"Masonic" Handshakes and Other Nonsense...

page: 32
1
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
dh

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   
If I was a member of some secretive group I'd sure as hell want to blow up some members bog

[edit on 4-7-2005 by dh]




posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dh
If I was a member of some secretive group I'd sure as hell want to blow up some members bog


Well Necros claims that Freemasons blew up his toilet because he refused to join their lodge. This is the same reason why they dig through his mail, rearrange his furniture, feed his dog laxatives and is also the reason why they kidnapped him, gave him rohypnol and forced him to watch masonic rituals.

I don't know ANYONE who would want to waste their time with that. Do you?



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Jesus christ, I am surprised this thread hasn't died yet. Looks like someone took TIOT's place.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Awww... don't close this thread.

I only just returned to this site this morning after a long absence. It's taken ages to read this whole thread from Post No. 1

I only looked at it because it promised some humour.

turned out I'm almost the anti-christ.

O well, but at least the nutters bring an occasional titter.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Gosh...the locked that other thread I was on...about masonry.


Intrepid:
>>>The thread has run it's course.


which means something was probably going on
that was interesting.


I wrote:
I don't think freemasons as anymore
evilish than christians or muslims.


(meaning that they also insist on doing well)



Strigoi replied:
>>>This comment alone depicts your intelligence in whole.

+

>>>It's much easier to say "Sorry thats secret" than to try and explain our >>>meanings and principals to children.



I was wondering what are people's ages to reply stuff like that.


1) this very thread here claims that there is no secret except
ridiculous handshakes and....well....rituals are not fun to know about if you want to experience them....

2) I would assume that if freemasons were propagating that very rumor that they are REALLY NO OTHER SECRETS than SEXY HANDSHAKES, than they wouldn't come up and try to excite other people about secrets that are not even existing.


My uncle was Rosicrucians (I discovered that at his death), and as part of my heritage I received enough books (and a great tarot desks and other weird objects) to have a pretty good idea about masonry. In fact...
very boring books listing myriads of symbols, or filled with texts as thrilling as reading the bible Psalms (meaning..not).


I think it should be made clear that outside a fascination with symbology,
and the advantages for people having a harder time making friends,
that reading Cantor and Kant may a little bit more intellectually advanced than reading Pythagora and who the heck wrote the mason books.


Also, being closer to buddhism than any other religion, it is obvious
to me that some appeal of freemasonry would contradict buddhism.
Maybe I'm wrong.


Cedric The Ephiminate



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Centiment
and the advantages for people having a harder time making friends,


You know, I really resent that. Just about ALL of the Freemasons I know are very well-off, socially normal and overall GREAT guys. I have tons of friends who are not masons, most of us do. It's easy to say something like that about masons when you are not one yourself, but sooner or later you're gonna have to admit that Freemasons are just like everyone else and they make up all kinds of people.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I was saying that without the two motifs
that I mentioned, freemasonry seemed
pointless to me.


You can master ancient mysteries by circumveluting
the masons and can easly know more than most
masons.


I think the reasons why masons insist that you
believe it's because once you know a lot
you are still able to doubt everything.

Masons wish you didn't doubt.


Philosophy teach you to doubt everything.


That is one great great great lesson
that I wish there were more rituals out there teaching,
because in the end, in wisdom, you always come back to doubt.


Cheers,

Cedric Philadelphia



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Centiment
I was saying that without the two motifs
that I mentioned, freemasonry seemed
pointless to me.

Don't join.


Originally posted by Centiment
You can master ancient mysteries by circumveluting
the masons and can easly know more than most
masons.

Guess I miss your point on this.



Originally posted by Centiment
I think the reasons why masons insist that you
believe it's because once you know a lot
you are still able to doubt everything.

Masons wish you didn't doubt.


Philosophy teach you to doubt everything.

I can only assume that you're refering to the requirement of a belief in a supreme being and the immortality of the soul.
If you don't believe, then don't join.

