Freemasonry, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

reply posted on 6-9-2004 @ 03:42 PM by JonestownRed

I was worried that someone would take it that way, LTD. I did not compare Masonry to the KKK in any sense other than that they are both organizations. I was merely using an extreme analogy to emphasize my point in a way that we could agree. Perhaps I wouldn't have risked offending you if I had chosen the CIA instead? If so, just read that in place of KKK. What I was trying to get across is that you don't have to be a member of an organization to criticize it, but if you are going to criticize it, you need to have real evidence as a reason for doing so. Obviously this is an easy task concerning the KKK. The lack of evidence is what discredits the anti-masons, not the fact that they aren't masons.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by JonestownRed]

[edit on 6-9-2004 by JonestownRed]

reply posted on 6-9-2004 @ 03:58 PM by LTD602

Fair enough, Jonestown . . . . I misunderstood your meaning and came down hard on you. My mistake.

I apologize. Hope you accept.

On a different note:

As for the Lucifer business posted just above, please read the followng. It is a Masonic source, but it might give you a fresh persepoctive

www.masonicinfo.com...

I, personally, could care less whether "good Christians" join masonry or not. If Christians feel uncomforatble, they need not join. Jesus aint the only game in town, folks. There are Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, and others. I'm sorry if Christians can't reconcile themselves with something in Masonry. They shouldm't join, then. BUT, they SHOULD have a look at the above link before they make their decision. Sound fair?

[edit on 6-9-2004 by LTD602]

reply posted on 6-9-2004 @ 04:03 PM by JonestownRed

Hey, no offense taken LTD. I can see how that might seem inflammatory, considering the number of folks who have earnestly compared masonry to the KKK.

reply posted on 6-9-2004 @ 04:10 PM by Masonic Light

Originally posted by OLMGITNHFTWS

These quotes are very straightforward and easy to understand. Any good Christian would not involve themselves in an organization devoted to luciferian principles.

Again, I think the whole issue boils down to terminology. You say Pike's quotes are "straightforward" and "easy to understand", but I'm not convinced you've understood them, much less have explained to us exactly what "luciferian principles" are.

What Pike says about Lucifer is not unique; the dictionaries, encyclopedias, and religious historians of all brands say pretty much the same thing. What Pike obviously means, by reading him in context, is fairly simple to determine, but only when reading him in context. The following facts sum up Pike's position, as given in the quote you gave:

1. The word "Lucifer" does not appear in the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts of the Bible. It appears once in the King James Version of Isaiah, and refers to Tiglath-Pilaser, king of Babylon.

2. The word Lucifer, which is Latin for "light bearer", was inserted in the Vulgate version of this verse by St. Jerome to replace the Hebrew word "hekel", which literally means "shining one", and is how the Babylonian kings were addressed.

3. A sort of practical joke was involved in this, as a fellow monk and contemporary of Jerome's, whose name was Lucifer, taught a different theological doctrine than Jerome concerning free will. The Luciferians believed in free will, while the Jeromians did not. Therefore, identifying a fallen, pompous king with St. Lucifer was a method for St. Jerome to take a jab at his opponent.

4. Beginning in the middle ages, the fall of Tiglath began to be scene as analogous with the story of the devil, and eventually the name "Lucifer" became synonymous with the evil one.

5. Pike points out the absurdity of all this by reminding his readers that "Lucifer" means "light bearer", and questions the logic of the Church applying this title to its archdemon, telling us it is a strange and mysterious name to give to the prince of darkness (sort of like calling a Klansman a "civil rights activist", or calling a Communist a crusader for free enterprise).

Why keep secrets unless you have something to hide?

Masonic secrecy has been addressed and explained a billion times on this forum. Please try a search option before flogging that long dead horse again.

Seems to me that ATS is completely dominated by masons, and any serious discussion as to the the hidden meanings and true insights are smothered very quickly.

How so? I've yet to see any opponents of Masonry seriously discussing Freemasonry. I'm sorry if you can't accept this, but constant babble about the illuminati, new world orders, satanism, etc., is not serious discussion, it's juvenile horror movie stuff. If you have a serious question, ask away.

And no 20 of u masons quickly grouping together to tell me how good u are wont change my mind.

I don't think we re going to change your mind anymore than you're going to change ours. The point of these discussions, at least IMO, is for the neutral who may be curious.

Fiat Lvx.

reply posted on 6-9-2004 @ 04:12 PM by esther

[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]

reply posted on 6-9-2004 @ 04:33 PM by OLMGITNHFTWS

From your link www.masonicinfo.com... :
"Everyone is entirely free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound."

