It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

21 year old GI killed in Masonic mystery

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by BassClef
He was against harnessing the spirits of the elements using pentagrams, etc.


How do you know that? It has long been a tradition that Jesus was an Adept, and Master of the Holy Qabalah. There are hints to this all through the New Testament. Furthermore, the Gnostic Johannite Gospel, or Gospel of St. John, even refers to him by the Greek word Logos, which is denoted by the Pythagoreans by the Pentagram (as is the Holy Name IHShVH, the Pentagrammaton).



I disagree and your comment is patronising and condescending. A lot of Christians know very well what the occult is!


I disagree. Most Christians I come into contact with think "occult" means "evil" or "conjuring demons". In fact, in real occultism, there is absolutely no such superstition involved: it is purely scientific.

"Occult", meaning "hidden", refers to those hidden forces of Nature that exist beyond our senses. Also, so much occult doctrine has been confirmed by modern physical science that little doubt exists to its correctness. Einstein pointed out that all matter is composed of vibrational energy, a fact always taught by the Adepts. Being able to understand and move with these natural forces is the task of practical occultism, or "Magick", the Science of the Magi.




posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
It has long been a tradition that Jesus was an Adept, and Master of the Holy Qabalah. There are hints to this all through the New Testament.

Jesus would ever have summonsed up demons, it's as simple as that!


Originally posted by Masonic Light
Furthermore, the Gnostic Johannite Gospel, or Gospel of St. John, even refers to him by the Greek word Logos, which is denoted by the Pythagoreans by the Pentagram (as is the Holy Name IHShVH, the Pentagrammaton).

I've no problem with what you've written, which is nothing new. For example, there are many examples where the energies of the Zodiac are used as a template in the Bible also, but this doesn't condone, in the Bible, the use of certain kinds of occult knowledge for the conjuring up of demons and in some cases, the furtherance of political power. Jesus acknowledged Satan was the god of this world. Satan offered him all the kingdoms of the earth if he performed one act of worship towards him but his soul, he refused to sell out for worldly power. Today's rulers never received power at a lesser price, which is why we find certain adepts of the occult, together with the "fingerprints" of their Crafts, concentrated in the principal locations for political power in the world, like Washington DC.


Originally posted by Masonic Light
Most Christians I come into contact with think "occult" means "evil" or "conjuring demons". In fact, in real occultism, there is absolutely no such superstition involved: it is purely scientific.

Most Christians understand perfectly well that the root of what's commonly termed "the occult", is to do with Satanism and demonology.

I'm not saying every Mason is into Satanism... this obviously isn't the case because Freemasonry is two organisations within one and most are only aware of the outer organisation, where they're unaware of what some of Freemasonry's higher up adept occultists are into!



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by BassClef

Most Christians understand perfectly well that the root of what's commonly termed "the occult", is to do with Satanism and demonology.


And this is indeed the problem. However, you have to remember that equating "occult" with "satanism" is purely modern. The occult authors of the past wrote before the Christians began confusing satanism with occultism, so their writings must be understood without prejudice.

Concerning Satanism, we have to keep in mind that it is strictly a Christian phenomenon. Non-Christians don't have any more interest in Satan than a Christian has in Krishna. Because only Christians believe in the Christian concept of Satan, obviously, Satanism is more their invention than it is of any so-called satanist.

A couple of obvious exceptions exist, but even these reiterate my point. The first organized satanic movement was the Church of Satan, founded by Anton Szandor LaVey in 1966. These guys were atheists who considered Christians to be hypocrites and liars. They believed that Christians adhered to what Nietzsche called the "herd mentality", and therefore took up Satan as a symbol of personal liberty and individuality.

All this is well and good, and makes for some really interesting tabloid reporting, but LaVey's group was still nevertheless reactionary, reacting against the Christian status quo.

The true Occult Sciences, however, have no need for any of this. The Adepts do not believe in the literal existence of demons or devils. Some will even deny the literal existence of God, although it is necessary to be acquainted with the Buddhist doctrine of anatman to put this sort of "divine atheism" into perspective, as well as the works of Spinoza, because, in reality, occult doctrine is pantheistic, not satanic.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by BassClef
Today's rulers never received power at a lesser price, which is why we find certain adepts of the occult, together with the "fingerprints" of their Crafts, concentrated in the principal locations for political power in the world, like Washington DC.



