I am confused about the mason's.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist
Curious. That site has a whole entire section dedicated solely to character assassinating anyone who says anything about Masonry. I thought it just had one or two such attack pages,but I see now it's actually a whole section committed to it. That seems very suspect.


Before you say "character assassination," have you actually read the pages, or did you just see all the links on the side of the page and assume that they were intended to "assasinate the character" of the subjects of the articles?

If someone were spreading lies about you and yours, wouldn't you want people to know about it?

Providing facts to refute bogus claims is not "character assassination."

[edit on 8/19/05 by The Axeman]




posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Axeman

Before you say "character assassination," have you actually read the pages,



I've read a few of them,yes. I wouldn't be able to identify the character assassination if I hadn't.


If someone were spreading lies about you and yours, wouldn't you want people to know about it?


I wouldn't do it by writing articles too slanted to be viewed as credible. All that does is create two discredible sources instead of one.




Providing facts to refute bogus claims is not "character assassination."


These "facts" include such claims such as David Icke provides no evidence for his theories,when anyone who's actually read Icke's books(which the author of the page admits he hasn't even done for Icke's most popular book) knows he almost always provides extensive amounts of evidence for his claims and provides referrence after referrence after referrence for them. The page is a list of comments gathered from the web it seems. Each page I read from that site was laced with heavily slanted editorial comments by the author that impose a biased skewing of the person the page was designed to attack.


So yes,I'd say it safely qualifies as character assassination. Those pages do little to attack the argument of the people it dubs "anti-Masons" that I saw and focuses moreso on attacking them personally in a slanted manner.





[edit on 19-8-2005 by Loungerist]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   
"I am confused about the masons".

Me too.


But, from what I can tell around here, so are "they".




posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
"I am confused about the masons".

Me too.


But, from what I can tell around here, so are "they".



who are you talking about exactly...i'm not confused about masonry and neither is any other mason i've talked to.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist
These "facts" include such claims such as David Icke provides no evidence for his theories,when anyone who's actually read Icke's books(which the author of the page admits he hasn't even done for Icke's most popular book) knows he almost always provides extensive amounts of evidence for his claims and provides referrence after referrence after referrence for them.


The question isn't whether he provides references... it's the credibility of the references. Like the guys who used "ex-Masons" for references, when they weren't even ex-Masons. I mean, the guy claims that the royals are reptilians, and that he is the Messiah. What more do you need to show the guy's a loon? Ed King is not the first guy to say that Icke isn't playing with a full deck.


The page is a list of comments gathered from the web it seems. Each page I read from that site was laced with heavily slanted editorial comments by the author that impose a biased skewing of the person the page was designed to attack.


Well, each page I read, showcases a different active anti-Mason with outlandish theories about Masonry. Sometimes Brother King throws a little sarcasm in for humor, and I'll agree that it could be classified as "slanted editorial" comments. But the claims (and conclusive rebuttals) of the anti's claims themselves is enough to convince me. Takesome time, look around. You will be amazed at some of the accusations, I'm sure of it. You're telling me that just because Ed King pokes a little fun at them for being so damned over the top that is makes them right, or more credible? Please. So the guy had a laugh over it. Sue him. He still refutes theyr claims with facts and that's more than I can say for any anti I've come across yet.


So yes,I'd say it safely qualifies as character assassination. Those pages do little to attack the argument of the people it dubs "anti-Masons" that I saw and focuses moreso on attacking them personally in a slanted manner.


Like I said, the "arguments" almost nullify themselves; Ed just provides the facts and correlating information to refute them and then might have a chuckle about it. Are there some comments he could have done without? Sure. Does that make the anti's claims more valid? Absolutely not.

Try to focus less on what Ed says in editorial comments, and more on the facts and your own common sense to help you discern the truth forom absolute fiction.


from: web.mit.edu...

Masons say one thing, anti-Masons say another -- whom should I believe?

The history of Freemasonry is well documented, and its major players include a vast number of contributors to society--men such as Washington, Truman, and Churchill in politics, Goethe, Schiller, and Conan Doyle in literature, Burl Ives, Ernest Borgnine, Gene Autry in the performing arts, Mozart, Haydn, and Irving Berlin in music, and on and on. Freemasons played essential roles in the civilization of the New World, taming the west (Kit Carson was a Freemason), freeing Latin America (Bolivar was a Mason, as was Bernardo O'Higgins), and so on. Freemasons have established a vast array of charitable activities, primarily focussing on the health field, such as the famous Shriners' Children's Hospitals for treatment of orthopedic problems and burns, the Scottish Rite speech disorder clinics, the Masonic cancer centers, the Tall Cedars' activities for muscular dystrophy, and many others. Not to mention homes for the aged and even dormitory accomodations at the University of Texas.