Yes I have found that one of the things people find comforting about joining a lodge is the lack of judgmental people, when it comes to principles and exactly how you want to live your life. The idea that each man is his own god and what is right and wrong is not determined by God , but by the individual is a Luciferian principle.

also from your link:
" ... It is not intended that he shall understand them; but it is intended that he shall imagine that he understands them.Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry (the 28th degree and beyond)." I have asked enough Masons to convince myself that there is no Mason anywhere who agrees with that statement."

Well it is pretty obvious that the mason who wrote that either didn't agree or just would not accept the fact. Either way its up to interpretation.

dictionary.reference.com...

Lu�ci�fer P Pronunciation Key (ls-fr)
n.
The archangel cast from heaven for leading the revolt of the angels; Satan.
The planet Venus in its appearance as the morning star.
lucifer A friction match.

The lack of evidence as to the origin of the word lucifer is the problem. The only real evidence we have to go on is the meaning of the word as accepted by the vast majority of the world.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by OLMGITNHFTWS]

reply posted on 6-9-2004 @ 04:36 PM by All Seeing Eye

Originally posted by Gerard
They believe that the Freemasons are part of the 'World Conspiracy' and that Freemasonry are the 'highest levels' is planning to enslave the world in a one world Government.

Prove to me it isnt.

Prove to me that the pope didnt know about the pedifiles in his ranks. Prove to me that the masons at the top are honorable. PROVE IT!

reply posted on 6-9-2004 @ 04:51 PM by OLMGITNHFTWS

[edit on 6-9-2004 by OLMGITNHFTWS]

reply posted on 6-9-2004 @ 04:52 PM by intrepid

Originally posted by OLMGITNHFTWS

[edit on 6-9-2004 by OLMGITNHFTWS]

Oh, no. They got another one.

reply posted on 6-9-2004 @ 04:53 PM by Mirthful Me

Originally posted by OLMGITNHFTWS

dictionary.reference.com...

Lu�ci�fer P Pronunciation Key (ls-fr)
n.
The archangel cast from heaven for leading the revolt of the angels; Satan.
The planet Venus in its appearance as the morning star.
lucifer A friction match.

The lack of evidence as to the origin of the word lucifer is the problem. The only real evidence we have to go on is the meaning of the word as accepted by the vast majority of the world.

Perhaps you should have scrolled down the page?

From: Provided Link
Source: WordNet � 2.0, � 2003 Princeton University

lucifer

brilliant star, a title given to the king of Babylon (Isa. 14:12) to denote his
glory.

Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

lucifer

Lucifer, bringing light

Ommission of convieniece, a stalwart buttress to an already failed position.

An article about Lucifer that you can accept.

reply posted on 6-9-2004 @ 04:58 PM by LTD602

From the Encycfolpaedia Britannica, 1988, vol.7., p. 542.

Verbatim . . .

Lucifer:

(Latin: Lightbearer), Greek PHOSPHORUS, or EOSPHOROS in classical mythology, the morning star (i.e., the planet Venus at dawn); personified as a male figurebearing a torch, Lucifer had almost no leged, but in poetry he was often the herald of the dawn. In Christian times Lucifer came to be regarded as the name of Satan before his fall. It was thus used by Jonh Milton in Paradise Lost, and the idea underlies the proverbial phrase "as proud as Lucifer."

When you assume things based on "what the rest of the world thinks", you're made to look stupid.

Argue at your own risk. You can remove your foot from your mouth, now. It might also help to take a break from bible class for a while, and enroll yourself in some University courses.

By the way, Christian interpretations are . . . Christian interpreations, and do not apply to non-Christians.

Clear ?

[edit on 6-9-2004 by LTD602]

[edit on 6-9-2004 by LTD602]

reply posted on 6-9-2004 @ 04:59 PM by OLMGITNHFTWS

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

Perhaps you should have scrolled down the page?

From: Provided Link
Source: WordNet � 2.0, � 2003 Princeton University

lucifer

brilliant star, a title given to the king of Babylon (Isa. 14:12) to denote his
glory.

Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

lucifer

Lucifer, bringing light

Ommission of convieniece, a stalwart buttress to an already failed position.

LOL ommission of convenience? Then why did you omit so much?
dictionary.reference.com...

Lu"ci*fer\, n. [L., bringing light, n., the morning star, fr. lux, lucis, light + ferre to bring.] 1. The planet Venus, when appearing as the morning star; -- applied in Isaiah by a metaphor to a king of Babylon.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning ! how art thou cut down to the ground which didst weaken the nations ! --Is. xiv. 12.

