The USA was founded by Secret Societies and Not Christianity.

Wow....just....wow. What is up with all the haters posting on this thread?

Anyways...this will be in response to the OP and not to the off-topic debate that has been spawned in this thread.

OP, I would like to get your opinion on a few things on this topic. How old do you believe these secret societies are? At the moment, I have no proof of this but I have reason to suspect that they are much older than most people think they are.

Also, to what purpose are they trying to bring about the one world government and one world religion? Do you believe their motives are good natured or nefarious?

Ignor the haters and naysayers. I think this is a great topic.

[edit on 12/26/2007 by Lightmare]

And I've also, LiD, provided plenty of writing-samples(in this thread or at least others) from all of the Rosicrucian/Masonic/Gnostic historians I've mentioned in this thread; and also those of Godfrey Higgins(a Mason, Druid, and Gnostic himself), among others.


So what's the problem?




[edit on 26-12-2007 by Tamahu]

Has anyone noticed the detail on the eye on at the top of the pyramid on the back of a one dollar bill? The skin has an odd pattern to it as well as the pupil. If you look closely you can see rings in the eye, some complete and some only half circles. The whole thing is odd looking.

www.flickr.com...

[edit on 12/26/07 by rezial666]

reply to post by Tamahu


Who cares about burden of proof? Who made that law? Only people who actually argue with logic and reason. You are beyond absurd if you do not understand why burden of proof exists.

Since you want to disregard burden of proof: I believe gnosticism is a neo-natzi disinformation agent tool used to divert attention from reality by making everything gnostic. In doing so the agents use the tool to bash everything form the jews to homosexuals to Christianity in general. Prove me wrong Tamahu. Remember, burden of proof doesn't matter.

It has been proven you have nothing from which to back up your spin. You have told us the foundering fathers were gnostics, yet have not shown anything from their writing where they declare themselves to be so or otherwise support a gnostic doctrine. What you have shown is quotes from gnostics who want everyone else to be gnostic. As I have AGAIN previously stated, this is not proof. Using a biased source which simply DECLARES X or Y to be true is not valid.

All of this "this is a discussion" is just a red herring. You do realize lots of people everywhere, including most people on this board, discuss things using evidence and logic. That you refuse to do so and are called out on it does not mean its no longer a discussion.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]

I've also just noticed your double-standard, LiD.

If you say that something is wrong(yes, you did say that I'm just flat-out wrong), then the "burden of proof" is also on you as well.


So, where's your "proof"?



[edit on 26-12-2007 by Tamahu]

reply to post by Tamahu


Another catastrophic failure on your part. I never said anything was wrong. Nice try. Yet again, you have no proof, evidence, logic, or reason for anything you say. We're waiting.

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
I never said anything was wrong.

You didn't?

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT FACTUAL SOURCES! They are peoples opinion, not based in facts, reasoning, or logic.

reply to post by LightinDarkness


You said, "The fact that Moses is CENTRAL in the relief is clearly a religious respect for the nature of the law"

Moses as a prince of Egypt and more probably a legend that came from Tutmoses a Pharaoh, although there are some who believe Moses was a Freemason, and that the commandments were designed not so much as religious dogma, but a "constitution" and form of law and order for the people.

reply to post by Tamahu


More spin. Saying something is not a facutal source doesn't mean its wrong. Perhaps you should buy a dictionary.

Main Entry:
wrong
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English wrang, from *wrang, adjective, wrong
Date:
before 12th century
1 a: an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause b: a violation or invasion of the legal rights of another; especially :

Main Entry:
fac·tu·al
Pronunciation:
\ˈfak-chə-wəl, -chəl, -chü-əl, ˈfaksh-wəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
fact + -ual (as in actual)
Date:
circa 1834
1 : of or relating to facts
2 : restricted to or based on fact
— fac·tu·al·i·ty \ˌfak-chə-ˈwa-lə-tē\ noun
— fac·tu·al·ly \ˈfak-chə-wə-lē, -chə-lē, -chü(-ə)-lē, ˈfaksh-wə-\ adverb
— fac·tu·al·ness noun

By the way -

Since you want to disregard burden of proof: I believe gnosticism is a neo-natzi disinformation agent tool used to divert attention from reality by making everything gnostic. In doing so the agents use the tool to bash everything form the jews to homosexuals to Christianity in general. Prove me wrong Tamahu. Remember, burden of proof doesn't matter.

