The USA was founded by Secret Societies and Not Christianity.

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
The goal of the NWO which should be called the Old World Order because the conspiracy goes back centuries is to unite all the old religions with Christianity as stated before to create a one world religion to go with a one world government.


Even if you were correct about the religion thing, I still don't see what that has to do with government. The USA was founded upon the concept of freedom of religion, and separation of church and state.

However, I do think it should be pointed out that Christianity has *always* incorporated pagan elements. The Trinity, for example, is a pagan notion, if by "pagan" you mean pre-Christian. Plato expounded upon the Trinity long before the birth of Jesus, and the Gispel of John refers to him as "Logos", a term first used by Plato to describe an element in the Trinity.




posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by LDragonFire
The goal of the NWO which should be called the Old World Order because the conspiracy goes back centuries is to unite all the old religions with Christianity as stated before to create a one world religion to go with a one world government.


Even if you were correct about the religion thing, I still don't see what that has to do with government. The USA was founded upon the concept of freedom of religion, and separation of church and state.


Then why all of the symbolism in our society, coincidence? I think not. Perhaps it was freedom from certain religions, like Christianity, Europe was ruled for how many centuries between Monarch's plus the church, it's quite a effective way to enforce ones political and social objectives. If the people embrace this NWO religion, the safe guards will fall away.

The Roman Empire, before it converted to Christianity was a Pagan society, all one had to do was look at the statues and architecture, now look at ours.


However, I do think it should be pointed out that Christianity has *always* incorporated pagan elements. The Trinity, for example, is a pagan notion, if by "pagan" you mean pre-Christian. Plato expounded upon the Trinity long before the birth of Jesus, and the Gispel of John refers to him as "Logos", a term first used by Plato to describe an element in the Trinity.


The Trinity is most definitely Pagan I have a thread about it here A contradiction in the bible And IMHO it's the first attempt by the NWO to blend the religions, and they did it quite successfully.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by LDragonFire]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire

Then why all of the symbolism in our society, coincidence? I think not. Perhaps it was freedom from certain religions, like Christianity, Europe was ruled for how many centuries between Monarch's plus the church, it's quite a effective way to enforce ones political and social objectives.


I think your analogy is flawed. Secularism in Europe is increasing, the only population that is typically experiencing postive population growth is Muslims. At one time your statement would have held true, however, the Church's influence is weak at best in Europe and Monarchy has little or no power in government policy. These facts hold true for almost all European countries. If an over-arching group had intended to control Europes direction through religion they have failed somewhat miserably.


If the people embrace this NWO religion, the safe guards will fall away.


They operative word in that statement is if. As I asserted above more and more people are falling away from religion. Whether you feel this is a negative aspect or not is not relavent, there has been a large shift towards secularism in the past decades.


The Roman Empire, before it converted to Christianity was a Pagan society, all one had to do was look at the statues and architecture, now look at ours.


While the Romans did indeed worship their pagan idols and gods, we incorporate them into our sybolism purely for what they abstractly embody. This can easily be seen on the Capitol rotunda with the depiction of a female figure as the symbolic representation of America herself. This allegorical figure interacts with other representations from history and does not mean we worhsip a pagan image of our country, she merely embodies the image of America as an abstract concept.

Our use of these figures is everywhere, Liberty and Justice being two more widely known emblems. As LightinDarkness pointed out earlier, these incorporations are common throught history as a new society uses the embelishments of an older one to 'glorify' their own achivements and history. It is symbolism for historical use and not an overt presentation or endorsement of past religions.



[edit on 26-12-2007 by AugustusMasonicus]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


Ho hum. I wish there had been more to this thread when I read the OP. Like others have said, there is nothing elusive or secretive with respect to this subject. I am wondering if you ever checked Google and searched the phrase that you used for this post? With regards to your question, there is nothing that you have hypothesized that is original (including those pics you lifted!) Try searching this: America founded freemasons not christianity

Also, be sure to check out Dr. Robert R. Hieronimus, who wrote Founding Fathers, Secret Societies, or David Ovason who wrote The Secret Architecture of Our Nation's Capital and The Secret Symbolism of the Dollar Bill. Both men are considered to be experts in this subject area.