Among the anti-Masons, one can count a single president of the US, John Quincy Adams (thirteen presidents were Masons), two literary figures (Edgar Allan Poe and Charles Dickens--and it is not clear whether Dickens was really an anti-Mason, or one who simply felt that the Masons of his time were not living up to their standards and were therefore hypocrites), and almost no one else of any consequence in history or who has made a significant contribution to the humanities. The anti-Masons operate no charitable groups but engage in fund-raising only to support themselves: They sell books for profit, seek donations to keep their "ministries" operating on television, and contribute nothing to society at large.

All of this is a matter of public record; these facts do not depend on one's ability to determine who is telling the truth. Further, we have the experience of history to teach us what to believe of a group of "anti-" somethings, whether they are anti-Semites, anti-Catholics, or anti-Masons. That historical experience has shown that those who single out a group, especially one different from the majority in society, for opprobrium and hatred are generally not telling the truth about that group, but are seeking to benefit themselves from stirring up the passions of the mob.

In other words, if we knew nothing of the Masons nor of the anti-Masons, it would be difficult to know whom to believe. But we are not so ignorant as that. There are plenty of epistemological reasons to choose to believe that Masons are telling the truth in the present context, as opposed to accepting the word of the anti-Masons. (E.g., one epistemological principle is known as Occam's Razor--it tells us to accept the simplest hypothesis that explains the known facts. The anti-Masons, when confronted with their own contradictions, pile on ever more assumptions. Prove that "Lucifer" is not mentioned in the Symbolic Rite of the first three degrees and they will assert that it is the Scottish Rite that teaches "devil worship." Prove that there is no such thing in the 32 degrees, and they will claim it is taught in the 33rd degree. A denial by a 33rd degree Mason will lead to the attribution of Satanism to the Knights Templar. And so on. The simpler hypothesis is that there is no such Satanic nonsense in Freemasonry--given the conflict of assertions, Occam's Razor directs us to this choice.) The anti-Masons also engage in circular reasoning: They claim that there is a great "Masonic conspiracy" to control the world. Absent any evidence of that, they claim that the very lack of evidence is "proof" of the power of the conspiracy. (Too many Oliver Stone movies? Of course, even Congressmen have engaged in such reasoning, as in the case of the "October surprise" investigation, when Tom Foley suggested that the very lack of evidence was what justified a Congresional hearing. An inability to reason against one's own prejudices is not unique to the anti-Masons.)

Anti-Masons, in discussing some of the more inflammatory allegations about Masonry, such as the worship of satanic or pagan gods, also assert that the vast majority of Masons are totally ignorant of the "real" nature of Masonry, which is revealed only to a few "high" Masons. Yet these anti-Masons insist that they themselves know these hidden secrets better than most of the millions of active members of the Masonic fraternity. Is this a credible state of affairs?

In other words, there are very good reasons to believe that Masons, rather than anti-Masons are telling the truth about the Fraternity, based on the history of Freemasonry, the known character of those who have been Freemasons, and the principles of epistemology. Of course, if one is ignorant of the history and background of a witness, as well as ignorant of the theory of knowledge, one is at the mercy of every smooth-talking mountebank and charlatan to come along. (Why do you think that criminal defense lawyers seek the most uninformed jurors possible?)

[...]

No, the matter of whom to believe is not one which requires hard thought to resolve.


So you see, it's not "character assassination," as you put it. It's countering lies with truth, and laughing at the absolute ridiculousness of some of these claims.

Use your heads, people. Please.



[edit on 8/20/05 by The Axeman]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
"I am confused about the masons".

Me too.


But, from what I can tell around here, so are "they".



Please do not mistake the differences between Lodges and individual Masons as confusion. No matter how hard you try to have uniformity in tradition there will be some amount of variation based on the make-up of the Lodge. A lodge from the coal region of PA will have a different flavor than a Canadian Lodge, who will in turn have different make-up than an English lodge. The core values are still the same.

Also, a PM will have spent more time studying the symbology than some Masons who have not held any office.

We may differ on specifics, but those who rage against us make wild assumptions that are only able to be swallowed with great leaps of faith (and a good bit of grass).

I have never become angry at a person for their views on the Masons (amused but not angry) However in New Hope, PA a young lady became so angry when I said that Dan Brown was a novelist and not a historian, that she threatened to kick my butt.


