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.

 

Confessions of an ex-conspiracy-theorist

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Redge777
 


I have to love paranoids. When you question one of their conspiracy theories they quickly conclude that you are part of the conspiracy.


Interesting you just sling around labels without addressing the plethora of points I made that you can not argue against, I see you have closed your mind as a defence mechanism against letting the truth of what you are involved with into your thinking mind. But still you must find a way to argue against the points I make, so you fall back on the only thing left, labeling me with a condition without supporting basis from my arguments.

Notice how I explained what I think you are doing and did not just give a label. I have not reviewed, but I, if ever, have rarely used conspiracy to describe your organization, yet the word has many meaning some fit, others might not. read my post to see what I believe it is.

Side note, I said lie in last post I should have said deception through omission and obfuscation. If you hide a thing by not letting it be known to keep it out of public conscience that does not relieve societal responsibility. Furthermore, by making claims of the fine and dandy thing the organization is, you neglect to mention the material benefits the society does offer. To describe your organization you have to lie or threw omission, neglect to speak of parts you know exist. This paragraph should set me on equal field if my assumption of what the U2U was about, yet it is definitely a long shot that I got the content correct




posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
i agree. i also do not see how this is any different than a company, or a family, or a sports team. They all make some things public, and some things private. Even a close circle of friends, which is ultimately what you are talking about.

I mean, there are golf clubs in Florida that probably have more corruption and more secrets than most of the lodges in the country.


Well sports teams and companies have the goal of dominating the other groups that are not part of there group. So you are actually supporting my point, you see they keep secrets to further their own gains at the cost of others outside of their organizations

Thank you for supporting my points.

I am sure some golf clubs are corrupt. Some golfers might even be Masons. And many golf clubs believe themselves better then others if you are speaking of high end clubs, they have intersections with other groups. Shoot, Masons might be a good way to get into a exclusive golf club right? Make some mighty fine connection and profit with that corruption you mention at some clubs.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Redge777
I don't know, so I can't say if you are part of some conspiracy, only that you belong to an organization where you swore to lie to keep it secret. Your 'that's a secret' thing just shreds credibility in my opinion.


To briefly return to the whole point of this thread I would like to state that not only am I a freemason but also did I once firmly believe in a masonic conspiracy and actively researched it. Having been on both sides of the argument gives me at least a little bit of knowledge and therefore credibility I would think.




I imagine winning the lottery, first thing I think is a beach and easy life, something out of one of those Corona Beer commercials. I understand why people of power slip to this temptation of selfishness, I do not judge them, lets help them resist the temptation by the following. I say lets make our system first more transparent, and second lets even the playing field altering the one that currently moves money to the top, and protects those in secret.



speaking of lottery: when you win the lottery, why not make it totally transparent? Tell your whole neighbourhood about it, heck, put an ad in the paper announcing your lottery win. now why wouldnt you do that? The simple answer: To protect yourself. Just like any corporation protects itself by not disclosing their stuff. Just like any family protects itself by not disclosing their bedroom talk.

Not to invalidate your observation of how secrecy can indeed be misused. But here is some food for thought: Imagine a organization that would like to protect the world from tyranny but has to do so in secret for the fear of being burnt at stake as a "heretic". Does that remind you of something?

History has had many freedom fighters that had to operate undercover. So much for your suggestion that everything has to be transparent. Wanting to have everything be transparent = wanting a big brother society.




Where we strongly disagree is on secrecy, sure I understand the principle of exciting new things in an organization. If a group accepts they are better then another, they have psychological reason to do many things against the good of all society.


Just because I go to a masonic meeting while Joe goes to a gaming-arcade or golf-club doesnt mean I am "better" than him. It means I have different interests than him. Diversity allows a variety of activities. Replace the word "group" with football-club and your sentence sounds like this: "If a football-club accepts they are better than another, they have psychological reason to do many things against the good of all society"




I can hear it now, but we are helping them because they can't rule themselves we are the enlightened. self delusion for rationalization of action, not buying it.


Well, thats what you can hear but I dont hear that type of talk at masonic meetings. Thats how the working-class-CT thinks an elite thinks



If your organization was an enlightened one, you would have a membership that had equal membership across the income, and racial brackets of America.


well, since its not "my" organisation and since I never claimed it is an enlightened one I will let others respond to that.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Redge777

I see you have closed your mind as a defence mechanism against letting the truth of what you are involved with into your thinking mind.