I was never a philosophy major but, I fail to see how philosophy precludes belief. If you pose the question
"Does God exist?" and your conclusion is yes based on your observations then, IMHO, you have belief.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Well, the reason why Nietzche declared "God Ist Todt"
was because philosophy brought enough evidences
that it should be doubted.


Even Kant declared that we couldn't proof or unproof
the existence of god.



Before that, they were many arguments
leading to a proof of god, but these arguments
have been each counter-argumented.


Nietzche implied by death of god
an incoherency in philosophy
that able it to criticize it: being able to design a
god that would be better than the one
prescribed by religion.


Hence why returning to ancient
argumentation would seem perused
or uninformed.


Cheers,

Cedric Phissure



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Centiment
Well, the reason why Nietzche declared "God Ist Todt"
was because philosophy brought enough evidences
that it should be doubted.

provided that you buy into Nietzche and agree, which I do not.



Even Kant declared that we couldn't proof or unproof
the existence of god.

Before that, they were many arguments
leading to a proof of god, but these arguments
have been each counter-argumented.

That's why it's called faith. For me, it's easy to look around and see that the universe is too organized,
complex and beautiful to be a product of chance. When I have asked the question of myself, "Does God exist?",
I have answered yes based on my personal observations.




Nietzche implied by death of god
an incoherency in philosophy
that able it to criticize it: being able to design a
god that would be better than the one
prescribed by religion.


Hence why returning to ancient
argumentation would seem perused
or uninformed.

Again this is only pertinent if you buy into Nietzsche. Nietzsche could have
posited anything and it wouldn't matter. That's the beauty of philosophy,
it's all nothing more than philosophy. Therefore it's subject to individual thought
and reflection, and can be discounted in light of other factors
such as observations to the contrary, fact, and faith.

Edit: Removed comment on spelling, who am I to comment on spelling.

[edit on 9-7-2005 by AngelWitch]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Your religious beliefs always inherently
come with a philosophy.


Chances are that what you describe as observations
have been observed and discussed by many
philosophers.


If you decide to have faith in an observation
without reaching for counter-argument that is
your choice but....true philosophy is not about faith.

It's more about seeking evidences by argumentation.


Nietzche gave a symbol, rang an alarm,
but I would still think that Agnosticism
(impossibility of knowing) is the major
conclusion of philosophy.


The problem Nietzche had was with an
impossibility to reach common moral grounds.

How can one moralize God when they are many
paths to moralize him ?

Believers rest on faith but never questioning
what is simply assumed is considered a danger
by philosophy, justifyingly so by all the hatred that
religions perpretrated.


If you got a nearly dead animal in your arms,
there is a moral in killing him like there is a moral
in letting it lived for itself.


If muslims really think they save people's souls
by killing them, they have a moral.


That is why philosophy propose to live
on "what we know" and let god be where
he is.



Cedric Phi



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Correction:

I would still think that Agnosticism
(impossibility of knowing) is the major
conclusion of philosophy (on the issue
of God).



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Centiment
I was saying that without the two motifs that I mentioned, freemasonry seemed pointless to me.

You can master ancient mysteries by circumveluting the masons and can easly know more than most masons.


But Freemasonry is not about mastering ancient mysteries. It's about improving the self and bettering your life and others' lives, all while creating bonds of friendship that will allow you to both lift as well as be lifted by your brothers.



I think the reasons why masons insist that you believe it's because once you know a lot you are still able to doubt everything.


Actually Freemasonry holds the requirement of belief in a Supreme Being because, since most of the lessons come from the Old Testament, the teachings of Freemasonry would not mean a whole lot to someone who does not hold this belief. They would be rather insignificant and pointless.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Centiment
Your religious beliefs always inherently
come with a philosophy.

Chances are that what you describe as observations
have been observed and discussed by many
philosophers.

If you decide to have faith in an observation
without reaching for counter-argument that is
your choice but....true philosophy is not about faith.

It's more about seeking evidences by argumentation.

snipped to shorten....

