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.

 

Cult features

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I mentioned the articles higher up. Please do read them before argueing that they're absent.

But let me get this clear, I have some sympathies with the original freemasonry. There is no need to feel so personally attacked -- in fact the integrated reprisals of the freemasonic ATSers perfectly demonstrate the cult-like behaviour that was the topic of this thread. Now isn't that contradictory to the ideals of individual excellence?

I have no problem with the belief in rationality, enlightenment and self-fulfilment. I'm a student and admirer of Spinoza.

Religions such as Christianity & Islam creating a herd mentality? I'm even ready to accept that. You might call me a freemason in that regard.

However, "off-shoots" of freemasonry (in how far they actually reflect non-masonic views is unclear) seem to misinterpret the plight for personal morality as a right to harm others. This glorification of selfhishness and its extension in sexual matters runs the risk of pervading freemason morality in general. There is a disturbing amount of criminal cases all over the planet in which elite representatives are implicated in such offenses. Without hardly ever being convicted, admittedly -- which is even more disturbing.

By examining the roots of the continental form of freemasonry, I'd like to mention the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant's categorical imperative defends a universal moral objectivity instead of an egotistical subjectivity. Kant is a source of inspiration for original European freemasons and was himself inspired by the ethics of Christianity.

'Do what you will is the law' (I'm paraphrasing) is an essentially amoral rule that goes against these moral principles of the Enligthenment. If that's the crux of freemasonry, then freemasonry is evil.

What I most of all dislike in cults, is how they see non-members as misinformed and misjudging. The cult family then colludes against the workings of a normal democracy, which is built on trust in the judgment of ALL the people.

Another problem is that a cult defends itself fanatically even if it is confronted with valid criticisms; or with the truth. I have a tip: Know thyself is the whole of the Law. Why have you been so tempted to adhere to a part of society instead of making the best of society as it is?

[edit on 5-3-2007 by Thodeph]




posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Ok, I've read the other thread and the articles. The satanic ritual abuse scandal was put to bed. The articles were incorrect and the subsequent finger pointing ceased when it was shown that no conspiracy was occurring. I think that's been discussed to death in the other thread and I have nothing to add.

I admit that there are probably Freemasons who are guilty as abusers, thieves, murderers, rapists and a whole list of other crimes. Again, I could substitute "Freemasons" with "Catholics", "Muslims", "Police officers" etc. etc. Want me to go on? My point is that you don't seem to have one.

You appear to have a deep seated problem with Freemasonry as a whole and want to villify or at least convince members like myself that the organisation is tainted and basically corrupt. As I've already said, when I see evidence to support that, I will immediately tender my resignation.

So far, you have chosen not to address the points raised in this thread and have reiterated unsubstantiated claims that you have yet to back up.

I have no reason to believe you truly want a dialog as you obviously believe I am a member of a cult and will defend it to the hilt because my mind is blinded. Nothing I can say will convince you otherwise, so I will gracefully bow out of this pointless monologue.

Regards,
Grey



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thodeph


But let me get this clear, I have some sympathies with the original freemasonry. There is no need to feel so personally attacked -- in fact the integrated reprisals of the freemasonic ATSers perfectly demonstrate the cult-like behaviour that was the topic of this thread. Now isn't that contradictory to the ideals of individual excellence?


So again I ask you: how is defending oneself against false and unsubstantiated claims supposed to be "cult-like behavior"?


I have no problem with the belief in rationality, enlightenment and self-fulfilment. I'm a student and admirer of Spinoza.


As am I, and as have been many Freemasons. If this is the indeed the case, I just don't understand what your problem with Masonry is.


Religions such as Christianity & Islam creating a herd mentality? I'm even ready to accept that. You might call me a freemason in that regard.


Actually, Freemasonry doesn't claim that, but Nietzsche and Crowley did. There are probably many exceptions, but in general, I tend to agree with them.


However, "off-shoots" of freemasonry (in how far they actually reflect non-masonic views is unclear) seem to misinterpret the plight for personal morality as a right to harm others. This glorification of selfhishness and its extension in sexual matters runs the risk of pervading freemason morality in general. There is a disturbing amount of criminal cases all over the planet in which elite representatives are implicated in such offenses. Without hardly ever being convicted, admittedly -- which is even more disturbing.


I still am unaware of such people. All bickering aside, if you will produce evidence for such a thing I will certainly take a look at it. But it has to be real evidence, not stuff that Freemasonry Watch dreams up.


examining the roots of the continental form of freemasonry, I'd like to mention the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant's categorical imperative defends a universal moral objectivity instead of an egotistical subjectivity. Kant is a source of inspiration for original European freemasons and was himself inspired by the ethics of Christianity.


In this, I agree with you completely. Kant had profoundly influenced not only Freemasonry, but the entire Enlightenment, and much of modern Freemasonry is is based upon Kantian ethics.


'Do what you will is the law' (I'm paraphrasing) is an essentially amoral rule that goes against these moral principles of the Enligthenment. If that's the crux of freemasonry, then freemasonry is evil.


A couple of points:

1. There is no "Do what you will is the law" in Freemasonry.

2. The phrase "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" is not Masonic at all: it is, however, considered by students of Aleister Crowley to be the supreme magical formula of the aeon.

It does NOT mean "do whatever you want", as Crowley stressed a million times (if only the people who take the time to condemn Crowley would take the time to actually read and understand him!).

