Complete Proof Of Freemasonry Being Satanic?

Originally posted by The Axeman

I would dare say that most Masons do stick with the "Christian principle".

Who are you to call another man's time-honored traditions silly?

Ishiah 64:5-6. all of us have become like unclean men, all of our good deeds are like polluted rags;....
Mk 7:3-7, Mt 15:2-3 What Jesus taught about traditon.
Col 2:8 What Paul taught about traditon
I could of said your tradidions are "empty" or "seductive".
I think seductive is the best way to describe tradidion.
So you see, as a christian, tradition of men is silly.

Originally posted by notmindcontrolled
Ishiah 64:5-6. all of us have become like unclean men, all of our good deeds are like polluted rags;....
Mk 7:3-7, Mt 15:2-3 What Jesus taught about traditon.
Col 2:8 What Paul taught about traditon
I could of said your tradidions are "empty" or "seductive".
I think seductive is the best way to describe tradidion.
So you see, as a christian, tradition of men is silly.

First of all, their not my traditions, so...

Aw come on don't get lazy! Type it out man! You're the one who is trying to make a point here, not me.

What did Jesus teach about the tradition of the symbolic eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood? Eh?

[edit on 2/13/05 by The Axeman]

Axeman, if you use the fact that they're not your traditions (although you plan on making them such), you know it would be best not to respond at all. But I won't bother stressing that point, rather divert your attention to this.
This is in reference to the authentic Oath posted a few days ago.

Firstly: "But I say unto you swear not at all."
Except for judicial and governmental purposes (but lets not get into the definition of TESTify, things could get dirty)

Therefore, Gods name is used in vain.
Secondly:"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."
Nor shall you be present, or consent to the administering of the use of the Lord's name in vain.

Thirdly: This oath pledges the candidate to keep whatever secrets they may communicate to him, even though it may be unlawful to keep them. It must be wicked then, to have commit himself to an oath.

Side Note: Why does the Master assure the candidate that there is nothing in the oath contrary to his obligations to God or man, and then instantly proceed to violate the laws of both God and man and to require of the candidate the same violation of law, human and divine?

Fourth: Does any man have the right to do the following to any one, even his Brother: "under no less a penalty than to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots, and my body buried in the sands of the sea at low-water mark."

To those that say the Oaths are not taken to heart, or are symbolic in nature, consider your last words:"ALL THIS, I MOST SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY PROMISE AND SWEAR, WITHOUT THE LEAST EQUIVOCATION, MENTAL RESERVATION, OR SELF-EVASION OF MIND IN ME WHATEVER."

Originally posted by The Axeman



First of all, their not my traditions, so...

Aw come on don't get lazy! Type it out man! You're the one who is trying to make a point here, not me.

What did Jesus teach about the tradition of the symbolic eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood? Eh?

[edit on 2/13/05 by The Axeman]

Nah, i'm pretty lazy lol. I can't answer the questions cause i'm no expert on christianity. That very subject has slipped my mind over the years. What about you? I can say that it came from Christ and not man.

Originally posted by notmindcontrolled
I can say that it came from Christ and not man.

Christ wasn't a man?

[edit on 2/13/05 by The Axeman]

Originally posted by akilles
Axeman, if you use the fact that they're not your traditions (although you plan on making them such), you know it would be best not to respond at all.

They do not have to be my traditions for me to defend them or others' right to have them.

But I won't bother stressing that point, rather divert your attention to this.
This is in reference to the authentic Oath posted a few days ago.

Firstly: "But I say unto you swear not at all."
Except for judicial and governmental purposes...

And marriage, and Public Office, and Clergy, and Doctors...

Therefore, Gods name is used in vain.

How?

Secondly:"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."
Nor shall you be present, or consent to the administering of the use of the Lord's name in vain.

How is it taking the Lord's name in vain?

Thirdly: This oath pledges the candidate to keep whatever secrets they may communicate to him, even though it may be unlawful to keep them. It must be wicked then, to have commit himself to an oath.

I'm certain ther is nothing in the obligations that says anything about anything unlawful, except maybe to expressly exclude such things.

Side Note: Why does the Master assure the candidate that there is nothing in the oath contrary to his obligations to God or man, and then instantly proceed to violate the laws of both God and man and to require of the candidate the same violation of law, human and divine?

It's simple. He doesn't violate any laws of God or man.

Fourth: Does any man have the right to do the following to any one, even his Brother: "under no less a penalty than to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots, and my body buried in the sands of the sea at low-water mark."

