Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Religious Zealotry and its Inherent Hypocrisy Towards Masonry

page: 12
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
You really think in groups just because people grow up within it that they are privvy to what these groups are actually about? Your dreaming.


Given that your entire claim rests upon growing up with Masons in the family (at least, the part that hasn't been demolished), I wonder what this says about you.


The upper ranks know, particulary the elite upper ranks or the leaders of your fraternities. The rest will get drivel.
edit on 24-1-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)


And a non-member will somehow get more than that?




posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by OnTheLevel213
 



No one asks whether any specific piece of information is available, though. They assume it isn't, when it probably is.

Or, as you stated on your quote below :

You forgot the third option: ask an honest question, and receive a response of either a detailed answer or, "I'm sorry, I can't talk about that."

Which in turn somehow contradicts your quote above. Although it´s an honest answer that you can not talk about it, that kind of answer, tends to add fuel in a discussion concerning "Secret Societies" and "Religion"

I do, and I hope I can explain. Think of the "faithful over a few things" concept in the Bible. When a man shows me that some handshakes and passwords, themselves fairly unimportant in the long run, are inviolably secret in his care, I know he can be trusted should I need to unburden myself of something far more personal.

As you probably know, the "faithful over a few things" concept does not have a good ending for the servant with the "one talant". But i understand the "unburden" part and thank you for explaining.

I'll accept that for anyone that labels themselves a speculative conspiracy theorist who doesn't want to be taken seriously. However, if you want to be taken seriously as a researcher or thinker, you have a duty to go beyond armchair speculation and actually ask questions of someone with firsthand experience.

That indeed. But as a seriously researcher or thinker, you have to examine the "armchair" speculations, to see if there is a "grain of truth" outside of its speculative conspiracy frame.

Of course, anti-Masonry is not completely religious in nature. This thread is just about the religious element.

Tell me one conspiracy without a religious/spiritual element in it.
When you mixing "Secret Societies" and "Religion", you just throwing oil to the fire. A very explosive mixture.

Peace



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Non members of any group have more objectivity. Its like being a bird on a high perch we see more. They may not see what exactly the worms in the ground are eating or doing lol.. but when the worm comes up they see their activities very clearly . Some do not see because it doesnt concern them. But people with family who are also freemasons may have concern for their family.

Gosh ,you freemasons are full of yourself or at least the ones of this thread are. Just go back to your " little mans" club and do your thing. For goodness sakes no one really cares apart from zealots or the anti-occultists anyway.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seed76
Which in turn somehow contradicts your quote above.


No, it doesn't. That's the point I'm driving at. I can talk about a whole hell of a lot about Freemasonry, and have done so on this forum when questions were asked. Just because I can't talk about one thing doesn't absolve someone from asking a single question before speculating.


But as a seriously researcher or thinker, you have to examine the "armchair" speculations, to see if there is a "grain of truth" outside of its speculative conspiracy frame.


True, but not the point. My obligation to consider a theory is nowhere near the magnitude of its proponent's obligation to conduct a thorough investigation prior to presenting it. There is no question that asking a Mason is a principal part of that, and "oh, but they keep secrets, so there's no point in asking them anyway" is not a valid defense for not doing so.


Tell me one conspiracy without a religious/spiritual element in it.


"Freemasons control [powerful organization]" is not necessarily religious.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Wow, you must be proud to have so many royal family members, plus Satanists as part of the Freemasonary fraternity for weirdos.
edit on Thu Jan 24 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I don't know who to respond to, I'm trying to make time to read every response though but I don't have the time to reply to each person, so I'm not ignoring anyone by choosing to respond primarily or discuss primarily with only one of you.

I'll be back I guess..I can't seem to leave this thread as many times I've tried, I'm still hopeful to get a valid enough answer or answers that are more helpful than harmful to Freemasonry.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
Non members of any group have more objectivity.


Not necessarily. Critics of a group have their own objectivity issues; note that pro- and anti-something opinions are equally excluded from juries on the topic. And when someone's given money or notoriety for their status as a critic, that's a whole other layer of credibility issues.


people with family who are also freemasons may have concern for their family.


Wouldn't it, then, be critical to make sure you were right?


Gosh ,you freemasons are full of yourself or at least the ones of this thread are.


You've been hurling pejoratives about our gullibility and mental faculties since you got here, and suddenly we're full of ourselves.


