The Secret of Freemasonry Seen in the Reflection of a Mirror - What do you see?

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by Kyobosha

 

Augustus is entitled to his opinions, but I have never seen any disdain from him towards for my Christian faith, but then again, I don't abuse my faith for personal gain or to further the cause of Fear Inc.

The point of his post was that you demand Biblical evidence often times yet you ignore it when it is convenient for you.

This is something that anti-Masons do.

It's also something freemasons, and antichristians do; frankly it is something all people do. One question though, is your comment about abusing faith addressing me?

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.

reply to post by Kyobosha

Most Masons I've seen are anti-fundamentalist and no my comment was directed at the general community of anti-Masons.

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.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Kyobosha
Way to add your own twist there. Conpirus' quote does not say it was there from the beginning. Get your facts straight. Knock it off with the insults and have a worthwhile discussion.

Neither does consprius say that it was not. Addtionally, the foreward of The Lost Keys of Freemasonry by Ronald Blight does not even address Hall but speaks of the esoteric aspects of Masonry.

It is still a forward for the book.

Do you read and research anything that has been presented to you? I really don't feel like you do. If you did you would have a plethora of evidence. I won't expound more upon your constant "religious nut" cop out.

Really? So I will ask you then, other then the Eye of Providence, what part of the Great Seal's symbolism can be construed as Masonic? Please go into detail.

Conpirus already did in your last bout with him. Post by Conspirus

Another one of your cop-outs. So believing in Jesus as a Christian or even being a scholar who isn't Christian but believes Jesus existed physically makes one a religious fanatic.

No, thinking you can plot his family tree when you can not even prove his own existance is fanatical.

So are the people who are trying to discredit Jesus by saying he was married and had children fanatical as well?

Are they illegitimate masons because they believe in Jesus?

No, not at all.

I ask because if you believe that their view on Satan, demons, and spirits is make believe wouldnt that also negate the rest of their beliefs in your eyes?

Are you not saying that Christian beliefs are myth so therefore any mason who is a Christian doesn't believe in a REAL supreme being?

Stop being hysterical. I have no issue with Christians. I do have an issue with Jesus-nutter Christians just like I do with fundementalists of every persuassion.

What is your definition of Jesus-nutter? All Christians believe in Jesus and all will have a strict adherence to their belief in salvation which is the fundamental core of Christianity. Does this not qualify all Christians as Jesus-nutters?

You are sure good at this whole belittling tactic. 'Cartoonish', 'mythical' anti-Christ... That is hardly a philosophical argument.

No, more like a practical, common-sensical one.

How is that? Practical? Here is a question, what is the origin of all things evil in this world?

Again in your ignorance, this is the exact same stance you'd criticize the church for having with regards to science.

What stance is that?

Believing youre 100% right and the others views are ridiculous fairytale ideas.

Epic fail on your part. The symbol has no biblical foundation as a Christian symbol.

Ooooooh. 'Epic fail', wow, so using sorry little catch phrases somehow camouflage the fact that conspirus asked for Biblical evidence that the Eye of Providence refered to the Trinity. I never said it was in the Bible. I correctly indicated that its origins were in the Renaissance which the artwork, architecture and literature support. See what happens when you jump into other people's conversation?

Huh yeah... Epic fail on my part. Though with a mistake like this you still think I'm conspirus? Though one thing, its origins is way before the 1500s.

Another prime example of your attempt to twist the conversation to make Conspirus look like an idiot. In reality, you are just showing that you don't truly debate, you just do what you can to try and reduce the perception of your opponent as a mind controlled, crazy idiot.

I have no hand in making conspirus look like an idiot.

You do with your constant nut, crazy, fairytale, mumbo jumbo comments.

Let me show you how to have a true philosophical debate; why do you not believe 'Satan' exists?

Because I am a rational and logical adult.

What is the origin of the evil in the world?

Back to your common theme of demeaning remarks.

I am sorry that you are offended that the Tooth Fairy is not real.

No, you mocked Conspirus who said Satan likes to try and mimic God but you said 'who likes to mimic God, the tooth fairy?' Short term memory any?

reply to post by Kyobosha


I think that what qualifies someone as a "Jesus-nutter" is when they expend their energy trying to force their beliefs on others instead of living up to their own spiritual principles. I and every other Mason defend the rights of all human beings to have their own beliefs but we draw the line at intolerant fanatics who would force them on others.

Originally posted by Kyobosha
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.

The question was a red herring to begin with. You can not vilify Franklin Roosevelt and claim (as the other poster did) that the Great Seal is on the Dollar Bill because Hillary Clinton claims to have contacted the former First Lady.

If you opted to infer that I was refering to you when I clearly made of point of saying 'as the other poster did' then that is your issue as it was quite clear that when I said 'as the other poster did' I was refering to, hold on here, ANOTHER POSTER.