Hello!! McFly!! *knocks on akilles' head* Anybody home?! It's SYMBOLIC. S-Y-M-B-O-L-I-C.

To those that say the Oaths are not taken to heart, or are symbolic in nature, consider your last words:"ALL THIS, I MOST SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY PROMISE AND SWEAR, WITHOUT THE LEAST EQUIVOCATION, MENTAL RESERVATION, OR SELF-EVASION OF MIND IN ME WHATEVER."

You have failed to make your point, yet again. Bravo.

[edit on 2/13/05 by The Axeman]

Originally posted by akilles

Firstly: "But I say unto you swear not at all."
Except for judicial and governmental purposes (but lets not get into the definition of TESTify, things could get dirty)

Ummm....don't remember the Except part in the bible....making it up as we go along again are we? Why didn't you go ahead and add the "Especially when it comes to Masonry" part? And wouldn't your exception be putting civil law before religious law (ie the bible) and wouldn't that exception (that you have put in there...because it's not part of the Beatitudes) thus make it unchristian?

Thirdly: This oath pledges the candidate to keep whatever secrets they may communicate to him, even though it may be unlawful to keep them. It must be wicked then, to have commit himself to an oath.

*buzz* wrong. We've not been paying attention now have we? Once again Masonic "obligations" DO NOT supercede civil law.

Fourth: Does any man have the right to do the following to any one, even his Brother: "under no less a penalty than to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots, and my body buried in the sands of the sea at low-water mark."

Umm...dude I think you might get the electric chair if you did that....plus wouldn't that be considered one of "The Big Ten"?

Seemed clear enough to me, the essence of what the Bible says is to not make UNNECESSARY oaths in the Lords name, and I view one that bounds you to secrecy as unnecessary.

But its ok, split hairs.

It also seems to me that any man saying that he would "allow himself to be killed upon revealing secrets" should at the very least have "Mental Reservations" about what he is doing.

Look at Stanley Kubrick. He made his movie Eyes Wide Shut, it was certainly discussing secret societies (although it wasn't Freemasonry, obviously)and what did he get for his troubles? An early death, before the film was even released (so we don't know if it was his cut of the film, although we are re-assured) is what he got for his trouble.

But this famous figure, involved with the occult on some unseen level (dispute this, please) died exactly 666 days before the Advent of 2001, the era he had helped hail with his film of the same name.

Any one heard of William Morgan? Any one actually think he wasn't killed by Freemasons for revealing their secrets?

Originally posted by akilles
Seemed clear enough to me, the essence of what the Bible says is to not make UNNECESSARY oaths in the Lords name, and I view one that bounds you to secrecy as unnecessary.

So what?

But its ok, split hairs.

OK, let's.

It also seems to me that any man saying that he would "allow himself to be killed upon revealing secrets" should at the very least have "Mental Reservations" about what he is doing.

S-Y-M-B-O-L-I-C

Look at Stanley Kubrick. He made his movie Eyes Wide Shut, it was certainly discussing secret societies (although it wasn't Freemasonry, obviously)and what did he get for his troubles? An early death, before the film was even released (so we don't know if it was his cut of the film, although we are re-assured) is what he got for his trouble.

But this famous figure, involved with the occult on some unseen level (dispute this, please) died exactly 666 days before the Advent of 2001, the era he had helped hail with his film of the same name.

I have a better idea. Go watch "From Hell" MYSTERY RELIGIONS!!!

Any one heard of William Morgan? Any one actually think he wasn't killed by Freemasons for revealing their secrets?

Yup. Been covered already, but what the hell, here ya go.

www.masonicinfo.com...

"Mental Reservations"

Isn't that usually called the Psyciatric Ward?

[edit on 2/13/05 by The Axeman]

Pardon me if I jump in, and I will at the forefront confess complete ignorance to any activities involving masons or any secret society at all for that matter. However, there was a time when I was considering joining. I had two sponsors and I was greatly intrigued by the idea of a brotherhood or worldwide union with fellow ilk.

Before I go into why I didn't join, let me first say that the people I came to know as freemasons were really nice and genuine. These guys believe in the social contract and spend a lot of there time devoted to social causes.

As far as secrecy goes, they couldn't OFFER any information, but they were more than willing to answer any questions I thought to ask. These guys represented freemasonry as a large group who believe in a worldwide community.

That's when it occurred to me that secrecy is responsible for the paranoid views of freemasonry, that and the apparent European lodges that use their connections like a mob or mafia. But because Freemasons maintain an air of secrecy, it is easy to jump to conclusions regarding their representation.

