined by Calvin (who took it from Aquinas) in a  a distinctly Christian context referring to God; and as far as I know, Satanists do not use the term.)  If the question is: "Do a few people on the fringes think the term Great Architect of the Universe refers to Satan?" then the answer is... Yes.  A few Anti-Masonic Evangelicals (who apparently don't know the history of their own denominations) make this claim... they are wrong. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you Böri (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't write "does" so I deleted it. Böri (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Architect of the Universe = Satan? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Great Architect of the Universe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317185243/http://www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/summa/FP/FP027.html to http://www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/summa/FP/FP027.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified