Hidden Agenda of the Freemasons

Well that 2 Masons today. I have no problem with word play but calling out and posts like this are WAY beyond the line:

Originally posted by Leveller
You're upset about being accused of wanting to lick Ickes balls? There's more evidence to link you to that past-time than there is linking Freemasons to any wrongdoing within this thread.

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.

Originally posted by GLeamer
As any can see the masons posts are useless-

But I suppose yours and your fellow trolls are filled with all sorts of factual, accurate and usefull information right?

Originally posted by GLeamer
The one says he's been here a long time "some"s up all the mason arguements and dismises them -"o we all ready talked about this"

Who can blame him, after all this has been going on for quite some time, its fruitless, pointless, annoying and frankly many of us are sick and tired of arguing with those who lack not only facts to support their perposterous claims but also the drive and intelligence to do real research.

Originally posted by GLeamer
the reasons they hold geometry sacred.

Nope wrong again, we hold the science of geometry to be important and often symbolic, but definitely not sacred.

Originally posted by GLeamer
There will never be any information imparted to any non mason.

Information is imparted to non masons all the time. I just imparted information regarding geometry to yourself and a bunch of other non masons. Likewise many other brothers have done the same throughout many similar posts on this site.

Originally posted by GLeamer
Are you all afraid?

Certainly not, are you? After all you yourself halt your own admission, knock and the door shall be opened, ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find.

Originally posted by GLeamer
Rites are granted with dire warnings attached.

Degrees are granted once the candidate has made sufficient progress in the previous degrees, has petitioned for advancement and has been found worthy. Candidates for every degree take oaths during the rituals which encompass many symbolic statements, statments which a non initiate such as yourself obviously mis-understand and are incapable of understanding.

I've heard of those afraid of the dark, but afraid of the light?

Pretty sad, as USING THE SEARCH FEATURE, would indeed save them time and allow them to pursue arguments ...

not to mention the enormous savings in band width.

Leveller: I really don't know what you're problem is.

it's not name calling full stop. Insert the word "technically" and you can insinuate that it is though, can't you? Very sneaky.

No, not really. See, it actually is a form of name-calling or insulting, but it's not literally calling names. Does that make it okay? No. And I'm not being sneaky or using "wordplay". I don't need to try to trick you. What you call wordplay is merely me putting my POV into words. How is that worse than a blatant attack?

Well let me tell you pal, anything is possible.

Entirely true, and my point exactly!

It's "possible" that you are a pedophile mass murderer. But do you understand that to accuse you of being so without any proof would be disgusting?

Yes, I understand that. From your point of view I could be anything. But I never accused you of anything or defended anyone who accused you. What I did defend is the original poster's right to put forward his POV based on someone else's book. I personally didn't see it as an "attack" on Freemasonry as much as statement of what someone else has said. A book review. But I can understand why you might feel threatened by it.

How would you feel if somebody then came along and stated "you have to use kid gloves to defend yourself from this attack because it's possible that your accuser may be right (even though I don't necessarily believe it myself)" when you know damn well that you aren't guilty of the accusation?

To be honest, I might be angry. But I also know that that is not the best way to handle it. The best way to handle it is to look at the evidence from both sides. Bear in mind too that in this case you yourself do not know for absolute certain that Freemasonry is innocent. That would be like your example of a guy accused of being a 'pedophile mass murderer' but who has no knowledge of whether he's guilty or not, due to amnesia, for example. It all comes down to the evidence. For the guy to get all angry and indignant and insult the jury actually weakens his case even if he's innocent, because he himself is part of the evidence. His every move affects the jury's opinion of him, just as Freemasonry's every move affects the public's (and this board's) view of it.

By getting all and ing anything that moves, you only make the jury go Am I wrong?

[edit on 4/1/2005 by Al Vereco]

Ok, I've made my point. This isn't even about Freemasonry any more. In fact, it never really was for me. I made one unbiased post complaining about the ing, and 5 or 6 since just trying to ward off the fireballs myself. :bnghd: Frankly, it makes me .

Whatever happened to 'discussion'? :shk:

No matter what people write, the point is not to criticise their writings without knowledge or fact, even if their writings appear to be illogical or based on conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy Theories have become the in thing and it is up to the individual to believe what he or she wants to believe. This makes life interesting.

It fascinates me that we are in the era of questioning everything and trying to make up our own minds about Religion, Politics, etc.... without simply believing off pat what we are told as a child. I wish more people would start opening their minds...