I just don't see how any of this relates to Masonry. If you'd like to debate someone on Philosohy vs. Faith, perhaps you should start a thread.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   
>>>Actually Freemasonry holds the requirement of belief in a Supreme >>>Being because, since most of the lessons come from the Old >>>Testament, the teachings of Freemasonry would not mean a whole lot >>>to someone who does not hold this belief. They would be rather >>>>insignificant and pointless.



Hmmm..... but non-believers (and I do mean that the masons
fables sound more like fables than historical facts), are
able to understand moral beliefs, aren't they ?


I think the issue that "if you don't believe
you have no reasons to be moral" is wrong,
because they are simple philosophical
logics based on simple organicor cosmologic
princibles as homeostasis or osmosis
that would guide anyone with a fair mind
to understand them.


Personally I would suggest any non-believer
interested in the "brotherhood appeal"
of freemasonry, and which hold strong
philosophical agreements with certain morals,
to lie about any belief in a supreme being
upon entry in the Fraternity.

In the end, they are the ones that would
be able to say if Masonry is unfit to
them, because believers tend to
considers unbelievers as lost sheeps
too easily.

A system similar as masonry,
say that such system was some sort of "humanitarian
assurance" (help others so you get helped),
sounds totally logical.


When I first heard about masonry many years ago
I thought they started as a community of intellectuals
meeting in secret to talk about their religious concerns,
under the light of historical doubts concerning the bible.
Sort of a melting pot between philosophers, esoterists,
agnostics, stuff like that.

I thought it was a neat idea but
then I realized I was kind of very wrong
when I started reading more about it.

Since I had done a lot of research
concerning philosophy and spirituality,
I thought it was more about "come here
and see what we can teach you", but
I had this condescending sentiment of
thinking "Huh...What ?...I know these things
already ?..Thank you".


I am pretty certain that some people
would be deceived by masonry
knowledge because they are "already
prepared" before entering masonry.

I mean....let's face it...to serious
esoterists and theologians the experience
could come out as ridicule.

Just like not everyone enjoys
playing a pc game like Myst.


Of course, they can take advantage
of the brotherhood, but...that doesn't
mean the system can't be critiqued.

Or let's call it tradition
for tradition's sake.
Maybe it's also a fetischism.




What about if masons were able
to discuss politics and religions,
but that entering the fraternity
meant they made agreement to stand
above these topics and respect
everyone's matters on the subject ?


What about comparing a fraternity
to a forum like this one,
where people are (idealistically)
forced to respect each others until
they are banned ?


Is a forum where posters must be registered,
and most using avatars and hidden identities,
a form of fraternity ?



Are masons or members of other groups
coming here because they think
the exchange is more fruitful
than discussing only with members
of their fraternities ?


Why, finallly, are people so curious to know
what each others think ?




Cedric The Ephiminate



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   
>>>I just don't see how any of this relates to Masonry. If you'd like to >>>debate someone on Philosohy vs. Faith, perhaps you should start a thread.



Well....I had figured this thread was about breaking
down what made sense and no sense in masonry.

Philosophy VS Faith is one the aspect of masonry
that doesn't make sense for those understanding
aspects of the brotherhood but certain
requirements, especially when faith is not
encouraged as a subject of discussions in lodges.


Cedric



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Also....

It would make sense to me that a non-believer,
entirely admiring the philosophy and system
behind masonry would brand their logos
and symbols on every forums, but
I was wondering why believers, who
are taught to respect their beliefs
before they respect masonry,
wouldn't brand the symbols
of their faith.

If masonry is idealized
as the joining of all religions,
than branding the symbol
of that becomes a religious
gesture, and masonry quasi
the religion it is not supposed to be.


What does "believing" in masonry entitles ?


Believing in the entrust advocated by other members ?

Fine.


Believing that all of its members are also believe
in something ?


Philosophy serve to demonstrate that different
religions, even moral religions (forget Lucider a minute),
conclude in very different perspectives of seeing life.

