The "evil" oaths of the 33rd degree

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
that Bringer of Light was the actual word used. This was used, in theory, by the Scientific 1600's Illumanati, and was in no way a reference to Evil. Satan is the word translated, and I believe translated loosely.

Now, I would assume (and Masonic Light may very well correct me if I'm wrong) that the Devil stuff was pushed onto Masons as the Theory of Illumanati Infiltration built strength. The mistake of Bringer of Light for Evil Bastard in Hell had the Illumanati (that I reference) as Satanic, and if they had snuck into the Mason's then that made the higher Mason's Evil Devil Worshipers.

This whole theory is sham. Perhaps the Illumanati I speak of did find refuge with the Masons. Even if they did, it leads to no Satanic Deeds. Yes, my version of the Illumanati would have a grudge with the Catholic Church for the persecution they endured, but that alone would not make them Devil Worshipers.

Worst case scenario, the most intelligent men of the 1600's had a group of Enlightenment that was persecuted by the Church and merged with the Mason's, perhaps infiltrating the higher ranks and pursuing amongst the highers the knowledge of Illumanati. Now, even in that worse case, no Evil is apparent.

I can rest assured that Devil Worshipping is not the intent of the Illumanati (if they exist in pure form, and if a diluted group uses the name then it is NOT the Illumanati, merely an imposter) and that the Masons are in no way connected with Devil Worshipping.

It simply isn't logical.




posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Ok. So in naming all of these people as Masons, does that prove that eveyone and everything associated with the Masons is assoicated with Satanism and the Devil?

I would bet a dollar to a donut that ANY group, or organization has members that are of uhm, how can it be said... of questionable character.

Heres some famous serial killers:

Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Charles Whitman, and Dennis Rader (the BTK Killer)

Each a special person, all with the affinity to kill and each and everyone of them was... a BOY SCOUT. Does that mean that because of they were Boy Scouts every child that is, was or will be, is a serial killer?

By throwing names around one may think that all of those people you named as Masons indeed were (in fact many have been refuted before in this forum).

And despite any members that are questionable in character, it cannot damn the entire membership of Masonry.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Masonry hold's these figures in very high esteem which reveals that they have a kinship of sorts. I'm not slandering masons here- most Masons are genuine loving people (Who built the great Cathedrals of Europe? Who give most to charity? ). It's the leadership which often dupes it's members and particularly the layman. That's my beef.

[edit on 19-1-2006 by Nakash]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
As I understand it, there is no central "office" or "temple" that is the home of the Masonic Lodges (if I am incorrect I apologize) so what leadership are you talking about?

Last time I checked, Mr. Crowley (and the others on your list) has been high grade compost for many years.

So what "leaders" are the problem?

If the principles of Masonry are true and that they do not exclude anyone from membership if they do believe in God, isn't the leader of that person then God?



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash


Let's settle this issue. Jesus Christ is regarded to be the angel of the Lord (Malak YHWH) within Christian theology.


No, he isn't. In Christian theology, Christ is considered the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, one in essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The reduction of Christ to the status of an "angel" is unbiblical in light of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and would constitute a heresy.



Ano Lucis was used in the Roman empire in connection to their Gods (also Egypt). The date which starts the chronology is considered by many orthodox Christian scholars to be the year a disagreement happened between Satan and the other hosts. Coincidence? I think not.


None of the above is correct. To begin with, the Romans never used Anno Lucis as a calendar designation. They used Ab Urbe Condita, which means "from the founding of the city". Anno Lucis originated in Freemasonry, and refers to the beginning of the world, using a literal interpretation of Old Testament geneology. Your claim that A.L. is "considered by many orthodox Christian scholars to be the year of disagreement between Satan and other hosts" is patently false. I would challenge you to give me the names of only two of the "many" such "scholars".



Now let's cut the BS.


Yes, let's.


Look at some of Masonry's famous members:


* Arthur Edward Waite - occult writer and Masonic historian.
* Dr. Wynn Westcott - member of the Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia and founding member of the occult Order of the Golden Dawn. All three of the original founders of the Golden Dawn were Freemasons: Dr. William Wynn Westcott, Dr. William Woodman, and S.L. MacGregor Mathers joined to practice ritual magic and occultism.


