Originally posted by Justanotherperson
The early secret society were homosexual groups, that is why they were secret.

Ummmm, how about early man who thought that when it thundered...gods were banging drums in the sky. Just like that early man, you also have no idea what you are talking about so you are making up facts.

Maybe do some independent research and try again on that one.

Originally posted by Justanotherperson
I don't have a problem with you playing? Who cares if you are part of the wooly buffalo or masons. Just the same.

If you dont have a problem , one wonders why you made out were all decended from Homosexuals , which is impossible when you actually think about it.

I don't understand your point? Are you saying that it is impossible to be a homosexual Mason and have descendants?

You could have a normal life with a wife and children, and hang out with the "boys" at night. That is why it is a secret.. Don't tell anyone

Originally posted by Justanotherperson
I don't understand your point? Are you saying that it is impossible to be a homosexual Mason and have descendants?

You could have a normal life with a wife and children, and hang out with the "boys" at night. That is why it is a secret.. Don't tell anyone

I don't understand your point

Do you think all masons are homosexual

Do you think all members or all "secret societies" are homosexual

Do you think this is the reason they are secret and thast is the secret they give

Originally posted by Justanotherperson
I don't understand your point? Are you saying that it is impossible to be a homosexual Mason and have descendants?

You could have a normal life with a wife and children, and hang out with the "boys" at night. That is why it is a secret.. Don't tell anyone

This is too easy .

Then you would not be Homosexual you would be bi-sexual ?

Wow, this thread sure took a detour. Special thanks to Justanotherperson. You must be one of the kids that wasn't allowed in the tree fort.

Now back to it...

ML, you have stated that the Druid/Mason connection is a hoax, but wouldn't you say there are some similarities between the two that are not easily explained away? You are the scholar around here, that's why I ask you, I feel you are more likely to give a good response here. I'm not saying one way or the other, and granted, I am not initiated (yet *fingers crossed*) so I have no basis for comparison.

Do you think that there is in fact a group that carries on the traditions and teachings of the Druids that goes by some other name? I have always found them (The Druids) interesting, can you point me to some *good* reading on the subject?

Thanks in advance

-A

[edit on 12/7/04 by The Axeman]

[edit on 12/7/04 by The Axeman]

There are basic similarities in all groups of men. Mostly genetic.

The herding instinct

Survival

Need for God

You are aware that every civilization has had similar basic fundametals.

I think you have to accept that survival of the fitest can account for some of these similarities. In other words Groups that have a pecking order, Laws, Family structure. respect for life. These groups will survive much better than those who do not.

Modern Freemasonry : Brotherly Love Relief and Truth. Now there is nothing astounding about these words, what is astounding is that anyone keeps to them. That in iys raw state is what Masonry tries to do. Physically impress on an individual the importance of these basic principles.

I agree with you Bill.
And because of that herding instinct, where-ever you get groups of people together, you will find similarities between them.
If you look at some of the recently discovered tribes in Papua New Guinea, you can see that some aspects of their societies and religions have similarities with those in the rest of the world which they have never made contact with. There are some traditions that man naturally evolves towards.

The problem is that we see these similarities and don't realise that they can grow independently due to the nature of mankind and we start looking for links where there may be none.

What we forget is that two totally different people may come up with the same idea and put it into practice. We accept this in other aspects of life such as science. Why not in culture, tradition and religion (which was viewed as a science by some) where it's equally as plausible?

Pyramids are a great example.

There are strange similatirties betwwen Egyptian pyramids and Myan pyramids of South America. They spent years trying to figure out if the Myan's had crossed the seas.

Then a clever archeology student simply concluded that the easiest way to make a tall structure without a crane , is a wide base with ever diminishing layers arriving at a pinnicle?

Conspiracy thoery shot down.

One of the main problems with delving into the past is that there will never be a 100% true theory, due to the fact that we, as in people of today, were not there.

Due to the fact we have to rely on interpretation we can only get as far as I am almost positive..., or I am almost certain... for some one who says I am positive 100% is merely showing faith in their own beleive as to what the truth is.

There will always be someone to question an answer.

The problem is getting people to decide what is most logical

[edit on 8/12/2004 by Bondi]

In my opinion, you guys are too into the Occam's Razor principle.

Well I can't argue with that. I don't know what the hell it is ?

Originally posted by billmcelligott
Well I can't argue with that. I don't know what the hell it is ?

Ockham's razor: A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.

In other words, the most mundane, uninsightful and boring answers are the correct ones according to the principle. (Ex. Apes look like man and seem the most intelligent of warm blooded land dwelling creatures. Therefore, we must have come from apes.)

I agree with all of Shadow's words, except the following syllogism:

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource

(Ex. Apes look like man and seem the most intelligent of warm blooded land dwelling creatures. Therefore, we must have come from apes.)

Applying Ocham's Razor, the conclusion reached could only lead us to "Therefore, we are more closely related to apes than other creatures", and not necessarily "we must have come from apes".

Indeed, it has never been postulated that the species homo sapien came from apes. Rather, it is theorized that apes and us come from one common ancestor, but have evolved separately.

[edit on 8-12-2004 by Masonic Light]

Got it.

Then people who use long words with difficult to understand concepts are long winded and incomprehensible.

Sorry , its my hobby.