Originally posted by Kyoboshaspirus
It's also something freemasons, and antichristians do; frankly it is something all people do.

Once again, I am not anti-Christian. I am anti-fundementalist as it is this type of person who is resonsible for the majority of the world's present and past ills.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Kyobosha
Want my reasoning why I used the pronoun "I"? Here you go:

You said quote:

....what every other person who has not read Pike to do, quote him out of context.

By you using the phrase 'every other person' you are also referring to me.

Considering the post was addressed to 'conspirus', but 'kyobosha' decided to asnwer and said 'I', I will not be rescinding anything.

Didn't realize someone wasn't allowed to respond to a post that wasn't addressed to them. Do you see me crying foul over ksig and joshnorton replying to me when my post was addressed to you? Last I checked, anyone can reply to anything they have an issue with; it all actuality, anyone can reply to anything they want.

Let me give you an analogy for this situation.

Your reply to Conspirus is exactly what a disgruntled ex girlfriend would say about her ex boyfriend who cheated on her. Imagine though she is complaining about her ex to another male friend at a coffee house with other male patrons around and she says "why can't I find a good caring guy that truly loves me? He was just like every other man out there, one big good for nothing jerk."

Do you think the other male patrons won't take offense to that? Think if one decided to talk to her the male patron won't say 'I' am not a good for nothing jerk?

Your argument for the use of the pronoun 'I' is invalid.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
I think it is quite considerate of you to answer for conspirus prior to them logging back in to the site to check my repsonse. It would seem that you have takent the tact that they are unable to answer for themselves. Being that you have opted to interject yourself into the exchange I will humor you and reply:

Ok... Attention everyone, you are NOT allowed to take part in an exchange if its not directed at you. Even if you have an issue with what someone said, you can't say anything because agustusmasonicus says so...

Cut the crap, I can 'interject' if I want to. It's called moderating the conversation to get back to a discussion rather than personal attacks like you were posting.

It was completely in context.

No, the topic was about who was covering old ground.

Funny that everytime a Christian brings an arguement to ATS you hear deny ignorance left and right...

Because most of the time they are using the Bible as a history book.

I have seen it in numerous cases when the name Jesus is brought up even without a reference to the Bible. There is such an attack in this thread as well claiming Jesus never existed...

Your reply is the epitome of a cop-out. "Biblical mumbo jumbo based on fairytale." Even more so, your comment is demeaning and solely attempts to write Conspirus off as a 'nut' instead of debating. If you are going to do so, at least have enough decency to do it with actual EVIDENCE to support your arguements.

Do you know what? I think people who do believe in Satan are nuts. And spare me the evidence part, no one, NO ONE, has evidence of Satan/Lucifer/The Boogeyman being real.

Are you sure you want to go this route? Well then, show me the tangible evidence that God exists. Last I checked, any one that believes in God is doing so by faith.

You hardly have respect for other's opinions.

Only when they distort history and accuse me of worshipping some comic-book entity I do not believe in.

Your responses to me and false accusation of sockpuppetry proves otherwise.

More evidence of your default "you're a religious nut" attack. Also, don't forget the core of this argument is a secret society of some kind seemingly controlling the world. Not ideological beliefs. We have been presenting ideas from sources that are NOT Christian yet you continue to write them off saying we are blind idiots that don't think for ourselves and who spew only what we've been taught to believe. You are exemplifying ignorance at its finest. As if you know how I came to my beliefs and faith...

Oh, sorry, maybe you can source conspirus' 'souls to be reaped' comment from a non-Biblical/religious source. I anxiously await the result.

Well, since any text that exists which has any reference to a soul would be considered 'religious' that would leave scientific papers and journalism. No matter what I gave you, you would write it off as a religious text. With this kind of approach any religious text should be thrown out which means that freemasonry wouldn't exist since you need to believe in a supreme being. I'm surprised you aren't using this argument to ask for proof that God exists. Since the only mention of God is in a religious text.

Originally posted by Kyobosha
Didn't realize someone wasn't allowed to respond to a post that wasn't addressed to them.

Anyone can respond to anything they choose, maybe you should have responed the to the previous posts I addressed to this account instead of avoiding them and answering the post for 'conspirus'.

Do you think the other male patrons won't take offense to that? Think if one decided to talk to her the male patron won't say 'I' am not a good for nothing jerk?

Your argument for the use of the pronoun 'I' is invalid.

Sorry, when refering to yourself and another person it would be 'we'. As in; 'We did not read Pike', not, 'I did not read Pike'. But it was nice of you to answer for you anyway.

Originally posted by Kyobosha
Cut the crap, I can 'interject' if I want to. It's called moderating the conversation to get back to a discussion rather than personal attacks like you were posting.