For goodness sakes no one really cares apart from zealots or the anti-occultists anyway.


Your twelve-page posting history suggests you're one or the other.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by OnTheLevel213
 



No, it doesn't. That's the point I'm driving at. I can talk about a whole hell of a lot about Freemasonry, and have done so on this forum when questions were asked. Just because I can't talk about one thing doesn't absolve someone from asking a single question before speculating.

True, but by not answering questions because you cannt talk about it, leaves room for speculation. Which as a i said on my first post part of it, the blame is on the secret society itself.

True, but not the point. My obligation to consider a theory is nowhere near the magnitude of its proponent's obligation to conduct a thorough investigation prior to presenting it.

That might be true. But in all honesty, how can you expect your proponent to conduct a thorough investigation, since there are things "you cannot talk about" it ? But i understand what are you are saying.

"Freemasons control [powerful organization]" is not necessarily religious.

Yeah, but i have to admit the idea of the cloak and dagger world control element is very alluring…


Peace
edit on 24-1-2013 by Seed76 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seed76
True, but by not answering questions because you cannt talk about it, leaves room for speculation.


Sure. I've just never seen any speculation about passwords and handshakes. It's always on stuff we can talk about, but are never asked.


That might be true. But in all honesty, how can you expect your proponent to conduct a thorough investigation, since there are things "you cannot talk about" it ?


First, no one is excused from a thorough investigation of their theories. Ever.

Second, seriously? You have no obligation to check with Masons to see if what you're saying is truebecause it might be something that they can't talk about? You have no obligation to find out where that line might be? Do you believe you can just say anything about anyone that holds some information private? I don't think you meant to say that.

edit on 24-1-2013 by OnTheLevel213 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by OnTheLevel213
 



Seriously? You're allowed to say anything you want because it might be something that can't be contradicted by a Mason if asked? You have no obligation to find out where that line might be? I don't think you meant to say that.


Maybe, i misunderstood you, since English is not my mother language and if i did misunderstood you then i am sorry. What i was trying to say is that there is a line of what you can say and what you can not say. Now, let´s assume i am making an investigation so i ask questions.

Now, among those questions there are some that your answer is "I cannot talk about it", as you stated on one of your replies to me(whatever the reason maybe for not answering that question). For me for conducting an objective investigation i am leaving to that.

Now, if another person reads my investigation, and speculate on the answers of you have answered "I can not talk about it", would that be considered a thourough investigation from his part ? Nope. It would be considered a mix of truth and speculative facts.

Thus leading to the conclusion that i have stated on my first post.

Part of it, the blame is on the Secret Society it self. Which naturally since it´s a secret society cannot reveal all of their secrets. Otherwise wouldn´t be a Secret society at all. Thus leading to speculative theories etc, which may or may not be true.


Peace
edit on 24-1-2013 by Seed76 because: Clarification



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seed76
Now, among those questions there are some that your answer is "I cannot talk about it", as you stated on one of your replies to me(whatever the reason maybe for not answering that question). For me for conducting an objective investigation i am leaving to that.

Now, if another person reads my investigation, and speculate on the answers of you have answered "I can not talk about it", would that be considered a thourough investigation from his part ? Nope. It would be considered a mix of truth and speculative facts.


Completely true. I've come up against this, where people say something about a password or grip that isn't true, and I've had no standing to complain because I can't talk about it. I don't begrudge anybody that, so long as said speculation is at least intellectually honest.

Problem is, that's maybe 5% of cases. 95% of speculation is on things we can talk about, have talked about, and people just say whatever they want anyway, using "secrecy" about something else as a license to say whatever they want.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
The freemasons of this thread cannot discuss therefore I shant continue the conversation here.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Seed76
 


Of the very few things we are obligated not to discuss, they are readily available on the Google. I cannot provide the link and I cannot "tell" you the answer, but if you want to know, anything we are obligated to keep secret is in many places on the web. Our handshakes and passwords are mostly it. The way the ritual happens should be kept from anyone who wishes to join, simply because the surprise of how things happen is a large part of the meaning behind it.
I do realize that from an outside perspective, it's convoluted at best, but please, if you have a genuine desire to know something, ask and see what happens. The worst that can happen is you get referred to the Google.

Anyone who comes here and is respectful in their questions almost always gets answers from what I have seen.(and you seem very respectful)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seed76
reply to post by OnTheLevel213
 



No one asks whether any specific piece of information is available, though. They assume it isn't, when it probably is.

