Why do some people feel the need to post outright lies about Masons and Masonry?

No senrak not to start trouble to understand if i can dismiss facts that are black and white.



The picture above i have looked at it and study it.
I said maybe i'm rong and i have looked at it and i tryed to see just one positive fact about that picture, i cant seem to find it.
Than i was thinking why.
Why would anybody put somehing like that in a building of a fraternity.
I went to church and looking at the walls i could not asimilate god with the other image that i have seen.
Tell me please what is in that cofen?
That i have plunderd and plunderd is there a dummy? like a jack in the box?
is it emty?

Originally posted by pepsi78
The picture above i have looked at it and study it.
I said maybe i'm rong and i have looked at it and i tryed to see just one positive fact about that picture, i cant seem to find it.

You can't find it (or understand it) because YOU'RE NOT A MEMBER!!!! THAT'S part of what INITIATION into ANY Fraternity is all about....EXPLANATION of the symbols, legends, etc.

Than i was thinking why.
Why would anybody put somehing like that in a building of a fraternity.

See Above

I went to church and looking at the walls i could not asimilate god with the other image that i have seen.

What does that have to do with the picture above???? You cannot get it through your head that FREEMASONRY and CHURCH (religion) are NOT the same thing. How hard is that to understand?

Do you hate baseball games because the uniforms and baseball bats, etc. are not found in a CHURCH? They have NOTHING to do with one another. If you could get that cleared up in your (ahem) mind, you MIGHT (and I do mean MIGHT) begin to understand...until then none of us can help you.

Tell me please what is in that cofen?

Most likely nothing. The coffin itself, just like the skeleton, is a symbol (emblem) of mortality...a not so subtle reminder that we are humans and that no matter who we are, or how important we may think we are, ALL of us will die someday...and we must be prepared for it.

That i have plunderd and plunderd is there a dummy? like a jack in the box?
is it emty?

Again, See Above

[edit on 15-11-2005 by senrak]

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I've seen this question asked before, but it still puzzles me. I'm a member of several fraternal organizations, and joined my first fraternity while in college. But I've never seen anyone ask if joining a college fraternity is done out of selfishness or selflessness; same thing with other adult fraternities like Elks, Knights of Pythias, etc. So I guess my question would be, what makes Masonry different in the mind of the non-Mason, or one who is critical of Masonry?

I think it might be the visibility of masons. You can find masonic rings, tie tacks, cufflinks in the Sears catalog (Do they still put out a catalog??), you see stickers on cars, there is a Lodge in just about every town. Yet no one ever gets asked to join. I think it just makes things seem mysterious.

Groups like the Elks and the Moose are smaller and they do recruit new members so it's just doesn't feel as mysterious to normal folk. And they also hold more public and semi-public events that makes them seem more open.

What I find odd is the stuff I'm into is so under the radar. Secret societies that practice magick rituals, envoking demons and angels, societies that are so secret the members don't even know who is a member. And when it does get brought up 90% of the time it is "Crowley the evil freemason" or the "evil masonic O.T.O. Jeeze, I wish you guys would clean up your act and stop dragging us down.

See, there are a number of problems here. As Mr. Stephen Downes has done an exemplary job (www.datanation.com...) of elucidating logical fallacies I will “copycat” his words…

Your original question was a stellar example of the kind of “Fallacy of Distraction” known as a “False Dilemma” which is defined as “[giving] two choices when in fact there are three [or more] options” as well as a “Fallacy of Definition” known as “Too Narrow” – wherein “The definition does not include all the items which should be included.”

Having fallen off the turnip truck more than a few nights ago, I recognized a setup when I saw it, but figured there was some slim possibility that you were genuinely interested in learning something, and if nothing else it would be good sport. .500 is a good average in many sports, so I reckon I’ve done ok so far. It’s been an interesting game, if not particularly challenging.

