--- Freemasons and Monotheists worship Satan

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Freemasonry is based upon the legend of the building of Solomon's Temple...

You falsely claim that the above statement is an "inaccuracy." You have, actually, in your own words, proven its validity.


No it isn't. This legend is a part of the symbolism within the third degree. The symolism is only there to teach lessons in morality. Freemasonry is a system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols and is waaaay bigger than just this one story.

-Trinityman



As you said, "This legend is a part of the symbolism within the third degree [of Freemasonry]." Therefor, "Freemasonry is based upon the legend of the building of Solomon's Temple." Amitakh did not write that it was solely or exclusively based on this legend, simply, that it is.





They way things ought to work is that if you make an allegation you ought to be prepared to argue your point. By attempting to make me argue against your point when you haven't yet made it is an abrogation of your duty as the OP.

-Trinityman


I wrote that...

Freemasons, as well as all monotheists, whether inadvertantly or not, worship Satan.


I explained in my previous post why i feel you are trying to make a "straw man," argument against my original statement. As i said in my previous post...

I feel, that you have constructed a straw man argument against me. I said "Freemasons, as well as all monotheists, act in "satanic," worship," and you responded to that by explaining that you assume i have "based my belief," on Amitakh Stanford's writings and that you don't understand Amitakh Stanford's writings, therefor, the original accusation of "Freemasons, as well as all monotheists, act in "satanic," worship," is false.

In reality, you have not disproven my original statement, you have simply outlined that you do not understand Amitakh Stanford's writings.


Your allegations, Trinityman, were that...

The link you gave is riddled with inaccuracies about freemasonry, and what I can only assume are deliberate misunderstandings...


...Dr. Stanford's work is riddled with factual inaccuracies regarding freemasonry...


...if you make an allegation you ought to be prepared to argue your point.


You Trinityman, are the one, who in fact, has alleged that Amitakh's writings are full of innacuracies. What i want you to do is to elaborate on your own accusations and explain, why, specifically, you feel that way. I will reiterate from earlier and ask, Why don't you begin by attempting to prove your own allegations, that the excerpts you have quoted are "inaccuracies," before you demand that I prove your allegations false?



[edit on 14-2-2007 by DerekOneSeven17]




posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   
What a pile of obfuscation.

None of your allegations, as the proxy of Dr. Stanford, against freemasonry, are provable. Neither are Dr. Stanford's wider theories, and neither is the Tooth Fairy. To suggest otherwise is to muddy the waters.

However facts are demonstrable, insomuch as electronic forums allow for it, and it is those facts that I am drawing your attention to. Dr. Stanford is entitled to her opinions about extra-terrestrials, but I draw the line at allegations against freemasonry based on poor research.

Lets look at the first inaccuracy again.


Originally posted by DerekOneSeven17
As you said, "This legend is a part of the symbolism within the third degree [of Freemasonry]." Therefor, "Freemasonry is based upon the legend of the building of Solomon's Temple." Amitakh did not write that it was solely or exclusively based on this legend, simply, that it is.


This is a semantic argument. However as the building of King Solomons temple is hardly mentioned in the three degrees of Craft masonry, as an incidental part of the 3rd degree, it is entirely misleading. It is covered in the side orders (such as Royal Arch) but many people regard freemasonry proper as the first three degrees. A more accurate statement would have been "Freemasonry mentions the legend of the building of Solomon's Temple", or "Parts of freemasonry are based upon the legend of the building of Solomon's Temple".

Freemasonry itself is NOT based on the legend of the building of King Solomon. If you believe this statement to be incorrect, please give any kind of indication whatsoever as to how you have been persuaded otherwise.


What i want you to do is to elaborate on your own accusations and explain, why, specifically, you feel that way


Lets do that then. Many of the inaccurracies stem from an assumption that the traditional history of freemasonry is either 'regarded as' or 'is in reality' an accurate history. It is not. Freemasonry is symbolic, and the story of Hiram Abiff (for example) is widely regarded as a myth. I would recommend reading THE LEGEND OF HIRAM ABIFF, by Jerry Marsengill for some background on this. The story of the Royal Arch is also an allegory used by freemasonry - although based at a historical moment in time with historical characters there is no evidence to suggest it actually happened that way.

As this is a myth, the following statement must be untrue.


However, according to their history, the society was fully established during the time of the building of King Solomon's Temple...

Again, most mainstream scholars agree that speculative freemasonry evolved in the 17th and 18th centuries in the UK. Freemasonry has been influenced by much in the past, including perhaps the Ancient Mysteries, but this is not the same thing.


Since its own history is corrupted beyond recognition and its historians refuse to correct it...

This statement is based on what goes before it. There is no evidence to suggest this is the case. Clearly Dr. Stanford has mistaken the allegorical stories of freemasonry to be historical fact.

One more...


It should be noted that present-day Freemasons claim in a higher degree that they have found the lost Word of God. This word is given to candidates for the Holy Royal Arch. That word is "jah-bul-on", which is believed to be "jah" for the Hebrew god Yahweh; "bul" for the ancient Canaanite fertility god Baal and Devil; "on" for the Egyptian god of the underworld called Osiris...