[edit on 20-8-2005 by Stoic 1]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Axeman

Originally posted by Loungerist
These "facts" include such claims such as David Icke provides no evidence for his theories,when anyone who's actually read Icke's books(which the author of the page admits he hasn't even done for Icke's most popular book) knows he almost always provides extensive amounts of evidence for his claims and provides referrence after referrence after referrence for them.


The question isn't whether he provides references... it's the credibility of the references.



Credibility the site in no way,shape,or form lessens or weakens at any point anywhere on the page. All the site does is say he has no evidence. Which is immediately a lie to anyone who's read an Icke book. For better or worse,in his books Icke wouldn't claim the sky was blue unless he could explain why it's that color and could footnote at least 14 other people who all said the same thing.






Like the guys who used "ex-Masons" for references, when they weren't even ex-Masons. I mean, the guy claims that the royals are reptilians, and that he is the Messiah. What more do you need to show the guy's a loon?



Something Icke actually said would help. If you can find where Icke said he was The Messiah then it would make more of a case. Icke said that we are all the sons and daughters of God. I assume that is what you're referring to. Now,have you actually seen him say he was the messiah or are you just going by disinfo on the web?






Well, each page I read, showcases a different active anti-Mason with outlandish theories about Masonry.


As outlandish as claims that Icke says he's the messiah? I don't see the pages showcasing "anti-Masons" so much as smearing people personally. The Bill Schno--whatshisname page is nearly %100 personal attack. I don't know who Bill is and have never read any of his books to my knowledge. And as it stands I still don't know what Bill said because the page conveniently doesn't touch his arguments,it only attacks him personally.

And it does the same thing to the "anti-Masons" that it rails against being done to Masons:taking claims from the web and running with them




Sometimes Brother King throws a little sarcasm in for humor, and I'll agree that it could be classified as "slanted editorial" comments.


OK. So long as we agree on that that was really all I wanted to point out. The rest is just a sidenote.






But the claims (and conclusive rebuttals) of the anti's claims themselves is enough to convince me. Takesome time, look around. You will be amazed at some of the accusations, I'm sure of it. You're telling me that just because Ed King pokes a little fun at them for being so damned over the top that is makes them right, or more credible? Please.



It's not so much that he makes them more credible,it's that when you have such an obvious slant you make yourself less credible.



So the guy had a laugh over it. Sue him. He still refutes theyr claims with facts and that's more than I can say for any anti I've come across yet.




But refute what claims? Out of the "anti-Mason" pages I read so far I saw at most only one charge against Masonry he attempted to refute. The rest of the pages are just character assassination. He doesn't refute a single thing on Icke's page and the page is full of selective quotes from others(as the author of the page has not even read the book himself,though ironically this doesn't stop the nearly blind attack) instead of something he himself could present. If there's refuting of claims there I must have missed them.


I didn't read every page there but I read enough to get the theme of the method being used.





Try to focus less on what Ed says in editorial comments, and more on the facts and your own common sense to help you discern the truth forom absolute fiction.


OK. But what facts did he present on either the Icke or Schnoebelen pages against the actual charges against Masonry and not just personal(and at times false) stabs at people he's deemed "anti-Masons"?





from: web.mit.edu...

Masons say one thing, anti-Masons say another -- whom should I believe?

--

No, the matter of whom to believe is not one which requires hard thought to resolve.


So you see, it's not "character assassination," as you put it. It's countering lies with truth, and laughing at the absolute ridiculousness of some of these claims.


But it's not countering lies with anything. That block you quoted is just his personal spin on things and nothing more. One thing immediately jumped out:




originally posted by Masoninfo.com

The history of Freemasonry is well documented, and its major players include a vast number of contributors to society--men such as Washington, Truman, and Churchill in politics, Goethe, Schiller, and Conan Doyle in literature, Burl Ives, Ernest Borgnine, Gene Autry in the performing arts, Mozart, Haydn, and Irving Berlin in music, and on and on....

Among the anti-Masons, one can count a single president of the US, John Quincy Adams (thirteen presidents were Masons), two literary figures (Edgar Allan Poe and Charles Dickens--and it is not clear whether Dickens was really an anti-Mason, or one who simply felt that the Masons of his time were not living up to their standards and were therefore hypocrites), and almost no one else of any consequence in history or who has made a significant contribution to the humanities.


How could someone even make a claim like this? How would he know who all has been for or against Masons? Also, John F. Kennedy isn't listed and also spoke out against secret societies who have secret codes of recognition,etc. And I believe he was a president too,just like Adams. I think it's also safe to say that Kennedy was of as much consequence in history as Ernest Borgnine,as the author touts for the Mason side.



