Wait! Wait! Is this the truth coming out
The Masons are NOT out to rule the world. The Masons really just like a great spread The secret is out.

Originally posted by Khonsu
At last weeks lodge we had a bonified feast! Honey-basted-grilled-chicken, macaroni and cheese (the baked kind), sucatash(spelling?), pasta salad, dinner rolls, and lemonade. Ah, delish, how wonderful it was.

Holy Crow!!! Where is your Lodge Located, the land of happy Masons?

Originally posted by Leveller
The Templars were the first international bankers. Nearly every king was in debt to them. Phillipe of France had them destroyed for this and for the reason that he feared that they could threaten his power base.

Right he had them destroyed because they threatened his power base...
How? If they were just a religious order who financed the nations of europe and acted at the behest of the Pope then after he had the Pope in his pocket why destroy them? If YOU run the POPE and the POPE runs the Templars then.......?

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Knights Templar were trying to subvert the power of the Church. It's ironic that those who try to sell this line are basically swallowing centuries old propaganda that was created by Phillipe so that he could destroy the Order. All of the surviving evidence points to the KTs being a Christian Order working hand in hand with the Vatican until Phillipe subverted the papacy.

Well this is the whole crux of the debate! I doubt we would ever be able to say for sure what is truth and what is fiction. I am in the process of researching this information but I have little faith that a real solid answer can be found. I look at the actions of the Templars more than what is writen about them. I find it interesting that the largest fortresses built by the Templars were in Europe not in the holy land. What were they defending against?

There are no masons who know of the entire history of masonry and can give a totally acceptable opinion. There are Lodges of Research where we try to uncover the past and shed some light on Freemasonry's historical roots, but any discovery regarding the Knights Templar has been shrouded in speculation. No verifiable link is likely to occur either. If the Freemasons are descended from the Knights Templar, any hard evidence would have been destroyed as the KTs themselves could not let their existence be known once Phillipe had forced his pope to issue a bull against them and disbanded the Order.

Again I think actions will speak where writen word can not. I do not believe that the research done in this area by others is without merit. I am not one who thinks that there has to be a smoking gun for every historical story
it is aceptable to make a "leap of faith" and draw conclusions where we are without writen proof but have circumstantal evidence. That said we will never be positively sure!

As for the Masons themselves trying to weaken the hold of the Church? Masonic history has the early members of the Order as the main builders of churches and cathedrals throughout medieval Europe. One can hardly subvert a religion by building centres of worship for it.

Quite the oposite one can easily subvert the religion by building its palaces of worship look at Notra Dame and Chartres (sp). They are covered with symbology that is clearly NOT christian not to mention the Black Madonnas in other cathedrals!

This topic has been very interesting to me for some time how do we get a slot on the research forum so we can work through this entirely?
]

[edit on 10-8-2004 by GRENADIER]

Hmmmm . . . . I thought it unlikely, but this is actually turning into an interesting debate:

The Motives of the Templars.

I'd like to see where this is going.

I thought that the Knights Templar took on the duty of protecting pilgrims travelling to visit the Holy Land, so the idea of fortresses in Europe or wherever doesn't sound odd to me, but correct me if I'm wrong in this.

Philippe was a greedy ruthless monarch & he wanted the wealth all to himself. Monarchies & Papacy tended to be extremely corrupt in those days. The KT's were bound by honour, & Phillipe wasn't able to bring them down overnight.

The link between the KT's & the Freemasons is a tenuous one, AFAIK, but others here will have much more knowledge on this, although I have tried to read this thread properly.

As for your desired research forum - well I think you're asking a lot. YOU'RE the one with all the historical doubts, after all, & you want to research events that took place many many centuries ago? What you're looking for won't all be in libraries or the Internet, & I don't like your chances of getting access to ancient manuscripts etc - & field research in Europe would be a long & costly exercise.

Yes
Let me be clear I do not want to start a heated name calling match between various factions of believers, I just want to know answers!

I picked up my copy of Mackeys "History of Freemasonry" last night to give it a look again.
He has 2 chapters on the origins of the Freemasons lying in the Crusades (i.e. the Templars , Hospitiallars, Teutonic Order) and dismisses all of them as sources. He states that the Templar theory comes from a Scotsman named Ramsey and denounces him rather harshly. However he provides no basis for his denouncment just personal observations leading me to believe he had a preconcieved notion about Ramsey. It is rather intersting to see the debate between Masons as to the Templar conection goes back as far as it does. This is not a "new" idea. Mackeys work was first published in 1898! and he quotes other sources going back as far as 1805!

