Come on now, you're better than this.
Stop Googling and do some real research! All you are doing is bringing up archaic quotes from people that have been disproven for decades.
Seriously, I've read some of your other posts on this site, and you're no dummy. What you're bringing to us is the equivalent of kindergarten nonsense.
If any of them could do any real research, then they wouldn't be antimasons AND claiming to be Christians... Well, at least followers of the Bible anyway.
The word "Christian", just like the word "Freemason" has no copyright and anyone can claim to be one even if they would not be recognized as such by the actual ones.
"The symbolism of the Master's Degree, as we have it now, is necessarily restricted to the First Temple and to the present life; although it reaches a climax in the assurance of a future life all without the aid of the Bible, God, Jesus Christ or the church." (John A. Hertel Company, "The Masonic Bible,' pages 10-11)
"The masonic doctrine of the unity of God teaches that: (1) The names of the different nature gods (Brahma, Baal, Om, On, Dagon, Osiris, Allah, Molech, and Shango), along with Jehovah, all denote the generative (reproductive) principle in nature. (2) All religions are essentially the same in their ideas of the divine. (3) It is for this express purpose that the simple Mason is instructed to look upon every man's religion as his own." (C. F. McQuaig and James D. Shaw, "The Masonic Report," page 8)
Actually pulling up both my several copies of different printings of the KJV Bible, Masonic Edition from the Hertel company. I even found a copy online for you to actually read
here. It is on page 11 completely. Sorry about the quality of the website, they are the first group I could easily find with a pdf copy for free. Interestingly enough, they are your fellow travelers in antimasonry. They aren't teaching anything I believe.
I'll note, for education purposes, they appear to claim to be Catholics, but I immediately noted a variance from the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church while skimming over the text looking for the link to the pdf. FYI, it at the top of the page above the picture, no need to read the text except for your personal information. However, it does go to show how people can claim to be one thing and not be part of the actual group.
The real and not FAKE ANTIMASONIC quote: "The symbolism of the Master Degree, as we have it now, is necessarily restricted to the First Temple and the present life, although it reaches a climax in the assurance of a future life."
Now, retyping yours and showing the usual antimasonic "additions" in
bold: "The symbolism of the Master
's Degree, as we have it now, is necessarily restricted to the First Temple and to the present life
; although it reaches a climax in the assurance of a future life
all without the aid of the Bible, God, Jesus Christ or the church."
So, the "damning" bit represents pure fabrication on your part. Yes, yours, because you failed in your due diligence to do proper research and study before spewing forth false witness against Christians who merely disobey the teachings of antimasonry that claims to be Christian.
As a side note, I do recognize a bit of the philosophical style, it is York Rite Masonry, of which I am not a member, so I cannot speak to their teachings other than in general. Which isn't applicable in this case, since I simply had to blow the quote down on the sheer falseness of it.
As for your other quote with Mr. Jim Shaw's name on it as an author, dismissed. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel here, you can go to masonicinfo (dot) com and look up his name there for the links to extensive documentation of Mr. Shaw's lack of veracity about Freemasonry.
Simply put, Mr. Shaw claimed to be a Past Worshipful Master of a lodge and a 33 degree Scottish Rite Mason. Mr Shaw spoke falsely, not only was he never a 33d SR Mason, not only was he not a Past Worshipful Master, Mr. Shaw was never even elected to an office in his lodge.
However, the point being, by freely quoting information from very suspect sources who have been known to be rather far from the truth in their core claims, you make yourself equal to that source, with the equal negative bits. To the point that without a LOT more support, anything from Jim Shaw is about as bad as quoting Morals & Dogma without dealing the Preface that Pike wrote first.
BTW, you avoiding that one or owning up to it? Actually, you have several from that reply of mine that make me look at your screen name and think: "That word, it does not mean what he thinks it means, does it?"