Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The USA was founded by Secret Societies and Not Christianity.

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   




posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Tamahu
 


More proof for everyone to see. When you ask our resident Gnostic for evidence about his assertions, he calls you names and insults your faith. A faith which I am not, by the way, using to justify everything - which is what he is doing.

Good job, thanks for proving my point.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   
No, you just keep showing the sad, sad state that contemporary "Grand Lodge" Freemasonry is in.

Trying to hide truth from the 85%.


But I guess that's your job as the 10%.





[edit on 26-12-2007 by Tamahu]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Good thread, OP.

If Secret Societies did establish U/S, then it's more likely that they contributed to establishing it, along with the people (citizens) contributing to it.

Either way, I still give a n/j to S/S.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Tamahu
 


See? Yet more proof that you can't provide logic or evidence behind anything you say. When I ask you for evidence, all you do is insult me, then my fraternal affiliations. This speaks volumes for gnosticism - great job!


I don't even have to insult you back, your writing speaks for itself. And the TRUTH is clear for EVERYONE to see. Thanks!


[edit on 26-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
This speaks volumes for gnosticism - great job!



Nonetheless, all the most intelligent authors on Freemasonry recognize Masonry's origins as a Gnostic branch.


You do the knowldge on that. Then you'll have no choice but to recognize Gnosis.

Or abandon Freemasonry; that is, if you finally recognize that it cannot be separated from Gnosticism and still choose to ridicule the latter.


But I have a feeling that many Freemasons know that what I'm saying here is true, but continue to keep the masses in the dark anyway.


That's Tricknowledge son.





[edit on 26-12-2007 by Tamahu]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Tamahu
 


While that is a striking similarity the use of the eagle as a national symbol has been employed by many cultures and countries throughout history and I do not think it can be construed strictly as a Gnostic emblem. It may have a basis or foundation in Gnosticism but in my opinion the eagle used in American currency and seals is more of a western derivative.

At the founding of the Republic our fore-fathers had the ideals and visions of the great western democracies at the fore. The Greek and Roman governmental system and laws gave much to the design of our own systems and codices. Any inherent symbolism may be taken from the Founding Fathers desire to emulate these societies. The Romans soldiers diefied and worshiped their aquilas or eagle-standards as the embodiement of their legions ability to fight and conquer and consequently they enshrined these standards wherever the army found itself encamped.

The United States uses the eagle for numerous purposes but in no way is it treated the same as our Roman ancestors treated theirs. Instead it has been co-opted for new meanings and purposes and to express different ideals while symbolically representing our nation.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tamahu
Trying to hide truth from the 85%.


But I guess that's your job as the 10%.



I guess the other 5% are here at ATS posting


At anyrate, please stay on topic and lets keep it nice and friendly folks.

Thanks
Fred

[edit on 12/26/07 by FredT]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Thank you for that respectful post AugustusMasonicus.


Can't say that I necessarily agree with all of it; but it was at least informative, and certainly beats getting ridiculed.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Tamahu
 


Playing the victim (as you did with your above post) is another logical fallacy. Its also another form of argument ad populam, which people normally use when they know they are presenting something that lacks evidence. Its attempt to cause a "gang on" effect on the person you are opposed to. It often works in these forums, but I know what your doing. And I'm exposing you for it.

Who is it that gets to define who the most intelligent masonic authors are? You? You simply define them as anyone who agrees with your religious dogma. That is not enough for me.

Masonry has origins in many systems of faith and ritual. It would be foolish to deny that gnosticism is one influence among many. However, you have claimed before that it is THE fount of masonry - which you have provided no evidence for, and which only the most radical gnostic authors will agree on (who, like you, think everything is gnostic).

I do not recognize gnosticism because it is not my religion and it is not the fount and reason of all masonry. Masonry does not require I recognize it nor tell me it is correct - because masonry has no opinions on religion except that its members should worship their own God.

And this continued argument ad populam logical fallacy that you just made for "most masons" shows the weakness in your argument.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tamahu

Can't say that I necessarily agree with all of it; but it was at least informative,


May I ask what part or parts you did not agree with?


and certainly beats getting ridiculed.


I am not feeling ridiculous today.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
Playing the victim (as you did with your above post) is another logical fallacy. Its also another form of argument ad populam, which people normally use when they know they are presenting something that lacks evidence. Its attempt to cause a "gang on" effect on the person you are opposed to. It often works in these forums, but I know what your doing. And I'm exposing you for it.





Is the following, a personal shot(after you claimed that you didn't insult), what you consider "evidence"?




Originally posted by LightinDarkness
reply to post by Tamahu
 


Oh trust me, your posts don't get to me. Its like studying animals in the wild - every now and then there is one that acts so oddly that it can become the source of an entirely new research project.





Oh I forgot, the "burden of proof" is on me.




