Why can no one prove a Masonic conspiracy?

page: 31
16
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
There's sort of something missing in the dollar bill symbol that makes it incomplete. In the full symbol, off to the left, is a little man in a tophat. He is levitated in the air so as to stare the "all seeing eye" directly in the eye.

I would much rather be in a tophat than to be a stone block.




posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ibgrimme
 


Was this an attempt at humor or were you being serious? If you were being serious can you please explain in a bit more depth to what you are refering?



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ibgrimme
There's sort of something missing in the dollar bill symbol that makes it incomplete. In the full symbol, off to the left, is a little man in a tophat. He is levitated in the air so as to stare the "all seeing eye" directly in the eye.

I would much rather be in a tophat than to be a stone block.


You realize of course (and maybe that's the point) that the Worshipful Master of a lodge wears a tophat when the lodge is open.

If you knew this then it's sort of funny. But I would still like to know where the 'whole symbol' is?



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


Man I am a third degree master mason and an officer of my lodge. thank you for telling the truth. for to long i have heard all of these rumors and it makes me sick. I think it is just that they do not know anything about the masons so they come to the conclusion that there is a conspiracy. It is just a secret organization with history and brotherhood involved. And I think God that somone out there sees that. It is a shame that everyone has to have somthing to complain about. I am also a devout christian so there is no way I would ever worship satan and when people say stuff like that it makes me look bad. Everyone needs to learn that just becouse you do not understand something does not mean it is evil or a conspiracy.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


The problem with that is, These masons are you governors, Presidents, Mayors, Judges, Bank owners and cooperate ceo's. During the dark ages they were forced to go underground because of the catholics. They have mastered the skills of working in the dark.


The Masons weren't around during the Dark Ages. I believe the first recoreded record from a Lodge of Masons was around 1732. Quite a while after the Dark Ages.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealityisanIllusion
The Masons weren't around during the Dark Ages. I believe the first recoreded record from a Lodge of Masons was around 1732. Quite a while after the Dark Ages.


Well, actually much earlier than that:

www.masonic-lodge-of-education.com...

Also the Grand Lodge of England was formed in 1717. But you're right, to say we were around in the Dark Ages is quite a stretch.

Sadly, some Masons actually believe we go back to the days of King Solomon and sadder still, some say the days of Noah and I heard one "brilliant scholar" say that Adam was a Mason (!)

Fun stuff, but, well, you know.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


Man I am a third degree master mason and an officer of my lodge. thank you for telling the truth. for to long i have heard all of these rumors and it makes me sick. I think it is just that they do not know anything about the masons so they come to the conclusion that there is a conspiracy. It is just a secret organization with history and brotherhood involved. And I think God that somone out there sees that. It is a shame that everyone has to have somthing to complain about. I am also a devout christian so there is no way I would ever worship satan and when people say stuff like that it makes me look bad. Everyone needs to learn that just becouse you do not understand something does not mean it is evil or a conspiracy.


Very well said brother!



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I have seen several statements and assertions in other threads that there is a 'Masonic pyramid' that entails some sort of hierarchal structure. This notion, in my opinion, seems to be the foundation for all 'Masonic conspiracies' and I would like those who beleive this to be true to provide us with further edification.

My questions; Who is at the top of this alleged pyramid, and can you prove to me that they are somehow linked to Freemasonry?

I would like names and details as well as any information regarding Masonic affiliation.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Capozzelli
 


OMG! My $80K college education pays off (History/PoliSci)! I can cite it if you really want, but this all information that is very verifiable with some simple google searches.

1. There were masons on both sides of the revolution, both revolutionaries and loyalists, as well as british.

2. The war in essence alone was fought over the rule of the king, but the actual idea was "taxation without representation". We wanted a voice in parliament and envisioned the colonies independent the same way Scotland and Wales, etc were. Ben Franklin actual took a petition to the good king trying to get his buyin before anything happened. Obviously, it didn't work real well.

3. Many, but not all the leaders of the revolution were masons. It was a common fraternity to join at that time, but due to a multitude of reasons much like today, many chose not to.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FrankieBnz
OMG! My $80K college education pays off (History/PoliSci)! I can cite it if you really want, but this all information that is very verifiable with some simple google searches.

1. There were masons on both sides of the revolution, both revolutionaries and loyalists, as well as british.


Do you know any times where masons fought against each other in the war? How did they treat each other?