(But hey, did you know that if you unfurl the banner that the Eagle is holding on the Great Seal, it says, "I bury Paul.")




posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


Yet another non-sequitur. How is using architecture from "great societies" some sort of pagan agenda? You have yet to explain this, you simply proclaim it so. You do realize that in Rome Christianity became the official religion, and spawned the Holy Roman Empire?

You seek for patterns so hard that you will most assuredly find them. Do you not realize that the law givers and legal philosophers of other nations can be used as symbols in a painting without any hidden syncretic agenda? Especially when such legal philosophers are not associated with their religion, but their philosophy. We do not study Plato because of his religion, we study him because if his philosophy. His religious views - while no doubt interesting - are not something that is heavily studied. Do you know why? Because people can study people from other cultures and times without having to believe in their religion. Shocking!

You still have not shown how the USA was founding by some NWO cabal. You have shown pictures of monuments - which I and others have explained in the context of history - and have simply declared that this is the work of the NWO. I still await any proof on this.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Christianity itself, as I keep pointing out, is originally Gnostic.

Yehoshuah himself, who, like Moses, was learned in all the Wisdom of the Egyptians; would also have been a Pythagorean Essene, Buddhist, etc.


Some of the 'Founding Fathers' were indeed Rosicrucian Gnostics.


It seems to me that a Great Master of the White Lodge, Francis Bacon(St. Germain), meant to help establish a Philosophic Empire based on Freedom, Justice, and Equality(Moorish Science = Gnosis):






Sir Francis Bacon, Rosicrucian, Moors and the Spanish Inquisition


Now back to Sir Francis Bacon. Francis Bacon is a man that every Moor should know about. He was the guiding spirit behind the whole colonization scheme, as seen on this Newfoundland stamp (Right). He was involved with the unseen secret origins of America. This man, Francis Bacon, is also the a key founder and organizer of the speculative freemasonry lodge system as we know it today.

Francis Bacon was the head of a secret society who used the name "William Shakespeare" as a pen name to put out certain information while at the same time remain anonymous. They were backed openly and secretly by King James the VI of Scotland who later became King James I of Britain. The Arabic translation of James is Yakub.

The secret society headed by Bacon was none other that the original Rosicrucians and Francis Bacon is none other than the personage known as Christian Rosencruz, the said founder of the Rosicrucians. It was this group that put together the freemasonic lodge system we see today. Francis Bacon was taught by the Moors and studied Moorish science. The reason for their secrecy is that they were secretly fighting against the Catholic church which was persecuting the Moors and anyone who studied or practiced Moorish science (via the inquisition). Moorish science is based on the code of mathematics scaling from zero to nine (0-9), the science of zodiac, and geometry, all employed using scientific method. This science was also called Kabbalah in Europe during this time.





The Black Lodge(also known now as Zionism) must have been trying to infiltrate the founding of this Philosophic Empire of the Illuminati("The Order of the Illuminati, represented by Mohammad, prophet of Islam") from the very beginning...

....thus all of the genocide, slavery, etc. that went on(and is still going on because of the Black Lodge).


I really doubt that the Muslim-Sons of the White Lodge would have wanted to see things like the Federal Reserve, Central Bank, IRS, Walmart, McDonalds, Chevron, support of the Israeli government, nuclear bombs, etc., etc., etc.




[edit on 26-12-2007 by Tamahu]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Tamahu
 


Out of sheer curosity, is there even one thing that you will not somehow - some way - relate to gnosticism? I'm going to be starting a interdisciplinary PhD in religion and political science next year. Your posts have inspired me to do a research journal article or two on the new zealotry of gnosticism.

We also, of course, await your evidence on how "the black lodge" (which you have called Zionism) is responsible for everything. You keep writing stuff like that - I point it out - then you backpedal and say I'm taking you out of context. It is becoming comical.

Its hard for anyone to a hold a discussion with you on the substance of what you say because you will find some random quote from someone to support what you say - there is no foundational doctrine from which to question you. Its a faith system that is built in such a manner that it cannot be critically examined. This is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of a majority of religious studies scholarship.

