Originally posted by JoshNorton
reply to post by gareth01422
Why do people think Masons are evil? (choose as many as you like):
- People believe Masons are keeping some sort of ancient hidden magick and/or technology from the masses.
- People believe that Masons take oaths to cover each other's crimes.
- People believe that there's a hierarchal structure controlling and uniting all of Masonry, and thus, somehow wielding power over all its members.
- People believe that all of the "haves" in society, politics, etc, must be part of some group, to explain why the "have nots" aren't as well off.
- People believe they are entitled to know what anyone is doing behind closed doors, and if they don't know, or aren't told, they assume that it must be evil, wrong, illegal, etc.
Of course, all of these points are entirely wrong, but those are the most common points an anti-Mason will try to use to justify their bigotry.
edit on 2011.5.6 by JoshNorton because: (no reason given)
Despite the fact that no Royal Arch ritual uses the word Ba'al...
Throughout the Old Testament, the word Ba'al is an ordinary everyday word, with ordinary everyday meanings. It is true that it is used sixty-nine times to represent a Canaanite god or gods, although often not as a proper name, but as a description. It is used as a proper name of other things or persons many times. For Example Ba'al is the name of a city in 1 Chronicles 4:33. In 1 Chronicles 5:5 and 9:36, it is a name of a Jewish person.
It is used even more frequently in combination:
Baal Gad, Baal Hazor, Baal Hermon, Baal Meon, Baal Perazim, Baal Shalisha, Baal Tamar, Baal Zephon, Baalah, Baalath (feminine of Baal), Baalath Beor and Baale are names of towns or places.
Baal Hanan and Baalis are names of kings.
Baal Berith, Baal Peor, and Baal Zebub (Lord of the Flies) are names of gods.
However, what is much more significant is the use of baal translated into other words. It is translated as "master" four times...
This is very important, as by analogy, Yahweh is the Ba'al of Israel. Another translation is "owner" (twelve times).
A third translation is as husband (eleven times).
With disregard for logical thought, Knight makes assumptions about the meaning of the second Royal Arch word which appear nowhere in any Masonic ritual, and then treats them as if they were true. He proceeds to suggest that the words of an obscure sixteenth century demonologist are relevant to twentieth century Masons. Knight is attacking only what his imagination has led him to believe is the meaning of the second word, with no reference the only relevant meanings - those which are explained to every new Royal Arch Mason.
Originally posted by fordrew
reply to post by Lucifer777
How can someone, such as myself, who is vehemently opposed to organized religion ESPECIALLY christianity, be in the Freemason?
How can you prove that Freemasons are a christian organization ? I am talking about the blue lodge not the other various appendant bodies (such as the knights templar, etc).
Originally posted by Lucifer777
Originally posted by KSigMason
Not all consider themselves to be Knights Templar. Not all are a part of that organization. Your mixing up your terms and labels. Not all who are Masons are Christian and even if they are Christian they may not necessarily be members of the Templar Order. All regular Masons are naturally members of the Blue Lodge, but not all Masons are a part of the appendant bodies. It's illogical to say otherwise.
Freemasonry never seeks to convert anyone from the faith they choose to follow.
reply to post by pepsi78
And you know this how? Can you really speak for us?
Sectarianism and the Study of Religion
When the scholar (student) or academic in the field of "religious studies" undertakes a study of a particular religious cult, for the sake of objectivity, the person generally does not "join" that particular cult. The student must take care to consider not only the propaganda of the cult itself, but also writings which are critical of the cult and the writings of cult opponents and apostates (ex-cultists).
Here on ATS we seem to have an army of Masonic cult apologists, however if one were merely to consider only their writings and responses, again we would be lose objectivity. Consider for example what would occur if we were to attempt to study the Scientology cult without attempting to comprehend the writings of critics and apostates of the cult? Of course the Scientologist may remark that only a Scientologist truly understands Scientology; however this is an entirely subjective statement; of course the Scientologist who has undergone years of auditing (confessions of one's thoughts and behaviour essentially), hypnosis and indoctrination will have a different perspective than an academic who is merely studying the process and literature of cult indoctrination.
Further Scientologists are partly sectarian, since there is the independent "Freezone" movement of cultists who still consider themselves to be Scientologists and who still practice Hubbard's form of auditing, but who consider the "Church of Scientology" to be a heretical movement.
