Complete Proof Of Freemasonry Being Satanic?

Ah freudling

It appears that some of your posting has already been answered by others, but I will do what I can to answer your points

Originally posted by freudling
Trinityman

You have no link to verify your post.

Your point please? The quote was referenced and dated. As it is important to you, then...

www.ugle.org.uk...

Also, you expect me to believe that because a so called Grand Master says X, Y, Z, that it is completely true?

Actually no, I expect you to wriggle, squirm and deny anything that contradicts your pre-set closed-minded ideas about freemasonry.

Eyewitnesses said they have seen the same ritual over and over for years;

... and? Your point please.

Susan James, the wife of the victim, declined a Masonic funeral and did not want the Masons to attend;

Yes she did. Your point please?

the shooter was said to be an Old Mason

Presumably you mean old mason. This is true. Your point please?

The excuse is laughable (pulled out the wrong gun)

Why do you find this explanation laughable? What do you think happened? He meant to pull out a loaded gun? Do you think he meant to fire that loaded gun?

Some Mason shot another Mason to death, period, unless you have evidence otherwise.

.Again correct. Your point please? I'm really not too sure where this is going...

Funny how, as the Grand Master is saying it was not in a sanctioned Masonic Lodge and the rest of his hogwash, the article refers to it as Lodge number 493: the actual shooter gives an excuse that he pulled the wrong gun, admitting to the ritual! Lodge number 493...

On what basis do you reach the conclusion that the article is hogwash?

I think it might make things a little clearer if you just admitted that you prefer the voracity and independence of the newspaper articles quoted as opposed to 'pronouncements' by masonic sources.

Then all we have to do is decide which version of the story as reported in which newspaper

Originally posted by freudling
Oh and, the Proof about Freemasonary Being Satanic: not one Mason on here has provided any kind of decent rebuttal.

What sort of proof are you looking for? What could possibly convince you that satanism has no place in freemasonry?

a. The tragic event took place not in a Lodge meeting but during a social event in the building in Patchogue, New York, where the Lodge meets.

This contradicts both the Senior Deacon's statments and eyewitnesses: it was a well known Second Degree Ritual. Moreover, it is incredibly vague.

b. The social club involved is not a Grand Lodge sanctioned Masonic organisation.

Same here.

c. The Grand Lodge of the State of New York has only one approved ritual which must be used by all Lodges. Firearms do not, and never have, played any role in any Masonic ritual in New York State.

Contradicts eyewitnesses.

Trinity... go read the first post, a link to the e-article is there.

I've read the first post, the e-article, other e-articles like it and am quite familiar with the tragic incident.

Follow my train of thought, and tell me at what point you diverge from it.

1. Firearms are not used in masonic ceremonies, therefore
2. The incident could not have happened in a masonic ceremony, therefore
3. The Senior Deacon was misquoted, or misunderstood, by the reporter.

I'm sure you are aware that the second degree in freemasonry is called the Fellow Craft. The name of the club which met in the basement of the lodge building was called the Fellow Craft Club. Can you see how possibly someone who was not all that familiar with freemasonry might mix them up?

You are basing your argument on the assumption that this incident occured during a masonic ceremony. I, and many others here, are telling you that it did not.

You are using as your source e-articles written by non-masons without great knowledge of freemasonry. I would further suggest to you that the media has an in-built bias to sensationalise stories in order to increase sales - you may have seen that 'good news' stories are less common that 'bad news' ones. 'Masons are up to no good' is much better than 'Masons are benign'.

Once you accept that accidents can happen and human nature is fallable (people make mistakes) a broader perspective can emerge. It's like saying that 'friendy fire' in war is deliberate, for some reason or other.

If you're serious about understanding the truth here you first need to ascertain whether firearms are used in masonic ceremonies or not.

Trinity:

Read the FIRST post in this thread, on the first page. I am not talking about this shooting, but about some information the originator of this thread provided and waiting for repsonses to it. As for the ritual, why then did the Senior Deacon say it was a ritual into the Second Degree? Why did the eyeswitnesses say they have seen this ritual many times before?

Originally posted by notmindcontrolled
www.vaticanassassins.org...

I haven't read all of this. There are about three books I am reading now. I have speed read through it and it is about to take the front seat. Please everyone read and let's get a good friendly disscusion going here.

The degree as described here is presented by an anti-masonic site. vatican assasins does not fill you with confidence of a reasoned well balanced opinion.

