Originally posted by ODEION
It is an interesting feature of the masonic religion
Well, THERE is your first mistake. Masonry is NOT a religion.
... that freemasons are not allowed to kill someone who publishes information which may be their deepest secret but which the non-masonic
author has acquired by dint of his own independent researches and hard work;
Uh, huh... secrets he CLAIMS to have. You see, the funny thing about secrets is that since MASONS are not talking, and only outsiders or oathbreakers
ARE talking, you have to have some sense about the veracity of what you read as "the secrets".
... secrets so deep in fact that the masons themselves don't even know they had them, having lost them long ago through attrition (such as
when the Phoenician King Hiram Abid, architect and builder of Solomon's Temple, was murdered by the priests of the temple in order to 'sanctify'
the place which meant that such secrets as he possessed and had not yet passed on to his successor died with him).
You're, uh, kidding, right? Hiram ABIF, not Hiram Abid, was NOT a Phoenician King... he was a widows son and a man of tyre... a subject of Hiram,
King of TYRE. He was not slain to sanctify anything... sorry.
William Stirling on the other hand had sworn his masonic oath and his punishment for writing and publishing 'The Canon' was to be murdered on
his own doorstep. According to the police report, he had apparently accidentally slit his own throat.
Look, sometimes police are bumblers, but I find it real hard to believe that anyone wrote he slit his own throat. Do you have valid and verifiable
citations for that? And to what end.. are you inferring that Masons killed him? After noting above the truth that we do not impose the penalites for
violating our oaths? Which is it?
The report does not explain how his tongue came to be missing.
Not that there are any masons in the police, of course. All very gruesome stuff and rather sad in that Stirling wrote such a patchy and
confused account of the pathetic remainder of the freemasons' secrets that it reveals nothing anyway.
So, you set up a straw man argument which you conveniently knock down using defamatory ad hominem attacks on masonry... how useful is that?
Here is just some of the stuff the freemasons lost, long ago, even before Ur of the Chaldees:- www.odeion.org...
You're not serious, right? This person who is not a mason claims that the real secrets of atlantis... uh, masonry, are known to HIM?
You have to appreciate the pungent irony when masons are sworn not to tell what they do not in fact know while the rest of the world is free to
discuss it openly to its heart's content with whomsoever it pleases.
Actually, it is not ironic so much as a badge of honor and a mark of our willingness to keep our given words to the death, in the face of the public
claiming to know the secrets... its really about being a better man by, in a very small part, actually keeping your given word, when it would be so
easy NOT to...
Of course it may well be a different matter when it comes to revealing the secrets of masonic conspiracies which have corrupted society and
brought war, famine and discontent upon us all time and time again.
And, of course, you will share with us, soon, the proof of these contentions, right?