When it comes to the study of Freemasonry, this is also the study of a sectarian (many sects or sections) movement. The main groups of sects would include the various Masonic lodge franchises which are in amity (friendship) with the United Grand Lodge of England (U.G.L.E.), however there are also a large number of sects who are not in amity with the U.G.L.E. For example conspiracy theorists commonly claim that Aleister Crowley was a Freemason and Freemasons commonly claim that he was "not" a Freemason; however from the perspective of a scholar who is studying Freemasonry we can say that it is a fact that Crowley was a Freemason and that the claim that he was not a Freemason is factually incorrect and an expression of Masonic sectarianism. For example a Catholic might say that the Pope is a Christian and that Elizabeth Windsor (the head of the Anglican church) is not a Christian, and this is simply a subjective and sectarian statement, while it is a fact that both the Pope and Windsor claim to be Christians and are the heads of major Christian sects. The largest Masonic organisation in France, for example, the Grandrient de France is not in amnity with UGLE, and so the minority of French Masons who are part of lodges in amnity with UGLE might refer to the Grand Orient as "fake Masonry," caclandestineasonry" or "irregular Masonry" however these are simply expressions of sectarianism, similar to the view taken by the Westborough Baptist Church that only members of their rather tiny cult are Christians and that all other Christians are "fake Christians," or "false Christians. From the perspective of an academic studying Christianity and Freemasonry however, there is no such a thing as "true" or "false" Christianity or "true" or "false" Freemasonry as these are only subjective terms used by religious cultists themselves, and what is "true" about Christianity and Freemasonry has to be derived from facts, and from the beliefs and behaviour of the cultists themselves and take into account the various sects.
I have referred to Masonry as "ultimately" seeming to be a "Christian cult" or a "Messianic cult," however I refer only to the main body of Freemasons whose upper levels are restricted to Christians; the two main bodies of Masons, the York Rite and the Scottish Rite apparently consider themselves to be "Christian Knights" and "Knight's Templates." Of course "any" religious fanatic can join a purchase the lower degrees of Masonry irrespective of whatever form of religious fanaticism they adhere to, however an essentially qualification is a belief in a sky god, and by "sky god" I refer to a transcendent (up above) being, since human beings are also often referred to as "gods." The tendency to believe in a sky-god seems to be derived from a pre-scientific era, but even Masons who have travelled in an aircraft up in the clouds of heaven still seem to believe such nonsense, and so I think that it is appropriate to refer to them as “religious fanatics.”
I think that it could be stated that many Scientologists who have not undergone all the various “degrees” of Scientology indoctrination may not believe that L.Ron Hubbard is the “Messiah” or the Maitreya Buddha, but I still think that it would be fair to ultimately describe Scientology as a Messianic cult, since in the upper echelons of the organisation, such as their elite paramilitary “Sea Org” all the members have a such a belief, a belief which in the past has been hidden from the lower levels of the cult; similarly with Masonry, cultists who only do the “outer temple” blue lodge indoctrination may or many not consider themselves to be Christian knights, but this is certainly the case with the “upper” levels of the cult, though of course by “Christ” I do not refer to the 2000 year old fictional, religious fanatic, the Jesus of the Gospels, and to a living mortal “Imperial Majesty” and “Messiah,” would would be the “Grand Master of Masters,” the “Lord of Lords” and “King of Kings” to Masonic cultists.
”And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of Kings and Lord of Lords." Rev 19
Unfortunately a belief in Messianic military cultism is not a victimless crime. Human history has had it's fill of theocratic (God government) dictators, and the history of cult theocracy is dipped in the blood, enslavement and human misery of hundreds of millions of our ancestors who were often enslaved and considered heretics and radicals. The cure for this kind of militant cult theocratic fanaticism is unfortunately likely to be a future history which is also dipped in the blood of tyrants and martyrs. Diderot's “Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest," demands the renunciation of the diabolical ideology of pacifism and the renunciation of tolerance towards the fanatics of religion. Of course I am not suggesting that anyone rush out and start executing Christians; on the contrary; just as Marx and Engels did not rush around executing the priesthood of Capitalistm; the conditions for such a mass revolution have yet to be created and I speak to the world of the future; the sword that is issued from the mouth of philosophers often outlives their mortal form and live on for aeons and be dipped in oceans of blood.
"There is no god but man (and woman)"
Words are weapons. Propaganda is the first stage of war,
His Imperial Satanic Majesty.
Blasphemy, Heresy, War, Revolution.
".....the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.
The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis [“speech for the altars and hearths,” i.e., for God and country] has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man [Unmensch], where he seeks and must seek his true reality.
The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. Karl Marx
.. your Imperial Satanic majesty please may you have mercy on me
Early Masons did not have the historical resources available to today's researchers. This handicap caused them to rely on their own ingenuity, and they were limited in what they could write concerning the origins this tri-lingual "word." However, for over a hundred years the General Grand Royal Arch Chapter of the United States has clearly distinguished between the tri-lingual "word" and the name of God. In an article on the word "Bel," Masonic encyclopedist Albert Mackey tells us
"It has, with Jah and On, been introduced into the Royal Arch as a representative of the Tetragrammaton [the Hebrew letters YHWH or JHVH, i.e., "Jehovah"], which it and the accompanying words have sometimes ignorantly been made to displace. At the session of the General Grand Chapter of the United States, in 1871, this error was corrected; and while the Tetragrammaton was declared to be the true omnific word, the other three were permitted to be retained as merely explanatory".