Relax. That post was not meant as an attack on you but rather in a humorous way. I am paranoid myself sometimes and as it takes one to know one I sometimes notice when others are falling into that.

Furthermore, I think your posts are sincere and clear. But that doesnt mean I have to agree with them.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Why would Washington's wealth bar him from being benevolent. Wealth, in the right hands, has the opposite effect: it allows a benevolent to person to do even more good. Take a look at J.C. Penney, for example (also a Brother Mason). His wealth allowed him the means to give millions to charitable purposes.

Well if you believe that a few people should chose where the disposable income of America is allocated. Personally I believe a freely elected body should decide where the charitable contributions go. Or should only the wealthy decide.

You will probably tell me its their money, but you see they didn't earn it, they were given it by the system we live in. A system that lets them live and gain wealth off the work of 1000s of others they may never meet. I am sure there are plenty of Masons that have more then a modest share of luxury also, a man with 10 million giving 1 million to charity has far less value then a man with 50,000 giving 5,000 Now if he gave 9,955,000 to a charity decided on by society at large you might have a point.


Washington actually spoke out in opposition to the Illuminati, but I personally believe that this was due to his not truly investigating the matter, and going on hearsay. Jefferson, on the other hand, spoke out in support of both Weishaupt and the Illuminati as a whole.


Which is it, is Washington a good and thoughtful man, or one who speaks out against a powerful organization with out doing the research?

Sorry you get no part of Jefferson's ideals in your order's real world actions. He believed in education for all and sharing knowledge. I think you been reading Mason spin, to bad its secret, nobody can challenge it if they are not a Mason.

That would be quite ironic if it was all wrong yet kept secret so no member ever challenged it because nobody not in the slow steps of indoctrination gets to give an informed opinion. I guess I will have to look from the outside and give you the logical rational case for why secrecy does not have credibility, and judge the Masons on the actions I see.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


That's possible, as long as there isn't one group that controls everything though.

If there is, perhaps they are putting one group against another to prevent too much power?

I don't know. It's all speculation.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Redge777

Interesting you just sling around labels without addressing the plethora of points I made that you can not argue against, I see you have closed your mind as a defence mechanism against letting the truth of what you are involved with into your thinking mind.


Its curious you would say this. If you examine this thread (and others for that matter) very carefully you will find lengthy and detailed responses to each of your points. My responses to you have not been responded back to up to now though.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   
My family is very southern. Not racist but southern. After studing my grandfathers notes in his journals, I realized that there is something else in the society. the 3 degrees theory is crap. after 3 degreed you reach master mason. But, to move further upward..... like to 33rd degree there is a lot to do. My grandfather was a 33rd degree. He had a ring with the illuminati pyramid on it that I still have. He wore it right next to his masons ring.

There was nothing after the 33rd admittion to his journal. He stopped and I believe he was into something over his head.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Redge777

Well if you believe that a few people should chose where the disposable income of America is allocated. Personally I believe a freely elected body should decide where the charitable contributions go. Or should only the wealthy decide.


Well, in a free market society, people have the right to decide what to do with their own money. Whether or not a free market society is the best system is an entirely different question.


You will probably tell me its their money, but you see they didn't earn it


How do you know that? Now obviously, some people are born into money, and didn't earn it. But there's also plenty who did earn what they have.


A system that lets them live and gain wealth off the work of 1000s of others they may never meet.


In some cases this is true. However, you seem to be presenting sort of a socialism vs. capitalism argument, which is going way off topic. For the sake on staying on topic, I will say that in the system which is now place, regardless of whether or not it is an ideal one, some wealthy people are benevolent and some are not.


I am sure there are plenty of Masons that have more then a modest share of luxury also


I certainly don't know of such. There are probably a few Masons who are wealthy, but I certainly wouldn't say "plenty".


Which is it, is Washington a good and thoughtful man, or one who speaks out against a powerful organization with out doing the research?


Even a man who is good and thoughtful cannot be right *all* the time.


Sorry you get no part of Jefferson's ideals in your order's real world actions. He believed in education for all and sharing knowledge.


Sorry, but you are incorrect. The leaders in instituting free public education were Freemasons. Furthermore, to this very day, candidates for admission into the Scottish Rite of Masonry in the Southern Jurisdiction are required to confirm their "complete support for free, public education available to all children".