This has been covered widely on the forum already, see Freemasonry and Christianity, How does JAHBULON even make sense?, and The concept of masons unwittingly worshipping satan. However I have several observations to make:

1. That word is alleged to be used in Royal Arch Masonry. However RA masonry is just one side order among many, and by focussing on this aspect of the Craft Dr. Stanford by implication acknowledges that freemasonry is defined as something greater than the three Craft degrees. When one considers the wider picture of masonic degrees and rites, such as the Ancient & Accepted (Scottish) Rite, Mark Masonry, ther Order of the Secret Monitor and Ark Mariners, to name but a few, it is clear that the statement...


Freemasonry is based upon the legend of the building of Solomon's Temple


... is wildly inaccurate.

2. As a Royal Arch Mason myself, I can tell you that word is not used in any ritual I have taken part in. I believe it may once have been used in Royal Arch ritual, but not as The Word, as The Word is something else.

3. The use of the phrase 'which is believed to be' is meaningless without a reference as to who believes it.

So Derek, you have some choices:

1. Counter my arguments above. Demonstrate to me how I am in error.

2. Revisit the other inaccuracies I have highlighted. Do you have anything further to say in Dr. Stanford's defence?

3. Obfuscate further and play semantics.

The truth of the matter is that Dr. Stanford has implicated freemasonry in her hypothesis based on a series of faulty conclusions based on false evidence. There is nothing whatsoever in freemasonry to suggest that its members are worshipping Satan.

Finally, just as an aside, how can someone 'inadvertantly' worship a different deity to the one they intend. As there is only one God IMO how could I worship another? Based on this assertion how does anyone truly know to whom they are praying?

[edit on 2/15/07 by Trinityman]



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   

None of your allegations, as the proxy of Dr. Stanford, against freemasonry, are provable.

That is your first lie, right "off the bat." First of all, i am not a "proxy," for Amitakh Stanford, nor did i claim to be, you are the one, who in fact, has falsely asserted this. Secondly, these are your allegations i am disproving! I, and you inadvertantly, have already proven that "Freemasonry is based upon the legend of the building of Solomon's Temple."


This is a semantic argument. However as the building of King Solomons temple is hardly mentioned in the three degrees of Craft masonry, as an incidental part of the 3rd degree, it is entirely misleading.


According to the "The Symbolism of Freemasonry," by Albert G. Mackey, the basis of the first 3 degrees seem to revolve around the symbolic building of Solomon's Temple. Initiates recieve "emblamatic working tools," for use in the bulding of a "spiritual temple." Second degree initiates learn about the symbolic usage of the square, another tool for the symbolic building of the Temple. Upon the 3rd degree you beome a master workmen, "...whose duty it was to superintend the two other classes, and to see that the stones were not only duly prepared, but that the most exact accuracy had been observed in giving to them their true juxtaposition in the edifice..." After reading from the chapter dedicated to and entitled "The Symbolism of Solomon's Temple," it has lead me to believe that the symbolic recreation of Solomon's Temple is an essential concept of Freemasonry, not "hardly mentioned," nor "incidental," as you attempt to portray it.


...And thus, in the first degree of speculative Masonry, the Entered Apprentice receives these simple implements, as the emblematic working tools of his profession, with their appropriate symbolical instruction. To the operative mason their mechanical and practical use alone is signified, and nothing more of value does their presence convey to his mind. To the speculative Mason the sight of them is suggestive of far nobler and sublimer thoughts; they teach him to measure, not stones, but time; not to smooth and polish the marble for the builder's use, but to purify and cleanse his heart from every vice and imperfection that would render it unfit for a place in the spiritual temple of his body...

...The stones, having been prepared by the Apprentices 60 (for hereafter, in speaking of the workmen of the temple, I shall use the equivalent appellations of the more modern Masons), were now to be deposited in their destined places in the building, and the massive walls were to be erected. For these purposes implements of a higher and more complicated character than the gauge and gavel were necessary. The square was required to fit the joints with sufficient accuracy, the level to run the courses in a horizontal line, and the plumb to erect the whole with due regard to perfect perpendicularity. This portion of the labor finds its symbolism in the second degree of the speculative science, and in applying this symbolism we still continue to refer to the idea of erecting a spiritual temple in the heart...

...In the third degree the symbolic allusions to the temple of Solomon, and the implements of Masonry employed in its construction, are extended and fully completed. At the building of that edifice, we have already seen that one class of the workmen was employed in the preparation of the materials, while another was engaged in placing those materials in their proper position. But there was a third and higher class,--the master workmen,--whose duty it was to superintend the two other classes, and to see that the stones were not only duly prepared, but that the most exact accuracy had been observed in giving to them their true juxtaposition in the edifice...


www.sacred-texts.com... - The Symbolism of Freemasonry by Albert G. Mackey - Chapter XII. The Symbolism of Solomon's Temple


[edit on 15-2-2007 by DerekOneSeven17]



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   

It should be noted that present-day Freemasons claim in a higher degree that they have found the lost Word of God. This word is given to candidates for the Holy Royal Arch. That word is "jah-bul-on", which is believed to be "jah" for the Hebrew god Yahweh; "bul" for the ancient Canaanite fertility god Baal and Devil; "on" for the Egyptian god of the underworld called Osiris...