Again I do not intend to offend anyone by suggesting that the Templars or Masons are responsible for the rise of secularism in the US and western Europe I believe this to be true but do not infer any value judgement on any Mason or Templar or Catholic for that matter. For the record my grandmother was an Eastern Star.

Peace, friend, I ain't name-calling nor representative of any faction - I'm not even a mason!

I thought the link between KT's & Freemasons was a tenuous one, if one exists. But do you see what you're up against - trying to trace things back over a thousand years of time?

Originally posted by GRENADIER
I picked up my copy of Mackeys "History of Freemasonry" last night to give it a look again.
He has 2 chapters on the origins of the Freemasons lying in the Crusades (i.e. the Templars , Hospitiallars, Teutonic Order) and dismisses all of them as sources. He states that the Templar theory comes from a Scotsman named Ramsey and denounces him rather harshly. However he provides no basis for his denouncment just personal observations leading me to believe he had a preconcieved notion about Ramsey. It is rather intersting to see the debate between Masons as to the Templar conection goes back as far as it does. This is not a "new" idea. Mackeys work was first published in 1898! and he quotes other sources going back as far as 1805!

Mackey is generally correct, at least in regard to the records that still exist. The first recorded "connection" between Freemasonry and the Templars comes from 18th century France, and all the Masonic/Templar myths are traceable to Bro. Michael Andrew Ramsay.
Most Masonic scholars explain this phenomenon as having to do with the French nobility's involvement in Freemasonry.

In England, Masonry stressed equality and liberalism, celebrating the fact that all men of good character were admitted regardless of their station in the profane world. In France, this was somewhat different. The aristocracy took a liking to Masonry, and sought to keep it aristocratic. On top of this, they seemed to have been embarrased that the organization was derived from a guild of common laborers, so they invented the tale that Masonry was connected with the chivalry of the middle ages, which was far more romantic than being derived from proletarian craftsmen.

Again I do not intend to offend anyone by suggesting that the Templars or Masons are responsible for the rise of secularism in the US and western Europe I believe this to be true but do not infer any value judgement on any Mason or Templar or Catholic for that matter. For the record my grandmother was an Eastern Star.

Masonry per se was not responsible for the rise of secularism, but the fraternity certainly embraced it. Most of the leading thinkers of the Enlightenment became Masons, and used the fraternity as a place of congregation for humanist intellectuals.

Fiat Lvx.

Originally posted by GRENADIER
However he provides no basis for his denouncment just personal observations leading me to believe he had a preconcieved notion about Ramsey. It is rather intersting to see the debate between Masons as to the Templar conection goes back as far as it does. This is not a "new" idea. Mackeys work was first published in 1898! and he quotes other sources going back as far as 1805!

For a more extensive analysis of Templarism and why even the Chevalier Ramsay himself probably did not believe the Freemasons were "descended" from the Templars, take a look at "The Murdered Magicians" by Peter Partner. It's actually quite a fun read, and has a lot on Templarism through the ages (it's not just related to Freemasonry, you know).

Just a comment on something you said before. The probable reason that Philip le Bel had the Templars expunged was that he owed them a great deal of money, and wanted to take the treasure he believed to be contained in their temples, as well as confiscating their land (they were substantial estate-holders). That is, Philip le Bel didn't have a complex motive... in fact, it is one of the most common motives in history: greed.

Absolutly thats why I say we will most likely not get the smoking gun!
But I think we can get close. New information is coming forward all the time. I just saw a show the other night that had an official Vatican researcher who found a document that was hidden since Clement abolished the order. The document absolved the Templars from the charges of Heresy! This however doesnt undermine my assertion that the Templars were attempting to seperate Church and state. Clement was actually related to a former Grand Master of the order!

Regarding the Templar fortresses. They Templars were charged with guarding the pilgrams but that duty was in the Holyland. Their main area of Operations was in the city of Jeruselem until that city fell they moved to Acre until that city fell. My thoughts are if some of your largest fortresses are in France how does that further your mission to guard the Holyland? Shouldnt your largest fortresses be guarding the approches to Jeruselem like Masada or built on top of the Golan heights? Just seems odd!

I just couldn't resist saying something here.

Satan is certainly not a Christian creation. He is mentioned in the Old Testament numerous times, and exists in Rabbinical writings through the ages, including texts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The existance of evil is prevalent in all major religions. How do I know? I have studied all for years. I chose not to be an agnostic, but chose to be informed about the things one might call Theology.