Glad to see you have been promoted here and now need to act as a moderator. Maybe you should have tried to answer the points I addressed at you instead of worrying about those I directed at someone else. Unless of course....

No, the topic was about who was covering old ground.

Considering 'conspirus' insisted that the Roosevelts were not Christian it was not old ground.

I have seen it in numerous cases when the name Jesus is brought up even without a reference to the Bible. There is such an attack in this thread as well claiming Jesus never existed...

Claiming that no one can prove that Jesus existed is not an attack, unless you are so sensitive about your religious beliefs that no one can question them. Are you that sensitive?

Are you sure you want to go this route? Well then, show me the tangible evidence that God exists.

God exists to me because the Universe exists. As someone who is panentheistic God is all and all is God.

Your responses to me and false accusation of sockpuppetry proves otherwise.

I find your misuse of pronouns to be false until proven otherwise.

Well, since any text that exists which has any reference to a soul would be considered 'religious' that would leave scientific papers and journalism. No matter what I gave you, you would write it off as a religious text.

Stop putting up strawmen so you can knock them down. If you have something post it.

Since the only mention of God is in a religious text.

God is frequently mentioned in several of the physics books I own. Religious texts do not have a exclusive right to use the word 'God' and it frequently appears elsewhere.

I overlooked this post. This is the only one I was able to find so I'm not sure what other 'posts' I didn't respond to.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Kyobosha
Wow you took what I said way off base. I NEVER said the Great Seal was on the Dollar because of Clinton trying to contact Roosevelt. Would be nice if you didn't claim I made such comments.

Calm down there sweetheart, my use of brackets was to show the other poster claimed this (that is what brackets are for, an aside, an additional thought (kind of like this one)).

If this was your intention then be sure to place the words 'and claim' in the brackets as well next time. You failed to do so in this case and given your sentence said the following: 'You can not vilify Franklin Roosevelt and claim...' You were implying that I made such a claim.

If you read them again, I said that if the Roosevelt's were truly Christian, then there is now way Mrs. Roosevelt's spirit would have communicated with Clinton. Which is relevant to the soul/spirit of Roosevelt.

No, it is irrelevant. Just because Hillary Clinton claims to have contacted Eleanor Roosevelt does not make the Roosevelts non-Christian or have anything to do with Franklin Roosevelt putting the Great Seal on the Dollar Bill (as the other poster claimed). Reminder: the bracketed portion indicates that the preceding sentence does not refer to your stance.

Now that I understand you are panentheistic I can see why you find it irrelevant. However, though it is irrelevant to you, others could find it relevant. Also, your use of the brackets here was correct, if you would have used it this way in the first place it would have saved us a bunch of frustration.

Again, since you seem to be stuck on this. I agree Christian's have used it and that it represented the eye of God and the Trinity (though the earliest symbol to represent the trinity was the triune not the eye of providence). This doesn't mean that the symbols didn't have other meanings before this particular use; and it certainly doesn't mean that the eye truly glorifies God.

Again, I am not disputing the fact that it evolved from somewhere else. It was, and is, used as a symbol to denote the Trintiy.

Yes, some use it as such. Some don't.

I'm not arguing the meaning to some Christian's. I am arguing that the origins can't be ignored and that the symbol doesn't glorify God.

Otherwise why would they incorporate it into artwork, architecture and literature?

Because they don't understand the history behind it.

Let me clarify my question. The eye in the eye of providence isn't the eye of horus even though there is a resemblance. Yet the bible, circle, and cross are the eye of providence because there is a resemblance? Just seems to me you arent using the same standards of analysis for both symbols.

My answer would be another question. What would be the reason to use a symbol of Horus in a Christian church? None. It did (or still may) represent Horus, but only when used in that enviornment.

Your question doesn't answer my question... Haha.

To what specifically are you refering to?

"’Which commandment is the more important of all?’ Jesus answered, ‘The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.’" Mark 12:28-31

This lesson is taught in Masonry. The candidate is reminded in every degree of this tenet.

That is good, this world as a whole could use more people who followed these commandments.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Kyobosha
Sure, I'm not a freemason, doesn't mean I can't or don't read writings by Freemasons. Also, your adament belief that there is no devil or eternal punishment gives plenty of insight to where you are at in the mysteries. The following quote is from Leslie M. Scott who is a 33rd degree mason.

It is obvious you are not a Mason nor understand the structure, hence your reliance of quoting '33rd Degree Masons' who, in your ignorant viewpoint, somehow hold more relevance to a Mason.

Reliance? Hardly, merely stating a fact and sourcing my comments correctly. It's referenced the exact same way on masonic websites. Are you going to claim those sites are ignorant as well?