(while vaguely related, I do buy into the lineage of Christ in relation to upper degree masons. Rex Mundi)

So why didn't I join? Simple, I'm paranoid. If it all came down one day, to the end of the world - and at that moment we learn that we are not judged as indiviuals, but by our associations - then I would want to make Damn sure I made the right choice. Freemasons have secrets, so I couldn't possibly know what I was getting into.

Would you join?

Originally posted by thegreatimposter
That's when it occurred to me that secrecy is responsible for the paranoid views of freemasonry, that and the apparent European lodges that use their connections like a mob or mafia. But because Freemasons maintain an air of secrecy, it is easy to jump to conclusions regarding their representation.

Youre absolutely right about this.

So why didn't I join? Simple, I'm paranoid. If it all came down one day, to the end of the world - and at that moment we learn that we are not judged as indiviuals, but by our associations - then I would want to make Damn sure I made the right choice. Freemasons have secrets, so I couldn't possibly know what I was getting into.

BUT THATS NOT TRUE!!! You know exactly what youre getting into, theres THOUSANDS of exposes about Freemasonry all over the web and inlibraries!! Not only that, but if you asked the right questions you would know that the only secrets of Freemasonry are our rituals and our modes of recognizing each other as being brothers. What other mystery is there!?!?!?

Originally posted by akilles
Firstly: "But I say unto you swear not at all."
Except for judicial and governmental purposes (but lets not get into the definition of TESTify, things could get dirty)

Genesis 21:23
Now swear to me here before God that you will not deal falsely with me or my children or my descendants. Show to me and the country where you are living as an alien the same kindness I have shown to you."

Genesis 24:3
I want you to swear by the LORD , the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I am living,
Genesis 25:33
But Jacob said, "Swear to me first." So he swore an oath to him, selling his birthright to Jacob.

I have just started at genesis, but so as to make sure my point is made there are thousands of examples in the Bible of swearing of oaths.

Therefore, Gods name is used in vain.
Secondly:"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."
Nor shall you be present, or consent to the administering of the use of the Lord's name in vain.

God is a generic name, so is GATOU, in fact God has no name, when asked by Abraham he said, I am who I am.

Thirdly: This oath pledges the candidate to keep whatever secrets they may communicate to him, even though it may be unlawful to keep them. It must be wicked then, to have commit himself to an oath.

If you check the preamble to the obligation you will find something like " let me assure you there is nothing here, incompatible with your Civil, Moral or religious code" This obviously negates and possible contradiction to unlawful conduct.
On several occasions during the ceremony the candidate will be told that he must uphold the civil law.

Side Note: Why does the Master assure the candidate that there is nothing in the oath contrary to his obligations to God or man, and then instantly proceed to violate the laws of both God and man and to require of the candidate the same violation of law, human and divine?

Aaagh you found it. If I say to you walk this way and I guarantee that wall will not fall on you, then when you do it does. You can sue me , because I have lead you into harms way. The pramble negates any wrong doing , as without the pramble you would not have taken the oath.

Fourth: Does any man have the right to do the following to any one, even his Brother: "under no less a penalty than to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots, and my body buried in the sands of the sea at low-water mark."

Perhaps you would be kind enough then to list all these poor souls who have been the subject of this awful penalty?

To those that say the Oaths are not taken to heart, or are symbolic in nature, consider your last words:"ALL THIS, I MOST SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY PROMISE AND SWEAR, WITHOUT THE LEAST EQUIVOCATION, MENTAL RESERVATION, OR SELF-EVASION OF MIND IN ME WHATEVER."

You are silly you forgot to post the part that follows:
totally unfit to be received ---- into a society of men who prize honor and virtue above the external advantages of rank and fortune.

Then from later in the ceremony I am sureyou were about to quote:
calling upon you to excercise the distinguishing characteristic of a Freemasnos heart - I mean Charity.

Then you would have moved on to :
important duties you owe to God, by never mentioning his name but with that awe due from the creature to his creator.

Not forgetting :
As a citizen of the world you are to be exeplory in the discharge of all your civil duties.

So before I type out the entire first degree ceremony it should be obvious to every reader you are cherry picking small half phrases and part sentances in order to desperately fins something to attack Freemasonry with. The facts akiles defy your attempts at corruption.

Attack Freemasonry with facts not half truths and you may get some support, but it is getting just too easy to blow your arguments out of the water.