The word J-B-O has been dropped from most if not all UK Royal Arch.

The York Site works diffently to the UK Royal Arch but I believe the basic ceremony is much the same.

for many years the Post of Grand Chaplain has been taken by the Arch Bishop of Canterbury or a high Ranking Bishop. This tradition has only been broken in recent years. L believe in the 1970's the Angican Church and the Grand Lodge of England met and arranged to change the word used in Royal arch to Jah....... This at the time seemed acceptable to the established Church in England.

Duncan's ritual was the words and meanings of Duncan , and may well be perfectly acceptale to a large number of Freemasons but as no man speaks alone for Freemasonry , you can not take that as a blanket acceptance by all Freemasons.

There are also other explanations of the word J-B-L which differ greatly from the one presented here. As there is no record of the original meanings each attributed meaning must be speculation.

I offer here an explanation from another poster on another board:
There may be some ears in here that are not ready to accept this, but an investigation of Mr. Pyle's claims concerning the name "J-B-O" are absolutely on target. The "J" is a no-brainer, and has already been conceded by practically everyone here. The others were a bit more of a problem, and truthfully, I thought at first you were far off the mark. The name of "O" was the one I took on first, because I had never heard a suggestion of a Greek God named On. Nowhere in anything I have or in anything I could find online suggested any different, so I was ready to disagree totally. Then I re-read the post and saw I had been mistaken and you were not even hinting at a "Greek God" at all, but a Greek word for the God of the Bible. Next I tried a Septuagint concordance, and there was not even a word "on" included. A lexicon, and a New Testament Greek concordance still turned up nothing. I was literally about to give up and refute your claim, when I thought about the Septuagint itself and figured it wouldn't hurt to look. When I did so, checking the Exodus 3:14 reference, there it was, right before me, only instead of the Greek letter omicron (“short” o), it was the omega (“long” o). Can’t see it in the English, but it’ll sure throw you for a loop in Greek. Then I had the idea this wasn’t really a name for God at all, but simply a form of the Hebrew “I AM” verb, and began to research it from that angle. I ran into a snag when checking out the reference I found from Hosea 12:4, where I found in the side-by-side English translation of the Septuagint, a mention of the “house of On.” I had a problem because it simply was not there in my other English translation (NKJV). At least it wasn’t there until I recognized that “house of On” was translated as “Bethel” in my English version. Took me longer than it should have, but finally realized that the translation of “Bethel” literally means “house of God,” and so “house of On” was an equivalent. A tedious process of discovery, but found it eventually.
The “bul” was much harder, but only because I made it so by starting at the harder sources first. I first started an internet search on the hunch that “bel” and “ba’al” may not be one and the same. All I came across were places where they are spoken of interchangeably, and a non-canonical book about Daniel and Bel. Since I knew it was more or less an equivalent of “ba’al,” I started the search at “ba’al.” This was a bit harder, because I had to re-familiarize with the Hebrew lettering and reverse reading. Also, even though I have a Hebrew-English Bible, it is not one of your better versions, the Hebrew lettering is difficult to determine in places. I was not finding “ba’al” in the passage in Isaiah 54:5, nor was I finding it in a Hebrew concordance. Something finally told me to look in the Strong’s concordance and get an idea what I was l looking for. When I did, there it was plain as could be, and I looked up the corresponding number. I found it, and it’s there, plain as you want it to be, “ba’al” as the Hebrew word for “husband.” The word can also mean “master,” so that the verse translated comes to, “For the Lord your Maker is your Master.” (For those interested, it is in KJV concordance as #1167. “Ba’al” with a capital is under #1168 as the Canaanite deity. I assumed the root word may be somewhat different, but the two in the Hebrew are exactly the same.)
My conclusion is, Mr. Pyle, you have made an excellent case for a strictly biblical origin for this word that has been suggested as a combination of gods that include a pagan fertility god adopted from the area around them, and an Egyptian sun god. The conclusions are simple:

(1) “J” = a shortened form of “Yahweh” or “Jehovah.”
(2) “B” = another form of “ba’al,” translated as “husband” throughout most of the Old Testament, but also translated as “master” in Exodus 22:8, and Judges 19:22-23.
(3) “O” = the same name God gave Moses when questioned, “whom shall I say has sent me?” The fact that this is a name for God is clear from the passage in Hosea 12:4, translating “house of On” from the Septuagint Greek version, which corresponds to the Hebrew “Bethel,” which means “House of God.”