The purpose of my question was not 'to understand.' The purpose of my question was to see *if* an articulate mason such as yourself could/would actually answer the question. I have my answer.

In other words “I don’t want to know the truth, I just want you to say what I want you to say.” If you were truly honest, I believe you’d admit that you asked the question with a preconceived notion of what the answer would be. Clearly you are intelligent enough to know that this is a “Catch-22” if ever one existed. It is plain that such a question has only three possible outcomes:

(1) The Mason admits “selfish” motives. We see how, even with the obvious convolutions in its delivery, you gleefully seized upon my “semantics” answer. Your motive is plain – glad I could “make your day”.
(2) The Mason denies selfish motive. This would be used as indicative of the deceitful nature of Masons – “Affirming the Consequent.” Everyone has selfish motives, only liars would say otherwise. Since you say otherwise, you [and by extension Masons – see also “Hasty Generalization”) are a liar.” You exhibited traits of this as well, just to be sure our statements of selflessness didn’t go unpunished.
(3) The Mason points out the logical impossibility of a “truthful” one-word answer to such a question, gives a truthful (if verbose) answer and is treated as being uncooperative, evasive or deceitful.

Originally posted by lost
… I accept 'both and neither' as the best Im going to get from you guys…

…Are you sure you're not a copycat in your child rearing methods?…
…This however is pretty blatantly false … Maybe its just one of those things that only masons get. But its eerily reminiscant of the sounds a liar makes when trapped.

Here we see clear examples of what happens to victim #3. I’m now a copycat, a member of some presumably aberrant or sinister group, and exhibiting behavior which is “eerily reminiscent” of that of a liar.

Until then, perhaps you shouldnt create so many grey areas of confusion when people such as myself speak in very black and white terms.

Translation: “Please don’t interrupt my conclusion-jumping with facts, truth or logic – please give me the answer I want so I can twist it up and use it against you and all Masons wheresoever dispersed.”

Oh, and thanks for finally answering the question; SELFISH. Now that we finally have the answer direct from DD's fingertips;

DING!

Having stated with consummate clarity that the question was impossibly narrow, each of us has done our best to answer it as genuinely as possible, going to great pains to explain the reasons we couldn’t truthfully give you the one-word answer you seek. When you repeated your desire for a impossibly narrow answer, I (after carefully pointing out that the answer I was about to give contained no truth other than a pure and strict semantic one) gave it to you – knowing all the while that you’d then seize upon it to support your preconceived notions of the “selfishness” of Masons. (For the record, this type of conclusion is known as “Begging the question” and “Subverted Support”)

Now that we finally have the answer direct from DD's fingertips; let me articulate my point: …9 times out of 10 …”

I haven’t seen your data to support your "90%" conclusion, I can say that a big fat *0* out of 4 on THIS topic gave an answer that even a talented wordsmith such as yourself could twist to fit your expected answer. None of the statements which follow your opener apply to any of the answers you’ve received from the Masons here, but I understand why you refuse to let a little thing like “truth” get in the way of an impressive list of sweeping false generalizations.

…Everyones poop stinks….

I can’t see where anyone suggested otherwise. The difference between most sincere Masons and the rest of mankind is that we recognize our unwholesome effluvia and make a sincere effort – with varying degrees (pun intended) of success -- to reduce it.

On the bright side, you’ve succeeded in touching upon most of the rest of Mr. Downes’ list, and in so doing made MY day. Thanks for playing!

DD

Okay here is a question just curios.
In the United states how many masons members does united states have.
So the question is how many are there?.

Originally posted by pepsi78
Okay here is a question just curios.
In the United states how many masons members does united states have.
So the question is how many are there?.

Pepsi, thanks for so aptly personifying type (1) in my list from my first post.

That said, has Mommy blocked Google from your computer? Oh -- wait -- that would be a FACT, the search for which would likely cut into your search for inflammatory pictures and your advanced study of punctuation, spelling and grammar (not to mention rhetoric, logic, etc).