Religion:
1. people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life
2. a particular institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine
3. a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by
4. an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by
5. life as a monk or a nun, especially in the Roman Catholic Church

From what I have learned about Freemasonary, it fits the above beautifully. Even if it is a Religion, so what?

Originally posted by sebatwerk
BUT THATS NOT TRUE!!! You know exactly what youre getting into, theres THOUSANDS of exposes about Freemasonry all over the web and inlibraries!!

Well, I'm glad to hear that there are some writings about masons that aren't a complete crock. Don't mean to sound cynical, but I'm sure you know all to well how difficult it is to sift through the BS of published works about Freemasonry. Man, you type Freemasonry into search engines and you get back conspiracy after conspiracy involving Illuminati and the Prieury de Sion.

The things I want to know are:

Is there Racism?
Would I find any Masonic dealings morally questionable?
Is there a good health care system? (kidding)

Not only that, but if you asked the right questions you would know that the only secrets of Freemasonry are our rituals and our modes of recognizing each other as being brothers. What other mystery is there!?!?!?

Absolutely - for lesser degree masons. But what is going on in those higher degree's?

Would I find any Masonic dealings morally questionable?

maybe but what about those of other groups you interact with on a regular basis? Doctors, Liar I mean lawyers, car salesmen, medical facilites, grocery clerks, law enforcement,politicians, ....... pleas feel free to fill in the blank.

So because people are corrupt, that means it's ok for Freemasons to be as well, like politicians, lawyers, cashiers...

you would have to [B]prove[/B] that the Order in its entirety
was corrupt for that statement to be even remotely valid.

The question was not corruption but having questions about said groups.

Originally posted by freudling
Religion:

2. a particular institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine

That would be great Freudling, but for one thing. If it's personal, it can hardly be called Freemasonry can it?
And no it's not OK for a Freemason to be corrupt. As I've stated before, when you join you take an obligation to uphold the law of the land and to be as morally upstanding as you can. If you break this obligation, you break your word to Freemasonry and cease to be recognised as a member of the Order.
That's not to say that there aren't bad eggs. Freemasonry is an organisation made up of human beings - there are always going to be people who fail to fulfill their obligation. But to disciminate against an institution where people try to live there lives to their best, just because of a minority of failiures is just plain daft. You may as well discriminate against any society or group of people where one of their members has fallen from grace.

As for mindcontrolled's rant about traditions? Isn't it ironic that the whole Christian church is built on tradition?

akilles. Kubrick was murdered because of his movie? I really think that you need to get some fresh air. He made some far more damning movies regarding governments and societies than Eyes Wide Shut.

Originally posted by thegreatimposter
Is there Racism?

Most certainly not.

Would I find any Masonic dealings morally questionable?

I would have to say in all likelihood, no.

Is there a good health care system? (kidding)

Yeah, the Reptilian Overlords have healing powers far superior to that of mere mortals.

Not only that, but if you asked the right questions you would know that the only secrets of Freemasonry are our rituals and our modes of recognizing each other as being brothers. What other mystery is there!?!?!?

Absolutely - for lesser degree masons. But what is going on in those higher degree's?

The "higher degrees" only expand on the Craft Degrees.

A Mason is a Mason is a Mason. Once you reach the 3°, The Sublime Degree of Master Mason, you are all the Mason you will ever be. The side degrees from what I understand are plays more or less, acted out to teach moral lessons. I would imagine there are modes of recognition for these also, but other than that there aren't any real "secrets".

If you want to know what the "higher degrees" are about (at least in the southern USA) read Morals and Dogma by Albert Pike. You'd better pack a lunch though, it's a tough read. Have a dictionary handy.

I never said all Freemasons, give me some credit. A poster did say Freemasons may do morally unsound things, so what is your response?

Also, the conditions I posted are just that: conditions. If your society or whatever meets one of those, then it could be called Religion with the conditions I have supplied. It may appear some are contrary to others, but those are what I listed after consulting Websters, Oxford and an international Encyclopedia. From what you guys have told me about Freemasonary, it meets perfectly the 1st condition. In fact, the reason I pointed out the personal belief system is because that is unclear to me. Does freemasonary meet that condition as well? After all, you guys are the ones who said it accepts many different belief systems and even Religions, except atheism and that you must believe in a Supreme Being, whatever it is to YOU. So that is personal. You guys also keep saying personal interpretations and freedom of thought, so personal belief systems are accepted in Freemasonary. But who cares if it is a Religion, geez.