Regarding the Free Masons, what is interesting to me is that there are so many different opinions about them. I would like to understand if they are squeaky clean how and when did they start getting the reputation of being evil, etc? On the other hand they do also have a reputation for good works. Part of the mystery is that so few people know anything about them at all. When checking through Masonic websites they look like another `Rotarian' type organisation. When you read books and articles they often are depicted as more of the `illuminati' type organisations.

I am not sure I believe either point 100%. A valid point is - How many of us have actually met a Free Mason? But if anyone can offer an answer regarding how the reputation was established that would be great...

Post adieu.

Edit: Another post with no substance.



[edit on 4-1-2005 by intrepid]

Originally posted by KarenW
Conspiracy Theories have become the in thing and it is up to the individual to believe what he or she wants to believe. This makes life interesting.

I would probably agree with most of that. But the problem is that conspiracy theory often demonizes innocent people. Anyone can invent a conspiracy theory and post it on the web, or even write a book about it. I'm not opposed to conspiracy theories for fun, but I remain opposed to falsely accusing innocent people of wrongdoing.

I would like to understand if they are squeaky clean how and when did they start getting the reputation of being evil, etc? ...if anyone can offer an answer regarding how the reputation was established that would be great...

This is afascinating story in itself, and has several components. The original anti-Masons seem to have been the Roman Catholic Church. During the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, men of learning began questioning the inherent authority of the status quo. This status quo, consisting of a close relation between the Church and the various absolute monarchies, epitomized the dark ages. But the new sciences of Newton and philosophy of Voltaire, Locke, and Diderot finally called everything into question.

Many began to stand up and claim that the Church had no inherent authority to control men's lives; also, these same rebels began to say that kings did not rule by divine right as the Church claimed, but that, in reality, legitimate government rules only by consent of the people.

These new ideas threatened the power of both the Church and the monarchies. Such men who espoused these new theories began to be excommunicated from the Church, while others left it voluntarily. For some reason we're still not sure of, many began congregating in the Masonic Lodges instead.

This led the Church to officially denounce Masonry. The Church began to claim that Masonry was anti-Christian because it refused to recognize the ultimate authority of the Roman Church. The Church also accused Masonry of teaching "naturalism", i.e., the religious doctrine of "the law of Nature and Nature's God", instead of orthodox Catholic teaching.

Freemasonry also began to teach the complete separation of Church and State, which again threatened the Church's power. In Pope Leo XIII's anti-Masonic bull "Humanum Genus", he claims that the Church has every right to educate all children according to its doctrines, and neither the children's parents nor the state has the right to deny the Church this supposed "authority". Pope Leo goes on to say that since Freemasonry denies the Church this right, it is anti-Christian.

Even Protestantism borrowed some from the Catholics in this regard. Although Protestants agreed with Masonry that the Catholic Church had no inherent authority over non-Catholics, and that the Church and State should be separated, many Protestants nevertheless agreed with Rome that Freemasonry taught Naturalism, and that non-Christians could serve God and their fellow man.

Today, the primary religious crticism of Masonry is that it supposedly teaches Naturalism. The truth of the materr is that, although many Naturalists have been and are Masons, Masonry itself does not teach Naturalism, except for the separation of Church and State.

Some religious zealots have went even further by claiming that Masonry is not only naturalist, but even satanic. This claim is only found by those religious zealots who are on the fringes, and mainstream evangelicals know that it is not true. Their criticism of Masonry is that it is naturalistic, not satanic. The belief that Masonry is somehow satanic derived from a famous hoax perpetrated by a French author named Leo Taxil in the late 19th century, who forged several documents that he initially claimed was written by a recently deceased Masonic administrator in the USA named Albert Pike. Eventually, due to contradictions in his story, Taxil was forced to admit that it was a hoax, but the fringe mentioned above generally ignore this, and continue to spread this hoax. For more info on that bizarre story, see the US News article "Devil In A Red Fez", published last year in its Famous Hoaxes issue:

web.mit.edu...

A second group (other than the religious group) opposes Freemasonry for political reasons. Historically, Freemasonry has been associated with classical liberalism. The classical liberalism of the British philosopher John Locke and our own American forefathers held it that men possess certain natural rights: freedom of speech, of religion, and assembly; popularly elected government, which governs by consent of the people, etc.

Two political groups who have opposed Freemasonry on these grounds were the Communist Party and the various Fascist organizations. Of the Fascists, the Nazi Party was the most violently anti-Masonic, although Franco's Falange Party in Spain and Mussolini's Fascist Party in Italy would routinely launch police terror against Freemasons in their countries.