The above is correct. I wish I could say the same for the rest of your list (which you simply plagiarized from another website).



* Aleister Crowley - master satanist of this century and founder of the anti-christ religion of Thelema.


Aleister Crowley was never a regular Mason, nor was he ever a satanist.


* Dr. Gerard Encaussé - (Papus) masterful author, teacher of the Tarot and leader of the occult Martinistes society.
* Dr. Theodore Reuss - head of the O.T.O., a German occult/satanic society which made Crowley its head for the British Isles.


Papus was a Mason; Reuss was briefly a regular Mason, but only held membership for about a year. He was never a satanist; instead, he was a Gnostic.


* George Pickingill - the master warlock (male witch) of 19th century England, leader of the "Pickingill covens."


Never heard of him. However, since Wicca was not even founded until the 1920's, I'd wager your information is not true.


* Annie Besant - leader of the occult Theosophical society and Co-Masonic hierarch. (Yes, there are female Masons!)


No, there aren't. Besant, of course, was never a Mason.


* Alice Bailey - founder of the New Age organization, Lucis (formerly Lucifer) Trust.


Not, of course, a Mason. However, her husband Foster was a Mason.


* Bishop C. W. Leadbetter - Theosophist, mentor to the failed New Age "Christ", Krishnamurti, and prelate in the occult Liberal Catholic Church.
* Manly P. Hall - Rosicrucian adept, author, founder of the Philosophical Research Society.


Leadbetter was a Mason. So was Hall.


* Gerald B. Gardner - founder of the modern Wiccan (white Witchcraft) revival.


Gardner was a First Degree, or Entered Apprentice, Mason only. He found the biblical symbolism in Masonry, and declined to continue.


* Alex Sanders - self-styled "King of the Witches" in London and one of the most influential leaders of Wicca after Gardner.


Not a Mason.


* Helena Petrovna (HP) Blavatsky


Not a Mason.



If masonry is so Christian, and good and nice, why were these people so entrenched into masonic doctrine and honoured in every single lodge? Really, I love the fact that most Masons want to do good deeds
and so forth, but their leadership....I mean please.


To begin with, I never said Masonry was "Christian". Secondly, there's nothing wrong with any of the above-named people who were actually Masons.



More quotes from Pike:


“The conviction of all men that God is good led to a belief in a devil...”(Albert Pike, "Morals and Dogma." 19th Degree, p. 324)


And?


“...there is no rebellious demon of Evil, or Principle of Darkness coexistent and in eternal controversy with God, or the Principle of Light...”(Ibid. 32nd Degree, p.859)


That is correct, and also disproves your insinuation that Pike was sort of a closet Zoroastrian.


“Lucifer, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the son of the morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with it's splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual or selfish Souls? Doubt it not!”(Morals and Dogma op cit. p321)


I don't doubt it all; for Plato and Philo were also inspired.


Just grab a copy of Morals and Dogmas.


I sincerely doubt you've ever read M&D. you should though, you just might learn something.


More (not from Pike):

Manly P. Hall (Scottish rites, 33rd degree) says the following about ancient Mystery religions and their ties to Freemasonry:

“Every pagan nation had [and has) not only its state religion, but another into which the philosophic elect alone have gained entrance. Many of these ancient cults vanished from the earth without revealing their secrets, but a few have survived the test of ages and their mysteries’ symbols are still preserved. Much of the ritualism of Freemasonry is based on the trials to which candidates were subjected by the ancient hierophants before the keys of wisdom were entrusted to them."


And your point is? Your "quotes", no doubt copied from religious nut job websites, are beginning to get redundant.


What kinship does God have with Satan? That's a question you should ponder.


Right now the question I'm pondering is why the hell I've wasted 15 minutes of my life responding to this nonsense.

[edit on 19-1-2006 by Masonic Light]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I'm talking about the ideologues of Masonry- Pike, Hall, and so forth. Of course the leadership changes, but if things in masonry work just like in the rest of the world, the power goes to whoever keep's the doctrine in it's original form.




No, he isn't. In Christian theology, Christ is considered the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, one in essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The reduction of Christ to the status of an "angel" is unbiblical in light of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and would constitute a heresy.