Now that I understand you are panentheistic I can see why you find it irrelevant.

It is irrelevant regardless of my religious view-point. Just because someone claims to have contacted a person's spirit does not make it so, neither does such claims somehow negate the alleged contactee's Christianity. This is absurd by any notion.

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

Finally, we can agree on this.

Because they don't understand the history behind it.

Who is to say? Pagan symbolism, ritual and holidays have been incoprorated in Christianity from the outset. It does not mean that modern Christians are pagans, it only indicates the orginal meanings are no longer relevant to them and are now, for their purposes, considered Christian.

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

The resembalance, to me, is plausible, the meaning is the deeper issue. If they feel it is not then I respect that viewpoint. Even if it were the Eye of Providence it would not make me think anything of them negatively.

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

Agreed.

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?

It appears to me that your repeated quoting of Scottish Rite Masons makes their opinion somehow more valid than a non-Scottish Rite Mason. If this is not the case then ignore the remark as every Mason is aware that there is no implied rank or superior knowledge that comes with the conferal of the 33rd Degree in the Scottish Rite.

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.

There is no prerequisite to have a belief in eternal punishment, only of an eternal soul.

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.

What I do know about every regular Masons is that he has a belief in a Supreme Being, the Historical Satan, by definition, is not supreme.

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.

What I do know about every regular Masons is that he has a belief in a Supreme Being, the Historical Satan, by definition, is not supreme.

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.

I can not disagree with your comment.

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

How many Creators of the Universe are there? The only difference would be by one of language, God is God no matter what you happen to call God in your native tounge.

It is still a forward for the book.

Indeed it is. It does not make it any more authoritative than anyone else's opinion.

Conpirus already did in your last bout with him. Post by Conspirus

There is no point in that post that addresses any of the other symbolism. What makes everything besides the Eye of Providence Masonic?

So are the people who are trying to discredit Jesus by saying he was married and had children fanatical as well?

I would have to say yes. Unless some epigraphic evidence turns up I tend to think that anything presented as fact is nothing more than theory.

I ask because if you believe that their view on Satan, demons, and spirits is make believe wouldnt that also negate the rest of their beliefs in your eyes?

Not in my opinion. I do not think they are mutually exclusive.

My Brother-in-law happens to believe in God and also thinks the New York Jets will win a Super Bowl in his lifetime. He can be delusional about one and not the other.

What is your definition of Jesus-nutter?

The ones who take the Bible as a history book and feel the need to justify the majority of their life by trying to convice others to see their strict version Christianity as the 'correct' and only religion. They are just as bad as any other nutter.

All Christians believe in Jesus and all will have a strict adherence to their belief in salvation which is the fundamental core of Christianity. Does this not qualify all Christians as Jesus-nutters?

No, in my opinion it does not. They can believe in the salvation of Jesus and not be thoroughly obnoxious about it.

Here is a question, what is the origin of all things evil in this world?

Man.

Believing youre 100% right and the others views are ridiculous fairytale ideas.

Of course I believe I am 100% right. What the hell else should I be thinking about my viewpoints? That I am half right? 12.346% right? If you want to call me an anti-Satan-belief-nutter than by all means, I will wear that title happily.

Huh yeah... Epic fail on my part. Though with a mistake like this you still think I'm conspirus?

It would appear not unless you are doing a good job of acting.

Though one thing, its origins is way before the 1500s.

I am very much aware of this fact.

You do with your constant nut, crazy, fairytale, mumbo jumbo comments.

If people happen to agree with me that belief in Satan is somehow nutty and fairytale-like, then who am I to stop them?

What is the origin of the evil in the world?

See above.

No, you mocked Conspirus who said Satan likes to try and mimic God but you said 'who likes to mimic God, the tooth fairy?' Short term memory any?

I am aware of what was said. You seemed to also take umbrage that I said Satan/The Tooth Fairy were not real. They are not. Fairy tales are for kiddies.

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.

