Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A question for Masonic Light and other Masons

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I don,t think the masons are against us generally,its a matter of control.Look at it from a local level,you select a councillor ,you may agree with a lot of what he says but not all, the council makes decisions and you may not agree with all of them ,but you have to pay your taxes for their services and they do what they think is right, if things go wrong you are told ,well you voted for him, and if you didn,t vote they say its your fault for not voting , because yor choice is limited. If a fund say has a million pounds is set aside for sanding and gritting the roads in case it snows ,and it don,t snow, some of that money may be spent on functions for the councillors benefits and quite often masons are on the council.The masons do get some grief, but someone do have to do these jobs,but there is an old saying if you throw s--t some will stick.




posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04


Since I know so little, the first thing I would need to know is if such a conspiracy as the one/ones being alleged is at all possible or probable. So my questions to any Mason qualified to know would be this:

Is it at all conceivable, when considered wholly apart from any personal or emotional considerations, and when viewed with complete objectivity, for there to be a relatively small number of high degree Masons with knowledge and powers of the sort that have been alleged, without your knowledge?


I guess that would depend upon what you mean by "knowledge and powers". Having been through practically every degree of regular Masonry, I can certainly concur with Brother Pike, who, in his book "Symbolism of the Blue Degrees", states unequivocally that there is no esoteric knowledge in Masonry that isn't already available to the general public. One's "high degree" is in this case irrelevant: I know non-Masons who are Adepts, and I know 33° members who don't even know how to pronounce "Kabalah".



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Certianly there must be some masonic groups that have, in their decades of existence, developed some insights into "esoterica"? Maybe not in the progression from 1st degree to 33rd or to Knights Templar of the York Rite and the like, but in one of the official side groups that are part of it?
I maybe not even secret information, but if masonry is worth its salt in that respect, surely something must've come out of it in terms of research no?



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Certianly there must be some masonic groups that have, in their decades of existence, developed some insights into "esoterica"? Maybe not in the progression from 1st degree to 33rd or to Knights Templar of the York Rite and the like, but in one of the official side groups that are part of it?
I maybe not even secret information, but if masonry is worth its salt in that respect, surely something must've come out of it in terms of research no?


I would say there have been many individual Masons who have developed interest in esoterica, but actual Masonic groups dedicated to such studies are practically non-existent. That's why Masons who had those interests were prompted to form non-masonic organizations, which only resembled Masonry in outward form. A good example is the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
is it me or does freemasonary and illuminati always get mixed up, or is it what these organisation represent

, a secert form of control, control over info, people, wealth, everything in gereral, even control in perception, i notice people saying so an so is a mason and on another site hes in the illuminati, whats going on people

cant any1 get the facts straight or is everything already countered,



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tom_Braider
I'm confused, but I'll add my 2¢ of what little I know.


Years later, I was invited to join in NY, but I declined because the lodge did not accept black people, and I refused to be part of any organization that discriminated.




Hello Tom Breeder, I have one question for you my friend. How did you know that you were invited to join a Masonic Lodge in New York? I didn't think that Masons were allowed to advertise. I'm also surprized they told you strait up that they don't allow black humans.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   



Dude, you're lucky most of the guys here decided to ignore your insolent post. Unfortunately I'm too hot-headed for that. Even so I've restrained myself from saying what you DESERVE TO BE TOLD because I'm better than you. In any case, if your principal directive in life is what you stated above, you must be stupider, more low-rent, weaker than anything that Freemasons or our silly club could ever be.



I don’t know enough about the masons to form a opinion at the moment, and I’m not going to say I’m perfect but getting all emotional over internet posts is really silly and non-productive if you think about it. I understand frustration, but being overly emotional is weakness not strength. Learn to manage your emotions so you can act with a rational clear logical mind.

[edit on 3-3-2006 by PowerToThePeople]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by LogoWatch
 



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   


As mentioned, if a Mason vows before God and his Brethren to obey the Moral Law, it's not an option to later violate his vows.




it would seem to me that a Mason can technically be more trusted than those who have not made a similar vow.




Since a Mason is sworn to Truth, there exists a deeper bond between Masons and truth than exists between those who have not taken such a vow.


Such upstanding characters in our society. Are they anything like the catholic priests who have been found guilty of child abuse, who many would say have a DEEPER reason to tell the truth being of god and all......

The logic of some of the supposed higher masons is quite flawed.... does not match to what some of the low level mason are saying...

We have one saying...




In other words, when members are asked by non-members to divulge the secrets of Masonry, they don't show them fake secret handshakes or passwords. They either tell them point blank that they cannot betray the trust of their Brethren by revealing the secrets of Masonry unlawfully, or ignore the question altogether.

Supposed high level mason...

and another...


There is no 'secret knowledge' you get by sitting through them, it is more like sitting through a college level philosophy class except its a play. Not only does the Scottish Rite allow it, they encourage it. You, the general public, can buy the Scottish Rite Monitor in many book stores and even the Rite's own website. It has all the rituals, "secrets" and philosophies of the rite as well as all the high points of the ritual in it.

a Supposed low level mason...

Who is lying gentlemen?? Are you both lying? Can you get the misdirection and misinformation straight for us please. You two should really talk before you continue spouting off... That is only one small one... I may make a thread of all the inconsistencies I find within the masons posts....

If someone doesn't beat me to it..

Thanks for the amusement guys... You crack me up!



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 


Only someone like you can truly defy the "Deny Ignorance" motto like this. You bump a year old thread to copy and paste something I said on a completely different subject and try to compare it.

There are no "supposed" high or low level masons. Just masons. For the 1,000th time.

And there is nothing contrary in what you've quoted either - its lines up quite nicely. You, because you trying to spread disinformation, have tried and failed to compare a discussion of handshakes in the blue lodge to the nature of a side order of degrees.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by LowLevelMason]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   
The astute reader will in fact see that I have only responded to OP..

Surely it shouldn't matter when the original post was... Have the opinions of the posters changed? Both posters are on this thread... The other comments are comments trying to show that masons seem to think they are above everyone else.... These are statements made by masons to show that this arrogance exists within the mason thought process.

I apologize for bringing up old wounds... they are relevant topics today as well...

Do I have to watch the date that something was posted to last now.

Is there an agreed upon time before I should decide to post following a lull in the thread before being subjected to your last bit of mason fluff?

Thanks again




[edit on 16-1-2009 by AllTiedTogether]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 




The other comments are comments trying to show that masons seem to think they are above everyone else....


Could you give me even one specific example?



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Saurus
 

the example would be the three statements that I quoted in the post above... plse check above as I do not wish to get a violation for unneeded quotes...

the three quotes are from masons stating that truth is more to them than the common man... that was my reference...

To me, that is the thinking of an arrogant man...
"its not an option to later violate his vows". I mean what happens, time stops because that is not allowed within the rules of freemasonry...

they need to wake up and see I'm not anti-mason.... I don't hate catholics, I hate their ideals and their beleifs... I don't hate masons, I hate their ideals and their beliefs... and I was a brainwashed catholic for 46yrs... so I know...

My opinion



[edit on 16-1-2009 by AllTiedTogether]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   


I don't hate masons, I hate their ideals and their beliefs...


That's OK. Not everyone enjoys helping others...

[edit on 16/1/2009 by Saurus]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   
OK - I apologize for the 'personal attack' on you in the previous post.

I was trying to prove a point about generalized statements, and it was not aimed at you personally.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join