Both the Communists and the Fascists believed that Freemasons were conspiring to overthrow their governments, and to set up a liberal democracy in its place (similiar to what happened during the American Revolutionary War). Both Communists and Fascists considered liberal democracies to be weak and decadent, and therefore sought to eliminate the threat by eliminating Freemasons.

Today's opponents of Freemasonry usually borrow from either the Church's or the Nazis' anti-Masonic propaganda, or a combination of both.

Originally posted by GLeamer

Freemasons will not be able to post what they perceive as a defense.
If a Freemason is enlightened and out of the Freemason prison and can supply information concerning the ideas discussed he will be welcome.
Only anecdotal inclusion of any Freemason book

This is a perfect example of what I wrote above, i.e., the Nazi influence in anti-Masonry. According to the Nazis, there was no question that Masonry was an enemy of the state, and to question the party line was treason.

Just like on Gleamer's imaginary website, Masons were allowed no self-defense in Nazi Germany, but were condemned automatically for being Masons.

I thank him sincerely for proving my point.

Deleted my post with wipe of hand locked another

It should be to the reader to decide if there is substance - not you

This forum is more then moderated

It is censured

Post something other than attacks and I'm sure they'll allow you to post your thoughts and ideas....


Unfortunately, I think this topic is becoming an us vs them again.

I continue to read facts printed by the Mason brothers (with proof) and unsubstanciated attacks posted by a few people with limited or no support. I can not believe that after 2 years on this forum, this type of posting still continues.

Please listen to me, go seek the truth, get facts, come back and discuss them, I'd be pleased to help you in your understanding of the Masons as I'm sure ML and the others would, heck, ML even gives you websites with a TON of information (a little too much for my taste Mr. Light : ) ) and answers all questions.

Please find new theories, data, evidence and bring it forward, until then, please stop wasting our time, thanks!!


As Always,

Seek the Truth


Regards

The Wiz_

Originally posted by GLeamer
Deleted my post with wipe of hand locked another

It should be to the reader to decide if there is substance - not you

This forum is more then moderated

It is censured

Nope, no Mason here. If you call repeated requests to post material to back up your claims, u2u's that you ignore censorship, I guess so.

If you don't like the limitations of ATS, seek your bashing elsewhere.

Originally posted by GLeamer
Deleted my post with wipe of hand locked another

It should be to the reader to decide if there is substance - not you

This forum is more then moderated

It is censured

If you started posting factual posts instead of the crap you've been posting here for days (not to mention duplicating the same lame post in several threads), then perhaps the "censurship" will cease. Just a thought.

P.S. Just because someone sees through your B.S. doesn't mean they're a Mason, it means they have some level of intelligence and reason working for them.

[edit on 1/4/05 by The Axeman]

First Gleamer says on the thread that has been deleted (concerning his own website he's supposedly working on), that he would ban all Masons on his forum, and not allow them to defend themselves.

Then Gleamer says (concerning ATS):

"Deleted my post with wipe of hand locked another. It should be to the reader to decide if there is substance - not you. This forum is more then moderated
It is censured."

Am I the only one to see the comedy here?

I didn't think so!



[edit on 4-1-2005 by Masonic Light]

Does anyone remember the topic?

Originally posted by intrepid
Does anyone remember the topic?

I believe it was "Mason on a stick," a tough and chewy dish, often served cold. Not for the faint of heart, but always enlightening (and we all have those dieting resolutions to keep in mind).

Culinary Monkeys, not just for Julia Child anymore...

"Bashing" your words tell me all necessary

Originally posted by intrepid
Does anyone remember the topic?

I don't think anyone cares to. I hope I speak for everyone when I say that we're done with GLeamer and his baseless arguments.

[edit on 4-1-2005 by sebatwerk]

"I'm closing this now until I get some guidance on the matter. ML feel free to u2u me with any problems"

From another locked -intrepid dosn't like- post
M L - is Masonic Light

The Masons have without a doubt posted the most useless and repetive info. This somehow is just dandy with intrepid

Makes me wonder

Originally posted by GLeamer
From another locked -intrepid dosn't like- post

Are you really that thick? I don't know anything about it but if I had to guess I would say that ML's thread got locked up because he replied publicly to a private message. At any rate, for you to say that ML's posts are meaningless is nothing short of disgusting.


Go back to the playground, kid.