reply to post by tgambill
Originally posted by tgambill
**** One or two former masons? It’s way more than that. Evidence to the contrary? Hardly.
You will notice, my good chum, that I quoted you earlier as saying "a former mason or two." Your words, not mine. Consistency helps when you're
trying to make a point. If you mean that it is more than one or two, perhaps a bit of specificity is in order, as we are trying to have a discussion
above the level of drunken bar-talk. The Boston tea party, however many Masons or former Masons were involved, is not related. If it is, you have not
illustrated such.
I would wager that overall, there is more evidence to refute what you say than to support it. You can pick up any book of ritual in a convenient PDF
format off the internet, or you can visit a Masonic library and read anything that's there, even if you hate Masons, irrationally or otherwise.
Consider that the corpus of literature about the craft, intended for those who practice it but available to you and I, far outweighs even the least
intelligible invective against it, and you'll see how critical thinkers can arrive at conclusions far different from yours. Somehow I doubt that you
will consider that, but I sincerely hope that you take a moment to do so.
I've read Pike. So I know that it takes a very particular sort of selective reading of Pike, with a definite preconception in mind, to infer that
Lucifer is the "God of Freemasonry." As has been stated by others above, Lucifer is associated with the light of dawn more than anything else.
Masons are not the only ones who use the morning star as a symbol for enlightenment, knowledge and/or wisdom. Somewhere along the way, you and your
ilk seem to have willfully disregarded metaphor as a literary device. It is also an incontrovertible fact that Masonry and its teachings did not
originate with Albert Pike, nor end with him.
Captain Morgan, though admittedly sinfully delicious over ice with a splash of cola and a wedge of lime on a hot summer's day, is far from a credible
source on the "secrets" of the fraternity, but I'm sure you know this.
I've read the Bible, too. I don't have a Masonic Edition, is it different in some way from any other version? I would think that the Jefferson Bible
would be more offensive to the fundamentalist's sensibility than anything the Masons might choose to publish, but I'm just speculating. You brought
up preterism, not I, so I won't address it, other than to say that it is not beyond argument. For as long as there has been a Bible - say about 1,700
years? - far more learned men than the two of us have made very good points both for and against the idea. Nobody has a monopoly on theology or
Biblical interpretation.
It's not clear to me what the Iraqi dinar has to do with all of this, but I'd welcome some explanation. I'm genuinely interested to know where you
received your information that the State of Israel has "announced that they would start the Blood Sacrifices in April 2010." The blood libel is a
very tired and ultimately useless straw man, unless you have some proof.
We don't know one another. I'm not a Mason, nor a Christian, so I have absolutely no vested interest in these discussions, other than to learn and
understand. I am willing to be persuaded by evidence, or absent that, actual academic sources and irrefutable logic, that you are correct in asserting
that nearly every single Freemason on the planet is ignorant to the reality that you seem to somehow know something about. All the evidence I've
seen, however, is that many people benefit from Freemasonry, both directly and indirectly, and a very few are offended by it, for their own personal
reasons (that ultimately have little to do with the fraternity itself).
Since this is devolving from an old question from another ATS member about Masonic Templary and the Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of
Jerusalem into another stenciled anti-Mason diatribe, perhaps you'd like to give me your responses via this site's U2U function. As far as I'm
concerned, however, you're welcome to continue to publicly promote ignorance, rather than deny it.
Apologies for my long-winded reply, but I am frankly up-to-my-ears sick of nonsensical polemics presented as a worthy contribution to what should be
an interesting discussion. I mean no personal offense.