If you were truly an 'initiated' member, you'd believe in punishment after life. Or are you going to say Mr. Scott's words are his opinion and not yours like you do with any other freemasons who say something you don't agree with?

Mr. Scott's words are his opinion. There is no one voice for Masonry. Other Masons are more than able to disagree with him, Hall, Pike, Morris, me or anyone else who gives their opinion. Their is no dogmatic reliance on religious teachings to become or remain a Mason and their us no unified opinion on what may or may not constitute the afterlife and what punsiments may or may not be administered there.

You do NOT have to believe in eternal punishment to be a freemason. Nor was I implying that Scott was the voice for freemasons. Merely trying to show that since freenmasonry is the modern day keeper of the mysteries, and to be considered a worthy candidate you must have the prerequisite of believing in eternal punishment. Not all freemasons have to but to be a part of the mysteries you must.

And you kill me with your blatant ignorance. Freemasons around the world support and champion his writings, many have written forwards for online and hard copy productions. The point you blatantly missed is, why do so many accept his writings but you do not? I came into this thread respecting freemasons for having steadfast and uniform understanding of their teachings but now I am beginning to really question and doubt that notion.

Why should I take the opinion of a 21 year old non-Mason on Masonry who years later addmitted: ""At the time I wrote this slender volume, I had just passed my twenty-first birthday, and my only contact with Freemasonry was through a few books commonly available to the public."? Once again you think that Masonry is some unified front were everyone has the same preprogrammed opinion. Guess what? You made a mistake.

Never said nor assumed that everyone was a unified group. The way you and other freemasons approached the whole 'it is impossible for a member to see lucifer as a supreme being' thing made it appear that way. Doesn't change the fact that people within freemasonry do uphold his writing. Just proves that you would never know what another freemason believes.

Really? I didn't realize that's what it was called. Thanks captain obvious. Nevertheless, ok, you can see it as his opinion if that's what you want to call it. Nor do you need to agree with others opinions. BUT, if that is what you are going to argue then there really must be some serious misunderstanding amongst all of freemasonry.

Firstly, you wrongly assume that every Mason has read Hall, secondly you wrongly assume that every Mason agrees on what Hall said. Guess what? You made two more mistakes.

Never assumed every freemason has read Hall. Nor have I said every freemason agrees with him. Some have and really support him. It is very possible that someone has an entirely different view of freemasonry and really believes in the mysteries.

So wait, its impossible for a mason to believe in lucifer as a supreme being since all masons know he is not supreme but it's possible for there to be inconsistency with everything else. Not very convinced here.

It is impossible because all Masons must profess a trust in 'God' which they have to mention by name. The question, as I posted earlier, is: 'In who do you put your trust?' The only answer is 'God'. Not Lucifer, not Satan, not the Easter Bunny, not a head of lettuce. Is this clear enough now?

They answer 'god' but you don't know who in their mind they believe is god do you?

There is nothing more anti-Christ than the modern fundimentalist. Christ taught a message of love, kindness and charity, one of meekness, and compassion. The Fundimentalists twists this into hate, bigotry, divisiveness, he divides communities, he causes strife, he speaks vitrol and arrogance.....his actions are completely contrary to the message of the actual Jesus he claims to honor. A true Christian is right to judge all men by their actions and keep in mind their virtue or lack of virtue, but he still extends charity to those without virtue, he shows love to those who show him none, he shows meekness and pious lifestyle, not brash combative tone. He seeks to win over those spewing hate with kindness that they might learn from that example......I am proud to say that in Freemasonry I find many ministers of many denominations, and other faiths too...who follow these priniciples taught to us by Christ. However in the fundimentalist....I see only the corrupted "pharisee" allied with Rome reborn who'd crucify Christ again, if he didn't follow their dogma and laws...because they worship the textual work of mankind, and their erronious interpretations, but ignore Christs central message to "love thy neighbor", and prayer and God in favor of their dogma....they worship a work of man....A true Christian would worship God, and live in the simple and kind manner Christ taught.

When in your heart you wish to KILL your theological enemy you follow death not the message of life. But if in your heart you seek to love your enemy you follow the path of Life taught by Christ...and you also share a value that Freemasonry holds dear. There are two paths....Death and Life.....this was understood by early Christians but has been all but lost in todays world of meaness and hate.

I'm almost positive that, quite literally, half of the symbols used in Christianity today no longer bear, in society's eyes, their original, true meanings.

They have been adjusted to represent the beliefs of the Church. There is very little originality in Christianity. It has used the messages of more powerful, more meaningful systems in order to bolster its own, before demonizing those systems.

Weaken and absorb.