The scene you post illustrates nothing I've ever seen in my lodge. As you (as always) fail to name your source, provide any supporting information or put it in any sort of context, noone can possibly provide the answers you seem to crave.

I'll repeat the advice you've been given so often -- read a reputable book, or at least browse a better class of website. You're not doing your appearance any favors.

PS: My "all-seeing-eye" tells me that your hat is looking a bit dull -- you might want to get some fresh foil -- and your Mommy is going to be mad at you for being on the computer again -- you've got school in the morning.

1The picture is from templer knight and if you look at it you will see
some caracteristics of it pointing to the templar knights.
And has nothing to do with morality.

2 why do you call the pictures imfamatory? do you find them inflamatory?
so you your self is sayng that they are imfamatory.....hmmm that is strange.
Remember it is your words "imfalamtory" i agree with you they are disturbing pictures i am glad that i can finaly agree with a mason.


3 I just asked a question and got a bunch of scrambeld words, are we playng scrable here?
If you dont want to answer okay, you see i just asked a question, you are the one being inflamatory and not the other way around.

Here is a piece of a document from some contemporary Luciferian organization called Ordo Antichristianus Illuminati (O.·.A.·.I.·.) Apparently they think the Freemasons are in their camp and their writings seem to have a ring of inside info to them and sem more detailed then I have seen previously.

ordoantichristianusilluminati.org...

"The most notable and misperceived religious order bearing the Holy Name Illuminati is the obsessively debated Bavarian Order of the Illuminati. The Order originally was inaugurated on May 1, 1776 e.v. by one Adam Weishaupt, a German raised by Jesuit education and eventually became an ordained Jesuit priest and Professor of Law at the University of Ingolstadt, in Bavaria. Dr. Weishaupt was influenced by the Antichristian philosophy of such French writers as Francois Marie Arouet (Voltaire) and the Marquis D.A.F. de Sade, and later met with such political figures as Robespierre, a leader of the French Revolution. Adam Weishaupt and Mayer Amschel Rothschild inaugurated the Order of Perfectibilists, changing the title of the organization to the Illuminated Seers of Bavaria, which eventually became know to the masses as the infamous Bavarian Order of the Illuminati. Count Alessandro de Cagliostro (Giuseppe Balsamo), one of the greatest occult practitioners of his time, initiated into the Bavarian Illuminati at Mitau ( near Frankfurt) in 1780 e.v. Count Cagliostro also was initiated into the arcane Rites of Freemasonry and alchemy by the enigmatic Comte de Saint-Germain at London."

Here are other of their documents: www.ordoantichristianusilluminati.org...

[edit on 16-11-2005 by newindustar]

Could anyone comment on the hierachy depicted by this image and if they know where it comes from?

thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr...

Awe DD, dont hate me because my logic resounds more clear. I looked at your latest post (above) and it really stinks of poor sportsmanship. You've even gone so far as taking my posts out of context as if to paint me up as some tricksy badger. The 'copycat' statement of mine does not in any way support the rest of my post. Nor was it meant to. There is nothing wrong with being a copycat; often it is a benefit when trying to avoid making all the same mistakes. Its just, you relayed the story as your own, and I honestly think Ive heard it somewhere. Very possibly, it is 100% yours, and I am thinking of something else. If I am wrong, sorry. It was just a tangent.

I would like to apologize for not exclaiming far and wide the customary 'IMHO' preamble to my figures and conclusions. The "9 times out of 10" clause can be replaced with "In my personal experience, usually.....etc." I hope no reader has mistaken my opinions as fact.

About the "catch-22" - lets review the possible outcomes you listed;

(1) The Mason admits “selfish” motives.

In my opinion, this appears to be the most truthfull most of the time. As noted earlier however, absolutes are rare and this is no exception.

(2) The Mason denies selfish motive.