3. Many, but not all the leaders of the revolution were masons. It was a common fraternity to join at that time, but due to a multitude of reasons much like today, many chose not to.


Do you feel that the revolution was okay with the masonic ritual saying that you should obey the laws of the country that you live in? I know that other masons have answered this but i want to get as many different opinions as i can.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Capozzelli
 


For what it is worth, Steven C. Bullock, author of Revolutionary Brotherhood: Freemasonry and the Transformation of the American Social Order, 1730-1840, postulates that 'argues that Masons who embraced the revolutionary cause were inspired by the teachings of the order concerning republicanism and honor and, in many instances, held membership in Ancient lodges' as opposed to the Modern lodges which tended, for the most part, to favor the Tory's position. This situation would have obviously lead to 'Masons fighting Masons' as you have expressed.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Modern speculative Masonry is typically considered to have arisen after the Dark Ages and is one of the main contributors to the and the Age of Enlightenment.


[edit on 20-5-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]



I don't see how Freemasonry as an ideology contributed to the Renaissance. However, I do note that the Renaissance was a cultural movement of European intellectual life in the early modern period from the 14th century to the 17th. Freemasonry took a grip in Europe in the early 18th century and eventually incorporating unaffiliated guilds.

These precursors of Freemasonry, guilds, were redoubts of traditional and ossified crafts that were monopolised with the population of Europe exploited. Collusive trading was the norm and graft was the agenda. In a way, these secretive trade societies were a hangover from the Dark Ages and early Carolingian cathedral builders. They kept Europe backwards.

It is generally accepted that the Renaissance began in Tuscany in Italy with influence of rational humanism on art, politics and religion to a minor extent; later spreading to the rest of Europe by the 16th century.

More interestingly, the rational approach in observing the physical world and metaphysical thought was a consequence of the interface of the Islamic world and the southern and eastern regions of modern day Italy where there was a transfer of knowledge. This Islamic influence affected literature, philosophy, art, politics and science.

Freemasonry had very little to do with sparking or contributing to the Renaissance. That's just fanciful thinking.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by masonwatcher
 


He never said Renaissance. He said Age of Enlightenment.

[edit on 9/16/2008 by JoshNorton]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by masonwatcher
 


As the emminently correct Brother Norton has indicated the Renaissance occured in the 14th to 17th centuries. The 'Age of Enlightenment' is generally considered by historians to have immediately followed the Renaissance or, in the opinion of other scholars to have coincided with the onset of the Napoleonic Wars in 1804.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


That makes sense.

I have another question. If freemasonsry is not a religous group why does it say in your ritual "It is so far interwoven with religion as to lay us under obligation to pay that homage to the diety which at once constitutes our duty and our happiness"? It looks like religion is a big part of masonry. Can any of you masons explain this to me?



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Capozzelli
I have another question. If freemasonsry is not a religous group why does it say in your ritual "It is so far interwoven with religion as to lay us under obligation to pay that homage to the diety which at once constitutes our duty and our happiness"? It looks like religion is a big part of masonry. Can any of you masons explain this to me?


My opinion is that it means religion plays a big part in masonic philosophy. It does - the concept of being faithful to ones religion is a cornerstone of masonic philosophy. The ritual of the lodge strongly suggests that all masons be faithful in their own religion, and be devout to their idea of who God is. In other words, being faithful to your religion is interwoven with masonry in that freemasonry tells its members that their religion is important, and although seperate from what they do in the lodge. In other parts of the ritual you've doubt read that it in fact says religion, family, friends, and work come before the lodge in importance.

Religion is a big part of masonry in terms of philosophy, but masonry is not a religion. Masonry, however, makes a big deal out of communicating to its members that they should be good and faithful members to their own religion. As such, if masons hold themselves to their ritual, you will find that masons tend to be more religious (or spiritual) than members of the general population.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Capozzelli
Do you know any times where masons fought against each other in the war? How did they treat each other?
I don't know any verifiable stories about the American Revolution, but I've heard some apocryphal tales about both the Civil War and the Texas Revolution.

While I don't think it's ever been proven that Gen. Santa Anna was a Mason, the story goes that he used signs of distress and/or recognition when he surrendered to Sam Houston's men in hopes of sparing his life. Some of the tale is covered here.


I have another question. If freemasonsry is not a religous group why does it say in your ritual "It is so far interwoven with religion as to lay us under obligation to pay that homage to the diety which at once constitutes our duty and our happiness"? It looks like religion is a big part of masonry. Can any of you masons explain this to me?