I am fine with you believing on blind faith that gnosticism is the answer to all things, but I just wanted go ahead and pre-empt what will turn into you accusing me of "insulting you" for reminding you of all the above. Its not an insult, its me recognizing that sometimes there is not one answer to everything. I do not use Christianity to form the basis of EVERYTHING because while I believe it to be true, it is not a foundation from which logically valid points can be made on subjects like this.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
This thread is about whether the founding father's were Christian are not.

I was pointing out that many of them were Christian.


Many of the Masonic founding fathers of this country claimed to be Deist, which, from a Kabbalistic perspective, is reconcilable with Christian Gnosis(beside the fact that very much of Masonic symbolism cannot be separated from Christian symbolism). Religious Scriptures are of Divine Revelation only in that the Prophets who wrote them derived the Wisdom from their own personal experience or Gnosis.



In England, the term deist first appeared in Robert Burton's The Anatomy of Melancholy (1621)



Robert Burton was certainly a Rosicrucian Gnostic.



And what do you mean by "random quote".

The quote was from a Moorish website, the information of which agrees with my Gnostic and Islamic studies, and also what I've learned from the writings of Manly P. Hall.

So what? Why do my posts get to you so much?




[edit on 26-12-2007 by Tamahu]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Tamahu
 


Oh trust me, your posts don't get to me. Before you, I never saw a Gnostic with such zealous fervor.

You continue to you use non-sequiturs in your attempts to relate all things to gnosticism. Many people are deists, but not Gnostics. This is a common logical fallacy you use where one condition is necessary but not sufficient for a progressive characteristic, but the opposite analogy is invalid. Deism is a necessary but not sufficient characteristic of gnosticism. The opposite is NOT true. Gnosticism is NOT a necessary or sufficient characteristic of Deism.

Turning the founding fathers into Gnostics is perhaps the most perverted attempt at altering historical reality that I've ever seen you do. The founding fathers were deists and several different flavors of Christianity - none of them were gnostics. If you can find one scrap of historical evidence to support this perversion of history, let me know. By the way, I mean an actual source that would be accepted as valid by a peer reviewed academic journal - not a new age website.

As for everything else - more of the same, baseless claims based on a faith that cannot be proven. You have every right to believe it, but like everyone else's religion - it is fact only in your reality.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
The misunderstanding comes from the fact that you keep trying to limit Gnosis to being a particular sect, as opposed to seeing it in the context of it's actual meaning; the latter sense of which I'm referring to.

That you fail to see this, given the wide range of information that I've been sharing in regard to it; shows that your opposing stance is based on prejudice more than anything else.

If you have issues with particular points that are made within my posts, then by all means, offer some information that is contrary to said particular points.

But please stop criticizing my posts just because you apparently don't like the term Gnosis and because you think that I'm trying to push some sort of particular sect.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Tamahu
 


The misunderstanding comes from the fact that your religious dogma tries to make everything gnostic, as opposed to seeing it as one faith based worldview from which some people see the world.

That you fail to see this, even after giving lots of misinformation and cherry picking quotes of which anyone could find other information that directly contradicts every quote you have provided, shows your opposing stance is based on religious zealotry more than anything else.

If you have issues with historical reality, then by all means, actually provide evidence and understand that the burden of proof is on you to prove outrageous claims, not me to disprove them.

But please stop derailing topics with your posts because you apparently don't understand Gnosis and because you think that your flavor of religious zealotry is the answer to all things.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
By the way, I mean an actual source that would be accepted as valid by a peer reviewed academic journal - not a new age website.



Oh, so now the the information derived from the Moorish Scientists, Albert Pike, Samael Aun Weor, Robert Burton, Manly P. Hall, and St. Germain(the real one, not the channelled version) are no better than "new age" websites?


LMAO @ "academic journal".

If the "experts" knew much of anything, this world wouldn't be as deep in this disgusting mess that it now finds itself in.





Our disciples must carefully avoid reading too many newspapers. In a banquet for journalists of an independent press in New York, a journalist clearly and forthrightly stated the following:

"We (journalists) are intellectual prostitutes." * John Swinton, New York 1890.