By denying the selfish, I assume you mean affirming the selfless? If my assumption is wrong, then #2 is really not a possible outcome to the original question. If I am correct to assume this is what you meant, the answer is perfectly correct.

(3) The Mason points out the logical impossibility of a “truthful” one-word answer to such a question, gives a truthful (if verbose) answer and is treated as being uncooperative, evasive or deceitful.

still DD - you assume much. I understand #3 to mean the masson cannot or will not answer the question. Fair enough. Its not an answer, but it serves as a polite explanation in its absence. Also, I have to disagree with the above assessment. For the most part, your answer has fallen into category #3 and even as #3 is hardly an appropriate answer to the question - I have not gone as far as to slander it as uncooperative, evasive or deceitful; however simply NOT AN ANSWER.

Im not familiar with any of Mr. Downes ideas etc. but *if* I was just baiting you all along - how is it that one such as yourself so elequantly versed in logical dialogue could not thwart it? Regarding my 'falacy' - I must disagree again; When asking for the greater of the two variables involved (sefish and selfless) - there really is no third (or more) options; THERE ARE ONLY TWO. I will list them;

1. Selfish
2. Selfless

In the absence of either, the polite explanation relaying a 'cannot' or 'will not' is appreciated. Again, thank you. Im glad to have made your day too.

Turnip trucks - and whatever else; Thanks for playing. I would also like to thank lost in the midwest, Senrak and the Axeman for their participation as well.

Finally, intrepid - I must be blind because I still fail to understand how the two quotes of mine you've decided to use contradict eachother. If you could, would you please articulate? It really does suck.

Originally posted by newindustar
Here is a piece of a document from some contemporary Luciferian organization called Ordo Antichristianus Illuminati (O.·.A.·.I.·.) Apparently they think the Freemasons are in their camp and their writings seem to have a ring of inside info to them and sem more detailed then I have seen previously.

The O.·.A.·.I.·. is not Luciferian... just very anti-christian (anti-Christ = Christ's adversary) they see themselfs as the adversary of the Christian religion thus their name.

But you have to understand occult groups... they have a fetish with coming up with grand sounding history's that are pretty bogus (with the exception of their recent history). Notice that they claim "spiritual foundations" with the other orders mentioned. In other words they were inspired by them in one way or the other.

Another thing to think of is I'll bet their order is WAY less than 100 people.. 25 might even be an over estimate.

and far as the image you posted... somebody really doesn't know what their talking about.

just some of the problems.

The Great white brotherhood, and the Black Brotherhood are not groups persay.. it more of a good/evil thing.

The Witch stuff doesn't fit at all.. a 3rd degree witch would be roughly equilvent to the 3rd of the O.T.O. (that didn't even make it off the ground level) as far as "power" goes, both can start and lead local level groups.

This also indicates that the head of the O.T.O. is some all powerful position, when in fact the Head of the O.T.O. edits books, and is a sometimes member of a British Industrial music band (he plays the satanic electric viola )

[edit on 11/16/2005 by Cug]

It does not matter to them, if you put pictuers of them with robes and hoods over their faces they will say they are playng sop opra.

You can be showing pictures of them seating in that cofen from
the picture i put on and they will say they are doing a movie with walt disney, after all the brotherhood is in to busines.
Dont you understand denny all admit nothing , this is regulations for them.
It's like holding a gun in your hand and fakeing it has it would be a plastic water gun.

If they base morality on that then i dont know what more can i say.
The picture is related to the nights templar you can see many figures related like the design on the altar and the design on the nights templar shields.
I truly did want to clear all the facts, and come here and say i'm sorry i was rong, i will say i'm sorry but in a diffrent way, i am sorry i cant buy it.
The picture is related to the night templars you can see now the relation ship for the templars with the ocult.


[edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by Cug
What I find odd is the stuff I'm into is so under the radar. Secret societies that practice magick rituals, envoking demons and angels, societies that are so secret the members don't even know who is a member. And when it does get brought up 90% of the time it is "Crowley the evil freemason" or the "evil masonic O.T.O.

