reply to post by Rockpuck
Because I am a Mason, I cannot talk about history.. because I belong to a historical organization.
I also have a degree in history.
Sure you can, and please feel free to TALK about it on this DISCUSSION thread instead of attempting to lecture and ridicule people those who are
discussing it honestly.
Do keep in mind that some people would consider a degree in history to simply be a degree in dogma, because any credible student of history knows,
that history is constantly rewritten by the victors, and those in power.
Being able to parrot those things, no matter how virulently does not necessarily make them true or valid, or even insightful.
Whether or not you believe Masonry its self had any hand in the framing of the country, I suppose its a matter of perspective.. which came first,
Masonry or enlightened ideas? I believe the Enlightened ideas came first.
Who says that they are enlightened ideas, the Masons who keep them secret as part of an organization, or the masses that those things are largely kept
As a drummer I can say all drummers have the best sense of humor, it doesn’t make it true, until you gauge every drummer and non-drummer in a joke
Yet that presumption of non-gauged and non-measured ‘enlightenment’ to some would come off more as arrogance, based on a group of like minded
people patting each other on the back and claiming that they are enlightened.
Considering you seem to abhor the notion that anything like a Post you don’t agree with, becomes valid in some people’s minds, just because others
agree with it in mass, is kind of then hypocritical, for a person to believe that they are enlightened simply because a like minded group of people
told them so.
That would in fact go to objectivity by the way!
True.. except nothing I've mentioned in my previous posts was about Freemasonry at all .. it was about the Holy Roman Empire, which you were woefully
You haven't been able to prove anything I have said about the Holy Roman Empire is false.
All you have tried to do is explain why you don't think based on your logistical understanding of how you believe the Holy Roman Empire worked, that
there is nothing to my contention it did the things that it did, acquired the things that it did, and entities today are still the beneficiaries of
Did I personally know Charlemagne or King George? No, but neither do you. We both must rely on a certain degree of conjecture and theory to frame our
perspectives, you just feel the best way to present your argument is by claiming that the other person is wrong, while I feel the best way to present
my argument, is to consider the possibilities and the various outcomes as a means to discern a more accurate reflection than the dogmas propagated by
the same institutions and organizations and descendants of the principals.
If everyone considered the Yale or Harvard version valid, we would be at Yale and Harvard, and not on ATS.
Some would say some of us are here looking for different and or better answers, some would say others are here, to insist that we accept the same old
answers, just with a side of scorn and ridicule for daring to question and honestly and openly investigate.
Why any credible scholar would see such an endeavor as condemnable, probably speaks more to their own methodology than it does to those they are
I have put significant research into these things and so have some other members.
Debating it is one thing, trying to ridicule is another.
The Holy Roman Empire was endorsed by the Pope, way back in the 900's .. however there was a bitter relationship that eventually destroyed all ties
with the church.
The Holy Roman Empire was a front for the same Roman Empire that existed before it, just as the Vatican is. It's very simple my friend, it's called
follow the money, not the bouncing ball on the religious book!
Follow the contracts, follow the affiliations, follow the random coincidences that aren't random.
The fact that some people fall for the ruses, decptions, subplots and intriques meant to take people's eyes off the money, and the principal players,
doesn't mean everyone suffers from this.
Not at all, all organizations and it's members are, or should be, open to critique. You can insult the organization I belong to all you want, it's a
bit unbecoming of you
No one has insulted the Masons but you. I have simply questioned to what extent they are involved, and the fact that typically any questioning of
their involvement is considered by Masons to be an insult.
So rather than discuss their involvement we end up discussing your sensibilities.
Rather than discuss what is, or could be, you will focus on 'what isn't, and couldn't be'.
It's all deflection.
None of which is objective.
These other ignorant fools might inflate your ego, and you might feel secure in this bubble you build around your self that with any quip you can
dispell anything said against you. Fact is: You were wrong. I point out yet another topic that you are completely wrong about. You take issue with it.
THAT is what I find amusing. And sad.
My wife thinks I am wrong about a lot of things too, in fact I have never won an argument with her, why? Because she refuses to believe she can never
be wrong about anything.
Love the glass slippers by the way!
Thanks for posting.