Another:


In other words, there are very good reasons to believe that Masons, rather than anti-Masons are telling the truth about the Fraternity, based on the history of Freemasonry, the known character of those who have been Freemasons, and the principles of epistemology. Of course, if one is ignorant of the history and background of a witness, as well as ignorant of the theory of knowledge, one is at the mercy of every smooth-talking mountebank and charlatan to come along. (Why do you think that criminal defense lawyers seek the most uninformed jurors possible?)


Sounds good. Except he misses the glaringly obvious point that by virtue of being a Mason a Mason is not as likely to incriminate his own brothers and almost no man would incriminate himself. To stick with his court analogy,why do you think family members,friends,and business partners of an accused person aren't allowed on the jury?

So while he's perfectly entitled to put his views on his page,I'd have to disagree with the idea that he's "refuting lies with facts". All I see is a guy presenting his own opinion mixed in with some factual errors. No more no less.

[edit on 20-8-2005 by Loungerist]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Mr Necross is a person who has made claims about the Freemasons blowing up his toilet, giving him drugs in an attempt to try and get him to join the Freemasons. Mr Necross is a good story teller but not able to give any evidence of these alleged events. I think that it is more likely that Mr Necross is in need of help and that he might have been the one who destroyed his own toilet. Freemasons do not destroy toilets, drug people, worship the Devil, drink the blood of the first born and take part in sex orgies.

As a Freemason of many years I know that Freemasons serve the community and are a society that seeks self improvement as being the goals that all members strive for. In the UK Freemasons give millions of pounds to charities, many of them non masonic. As Freemasons we seek only the right to privacy that any other organisation has. As a Freemason I do not plan world revolution and have never drugged or destroyed any toilets.

Gerard



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist
Something Icke actually said would help. If you can find where Icke said he was The Messiah then it would make more of a case. Icke said that we are all the sons and daughters of God. I assume that is what you're referring to. Now,have you actually seen him say he was the messiah or are you just going by disinfo on the web?


Followers of this thread might be interested to know that I actually watched the BBC interview with David Icke when he claimed he was the Son of God. Of course back then he was just a TV sports presenter, but I had followed his career with interest as he used to keep goal for my soccer team, Coventry City. He certainly claimed to be the son of God (son of Godhead I think he said) and quite frankly it was all Terry Wogan could do to keep a straight face. The studio audience were more 'honest'.

He has subsequently, and quite wisely, retreated from this position, but it doesn't mean he didn't say it.

There may even be a transcript available on the net somewhere, but a précis can be found in 'Them' (Jon Ronson) Pp143-4.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   
To my knowledge he's never retreated from that view. But I've never seen him make any Messiah business claims. Though he has mentioned how upset he was that someone could twist his statement into such a rumor.

[edit on 21-8-2005 by Loungerist]



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
we also have Islamic militants here, trying to spread propaganda, and we also have Chinese agents operating on this board as well...


ATS is so important that it is just filled with secret agents from every nation on earth trying to influence the great ATS brain trust.


Secret Masonic Cypher: The turkey has landed.


Absolutely priceless TC...
.


Thanks! You know I try my best!



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist
To my knowledge he's never retreated from that view.

I thought he had. Can't remember where I heard that though.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist
To my knowledge he's never retreated from that view. But I've never seen him make any Messiah business claims. Though he has mentioned how upset he was that someone could twist his statement into such a rumor.


Some David Icke quotes. The one of him claiming he is "son of the Godhead" Is in there; he did later retract that statement, claiming that "I was mad at the time."



Originally posted by Trinityman
He certainly claimed to be the son of God (son of Godhead I think he said) and quite frankly it was all Terry Wogan could do to keep a straight face. The studio audience were more 'honest'.


Icke: "The best way of removing negativity is to laugh and be joyous, Terry [Wogan], so I'm glad that there's been so much laughter in the audience tonight." (Terry Wogan replied "But they're laughing at you. They're not laughing with you.")


Icke apparently believes that the Masons killed John Lennon, too.


The Icke-onoclast


from: www.davidicke.com...

How ironic this is when you consider that George Bush is a paedophile, child killer, drug runner, mass murderer, and Satanist.


Pretty strong words, with absolutely no proof. I'm seeing a pattern with this Icke dude.



Hilarious Part 1

Hilarious Part 2

As far as Bill Schnoebelen, well from this page, they are going by (and link to, more than once) his own website, with biographies and publications, etc. and point out many, many inconsistencies with his claims. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that he's full of it. You know, for all the "slanted editorial" comment, ol' Ed King seems to be right on the money. Go figure.

"Character assassination" it's not...


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Thanks! You know I try my best!