Jeeze, I wish you guys would clean up your act and stop dragging us down.

Bwahahaha!

Hey, man, but you have to admit, this is fun!

Originally posted by newindustar
and the Marquis D.A.F. de Sade, and later met with such political figures as Robespierre, a leader of the French Revolution. Adam Weishaupt and Mayer Amschel Rothschild inaugurated the Order of Perfectibilists,

I find it ironic that this organization, the OAI, are actually repeating the errors of some conspiracy theorists in teh connections and membership of the Illuminati. Robbespeire? Rothschild? They probably do think that the French Revolution was an illuminati act.

That website is loaded with inaccuracies. The webmaster obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. Consider the following quote:

"The Golden Dawn has included noteworthy personages such as William Butler Yeats, Arthur Machen, Algernon Blackwood, Florence Farr, Arthur E. Waite, and Jack Parsons, all whom followed in the Magick road of the Beast 666."

The "Beast 666" here refers to Aleister Crowley, who initiated a schism in the hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. The OAI claiming that "all of whom" followed the "Magick road" of Crowley is nonsense. With the exception of Parsons, they all despised Crowley.

Secondly, to my knowledge, Parsons was never even a member of the Golden Dawn.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by lost
Finally, intrepid - I must be blind because I still fail to understand how the two quotes of mine you've decided to use contradict eachother. If you could, would you please articulate? It really does suck.

No problem man, I have confidence in my debate skills, I don't have to put my arguement in a u2u.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by lost
However I was, as you pointed out, wanting an answer lacking ambiguity.

Originally posted by lost
Well, I didnt ask for absolutes.

Hey, I'm good at this quoting thingy aren't I?

I see this contridiction quite clearly but I'll spell it out.

Ambiguity:

One Look Dict. defines it as such: noun: unclearness by virtue of having more than one meaning

So you want "an answer lacking ambiguity"(more than one meaning). That means you want ONE meaning. Right? But you also post that you are "not looking for absolutes". Looks like a clear contridiction to me.

I'm going to ignore your petty u2u jabs. Consider this a reply to both.

Edit to add:

Originally posted by lost
When asking for the greater of the two variables involved (sefish and selfless) - there really is no third (or more) options; THERE ARE ONLY TWO. I will list them;

1. Selfish
2. Selfless

In the absence of either, the polite explanation relaying a 'cannot' or 'will not' is appreciated. Again, thank you. Im glad to have made your day too.

Only two choices to pick only one? Again that smacks of an absolute to me. Also to the second part, DD HAS told you he "cannot" seperate the the two.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by intrepid]

thats the spirit intrepid. more unwarranted chest beating.

since my u2u was so petty, why dont you excersise that awesome skill of yours and go ahead and quote it here? memory fails you? wha? I did you a favor by putting it in a u2u because I really didnt think this was necessary, but I guess you prefer it here. Coulda sworn the mods advocated u2u use; but whatever...

glad to see you can look up the meaning of ambiguity from an online dictionary. another skill of yours? wowsers. Unfortunatley online dictionaries dont do all the work, and it appears youre still unable to articulate exactly how the two statements of mine you've chosen to quote contradict eachother. You've merely stated again that you see a contradiction.

Looks like a clear contridiction to me.

It may very well 'look' like that to you and everyone else. Explain why genius. In you excellent quoting abilities why dont you bring me the original request and thus full context. Oh, here it is;

Should you choose to answer and discover your answer lies somewhere in between the two, please feel free to give a long drawn out explanation - however do your best to narrow your answer into one of these two catagories; 'Selfless' or 'Selfish'.

reference pg. 34

Narrow; (from dictionary.com) V: to limit or restrict.

I hardly asked for an absolute. Please try again.

