a reply to: uncommitted
a reply to: Ridhya
You two raise a great point about banking!
Firstly, banking, in and of itself, is not evil. Evil results from the way in which it is used. Gunpowder can be used for beautiful fireworks, or as
an instrument of death. An instrument of death may be used to provide food, or murder in cold blood.
The Templars did not invent modern banking. They contributed some new innovations to banking, but
many of the concepts of modern banking were invented by others.
deceitful banking practices of all, the ones that are truly creating a stranglehold on the world are;
"fractional reserve banking"
, both of which were not invented or used by than the Templars.
• The Templars created the concept of a safe and secure place to store valuables, via their heavily guarded castles. Nothing evil here, just a
convenient innovation for trade and sale. I'd rather deposit my working income in a safe bank, rather than keeping it all in an unsecured
• The Templars contributed commodity-backed promissory notes. This is the same as the call in the U.S. for "Gold-Backed Currency". Nothing evil
here, just a convenient innovation for trade and sale. I'd rather use commodity-backed currency than trying to trade my hen's eggs for a bar of
• The Templars also initiated foreign-currency exchange. Nothing evil here, just another convenient innovation for trade and sale. I'd rather
utilize standardized exchange rates, rather than running around with a calculator trying to barter my U.S. bills while on international leave.
As far as usury, firstly, the Templars were absolved and cleared of all inquisition charges. Secondly, there are countless Biblical Laws that many
Christians and Jews break daily. Jesus taught about sin to first remove the plank from one's own eye, and he dared those who are free from sin to cast
the first stone. If we cast the Templars as wicked because of absolved inquisition charges of usury, then we must cast all as wicked who stumble over
the law even once.
a reply to: Ridhya
"They had slaves, women couldn't vote until recently"
Slavery is wicked, no matter who perpetrated it, or how we try to justify it. But the truth is, all of mankind practiced slavery at some point in
history. Slavery in the U.S. is a 5 party crime, with equal blame falling upon the Arabs
At least the U.S. Constitution "allowed for editions and amendments to be made to the law of the land, foreseeing the changing needs of future
developments. The integrity of the framework of the United States allowed for the future abolishment of slavery, voting and civil rights for
minorities and former-Africans (slave & free), and equality for women."
We can not change the past crime of world-wide slavery, but thank goodness the U.S. is now at the helm of the battle to stop human trafficking,
exploitation, and slavery.
"old world money still held influence..."
According to ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 5
of the U.S.
Constitution, and posts # 16
of the OP, the U.S. Founding Fathers were squarely opposed to the
European banking schemes.
"While technically the orders weren't anti-Christian, they believed that Jesus was a philosopher rather than a god, and that is against
No, this is against Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant doctrines and dogmas. Freedom of religion allows for the free belief for all, which, at the
time of Roman Catholic standardization, many sects professed a belief in Jesus as a Prophet and Messiah, but rejected his divinity.
"Interesting enough a ton of the present US transition team happens to be Catholic and have ties to the Jesuits."
You are speaking about the rise to power of the Jesuits, not the Illuminati. If the Bavarian Illuminati and the Jesuits were one-in-the-same, they
would not have been trying to publicly expose and ruin each other. They were enemies of one another, as elaborated in post #
of the OP.
"Then why did George Washington himself believe it?"
Because he made that statement directly after reading John Robison's erroneous; "Proofs of a Conspiracy"
, and at the time, there was no way to
peer-review or substantiate Robison's fictitious claims. We now know that John Robison's book is inaccurate.
"If Freemasonry had originally allowed women and minorities, I'd accept what you're selling, but they didn't. A few of them supported (Prince
Hall as you said) but the rest rejected this notion of equality. So it's not like they were some idyllic, progressive group in their time as you're
Women have always played an important role in religion. They served as Priestesses and Oracles of the ancient cults and Mystery Traditions.
Despite the traditional landmarks, we discover that in the past, Regular Lodges in Europe have actually admitted women and free men of color into the
This spirit of equality has led to the formation of Co-Freemasonic
Obediences that do not
exclude based upon sex or race.
"What makes it amateurish? It can't be proven or disproven, but it makes sense."
Precisely! It is amateurish to insist that a fabrication is true. We have Masters, Grand Masters, and Councils, yet the "evil boogeymen" at the very
top can not be found within those ranks.
Withholding protege geniuses, is it logical to claim that someone is a college graduate on the Dean's List if they never went to grade school nor
graduated high school?
edit on 2/6/17 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)