FYI: Freemasonry Threads on Secret Societies

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by eudaimonia
Those references are masons. A little bias, wouldn't you say? Of coure they will reject!


Of course you're right. I mean who better to tell the truth about Freemasory than a self-righteous, intolerant, Bible-thumping fundamentalist who's out to prey on the weak-minded?

HE wouldn't be biased at ALL, huh?

I'd hate for you to read the truth, since you've obviously decided to take the word of a low-life scoundrel like Ankerberg.

You've made up your closed-mind eudaimonia. I guess Ankerberg (who's NEVER been a Mason) and his ilk, some of whom claim to be former Masons know more than those of us who are members.

There's no convincing some people. Fortunately I really don't care what you think about Freemasonry. But I won't stand by and let you call it something it isn't.


[edit on 16-8-2005 by senrak]




posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Quote from Tinkleflower;
Suzy - you keep making allegations and statements which you've never, ever proven or even offered the smallest piece of corroborative evidence to support.

I've repeatedly refered readers to Neonhelet's post on the second page of Eudaimonia's thread, about Masonic government and organized child abuse rings. It is a very lengthy post about how hard it is to get justice for victims of organized child sexual abuse in Australia. My 'evidence' (which Neonhelmet posted, thank muchly to Neonhelmet) is in that post and I don't think I should waste folks time repeating it.
How do you want me to 'prove' my point of view, quote whole charge sheets, records of interview, trial transcripts along with evidence that isn't admisable due to 'handling errors' etc. yet factual, along with names, dates and other details? If ALL the details of alot of cases were made known to you I'm sure you would convict, if truth and justice were more important to you than protecting the 'good name' of the perpetrator. This is a conspiracy site. I've found conspiracys to protect the "good names" of individuals, some of which are or have masonic ties. I've also known good masons who's conscience compeled them to help victims. One member of our local lodge even proposed to me recently.

In yesterday's Herald Sun (Aug. 16, 2005, that damn Murdoch is changing our dating system to the American one.) there was a story of 20,000 pages of police files being leaked to a Whistleblower. Nothing new. I had a decade worth of police files stored in my house! When I found them, and discovered people could get away with murder, I handed them over but not before seeing the proof that facts and 'admissible' evidence are two very different animals. I'm sure you and other readers are well aware of this.
You don't have to even entertain the thought that I have seem and experienced things that a just society would rail against, if you think that all systems all over the world are just, but if you accept that corruption, conspiracy and injustice are runnng rife in this world you could at least refrain from insultingly suggesting that my point of view is 'deluded', or any of the other angry/childish words thrown by pro-masons, as responces to my posts.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by suzy ryan
I've repeatedly refered readers to Neonhelet's post on the second page of Eudaimonia's thread, about Masonic government and organized child abuse rings. It is a very lengthy post about how hard it is to get justice for victims of organized child sexual abuse in Australia. My 'evidence' (which Neonhelmet posted, thank muchly to Neonhelmet) is in that post and I don't think I should waste folks time repeating it.


And even Neonhelmet conceded that there was no proof at all in terms of WHO was responsible for any SRA/RA, and that's even assuming it exists!!! (And once more, nobody has been able to offer anything to prove the phenomena even exists outside of misinformation, downright hoaxes and scaremongering).

Suzy, Neonhelmet's post does not constitute proof. Do you honestly believe that nobody would ever be able to prove this, if it was true? Nobody? Are we truly expected to believe that everyone involved in every single allegation has been "silenced"?

I'm sorry, but you keep going around in circles, with no evidence, and countless allegations.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by senrak

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Could it be that this isn't a site to discuss conspiracies but to CLOSE DOWN ANY talk of ANY conspiracies that include ANY masons?


Darn it guys! Ol' Suze figured it out.

Oh well, Suze, it's been fun, but I guess you can go away now, huh?

By the way....no "c" in Senrak. That wouldn't make sense at all.

Thanks for playing.