I think you been reading Mason spin, to bad its secret, nobody can challenge it if they are not a Mason.


Nonsense. The Masons here have more than forthcoming, and have patiently answered every question.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
To briefly return to the whole point of this thread I would like to state that not only am I a freemason but also did I once firmly believe in a masonic conspiracy and actively researched it. Having been on both sides of the argument gives me at least a little bit of knowledge and therefore credibility I would think.

Conspiracy has many meanings, I rarely used that word if ever. What I believe it is is well explained in my post. I will address your credibility as this response progresses.


speaking of lottery: when you win the lottery, why not make it totally transparent? Tell your whole neighbourhood about it, heck, put an ad in the paper announcing your lottery win. now why wouldn't you do that? The simple answer: To protect yourself. Just like any corporation protects itself by not disclosing their stuff.

Well I would tell everyone, you see I got nothing to hide even if rich. Sure I would get alot of people asking for things, I would be able to give or explain that the money is destined elsewhere. Now if I got it illegally, now you have an analogy I would have to hide it so nobody got upset at my methods. but since I am not illegal I would make it transparent.

You do not, why because you want to protect your wealth and power just like you wrongly think I would with lottery win. Notice how you are now defending secrecy to protect something, This proves the point I made earlier when you said secrecy was for fun. Which proves my point about you by omission, and now admission are deceiving to keep those secrets you earlier said meant nothing, but now explain as protecting what ya got. which is a notch against your credibility.


Just like any family protects itself by not disclosing their bedroom talk.

Hey I don't know what you fraternal brothers are doing in the backroom, but if it is just among consenting adults it does not matter. When it does matter is when it effects other people. Specifically by controlling wealth distribution and opportunities by favoritism. And special treatment in judicial matters effectively creating an us and them legal system.

Favoritism cloaked by secret signals of distress is unjust, that's why the signals are secret, if it was fine and dandy they would just go, hey bro I am a Mason I know so and so and deserve special treatment. Wait how would you know they really were a Mason, you wouldn't without a secret hand sign. And the reason you would not know is they are not better and are a like the rest of us, otherwise no signal would be needed and their illuminating enlightenment would glow.



Not to invalidate your observation of how secrecy can indeed be misused. But here is some food for thought: Imagine a organization that would like to protect the world from tyranny but has to do so in secret for the fear of being burnt at stake as a "heretic". Does that remind you of something?

I know the witch trials, and inquisition well, I think it was bad, I also know of Friday the 13th, Galileo and a few others. Now if you are protecting the world from tyranny then it should show in your actions, I see you gathering a greater amount of wealth and luxury. I would guess protection is a good rationalization to lead to actions like greed.

If I believed I was protecting the commoners from some bad evil I might be able to justify hording wealth and power. You might say we need the power to do the work, well guess what you could do it with a more modest house car and less trips to nice places. Not buying it sorry. Furthermore, you just took another notch out of your credibility, again you are now telling me that your secrecy is to save you from the torches of the masses. That is not just a fun way for anticipation. Again you prove my point you lied and use secrecy to hide your lies because either people are to dumb to know you are helping them(elite), or your actions would be considered bad(protecting for self gain)

Now there is a third possibility, it is a religion, maybe only the enlightened chosen can hear the words of the demons guiding them and coming forward would get you burned at the stake because others think you are occult. Well if you are worshiping the God of truth and light he will protect you and want you to step into the light, where the good he puts in man's hearts can see your light as he guides us. He will even dispatch hevenly angels to guide and protect you in all his ways.

Yes only a few are taught the real meaning of the parables, but the parables are still told to all, and the meanings too, for the chosen will hear the meaning but others not until their time, but they will not be offended.

Besides don't you think your actions really tell the story, if you come forward with modest wealth it would help your tale, that part hurts you in the 'we are doing it for the good of mankind' argument


History has had many freedom fighters that had to operate undercover. So much for your suggestion that everything has to be transparent. Wanting to have everything be transparent = wanting a big brother society.

I am glad I just didn't trust that your secrets were for fun like you ask us to. Now you claim to be freedom fighters undercover fighting some big bad evil. Or at least think it is a fair analogy. You specifically tell me your secret is hiding something that effects others, those others are people you define as tyranny, but if I get what you just said, others would burn you at the stake for fighting for that side. Don't sound to good, no wonder it is secret. A secret you previously defined different. (See Credibility)

Remember also that because you are given the secrets slowly over time and no outside source knows them you go through an indoctrination where nobody challenges the information. Are you ready to learn more when you are enlightened enough or loyal and indoctrinated enough.