Perhaps here it is important to note that one who is really an Adept of the Occult Sciences would shun the politics of the profane world like the plague. Because an Adept has vowed to live a life of selflessness and complete service to humanity, he has no interest in becoming involved in the corruptions of the profane, for "the former things have passed away".



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by BassClef

Most Christians understand perfectly well that the root of what's commonly termed "the occult", is to do with Satanism and demonology.


And this is indeed the problem. However, you have to remember that equating "occult" with "satanism" is purely modern. The occult authors of the past wrote before the Christians began confusing satanism with occultism, so their writings must be understood without prejudice.

The Christian perspective is critical to the greatest extent but not exclusive and that includes attitudes towards Paganism, which can also embrace Satanism, which isn't a comparatively recent problem because it existed in Christ's day. He accused the Saducees and Pharisees of being from their father the devil for placing the wisdom of men above the wisdom of God.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by BassClef
Today's rulers never received power at a lesser price, which is why we find certain adepts of the occult, together with the "fingerprints" of their Crafts, concentrated in the principal locations for political power in the world, like Washington DC.



Perhaps here it is important to note that one who is really an Adept of the Occult Sciences would shun the politics of the profane world like the plague. Because an Adept has vowed to live a life of selflessness and complete service to humanity, he has no interest in becoming involved in the corruptions of the profane, for "the former things have passed away".

If Freemasonry were so enlightened, its "fingerprints" wouldn't be found concentrated around centres of political power more than anywhere else.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by BassClef

The Christian perspective is critical to the greatest extent but not exclusive and that includes attitudes towards Paganism, which can also embrace Satanism, which isn't a comparatively recent problem because it existed in Christ's day. He accused the Saducees and Pharisees of being from their father the devil for placing the wisdom of men above the wisdom of God.


That's true, but the Pharisees and Saducees weren't practicing any sort of satanism, they were practicing Judaism. Christ condemned them for being of their father the devil because they were hypocrites and liars, not because of their religious beliefs.

Your comment about Paganism sort of illustrates my earlier point. Obviously, Paganism is not Satanism, unless by "Satanism" we mean anything that a particular Christian doesn't agree with. The problem with that is that it's not what "satanism" means. "Satanism", by definition, is the worship or celebration of the Christian concept of Satan, whether it is done in parody and amusement (like the Church of Satan or Dashwood's Hellfire Club), or in a real, serious sense, as has been the case with some teenagers suffering from mental and/or emotional problems, having resorted to such stuff as sacrificing and mutilating animals, and in some cases even people, because they believe it will please "Satan".

Satan however, as a Christian concept, is totally irrelevant to Paganism, with the possible exception that the Christian images of Satan seem to have been plagiarized from older, paganistic nature-deities.

In occultism, "Satan" is a symbol of a certain natural force that Freud called "libido", Reich called "orgone", and the eastern mystics call "kundalini". Pike, quoting Eliphas Levi in "Morals and Dogma", points out the following:

The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahveh reversed; for Satan is not a black god, but the negation of God. The Devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry.

For the Initiates, this is not a Person, but a Force, created for good, but which may serve for evil. It is the instrument of Liberty or Free Will. They represent this Force, which presides over the physical generation, under the mythologic and horned form of the God PAN; thence came the he-goat of the Sabbat, brother of the Ancient Serpent, and the Light-bearer or Phosphor, of which the poets have made the false Lucifer of the legend.


- Morals and Dogma, p. 102



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by BassClef

If Freemasonry were so enlightened, its "fingerprints" wouldn't be found concentrated around centres of political power more than anywhere else.


As I've previously mentioned, this Union was founded in large part upon Masonic ideals. When you talk about Masonic "fingerprints", history recalls the time of the forefathers. In the days of great Masonic statemen like Washington, Hancock, Revere, and Franklin, an era of heroes was born in this nation, with diligence, courage, and goodwill, ever struggling toward freedom.

And, when Masonry began to lose its influence in the state, when less and less Congressmen were Masons, and the Masons who believed in virtue and enlightened living were no longer a majority in the seats of government, things began to fall into decay.