I don't see the pertinence of refuting
philosophy and joining things
that...if were truly discusssed, would
end up in many quarrels for no reasons,
EXACTLY because masonry rejects
intellectual discourses at the expense
of irrational faith.

(ie...faith going in all directions)


Cedric 1, 619



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Centiment
Hmmm..... but non-believers (and I do mean that the masons fables sound more like fables than historical facts), are able to understand moral beliefs, aren't they ?


Yes, but the difference is that Freemasonry teaches morals under religious pretenses, from the lessons taught in the Old Testament. In Freemasonry, the purpose of morals and helping your fellow man is for the ultimate goal of life after death according to the ways your faith teaches. Freemasonry is not itself a religion, but it is religiously historical in nature.



I think the issue that "if you don't believe you have no reasons to be moral" is wrong, because they are simple philosophical logics based on simple organicor cosmologic princibles as homeostasis or osmosis that would guide anyone with a fair mind to understand them.


But that is not the case at all! This requirement is based solely on the lessons of Freemasonry having religious undertones.



Personally I would suggest any non-believer interested in the "brotherhood appeal" of freemasonry, and which hold strong philosophical agreements with certain morals, to lie about any belief in a supreme being upon entry in the Fraternity.

In the end, they are the ones that would be able to say if Masonry is unfit to them


I don't know if I would suggest this, but I'm sure it has happened many times before. There have been all kinds of people whop have become Freemasons, and sometimes people lie in order to get into the fraternity. Whatever their reasons behind doing this, and whatever they were able to get from their membership, depended solely on them.

You are correct that only they are able to say whether or not Freemasonry's lessons have helped them become a better person, regardless of whether or not they believe in a supreme being. Nevertheless, this IS a requirement and we DO enforce it to the best of our ability.



When I first heard about masonry many years ago I thought they started as a community of intellectuals meeting in secret to talk about their religious concerns, under the light of historical doubts concerning the bible.
Sort of a melting pot between philosophers, esoterists, agnostics, stuff like that.

I thought it was a neat idea but then I realized I was kind of very wrong
when I started reading more about it.


Actually you WERE correct, although what you describe is better attributed to the Scottish Rite branch of Freemasonry. The Scottish Rite's lessons deal much more with other religions and beliefs, the underlying lesson is that every religion or culture had/has SOME bit of truth to it, therefore we should study as many as we can in order to be truly knowledgeable about our own faith and our own destiny.



I mean....let's face it...to serious esoterists and theologians the experience
could come out as ridicule.


I don't know, I think even the most experienced esotericists and theologians would have respect for Freemasonry's work and its development. It's really an impressive subject.



What about if masons were able to discuss politics and religions,
but that entering the fraternity meant they made agreement to stand
above these topics and respect everyone's matters on the subject ?


That's a VERY hard thing to do when discussing sectarian religion and politics. These subjects go hand in hand with emotions.



Are masons or members of other groups coming here because they think
the exchange is more fruitful than discussing only with members
of their fraternities ?


No, I generally come on here to discuss the subject with non-masons because I have a genuine interest in correcting the misconceptions that people have regarding Freemasonry, as well as discussing other secret societies. I think that would be the general concensus among all of the masons on this forum.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   
>>>>You are correct that only they are able to say whether or not >>>>Freemasonry's lessons have helped them become a better person, >>>>regardless of whether or not they believe in a supreme being.


Well...I would presume that, in a world when you don't know
who will kill you at the next corner, they are men who would
just be happy to benefit from the meetings of other men
that they "at least hope" are moral.


As much as they are priests having sex in secret because
they don't see why believing in god must deprived them
of sex (not with kids, I hope !!), I can see people, especially agnostics, craving for the parallel activities that many lodges organize.




Thanks for the clarification about the Scottish Rite


cedric Phi



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Centiment
I can see people, especially agnostics, craving for the parallel activities that many lodges organize.


I think that most masons will tell you that it is necessary to believe in a supreme being in order to get the "full effect" of Freemasonry's lessons.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join