Survivors Remember Masonic Abuse & Satanic Symbols Interwoven

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


so a logical choice for a skeptic who had some guts would be to actually go out and join one of these secret groups right? That is what I did. I had some other reasons for joining, but I thought there was only one way to get the truth. I was right. I found out that what the masons on this board and around the world say is exactly what is going on. Business meetings, with some amazing life lessons geared toward making a person better. No aliens, no world domination, no great sex orgies, nothing of the sort. Now you won't believe me since I am one of them, but I was once one of you. Take that for what it's worth.




posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 


Close mindedness? I don't think so. So are you saying every lodge that is a part of freemasonry is perfect? P2 lodge. If one lodge became corrupted what assures you that the others may be perfect? You can't. Like everyone who is told everything is perfect, you may think every lodge is perfect because no one tells you otherwise.

I have nothing against your practices and traditions. I have not bashed freemasons, I might have, if I did than I am sorry. All I am trying to convey is that every organization will eventually become infiltrated. If you think every lodge is perfect then you are mistaken.

You must also understand why some people are angry. Freemasons have sitting judges, and police officers. What makes you think a freemason judge will convict a freemason guy? Why shouldn't a judge disclose he is a freemason? Because of an oath to uphold the law? Oaths are nothing but words.

A person with an agenda and that many connections is a force to be reckoned with, don't you agree?



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


I believe you, I don't understand why you think I wouldn't. But you guys are defending every freemason and every lodge like they are shielded from corruption. That is why I am here. I don't think freemasons want to rule the world. I understand what your brotherhood is about. All I am saying is there may be a few sinister guys in the fraternity. They could be apart of freemasonry for networking but have more sinister agendas.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by network dude
 


My point is, that us regular citizens won't know what goes on behind closed doors. The guys involved in rituals may leave the lodge and head to another place, you guys have lives out of freemasonry don't you?


You CAN know by a pretty simple Google search. The ritual is there to be found admittedly alongside some pretty off-the-wall stuff that the non-fevered brow could distinguish as so much guff. And all Masons are involved in the ritual. Once the ritual of the evening is finished, the Lodge ceases to exist until its next regular meeting. So assertions that a tiny minority of Masons get together outside of Lodge and do vile things in the name of Masonry that are therefore Masonic in nature just doesn't wash since by definition, they aren't constituted as a Regular Lodge.

So IF such group got together and IF this transpired, guess what? They wouldn't be acting as Masons because anything they're doing is being done outside of a regularly-constituted Lodge. Ergo, it isn't reflective of Masonry no matter how badly some anti-Mason would wish to categorise it as being otherwise.


Originally posted by Equinox99
The problem with secrecy is it leaves the guys out of the circle speculating. When you have people claiming their masons coming out and confessing to what happened, you will get people believing. There may be 98% of them who were never even associated with masons. It is not like everyone of those guys just woke up and decided to write a book about the rituals that goes on in some lodges.


So 49 times out of 50, the stories are BS by a never-been-Mason not to mention that the other 1 time out of 50 has to be able to pass the sniff test to ensure that the was-Mason isn't passing off some creative fiction as a vendetta.

And actually it is quite likely that the 49 did indeed just wake up and the motives of the other 1 need to be sussed-out to determine the potential validity of his story.


Originally posted by Equinox99
Obviously there had to be a trigger event that led that person to believe what he believes. People thought guys who seen UFO's were crazy, but you can't convince that person what he seen was wrong. It is fine if you think every single person speaking against freemasonry is delusional, remember tho, if you have 1000 basket of apples there has to be some rotten ones.
When you could only see the good ones you will believe they are all good.


Again, your analogy is simplistic in that it's the anti-Masons who purport that Masons see themselves and Masonry in general as being to-a-man above reproach. A casual perusal of ATS will demonstrate pretty clearly that the actual Masons make no such claim.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 


Close mindedness? I don't think so. So are you saying every lodge that is a part of freemasonry is perfect? P2 lodge.


Irregular, clandestine masonic lodge not recognised by any other Regular Masonic body. They exist. Anybody can call themselves a masonic lodge same as any group can call themselves baptists. Does that make the Westboro Baptist Church a benchmark for what non-Baptists should make of Baptists in general?