Also to the second part, DD HAS told you he "cannot" seperate the the two.

very good intrepid! you can read in addition to remembering and quoting. by golly, you're a talented little canuk. what was your point?

finally, none of this really matters - seeing as DDs participation in my request has run its course.

edit: in the spirit of compramise, I will grant the petty need from some members that I did indeed request an absolute. ONLY in as much as the the 'absolute' requested was the absolute greater of two variables and NOT a condition where only one variable exists absolved of all others. (what I understand as an absolute)

[edit on 16-11-2005 by lost]

Originally posted by lost
finally, none of this really matters - seeing as DDs participation in my request has run its course.

So what's the point then my condecending little friend?

I find in debate that when one loses ones cool and reverts to the type of post which I won't dignify with my wonderous quoting ability, the point is lost to said one, as no logic has been applied and condecention is used in a vain attempt at soothing ones bruised ego.

Originally posted by pepsi78
It does not matter to them, if you put pictuers of them with robes and hoods over their faces they will say they are playng sop opra.

How ironic. I cooked some sop opra just last evening. Nothing better than fried sop opra.

You can be showing pictures of them seating in that cofen from
the picture i put on

But you must ask yourself...why would you be doing such a thing..."showing pictures of them seating in that cofen," I mean...

and they will say they are doing a movie with walt disney, after all the brotherhood is in to busines.

Uhm...whatever you say...

Dont you understand denny all admit nothing , this is regulations for them.

Says you. I think we've been MORE than open about this...down to the fact that I told you you do not and CAN NOT understand because you've never experienced it...you've just experienced a picture you dredged up from somewhere.

It's like holding a gun in your hand and fakeing it has it would be a plastic water gun.

Once again...uhm...whatever you say. (This would probably be a good time to call you "Dude" but I simply refuse)

If they base morality on that then i dont know what more can i say.

Does that mean you're going to leave us alone?

The picture is related to the nights templar you can see many figures related like the design on the altar and the design on the nights templar shields.

I've been a Knight Templar (note the spelling of Knight) for 15 years and have NEVER seen a scene like the one you posted. I'm familiar with the symbolism (oh how that concept scares you...) of the Coffin, the Skull (or full Skeleton, etc.) but my Commandery has nothing like what you posted. (I'm not saying that it isn't from a non-U.S. jurisdiction) Oh, and it's also very old so perhaps NO ONE does that particular scene any more.

I truly did want to clear all the facts,

Then why wouldn't you listen to the facts when we gave them?

and come here and say i'm sorry i was rong, i will say i'm sorry but in a diffrent way, i am sorry i cant buy it.

Oh. Well too bad. Nice having you tag along though.

The picture is related to the night templars you can see now the relation ship for the templars with the ocult.

Uhm...how is that? A couple of skeletons and a casket? I guess you'd REALLY be suspicious of Coroners and Funeral Directors, huh? I have a small bronze casket paper-weight on my desk...does that mean I dabble in the occult?



[edit on 16-11-2005 by senrak]

Originally posted by senrak

The picture is related to the nights templar you can see many figures related like the design on the altar and the design on the nights templar shields.

I've been a Knight Templar (note the spelling of Knight) for 15 years and have NEVER seen a scene like the one you posted. I'm familiar with the symbolism (oh how that concept scares you...) of the Coffin, the Skull (or full Skeleton, etc.) but my Commandery has nothing like what you posted. (I'm not saying that it isn't from a non-U.S. jurisdiction) Oh, and it's also very old so perhaps NO ONE does that particular scene any more.
edit on 16-11-2005 by senrak]

My best guest is that the picture is from the late 1800s or early 1900s. I also belive it is from a non-U.S. jurisdiction. I doubt that a US Jurisdiction would put a caption in Germany on their pictiure. (it refers to death) Perhaps the person posting the picture might be a little more forthcomming as to were they found it, but that might hurt their arguement if it real orgin is known.