Therefore, blaming Masons for modern government corruption is not an honest thing to do. the vast majority of government positions are filled by non-Masons, and back when they were filled by many Masons, the nation was much better off.

However, you end by saying "more than anywhere else", which has never been the case. There have always been more Masons active in music and the arts, the literary community, academia, etc., than in "political power".

[edit on 14-3-2006 by Masonic Light]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
M.L The world was much better off when Masons filled positions of power?

What like when the 13 members of the British Army Enquiry Board (all of whom are Freemasons occupying positions of power) refuse to allow an enquiry into the suspicious deaths of four young cadets at Deep Cut army training Barracks?

Not so good for their poor families who still have no idea why or how they died.


news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2005/deepcut_inquiry/default.stm
www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/site/naziMOD.html



Ironic too that Prince Charles who famously refuses to have anyhting to do with the undead, sorry, I mean Freemasons, is still waiting around to be King...

Could be a long long wait...



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I couldn’t find any mention of masonry on the BBC site.

Freemasonry is mention one time on your second link (very conveniently) one time at the top of the page.



"...freemasonry is still strong in parts of the Army. One leading mason said that when he joined every member of the Army Board was a mason – he would not say how things stood today." " p. 167, 'Inside the British Army', by Antony Beevor, Corgi books 1991

source: www.declarepeace.org.uk... (emphasis mine)


Yet you state that all 13 members of the British Army Enquiry are Freemasons today, while in fact you’re just speculating. Even in 1991 the interviewee didn’t know (or wouldn’t comment on) the Masonic status of the current Army Board.

Can you please show us where you found Masons mentions on the BBC site, (or are you just using the site to give legitimacy to your claims?)

Does someone know what all these letters mean after The Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh name? KG KT OM GBE AC QSO, Are those Knights of Malta titles, or just standard monarch titles?



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
That's true, but the Pharisees and Saducees weren't practicing any sort of satanism, they were practicing Judaism. Christ condemned them for being of their father the devil because they were hypocrites and liars, not because of their religious beliefs.

Jesus said what he said not only because they were hypocrites and liars, which incidentally comes from Satan because even John the Divine said Satan was the original liar. Satan benefits from all lies and hypocrisy to varying degrees. Jesus said the Pharisees and Sadducees were from the their father the devil because they were also following the wisdom of men rather then the wisdom of God and Paul said the following:

"Let no man deceive himself: if any man among you seem to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written: I will catch the wise in their own craftiness. And again: The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. Let no man therefore glory in men." - 1 Corinthians 3:18-21


Originally posted by Masonic Light
Your comment about Paganism sort of illustrates my earlier point. Obviously, Paganism is not Satanism, unless by "Satanism" we mean anything that a particular Christian doesn't agree with.

That's not the Bible's definition of Pagan. Any ideas that doesn't agree with God's Will, originates from Satan and can be Pagan also, which is why Paul said, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers" and "What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols?", which casts an interesting question over, for example, the obelisk and the Masonic Statue of Isis carrying the flaming torch, otherwise known as Liberty.


Originally posted by Masonic Light
The problem with that is that it's not what "satanism" means. "Satanism", by definition, is the worship or celebration of the Christian concept of Satan...

Again, this is not the Bible's definition. Satanism is the worship of Satan or, according to the dictionary, anything profoundly wicked.


Originally posted by Masonic Light
In occultism, "Satan" is a symbol of a certain natural force that Freud called "libido", Reich called "orgone", and the eastern mystics call "kundalini". Pike, quoting Eliphas Levi in "Morals and Dogma", points out the following:

The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahveh reversed; for Satan is not a black god, but the negation of God. The Devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry.

For the Initiates, this is not a Person, but a Force, created for good, but which may serve for evil. It is the instrument of Liberty or Free Will. They represent this Force, which presides over the physical generation, under the mythologic and horned form of the God PAN; thence came the he-goat of the Sabbat, brother of the Ancient Serpent, and the Light-bearer or Phosphor, of which the poets have made the false Lucifer of the legend.


