All "Anti-Masons" read this

That's only because those Christians you refer to have been led down another path.

So what is your religion? Are you an aethiest, scientologist, mormon, what?

Godhead and the Holy Trinity

The Godhead is old English for Godhood, but it is entrenched in our language so that we stick to saying Godhead instead of Godhood. You understand the difference between man and manhood. A man is a masculine individual; manhood is the quality or condition of being a man. Likewise, Godhood is the quality or condition of being God. Deity, divinity are synonyms. When all else fails, look up words in a dictionary for definitions.

When the "persons" of the Deity are talking to one another, they appear to be separate and distinct. But not to the extent of being three gods. Ancient theologians used the word person to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because that is the word used to describe the roles in a drama: "personae dramatis" in Latin we still see in drama programs today. In Greek plays, one actor often would play several different roles by changing the mask (persona) he wore.

God actually plays many, many different roles in our lives; but "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" are the three the Scriptures consistently indicate are essential to His nature. It is utterly Biblical to say that God is one essence revealed in three different persons.


By the way, the Greek word in the Bible sometimes translated "person" really does mean entity or substance, not person. God is not three entities or substances or essences. He is one entity revealed in three persons, somewhat similar to one man being a father, husband, and counselor all at the same time. Except that God's three persons or roles can talk to one another as if they are three distinct persons. God can do things we can't. Surprise!

But I doubt if it's worth arguing about. The unbelieving world around us is turned off when Christians split hairs and quibble over mysterious stuff.

Also, beware of prooftexts taken out of context. For example, when Jesus described Himself as the First and the Last, I doubt whether He was making a point to refute the Trinity. It more like He is the Beginning and the End of everything essential (eternal) or the Author and Finisher of our faith.

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
I realize this hard for some people to understand: that sometimes, there really is nothing behind the curtain.

*edit* new thread

[edit on 30-12-2007 by NewWorldOver]

"I think alot of it is deep seeded fear, that this is all true." - Robert Dean"

True. I like your quote. Maybe that's the real power, fear? It can be quite intimidating. I mean think about it, you have a secret society that swears to a bunch of oaths to benefit one another of the craft. Doesn't that give them an advantage over you, who is on the outside looking in? And doesn't it always make you wonder if this person or that person is part of that secret society and make you ask yourself "Do I even have a chance"? Who controls what? I know for me personally, that all-seeing eye is quite intimidating. Am I in or am I out?

[edit on 30-12-2007 by spirit7]

[edit on 30-12-2007 by spirit7]

[edit on 30-12-2007 by spirit7]

[edit on 30-12-2007 by spirit7]

Originally posted by spirit7
"I think alot of it is deep seeded fear, that this is all true." - Robert Dean"
True. I like your quote.

I actually like the quote too, with the exception that there should be a space between "a" and "lot" as this is two words, not one.

I do think that fear of the unknown drives many of us as humans. This is reflected in the fear of Freemasonry, the non-existent Illuminati, the so-called "New World Order" and so forth. Somehow we as humans have been given so many rights (a good thing, by the way) that we believe we have the right to everything and this simply isn't so. Are there organizations with secrets, be they fraternities, corporations, governments, etc? Certainly. Do we have the RIGHT to know these secrets? Perhaps; perhaps not. Should we fear these organizations? Again, perhaps; perhaps not.

If we DO fear them simply because they have secrets, I suggest that we have a lot of free time on our hands that could be used more productively.

Just my $0.02.

Originally posted by Rockpuck


Why do you want me.. or anyone to be Christian? .. What is the drive to recruit people? WHY do you supposedly involve your self with other peoples affairs?

One of the primary bases of Christianity is the Great Commission, where Christ sends out his apostles into the world to make new disciples. This is all well and good, but the problem is that most of the evangelical fundamentalists I've seen don't really understand anything about it, and go about it the wrong way. Instead of gaining converts, they instead make enemies because of it, and then relish their feelings of "persecution".

reply to post by hexrain1


Uhh!

I Say It Before And I Say It Again:

Religion is for the non thinker
Religion is the easy way out!