Next!


Originally posted by Equinox99
If one lodge became corrupted what assures you that the others may be perfect? You can't.


P2 was one-off with more in common with a private club than Freemasonry as the world generally sees it. A sterling example of the masonic equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church.


Originally posted by Equinox99
Like everyone who is told everything is perfect, you may think every lodge is perfect because no one tells you otherwise.


Except we visit other Lodges that're recognised by our Grand Lodge. We can visit them because they adhere to central Masonic tenets and practices. So we'd have a good idea if they were going rogue


Originally posted by Equinox99
I have nothing against your practices and traditions. I have not bashed freemasons, I might have, if I did than I am sorry. All I am trying to convey is that every organization will eventually become infiltrated. If you think every lodge is perfect then you are mistaken.


Infiltrate away! But the ritual is essentially carved in stone against innovation (change) for precisely this reason. So the landmarks and practices remain the same through decades and centuries against any attempt to change them.


Originally posted by Equinox99
You must also understand why some people are angry. Freemasons have sitting judges, and police officers. What makes you think a freemason judge will convict a freemason guy? Why shouldn't a judge disclose he is a freemason? Because of an oath to uphold the law? Oaths are nothing but words.


OK. We're taking an argument from the British Book of Anti-Mason Antagonism. Sitting judges and police officers have been and are Catholic, Sikh, Rotarians, Oddfellows, etc. They also may be sinister. Shall we demand that all Catholic/Sikh/Rotarian/insert-your-hobby-horse-group-of-the-week-here must declare themselves s such? And where does it stop?

If anything, a Masonic judge judging a Masonic defendant will (I expect) be harsher in his judgement should the defendant be found guilty precisely because a Mason (and I suspect members of the other groups I cited) is expected to adhere to a higher standard of behaviour. In any case, these assertions of back scratching come without provenance or proof making them a waste of time.


Originally posted by Equinox99
A person with an agenda and that many connections is a force to be reckoned with, don't you agree?


As a general rule of thumb, yes. That's true of ANYBODY with social connections. Why is it that Masons get singled out for your special attention?



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 


See it is you who comes with a closed mind, not me. I am not saying Freemasons are corrupt, yet it seems you are defending something I am not accusing. I could sit and argue that the Vatican church is all great and such, but it doesn't make it so. What makes you so sure that Freemasonry is a perfect body? Because you haven't seen or heard anything that incriminates a lodge?

Fine, believe every freemason and freemasonic lodge is purely good. It won't change my mind about human nature at all.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 


See it is you who comes with a closed mind, not me. I am not saying Freemasons are corrupt, yet it seems you are defending something I am not accusing.


Have you forgotten this quote from this post already?

"Freemasons have sitting judges, and police officers. What makes you think a freemason judge will convict a freemason guy?"

If that isn't an assertion of corruption, just what is it?


Originally posted by Equinox99
I could sit and argue that the Vatican church is all great and such, but it doesn't make it so. What makes you so sure that Freemasonry is a perfect body? Because you haven't seen or heard anything that incriminates a lodge?


Clearly, you missed this quote in my post:

"Again, your analogy is simplistic in that it's the anti-Masons who purport that Masons see themselves and Masonry in general as being to-a-man above reproach. A casual perusal of ATS will demonstrate pretty clearly that the actual Masons make no such claim."

I just make sure that when Freemasons and Freemasonry are being condemned, it is for something that deserves condemnation, not just someone's ill-founded misattribution.


Originally posted by Equinox99
Fine, believe every freemason and freemasonic lodge is purely good. It won't change my mind about human nature at all.


I'm not trying to change your mind about human nature. I think we've been saying the same thing and arguing the same point. Any human construct will have its flaws. Masonry is a human construct. There will be flaws. Collectively, we try to keep them to a minimum and excise that element which brings disrepute onto the Craft in general.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 


So I am supposed to take a freemasons word that freemasonry is all peachy?
I could do a search and find 2 things online: 1) Freemasonry being perfect and anything people say about it is a lie,or 2) Freemasonry being evil rulers of the world.