Just as feasible as Duncans but by definition it must be speculative.

Originally posted by freudling

a. The tragic event took place not in a Lodge meeting but during a social event in the building in Patchogue, New York, where the Lodge meets.

This contradicts both the Senior Deacon's statments and eyewitnesses: it was a well known Second Degree Ritual.

Dude. You've made up your own mind without taking note of any of the contradictory evidence. All I can tell you is that you are absolutely wrong. There is only one sanctioned 2nd degree ceremony. Even the newspapers called this the "Fellowcraft Club". Wouldn't this use of the word "club" logically point to some private organisation?
You said earlier that you were sitting on the fence with an open mind. That's a lie. You've fallen off the fence and rolled down the hill.

As for the 2nd claim that you want discussed? There is only the word of the author on that one. An author who is obviously biased.

I am still sitting on the fence, and merely pointed out documented facts. All you guys can do is label me, whereas you keep skirting the issue. READ THIS: THE ARTICLE WAS POSTED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES, AMONG HUNDREDS OF OTHER PAPERS WHO POSTED IT. I first read about it in a Canadian Newspaper. You guys have offered no logical rebuttal and refuse to accept the statements of the Senior Deacon, saying it was a Second Degree ritual within the Masonic system. You have refused to accept eyewitness reports about witnessing the blank firing ritual many times over in the past. You come back insulting me calling be "Dork" and offering a statement from a Grand Master that does NOT in any way refute what happened.

And, as for your reply about the author of "The Complete Proof of Freemasonary Being Satanic": all you can say is, "biased"? Wow, great response, now we can all close the book.

[edit on 17-2-2005 by freudling]

Originally posted by freudling
I am still sitting on the fence, and merely pointed out documented facts. All you guys can do is label me, whereas you keep skirting the issue. READ THIS: THE ARTICLE WAS POSTED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES, AMONG HUNDREDS OF OTHER PAPERS WHO POSTED IT. I first read about it in a Canadian Newspaper. You guys have offered no logical rebuttal and refuse to accept the statements of the Senior Deacon, saying it was a Second Degree ritual within the Masonic system. You have refused to accept eyewitness reports about witnessing the blank firing ritual many times over in the past. You come back insulting me calling be "Dork" and offering a statement from a Grand Master that does NOT in any way refute what happened.

You have had an answer , your right it was stupid and any attempt at trying to cover it is futile. It should never have happened and is inexcusable. What shall we do shoot every Mason in the world ?

And, as for your reply about the author of "The Complete Proof of Freemasonary Being Satanic": all you can say is, "biased"? Wow, great response, now we can all close the book.

The question is did you read the “Complete Proof of Masons Being Satanic” I did and answered in detail in my last post. It is about the word J-B-O.
You complain about being called a Dork , then act like one.

Who are you talking to freudling? I gave you the link but I have not called you a Dork.

You are confused. The Fellow Craft Club, a non-official unsanctioned group of freemasons who met in the basement of this particular lodge room, had been meeting for years. They had developed their own 'initiation' system that involved this gunplay.

Was it stupid? Yes. Does masonry come out of this badly? Yes, as the idiots were freemasons.

Guns are not used in an regular masonic ritual anywhere in the world. Period.

Now, lets have a look at this NYT article you seem to love so much

"The initiation rituals at the Masonic lodge here had been bathed in secrecy over the years. The climax of Monday night's ceremony was to be a simple prank. A new member of the Fellow Craft Club, a select group within the lodge, would sit in a chair while an older member stood 20 feet away and fired a handgun loaded with blanks. "

1. The article clearly states that the member is joining the Fellow Craft Club, rather than the lodge. As it is 'a select group within the lodge' (apparently) anyone joining must already be a freemason so therefore it wasn't an initiation ritual, as the dramatic opening line implies.

"That ritual went terribly wrong inside Southside Masonic Lodge No. 493, in a basement littered with rat traps, tin cans, a 9-foot-tall guillotine, and a setup designed to mimic walking a plank. "

2. Although the reference is ambiguous (perhaps deliberately) the context shows that reporter is referring to the Building itself rather than the Lodge.

"Over the years, the Southside Masonic Lodge members developed their own initiation rituals for the social club in the lodge that set them apart from most other Masonic organizations, members said. No members of the lodge could remember pistols being used in the rituals (they are not allowed in inside Masonic clubhouses), but some described initiations that were part prank, part exercise in trust."