- Morals and Dogma, p. 102

Lucifer, the he-goat of the Sabbat and the brother of the Ancient Serpent is an interesting subject we can explore but this idea that Masonic adepts or magicians are only working with "forces" and "energies" is misleading. Waite, who was been highly praised within the Fraternity, never believed this because he wasn't in the outer portico, where Masons are deliberately misled to believe that these "forces" and "energies" have nothing to do with the "spirits of the elements" and demons and neither can science disprove their existence, which accounts for Paul's words, quoted above, where he says, "the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God" and "Let no man therefore glory in men", which is precisely what Freemasonry delights in doing!



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by BassClef
Jesus said the Pharisees and Sadducees were from the their father the devil because they were also following the wisdom of men rather then the wisdom of God


An interesting commentary, but it's not found in the text. It may be your personal interpretation, but I don't really see it being supported in the scriptures. From my point of view, it seems as though both the Pharisees and Saducees were poster boys for orthodoxy and good religion: and were called on their bluff by One who saw through them.



That's not the Bible's definition of Pagan.


The Bible doesn't have a definition of Pagan. The word was first used in a religious context well after the Bible was written. It is derived from the Latin "pagani", which means "country dweller". It was used by the early Roman Catholic Church to denote those who had not yet been forced to convert because they lived in remote rural areas outside of the Church's grasp. Therefore, technically, the word "Pagan" simply means "non-Catholic".


Any ideas that doesn't agree with God's Will, originates from Satan and can be Pagan also


We will let our readers consider all these things, and conclude for themselves God's Will. Most of the members of ATS are unlikely to accept a thing as "God's will", just because it says so in Psalm such-and-such, verse so-and-so.



Originally posted by Masonic Light

Again, this is not the Bible's definition. Satanism is the worship of Satan or, according to the dictionary, anything profoundly wicked.


Which is basically what I said, only adding that Satan is a Christian concept, and irrelevant outside of Christianity.



Lucifer, the he-goat of the Sabbat and the brother of the Ancient Serpent is an interesting subject we can explore but this idea that Masonic adepts or magicians are only working with "forces" and "energies" is misleading. Waite, who was been highly praised within the Fraternity, never believed this because he wasn't in the outer portico, where Masons are deliberately misled to believe that these "forces" and "energies" have nothing to do with the "spirits of the elements" and demons and neither can science disprove their existence, which accounts for Paul's words, quoted above, where he says, "the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God" and "Let no man therefore glory in men", which is precisely what Freemasonry delights in doing!



As for Waite, I'm not sure what you mean. Although a prolific writer, Waite was only a Blue Lodge Mason, and he detested Albert Pike (see Waite's article on Pike in his "Masonic Encyclopedia"). Furthermore, Waite disagreed with Pike on basically everything, including the "outer portico" stuff.

As I've already mentioned, Waite's writings in general are not taken very seriously by many modern occultists, and many of the supposed writings of "Paul" you keep quoting are very possibly forgeries.

[edit on 14-3-2006 by Masonic Light]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by BassClef

If Freemasonry were so enlightened, its "fingerprints" wouldn't be found concentrated around centres of political power more than anywhere else.


As I've previously mentioned, this Union was founded in large part upon Masonic ideals. When you talk about Masonic "fingerprints", history recalls the time of the forefathers. In the days of great Masonic statesmen like Washington, Hancock, Revere, and Franklin, an era of heroes was born in this nation, with diligence, courage, and goodwill, ever struggling toward freedom.

And, when Masonry began to lose its influence in the state, when less and less Congressmen were Masons, and the Masons who believed in virtue and enlightened living were no longer a majority in the seats of government, things began to fall into decay.

Therefore, blaming Masons for modern government corruption is not an honest thing to do. the vast majority of government positions are filled by non-Masons, and back when they were filled by many Masons, the nation was much better off.

You've put words into my mouth because I haven't put all the blame on Freemasons. In a recent previous post above, you said, "one who is really an Adept of the Occult Sciences would shun the politics of the profane world like the plague", and yet, Freemasons like George Washington, for example, were very willing to disregard the example of Jesus and accepted a political kingdom and I wonder what price he paid for that, considering Jesus wasn't prepared to pay the price.