And FYI, You guys do have sitting judges and police officers, whether an anti-masonic person says it or not. If a fraternity is sworn to help their brethrens, how would I know the judge won't deviate from evidence because their brother is in need? *NOTE* I am not saying freemason officials are corrupt, however they may face a moral dilemma. Will they condemn their brethern or release them.



Any human construct will have its flaws. Masonry is a human construct. There will be flaws. Collectively, we try to keep them to a minimum and excise that element which brings disrepute onto the Craft in general.


That is what I am saying. Human nature, and power will eventually lead to corruption.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
*NOTE* I am not saying freemason officials are corrupt, however they may face a moral dilemma. Will they condemn their brethern or release them.



It is no moral dilemma. Freemasons do indeed promise to "come to the relief" of a "distressed worthy brother", "worthy" being the operative word. If a Freemason has committed a crime, for example, he is violation of his obligation, and is not considered a "worthy brother". Rather, he is subject to Masonic discipline, up to and including expulsion.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Equinox99
 


so a logical choice for a skeptic who had some guts would be to actually go out and join one of these secret groups right? That is what I did. I had some other reasons for joining, but I thought there was only one way to get the truth. I was right. I found out that what the masons on this board and around the world say is exactly what is going on. Business meetings, with some amazing life lessons geared toward making a person better. No aliens, no world domination, no great sex orgies, nothing of the sort. Now you won't believe me since I am one of them, but I was once one of you. Take that for what it's worth.


I second this.

I came to ATS during my four-year research of Freemasonry. I read every pro and anti-masonic site. I joined with an open, yet skeptical mind.

I have found it to be a wonderful place with kind-hearted guys. No power-brokers or politicians. No political or religious dogma.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


But we have no power. What power do we have?

I have heard tales of UGLE cops and judges in England, but I don't know if that's true.

The logic that you are using is ironically the same logic that can be applied to Freemasonry. No one can influence your beliefs without your consent.

We are very careful to not be influential in the personal journey of any man toward the truth. In fact most Masons just want to join in a fraternal environment and don't really ever study the esoteric aspects.

We believe strongly in having a harmonious environment where men of all different religious and political leanings can come together. We believe this so strongly that no talk of divisive subjects is allowed in lodge.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 


So I am supposed to take a freemasons word that freemasonry is all peachy?


The word of Masons generally (and myself specifically) has repeatedly been Masonry is generally peachy. Is it without flaws among its membership? No. Masons haven't claimed that at all and we've been over this same specific ground over and over and over again. But neither is it as corrupted as some would have the credulous to believe.

If you choose to believe that Masonry is inherently and irrevocably corrupt by simple virtue of unsupported and/or atypical assertions, then is there a point to continued conversation on the matter?


Originally posted by Equinox99
I could do a search and find 2 things online: 1) Freemasonry being perfect and anything people say about it is a lie,or 2) Freemasonry being evil rulers of the world.


Which clearly you haven't. And you're not addressing the likelihood that a third result will arise: none of the above or at least something that bares a closer resemblance to 'Masonry is generally good but that occasional aberrations do occur'.

But that'd be a buzzkill, now wouldn't it?


Originally posted by Equinox99
And FYI, You guys do have sitting judges and police officers, whether an anti-masonic person says it or not. If a fraternity is sworn to help their brethrens, how would I know the judge won't deviate from evidence because their brother is in need?


Because the very oaths that a Mason takes SPECIFICALLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY directs that they not behave in such manner as you describe. Ergo, if the accused solicited such a deviation, he'd be acting in a non-Masonic manner (and would be chargeable within a Lodge for having done so) and if the judge were to do so, he'd be likewise culpable and chargeable.


Originally posted by Equinox99
*NOTE* I am not saying freemason officials are corrupt, however they may face a moral dilemma. Will they condemn their brethern or release them.


They don't face the moral dilemma (at least from a Masonic viewpoint) quite simply because even the vaguest recollection of their various oaths would forswear them from acting in the manner you describe.


Originally posted by Equinox99

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Any human construct will have its flaws. Masonry is a human construct. There will be flaws. Collectively, we try to keep them to a minimum and excise that element which brings disrepute onto the Craft in general.


That is what I am saying. Human nature, and power will eventually lead to corruption.


A riff on the 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely' meme. However, for your assertion to have any relevance, you have to demonstrate that a Mason has achieved power by sole virtue of being a Mason and not through any other means or qualification.