Or, as you stated on your quote below :

You forgot the third option: ask an honest question, and receive a response of either a detailed answer or, "I'm sorry, I can't talk about that."

Which in turn somehow contradicts your quote above.


Only insofar as he won't tell you that himself (not that the information isn't freelyavailable on the Internet from someone else with more pliable scruples). I've yet to run across anything in our ritual that isn't Googleable; it just falls to you to put in that little bit of time.
Is it really that vexing to you that the Masons here on ATS won't spoonfeed what they've sworn not to?


Originally posted by Seed76
Although it´s an honest answer that you can not talk about it, that kind of answer, tends to add fuel in a discussion concerning "Secret Societies" and "Religion"

Masonic ritual has been available for public purchase since (IIRC) 1725, not even a decade after the formation of the UGLE. So we're describing as "secret" something that hasn't been actually secret in nearly three centuries! To insist that something that's been that available is "secret" is to beggar belief. The only way it could be less secret is if it was put up on a billboard beside a major highway. If you want to continue and call this a secret, be prepared not to be taken seriously


Originally posted by Seed76

I'll accept that for anyone that labels themselves a speculative conspiracy theorist who doesn't want to be taken seriously. However, if you want to be taken seriously as a researcher or thinker, you have a duty to go beyond armchair speculation and actually ask questions of someone with firsthand experience.

That indeed. But as a seriously researcher or thinker, you have to examine the "armchair" speculations, to see if there is a "grain of truth" outside of its speculative conspiracy frame.

Which has been done.....repeatedly! But so-called serious researchers who can't be bothered to use the search function on ATS come prancing in, unload a bunch of codswallop, argue they KNOW the codswallop is true 'cuz the third cousin twice removed from a former girlfriend who has a restraining order on them SAYS it's so. It's ridiculous how lazy are those who would have Masons unburden themselves of their sworn obligation. It boggles the mind. Truly!


Originally posted by Seed76

Of course, anti-Masonry is not completely religious in nature. This thread is just about the religious element.

Tell me one conspiracy without a religious/spiritual element in it.
When you mixing "Secret Societies" and "Religion", you just throwing oil to the fire. A very explosive mixture.

Peace

9/11 trutherism (though it's surely morphing into a faith).


Fitz



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
I found it with a simple Google search. The Masonic Lodge of Wisconsin.


John Salza is the same giant tool bag that thinks the Earth is the center of the solar system and the universe because.....the Papal Bulls and encylicals said so.

Great source.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seed76
I do not think, is a matter of Religious Zealotry.


I was not speaking generally but targeting a specific group of posters who claim to be strict observers of their atested religion but abandon said religion's tenets when it comes to making a point.

Translation: They lie to try and prove a point.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
Non members of any group have more objectivity.

Far from it. If you don't have the facts, how can you pretend to be objective?


Originally posted by FreedomEntered
Gosh ,you freemasons are full of yourself or at least the ones of this thread are. Just go back to your " little mans" club and do your thing. For goodness sakes no one really cares apart from zealots or the anti-occultists anyway

We're here to deny ignorance. That's what ATS is all about. As far as your last sentence is concerned, which category to feel best describes you? You've certainly invested no small amount of time and effort. I'm sorry you feel such enmity to those who point out the log in your eye while you insist they have a mote in their own

Fare thee well
Fitz



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
Wow, you must be proud to have so many royal family members, plus Satanists as part of the Freemasonary fraternity for weirdos.




That's uh.....an interesting unsupported assertion (the last bits anyway). Sorry you feel slighted

Fitz



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
Leo Zagami was a Freemason and proves so in this video.


Leo Zagami (A.K.A. Leo Young, A.K.A. Khaled Saifullah Khan) is a known hoaxer who claims to have been a member of the Comitato Esecutivo Massonico - Masonic Executive Committee (MEC) of Monte Carlo.

The truth is Monaco has only one Masonic Lodge (Port of Hercules Lodge #4626) which was founded there in 1924 by the United Grand Lodge of England. It is governed directly from London and is the only lodge of the English Constitution still remaining in "French" territory.




edit on 24-1-2013 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude is a beerless Luciferian



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
You are Luciferians primarily. But probably do not realise it.


How can you have a belief without realizing it? How can you, at least in my case, be a Luciferian when I think Lucifer is a silly Christian myth?





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join