Originally posted by robban
reply to post by hexrain1

 

Uhh!

I Say It Before And I Say It Again:

Religion is for the non thinker
Religion is the easy way out!

Odd. Religion involves quite a bit of thinking, especially thought of ones self. I always believed it was much easier to say "there is nothing out there, there is no God" then to have faith in a belief, and to trust it through all doubt.

Hey guys. i have been lurking on the site for a long time. and i thought i would put in my two cents. here is what i have seen. i have seen a 33rd or 32nd degree mason

reply to post by Echelon_angel


What a crock of #.

he would say G-d and ever other word in the book, he lived exactly how a preacher should not. but he was supposed to be leading people to God. Me and him talked quite a bit. and while i wont get into all that b/c it would just be to long, I know how to join the masons

OMG You found the secret method to joining??? ... Couldn't have been our slogan plastered everywhere, you know, "To be one ask one" .. I didn't even know a single person when I joined, reached out to complete strangers.

i know a lot of how it works and what not b/c i asked the right question to join. while i did not join, i came very close.

As in you did or you did not submit the application and go through the ritual. There is no "almost therefore I know something" you did or did not, and judging by your post you did not.

I also had a girlfriend for a long while who was in rainbows, she told me a lot as well. simply b/c SHE DID NOT CARE! and it was not until she asked the head mason a question for me that we broke up.

What is a Rainbow Girl supposed to keep secret? ...

i found that rather strange indeed. BUT i am not going to say EVERY mason is like him for that one i met that was like that i have met four or more that are good people that will help you how ever they can. I also know there are some really dark things that go on behind closed doors.

Hmmmm and what dark evil things do we evil people do behind our eeevvvilll doors?

I hope SOME ONE gets somewhere from this.

I for some reason get the impression you exist on this website under a different name, perhaps Spirit7? .. If not, you two have like minded (very narrow that is) and should get along.

reply to post by Echelon_angel


Wow. This is a classical example of someone using logical fallacies to try to paint a conclusion that is simply invalid.

The mason preacher you knew was also a man - he probably also had a political party. Does this mean that all men are bad, or all members of his political party are bad also? These sorts of characteristics have no bearing on what he teaches as a preacher. You have produced a classical association fallacy. I won't even get into the point that he was leading them the wrong way in YOUR opinion - which may not have been the opinion of the congregation.

Rainbows is not masonry, masonry is not rainbows. What your ex-girlfriend told you doesn't really matter. You obviously don't know much, since you "almost joined" - it means you in fact know almost nothing. No worries though, because everything about the fraternity is freely available for public consumption - and I mean everything. Look, and you will find nothing "dark."

By the way, this one sounds amazingly like Spirit7, as Rockpuck mentioned...

[edit on 31-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]

Well, as a way to ring-out 2007 and as as way to clearly demonstrate the meaning of plus ce changent, plus ce meme chose....

"Within a few weeks, the venerable head of a vast ecclesiastical system has affirmed that Freemasons were the prime movers in the work of uniting Italy under one government. And it is added as a matter for grief that "free thought and the Masonic authority have been set up," and that the new state of things is "openly directed by the sect which is the enemy of God." If Masons were chiefly or largely instrumental in freeing Italy from the tyrants who kept her people ignorant, superstitious and enslaved, the fact is one of which all Masons ought to be proud. But to assert that the Masonic body is "the enemy of God" is to assert that which will bring a smile to the face of every man who has knowledge of the facts. The more prominent members of the Masonic bodies of Hamilton are well known: are they men whom the public would set down as "enemies of God?" Many of the most active, zealous and useful clergymen of Hamilton are Masons: is it likely that they would remain affiliated with an order which is "the enemy of God?" Practically all the teachings of the Masonic bodies are open to the world: can any body find in them a whisper against order, decency, virtue, morality and religion? Masons are numerously elected to and selected for public offices. This is not because they are Masons, for no political question is permitted to enter the precincts of a Masonic lodge.

But Masons are more numerous in public positions than other men because the men best fitted for public office are very largely members of the order. Would these men command the confidence of their fellow citizens if the were capable of being "enemies of God?"