The fact that a majority of people filling government positions is irrelevant because many aspects of the political infrastructure bear all the hall marks of Masonic and occult organisation, from the occult symbols on the nation's money supply to the physical infrastructure of central government and government departments, like education, the law and military, not to mention large non-governmental corporations and this isn't only a peculiarity of American politics and business but generic to all the ruler-ships and trading sectors of the world, thus underlining Satan's words to Jesus that he gives political power to whomsoever he desires.


Originally posted by Masonic Light
However, you end by saying "more than anywhere else", which has never been the case. There have always been more Masons active in music and the arts, the literary community, academia, etc., than in "political power".

I was talking in the context of infrastructure... Masonic infrastructure is most prevalent around centres of political power and Masons had to have worked like busy busy bees around a honeypot to have put it all there... in their foundation stone laying rituals and the finer aspects of customs, like the Masonic Bible being used for inauguration ceremonies, etc. & etc.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by BassClef
Jesus said the Pharisees and Sadducees were from the their father the devil because they were also following the wisdom of men rather then the wisdom of God


An interesting commentary, but it's not found in the text. It may be your personal interpretation, but I don't really see it being supported in the scriptures.

You're mistaken to say the scriptures don't support the claim that Jesus criticised the priests for adhering to the teachings and rules of men instead of the words of God:

"He [Jesus] replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." - Mark 7:6-8


Originally posted by Masonic Light

That's not the Bible's definition of Pagan.


The Bible doesn't have a definition of Pagan. The word was first used in a religious context well after the Bible was written. It is derived from the Latin "pagani", which means "country dweller". It was used by the early Roman Catholic Church to denote those who had not yet been forced to convert because they lived in remote rural areas outside of the Church's grasp. Therefore, technically, the word "Pagan" simply means "non-Catholic".

Leaving aside the semantic argument over the derivation of the word, "Pagan", the scriptures give ample description of what teachings, practises and customs are not considered to be from God and it's not by sheer coincidence that the practises described dovetail perfectly with how Paganism is today commonly understood!


Originally posted by Masonic Light

Any ideas that doesn't agree with God's Will, originates from Satan and can be Pagan also


We will let our readers consider all these things, and conclude for themselves God's Will. Most of the members of ATS are unlikely to accept a thing as "God's will", just because it says so in Psalm such-and-such, verse so-and-so.

Sure, people have free will up to a point, to choose which path they'd like to follow but recall and consider Jesus' words to the priests of his day, who also insisted on not following the scriptures but the advice of men!


Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Again, this is not the Bible's definition. Satanism is the worship of Satan or, according to the dictionary, anything profoundly wicked.


Which is basically what I said, only adding that Satan is a Christian concept, and irrelevant outside of Christianity.

Satan is more than a Christian concept, it's a concept that was endorsed, not only by, amongst others, John the Divine, who also happens to be the patron saint of Freemasonry (so Freemasonry deceptively claims) but by Jesus himself!


Originally posted by Masonic Light


Lucifer, the he-goat of the Sabbat and the brother of the Ancient Serpent is an interesting subject we can explore but this idea that Masonic adepts or magicians are only working with "forces" and "energies" is misleading. Waite, who was been highly praised within the Fraternity, never believed this because he wasn't in the outer portico, where Masons are deliberately misled to believe that these "forces" and "energies" have nothing to do with the "spirits of the elements" and demons and neither can science disprove their existence, which accounts for Paul's words, quoted above, where he says, "the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God" and "Let no man therefore glory in men", which is precisely what Freemasonry delights in doing!



As for Waite, I'm not sure what you mean. Although a prolific writer, Waite was only a Blue Lodge Mason, and he detested Albert Pike (see Waite's article on Pike in his "Masonic Encyclopedia"). Furthermore, Waite disagreed with Pike on basically everything, including the "outer portico" stuff.

As I've already mentioned, Waite's writings in general are not taken very seriously by many modern occultists, and many of the supposed writings of "Paul" you keep quoting are very possibly forgeries.

LOL, if the Bible contains forgeries, that speaks bucket loads about the sincerity of an occult society that deems the book Holy and acceptably fit for the Masonic altar! With statements and claims such as that, you already undermine the credibility of your Craft. Besides, there's no need to rely solely on Paul because the same sentiments are echoed by John the Divine and many other of Christ's disciples.