Otherwise you're flailing.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Thanks for all your views.



If you choose to believe that Masonry is inherently and irrevocably corrupt by simple virtue of unsupported and/or atypical assertions, then is there a point to continued conversation on the matter?


Well the thing with that is, I am not saying Freemasonic brotherhood as a whole is corrupt. I will provide an example of the police force. A cop pulls a drunk off duty officer. The cop knows he is drunk and releases him because he is a cop. It does not reflect on the whole police foundation, but it does make them look bad. Does that mean every police officer is corrupt? No. It simply means that we see acceptance by trying to only help our closest friends. I know if I pulled a friend over that is closely associated with a fraternity, I would let him go. Here is why, we are always seeking acceptance. If I put him in jail, I would assume my fraternity would look at me different because I did not help out a brother.



But that'd be a buzzkill, now wouldn't it?


Well then give me a web-site that is in the middle. All I find when I search is either a word from freemasons, or anti-freemasons. Biased both sides.



Because the very oaths that a Mason takes SPECIFICALLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY directs that they not behave in such manner as you describe. Ergo, if the accused solicited such a deviation, he'd be acting in a non-Masonic manner (and would be chargeable within a Lodge for having done so) and if the judge were to do so, he'd be likewise culpable and chargeable.


It does not mean things can't be done in secret. You guys could have a secret society among your secret society to deviate to another secret society. They may not be doing the work of freemasons but could have networks through freemasons.



They don't face the moral dilemma (at least from a Masonic viewpoint) quite simply because even the vaguest recollection of their various oaths would forswear them from acting in the manner you describe.


The fact is they do face a moral dilemma. I believe public officials should reveal if they are a part of a fraternity. That way, if a member of freemasonry were to go one trial the judge would be excused.

There should always be a separation between fraternities and state. At the same time, you guys should voluntarily provide names of judges and not refuse. There could be much bias going on without our knowledge. All I am saying is to reveal high powered political figures. Why should they remain invisible?



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


A politician doesn't have to reveal their membership in a Fraternity because it's private and nobody's business.

In World War II Hitler murdered tens of thousands of Freemasons simply because they promoted tolerance and belonged to a fraternity.

No Freemason is sworn to provide assistance to a brother if the brother is violating the law. If a brother violates the law of the country in which he lives then he is violating the spirit of Freemasonry. Good citizenship is one of the points we pride ourselves on.

As for cops... I don't know how it is in other places, but in my state if a cop is a Freemason and you have a Freemason emblem on your car and you are speeding you will be treated much more harshly.

It is severely frowned upon for a man to use his Masonic membership for personal gain.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
The fact is they do face a moral dilemma. I believe public officials should reveal if they are a part of a fraternity. That way, if a member of freemasonry were to go one trial the judge would be excused.
And how exactly would you know the defendant on trial were a member of the same fraternity? Are you going to ask every single person arrested, under oath, what their fraternal affiliations are?



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
Well the thing with that is, I am not saying Freemasonic brotherhood as a whole is corrupt. I will provide an example of the police force. A cop pulls a drunk off duty officer. The cop knows he is drunk and releases him because he is a cop. It does not reflect on the whole police foundation, but it does make them look bad. Does that mean every police officer is corrupt? No.


Precisely. So what's served? Whether it's coppers, Masons, Knights of Columbus, etc. the actions of individuals are not emblematic of the whole. They are aberrations that distance those individuals from the tenets central to the three examples cited. As an aside, I'm speculating about the K of C in this matter and will stand corrected should any K of C member think me grievously incorrect. But I suspect that the essential central tenets of Masonry and Knights of Columbus have more in common than differential. But I digress.


Originally posted by Equinox99
It simply means that we see acceptance by trying to only help our closest friends. I know if I pulled a friend over that is closely associated with a fraternity, I would let him go.


And in all likelihood, you'd be doing that because he's a friend not because he's a co-member of an unnamed fraternity. And here's where you're shifting the goalposts on your example. We've gone from plain judge/defendant whose only shared relationship is that of fraternity to one of copper/violator with the added connection of being a friend. By so doing, you're muddying your argument not making it clearer and more concise.