I await your answer.

Originally posted by PhilltFred

...although there are some who believe Moses was a Freemason...

Who are these 'believers' you speak of? If Moses was actually an historic figure he would have predated the building of King Solomons temple-and the mythological founding of Freemasonry-by many centuries and possibly millenia. Can you direct me to your sources for this information?

[edit on 26-12-2007 by AugustusMasonicus]

Originally posted by rezial666
Has anyone noticed the detail on the eye on at the top of the pyramid on the back of a one dollar bill? The skin has an odd pattern to it as well as the pupil. If you look closely you can see rings in the eye, some complete and some only half circles. The whole thing is odd looking.

www.flickr.com...

[edit on 12/26/07 by rezial666]

Ah, that would most likely be an attempt to deter counterfeit currency. The reason there are so many odd patterns and such along the borders, and now the new bills have the new coloring and so forth, is so it is really hard to make a copy. Then again, it could have been the artist just wanted to add more details.

As for the OP..

Yes, some of the founding fathers where Masons, and they added quite a bit of Masonic imagery into various Federal buildings, and into the constitution its self believe it or not. Many of the ideas being put into action where Masonic philosophies in this enlightenment time period.

And yes, some of the founding fathers where Gnostic, and most some kind of Christian, and I believe there where a few Atheist as well.

All where well versed in history, and all believed they where apart of building an entirely new kind of government.

However..

Where the OP goes wrong is in saying that they imported "Pagan" ideas of some "satanic" nature to purposefully pervert Christianity.

Which is highly uneducated ignorance.

The United States is NOT strictly Christian, however our laws are Western in nature, and thus, Christian Judaic in origin. Just because not all of the founding fathers where strict Baptist does not mean their ideas are evil in any way what so ever, in fact, I would say the opposite.

So who cares if the founding fathers where Masons, Gnostics, Christian, Jewish or what have you, it makes no difference, they ideas where based on the time period of Enlightenment, Freedom, Liberty, Freedom of Religion, civil Rights, and the people governing the people without a ruling elite class.

Also, as a side note, it is actually some times better to NOT post pictures when it comes to this subject, because all posters post the same, non-Masonic pictures that 1. Have nothing to do with the Craft and 2. Have nothing to do with the topic.

reply to post by LightinDarkness

 

I await your answer.

Oh man, you're going to hit me with a dictionary, in order to justify your double-standard?

Main Entry: factual

Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: real
Synonyms: absolute, accurate, actual, authentic, card-carrying*, certain, circumstantial, close, correct, credible, descriptive, exact, faithful, genuine, hard, kosher*, legit*, legitimate, literal, objective, positive, precise, righteous, specific, sure, sure-enough*, true, true-to-life*, unadorned, unbiased, undoubted, unquestionable, valid, veritable

Antonyms: erroneous, false, fictitious, made up, untrue, wrong

[edit on 26-12-2007 by Tamahu]

reply to post by Tamahu


Nope, remember, burden of proof doesn't matter. You have to prove to me that I am wrong, and I have decided - like you - that everything that doesn't agree with me is an invalid source. After all - as you said - its just a "rule"! Something which is not factual means that it does not support the conclusion offered. The conclusion may still be true, but NOT based on the evidence you've given.

Since you want to disregard burden of proof: I believe gnosticism is a neo-natzi disinformation agent tool used to divert attention from reality by making everything gnostic. In doing so the agents use the tool to bash everything form the jews to homosexuals to Christianity in general. Prove me wrong Tamahu. Remember, burden of proof doesn't matter

It's just too easy.



Now, you can keep responding and derail the post further...or we can stop. Your choice.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
It's just too easy.

It's just too easy to catch your blatant lie.


You talk about the "burden of proof", but then try to deny the fact that once you assert that something is wrong(i.e. not factual), the burden of proof is also on you as well.

According to your line of reasoning, you're now just as responsible for "proving" my original post in this thread wrong, as I am for "proving" it right.