Regarding Waite, he was still embraced as one of Freemasonry's own, despite the fact he worked with demons.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by BassClef

You've put words into my mouth because I haven't put all the blame on Freemasons.


From your statement about "fingerprints", it seemed as though you were. If I misrepresented your meaning, I apologize.


In a recent previous post above, you said, "one who is really an Adept of the Occult Sciences would shun the politics of the profane world like the plague", and yet, Freemasons like George Washington, for example, were very willing to disregard the example of Jesus and accepted a political kingdom and I wonder what price he paid for that, considering Jesus wasn't prepared to pay the price.


Just a couple of things: first, note that I said "Adept of the Occult Sciences", not "Freemasons". One does not have to be a Mason in order to be Adept, nor do many Masons have much interest in Adeptship.

Secondly, concerning George Washington: I personally feel that he was a great man, a great leader, and a great Mason. But he certainly was not an Adept. There is nothing to show that he had the slightest interest in mysticism or occultism of any kind.

Secondly, I don't think your "political kingdom" is fair to him. Washington was indeed offered a crown, which he refused. He was very clear in his belief in democracy and a constitutional republic governed by the people, as were the other Masonic Founding Fathers. Benjamin Franklin had served as Grand Master of Masons in Pennsylvania, meaning he was the highest ranking Mason in the state. Upon leaving the building after the original Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, an elderly lady approached him, saying, "Well, Dr. Franklin, what do we have: a monarchy or a republic?"

"A republic, madame," Franklin responded, "if you can keep it!"


The fact that a majority of people filling government positions is irrelevant because many aspects of the political infrastructure bear all the hall marks of Masonic and occult organisation, from the occult symbols on the nation's money supply to the physical infrastructure of central government and government departments, like education, the law and military, not to mention large non-governmental corporations and this isn't only a peculiarity of American politics and business but generic to all the ruler-ships and trading sectors of the world, thus underlining Satan's words to Jesus that he gives political power to whomsoever he desires.


I do not share your opinion that occultism has anything to do with politics. Rather, the opposite is true: government today is about money and materialism, not occultism and spirituality.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by BassClef


Satan is more than a Christian concept, it's a concept that was endorsed, not only by, amongst others, John the Divine, who also happens to be the patron saint of Freemasonry (so Freemasonry deceptively claims) but by Jesus himself!


I wasn't talking about Freemasonry, I was talking about occultism. Occultism is school of metaphysics derived chiefly from the Pythagoreans, the Neo-Platonists, and the Qabalists. Freemasonry is a fraternal organization that at times has investigated occult claims, as well as most others, for the purpose of education. Obviously, there is a difference between the two.



Regarding Waite, he was still embraced as one of Freemasonry's own, despite the fact he worked with demons.


Waite was a Mason. However, I'm curious where you've gotten your information that he "worked with demons", which he didn't.

If you are speaking about Waite's book called "The Book of Black Magic", I would remind you that he wrote that book long before he joined Masonry or any other Order, and that he, as a journalist, had been commissioned to write the book by his employer as a "National Enquirer" - type money making scheme, all of which he admitted to.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by BassClef

You've put words into my mouth because I haven't put all the blame on Freemasons.


From your statement about "fingerprints", it seemed as though you were. If I misrepresented your meaning, I apologize.

Fair enough but in a previous post, in this thread, I already stated that Freemasonry is only one of many agencies associated with high government and I mentioned Freemasonry because this happens to be the topic. I also make a distinction between Freemasons and the institution of Freemasonry, which obviously has a greater impact than do individuals within the organisation.


Originally posted by Masonic Light

In a recent previous post above, you said, "one who is really an Adept of the Occult Sciences would shun the politics of the profane world like the plague", and yet, Freemasons like George Washington, for example, were very willing to disregard the example of Jesus and accepted a political kingdom and I wonder what price he paid for that, considering Jesus wasn't prepared to pay the price.


Just a couple of things: first, note that I said "Adept of the Occult Sciences", not "Freemasons". One does not have to be a Mason in order to be Adept, nor do many Masons have much interest in Adeptship.