[edit on 16-8-2005 by senrak] [/quote
Carefull Senrak, some may take that as an addmission and I suppose a typeo now makes me eternally discredited with you. If thats how you judge who's opinion is worth giving some thought to no wonder you can spout that all is right with the masonic world garbage.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Carefull Senrak, some may take that as an addmission and I suppose a typeo now makes me eternally discredited with you. If thats how you judge who's opinion is worth giving some thought to no wonder you can spout that all is right with the masonic world garbage.


Uhm....

...HUH???


I have no clue what that post means. Perhaps you should edit it.

What I said to you was tongue-in-cheek (that's an American way of saying: "It's a joke") What I REALLY only want from you is for you to stop lying about Freemasonry. There is NO "Masonic Ritual Abuse" [begin beating dead horse mode] There could be Masons who've aboused others...but they SHOULDN'T have and they SHOULD be expelled.

Stop saying there IS "Masonic Ritual Abuse" There ISN'T

[edit on 16-8-2005 by senrak]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   
O.K. senrack (sorry typo again, Senrak) Some masons, as well as others, have been and are involved in ritual child abuse. Masons will and do help other masons accussed of these practices if man's faulty legal system can't "prove" their guilt. Providing more charactor references for the accussed than for the victim can and does sway a jury. Is that what you want me to share with all readers? Proof and truth are two very different things and it's the difference that makes justice so hard to come by.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   
What's the point of this thread? Eudamonia constantly complains about all the masonic threads, but he's the one creating most of them!

This is pathetic, and so are the trolls. This thread is nothing but a troll for a reaction. Brethren, for the first time in my life here on ATS I will recommend to you all to ignore this thread, and the troll that started it.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by sebatwerk
What's the point of this thread? Eudamonia constantly complains about all the masonic threads, but he's the one creating most of them!

This is pathetic, and so are the trolls. This thread is nothing but a troll for a reaction. Brethren, for the first time in my life here on ATS I will recommend to you all to ignore this thread, and the troll that started it.



Funny how quickly you want others to ignore me as soon as suzy had posted this incredible revelation:

Some masons, as well as others, have been and are involved in ritual child abuse. Masons will and do help other masons accussed of these practices if man's faulty legal system can't "prove" their guilt. Providing more charactor references for the accussed than for the victim can and does sway a jury. Is that what you want me to share with all readers? Proof and truth are two very different things and it's the difference that makes justice so hard to come by.

Nobody needs to do a damn thing just because you "say so". What authority do YOU have over people's actions?

[edit on 16-8-2005 by eudaimonia]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by suzy ryan
O.K. senrack (sorry typo again, Senrak) Some masons, as well as others, have been and are involved in ritual child abuse.
They should be expelled if that's true.



Masons will and do help other masons accussed of these practices if man's faulty legal system can't "prove" their guilt.
"help" them do what? Get away with it? Horse s***! PROVE That. I challenge you.

And don't try to "dance" (your word) around it by saying you've had death-threats and your Grandfather the Baron is the reason. You CANNOT prove it because it's a lie.



Providing more charactor references for the accussed than for the victim can and does sway a jury. Is that what you want me to share with all readers? Proof and truth are two very different things and it's the difference that makes justice so hard to come by.


Nope. The Truth can be PROVEN. You can't prove it because it's NOT true.

End of story. End of my corresponding with you.

I agree with Sebatwerk. The trolls can have this one. You too Luzy...oops! "another typo"





[edit on 16-8-2005 by senrak]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   
From Sebatwerk;
Brethren, for the first time in my life here on ATS I will recommend to you all to ignore this thread, and the troll that started it.

Good, now maybe those who care more about truth than the "good name" of masonic type cultures can share thoughts and experiences without interference. If we don't respond to your posts we're accussed of, hell, all sorts of s*^&# and if we do, the thread moves from the topic you so hate being even mentioned. If Eudaimonia is a troll, we need more trolls! Like Terry Pratchet, I don't have a problem with good trolls.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by eudaimonia
Funny how quickly you want others to ignore me as soon as suzy had posted this incredible revelation:

Some masons, as well as others, have been and are involved in ritual child abuse. Masons will and do help other masons accussed of these practices if man's faulty legal system can't "prove" their guilt. Providing more charactor references for the accussed than for the victim can and does sway a jury. Is that what you want me to share with all readers? Proof and truth are two very different things and it's the difference that makes justice so hard to come by.