Good question, and I don't have any answers that would be particularly satisfying, I don't think. One of the big lessons of the 3rd degree is that we're all going to die. We're taught to be good, to make a difference, to help our fellow man, our communities, etc and live our lives doing those good deeds so that when our time has come, if there is an afterlife, we are welcomed to it.

Now, sure, a lot of bible-thumping Christians will jump in at this point and declare that if you haven't accepted Jesus Christ as your Saviour then you won't get into heaven no matter how many good deeds you've done. (In fact, there are probably many who believe they're going to heaven just because they believe in Jesus, when they themselves have never lifted a finger to help their fellow man or live by Jesus' teachings...)

Not being Christian, myself, I can only offer the following analogy: Penn Jillette points out that under Masonic rules, non-Masons are not supposed to wear Masonic jewelry. Of course, since he's not a Mason he doesn't care about Masonic rules. If you're not obligated to them, how would they apply to you unless you chose to respect them? Likewise, if a Christian tells me the only way I'm going to get into their picture of an afterlife is if I've followed their rules, well... I have my own beliefs. My own relationship with God. We're on pretty good terms. (To borrow another analogy, a nobody local folk singer is playing in a bar. Someone in the audience shouts out a request for "All Along the Watchtower". The singer replies "Me and Bob Dylan have an agreement: I don't do his songs, and he doesn't do mine.") I don't try to control the universe, and he lets me control my own life. Works pretty well so far.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by LowLevelMason
 


I'm having a hard time understanding how it can involve religion without it being religious. So are you saying that it teaches you religious lessons with out the worship?



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton
While I don't think it's ever been proven that Gen. Santa Anna was a Mason, the story goes that he used signs of distress and/or recognition when he surrendered to Sam Houston's men in hopes of sparing his life. Some of the tale is covered here.


Thanks for the link, it was very interesting if it was really true.


Good question, and I don't have any answers that would be particularly satisfying, I don't think. One of the big lessons of the 3rd degree is that we're all going to die.


Yes, but the line I quoted was from the second degree lecture. How does that tie in with dying? It looks like to me it says that you should be religious. I am not religious but I'm spiritual. I don't go to church or anything like that so would this mean that being a mason is not for me or anyone like me?


We're taught to be good, to make a difference, to help our fellow man, our communities, etc and live our lives doing those good deeds so that when our time has come, if there is an afterlife, we are welcomed to it.


I understand this part. Alot of maosns have explained this to me. Do you feel that you need to be religious to do this?


Now, sure, a lot of bible-thumping Christians will jump in at this point and declare that if you haven't accepted Jesus Christ as your Saviour then you won't get into heaven no matter how many good deeds you've done. (In fact, there are probably many who believe they're going to heaven just because they believe in Jesus, when they themselves have never lifted a finger to help their fellow man or live by Jesus' teachings...)


Looks like I'm roasting in hell then cause I don't beleive that.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Capozzelli

Good question, and I don't have any answers that would be particularly satisfying, I don't think. One of the big lessons of the 3rd degree is that we're all going to die.


Yes, but the line I quoted was from the second degree lecture. How does that tie in with dying? It looks like to me it says that you should be religious. I am not religious but I'm spiritual. I don't go to church or anything like that so would this mean that being a mason is not for me or anyone like me?
It's certainly not for everybody. The question is, regardless of organized dogma or proscribed beliefs, when you have an inner monologue, is it a monologue or a dialogue? Are you talking to yourself, or are you comfortable thinking that there IS something else out there, whatever it is. If you can reconcile your own spirituality with the traditions of Freemasonry, you'll probably be fine. Know that because Masonry IS an old tradition, if there's something that you don't like, it's not likely you'll be able to change it to make you more comfortable. The reconciliation has to be your own.



We're taught to be good, to make a difference, to help our fellow man, our communities, etc and live our lives doing those good deeds so that when our time has come, if there is an afterlife, we are welcomed to it.


I understand this part. Alot of maosns have explained this to me. Do you feel that you need to be religious to do this?
Personally? No. I don't consider myself religious at all. For years if you'd asked me I probably would have told you that I was agnostic. More recently I decided that Deist was probably the best description for how I feel and what I believe.... that there IS something bigger than us, but that whatever it is does not have a hands-on involvement with us, our lives, our planet, etc.





top topics
 
16
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join