- Amitakh Stanford , www.xeeatwelve.net...

Your response to this is...

That word is alleged to be used in Royal Arch Masonry. However RA masonry is just one side order among many, and by focussing on this aspect of the Craft Dr. Stanford by implication acknowledges that freemasonry is defined as something greater than the three Craft degrees.

-Trinityman


Amitakh writes that "present-day Freemasons claim in a higher degree that they have found the lost Word of God. This word is given to candidates for the Holy Royal Arch." Dr. Stanford even specifies that "this word is given to candidates for the Holy Royal Arch." You are entitled to your opinions about what you perceive to be Amitakh's generalization of Freemasonry, but the truth is, as you have even written yourself (in bold), that this word is given to Freemasons as the supposed "lost word of god."


The use of the phrase 'which is believed to be' is meaningless without a reference as to who believes it.

-Trinityman


Since the article is about Freemasonry and the following paragraph reads...


This "word of god" presented as "jah-bul-on" is another Freemason Weisshaupt-like deception to trick some candidates into thinking the search for the word is concluded. But, "jah-bul-on" is only another substituted word. The search for the lost Word secretly continues...

www.xeeatwelve.net...
I feel it is obvious that the the supposed word is presented to Freemasons, therefor, Freemasons are the ones who believe it to be the actual "word of God.


Anyway, i am curious Trinityman, you say that the "word is something else." Since you seem to portray youself as so concerned with the truth, can you elaborate as to what the supposed actual "Word," is? Is it "ma-ha-bon ?"


----



Many of the inaccurracies stem from an assumption that the traditional history of freemasonry is either 'regarded as' or 'is in reality' an accurate history... Freemasonry is symbolic, and the story of Hiram Abiff (for example) is widely regarded as a myth...

...most mainstream scholars agree that speculative freemasonry evolved in the 17th and 18th centuries in the UK...

-Trinityman


According to the popular consensus on Wikipedia.org

"...Beyond myth, there is a distinct absence of documentation as to Freemasonry’s origins, which has led to a great deal of speculation among historians and pseudo-historians alike, both from within and from outside the fraternity. Hundreds of books have been written on the subject. Much of the content of these books is highly speculative, and the precise origins of Freemasonry may very well be permanently lost to history...
...The origin of Freemasonry has variously been attributed to:
King Solomon, and the construction of the Temple at Jerusalem,
Euclid, or Pythagoras..."

en.wikipedia.org...


Since the precise origins, "may very well be lost to history," the actual origins are not known to you, i assume. Therefor, i assume, you really do not know whether or not "the society was fully established during the time of the building of King Solomon's Temple..."




[edit on 15-2-2007 by DerekOneSeven17]



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
The last sentence should read, in full (it was shortened due to the character limit)...

Therefor, i assume, you really do not know whether or not "the society was fully established during the time of the building of King Solomon's Temple..." or that, "...its own history is corrupted beyond recognition and its historians refuse to correct it..."



You have still, even using your "straw man," tactic of attacking Amitakh Stanford, have not disproven my original statement, that "Freemasons, as well as all monotheists, whether inadvertantly or not, worship Satan."




[edit on 15-2-2007 by DerekOneSeven17]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerekOneSeven17
You have still, even using your "straw man," tactic of attacking Amitakh Stanford, have not disproven my original statement, that "Freemasons, as well as all monotheists, whether inadvertantly or not, worship Satan."


I've been watching this thread with great interest and still can't figure out what in the world it has to do with conspiracy.

(Oh wait! Of course...it has NOTHING to do with conspiracy)


..but I'll take a shot at it since you took the time to make such a ludicrous blanket statement about Freemasonry and the vast majority of Christians.

I am a Freemason of many years and have taken darn-near every Degree there is (let us not dabble into the silliness of "super-high degrees I'm not smart enough to know about but all the non-Masons do sort of thing" as so many on this forum are wont to do...I'm talking about legitimate Freemasonry here)

I am a monotheist who believes in the plurality of God. That is to say specifically I'm a Trinitarian (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) I won't delve further into that but if you're interested, see the "Athanasian Creed"

I do not worship God via Freemasonry, nor does anyone who understands Freemasonry.

I personally, worship AT CHURCH.

I do NOT, inadvertently or otherwise, worship Satan.

Worship, DerekOneSeven17, is a CONSCIOUS ACT...it CANNOT be done
inadvertently.

Why, the mere concept is beyond ridiculous and I believe you know that.
So, I guess you're wrong, huh? I am a Freemason AND and monotheist and I DO NOT (inadvertently or otherwise) worship Satan.