But what did Mackey mean when he wrote that Jah, Bel and On were "explanatory" of the name Jehovah? Unaware of its true origins, some early ritualists tried to explain the tri-lingual word using etymology. First, Jabulon was divided into syllables (Jao-Bul-On, Jah-Buh-Lun, Jah-Bel-On, etc.) on the supposition that they were Hebrew, Chaldean, Assyrian, Egyptian or other foreign words for God. Like Hebrew names in the Old Testament, some believed that Jabulon had a meaning which could be recovered...the following example explores possible roots of Jah-Bel-On:
...Bel.-- Rev. Ankerberg and Dr. Weldon accuse Freemasonry of paganism because some Masons tried to equate this syllable with the word baal. Although Baal was the name of a Phoenician deity, it is also a Hebrew word meaning "lord" or "master,"(63) and when it forms part of a name it can be used to identify Jehovah. A son of David, for example, is called both Eliada, "God Knows" (2 Samuel 5:16), and Beeliada, "Baal knows" (1 Chronicles 14:7).
...Based on the above, possible meanings for Jabulon include "Jehovah, powerful Lord" or "Jehovah, the Lord, the I AM." Some English Royal Arch rituals suggested the syllables meant "Lord in Heaven, the Father of All," while some American rituals noted that the vowels in Jah-Bel-On, added to the four letters which spell God's name in Hebrew (YHWH or JHVH: yud, heh, vaw, heh), yielded the English pronunciation "Jehovah," much as the vowels in the Hebrew word adonai were combined with the four consonants to produce "Jahovah."
Unable to find any sensible meaning in such speculations other Grand Chapters eliminated the "words" altogether.
Which Ba'al? It's a title, not a name. Curiously, it has that in common with Christ... and Satan, for that matter. It's funny how over thousands of years words that were originally meant to label many people or beings have been consolidated to refer to only one.
Originally posted by Beavers
surely you'd still be being fed the line about GAOTU and 'god' being the same (and not realising you've been tricked into calling Baal 'god' instead) until you work your way up?
Originally posted by OnTheLevel213
So not only is the Baal-phobia unwarranted, it's also concerns a minor part of the ritual that can't even avoid removal in several jurisdictions, much less the all-important super-secret OMG DEVIL WORSHIP DECEPTION.
Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
Ok, I'm curious... what does he look like?
English guy with a mullet, perhaps? Ha... j/k old boy!
Scottish. Referring to a Scottish person as "English" is a diabolical heresy which would get you thrown out of many of the pubs of Scotland.
Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
Lmao.... good thing i'm not into bar-hopping or extensive travel.
So how did you guys manage to keep those lineages separate in such close quarters all these centuries?
Inbreeding? Stubborn pride?
Sorry, I need to stop.... LoL!
Originally posted by BanMePlz
Masons are seen as evil because they hid in the shadows and keep secrets.
If the masons do not want to be seen as evil, they need to come out of their hiding places
and announce their motives as honest and honorably as they can.
people will just keep viewing them as cowardly, evil, greedy, selfish, sellouts.
I am also thinking of forming a "crack Scottish suicide sqaud" similar to the "Judean suicide sqaud" in MOnty Python's Life of Brian. This is the kind of dedication we need to encourage.
The Independence of Scotand from England and the creation of a Scottish Republic would be progressive however; the English monarchists and the English football hooligans should fight their own wars.
Originally posted by Masonic Light
reply to post by BanMePlz
Since the vast majority of people do not consider us evil, I think the title of this thread is a petitio principii, i.e., it begs the question by assuming that people think Masons are evil (which is not the case).
"USA scores the lowest in national average IQ among the developed countries of the world
......American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century. (Source: New York Times)
nearly one fifth of Americans (mistakenly) believe that President Obama is a Muslim
Didn't we clear this one up in the 16th century? Copernicus be damned, 20 percent of Americans were still sure in 1999 that the sun revolved around the Earth. Gallup, the pollster that conducted the study, gamely tried to dress it up by celebrating the fact that "four out of five Americans know Earth revolves around the sun," but we're not buying
According to NEWSWEEK's 2007 What You Need to Know poll, barely half of Americans were correctly able to state that Judaism was older than both Christianity and Islam. Another 41 percent weren't sure
Lost? Don't ask an American. Sixty-three percent of young Americans can't find Iraq on a map, despite the ongoing U.S involvement there. Nine out of 10 can't find Afghanistan—even if you give them the advantage of a map limited to Asia. And more than a third of Americans of any age can't identify the continent that's home to the Amazon River (above), the world's largest.
Three Stooges vs. Three Branches
What a bunch of knuckleheads: according to Zogby, the majority of Americans—three in four—can correctly identify Larry, Curly, and Moe as the Three Stooges. Only two out of five respondents, however, can correctly identify the executive, legislative, and judicial branches as the three wings of government.
It could be said that many conspiracy theory people believe that for obvious reasons, but such people do not represent the general public.
Originally posted by OnTheLevel213
Originally posted by BanMePlz
Masons are seen as evil because they hid in the shadows and keep secrets.
I've asked this before and so have others, so I don't expect a response, but:
Exactly what are we hiding?