3. It's clear that the members of Southside are quite unique in respect of these initiatons for the social club.

4. Pistols are not allowed inside masonic buildings - kinda tricky if you need to use them regularly in ceremonies

"On Monday night, Mr. James and Mr. Eid were among 10 men who set to performing the club's initiation. "

5. Another reference to the 'club', not the lodge.

Your link to Newsday is no use at all, but going from the excerpt you posted the eyewitness comment is quite consistant with describing an 'initiation' into the Fellow Craft Club rather than the lodge itself as neither is specified.

Now, lets look at what the Senior Deacon actually said in the news article:

"We don't use pistols," Steve Mayo, who described himself as a senior deacon of the lodge, told reporters Tuesday. "This is not a Masonic ceremony where we bring pistols."

1. "We don't use pistols". Fairly clear.

2. "This is not a Masonic ceremony where we bring pistols". So they are bringing their pistols to something other than a masonic ceremony.

However, Fitzpatrick said members told police the rite involving a gun goes back at least 70 years.So some members of the Fellow Craft club have told the police that this practice has been going on for up to 70 years. In the Fellow Craft Club. Nothing to be proud of, mind you.

Mayo said the Monday night ceremony was an initiation into the Fellow Craft (search), which is the second degree within the multilevel Masonic system.

Reporting error. The reporter mad an assumption, pure and simple.

1. A freemason would never refer to going through the second degree as an 'initiation' - it is known as passing.

2. It is inconsistent with the rest of the article which already states that the shooting took place in a Fellow Craft Club.

3. In fact, if you click on search it brings up a link to a well known anti-masonry site which lists a fellowcraft degree ceremony in full. No sign anywhere of anything remotely like gunplay, planks of wood, rat traps, guillotines, cans on platforms etc etc - surely an anti-masonic site would have drawn attention to if if it existed.

Finally, you make a point that hundreds of newspapers carried the same story. EXACTLY. It's the same story. Ever heard of syndication? AP got the story and syndicated it around the world. Errors and all.

Read www.masonicinfo.com... for a good account of the background to these clubs held on masonic property.

Oh and your accusation of satanism has been kicked into touch so far by others that I think it might be best if you quietly let that drop. Or I'll cast a hex on you.

I NEVER said the story was the same in each article. I also agree with most everything you have said, however. But the problem is you guys Lodges can have different practices in each, specially clubs within Masonary, so how can you generalize at all?

So its okay for you to generalize about masons but masons cant generalize about masons? Wow I am impressed.

Originally posted by freudling

And, as for your reply about the author of "The Complete Proof of Freemasonary Being Satanic": all you can say is, "biased"? Wow, great response, now we can all close the book.

Well, what more do you want?


You say that you are sitting on the fence still? I utterly disagree. The impression that you give is that you want those lies to be true. You want to find Freemasonry guilty. You have judged with what little, twisted evidence you have and you have cast your guilty verdict. When you have given your side of the argument, you seem to have totally ignored the evidence given in defence. You claim that there are no refutations, but there are. That seems to me to be evidence in itself that you don't want to see the other side.

It's been proven here that the shooting in NY was not Freemasonry and it's also been shown that the references that are made about Freemasonry do not show it to be Satanic.
The thing is, anyone can write a book about another group of people and make them look bad. It's a method of attack that has been used for centuries - from the Bible to Mein Kampf.
And the contents of that book don't even need to be true - all it requires is somebody gullible enough to swallow a lie or a twisted truth. The pity is that there are people who will pre-judge, then read the book and not look for the truth behind it.

The shooting in New York was a tragedy. But it was also not Freemasonry - however much you claim that it was, however much you try to twist truths to show that it was - it simply wasn't.

Answer me this. The author doesn't dispute that the shooting was an accident. But why include it in a dissertation that was mainly written to show that Freemasonry is Satanic? Does an accident make something Satanic? Even if the club mentioned in the article was sanctioned by Freemasonry, what relevance does it have to the Satanism theory? The answer is none. All it does is sew more seeds of doubt and enable the author to twist the truth even more. He can concentrate your mind on the Satanic theory because he has already pointed out to you that Freemasonry is bad - even though the connection is unrelated to the theory. He has coerced you into pre-judging without you even knowing it.

It's propaganda, dude. Recognise that fact.
You can either be one of the masses and swallow it whole and unblinkingly. Or you can be one of the people who sees the lie for what it is and go look for the truth yourself.