Secondly, concerning George Washington: I personally feel that he was a great man, a great leader, and a great Mason. But he certainly was not an Adept. There is nothing to show that he had the slightest interest in mysticism or occultism of any kind.

I didn't say he was a great adept, not even a small one but, as a Freemason he still chose to the path Jesus rejected, a path Jesus rejected because he knew who dishes out political power, namely Satan and Satan told him so!


Originally posted by Masonic Light
Secondly, I don't think your "political kingdom" is fair to him. Washington was indeed offered a crown, which he refused..........

Satan never said anything about crowns, although some Freemasons have accepted crowns... no, Satan said all the kingdoms of the world belong to him, which is exactly what Washington accepted.


Originally posted by Masonic Light

The fact that a majority of people filling government positions is irrelevant because many aspects of the political infrastructure bear all the hall marks of Masonic and occult organisation, from the occult symbols on the nation's money supply to the physical infrastructure of central government and government departments, like education, the law and military, not to mention large non-governmental corporations and this isn't only a peculiarity of American politics and business but generic to all the ruler-ships and trading sectors of the world, thus underlining Satan's words to Jesus that he gives political power to whomsoever he desires.


I do not share your opinion that occultism has anything to do with politics. Rather, the opposite is true: government today is about money and materialism, not occultism and spirituality.

With respect, this isn't so. Capitalism is itself a religion, even the US money supply bears the logo, "IN GOD WE TRUST". Modern capitalism, with it's practises of usury, originated in ancient Babylon, where every aspect of the state came under the umbrella of the Mystery Schools. There was no separation then and there isn't today either. It's just that today, people have been hoodwinked into thinking otherwise. Even the dollar bill is embedded with occult symbols of the Ancient Mystery Religion!

There's also the wider subject of political agendas, and the drive towards globalisation having to do with this Ancient Mystery Religion but I'll leave it you whether you want to expand the discussion in this direction and believe me it's a big one! I'm happy to oblige though!

[edit on 14-3-2006 by BassClef]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by BassClef
Satan is more than a Christian concept, it's a concept that was endorsed, not only by, amongst others, John the Divine, who also happens to be the patron saint of Freemasonry (so Freemasonry deceptively claims) but by Jesus himself!


I wasn't talking about Freemasonry, I was talking about occultism. Occultism is school of metaphysics derived chiefly from the Pythagoreans, the Neo-Platonists, and the Qabalists. Freemasonry is a fraternal organization that at times has investigated occult claims, as well as most others, for the purpose of education. Obviously, there is a difference between the two.

Freemasonry works with "forces" and "energies" but science has no way of scientifically establishing where these forces orginate from or who controls or influences them. Given that Freemasonry has involved itslef in the politics of the world, which, according to Jesus are in Satan's domain, it's evident that Freemasonry is relying on the inferior wisdom of men, who always thinks he knows best, hence the world's increasingy sickening political problems and disasters and no, I'm not placing all the blame solely at the door of Freemasonry but the institution has got into bed with politics and royalty even and where there's power, there's always corruption.


Originally posted by Masonic Light

Regarding Waite, he was still embraced as one of Freemasonry's own, despite the fact he worked with demons.


Waite was a Mason. However, I'm curious where you've gotten your information that he "worked with demons", which he didn't.

If you are speaking about Waite's book called "The Book of Black Magic", I would remind you that he wrote that book long before he joined Masonry or any other Order, and that he, as a journalist, had been commissioned to write the book by his employer as a "National Enquirer" - type money making scheme, all of which he admitted to.

It's correct he did write "The Book of Black Magic", which is a perfect illustration of the path from whence he came!

[edit on 14-3-2006 by BassClef]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by BassClef

Fair enough but in a previous post, in this thread, I already stated that Freemasonry is only one of many agencies associated with high government and I mentioned Freemasonry because this happens to be the topic.


I'm still confused about this claim. How exactly do you believe that Freemasonry is "associate with high government"? Certainly, many notable American statesmen of the past have been Masons, but this number has shrunk dramatically. And even then, Freemasonry itself was not associated with government, but only some of its individual members, just like some guys in high government are Eagle Scouts, but that doesn't mean the Scout organization itself has anything to do with government, other than helping mould the principles a person should live by.


