first - public apology to the Masons and the board

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra
when I come to travel to the next world I will do so with a smile that I lived my life as a free soul.

I will never give my energy outwardly to worship, a shard of light lives within.

I don't understand why it's so hard for you (and the Matrix) to accept that we have our Order, we like it, and that doesn't make us lesser people or not "free souls." No-one's demanding you join, and indeed I don't think either of you would enjoy Masonry at this stage in your lives. But it's not good enough for you to live and let live... it's not good enough that you be a loner. Everyone else has to be one too, and it they're not, then there's something wrong.

Originally posted by thematrix


Sorry but a work of art, piece of music, a garden, a house, a dog, a cat, a thought, a vision, your very self, need not be of someone else property or origin to be able to love it(offcource, you need to be born from another person to be able to love yourself :p).

And reread what I said please in regard to your "denigrating" comment.

I've read what you said. You've basically marginalised groups.
And yet again you refuse to acknowledge that all of the above mentioned involve the work of other human beings.
I agree that the individual is capable of many things. But to trivialise the act of mutual co-operation is silly. Shared experiences are normally better than those that are experienced by the individual alone.

I'd much rather watch a sunset with a loved one.
I'd also rather visit an art gallery with another art lover or listen to Classical Music with a music lover. Not only is there a shared experience, but you also may find these people introducing you to artists and composers that you've neve heard of. What is the point of always experiencing something alone, when sharing can open up a whole new world to you or to the person you share with?





[edit on 23-8-2004 by Leveller]

Originally posted by AlexKennedy
No-one's demanding you join, and indeed I don't think either of you would enjoy Masonry at this stage in your lives. But it's not good enough for you to live and let live... it's not good enough that you be a loner. Everyone else has to be one too, and it they're not, then there's something wrong.

Again, please mind reading what I said like "The Axeman" did do and answer accordingly with the full context of what I said in mind, instead of making statements about what I said that are plainly untrue, by only taking words and lines of what I said into account.

And well, if your to lazy to do so, here is what I said:

I'm not judging or saying that people shouldn't join a groupment, I can only speak for myself. Give my opinion on the subject and state my reasons for most definatly never being one to join them.

And I think 7th made about the same statement. WE would never join an order, religion or groupment like freemasonry, we totaly don't give a hoot if someone else does.

We are however, like you and all other people, in our right to share our opinion on a subject. That is what we did, we don't care if you or anyone else takes notice of it.
We do care however that what we say is not twisted and turned like you seem to be doing so often, by taking lines and words out of our statements, to make it seem we said something we did not at all say.

Sorry to say this Alex, but from all the posts on this subject and others, made by you that I have seen over time, I have to come to the conclusion that you totaly do not represent the order you say you are part of, since you are a bitter and hatefull person that attacks everyone that doesn't see it exactly like you do.

The Axeman is clearly several steps ahead of you, when it comes to living, talking and conversing the way a freemason is claimed to do.
If you want to preach something, then live by what your preaching, or you'll never get your word across.

Originally posted by Leveller
I've read what you said. You've basically marginalised groups.
And yet again you refuse to acknowledge that all of the above mentioned involve the work of other human beings.
I agree that the individual is capable of many things. But to trivialise the act of mutual co-operation is silly. Shared experiences are normally better than those that are experienced by the individual alone.

I'd much rather watch a sunset with a loved one.
I'd also rather visit an art gallery with another art lover or listen to Classical Music with a music lover. Not only is there a shared experience, but you also may find these people introducing you to artists and composers that you've neve heard of. What is the point of always experiencing something alone, when sharing can open up a whole new world to you or to the person you share with?

Well, its not what I ment. What I said was to state the fact that you do not need another person to be able to love.

I agree that love shared with other people can be rather pleasing. But the point was, you do not need other people by default, to experience love.

Originally posted by thematrix
And I think 7th made about the same statement. WE would never join an order, religion or groupment like freemasonry, we totaly don't give a hoot if someone else does.

If you don't give a hoot whether someone else joins or not, why do you feel the need to comment on how right it is not to join? After all, no-one's asking you to join.

If, however, you really mean this, and you're not going to continue in your attacks on people who decide to join groups, then I have no problem with you (aside from the fact that you consider me hateful and bitter, but that's OK... you and Jahmun can think whatever you want of me... it's just a shame you can't come up with your own insults, and have to use his).