By the way thanks for making my argument for me, most stick with name calling and labeling to divert attention. I admire your new honesty about the secrets and why they exist.

Big brother is the state watching the individual. A guy on the street doing nothing that needs to be know except by by him and his girl on a walk. Transparency is people having the right to know the discussions and decisions that led to the actions that effect their lives. If you are doing things that effect people outside your group, you should be transparent. Instead you deny it, or justify it. This is why there are laws for groups that give advantages, and another self serving reason for secrets.



Just because I go to a masonic meeting while Joe goes to a gaming-arcade or golf-club doesn't mean I am "better" than him. It means I have different interests than him. Diversity allows a variety of activities. Replace the word "group" with football-club and your sentence sounds like this: "If a football-club accepts they are better than another, they have psychological reason to do many things against the good of all society"

If you go to gaming-arcade of golf-club with Joe you can sit down with him and have a conversation. If he comes to have a conversation with you he is not good enough, or is not trained enough and is not allowed.

In the football analogy you also have to replace all society with all other football clubs. all people playing the same games (however not by the same rules) In society wealth and control by some means is everyone's concern, so when your team, the Masons huddles up, they are playing against another team, the rest of us. Again you make my point for me quite well. Note that if team Mason thinks they are better and are not, then my psychological argument still holds. The only way your logic works is if Masons think they are better and are. Once again you support my comment that they are elitist.


[edit on 28-9-2007 by Redge777]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Timmyboi23
the 3 degrees theory is crap. after 3 degreed you reach master mason. But, to move further upward..... like to 33rd degree there is a lot to do. My grandfather was a 33rd degree.


If you will actually take the time to read the previous comments on this thread, you will see that all that has already been explained.

The Third Degree makes one a Master Mason, a full member of the fraternity. After that, your grandfather joined the Scottish Rite, which offers an additional 30 degrees. The Scottish Rite degrees do not confer any "rank", and they do not make anybody "higher" than a Master Mason.

When your grandfather received the 33°, this means that he became an honorary member of the Supreme Council, which is the Scottish Rite administrative board. The 33rd is given as an honor in recognition to service. Since your grandpa was a 33rd, this means that the Scottish Rite considered him trustworthy, honorable, dedicated, and a hard worker.


He had a ring with the illuminati pyramid on it that I still have. He wore it right next to his masons ring.


There is no such thing as an "illuminati pyramid". Your grandfather probably wore his 33rd degree ring, which is a tripartite band, with the number 33 enclosed within a delta.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

I can hear it now, but we are helping them because they can't rule themselves we are the enlightened.


Well, that's what you can hear but I don't hear that type of talk at masonic meetings. That's how the working-class-CT thinks an elite thinks


You took the bait, I threw a few words in and the beer reference to try and get this one. You just set up an us and them. And you classified the Them as working-class. I know many white collar people, and many not wealth people who are well off but do not worship the dollar, and are not Masons. I would guess this is another bit of those feelings of elitism showing through. Actually how would I know right
I know there are many doctors who are affiliated with some organization or another.


well, since its not "my" organisation and since I never claimed it is an enlightened one I will let others respond to that.

OK the organization you make claims about, including claims that you have yourself changed. If 'others responding' is the dispatching of a few firemen you better make them good, been their done that. But honestly that is reading into it so I can throw that comment out
or paranoia perhaps



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Redge777
Well if you believe that a few people should chose where the disposable income of America is allocated. Personally I believe a freely elected body should decide where the charitable contributions go. Or should only the wealthy decide.


Well, in a free market society, people have the right to decide what to do with their own money. Whether or not a free market society is the best system is an entirely different question.

I agree it is our system, but should not we always try to better a system, unless we think it is already the best system. Specifically how can JC Pennies claim the money is his when he did not earn it, but was given it by a system. What value or wealth did he show that makes him 100,000 times better then lets say a scientist or biologist or factory worker for that matter. This point deserves its own thread, but basically a system that is weighted to distribute to the few is his claim to be one of those few above his shown value. Unless he really is 100,000 times better then an average person in ability. Becareful I may be triggering a knee jerk labeling and not an logical arguement. I compliment you sir on not labeling right off the bat. Standard conditioning usually causes that.