How 'bout some conspiracy talk for a change instead of this baiting and nonsense?



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerekOneSeven17
Tamahu, I responded to a similar question here : www.abovetopsecret.com... . I will reitterate, with some brief revisions...



And I responded to it, and I'll respond more in this thread.




I ask you this, who created the cycle of birth and death, which causes so much suffering, in the first place?

The system of Karma, instituted by the demiurge, is in fact evil



Who created it?

We did(this might make much more sense by the end of this post).

Nonetheless, perhaps you can ask your Inner Being in a state of Meditative Ecstacy, and find out directly; instead of just believing in what Amitakh Stanford has to write(that is if you haven't already done so).

Did Amitakh Stanford write that this is possible, and teach the way that it can be done?

If not, then perhaps this author's writings ought to be re-examined...




and, basically, forces the participant to collect irrepayable debts over their incarnations. By being born over and over again, and having your memory "wiped," of your past lives, you are coerced into making the same mistakes over and over, thus being forced to accumulate more and more bad karma and enslaving yourself in the seemingly never ending cycle of reincarnation.



It looks like this Amitakh Stanford has overlooked that this statement is not in alignment with the teachings of Buddhism, or Gnosis.


As V.M. Samael Aun Weor wrote:



The Yellow Book

"When repentance is absolute, punishment is unnecessary." - Samael Aun Weor


Though to clarify, we must remember that this is only in reference to ordinary karma, and not in reference to sin against the Holy Spirit(karmasaya and kamaduro, which must be payed(and it can be payed) with suffering).



And in Buddhism, the Vajrasattva practice and Thirty-Five Buddhas practice can completely(with the exception of karmasaya and kamaduro) Purify all ordinary karma:



CONCLUSION OF THIRTY-FIVE BUDDHAS PRACTICE

"The power of the mantra, the power of the names of the Thirty-five Buddhas and the beams emitted by them completely purify all the defilements, negative karma and downfalls. All the negativities collected during beginningless rebirths have been completely purified. Your mental continuum becomes completely pure.

"In emptiness there is no I, there is no action of creating negative karma, there is no negative karma created."







Perhaps this article that Amitakh Stanford has written called, "The Spirit World," will interest you, as she further explains how Karma is an evil tool of the evil demiurge.
You can read it here : www.xeeatwelve.net...



Again, karma is the result of our own actions.

So in order to know who the Demiurge is, we must look for the Demiurge Within Ourselves.

And this is only possible with Complete Chastity, and much more.

The Christ and our Internal Purusha will assist us with this if we are completely sincere.




Evil exists in"rebellion," from the original creation which was usurped, in this realm, by the "error," of evil. The "god," of the physical universe is evil. The "god," of this universe is NOT the True God of the Light. The Light had never wanted for evil to ever exist. I believe this article "The Eight Evil Minds," by Amitakh Stanford, gives a good, though simplified due to us being forced to use our physical minds, explanation of the origins of evil.



Malkuth(the physical world) is the fallen Sephirah.

It is the result of the fall of ((A)Ish) and ((A)Isha) from Yesod(Eden), because we misused the Energy of the Demiurge in Yetzirah(the Demiurge in Briah is way above the physical Universe and even way above Yesod(Eden), on the Tree of Life).

So "Adam and Eve"(us) are responsible for the fallen Sephirah which is Malkuth.

You can read about many key-aspects of this right here:

The Elimination of Satans Tail


I would also recommend studying Gnostic-Kabbalah and Abhidharma(Buddhist Kabbalah)(see also the teachings of Asanga and Vasubandhu), instead of those who slander the Demiurge and the Lords of Karma by calling them "evil".


Lucifer didn't become Satan(the "I") within us until the fall.

When Sophia as Chokmah(an aspect of Christus-Lucifer) gave birth to the Demiurge, it was not necessarily a "fall".

Lucifer as the Brightest Angel in Heaven, descended the Tree of Life.

He and His Angels did not yet "fall", it is symbolic of a descent.

Angels(and the Brightest in Heaven no-less) can't fall, because they do not have Free-Will.

Only Man(Tiphereth) has Free-Will.

So the exoteric interpretation contradicts itself when taken literally.


Lucifer only became Satan(the "I") within us, with the fall of "Adam and Eve".

So we must defeat Satan(the "I") within ourselves, in order for Lucifer to return to Christ.

Or for Satan-Lucifer within to again become Christus-Lucifer within.




Also, Tamahu, please stop double and triple spacing every line you write. It unneccearily takes up space on the page. I have no problem with visibly seperating your thoughts, i do it myself, but it is unneccesary to use double and tripple spaces for almost ever line.



Well, if it really inconveniences you that much, then I'll stop doing it when responding to your posts.



Also, you did not answer the questions.

First: How is it that the All Good and Unconditionally-Loving God allows for evil and conditioning to exist?

And: How does one go about avoiding the pitfalls of the physical Universe(whether they are the fault of the Demiurge, ourselves, or some devil), aside from Three Factors of the Revolution of the Consciousness?