Nothing to say to my post on page 2, Thomas?


[edit on 8/21/05 by The Axeman]



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Well I havent really heard this so far on this board, but maybe I missed it. I was always led to believe that the Masons were a secret group bent on the destruction of the Catholic church. Or maybe that was too obvious (im still kinda new here).

But I was watching an old episode of Ren & Stimpy, and guess who's a Shriner... Ren Höek! What does this mean!?



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacquio999
Well I havent really heard this so far on this board, but maybe I missed it. I was always led to believe that the Masons were a secret group bent on the destruction of the Catholic church. Or maybe that was too obvious (im still kinda new here).


That's VERY silly. I'm catholic and a mason, and Freemasonry has absolutely no problem with catholicism, and even ENCOURAGES us to be more active in our personal faiths, including catholicism. The church, however, does have a problem with Freemasonry and has prohibited catholics from becoming masons.



But I was watching an old episode of Ren & Stimpy, and guess who's a Shriner... Ren Höek! What does this mean!?


Why should that mean anything?!? The shriners are a very popular and well-known organization in the US. Is it any surprised that they would be portrayed in a cartoon?

What does it mean that Grandpa Simpson is a mason?!?



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   
That Ren & Stimpy thing was a joke, just so you guys know.

But serioulsy, thanks for setting me straight on the Catholic / Mason thing. I wonder what the church's beef is?



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacquio999
That Ren & Stimpy thing was a joke, just so you guys know.

But serioulsy, thanks for setting me straight on the Catholic / Mason thing. I wonder what the church's beef is?


One of the reasons the church is against Freemasonry is Freemasonry's tolerance of men of all religions. We accept men of all faiths, as long as they believe in God. This goes against the church's belief that Christianity is the only true religion, and has put Freemasonry at odds with the church.

Another reason is due to the misconception of our oaths and the level of secrecy among Freemasons. It is, of course, false, but the church subscribes to the myth that a Freemason would keep something secret to the point of not revealing it during a confession. They themselves could do a little reading and see that when masons take their obligation, that they state that the oath should not be above the mason's duty to God (the mason's personal religion), country, neighbor or himself.

But the church, like many people, is comfortable in their ignorance.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Hmmm interesting. Ive always considered the Catholic church to be one of the more accepting denominations of other faiths, though this may have been a recent trend. Seems like John Paul II went out of his way to demonstrate this. Maybe they're coming around, slow as they are.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Axeman, I'm sorry I didn't answer your questions earlier, so allow me to do it now.

To ask a Mason if there are any sinister onsgoings in the Masons is worthless. Chances are, the one you talk to won't know of any. If you happen to run up on one who did know, he wouldn't tell you, anyway. So, I certainly wouldn't bother asking a Mason.

How about a former Mason? Personally, I'd suspect he has an axe to grind, and would take his words with several grains of salt so as to add worth.

How about a non-Mason? Seriously. Comeon.

So, this being the case, why do we bother with all this, huh? If I weren't so lazy, I'd document the bad side of the Mason's past, that is not to the fault of the Masons but to the fault of bad people who used the Masonic fraternity. I do not count this to be a negative mark against the Masons, and prefer to judge that group by the people I know who are Masons. By that account, they are "good people".

There. I'm done. While Masonry isn't for this Christian, I will judge them as whole by the actions of those that I know.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
So, this being the case, why do we bother with all this, huh?


I think (for me) it just boils down to wanting to put information that I am confident is fact out htere for the benefit of those who come here completely ignorant about Masonry (as I once was) and giving them a positive voice amidst the plethoric loquacity of the anti-Mason. I don't think they get a fair shake (no pun intended) and that's why I spend time here.


If I weren't so lazy, I'd document the bad side of the Mason's past, that is not to the fault of the Masons but to the fault of bad people who used the Masonic fraternity. I do not count this to be a negative mark against the Masons, and prefer to judge that group by the people I know who are Masons. By that account, they are "good people".


But the Masons in no way deny that past; what they do deny is all the crazy allegations of Satanism or Luciferianism or whatever it is this week. The bad side of the Masons' past is documented already: by the Masons. Worthless? Maybe to you, but it occurs to me that they have no real reason to lie.


There. I'm done. While Masonry isn't for this Christian, I will judge them as whole by the actions of those that I know.


Fair enough. I wish more people took that view on it, honestly.

If I remember correctly, you said once that the masons you knew were "the kind of guys I'd ask to hold my wallet, and know that when I got it back, nothing would be missing." I would concur.

Sorry, I know I get a little amped up sometimes. I don't mean anything by it. Thanks for replying.





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join