Hell is not a new notion either. But I am not a fellow who believes that all roads lead to heaven either. My hope rests in the love of God, who provided means for my forgiveness, and therefore will not see judgement.

Does that make me a lunatic? I don't believe so. For let us follow this logic for a moment. God, does not need to conform Himself to man, or what man wants, nor does He need to be politically correct. If God loved His son, and all roads lead to heaven for all of these great people, then Jesus would not have gone to the cross. If all roads do lead to heaven, and Jesus went to the cross unnecessarily, then God did not love His only Son, and then, why would He love me. If that is God,(which I don't believe for a moment) then I would have no part of Him.

Theology is not some celestial smorgashborg where we get to pick out all the stuff we like, and ingnore the stuff we don't. Now, if that ruffles some feathers, so be it. I will believe what years of study and research has led me to see as truth. If that makes me non P.C., crazy, fundamentalist, or whatever, so be it.

As for the Masons, have at it. If it is in fact not of the enemy, then it is of man, which is not much better. I believe that what has been revealed in the Bible is transcended, come from God.

Also, pardon my hideous spelling. I rely upon spell check too much evidently.

Anyway,
I think I have ranted on enough. Time to go read some more fun conspiracy stuff.

Just a comment on something you said before. The probable reason that Philip le Bel had the Templars expunged was that he owed them a great deal of money, and wanted to take the treasure he believed to be contained in their temples, as well as confiscating their land (they were substantial estate-holders). That is, Philip le Bel didn't have a complex motive... in fact, it is one of the most common motives in history: greed.

Yes I know he owed them money and I do not doubt his motives my point was that after having the Pope appointed he had the string to the order in his hand he could have used the order to his own ends through the Pope.
Would the Templars who are said to be devout and loyal to the Pope and God ( like the marine corp...God, Corp, Country or something like that) have been honor bound to follow the orders of the Pope? If the Pope told the order to absolve Phillip of his debt would they not have to comply?

Phillip was trying to finance his coming war with England ( the 100 years war) so My guess is he would have rather have had the Order in his pocket if he could get it. This inclines me to belive that the Order was not as Loyal to the Pope as they profess and Phillip knew they would never allow themselves to be dangled on the line. Clearly you have a situation in Europe where you have 3 groups jockying for position. The Church as always trying to be above all earthly rule, The kings, Phillip in particular, attempting to be top dogs. And the Templars who had set themselves up as financiers as well as having the most professional fighting force in the world (including a Navy) and who now have no clear mission ( the holyland being lost as it were). I for one do not believe that the Templars were so blind as to see the danger in growing to the size that they did. I believe they thought their special place at the Popes side would protect them until they were ready to openly defiy the Church. I believe they also expected the mission in the holy land to last longer than it did and not to be put in a position re-define themselves!

Originally posted by spidergooch
If God loved His son, and all roads lead to heaven for all of these great people, then Jesus would not have gone to the cross. If all roads do lead to heaven, and Jesus went to the cross unnecessarily, then God did not love His only Son, and then, why would He love me. If that is God,(which I don't believe for a moment) then I would have no part of Him.

Hmmm... since you're a studied theologist, I'm quite surprised you're not aware that there might be other logical possibilities:

1) Perhaps everyone now winds up in heaven, because of Jesus' sacrifice. That is to say, Jesus' sacrifice saved every human being, past, present, and future. The sacrifice was necessary and sufficient, as they say.

2) Perhaps Jesus' sacrifice was meant to illustrate cetain metaphysical practices which must be engaged in by every human being if they hope to transcend to an exalted, enlightened state. Let us not forget that much of the New Testament speaks as if the existence or nonexistence of a "spiritual" afterlife is largely irrelevant, since every human being will be ressurected and given a new body, just like Jesus was.

3) Perhaps all roads lead to heaven, and each spiritual entity travels forward through a multi-incarnation evolution toward some goal which we, as humans , are incapable of understanding at the moment. Jesus' sacrifice metaphysically "opened a doorway" for further spiritual evolution of the human race.

4) Perhaps every soul is saved, and always have been, but Jesus' sacrifice achieved changes in the physical, material world which God wished to achieve.

There are more possibilities, limited only by your imagination, your basic axioms of thought, and logic. Let's not paint ourselves into unnecessary corners, shall we?

Originally posted by GRENADIER
[. I believe they also expected the mission in the holy land to last longer than it did and not to be put in a position re-define themselves!