I also make a distinction between Freemasons and the institution of Freemasonry, which obviously has a greater impact than do individuals within the organisation.


I made the same distinction above, but apparently in an opposite context. Are you saying that the actual fraternity of Freemasonry has association with the government, while individual Masons do not. If so, then obviously, I would have to make the opposite claim.



I didn't say he (George Washington) was a great adept, not even a small one but, as a high ranking Freemason he still chose to the path Jesus rejected, a path Jesus rejected because he knew who dishes out political power, namely Satan and Satan told him so!


Again, I'm sort of perplexed by your meaning. Are you saying that you think Satan made George Washington the President? Earlier, I made a statement that an Adept would refuse political power, but I don't think a good, ordinary honest guy should refuse. If they do, all that's left are the scoundrels.



Satan never said anything about crowns, although some Freemasons have accepted crowns... no, Satan said all the kingdoms of the world belong to him, which is exactly what Washington accepted.


Washington didn't accept a kingdom, he accepted an administrative office temporarily. Obviously, there's a difference.


With respect, this isn't so. Capitalism is itself a religion, even the US money supply bears the logo, "IN GOD WE TRUST". Modern capitalism, with it's practises of usury, originated in ancient Babylon, where every aspect of the state came under the umbrella of the Mystery Schools. There was no separation then and there isn't today either. It's just that today, people have been hoodwinked into thinking otherwise. Even the dollar bill is embedded with occult symbols of the Ancient Mystery Religion!


This is historically inaccurate. To begin with, capitalism isn't a religion, it's an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production. Secondly, it did not originate in ancient Babylon, but in medieval Europe, as the system of feudalism began to erode under the strains of modern industry (without modern industry there can be no capitalism, which obviously didn't exist in Babylon). Thirdly, the Great Seal of the United States was invented in 1786. It's symbolism is quite appropriate in regards to a struggle toward individual freedom and democracy.


There's also the wider subject of political agendas, and the drive towards globalisation having to do with this Ancient Mystery Religion but I'll leave it you whether you want to expand the discussion in this direction and believe me it's a big one! I'm happy to oblige though!


As a practitioner of the Mysteries, I'm quite aware of the conspiracy theories of the far-rightwing of fundamentalist Christianity concerning it. It would certainly be nice to a united world living in peace and perfect harmony, as John Lennon so eloquently sang about. But I'm no head-in-the-cloud utopian all the time; being also a pragmatist and practical person, I'm very aware that the world is not anywhere close to such a thing. Humanity, for the most part, still act like barbarians at the most crucial moments. Perhaps, mankind will eventually evolve to the point where each can see that everyone else is truly his brother and sister, put down his gun, and lift a dove.

But trust me, it ain't gonna happen tomorrow.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by BassClef

Freemasonry works with "forces" and "energies" but science has no way of scientifically establishing where these forces orginate from or who controls or influences them.


No. Freemasonry does not work with "forces and energies". I said that occultists, not Freemasons, do. I happen to be both, but most are not.

I would not completely agree that science can tell us nothing of them. In fact, it has told us much. Also, these forces are not outside of us, but are a part of us, and give us life.


Given that Freemasonry has involved itslef in the politics of the world, which, according to Jesus are in Satan's domain


Again, there is not a single incident in history where Freemasonry as an organization has gotten involved in politics. There are plenty of instances where individual Masons have done this, and then only because they were tired of being oppressed.



It's correct he did write "The Book of Black Magic", which is a perfect illustration of the path from whence he came!


Considering the facts mentioned above, that isn't an honest assessment. Waite knew nothing of occultism or Magisk when he wrote the book, but just quoted from various grimoires he found at the British Museum. He was also ordered to write the book by his publisher, it was not his idea.

So, the for the fourth time, let me state again unequivocally, that I do not consider Waite to be a good guide to occultism, and most practicing occultists don't pay him much attention. Serious students of occultism generally focus more on Regardie, Case, Crowley, Fortune, Mathers, and those that were their students. If you'd like to discuss any of these, I'd be more than happy to, but your insistence on using Waite as a guide will get us nowhere: it's like using Stevie Wonder to drive us to Disney Land!



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join