(Which are related to Sexual Transmuatation(Chastity), daily Meditation, and selfless service for the sake of all suffering sentient beings)


We can sit around and complain about it.

Or we can ACT.

(And I don't mean the lazy and passionate "action" of ambition, and the "action" of fighting some evil that exists out there somewhere)

Because if the "I" acts, then we only make things worse, no?

To end suffering we should become non-doers(by killing the ego), and cease to exist, because Allah(the Consciousness) is the only Doer of Good.

Allah is the Being, the "I" merely exists.



Buddhism does not accept a anthropomorphic or personalized-creator(Allah and Yehowah/Christ is not an anthropomorphic or personalized creator either).

In the book "The Spirit of Peace", H.H. the Dalai Lama said that it was not some personal god that Created the (pre-physical)Universe, but that perhaps some Primordial Atoms decided to descend from the Bosom of the Absolute.


Which is very interesting, because in Gnostic-Kabbalah, the Atom AIN-SOPH is:




"AIN SOPH is the second aspect (of the Absolute); it is where a certain manifestation already exists...

A divine Ray exists within the human being. That Ray wants to return back into its own Star that has always smiled upon it.

The Star that guides our interior is a super divine Atom from the Abstract Absolute Space. The Kabbalistic name of that Atom is the sacred Ain Soph." - Tarot and Kabbalah



AElohim(ALLAH) is:



"The Interior Elohim is the ray that emanates from Aelohim. Aelohim is the Omnimerciful, the Cosmic Common Eternal Father, the Abstract Absolute Space... Aelohim is the infinitude that sustains all." - The Pistis Sophia Unveiled




From The Pistis Sophia Unveiled:



"Absolute Perfection is needed in order to not fall from the Bosom of AElohim. Any longing, as insignificant as it could be, for a separate existence or to be someone, is enough to cause one to be self released from the AElohim, and to fall under the Reign of the Demiurge Creator."




"Be ye therefore Perfect, even as your (Inner)Father which is in Heaven is Perfect." - Matthew 5:48




So the Demiurge is not necessarily "evil" and this is why:



"We must make a specific differentiation between the Ain Soph and the Ain Soph Paranishpanna: In the Ain Soph, interior Self-realization does not exist, but in the Ain Soph Paranishpanna, interior Self-realization does exist." - Tarot and Kabbalah



From what I've learned, The Triple-Logos in Atziluth is the Sun/Son of the AIN-SOPH-AUR, Sophia is One with the Logos, and the Demiurge in Briah is the Son of Sophia.

These are all aspects of our Being.

The Multiple Perfect Unity.


So if we were Being in Eden, and not only Being in the formless Absolute, then it is the Will of our Inner-God to descend from the Absolute as to Self-Realize Itself in manifest existence.

And if we are here suffering, it is because of us falling from the Garden of Eden in past incarnations.


All of this can only be truly Understood with much Meditation, Transmutation, and Sacrifice.

Not just with the intellect.


You may want to reflect on all this, in the context of what H.H. the Dalai Lama said, and the definitions of AIN-SOPH, AIN-SOPH-PARANISHPANNA, and AELOHIM; and the quotes from The Pistis Sophia Unveiled.



Regards




[edit on 16-2-2007 by Tamahu]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerekOneSeven17
According to the "The Symbolism of Freemasonry," by Albert G. Mackey, the basis of the first 3 degrees seem to revolve around the symbolic building of Solomon's Temple.

You see, you do understand really. Freemasonry is symbolic. However just to clarify, in both the first and second degrees of freemasonry there is no mention whatsoever of King Solomon's Temple. In the third degree there is mention of the construction, but the main thrust of the mystery is about a different story entirely. You are wrong to call me a liar so rashly.

Many people, including Mackay, have referred to the building of a 'spiritual temple'. They have also referred to many other things. It is an analogy, more akin to the well known phrase "my body is a temple", which AFAIK has no link to Solomon's Temple.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trinityman

You see, you do understand really. Freemasonry is symbolic. However just to clarify, in both the first and second degrees of freemasonry there is no mention whatsoever of King Solomon's Temple. In the third degree there is mention of the construction, but the main thrust of the mystery is about a different story entirely.


Actually, in American ritual, the Temple is mentioned throughout each of the degrees, especially in the Second Degree, although the First Degree Lecture has many allusions.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerekOneSeven17
Amitakh writes that "present-day Freemasons claim in a higher degree that they have found the lost Word of God. This word is given to candidates for the Holy Royal Arch." Dr. Stanford even specifies that "this word is given to candidates for the Holy Royal Arch." You are entitled to your opinions about what you perceive to be Amitakh's generalization of Freemasonry, but the truth is, as you have even written yourself (in bold), that this word is given to Freemasons as the supposed "lost word of god."

As I have already written, that word is not Jahbulon (or any similar sounding word). Dr. Stanford is wrong to assert that it is.


Since the article is about Freemasonry and the following paragraph reads...