Isn't the whole idea about a discussion for people of all walks of life to share their opinion on a subject?

What use is having a discussion about a subject when only one view is alowed to be expressed? Once only one view is alowed to be expressed and no negative feedback is alowed, doesn't a discussion turn into propaganda for a single view?

And nice if someone already said the hatefull and bitter comment. Those were the words that came up in me, actualy, they weren't, but those were the most civilized words I could think of to represent what I thought in english.

Maybe there are other words to discribe your way of discussing and attacks, but since I'm belgian dutch, my english vocabulary doesn't include all posible variations of insults and negative words.

Originally posted by thematrix
Well, its not what I ment. What I said was to state the fact that you do not need another person to be able to love.

I agree that love shared with other people can be rather pleasing. But the point was, you do not need other people by default, to experience love.

No, your point was that it is better to do these things as an individual.
Practice what you preach and go read your own words.

Originally posted by thematrix
Isn't the whole idea about a discussion for people of all walks of life to share their opinion on a subject?

What use is having a discussion about a subject when only one view is alowed to be expressed? Once only one view is alowed to be expressed and no negative feedback is alowed, doesn't a discussion turn into propaganda for a single view?

Of course it's fine to express dissenting views. The problem is that, according to you, when I disagree with you, it makes me hateful and bitter (or worse, as you say), but when you disagree with me, it makes you a heroic outspoken individual, dedicated to preventing propoganda.

This whole groups vs. individual argument is ephemeral, and is a moot point to begin with.

Those who have not joined Masonry, nor experienced firsthand what is involved have no basis on which to judge Masonry. The testimony of unhappy Christians, Masonry flunkees, and those with a mental disorder does not count, by the way.

Simple as that.

Originally posted by LTD602
This whole groups vs. individual argument is ephemeral, and is a moot point to begin with.

It certainly isn't ephemeral. There are many who argue against Freemasonry because it is a fraternity of men and they simply hate the idea of people getting together. It gives them their conspiracy - "those people have something in common so they must be up to no good".
In fact, although it is a totally illogical argument, it is one that the anti-masons use time and time again.

But you do bring up an interesting point with your final statement. Christians group together in a Church, Muslims in their mosques. And both do their fair share of finger pointing solely because they are a different "group". It seems that many individuals don't actually look at the beliefs of others - they just assume automatically that because they all gather under one alternative banner, they must be an enemy.

Originally posted by Leveller
It seems that many individuals don't actually look at the beliefs of others - they just assume automatically that because they all gather under one alternative banner, they must be an enemy.

I agree completely, Leveller.

Wow, this thread has really gone astray... Everyone needs to take a deep breath - come on - do it with me - inhale... exhale... inhale... exhale... There now, don't you all feel better?


What this basically boils down to in my eyes is that thematrix and 7th Chakra are giving THEIR opinions (however inaccurate they may or may not be they are still entitled to their opinion) on the topic and simply (at least in thematrix's case) stated that while he has no bad blood towards Masons in particular, he himself would not be a part of such a group. He then proceeded to give HIS reasons why HE would not join. He wasn't trying to say "Masonry is bad, mmmmmkay? You shouldn't join Masonry."

Sorry guys, but I just don't see where he specifically attacked or denigrated Masonry in any way. If I am wrong, please post a quote of what he said that got you so ruffled.

Alex, Leveller, 9 times out of 10 I find myself in agreement with you both, but I just don't see where he was perpetrating an attack at all, and if he did, I don't think it was directly pointed at Masonry, only towards people who feel they MUST belong to a group to get along in life.

I may be misinterpreting what I'm reading, and if so, please help me to see how you have interpreted what has been said here.

Oh and for the record, thematrix, I am not a Mason, although I do look forward to joining soon.

[edit on 8/23/04 by The Axeman]

Don't you know, all Masons are good, they are God's gift from heaven.

Or so they act...

Hopefully sometime they'll get their stories straight on the elements of Masonry.

But until then, they are speaking for themselves and not Masonry as I have recently found it.

[edit on 23-8-2004 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by Jamuhn
But until then, they are speaking for themselves and not Masonry as I have recently found it.

I don't think any one man can "speak for Masonry". Any man can only speak for himself, period.

Originally posted by The Axeman

Originally posted by Jamuhn
But until then, they are speaking for themselves and not Masonry as I have recently found it.

I don't think any one man can "speak for Masonry". Any man can only speak for himself, period.