"Increidible revelation"? You're kidding right? Just because she posts what you want to believe, all of a sudden it's an "incredible revelation"?!? No, you sure don't have an agenda against Freemasonry (can you note the sarcasm?)! What she posted is absolutely false, and you know it. She has provided NO EVIDENCE for her ABSURD claims, despite repeated requests for her to do so. Nobody takes her seriously, I doubt even she does. Some revelation




Nobody needs to do a damn thing just because you "say so". What authority do YOU have over people's actions?


Unlike you, my brothers take me seriously and consider what I have to say. I wasn't telling anyone to do anything, just giving them a suggestion (which they obviously took action on). But, most importantly, I wasn't talking to you, so why do you feel you must take it upon yourself to reply?



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
You know I could make the same post about Cathlic Preists committing child abuse and and other Preists helping them out and keeping it a secret. The differance would be is that my post is backed up by court casses were Preists were convicted. I have seen no such evidence from the post about masons. (Where is the beef)




lost in the midwest



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Some masons, as well as others, have been and are involved in ritual child abuse. Masons will and do help other masons accussed of these practices if man's faulty legal system can't "prove" their guilt. Providing more charactor references for the accussed than for the victim can and does sway a jury. Is that what you want me to share with all readers? Proof and truth are two very different things and it's the difference that makes justice so hard to come by.


Emphasis mine

Ok I've tried and tried to avoid getting caught up in this quagmire...but this struck me.....

So you're saying "some masons" and "others".....I guess you're meaning "others" as non-masons? If this is the case...wouldn't this better be referred to as "people" and not stigmatize Masonry?



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Golfie, the thread is about Masory and secret societies.

The problem with getting justice when secret societies are involved is that "independant" investigators, judicary, doctors etc. who can and do have 'secret' connections are held up credible because of an independance that doesn't infact exist but because of secrecy can't be 'proven' to the satisfaction of the 'law', that they are so heavily invested in.

Again, we are talking about CONSIRACIES on this CONSPIRACY site. I don't single out masons, I just get vilified for INCLUDING them in discussions of CONSPIRACY and INJUSTICE.

I don't have a problem with ALL masons as I don't have a problem with ALL Catholics (despite 8 of our priests who got sacked for crimes against children going to the last Pope and getting their jobs back) I don't have a problem with ALL of ANY group but I do have a problem with ANY group that wants do shut down GENUINE inquiry about them because they want the whole world to believe they are ALL benevolent sweetness and light.

Readers should be able to post their opinions, as opinions, without being vilified. If you disagree, do so without calling the charactor of those you disagree with into question AS YOUR ARGUMENT against THE ISSUE being discussed.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Golfie, the thread is about Masory and secret societies.


Thanks for pointing that out....



The problem with getting justice when secret societies are involved is that "independant" investigators, judicary, doctors etc. who can and do have 'secret' connections are held up credible because of an independance that doesn't infact exist but because of secrecy can't be 'proven' to the satisfaction of the 'law', that they are so heavily invested in.


I don't disagree with you in the fact regardless of whom might have been involved in illegal activies (whatever they might be) should be held accountable.



Again, we are talking about CONSIRACIES on this CONSPIRACY site. I don't single out masons, I just get vilified for INCLUDING them in discussions of CONSPIRACY and INJUSTICE.


So you are including Mason's just because it "vilifies" you?!?!? Not because you have ummm proof? Or could it be because you know that it will instigate?



I don't have a problem with ALL masons as I don't have a problem with ALL Catholics (despite 8 of our priests who got sacked for crimes against children going to the last Pope and getting their jobs back) I don't have a problem with ALL of ANY group but I do have a problem with ANY group that wants do shut down GENUINE inquiry about them because they want the whole world to believe they are ALL benevolent sweetness and light.