Originally posted by Equinox99
Here is why, we are always seeking acceptance. If I put him in jail, I would assume my fraternity would look at me different because I did not help out a brother.


And you would likely be violating a tenet of that fraternity (certainly you would be if you were a Mason [and again, I assume KofC]). And if you were a Mason, as I said before, you'd be directly violating a solemn oath that you'd taken. You'll probably get away with it and none will be the wiser. But is this part of the slippery slope. And at what point do your actions betray you and threaten your continued membership in the fraternity?


Originally posted by Equinox99

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
But that'd be a buzzkill, now wouldn't it?


Well then give me a web-site that is in the middle. All I find when I search is either a word from freemasons, or anti-freemasons. Biased both sides.


You'll forgive me if I don't much feel like doing your work for you. Do your own search and report back your findings (assuming your point was meaningful in the first place).


Originally posted by Equinox99

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Because the very oaths that a Mason takes SPECIFICALLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY directs that they not behave in such manner as you describe. Ergo, if the accused solicited such a deviation, he'd be acting in a non-Masonic manner (and would be chargeable within a Lodge for having done so) and if the judge were to do so, he'd be likewise culpable and chargeable.


It does not mean things can't be done in secret. You guys could have a secret society among your secret society to deviate to another secret society. They may not be doing the work of freemasons but could have networks through freemasons.


I refer you back to this quote:

"If anything, a Masonic judge judging a Masonic defendant will (I expect) be harsher in his judgement should the defendant be found guilty precisely because a Mason (and I suspect members of the other groups I cited) is expected to adhere to a higher standard of behaviour. In any case, these assertions of back scratching come without provenance or proof making them a waste of time."

But you've heard this from me already and have chosen to ignore it.


Originally posted by Equinox99

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
They don't face the moral dilemma (at least from a Masonic viewpoint) quite simply because even the vaguest recollection of their various oaths would forswear them from acting in the manner you describe.


The fact is they do face a moral dilemma. I believe public officials should reveal if they are a part of a fraternity. That way, if a member of freemasonry were to go one trial the judge would be excused.


Dilemma emanates from indecision about the correct course of action to take in a situation that hasn't been previously described. A man of honour (as all Masons profess and are expected to be) will do the right thing (perhaps with reticence). No dilemma.

As far as forcing judges to declare membership in a fraternity, why just limit such declarations to fraternities? Why not religion, dominant hand, social drinking? An equally valid argument can be made for any of these attributes because what you're essentially saying is that you don't trust the judge. And if you don't trust the judgment of the judge in one situation, how can you with good conscience turn around and declare otherwise unbounded faith in his judgment in all other matters this one matter excepting?

Answer? You can't!

So instead, we do trial by mob. That way, the voice of the people is directly heard in all matters and the mob satisfied.

Your argument is a specious strawman for a situation the fevered brow wants to believe might exist. Absent compelling evidence of regular and predictable wrongdoing, this singularly British fascination with presumed corruption isn't worth phosphors or time.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Freemasons have gained power and influence for a long time, since they were first created. In the United States the Freemasons attempted to "Manifest Destiny" by creating Demon Baby. They took a child and did many graphic and not pleasant things to initiate this ritual. Part of this process involved injecting a child with steriods, not a pleasant experience. This was supposed to bring about Satan. The child was to become Satan. This appeals to many Freemasons. They wanted to bring about the Anti Christ. Some thought that being evil might appease Satan, and the more evil they are the better so he will be happy. The sinister thing about this is that stories of the Demon Baby were told in Sunday Schools to kids across the country. The sick part is when people were told about it, it sounded to horrid to be real and must be a joke.
It is not a joke.

Grand Pumbah

be kind to others



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Coemgen
 


So are you saying you learned of this heinous plot in Sunday School?



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Coemgen
The sinister thing about this is that stories of the Demon Baby were told in Sunday Schools to kids across the country. The sick part is when people were told about it, it sounded to horrid to be real and must be a joke.
It is not a joke.

Grand Pumbah

be kind to others



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Coemgen
 

And the proof of this is where? I mean seriously, how do you guys come up with this?

The whole Satan-Freemason thing has been debunked so many times that it is ridiculous that so many still pull "evidence" from a hoax.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join