This "word of god" presented as "jah-bul-on" is another Freemason Weisshaupt-like deception to trick some candidates into thinking the search for the word is concluded. But, "jah-bul-on" is only another substituted word. The search for the lost Word secretly continues...

www.xeeatwelve.net...
I feel it is obvious that the the supposed word is presented to Freemasons, therefor, Freemasons are the ones who believe it to be the actual "word of God.

The Word is not Jahbulon. Freemasons do not believe that word to be the actual 'Word of God'.


Anyway, i am curious Trinityman, you say that the "word is something else." Since you seem to portray youself as so concerned with the truth, can you elaborate as to what the supposed actual "Word," is? Is it "ma-ha-bon ?"

Regretfully not, as I have promised not to communicate any masonic secrets to a non-mason.


Many of the inaccurracies stem from an assumption that the traditional history of freemasonry is either 'regarded as' or 'is in reality' an accurate history... Freemasonry is symbolic, and the story of Hiram Abiff (for example) is widely regarded as a myth...

...most mainstream scholars agree that speculative freemasonry evolved in the 17th and 18th centuries in the UK...

-Trinityman


According to the popular consensus on Wikipedia.org

"...Beyond myth, there is a distinct absence of documentation as to Freemasonry’s origins, which has led to a great deal of speculation among historians and pseudo-historians alike, both from within and from outside the fraternity. Hundreds of books have been written on the subject. Much of the content of these books is highly speculative, and the precise origins of Freemasonry may very well be permanently lost to history...
...The origin of Freemasonry has variously been attributed to:
King Solomon, and the construction of the Temple at Jerusalem,
Euclid, or Pythagoras..."

en.wikipedia.org...

You missed a bit off. In addition to Solomon, Euclid and Pythagoras Wikipedia also lists the origins of freemasonry as being attributed to the following:


The Patriarchal Religion, Moses, the Pagan Mysteries, The Essenes, The Culdees, The Druids, The Gypsies, or the Rosicrucians[2]
the intellectual descendants of Noah[3]
an institutional outgrowth of the medieval guilds of stonemasons, [4][5]
a direct descendant of the "Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem" (the Knights Templar)[3][6]
an offshoot of the ancient mystery schools,[7]
an administrative arm of the Priory of Sion,[8]
the intellectual descendants of the Roman Collegia[9]
the intellectual descendants of the Comacine masters[10]
the German Steinmetzen, or the French Compagnonage[2]
Oliver Cromwell, or the Stuart Pretender to the British Crown; Lord Francis Bacon, Viscount St. Alban, Baron Verulam[2]
Sir Christopher Wren and the rebuilding of St. Paul's Cathedral[2]
survivor of late 17th Century, enlightenment period, fashion for fraternal bodies with no real connections at all to earlier organizations (although various documents pre-dating the 17th Century tend to disprove this theory).

en.wikipedia.org...


But the important part you missed is...


The scant evidence that is available, points to the origins of Freemasonry as a fraternity that simply evolved out of the Operative Lodges of the middle ages.

en.wikipedia.org...


A 'distinct lack of evidence' is very similar to 'no evidence', don't you think?


Since the precise origins, "may very well be lost to history," the actual origins are not known to you, i assume. Therefor, i assume, you really do not know whether or not "the society was fully established during the time of the building of King Solomon's Temple..."

On the basis that no-one can prove a negative this is a pointless assumption. The evidence that is available suggests that freemasonry primarily evolved out of English and Scottish operative stonemason's lodges. I am aware of the many theories out there about freemasonry's history, but I go with the available evidence.

The UGLE has the following to say on the matter...


The origins of Freemasonry are the subject of great debate. That there is a connection with the operative stonemasons who built the great medieval cathedrals and castles is generally accepted by Masonic historians – but whether that connection was direct or indirect is the subject of speculation.


... and that is as about authoritative as you can get.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Simbols........
I like to point out that simbols allways resemble something.

1
When masons say massonary is simbolic their right, and since every simbol means something I would say that masons belive in simbols.

2
There is no other fraternity on earth with as many simbols as the masons.

3
All the simbols in masonary resemble simbols from religion.
------------------

In colclusion masonary is a gathering where people come to talk about religios simbols and meanings.
Would any one say as a mason"we don't belive in our simbols?"

So in colclusion again, I'll add a bit on my above quoting, masonary is a gathering where people come to talk about religios simbols and meanings of "which they belive in."

So in conclusion, masonary is a religion


My god, this is so simple, kids stuff, any one would understand.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerekOneSeven17
The last sentence should read, in full (it was shortened due to the character limit)...

Therefor, i assume, you really do not know whether or not "the society was fully established during the time of the building of King Solomon's Temple..." or that, "...its own history is corrupted beyond recognition and its historians refuse to correct it..."

Thankyou for that addition, but it doesn't change my reply to you above.


You have still, even using your "straw man," tactic of attacking Amitakh Stanford, have not disproven my original statement, that "Freemasons, as well as all monotheists, whether inadvertantly or not, worship Satan."

I am not attacking Dr. Stanford, but her scholarship. I see gaping holes in her assumptions and conclusions about freemasonry.