Couldn't agree more. Some of them need disclaimers.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Don't you know, all Masons are good, they are God's gift from heaven.

Or so they act...

Hopefully sometime they'll get their stories straight on the elements of Masonry.

But until then, they are speaking for themselves and not Masonry as I have recently found it.

There is nothing that hasn;'t been straight to you Jamuhn... the "problem" you see is that masonry is different things to different men... Pike thinks one thing, Palmer another, Johnson something else, Theron another, Alex something else. There may be overlaps, but I have found no contradictions... and since you allude to contradicting versions or stories, I would be very interested in a separate thread your presentation of what you see as contradictions...

Thanks

I will create that thread, but until then, I'll say that at first Alex tried to tell me that Egypt is completely lacking in the rituals in Masonry. Only to have another Mason come up and tell me the opposite with documentation.

That is the contradiction I speak of, the rites, orders, specific lodges, and specific people, and their take on what Masonry is as a whole. But what they don't want to tell you is that they are speaking for their or their lodges interpretation. I was under the impression Masonry was united in every way, but it isn't. So now there's all these little Masons running around the board saying what Masonry means, trying to nitpick and prove everyone wrong.

I'd like to see more of "In my lodge we don't have...," instead of "Masonry doesn't have..."

Originally posted by theron dunn
...and since you allude to contradicting versions or stories, I would be very interested in a separate thread your presentation of what you see as contradictions...

Thanks

I would be very interested to see where such a thread goes myself...


I think the problem is people tend to lump all Freemasons into the same category, and that just isn't right, or fair to the Masons. Masons come from all walks of life, so naturally they will have different perspectives relative to their station in life and their experience with Freemasonry.

On the other hand, it is easy for someone who knows nothing about Masonry generalize like that. I did at one time myself, I just persisted until I got at what I believe to be the truth about it. A big part of finding out, though was clearing my mind of preconceptions and looking at both sides from a rational point of view. When you back up and take an objective position, it's easy to see who is telling the truth and who is full of crap.

My conclusion is obvious, it's no secret that I am very eager to become a Mason, and even as a Profane I will do my best to back up what I believe to be the truth.

Originally posted by The Axeman
Sorry guys, but I just don't see where he specifically attacked or denigrated Masonry in any way. If I am wrong, please post a quote of what he said that got you so ruffled.

Correct me if I'm wrong Axeman, but his first post implied that Freemasons are not trustworthy and "limited in honour".

Second reason would be that binding yourself to a groupment will limit you in honor and trust to bring out whatever information you stumble upon within the organisation.

No matter how insignificant, important or disturbing the information you recieve within an organisation is, when your bound to an oath, you can not live in honor or respect for yourself by revealing any or all information you aquire within that organisation.

We also have the old, blind followers argument.

Third reason would be that for me, binding yourself to a groupment can and will limit you to evolve yourself and your actions towards the world by the rules and boundries set forth by the groupment you tied yourself to.

Jahmun:

That is the contradiction I speak of, the rites, orders, specific lodges, and specific people, and their take on what Masonry is as a whole. But what they don't want to tell you is that they are speaking for their or their lodges interpretation. I was under the impression Masonry was united in every way, but it isn't

Well, I'm afraid that is your own ignorant fault. No mason told you that everything is exactly the same. In fact if you bother reading through this forum you can find literally hundreds of threads where Freemasons discuss what they do differently in thier own Lodges. The fact that you don't know what you are talking about here, can't be blamed on others.

Originally posted by Leveller
Correct me if I'm wrong Axeman, but his first post implied that Freemasons are not trustworthy and "limited in honour".

Second reason would be that binding yourself to a groupment will limit you in honor and trust to bring out whatever information you stumble upon within the organisation.

No matter how insignificant, important or disturbing the information you recieve within an organisation is, when your bound to an oath, you can not live in honor or respect for yourself by revealing any or all information you aquire within that organisation.

What I ment with that is that in any organisation, if you have taken an oath, and you find something fishy or something that general knowledge in the organisation, but you personaly find should be shared with the world, you can't bring that out without breaking your oath and dishonoring yourself by breaking that oath and destroying the trust the people you have vowed brotherhood to, have in you.

Its not pointed at the organisation, but at the person itself. How can you live with yourself if you have made an oath to a person or group of people and break that?
Maybe its overcautious, but still, every organisation has its bad apples, denying that is propably the biggest showcase of ignorance there can be.