Originally posted by LightinDarkness
I refuse to take part in anymore of these "hit and run" posts - where anti-masons
throw up utter nonsense, which is soundly defeated by logic and reason. The same anti-masons then completely ignore the logic and reason which just
destroyed their arguments, and move on to the next utter non-sense theory. Rinse and repeat.
Your Albert Pike statement is yet another example of the typical anti-mason hit and run method. It has been proven on this board - several times (try
searching for once) that
(1) No one cares what Pike says. Pike does not speak for all of masonry. People have posted numerous other quotes that directly contradict what Pike
says, but you are only cherry picking what fits your ideology.
(2) Pike's statement was from a time when he believed masonry came from the Templars. He later found out he was wrong and retracted his statement.
You choose to ignore this - again - because it doesn't fit your crackpot ideology
No one knows where masonry came from, there are just theories, you are really mixing things up betwen number 1 and number 2.
Were talking about why masonry imported the simbols it did, not where masonry sprang in to life.
There is a big difrence from not knowing where something took birth compared to kowing the origins of the symbols and the location where they took
The comparasion is:
1 Pike knew where the simbols came from and what they ment.
2 Pike did not know where masonry took birth so he made a theory like everyone.
You are mixing this 2 up, maybe intentionaly, I don't know.
The issue is that pike was speaking of something that he knew about, because he knew the location where the objects came from and the meaning and he
is corect on describing the symbols and their original meaning, what he stated is that their meaning is atributed to masonry and that is no enigma to
be solved either.
In your argument you are talking about something that was a puzzle, a real enigma, because it's a puzzle where masonry took birth, the problem is
that the simbols are not.
The location of where the simbols came from is not an enigma, he was right about it.
The meaning of the objects are not an enigma, in fact he described them just like in the enciclopedia.
I see no confusion here, he got nothing wrong over this issue.
What he added was that the meanings of the objects are atributed to masonry , and this is no enigma either.
I find nothing strange about it, now where masonry sprang in to life may be a puzzle but where masonry got their simbols and what they mean is not.
You know this guy Albert Pike was smart, he wanted to open it all up, and show it, while he beilived what he beilived he was not afraid to come open
about it, he was also very knolegable, I think he is someone worthy of respect form any angle you look at it if you are an adversary or on the same
. Masonry is fairly old, and it's wisdom has evolved over time.
How old is it, do you know the exact date and place where it came in to life, then I sugest you stop blaming one man for making a theory.
I can concurrently show you many books of science that tell us the world is flat - does that prove all of science is wrong, even now when science no
longer says this? Same train of thought.
Yes, except that you got the part with the simbols wrong, pike was right, take any history book and look at the meaning and location of the simbols,
and you will see pike's view is identical.
You lose. Again. Now, continue with your hit and run posting, and I will continue to find much comedy in it.
[edit on 8-12-2007 by pepsi78]