I didn't reduce Christ to an angel (heresy), but if Christ is indeed the Messiah he must be YHWH in his transcendental form (Metatron). He is also Lord and leader of the Hosts, though not a host himself.





None of the above is correct. To begin with, the Romans never used Anno Lucis as a calendar designation. They used Ab Urbe Condita, which means "from the founding of the city". Anno Lucis originated in Freemasonry, and refers to the beginning of the world, using a literal interpretation of Old Testament geneology. Your claim that A.L. is "considered by many orthodox Christian scholars to be the year of disagreement between Satan and other hosts" is patently false. I would challenge you to give me the names of only two of the "many" such "scholars".


My apology. You are in fact correct on this. The date given however was stipulated by St. Eusebius and irenaeus of Lyons as possible dates for the schism. I wrongly confused the Masonic Calendar with a Gnostic schedule I saw somewhere (post the link when I find it).







Aleister Crowley was never a regular Mason, nor was he ever a satanist.


Not a Satanist? Your joking right? He was a member of the Golden Dawn and O.T.O.- both affiliated with Masonry.




Reuss was briefly a regular Mason, but only held membership for about a year. He was never a satanist; instead, he was a Gnostic.


And what my friend is the conception of Satan gnostics are most fond of? Be honest.




However, since Wicca was not even founded until the 1920's, I'd wager your information is not true.


If by Wicca you mean the Gardner hoax I agree. Fertility and Mother Goddess/Magna Mater cults are far older though.




No, there aren't. Besant, of course, was never a Mason.


Yet her husband was. Her beliefs can perfectly well be picked apart in orthodox Masonry. Let's be honest.




quote: “...there is no rebellious demon of Evil, or Principle of Darkness coexistent and in eternal controversy with God, or the Principle of Light...”(Ibid. 32nd Degree, p.859)


That is correct, and also disproves your insinuation that Pike was sort of a closet Zoroastrian.


My friend, I never said Pike was a Zoroastrian, but can you deny that his writings contain the same peculiar gnostic manichaen duality of Zoroastrianism? Of course not!


Your mad that I simply collected quotes from well known Masonic sources. If Masonry has nothing to hide WHY are you angry?

[edit on 19-1-2006 by Nakash]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwhite

I would bet a dollar to a donut that ANY group, or organization has members that are of uhm, how can it be said... of questionable character.



That's true, but it's interesting that the actual Masons that he listed were not of questionable character, they simply entertained religious opinions that are different from his. Just because a man is not fundamentalist does not mean he is of inferior character. Actually, it may even help him!



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
Let's settle this issue. Jesus Christ is regarded to be the angel of the Lord (Malak YHWH) within Christian theology.

Malak? Thats the same root at Moloch. BAAL WORSHIPPER!


The dragon is the holy form of many of the higher ranking hosts, HOWEVER it is also a Satanic sign in many cases

So its subjective just what a symbol means at any one time no?


The Serpent was not the saviour of Christianity.

I've never heard that the bronze serpent of moses was christ either. Of course, there was still a big brazen snake idol in Yahweh's Temple that people burned incense to. There was also an Idol to Asherah/Ishtar. next to Yahweh.





Ano Lucis was used in the Roman empire in connection to their Gods (also Egypt).

Please demonstrate this by citing a source.


The date which starts the chronology is considered by many orthodox Christian scholars to be the year a disagreement happened between Satan and the other hosts. Coincidence? I think not.

Its the date of the creation of the world, from Ussher. Besides, this is an orthodox idea, not one throughout all of christendom. If you are saying that masonry doesn't mesh with the greek church...*shrugs*



but Zoroastrian dualisms are widely held in esteem within Masonry, and Pike certainly made the connection.

So? Turn to page 221 of your edition of Morals and Dogma

Pike A. 1954. Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. Edition Book Manufacturers. Richmond. p221.