As it is you you have come here and asserted that freemasons, inadvertantly or not, worship satan don't you think it is behoven upon you to make your case, rather than attempt to shoot down someone who disagrees with you.

Which reminds me. Whilst I appreciate the time you have taken to reply to my earlier points, there was one you missed, and I'd appreciate your perspective on this.


Finally, just as an aside, how can someone 'inadvertantly' worship a different deity to the one they intend. As there is only one God IMO how could I worship another? Based on this assertion how does anyone truly know to whom they are praying?



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Actually, in American ritual, the Temple is mentioned throughout each of the degrees, especially in the Second Degree, although the First Degree Lecture has many allusions.

Well how about that. I stand corrected and it just goes to show how dangerous sweeping statements like...


Freemasonry is based upon the legend of the building of Solomon's Temple...


... can be, as it certainly isn't in England.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Hello Pepsi


Originally posted by pepsi78
Simbols........

I like to point out that simbols allways resemble something.

Yes, they do. Symbols, that is, not cymbals



When masons say massonary is simbolic their right, and since every simbol means something I would say that masons belive in simbols.

A symbol is representative of something else, so it is more true to say that masons believe what the symbol represents rather than the symbol itself. But symbols often only seek to remind us of things. The wedding band on my finger is a symbol of my marriage, and reminds me of my commitment to my wife. I don't believe in the ring per se, and I certainly don't worship it. (The ring, that is, not my wife
)


There is no other fraternity on earth with as many simbols as the masons.

Is that true? What other fraternities have you researched?


All the simbols in masonary resemble simbols from religion.

I'm afraid I can't agree with this. All of the stonemason's tools that we moralize upon are not used in any religion that I know of so I would say that's not true.


In colclusion masonary is a gathering where people come to talk about religios simbols and meanings.

I would say this conclusion is wrong based on my above comments.


Would any one say as a mason"we don't belive in our simbols?"

Yes, me. See above about symbols.


So in colclusion again, I'll add a bit on my above quoting, masonary is a gathering where people come to talk about religios simbols and meanings of "which they belive in."

Er... no, they don't. See above again.


So in conclusion, masonary is a religion

Freemasonry is not a religion, and certainly not based on the logical process above. However I don't know about this 'masonary/massonary' of which you speak... now that might be



My god, this is so simple, kids stuff, any one would understand.

It is simple, staggeringly so, and it never ceases to amaze me how people keep getting it wrong



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   


A symbol is representative of something else, so it is more true to say that masons believe what the symbol represents rather than the symbol itself.

Yes symbols represent something else and not the item it's self, did I say otherwise? I don't think I did.
For example the cross represents cristianity, as an item it's really nothing, the cross is not god.
I'm glad we have the same opinion, so we agree that a simbol represents something.


I don't believe in the ring per se, and I certainly don't worship it.

I didin't say you worship an item, I don't worship the cross either as a cristian.



Is that true? What other fraternities have you researched?

Really, I don't think other fraternities have much more than a few main simbols that represents the fraternity.



I'm afraid I can't agree with this. All of the stonemason's tools that we moralize upon are not used in any religion that I know of so I would say that's not true.

Will you please give an example, I belive that if not all most all of them have religios meanings.



Yes, me. See above about symbols.

I didint refer to them as beliving in the item it's self, but in the meaning of the symbol, you do belive that.

So let's get in strait, masons belive in the meaning of their symbols.
Don't they?




[edit on 16-2-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Will you please give an example, I belive that if not all most all of them have religios meanings.

Sure.


The Gavel represents the force of conscience, which should keep down all vain and unbecoming thoughts which might obtrude during any of the aforementioned periods...

The Chisel points out to us the advantages of education, by which means alone we are rendered fit members of regularly organised Society.

The Square teaches morality, the Level equality, and the Plumb Rule justness and uprightness of life and actions.

Emulation Ritual


However some symbols do have direct religious connotations, for example the All Seeing Eye reminds me of The Lord.


So let's get in strait, masons belive in the meaning of their symbols.

The masonic meanings are invariably things that any right thinking person can subscribe to, not just masons.

I think I might see where you are coming from with this though, because the moralities taught by the symbolism of the tools comes from the Bible. In this sense the symbols have religious meanings, but no more so than any other moral code, as in the Western World our concept of morality comes from the teachings of Jesus Christ (IMO).

Is this what you meant?



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   
To Trinityman:



Freemasonry is based upon the legend of the building of Solomon's Temple...


Whether you feel it is sweeping generalization or not, it is your opinion, and as i have said before, i feel you are entitled to your opinions. That does not change the fact that the above saying, as you, Masonic Light, and myself have pointed, is true.


----


As i had attempted to explain before, about the lack of evidence proving the exact founding of Freemasonry, Since the precise origins, "may very well be lost to history," the actual origins are not known to you, i assume. Therefor, i assume, you really do not know whether or not "the society was fully established during the time of the building of King Solomon's Temple..." or that, "...its own history is corrupted beyond recognition and its historians refuse to correct it..."