Has a familiar sound to it, doesn't it? Funny thing because it was taken from "History of the Barton Lodge #10 A.F.& A.M.", a book published on the occasion of their centennial in 1895!

My how original the accusations get, eh?

Originally posted by hexrain1
hey guys i havent posted in a long time. but the board is just the same as its allways been it looks like. to anyone new to this site let me let you in on a little secret. None of the Masons on this board will ever admitt to anything in an open and public forum that is conspiratorial.

I'm pretty convinced of this now. I've seen too many threads highjacked by groups of masons and too many stonewalled discussions concerning conspiracies.

It seems to me the masons on these boards aren't interested in considering secret societies within their own organization; which begs the question, why highjack all of these threads to prove your point? We KNOW that you don't believe in these conspiracies

Oh well.

Originally posted by hexrain1
maybe HE COULDN'T admit any of it directly

There isn't much point in swearing SECRET OATHS if you are going to tell everyone about it???

Some of the secret oaths of freemasons have been detailed many times on this site, so I am not quite sure of the point of your thread, and why is it addressed to "anti-masons" and not just to everyone in general. Of course we are all aware of the pyramid system of some secret societies, and various degrees, which have further secret oaths, which obviously the degrees or steps on the pyramid, which are underneath, aren't supposed to know. And of course we all know that not every mason is involved in commiting evil, and many secret societies and powerful front groups present a more sympathetic image, such as running some charitable events etc.

Also worth noting that secret societies have to, by their nature, give the impression that they are more powerful than they really are. The need for secrets says alot about the true worth and purpose of some organisations.

Sometimes, people so desperately want to believe that something is true, that they just can't accept its not. This has long devolved past the point of sheer comedy.

I would like to propose a theory: all the anti-masons here are on a global conspiracy to kill children. Now, before you argue with me about this, I will just let you know that you denying it is proof that its going on. I also believe you anti-masons take secret oaths, and while I have no poof, logic, evidence, or reason to believe this little theory, obviously since you do not agree with me you must be keeping it secret as part of your oath. If you were not keeping it secret, you would of course admit that you are in a conspiracy to kill children.

The insanity continues.




[edit on 1-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

If you want to see what guilt looks like on the face of a 'conspirator' mention the name Ron Jerome (any porno star) in a group of couples and watch the guys faces and looks.
those are facing saying "I know something, but I've got to keep my mouth shut" -trying to look bewildered by the reference

Granted some Masons have changed the world- but most are just looking for a change of scenery from home.

Their average of 'evil doers' is certainly no higher than that of Corporate America (Non Masons). I'm more bent by the Corporationists, then any Mason conspiracy. Crappy people come in the Non Mason variety too.

Originally posted by golddragnet


Also worth noting that secret societies have to, by their nature, give the impression that they are more powerful than they really are.

Wrong again.

Secret societies aren't supposed to give *any* impressions. Otherwise, they wouldn't be secret, now would they?

reply to post by Masonic Light


Nope, its you who are very wrong. The existance of many secret societies is often not a secret at all, it is what goes on inside is the secret. The lodges of some societies weren't a hidden secret, they were out in the open. In history some secret societies wanted society to know they existed, they also wanted to give the impression that the society itself was powerful and was both worth joining and even to be feared to a certain extent.

Originally posted by golddragnet
In history some secret societies wanted society to know they existed, they also wanted to give the impression that the society itself was powerful and was both worth joining and even to be feared to a certain extent.

This is an appeal to antiquity fallacy which is invalid. Even assuming your presuming about what happened in history is true (you've shown no evidence to prove it is), the actions of "some secret societies" do not in any way reflect upon all societies in the modern era.

I would also point out most of the masons and non-masons on here spend their time pointing out that the fraternity doesn't have any of the power that we are given by the conspiracy theorists. HOW COULD THIS BE if we were a true "secret society"?

Originally posted by golddragnet


Nope, its you who are very wrong.

Nope, not at all.

The existance of many secret societies is often not a secret at all, it is what goes on inside is the secret.

Then, by definition, it isn't a secret society.