Originally posted by Phenomium
Do what thou wilt. The very words translate to "Do what you will"....THE END. The other suggestions and interpretations are all your own. Simply translated it means, do anything you feel like doing whether it be wrong or right. It means to satisfy your personal lusts.How do I know this? Because people that were close to Crowley and some who served under him made claims of his evil deeds. He even called himself "The Beast"....hardly a biblical term that makes reference to Jesus and his ways. Jesus said "Do unto others, WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU"....just thought I'd finish that quote for you as you seemed to have left the last part out. Oh yeah, Jesus is the absolute opposite of Alister Crowley, you don't even have to be a graduate of Kindergarten to put those two side by side and know that there is a wide gulf between darkness and light.....Jesus of course being the light. Twisting words and quoting incomplete quotes do not substantiate truth nor does it make light similar to darkness. As for all the talk about willpower.... the last guy that I remember that focused so much on personal willpower was, (who was that funny looking guy with the mustache?) ...no not Gene Shalit.....oh yeah...HITLER. He wasn't an exact copy of Jesus either. Face it Alister Crowley was one of the most evil men on earth and it is well documented. His first wife, Rose, died in a mental asylum,his second wife also went insane,and five mistresses committed suicide. That makes a great statement about a person and hardly coincidental that all of these people so close to him were just born that way. That was the influence of a person that was horrible to live with insomuch that an escape to an imaginary world or even death was a better option. All one has to do is but a small search on the internet or library or ask anyone on the street (who doesn't wreak of goth stench) and you will be enlightened by a myriad of sources and information highlighting the evil footprints that this contemptible soul left behind.

Alister Crowley Quotes:

Does this sound like Jesus? Hardly.

I was not content to believe in a personal devil and serve him, in the ordinary sense of the word. I wanted to get hold of him personally and become his chief of staff.
Aleister Crowley

Just like looking in a mirror

If one were to take the bible seriously one would go mad. But to take the bible seriously, one must be already mad.
Aleister Crowley

Coming from someone who can't even spell Aleister correctly, I can hardly take anything you say seriously about him or his life. I've actually read Crowley's books myself, and Jesus's words in the Bible, have you? No. I bet you have only read the Bible, which gives you a clear disadvantage on comparing Jesus and Crowley.

As a matter of fact, Crowley referred to himself as "The Beast 666" as a mockery of those who did not understand. If you just walk it through your little brain logically, you'd realize that the whole concept of the "Beast" and "666" stemmed from the Christian Bible. Those are Christian concepts, and to actually believe in a Christian devil, or the Great Beast, or in 666, one would have to believe in the doctrine of Christianity (or Judaism for that matter) and Crowley made if perfectly clear that he rejected any such doctrines, and frankly, denounced all "slave religions". So, in fact, Crowley did not think of himself as the Devil, or evil, or negative in any way for that matter. It was simply a mockery of religion since his mother was a strict Christian who started calling him the Beast herself, so he merely adopted it out of sarcasm.

Secondly, in the Bible it states that the Anti-Christ would be the person everyone leasts expects it to be. So, logically, what would follow to be the absolute least expected person? Think about it for a minute...The Anti-Christ, is the person you would LAST think to actually be the Anti-Christ right? Mathematically, the absolute LAST person that anyone would think to be the Anti-Christ, is Christ himself. That's right. It's a riddle, a metaphor, if you will. That Christ is also the Anti-Christ, like Baphomet in occult philosophy, it represents God as containing all things good and evil, Yin-Yang within one entity.

And it is not merely my opinion that Do what thou wilt means, perform your true will. That is literally the doctrine of Thelema. Any Thelemite will tell you this, as it is common knowledge within the order. As a matter of fact, they make it a point to always point out that it never means just do what you want. It is a law that forces us to realize our highest potential and perform that, therefore it would be impossible for our wills to interfere with the will of another, naturally.

Crowley objected against the concept of "black magick" as well. He said anyone even thinking of doing such a thing was completely ignorant and in danger. He professed neutral and white magick. Check your facts.

reply to post by Kody27

Some offense intended, you sound very pretentious.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Its just symbols for communicating philosophical ideas. This is how they teach. These theatrics are a damn good way of helping someone get the idea and remember it.

Sure most of masonry is grounded in the stupidity of religion, but some people would rather die than live with out it. Its like they moved on from crawling to walking. Id rather prefer if everyone did the same.

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by Kody27

 

Some offense intended, you sound very pretentious.

Sounding pretentious is preferred over being ignorant any day. And being well informed is not the same as being pretentious. I should have expected you to neglect any and all logic or factual information that I presented in the face of your unsupported claims about Crowley, and well, everything. Keep trying though. Maybe you'll learn something~

reply to post by Kody27

Augustus and I both responded to the relevant portions. Nothing you've said was necessarily correct, particularly your views on Jesus or Crowley. If you think what I said was wrong, please point it out.

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by Kody27

 

Augustus and I both responded to the relevant portions. Nothing you've said was necessarily correct, particularly your views on Jesus or Crowley. If you think what I said was wrong, please point it out.

Everything I've said about Crowley was correct. Particularly everything. If you can substantiate that anything I've said about Crowley is inaccurate, then please do, I challenge you to. You can't. You know nothing about Aleister Crowley or occult philosophy in general.

It's funny how you require me to point out your flaws, yet you won't point out specifically what was wrong with what I said, mostly because you don't have the comprehension level to even address it.