About proving a negative, you certainly can prove a negative assertion. Take for example, "there is no drinking cup on my desk." There clearly is a drinking cup on my desk, therefor, the assertion is false.


----


To Trinityman and Appak :


As it is you you have come here and asserted that freemasons, inadvertantly or not, worship satan don't you think it is behoven upon you to make your case...

...how can someone 'inadvertantly' worship a different deity to the one they intend. As there is only one God IMO how could I worship another? Based on this assertion how does anyone truly know to whom they are praying?..

-Trinityman


As i had said in my original and latter posts, it is clear to me that the creator of the physical universe is evil. By acknowledging that we are forced to die, decay, and suffer no matter what, the nature of the "god," and of this material universe becomes more clear. Though you may not realize fully at the time, the "Grand Architecht," being you worship, is the cause of your suffering. You are inadvertantly worshipping the epitome of deceit and evil by worshipping the "Grand Architecht," whom you are revering as the epitome of ultimate love and goodness, when in fact, he has caused yourself and every inhabitant of this planet extreme, purposeless suffering.

Why would a loving god create the food chain, where animals are forced to kill eachother to survive? Look at all the rampant exploitation and injustice which is common place and seemingly normal. Why would a loving god create physical matter that decays inherintly and forces unavoidable suffering and death? Why would a loving god create evil beings to exploit the innocent? It is because the "god," of this world is clearly evil.

I have attempted to explain, based on my observations, that the creator of the physical universe is evil. Through the use of Socratic questioning, i have attempted to establish the fact that the creator of the physical universe is evil.

Here are some more questions to answer for yourself :

Why would a loving god create evil?
Why would a loving god create matter which inevitably decays and forces you to suffer?
Why would a loving god want you to suffer?
Why would a loving god create a universe so heavily based on exploitation? Just look at the food chain for example.
Why would a loving god want you do die?
Why would a loving god want Jesus to be harrased, ridiculed, and subsequently tortured to death?
Why would a loving god desire blood sacrafice, and command his followers to murder INFANTS (1 Samuel chapter 15)?




[edit on 16-2-2007 by DerekOneSeven17]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
To Tamahu :


Who created it [death]?

We did(this might make much more sense by the end of this post).

Nonetheless, perhaps you can ask your Inner Being in a state of Meditative Ecstacy, and find out directly; instead of just believing in what Amitakh Stanford has to write(that is if you haven't already done so).

Did Amitakh Stanford write that this is possible, and teach the way that it can be done?

-Tamahu



I know that i did not create death. It is the "demiurge," "Grand Architecht," "Jehovah," whatever you want to call him, who created both the unfair system of Karma and reincarnation, and the sadistic cycle of degradation, which inevitable causes suffering, and death.

Amitakh Stanford teaches of gnosis, or inner knowing. She is, i feel, an adament supporter of discovery of inner truth through meditation.



In truth, the system of Karma and reincarnation, instituted by the demiurge, is in fact evil and, and, basically, forces the participant to collect irrepayable debts over their incarnations. By being born over and over again, and having your memory "wiped," of your past lives, you are coerced into making the same mistakes over and over, thus being forced to accumulate more and more bad karma and enslaving yourself in the seemingly never ending cycle of reincarnation.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Okay, I addressed all that.

But if you don't want to listen, then I'm not going to sit here and keep trying to convince you to believe anything.



I will re-address this however:




In truth, the system of Karma and reincarnation, instituted by the demiurge, is in fact evil and, and, basically, forces the participant to collect irrepayable debts over their incarnations. By being born over and over again, and having your memory "wiped," of your past lives, you are coerced into making the same mistakes over and over, thus being forced to accumulate more and more bad karma and enslaving yourself in the seemingly never ending cycle of reincarnation.




There's no such thing as "irrepayable debts".

Even the Human-Soul-Essence responsible for the worst actions the Universe has ever seen, will eventually get out of hell after the karmic obscurations that landed it there are destroyed.


I already quoted from Gnostic and Buddhist sources, that all karma can be payed, even in this very life-time(without having to enter the Second Death).



[edit on 16-2-2007 by Tamahu]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   
The problem with the "evil Demiurge" attitude, is that it causes people to not take responsibilty for their own actions and attitudes, by blaming it all on some external agent whether it is the Demiurge Architect or some anthropomorphic "Satan".

This must be properly understood with the Buddhist Philosophies on Dependent Origination and Interdependence.

Said negative-attitude toward the Demiurge Grand Architect is not a Gnostic one.

Christ, Jehovah, Lucifer, and Satan are all symbolic.

They are also real, but not in the way that most Christians exoterically interpret them.


Again, the Demiurge Architect is related to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

It depends on one's Will, as to whether that Energy from the Inner-Demiurge is used altruistically, or Satanically.

Altruistically, it is Bodhicitta(Christ Mind).

Satanically, it is fornication and ill-will.



Regards



[edit on 16-2-2007 by Tamahu]





top topics
 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join