And maybe I don't want to "prove" that the Gnosis(Masonry), handed down from the Original Asiatic Black Man to the Occident, is not Neo-Nazism.



Like I've said:

Originally posted by Tamahu
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 would have said something like: "I won't agree with your assertions, unless you can provide absolute proof for them."


I would have said: "Fine."


And we could have perhaps stayed on topic, instead of watching your rants that are full of empty rhetoric over and over.



And who's the cheerleader following you around and giving a star to every one of your obnoxious posts by-the-way?




[edit on 26-12-2007 by Tamahu]

reply to post by Tamahu


Careful, your total lack of reason, evidence, and proof is showing - again. That people have seen through your lies and tactics should not surprise you. When will you get it?

And I don't stalk my own posts to see who gives me stars or not. I am glad that you are so obsessed with me that you noticed it. Whoever it is, (probably several people since everyone can see through your tactics ) - thanks!

By the way, I still want you to answer this:

You can stop at any time. Or you can continue derailing this thread.

Since you want to disregard burden of proof: I believe gnosticism is a neo-natzi disinformation agent tool used to divert attention from reality by making everything gnostic. In doing so the agents use the tool to bash everything form the jews to homosexuals to Christianity in general. Prove me wrong Tamahu. Remember, burden of proof doesn't matter.

Prove me wrong! I'm waiting. After all, the burden of proof principle doesn't matter.

Show me one of my supposed "lies".


And I'd only happened to notice that a little blue star coincides with every one of your posts in this thread. It just seems kind of silly, that's all.


Why can't you accept the fact that you are the one who originally derailed this thread?

Me thinks it is because you're trying to get the mods to think that it was my post that first derailed the thread; when, if you go back and look at it, is obviously not the case.




[edit on 26-12-2007 by Tamahu]

reply to post by Tamahu


This thread was started to assert the US was founded by the NWO and not Christianity. Your first post started out "Christianity itself, as I keep pointing out, is originally Gnostic." WHAT? Who cares? What does that have to do with the original topic? Nothing. Did anyone even say that Christianity was not originally Gnostic (it was not, but just for the sake of argument if someone did then you would have a valid point in bringing up your dogma)?

Again, you can stop at any time. I understand you have the overwhelming need to feel right and get the last word. It consumes you.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]

ANYWAY, back to the topic of this thread.




This is interesting:

Originally posted by LDragonFire

The Hermetic Sciences, and their symbols which have been used by Freemasons, are obviously Khemetic.


But then again, so is Christianity in its origins.


After all, as I've pointed, Moses was, according to the Torah itself, "learned in all of the Wisdom of the Egyptians".

Yehoshuah also spent much of his life in Egypt.

So why would Yehovah refer to the Gnosis that Musa had learned in Khemet, as "Wisdom", if it were not compatible with the Hebrew Kabbalistic teachings that Musa had taught, and learned as a Kemetian Priest himself; and also which he had learned from the Phoenicians?


(See: Ra Un Nefer Amen and Godfrey Higgins on Sanchoniatho or Sanchoniathon)




[edit on 26-12-2007 by Tamahu]

reply to post by Tamahu


The off-topic gnosis rant continues. I do applaud you for at least showing 2 pictures that showed similarity to the original post before beginning your normal "all things are gnosticism" rant.

I see nothing of note between the two pictures - there is nothing of material similarity. I do note the figures take the same stance, but this does not show any innate connection. What proof or evidence do you have to present that these two pictures are connected?

I see no evidence to suggest that either masonic symbols or Christianity are related to the "hermetic sciences" - where is your evidence for this? All you have presented is a verse in the bible, where you ASSUME that the "wisdom of the egyptians" MUST mean the hermetic sciences - do you have any valid sources for this?

Your assumption continues with the rest of the post. Also, obviously the Torah was written by several different people - the JEDP hypothesis, to be correct. All the phrase means is that either J, E, D, or P found something they liked in egypt that they called wisdom - there is no evidence to support this being gnosis, it could refer to any of innumerable things about egyptian society.


[edit on 26-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]

Absolutely!!! Advise you get the book, "Pawns in The Game" by William Carr..he hits the nail on the head. Good post.


reply to post by LDragonFire