You will probably tell me its their money, but you see they didn't earn it

How do you know that? Now obviously, some people are born into money, and didn't earn it. But there's also plenty who did earn what they have.

See above definision of earn.

In some cases this is true. However, you seem to be presenting sort of a socialism vs. capitalism argument, which is going way off topic. For the sake on staying on topic, I will say that in the system which is now place, regardless of whether or not it is an ideal one, some wealthy people are benevolent and some are not.

Agreed a bit off topic, however there is an argument to be made on ownership of wealth vs value of work that obtained it. I will drop this issue.


I certainly don't know of such. There are probably a few Masons who are wealthy, but I certainly wouldn't say "plenty".

I will say they are above average. I will say there are few that are poor. I am speaking of as a cross section of society, think of the populations in trailer parks and inner cities that live on much less. Their really are alot of them. And masons are well taken care of, I believe you mentioned that in a post. Nice retirement homes also. Not the norm for all Americans.


Sorry, but you are incorrect. The leaders in instituting free public education were Freemasons. Furthermore, to this very day, candidates for admission into the Scottish Rite of Masonry in the Southern Jurisdiction are required to confirm their "complete support for free, public education available to all children".

I am not speaking of what they say, I am speaking of how they act, they do not try and educate others about their inner truths and great knowledge, their enlightment. They keep that for themselfs.

You have been very patient, and answered questions I have enjoyed the conversation. I also respect you as a person, and think you would be a valuable member of any organization. Even through my jabs you stayed calm and did not turn to anger. I admire that personally.

I would guess their is a method taught on how to answer questions. Probably a good PR thing to keep up the image and all. Not that that is bad, as long as it is honest and not does not hide things. Dang that secrecy thing again.


[edit on 28-9-2007 by Redge777]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   


William Cooper

Of course, you have been told all your life that the Freemasons are only a benevolent fraternal organization bent only on community service. Read on, O innocent one.


[edit on 28-9-2007 by blahdiblah]

[edit on 28-9-2007 by blahdiblah]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I'm not sure you got my point. It was simply an observation. I'm far too old and intelligent for the "Christmas Gift" analogy and parabolic teaching.

Any group who practices secrecy and practices discrimination in who it allows to join is never going to be trusted. It is also going to attract people who think they are superior due to the groups nature. There is no way around this. If you choose to belong to a club of that nature any suspicion people have about you should be expected and not bother you. You made a conscious choice to separate yourself from the unwashed masses and that is part of the game.

The other problem with secret societies is that the members see the club and their fellow members as being of more importance than those on the outside. That leads to covering up for wrong doing or even enabling wrong doing in Business, Politics and Criminal acts. Don't misunderstand and think I'm generalizing because I am not. It is inevitable though due to a misplaced loyalty and human nature. I've witnessed and been the victim of this behavior first hand.

I won't bore you with the stories but I've been the victim of Masons who think themselves above the law on more than one occasion in business. I should be the most vocal opponent of this secretive group here but I am not. I blame the individuals not the group. It was however the nature of the group that evolved these men's delusions of superiority and their belief they were above the law. I also noted after being caught in criminal activities they were not expelled from the Masons which I find suspect.

As far as the wild theories about the Illuminati and the Masons. I'm not buying it. To improbable. Pure fantasy.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Redge777


I agree it is our system, but should not we always try to better a system, unless we think it is already the best system.


Agreed. Personally, I have support a *limited* capitalism, and am also a supporter of the Green Party, which offers a mild democratic socialist stance.



Specifically how can JC Pennies claim the money is his when he did not earn it, but was given it by a system.


Well, the system didn't "give" him anything. He invested everything he had, worked his tail off for several years before even making a profit, and eventually was able to expand.



I will say they are above average.


Masons are not above average in income. The vast majority of our membership have average middle class incomes. Most Masons are *not* businessmen. We have initiated about 10 new members in my Lodge this year. None were business owners, one was a firefighter, one was a plumber, one was a high school history teacher, and a couple were truck drivers.


I will say there are few that are poor.


My Grand Lodge has a program called "Masonic Relief" where a check is issued every month to Brothers and their widows who are destitute. In my state alone, there are over 500 recipients, most of whom are elderly and don't have anything but Social Security.