Therefore, it is not convenient to read too many newspapers, unless we want to prostitute our minds. - The Major Mysteries





"Academic" resources are sometimes useful for general information.

But they are almost always prostituted by the agendas of the greedy.



[edit on 26-12-2007 by Tamahu]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Tamahu
 


Careful, your revealing how you manipulate historical evidence to make it fit your religious dogma. The works of Albert Pike, Hall, etc. are works of philosophy. We've been through this before - but since you never read anything that you don't agree with - I'll go through this again.

There is only one type of philosophy that is by its very definition valid - analytical philosophy. Analytical philosophy, which uses logical analysis and steps of reasoning to come to a conclusion is academic philosophy and is the overwhelming focus of research in the area. Other areas of philosophy, including foundationalism, use fallacious arguments and circular reasoning to simply declare X or Y is true without evidence or reason. This type of philosophy includes writers who you so often quote.

That you find people who declare X or Y to be true is neither unsurprising nor proof or evidence for anything. They are the opinions of one person, based on their view of the world. They do not provide evidence for their views, they simply declare something to be true by some divine mandate. That is fine, but it is not proof for the sweeping generalizations you use them to make.

Your dislike of academic journals shows just how low your standards of evidence actually are. Not to mention that in reality academic journals are extremely liberal, and would be far more likely to accept gnosticism than any other valid source. Who do you think funds the whores on the new age gnostic websites?

Also, the fact that you think there is any relationship between academic journals and journalists literally caused me to laugh out loud. You literally have no idea what you are talking about. The New York Times, BBC, etc. is not an academic journal. Such ignorance, it amazes me. How old are you? Have you actually been to college? In any case, thanks for proving my point with your continued cherry picking of quotes - this time, in completely the wrong context too! Comical...



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I know the difference.

I was referring to journalism in general, "academic" or otherwise.

Just about every form of journalism is corrupted, not only by the profane, but by conscious manipulators as well.

But of course there are a few individuals out there who are still brave enough to speak truth, despite Zionist Federal Reserve promissory notes.





Originally posted by LightinDarkness
But please stop derailing topics with your posts



Don't even try to turn that around on me.

YOU derailed this thread.


This thread is about the foundation of America in relation to Christian and Masonic symbolism.

Then you turned it into a debate about the validity of Gnostic sources, instead of addressing any of the specific information offered.




[edit on 26-12-2007 by Tamahu]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Tamahu
 


There is no connection between journalism and academic journals. None. At all. One is popular media where journalists write articles for popular consumption with editorial review by someone who is not an expert in the subject matter and seeks to publish articles based on sensationalism. The other is a peer reviewed process through which scholars research issues and are then subjected to a scathing review process by multiple subject matter experts multiple times before the article can be published - and such articles are subjected to critique and review by other academics globally.

But I understand why you try to make such fallacious connections - because it is the only way you can rationalize having no peer reviewed evidence for your outrageous claims. Because there are none. Because it is simply not true.

You are the one who derailing this post by making the fallacious and factually WRONG rant about how the founding fathers were Gnostics - because to you, the answer to everything is gnosticism. Stop.

You continue to turn everything into gnosticism using sources which cannot be proven BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT FACTUAL SOURCES! They are peoples opinion, not based in facts, reasoning, or logic. You post "the sky is green" and expect someone to argue with you that the sky is blue. I cannot, because your perception of reality is so distorted there is no way I could convince you. Yes, I could find quotes from people saying "the sky is blue" - but they are not gnostic, so you would not take them as the truth. Again - burden of proof - learn about it.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   
If an academic journal doesn't fall under the term journalism, then my mistake.

And I'm willing to concede to the fact that acedemic journals are usually based on relatively more-intelligent observations, than they are on the sensationalism of newspapers, TV news, etc.


But here's an example of what I'm talking about: "subject matter experts".

I've noticed that those who fall under such titles are often-times just as closed minded as your posts. Again, it goes back to that Eurocentric mindstate which considers itself "scientific", "FACTUAL" and at the Center of the Universe; while considering everything else to be inferior, dogmatic, superstitious, etc.

