It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A fundamentalist Christians view on Masonry

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   
This entire thread has been a rather poorly camouflaged piece of vindictive opportunism perpetuated by network dude intitially here, from the advent of Gary7MediaTerrorist's welcome thread here.
Many of the points made by the masons are indeed valid, almost all in fact; but I severely decry this rather insidious ambushing of a mostly hapless, though spirited, victim. Some blood in the water and the feeding frenzy begins.

Is this how it's done now? That there is such a siege mentality within the stonecutter's ranks here in regards to anti-masonry that a brand new member who is promulgating obviously bogus, easily debunkable information allied to blind faith is lured to the Secret Society section straight off the bat from his own welcome thread, set up, and then ambushed, with pretended civility, by the masons? You've just strung this guy along and then given him enough rope to hang himself.

Whilst the assembled masons here haven't openly violated ATS terms & conditions of posting, and have maintained a modicum of civility and restraint, this has been a veiled victimisation program that I believe has been done this way to circumvent the recent more stringent moderating of the Secret Societies forum.

Poor, poor show.




posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Extant Taxon
 


I guess that is your right to have an opinion. I saw that Gary was new and seemed to have good communication skills. I thought he might have some new things to discuss and therefore give us all some enjoyment from an otherwise boring time.

I would also like to convince Gary that his point of view is wrong. Not about being a Christian or following God, but that all masons worship the devil. If I was to convince Gary there is a chance that others would no go down the road of accusations without foundations.

If I don't have this conversation, then none of them would matter so being here would be pointless. I enjoy a good debate, and for the most part, Gary has supplied one. Of course that is just my opinion.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Enjoyment would be the right word, yes. You all certainly have.
Look, I agree with much of what has been said by various masons here as regards religious fundamentalism, and the oft-repeated fallacies regarding the worship of Lucifer, etc. But this thread merely used Gary7 as a sounding board and as an easy scapegoat.




[edit on 11/5/10 by Extant Taxon]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
Many of the points made by the masons are indeed valid, almost all in fact; but I severely decry this rather insidious ambushing of a mostly hapless, though spirited, victim. Some blood in the water and the feeding frenzy begins.


I appreciate where you are coming from Extant, but I have two quick points.

Firstly, Gary is an adult and if he does not want to particpate in a thread/debate then it is well within his capabilities to ignore the topic. It would appear to me, from the length and scope of his posts, that he is more then comfortable replying to everyone on the thread.

Secondly, you feel that the points made by the Masons are valid. You however, much to your credit, are the sad exception to the rule as you are one of the few people who will actually research a topic thoroughly before posting or replying. To you the points hold truth, to others they are just some sort of Masonic 'talking points' to hide the fact that we all worship Lucifer or some other such nonsense.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


If Gary7 really wanted to start the topic, why didn't he? He was "invited" (read "baited") fresh from his own welcome thread. It shouldn't surprise me that so many masons gathered here with glee as the information presented is so easily refutable.

Capable that Gary7 has proven himself in fielding all-comers with strength of character goes without saying, but in terms of solid information his content is hapless and all the masons here know it.
He provided and easy target and has not been shown due courtesy as far as I'm concerned.

That's my spleen vented. Good day to you all.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Extant Taxon
 


since I respect your opinion, I thought about this thread a bit and feel you may be right. I would like to apologize to Gary7 if he feels the same way you do. It was not my intention at all.

as was explained in this post:

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Zeus2573
 


No, but I do see why you would think that. It has been some time since there was a person in the SS forum with opposing views who actually spoke for himself. I can go to all the fundie websites myself and read all about what the church has to say about masonry. In fact, all I have to do is look back at old threads. Gary seems like a smart person who was very polite. That is a rarity here as I am sure you will agree. My intention is not to provide a place for a gang of masons to pile on a new member, but to have the kind of discussion we used to have here a couple of years ago. While I have no control over any poster here, I have been known to ask people to lighten up when I see them harassing someone. Even fellow masons. And I have been asked the same. From the sound of Gary's opening post, I don't think he is afraid of his views being changed.

And since we are all children of God, I would hope we can all be civil to a degree.

But If Gary doesn't see it like that, all he need do is U2U me and I will not bother him again.


Again, sorry to offend.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Extant Taxon
 

Many of his points are based off hoaxes, mistranslations, or just lies - and we have pointed that out. He accuses us of all sorts of evil and tries to justify it by religion, but when we fight back its a "poor show"? Well, I personally just don't take something on the chin and let it go.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I don't think anything really got out of hand. Everything was pretty neat and respectable until the last few pages where he went all out posting hoax after hoax to explain why we are all satanic.