[Masonry] is philosophical, because it teaches the great Truths concerning the nature and existence of one Supreme Deity, and existence and immortality of the soul. It revives the Academy of Plato, and the wise teachings of Socrates. It reiterates the maxims of Pythagoras, Confucious, and Zoroaster, and reverentially enforces the sublime lessons of Him who died upon the Cross
The ancients thought that universal humanity acted under the influence of two opposing Principles, the Good and the Evil: of which the Good urged men toward Truth, Independence, and Devotedness; and Evil toward Falsehood, Servility, and Selfishness. Masonry represents the Good Principle and constantly wars against the evil one. It is the Hercules, the Osiris, the Apollo, the Mithras, and the Ormuzd, at everlasting and deadly feud with the demons of ignorance, brutality, baseness, falsehood, slavishness of soul, intolerance, superstition, tyranny, meanness, the insolence of wealth, and bigotry
[emph added]
These are not the words of a Satanist, these are not the words of a guy who thinks that there must be balance in the world and that dark forces need to be supported just as much as good ones, this is not a guy who is saying 'jesus is the force of darkness', this is not a guy who worships 'the evil one'.



Now let's cut the BS. Look at some of Masonry's famous members:

That statement, in and of itself, is BS.


* Manly P. Hall - Rosicrucian adept, author, founder of the Philosophical Research Society.

A credit if there ever was one.
* Alex Sanders - self-styled "King of the Witches" in London and one of the most influential leaders of Wicca after Gardner.

* Helena Petrovna (HP) Blavatsky

She was not, obviously, in the all men's group. How many others on your 'list' are not masons?



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
Masonry hold's these figures in very high esteem which reveals that they have a kinship of sorts.
[edit on 19-1-2006 by Nakash]

It is nice to know that you speak for all of Masonry!!!!!
Get real. No one person can speak for Masonry. Thats one of the beutiful things about it. Another is that it is willing to accept free-thinkers and strong willed people into its ranks. As for as high of esteem the people on the list are held or if they can be consider as main line masons, there is know one who can say, most certainly not a non mason. As for as far as I am concerned the people mentioned have all contribrited to man's search for the truth and should be respected for being brave enough to ask their own questions and travel their own path insted of mindlessly repeating the thoughts of others.

[edit on 19-1-2006 by lost in the midwest]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Well, I myself am particularly fond of many of the goals of Masonry. I just don't like the Gnostic blasphemy Luciferian tendencies I see in many people associated with Masonry (or in Masonry). That's all.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
to find out about Masonry due to my Illumanati thread I came to find that AS LONG AS YOU BELIEVED IN ONE TRUE GOD, you were good on the religion aspect. Didn't have to be a named God, or the Christian-Judeo God, just the emphesis on ONE DIVINE.

So, if that is the case, then all the Judeo-Christian points are pretty meaningless IMO.

A mason may correct me on this one if he wishes, but I would see that as a bit of a problem sense nothing stated what One Divine it had to be. (One Divine is not a quote, I capitalize it for emphesis).



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   


to find out about Masonry due to my Illumanati thread I came to find that AS LONG AS YOU BELIEVED IN ONE TRUE GOD, you were good on the religion aspect. Didn't have to be a named God, or the Christian-Judeo God, just the emphesis on ONE DIVINE.


That's the tautology most Masons say to me that I don't buy. Buddha, Vishnu, Allah.... these Gods are not "all the same", they may all stem from a primordial theological system (thus have many points in common) but they just aren't the same. God is a serious issue (to say the least) and just pegging the atonement of my soul on some generic tautology decorated with piles of abstract symbolism just doesn't cut it for me. I thus have to deduce that Masonry has indeed one real God which is kept hidden from the public. As a Christian, I have been given DIRE warnings on this doctrine of ecumenism, so forgive me, I must question this idea (respectfully like a gentleman of course, but I must question it for my own good and those whom I value- which is everybody).


[edit on 19-1-2006 by Nakash]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   
they very well could be the SAME ONE GOD, painted differently to allow more than one to benefit through religion.

I mean it this way. Cavemen. One explains the world through One God, and become a Priest. He gains power through this. Another sees this power and covets it, so he 'creates' his own One God with a differing view/philosophy/rules. He gets a following. Then another and another and so one.

Of course, war breaks out amonst these 'Tribes'. To make the peace come Polytheism. Ah, now we can all be happy and have our own Gods. As they live happily, we live happily, no one loses power.