Tertullian and Gregory the Great understood this passage of Isaiah in reference to the fall of Satan; in consequence of which the name Lucifer has since been applied to, Satan. --Kitto.

2. Hence, Satan.

How wretched Is that poor man that hangs on princes' favors! . . . When he falls, he falls like Lucifer, Never to hope again. --Shak.

lucifer

n 1: (Judeo-Christian and Islamic religions) chief spirit of evil and adversary of God; tempter of mankind; master of Hell [syn: Satan, Old Nick, Devil, the Devil, Lucifer, Beelzebub, the Tempter, Prince of Darkness] 2: lighter consisting of a thin piece of wood or cardboard tipped with combustible chemical; ignites with friction; "he always carries matches to light his pipe" [syn: match, friction match]

The VAST majority of the world accepts the meaning of Lucifer to mean Satan. It is clear that your misinterpretations are only accepted by the minority and therefore COMPLETELY DISCREDITED except by those who would deny truth. Decieved by the great deciever.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by OLMGITNHFTWS]

reply posted on 6-9-2004 @ 05:04 PM by LTD602

Satan is Satan to Crhistians.

I am not a Christian. Many are not.

Arguing from a religious perspective is ridiculous.

If Christians are bothered by "Lucifer", well . . . . . . . . I'll send flowers.

reply posted on 6-9-2004 @ 05:08 PM by OLMGITNHFTWS

Actually bible believing and Islamic religions recognize the evils of satan.
Satan can only be discussed from a spiritual or religious standpoint because he is a demon/spirit/fallen angel.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by OLMGITNHFTWS]

reply posted on 6-9-2004 @ 05:17 PM by LTD602

You're talking to the wrong person then.

I am not a Christian, nor do I recognize "Satan."

Nor do I recognize the Christian interpretation that was IMPOSED on the term "Lucifer" . . . a term that was appropriated and misused by Christianity.

reply posted on 6-9-2004 @ 05:20 PM by Jamuhn

Does the ad hominem argument sound familiar?

Am I right, or am I right?

Seems there is valid information to be found on the net written by Masons.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by Jamuhn]

reply posted on 6-9-2004 @ 05:29 PM by LTD602

His contentions have been answered, but not to his satisfaction.

Since I DO NOT, as a rule, argue from a religious perspective, I will no longer argue this point.

Example:

"The idea that each man is his own god and what is right and wrong is not determined by God , but by the individual is a Luciferian principle."

The "Supreme Being" I happen to pray to does not decide what is right and wrong for me. I, as an individual with Free Will (not God's will) make that decision. This is a luciferian principle according to the biases and particular prejudices of Christianity and it's associated denominations. Muslims can be counted in as well, if you like.

In my humble opinion, God has no place in reasoned debate. Why? Because when God enters into the argument, it becomes more important for the argument to fit "God's Will' rather than appeal to logic and reason.

For this reason, I withdraw. Nothing more can be said, on my part.

I won't justify Masonry for Christians beyond what I've already posted, especially when there are Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Sikhs, and others to consider.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by LTD602]

[edit on 6-9-2004 by LTD602]

reply posted on 6-9-2004 @ 05:39 PM by Mirthful Me

Originally posted by OLMGITNHFTWS
LOL ommission of convenience? Then why did you omit so much?
dictionary.reference.com...

Lu"ci*fer\, n. [L., bringing light, n., the morning star, fr. lux, lucis, light + ferre to bring.] 1. The planet Venus, when appearing as the morning star; -- applied in Isaiah by a metaphor to a king of Babylon.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning ! how art thou cut down to the ground which didst weaken the nations ! --Is. xiv. 12.

Tertullian and Gregory the Great understood this passage of Isaiah in reference to the fall of Satan; in consequence of which the name Lucifer has since been applied to, Satan. --Kitto.

2. Hence, Satan.

How wretched Is that poor man that hangs on princes' favors! . . . When he falls, he falls like Lucifer, Never to hope again. --Shak.

lucifer

n 1: (Judeo-Christian and Islamic religions) chief spirit of evil and adversary of God; tempter of mankind; master of Hell [syn: Satan, Old Nick, Devil, the Devil, Lucifer, Beelzebub, the Tempter, Prince of Darkness] 2: lighter consisting of a thin piece of wood or cardboard tipped with combustible chemical; ignites with friction; "he always carries matches to light his pipe" [syn: match, friction match]

The VAST majority of the world accepts the meaning of Lucifer to mean Satan. It is clear that your misinterpretations are only accepted by the minority and therefore COMPLETELY DISCREDITED except by those who would deny truth. Decieved by the great deciever.