If people researched what they believe, the Masons on this forum wouldn't have to swarm in here and correct the errors.

Would it be a better show if we allowed him to make all the claims and let everyone believe what he posted was an accurate portrayal of Masonry?

I think there is enough phony junk out there written about Freemasonry, this of all places, is supposed to be a place to find truth. Allowing ridiculous hoaxes be presented as proof that we as Freemasons worship satan doesn't exactly seem like something one should expect from the Masons on this site.

Gary was more or less just corrected. If he researched the corrections and came at things from a factual angle, I am sure things would resume as they started.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Nobody responded to the challenge I laid down in the other thread about Hell so maybe it belongs here.

As a Christian I am so SICK of fundamentalists throwing around the "you will burn in hell" ideology.

As I've mentioned MANY MANY times before, the word "hell" doesn't even appear in the original Hebrew texts, and when translated correctly into English, as done in Young's Literal Translation, neither does the word "lucifer" appear.

You see, these concepts were either mistranslated or intentionally placed in Scripture to scare the ... well ... hell out of people and drive them to the "church" instead of letting them know that they can know and experience God without the help of a pope or priest.

So, the challenge was to prove that Christ told anyone they would burn in hell for their sins.

So far nobody has stepped up.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason

Actually the Devil's name in Heaven was Samael.


I don't have time to respond to much of what you had to say but this was very int. I could even buy it. But first, where did you get this info and name?

G7 Out.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Gary7MediaTerrorist
 

Samael is mentioned in early Judaic writings.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by KSigMason
 


could you be more specific? I'd like to check it out.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Gary7MediaTerrorist
 


here

www.sacred-texts.com...



Samael, who was now Satan, the fallen angel, came riding upon the back of a serpent. The animals saw Samael and the serpent, and they were affrighted by the sight. And Samael, in Eve's hearing, chanted seraphic songs, and she, thinking they were songs in praise of God, listened to him. The serpent ascended the tree and injected the poison of evil inclination into the fruit. He bent the branch on which it grew down to the ground. And Eve, after Samael had spoken to her, took the fruit and ate of it. She summoned Adam and persuaded him to eat of the fruit also. Thereupon the cuirass which was bound across each of them, and which was made of the letters of the Ineffable Name, fell from them, and they had to cover their lower limbs with leaves which the trees had cast off when Eve ate of the forbidden fruit.*



The angel Samael, the wicked, was the chief of the Satans. Every hour he used to dilate upon the coming death of Moses, saying, 'When will the moment arrive at which Moses is to die, so that I may go and take away his soul?' Concerning this David said, 'The wicked are always watching the righteous, seeking to take their life.' But of all the Satans Samael was the most wicked...*



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 

Thank you, and I will be going to this site and reading this. Question for no one in particular- I'm not big on extra biblical texts but I was just wondering, who here has ever read the books of Enoch?

G7 Out.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gary7MediaTerrorist

Thank you, and I will be going to this site and reading this. Question for no one in particular- I'm not big on extra biblical texts but I was just wondering, who here has ever read the books of Enoch?

G7 Out.



I've read it. Like the canonical books of the Bible, it's interesting. And also like the canonical books of the Bible, it leads to superstition and silliness if taken too literally.

Book of Enoch



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


So to be clear- not that you were not clear- the Bible- as a total work- in your opinion cannot help but lead to foolishness if one is dumb enough to take it at its word?
G7 Out.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Gary7MediaTerrorist
 


My take on the Bible is that it is a great teacher. It has some factual information and some embellishments. Anything that man had a chance to put their hands on would be agenda driven. It's up to the individual to interpret it and decide what rings true to themselves. After all, only you are in control of your soul.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by network dude]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gary7MediaTerrorist
So to be clear- not that you were not clear- the Bible- as a total work- in your opinion cannot help but lead to foolishness if one is dumb enough to take it at its word?
G7 Out.
If you think the Bible should be taken at its word, you should read The Year of Living Biblically... A man spent an entire year living strictly by what the Bible taught: "Let your garments be always white" Ecclesiastes 9:8; No images; You shall not wear a "garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff." (Leviticus 19:19); You shall not trim the corners of your beard (Leviticus 19:27); You should not lie on a bed where a mensturating woman has lain, and you can't sit on a chair where she has sat (Leviticus 15:20); You shall stand in the presence of the elderly; etc...

I'd like to see you try it...


[edit on 5/18/2010 by JoshNorton]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Lev. 20: 9

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.


Seriously, my kids wouldn't have made it long if I stuck to the bibles suggestions without fail



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Gary7MediaTerrorist
 

Even the Apostle Thomas spoke about not taking the Bible too literally, but although the church decided that wasn't appropriate to have in the Bible.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join