[edit on 26-12-2007 by Tamahu]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Tamahu
 


Ah yes, even more evidence for the entire board to see that you have no evidence for what you postulate. You completely ignored my entire post - again. Because you can't answer the questions. You'd much rather spend time arguing with me over things of no substance.

That reply was a response to a specific question you asked (You said "Do I get to you?") about why I responded to your gnostic posts. You shouldn't ask people if you don't want an answer. You also conveniently took that out of context (per your normal tactics) because the exact next statement said put the situation in context: I have never observed a gnostic (and I know a few, having studied religion in college) that is as zealous about their religion and generalizing it to everything, so your interesting to me.

But of course, it is far easier to try to take me out of context and insult me than to actually, you know, provide evidence for your assertions.


Now, would you like to continue derailing this with your logical fallacies and attempts to get a band-wagon going against me, or stop? I vote for the later, but it's up to you.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Wrong again sir.


I simply offer what I've studied, and if others want to take it into consideration, fine; if not, fine.


Or they can offer any contrary information, to any of the points I've attempted to make(as AugustusMasonicus has done for example). But this, you have not done.

You only keep asking me to "prove" everything to you(which I've never really had any desire to do in the first place), instead of staying on-topic.




[edit on 26-12-2007 by Tamahu]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Constantine, council of Nicea heretics and all, what would Jesus do?



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Tamahu
 


You are free to "offer what you've studied" - but you get upset and angry when someone asks you to provide evidence for what are by any account wide and sweeping generalizations. If you do not like it, sorry - I'm not stopping. I am here offering what I've studied in logic and philosophy.

You still do not understand the burden of proof principle. I actually said the exact same thing Augustus did - he even mentioned me in one of his posts about the same thing earlier - but because you are so blinded by hatred and anger, you don't seem to actually read anything.

If you do not see the need to prove outrageous assumptions, I again offer the following observation:



Gnosticism is in my opinion nothing but a doctrine hijacked by neo-natzi disinformation agents for use as a tool that bashes jews, homosexuals, and Christianity.


And don't you dare ask me to prove it. I shouldn't have to offer evidence for my assertions -after all, you don't!

The urge to be right is so strong in you. I again offer you the opportunity to do so - I hope this time you take it.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   

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


Must have struck a nerve.



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.


When I first started researching these groups I was assuming they didn't come to be until sometime during the Dark Ages, But now I think they go back thousands of years, possibly up to 6000 years ago.


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?


That would depend on whether you like the world the way it is? Some will say the West is already controlled by these groups. It's not always human nature to be Good, but it seems to me this is about power, greed, and just control, so I would say if they ever achieve their goals it will be bad for most people. Then again perhaps they envision a Star Trek future, but can we get that lucky?


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


My cable company had to replace my outside cable a few minutes ago, I will post Much more in the morning. I hate starting a thread then gettin booted offline!

But really the closer someone gets to the possible truth, the more heated the discussion , if it was just crap, who would waste their energy posting!

I'm thinking the Freemasons built the pyramids, All of them, with their alignments perhaps there is something to energies that they are able to use.

Before the USA revolted from England, what our ancestors did was unheard of in human history, and created a spark heard around the world that continues to this day, and I do think our creation was for a nefarious purpose, or at least a purpose.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


Oh trust me, it takes a lot more than this to strike a nerve. Especially because this sort of thing has been posted...and debunked...at least three separate times that I can remember.

I do not know about these "other secret societies," but I do know that masonry only goes back a few hundred years, at best. There is historical proof of where, when, and how masonry in its current speculative state formed. Of course it is not really a secret society, but I've given up on pointing out that this presumption in these sorts of threads is quite simply wrong.

You have not shown that these "groups" are "controlling" anything. If I put up a huge obelisk in my backyard, does this prove that I am controlling the neighborhood? No, it proves that I have a rather odd taste in making my backyard reminiscent of ancient Egypt. Of course, you still have not proven these groups even put up some of these symbols. Your making a logical leap of incredibly huge proportions.

If you think the freemasons built the pyramid, where is your evidence? What about the fact that speculative masonry or even guild masonry is only a few hundred years old? Wheres your proof? Reason? Logic?

This sort of logic that if anyone disagrees or posts about your topic that its proof its true baffles me. Its such a logical non-sequitur and so obviously wrong I am unsure of what to say. If I post that LDragonFire is really a 360 degree mason that is a disinformation agent and is trying to deflect from the truth that reptilians are controlling the world - would you reply or just let me post it? The fact that its all completely wrong doesn't matter, after all, someone would reply, SO IT MUST MEAN ITS TRUE!



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   
This has never been debunked just refuted!



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Tetragrammaton
 


Actually its been completely debunked. Not in this thread..quite right...because its happened multiple times before and in different threads.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join