Ah, man wants more power. Time to throw out the old Many Gods and get One True again, so I can control all the power! Oops, others played the same card. An example, look at the many different types of Christianity. Southern Babptist, Babptist, Episcpitalion sp?, Catholic, Church of God and on and on and on. Each seperate due to rejecting others view on how the bible is to be interpreted. Each having to be More Right than the next. Not to mention the other Base Religions out there.

The One Truth was tainted long ago by mans greed for power. I fairly much believe that any religion today is actually a bastardized concept of that one True Religion that is forever lost.

So, indeed, no matter what you believe (and this would be a shocker in the Middle East where religion has caused war... well... forever) you probably REALLY believe in the exact same force, merely you have been taught a different way to look at that force.

Perhaps, though this is pure speculation, upon the Founding of the Masons, they realized this misconception and therefore said "If you believe in a singular Supreme Being, that's good enough" because that is the focul point and all other points are meaningless due to misconception.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
Well, I myself am particularly fond of many of the goals of Masonry. I just don't like the Gnostic blasphemy Luciferian tendencies I see in many people associated with Masonry (or in Masonry). That's all.


We ATS Masons are not a few hokey, ignorant initiates. We come from a wide range of countries around the world, which each have a unique Masonic flavour, and we range in "rank" (as some love to call it) from 1st degree, in my case, to 33rd degree, in the case of Masonic Light.

The funny thing about this whole debate is that you are drawing together all these sources which tell us that we are part of an organisation which worships bizarre dark lords, and yet none of us have ever encountered anyone who subscribes to such beliefs, nor do we ourselves.

So... what would it effectively take for you to be convinced of this? I mean, CAN you be convinced, or have you been indoctrinated yourself into being dogmatically suspicious of Freemasonry?

All I'm saying is that you've got a unique opportunity to get the facts straight from the proverbial horse's mouth, and you're still trying to make dubious connections with some dude's headstone in North Carolina and the disgracefully inaccurate fallacies of Jack T. Chick?

Mate... I don't know what else to say... You've obviously got a good head on your shoulders, and you're very articulate, but your source data is tainted.



[edit on 19-1-2006 by Roark]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Will some you masons please tell me why FDR 33rd drgree mason changed U.S. currency back in the 30's to include masonic symbols along with New World Order inscpripted as well ?

Your entitled to worship a flea on a Yaks ass for all I care. Why does our money need your logo ?



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by YIAWETA
Will some you masons please tell me why FDR 33rd drgree mason changed U.S. currency back in the 30's to include masonic symbols along with New World Order inscpripted as well ?

Your entitled to worship a flea on a Yaks ass for all I care. Why does our money need your logo ?


I didn't personally have anything to do with it.

Are you losing sleep?



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Bradb. you have a point, but there is one contradiction in that claim: If there IS a God, he can preserve his writings or else he is not a God but a useless demiurge. Also, how can you be so sure this "universal" God worshipped in an ecumenical fashion within masonry isn't the real demiurge? Get my point?



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
that it's an Illumanati tie in. Of course, if you don't believe the Illumanati exists or that they did not infiltrate the Masons, there goes that theory.

Also, like the Swastika, the Masons aren't the only group to use Pyramids as symbolism. Even with the All Seeing Eye attached.

The ironic thing is having In God We Trust on something that has Latin traslating in Laymans to No Religion. Unless I've been given the wrong Latin Translation (possible). If anyone has a translation for the Non Secular script, nows a good time to toss it out!



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
pegging the atonement of my soul on some generic tautology decorated with piles of abstract symbolism just doesn't cut it for me.

Masonry isn't a religion.


I thus have to deduce that Masonry has indeed one real God which is kept hidden from the public.

A poor deduction, apparently baseless, as you have cited no evidence for it.


As a Christian, I have been given DIRE warnings on this doctrine of ecumenism, so forgive me, I must question this idea

You aren't doing a good service to the questioning. You've concluded, without sufficient reason, that its evil. Thats about it.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I still cannot pin down this generic God of Masonry.Since I don't wish to underestimate the intelligence of most Masons, I have to conclude that Masonry does not wish to reveal it's true God. However, based on the literature they favour I have something of a fair idea who he is.


[edit on 19-1-2006 by Nakash]





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join