Excellent! This is exactly what academic research tells us! In fact, the Templars are often characterised as very poor political-strategy thinkers (keep in mind that not only was Jaques de Molay illiterate, but that he didn't think any of his knights should be literate either).

Now as for the Pope demanding Philip le Bel's debts be rescinded, that's all well and good, but we have to remember that the Pope has never been the sole power in Europe. He also had to deal with the Teutonic Knights, the Emperor, etc. Now, keep in mind that the Templars were a vast order, not monobloc, and that after the destruction of the order, some Templars unnecessarily gave themselves over to the authorities, some were allowed to continue in peace (such as in England), and some challenged the authorities to provide proof, and succesfully exhonerated themselves (such as in present-day Germany). If the Pope had demanded they rescind the debt, i) Philip le Bel would not have gotten his hands on the imaginary Templar treasure, and ii) they might not have listened.

We also must not forget that there were some people who genuinely did believe that the Templars were engaging in heresy. They were almost assuredly wrong, but the zeitgeist was there.

My paternal grandfather was a Mason and one of my best friends is a Mason and I can tell you that the satanist accusations are nonsense. The Masons place a high value on personal character and integrity and give back to the community far more than they take. The Shriners' Children's hospitals are just one example. The Shriner's hospital in Shreveport, LA is one of the finest burn centers in the world and as far as I know, the Shriners charge nothing for their services.

These baseless accusations by those of dubious extraction are really quite disgusting. I would like to see every person who denigrates the Masons to post a resume of their accomplishments and contributions to the community in which they live.

[edit on 04/8/10 by GradyPhilpott]

Not to belabor a point;
The foolishness of God is infinitely more wise than the wisdom of man.

Atonement was universal. The caveat is receiving the gift. I choose not to dabble in the non-biblical conclusions. That falls under revealed knowledge of God.

As far as the other New Age niceties, they all fit into their Theology, but not mine. So while once can entertain the fanciful all the while, it does not fit into the pale of orthodoxy, the writings of the church fathers, scripture, or any other traditional Christian stream of thought.

Again, it is man making God fit in to what man wants, rather than what God reveals.

For me, and yes, I have studied extensively, those other ideas fit into either a New Age rendition of Theology, or an ultra liberal rendition of Christianity, which are inventions of man, and not residing in scriptural Theology.

It reminds me of a debate I once participated in. Supposedly we were all Christians in the debate. It was on the subject of sin, separation from God, and repentance and forgiveness. The new thought that crept in to the debate was that there was no sin. Once again, Christ is sacrificed unnecessarily.

But I appreciate your point of view, and hopefully have disagreed agreeably. But because I choose not to expand my consciousness beyond what I believe that God has revelaed as truth, does not mean that I am unstudied.



[edit on 10-8-2004 by spidergooch]

Originally posted by spidergooch
But because I choose not to expand my consciousness beyond what I believe that God has revelaed as truth, does not mean that I am unstudied.

What is the point of your continued study?

It seems that no matter what you find in your studys, if it is contrary to what you already believe that you will reject it. Also since your conception of God has already provided you with all the answers, it seems that he would frown on a pointless excercise of studying other forms of belief and would prefer that something more productive be pursued.
.

Originally posted by spidergooch
I just couldn't resist saying something here.

Satan is certainly not a Christian creation. He is mentioned in the Old Testament numerous times, and exists in Rabbinical writings through the ages, including texts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The existance of evil is prevalent in all major religions. How do I know? I have studied all for years. I chose not to be an agnostic, but chose to be informed about the things one might call Theology.

The concept of an evil force in the universe has been around since the inception of mans basic theology. For anything to exist there must exist its opposite on some level or another. For every yin there's a yang, for every positive a negative, a light and a dark, a male and a female, to build one must destroy, it is the nature of the universe, its called balance. For one to exist so must the other.

Originally posted by spidergooch
Hell is not a new notion either. But I am not a fellow who believes that all roads lead to heaven either. My hope rests in the love of God, who provided means for my forgiveness, and therefore will not see judgement.

You are correct, the concept of "hell" is not new either, it much like the concept of a "heaven", God or Satan stems from antiquity and exists in some form in all forms of theology. The question is not where these things originated, nor what they are specifically because all in all no ones truly knows, and no one will know until they reach those destinations. What matters is determining ultimately where one wants to end up, and how to ensure ones arrival. Is hell fire and brimstone? Is it a damnation of the soul? is it rebirth into a lower being, or even into this being again? Who knows? Personally at this stage in my life I feel that this realm, this physical existance is hell, and that heaven is the choice to leave this plane and become one with God, the GAOTU, the creator, the Universe and all within it. Is there a posibility that im wrong? Sure there is, but im satisfied with it, and my belief helps to guide me down a righteous path, and keeps me in bounds. Every man/woman must choose his/her path, it doesnt matter what path we take to get there, as long as we get there.