Then why have you repeatedly bashed Masonry as a whole?




Readers should be able to post their opinions, as opinions, without being vilified. If you disagree, do so without calling the charactor of those you disagree with into question AS YOUR ARGUMENT against THE ISSUE being discussed.


As they can, but don't portray them as fact without proof. Uh wait a second....didn't you just say you included Mason's to vilify yourself?

And to set the record straight...I have NEVER questioned/demeaned/or used your character as an argument...Period. If I have please show me otherwise.

My only question to you was why specifically blame Mason's when you said yourself "and others".



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   
So.

Have we been able to view any proof of ritual sex abuse being carried out by groups of Masons?

Have we been able to view proof that ritual sex abuse exists at all?

(lest this needs to be said once more: Nobody is saying that sex abuse doesn't exist, and nobody is saying that there aren't frankly far too many victims of sex abuse. K? Good. Just to clarify that part).

Have any of those with an opinion that there does exist a phenomena fitting the accepted definition of SRA ever read the ample sources referred to in these threads, relating to the fact that such a thing does not exist outside of the annals of media and/or misinformation and/or dubious sources and/or the overzealousry of certain investigators (I think I made up a word there. Hmmmm) and/or lack of adequate information?*

If you have, what are your thoughts (this has never been answered, either)?

Would you like to address any particular point?

Have we been able to address this concept?:

If SRA exists, as it is alleged, it would mean that virtually every major professional medical and legal body in the world (including the APA, various Australian legislative bodies, the FBI, NASW, NMHA, AMA, BMA) is involved in the kind of cover-up that would make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. It would mean the complicity of an overwhelming number of people and the ability to conceal evidence (if it existed) which dates back over five decades, whilst simultaneously managing to stifle the media, various local and higher justice departments, law enforcement agencies and individuals numbering in thousands. Does this sound feasible to you?

Do you believe that there wouldn't be one person.... just one disgruntled official employee...who wouldn't have been able to smuggle out official documents proving that SRA exists? That not one person amongst those thousands would have been able to provide something solid?

When faced with this mountain of evidence, I'm sorry, but the only reasonable conclusion is there are no Masonic or Satanic groups devoted to ritually abusing, molesting, torturing and/or murdering people.

None.

*this does not constitute a personal attack. It's simply a statement which reflects the absolute lack of evidence to support such claims

Edit: my spelling is in need of caffeination.

[edit on 17-8-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Masons on this site quickly jump to 'attack' anyone who may be 'perceived' by them, to be anti-mason. We respond to the attack then get accussed of mason bashing. Give us all a break and let the THE TOPIC BE THE ISSUE NOT THE TOPIC KILLING DEMAND THAT ALL MASONS BE BELIEVED AND TRUSTED AS ONLY BEING GOOD.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   
The thing is, suzy, that I can't seem to find any post claiming that all Masons are all good and all pure and all nice, and none which are claiming that no Mason ever did anything wrong.

So.....




posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Masons on this site quickly jump to 'attack' anyone who may be 'perceived' by them, to be anti-mason. We respond to the attack then get accussed of mason bashing. Give us all a break and let the THE TOPIC BE THE ISSUE NOT THE TOPIC KILLING DEMAND THAT ALL MASONS BE BELIEVED AND TRUSTED AS ONLY BEING GOOD.


We don't care that you be anti-mason and we don't care that you post negative things about the fraternity... we DO, however, care when the things you post are flat-out LIES.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   


Masons will and do help other masons accussed of these practices if man's faulty legal system can't "prove" their guilt.


I can with all honesty state that within my lodge a child molestor would not be tolerated. If it was discovered by the lodge
that a member was such, he would be expelled and I have no doubt that he would be turned into the authorities. The obligation I
took to assist a disstressed worthy brother, do not extend to things of this nature nor any crime for that matter.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join