It is an ancient occult doctrine, accepted by Crowley, that there is a "Higher Will" that controls the universe. This Higher Will manifests itself in humans, and the very purpose of existence is to discover what it is, and then follow it.

This is the meaning of "Do what thou wilt", which is ALWAYS answered by "Love is the law, love under will", which completes the Crowleyan magical formula.

There is nothing contrary to morality in following that Will, because that Will is the very heart of morality.


What I most of all dislike in cults, is how they see non-members as misinformed and misjudging. The cult family then colludes against the workings of a normal democracy, which is built on trust in the judgment of ALL the people.


I would respond to this by saying that by no means are all non-members misinformed. I have read the academic works af many, many non-Masons concerning the fraterniy's history, symbolism, etc., that are excellent, and I recommend them heartily to fellow Masons.

But notice I used the word academic. This does not apply to Freemasonry Watch, or Bible Believers, or Cutting Edge, or any other such websites. Instead, I refer to an unbiased and serious study.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Theodeph...

Could you please respond to my rebuttal of your 10 point cult list as it relates to Freemasonry?

Please don't turn out to be another teflon-coated troll...


C'mon mate, have a crack at it. I was eager for some friendly debate, and still am.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I don't feel the obligation to respond to any 10-point requests.

There is enough evidence in the articles I presented to conclude that indeed paedophilia is not a catholic prerogative. Honest freemasons on this board are willing to admit that much -- which is all I asked for.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I think what had upset freemasons posting on this board were the following comments:


Originally posted by Thodeph
Looking for evidence for masonic children abuse...

The below excellent 10-point description of religious sects can be applied not only to Freemasons...


The implication, from my perspective anyway, was that you were targeting freemasons. I hope you have found the information I have presented useful, and I trust that we can agree that freemasons, like catholics, are organizations composed of fallible human beings who can err. I hope we can also both agree that in both cases there is no evidence of institutionally organized pedophilia, and that both organizations and the majority of members therein find the whole thing utterly abhorrent.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thodeph
I don't feel the obligation to respond to any 10-point requests.

There is enough evidence in the articles I presented to conclude that indeed paedophilia is not a catholic prerogative. Honest freemasons on this board are willing to admit that much -- which is all I asked for.


Teflon.

Mate, the subject of the thread was cult characteristics as they apply to, amongst other groups, the Freemasons. I responded to what I knew (ie: The Masons. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about the KoC or CIA), and now you try and switch the topic to "Masonic Child Abuse"?

What gives?

I contend that you ARE, in some part, obligated to respond, that is, if you expect people to take you seriously as the thread instigator...

Try responding to a couple of points, then, if 10 is too much effort. Or was your purpose simply to dump your vitriol and then switch topics? ie: a characteristic of the common troll.

I'm happy to discuss "Masonic Child Abuse" in the thread of the same name.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I'm not changing the topic.

The features of cults and sects came to me from a child abuse investigation website. It struck me how adequate the description fitted sectarian organizations, like the mob, CIA, Jesuits, and I could name a few others.

If you don't disagree with the descripted features do tell us why. It's pretty obvious to us non-sectarian humans though.

---

As for the child abuse by freemasons: such abhorrences are probably a trait that many elites share. I agree.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thodeph
If you don't disagree with the descripted features do tell us why. It's pretty obvious to us non-sectarian humans though.
---
As for the child abuse by freemasons: such abhorrences are probably a trait that many elites share. I agree.


I'm sorry, would you mind writing in straight-forward English? That is a rather twisted bit...

What I'm reading translates roughly as:

"If you believe the points of the article fit with Freemasonry, tell us why you feel so. However, to all of us outside of the fraternity, it's obvious.

As for the child abuse by Freemasons: I think that child abuse is a trait shared by many of the world's elite. I agree."

Now, if I'm misunderstanding you, I apologize... and insist that you clarify.

But assuming I understand you... first off, you are making a fallacy, in that you think everyone not in the frat agrees with you. I assure you, that is not the case. Otherwise, it means that every member of the fraternity saw the institution that way, but joined anyhow.

Furthermore, we are not the 'elite', by any margin.

And who are you 'agreeing' with?



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Trinityman.

You, on the other hand, are now on my ignore list for being so self-conceited. That's no way to enter a thread.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   


I'm prepared to cop a warning for this:

You are a coward, mate.

First you try and switch topics, then you refuse to answer my rebuttal because you don't feel you're "obliged" to do so, and now you've put Hobbes on your ignore list for being "self-conceited" instead of responding to his courteous and non-aggressive request for clarification?

It's clear that you're not interested in substantiating facts OR engaging in discussion. Sorry but your thread sucks, big time.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   
You're on my list too now. In fact, I'm ignoring all skepitcs, freemason apologists and everyone else that's here with a fake agenda.

At least I won't have to watch your obnoxious avatar any more. Bye.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thodeph
*sticks fingers in ears and goes "LALALALALALA!! I can't hear you!!"*


Yeah, good one.

This thread could have been so different. It could've been a killer discussion topic. Oh well.






posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thodeph
Trinityman.

You, on the other hand, are now on my ignore list for being so self-conceited. That's no way to enter a thread.




Wow...

And I thought I was trying to get some consensus and common ground


Never mind.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I wasn't talking to you. I mentioned your name as an answer to a question.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thodeph
I wasn't talking to you. I mentioned your name as an answer to a question.


I thought you had him on ignore?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join