It is true that there probably are very few Masons who qualify as "poor", but I would venture that even fewer could be called "rich". Rich folks tend to join yacht clubs, not Freemasonry.


I am not speaking of what they say, I am speaking of how they act, they do not try and educate others about their inner truths and great knowledge, their enlightment. They keep that for themselfs.


But that isn't true at all. Freemasonry itself is a product of the Enlightenment, and embodied the principles of the Age of Enlightenment. For the past 300 years, Freemasons have been screaming this stuff at the top of their lungs. If nobody cares to listen, it isn't fair to blame us for not trying.



I would guess their is a method taught on how to answer questions.


Actually, it just comes from the inherent absurdity of two anonymous people arguing on the Internet. A friend of mine was commented that Internet debates are sort of like the Special Olympics: regardless who wins, he's still retarded.

There is much wisdom in that methinks, but I don't see anything wrong with rational debate online.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Redge777
 


Hello Redge777,

thanks for the challenging debate you set up. I will state that you neednt mistake my personal beliefs with the beliefs of freemasonry. I personally indeed do not believe in socialism. Notice the smiley symbol I placed beside my comment on the working class? I made that comment to spark your flame a bit.
Plenty of masons do believe in socialism, but I dont. Call me an elitist, captitalist, whatever you want, but there you go.

As far as the rest goes, I would like to point to my original intent of this thread: To state that, as far as I can tell, there is no masonic "illuminati conspiracy" happening. As far as I can tell that is. If you find out more than me, I will acknowledge that.

Concerning your claim that we amass power and riches: Just the other day I borrowed a fellow mason of mine some money so that he could pay his rent. That was a REALITY situation compared to pre-conceived ideas.

Granted, the points you make are somewhat valid in a certain context. But it is not really your points I disagree with. I disagree with all the literature on satanic illuminati ritual-abuse reptilian freemasons and how people are misled to believe that me and my fellow brethren are drug-trafficing pedophiles hell-bent on blood and gold. You are defending a position I never really questioned.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


well alright. fair enough.

I cannot claim to know the activities of other masons or the overall agenda. I can only speak for myself and what I observed. Personally I dont care much for being sneaky and taking advantage of connections. Not once have I used anyone to facilitate a business deal. Id actually feel embarrassed to do so.

While I cannot claim to know the overall agenda of freemasonry, I can claim to know more about it than many people who claim to know. I have heard my share of outrageous allegations which I know for a fact that cant be true.

[edit on 28-9-2007 by Skyfloating]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   
You are the kind of member they should be looking for. I'd imagine most Masons are OK people. I'm sure there are many pluses or so many would not join. I won't feel any less fulfilled if I die not knowing Masonry's deep dark secrets



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Masons are not above average in income. The vast majority of our membership have average middle class incomes. Most Masons are *not* businessmen. We have initiated about 10 new members in my Lodge this year. None were business owners, one was a firefighter, one was a plumber, one was a high school history teacher, and a couple were truck drivers.

all though numbers differ I got info from this source. www.bls.gov...
You chose the group to prove you are a cross section of society, yet the examples that should show below average income are actually also above average, just think how high it goes when you add in lawyers, Investors, and doctors.

Average all $41,231
Firefighter $48,475
Plumer $46,809
Teacher $47,208
Truck driver $34,604 (exception)



But that isn't true at all. Freemasonry itself is a product of the Enlightenment, and embodied the principles of the Age of Enlightenment. For the past 300 years, Freemasons have been screaming this stuff at the top of their lungs. If nobody cares to listen, it isn't fair to blame us for not trying.

They have been screaming what? Many of the ideas of the enlightenment were considered heretical
I am speaking rational over spiritual.

The information they feel is acceptable for the common people to know, omitting what is left only for the elites. If they wanted to spread their thoughts with everyone(Jefferson) they would socialize with everyone.



There is much wisdom in that methinks, but I don't see anything wrong with rational debate online.

It has no down side, it offers me the ability to find where I am wrong and refine my opinions, I commonly hope for people to show me wrong, some of my conclusions are not as bright as I wish the world to be, and it is great mental exercise.

And you are not retarded, as I humbly have to say, I am also not. So that means your friend is, bring him into the discussion we will destroy his argument about that
hehe

[edit on 29-9-2007 by Redge777]




top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join