I'm glad you feel that the VAST majority accept your definition, although you conveniently ignored the Christian Link provided that dispels that theory. I omitted the section of definitions to spare the redundancy, however since you seem to be enamored with it...

Insight on Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullian

Nothing like the "Father of Medieval Christianity".

Lucifer, September, 1887
To object to the title of LUCIFER, only because its "associations are so dreadful," is pardonable--if it can be pardonable in any case--only in an ignorant American missionary of some dissenting sect, in one whose natural laziness and lack of education led him to prefer ploughing the minds of heathens, as ignorant as he is himself, to the more profitable, but rather more arduous, process of ploughing the fields of his own father's farm. In the English clergy, however, who receive all a more or less classical education, and are, therefore, supposed to be acquainted with the ins and outs of theological sophistry and casuistry, this kind of opposition is absolutely unpardonable. It not only smacks of hypocrisy and deceit, but places them directly on a lower moral level than him they call the apostate angel. By endeavouring to show the theological Lucifer, fallen through the idea that

What's in a name?

It seems your brand of ignorance has existed for quite some time.

reply posted on 6-9-2004 @ 05:45 PM by OLMGITNHFTWS

www.adherents.com...

According to this page (might be off slightly but you get the picture) - Yes the VAST majority believe Lucifer is Satan. Christians = 33% You masons are sorely outnumbered in your blasphemous beliefs.

Might I also point out that the quote you posted is actually from www.blavatsky.net... a site dedicated to Theosophy -- a direct opponent of christianity.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by OLMGITNHFTWS]

reply posted on 6-9-2004 @ 05:57 PM by PublicGadfly

*note sp�cial to esther see bottom of this post, plz

AFAMfounder

Well spoken theron dunn but your should not speak of such sacred things in public, there are some people in the world that do not wish for ANYTHING to to be said.

Red-herring if I ever saw one.

A bunch of duplicitious nonsense unproven claim.

Until I see something affirmative, from a masonic source on this I call it �bunk.�

LTD
Sacred things have already been blasphemed. I suspect that whatever is truly sacrosanct shall remain private and known only to those who are meant to know them, as it should be.

No such animal LTD, have you so soon forgotten that NOTHING in masonry is itself religious by nature?

LTD
Otherwise, since you do not know what they do, you have are in no rightful position to pass judgment on them

Bull-
it's like saying I can't condemn Nazi's because I was never a Nazi-

LTD
If a person says they are joining out of curiosity and an interest to learn, it will not be held against them. Am I right?

Yuk, yuk- ask your local lodge.

Tell them what you want. Don't ask faceless souls on the Internet.

theron dunn
Curiousity is good, and as long as the candidate is a good man, and he has a good opinion of the fraternity enough to want to join and learn more, then that is precisely the man we would be looking for,

Happy LTD?
�he has a good opinion�
So, go in preconvenced and supportive (no matter what) and you will have no problems- from the brothers. Leave any conscience at the door and proceed in, in to . . . ???

JOIN, JOIN now and become ONE so sayest The Borg

LTD
I believe that most good souls wiil behave, and DO behave accordingly.

What was the head pig's name in Animal Farm?

Then you go on to denigrate the KKK, shame. Bro. Pike's ghost will blind you!
Why was there an Anti-Mason party in America?

Masonic Light explaining that the meaning of 'Lucifer' is something other than what it is- interesting to say the least (animal's serviteur?, fr.) (kind of goes with the Citing Pike who has always been hard for masonry- this could be why so many masons and most outside the 'southern jurisdiction' either claim no knowledge of the 'masonic mystic' or give his rantings such short shrift.

Is there a schism?

Jamuhn You Da Man!

OLGITNHFTWS
. . . . .
The VAST majority of the world accepts the meaning of Lucifer to mean Satan. It is clear that your misinterpretations are only accepted by the minority and therefore COMPLETELY DISCREDITED except by those who would deny truth. Decieved by the great deciever.

Wow!

Of course another masonic spiritualist goes on to refute what has just been claimed by one of his-
Church of Satan disagrees with this latest masonic twist.

- - -
Saved the best for last.
Kind of personal, actually.
Ah doan means ta break eny ATS TOS rulz nor 'nuttin' soz efen I du wid dis, U2U me-an et'll b edeted. (wttt-picked this up from my neighbors)

HEY- I saw that esther good on ya! (new avatar WOW)
WOOT WOOT

That's the kind of beating I like! hurt me, hurt me mooooore!

Not only do you have a good sense about you, that sense brings solace to my oft-troubled sole(s).

Thanks!!!!
(and no, I am not interested in meeting you and some 'guys' behind the station)

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^