Francis Bacon himself, a very scientifc man, realized the value of the Wisdom of the Ancients, without scoffing at it.

Probably the main reason he didn't use the term Gnosis openly, is because he did not want to catch too much attention from the fanatical "Church".


Anyway, this thread is about the foundation of America, not on the general validity of Gnostic sources on it.

So please, either address particular points about my first post in this thread, or don't address me anymore at all.




[edit on 26-12-2007 by Tamahu]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Tamahu
 


Your rhetoric yet again shows your lack of evidence for anything. You don't even know there is no connection between media journalism and academic journals. You call people close-minded because they demand you show valid evidence for your dogma IF you are going to insist that your dogma is the answer to all things. How unsurprising that you cannot do so, but that I do not take your dogma as truth MUST mean I am close minded.

You see? More rhetoric, no substance. You will find no valid evidence because there is none. Yours is a religion, like all others - but unlike others, you claim that your religion is the answer to everything. The problem is you have no evidence, logic, facts, or reason, to endorse your ideology.

Who gets to determine what IS the wisdom of the ancients? You, of course. Who is it that gets to determine who is gnostic (everyone) and who is not (everyone who explicitly disagrees with you)? You, of course. Who is it that gets to decide what people "really" mean when they writing despite lacking any evidence, logic, or reason for your assumptions and leaps of logic? You, of course.

I have already addressed your points. Read again. That you disagree with them isn't my fault. As I have previously stated though, you don't read that which you disagree with, but I'll copy and paste for you again:



You continue to you use non-sequiturs in your attempts to relate all things to gnosticism. Many people are deists, but not Gnostics. This is a common logical fallacy you use where one condition is necessary but not sufficient for a progressive characteristic, but the opposite analogy is invalid. Deism is a necessary but not sufficient characteristic of gnosticism. The opposite is NOT true. Gnosticism is NOT a necessary or sufficient characteristic of Deism.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   
By your logic, you are doing the exact same thing.

Nothing but rhetoric.

You keep talking about producing "evidence". What exactly constitutes "evidence" other than the opinions of "subject matter experts"?

What makes them "experts"? Why are their sources more valid?

What does any of this stuff you keep bringing up have anything to do with this thread?


And I haven't asked or told you to accept anything.

You just started attacking my post for no reason; without even offering an alternative view.





[edit on 26-12-2007 by Tamahu]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Tamahu
 


Yet again, another catastrophic failure on your part to understand the meaning of "burden of proof."

Lets review.

When you propose something, it is up to you to provide the evidence for your proposal. It is not up to me to prove your proposal, which you provide without evidence, is wrong. You must prove it is correct. I cannot prove something is wrong when it is so absurd that there will be no proof to demonstrate it is wrong. For example, you will find no proof that there are not huge flying cows that come out and fly around the sun at sunset. How could you prove me wrong if I were to make this claim? You could not. It is up to me to provide evidence that there are indeed huge flying cows that encircle the sun as it sets.

Evidence is not a complicated concept at all - it is only difficult for those who have no evidence to provide. To prove that gnosticism is the answer to everything in this instance, you would of course need some historical proof from people who you claim are gnostic. This could include writing samples, or other direct historical sources who validate this claim. This would not include using logical fallacies and gnostic writings who do not actually prove anything they say, but just claim X or Y to be true.

Yet again, AS I PREDICTED ORIGINALLY:



...I just wanted go ahead and pre-empt what will turn into you accusing me of "insulting you" for reminding you of all the above. Its not an insult, its me recognizing that sometimes there is not one answer to everything...


Your so predictable, its funny.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
The only reason you got "accused of insulting me" is because you attacked my post. You can't say that you didn't attack it.

Anyway, who cares about the "burden of proof"? Who made that law?

Who has really "proved" anything?

The purpose of discussion is to share knowledge, experiential or accumulated, and let people utilize that knowledge if they want, in order to conduct further investigation.

If you you're so concerned with "proof" then proof away.

What have you really "proved" here anyway?




[edit on 26-12-2007 by Tamahu]





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join