Originally posted by spidergooch
Does that make me a lunatic? I don't believe so. For let us follow this logic for a moment. God, does not need to conform Himself to man, or what man wants, nor does He need to be politically correct. If God loved His son, and all roads lead to heaven for all of these great people, then Jesus would not have gone to the cross. If all roads do lead to heaven, and Jesus went to the cross unnecessarily, then God did not love His only Son, and then, why would He love me. If that is God,(which I don't believe for a moment) then I would have no part of Him.

It all depends on how you look at things, it depends upon your perception which is based upon your reality. Can man even fathom God in all its greatness and entirety? Some would argue that we cannot as God encompasses things unknown to us, and therefore is it fair to assume and make claims as to what God is and is not capable of, will and won't do, what Gods rational was or is for certain things? No, not really. Some will say "sure we can because the Bible/Torah/Quran/Bhagavad Gita/Book of Coming Forth By Day (egyptain book of the dead)/Seven Tablets of Creation/Dead Sea Scrolls etc. give clear instructions about how to live, and explains everything about God, the creation of man, and the universe, the struggle for salvation, and the attainment of the "heaven" concept. We'll they don't (and this is strictly my humble opinion of course), none of these books are perfect nor entirely accurate, they all have their flaws as they were written by the flawed hands of man, (just a thought: since man is indeed flawed and was created in Gods image, god must have flaws as well right? not saying I agree or dissagree, just something to think about) based upon mans limited understanding of the universe, lack of records and scientific information. (insert faith here) Therefore like I illuded to earlier, all these "holy books" are simply various groups of man and woman-kinds interpretation of, or answer to mans greatest questions, an interpretation based upon ones perception, which again is based upon ones reality.

Originally posted by spidergooch
Theology is not some celestial smorgashborg where we get to pick out all the stuff we like, and ingnore the stuff we don't. Now, if that ruffles some feathers, so be it. I will believe what years of study and research has led me to see as truth. If that makes me non P.C., crazy, fundamentalist, or whatever, so be it.

Nothing that exists is perfect, except possibly God itself and my current philosphical interpretation of the GAOTU is that it is perfect only by encompassing all that exists, imperfections as well, but I digress. Perfection again is based upon ones perception of it. Whats perfect to me, may not be "perfect" to another. My ex-girlfriend was perfect in m eyes, but im sure there is some ex-boyfriend of hers out there that thought she was a high-maintenance, relationship fearing, salon chick. So in order for there to be anything "perfect" you first must figure out by what rules to define it, and after that there must be a consensus for universal flawlessness to be bestowed. Theology is a man made creation, spirituality is not. The various theologies all have their flaws as I mentioned earlier, and I find the concept of simply accepting these, much like swallowing a large piece of grissel on a steak, ... disgusting. Life to me is a journey, on in which you are to learn about life, about living correctly, about mastering yourself, and the world around you, about growing and understanding, about finding the truth, about pointing out the falsehoods and abandoning them. Its not about accepting them just because. Man is based with the intellect and wisdom to make concious choices, and thuse we must exercise this. I choose not to accept things I do not agree with, you may choose to, again its your choice, its everyones.

Good thought provoking comments by the way.

Hotep

I really need to learn to use quotes. But not tonight. The amazing race is on soon, but I have really enjoyed this string of thoughts.

Why continue to study? I suppose if I felt that I had attained perfection, which I know that I have not, I would stop. I also enjoy learning about differing belief systems. It makes for a much more interesting conversation.

I have had the opportunity to have some lengthy discussions with some Muslim friends because I had read the Koran. We spent hours discussing what we believe and why.

Is that a bad thing? I have gotten a lot of historical context out of the Dead Sea Scroll fragments, the Talmud, the Midrash, shall I go on. It helps me to teach those who desire to learn. I consider it a blessing that I am able to teach studies, host classes, give sermons, and the lot.

The Bible says to "Study to show yourself approved."

Since the Bible teaches that God is unchanging, I choose not to change Him. I sense that some of you are bothered by that. That is unfortunate.
Again, I would hope we could disagree agreeably.

I enjoyed the previous writers observations. I think we would enjoy a couple of hours conversation over couple cups of coffee.

Anyway, Good evening to all.