Albert Pike: A Man Misunderstood

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by piboy
If it is falsifiable but yet you fail to falsify it, then you have to accept the claim as being true.

There is a problem here though. This way there is no way to deal with counter claims.

Ok, this at least is a step in the right direction.

All evidence is is just a counter claim. If I produce evidence that you are Japanese, that really mean I am claiming that you are Japanese, backing it up with evidence that you are Japanese. So of course someone could challenge the fact that the evidence really does support the claim that you are Japanese. This is why the courts try to agree on the evidence of the case before they start, so they constantly spin their wheels.

But issuing counter-claims is how you falsify a claim, as long as your counter-claim really would falsify the original claim. "

Claim: He is Polish.
Counter-Claim: He is a man.

It's not a "counter"-claim in the sense that, if true, would falsify the original claim. It really is just "another" claim.

So yeah, hypothetically, the conversation could go like this:

Claim: Pike was not a Luciferian.
Counter-Claim: Pike wrote Luciferian literature.
Counter-Counter-Claim: Pike was not the author of that literature...
etc.

The above is just an example, I am not making any of the claims.

But the imagine if the conversationg then goes like this:

Claim: Pike did too write it, Experts say so.
Claim: You are just anti-mason
Claim: You worship devils in the lodge.
Claim: you've never read M&D

See how those don't get at what "can" falsify the original claim? The just hurl stuff around. And the usually someone posts a massively long post with al sorts of text as if something in there would prove the original claim right or wrong.

So coutner-claims are necessary. All evidence is is counter-claims. But we need to make sure that the counter claims (and counter-counter-claims, etc) all try to falsify the claim they are addressing, which implies we need to figure out at tleast in theory what "would" falsify the claim.

Originally posted by piboy

What I wanted is to figure out, in theory, what would prove false the claim that Pike was not a Luciferian.

Or, in other words, what would prove true the claim that Pike was a Luciferian.

In order to attempt any of this, we must first be on the same page. Therefore, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, please define "Luciferian", so that we first may agree on what exactly we're talking about.

I'll be away until early next week. Until then, merry Christmas everyone! Remember that "Christmas" means "Christ's Mass", and that he is the reason for the season.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by piboy

What I wanted is to figure out, in theory, what would prove false the claim that Pike was not a Luciferian.

Or, in other words, what would prove true the claim that Pike was a Luciferian.

In order to attempt any of this, we must first be on the same page. Therefore, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, please define "Luciferian", so that we first may agree on what exactly we're talking about.

I'll be away until early next week. Until then, merry Christmas everyone! Remember that "Christmas" means "Christ's Mass", and that he is the reason for the season.

Yay. That's cool

Good point. We need to decide on a definition of Luciferian.

But I would like to try to falisfy the original claim of this thread, which is Pike was not a Luciferian.

This looks like as good a place as any to get a sense of what luciferianism is.

Whether we want to attempt to falsify the statement "Pike was not a luciferian' or attempt to falsify the statement that "Pike was a luciferian", that'd be a good place to look and compare to pike.

Therefore, what from that page, in anyone's opinion here, jives with Pike being a luciferian?

This is how I would define Luciferian:

Giving tribute, accolades, praise, or reverence to a spiritual entity known as Lucifer or Satan that is opposed to the happiness of man, according to Christian tradition.

Thanks for your help everybody.There is some great books to choose from. Back in touch soon when ive done a little more reasearch, once again i thank you all.

Pike. A man misunderstood or the man Disinformed?

Mostlikely the latter. Clearly the whole thing has struck a nerve.

There's so much disinformation from the media now that it's obvious that some shady things are going on behind the scenes.

Why would we kid ourselves to think otherwise? We should all know by now that politics is a dead mans game. You have to cheat, steal and kill just to play with the boys on the hill.

Giving tribute, accolades, praise, or reverence to a spiritual entity known as Lucifer or Satan that is opposed to the happiness of man, according to Christian tradition.

You speak of two different entities. Lucifer and Satan are different and exclusive of each other. But this has been discussed here almost as many times as
the evil Masons have.

"The word 'statesman' simply means a dead politician. And the world needs more statesmen!"

Originally posted by Huabamambo


There's so much disinformation from the media now that it's obvious that some shady things are going on behind the scenes.

Did you learn that when you astrally projected to the British Museum?

Originally posted by piboy
Giving tribute, accolades, praise, or reverence to a spiritual entity known as Lucifer or Satan that is opposed to the happiness of man, according to Christian tradition.

Fair enough. How is Pike a Luciferian then? I've seen some people refer to lucifer as the light-bringer, however, that in part is a repetition of the meaning of the latin name, "luci ferous", and in any case I haven't seen any masons praising this satanic version of 'lucifer' that you outline, certainly not Pike or at least not in M&D.

Go to the Museum for yourself if you don't believe me.

And find a copy of the Daily Appeal he wrote an editorial in.

Seeing is believing.

Albert Pike a man disinformed.

[edit on 27-12-2005 by Huabamambo]

Originally posted by piboy
This is how I would define Luciferian:

Giving tribute, accolades, praise, or reverence to a spiritual entity known as Lucifer or Satan that is opposed to the happiness of man, according to Christian tradition.

Thanks for the definition. Now let's see if it can be applied to Pike. All quotes are from "Morals and Dogma".

We profess to be equal in a Church and in the Lodge: we shall be equal in the sight of God when He judges the earth. (p. 44)

Here we see Pike professing equality in the Church, as in the Lodge. He also professes his belief that God will judge the earth, and all men are equal in His sight. This would obviously be opposed to your definition of a Luciferian.

While you are still engaged in preparation, and in accumulating principles for future use, do not forget the words of the Apostle James: "For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass, for he beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was; but whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his work. If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. . . . Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being an abstraction. A man is justified by works, and not by faith only. . . . The devils believe,--and tremble. . . . As the body without the heart is dead, so is faith without works." (p. 36)

Here, Pike paraphrases the Epistle of the Apostle James, emphasizing that such is the profession of a Mason. Likewise, this would oppose your definition of Luciferianism.

The following is taken from p. 73, and is Pike's first of three uses of the word "Lucifer" in his book:

Hypocrisy is the homage that vice and wrong pay to virtue and justice. It is .Satan attempting to clothe himself in the angelic vesture of light. It is equally detestable in morals, politics, and religion; in the man and in the nation. To do injustice under the pretence of equity and fairness; to reprove vice in public and commit it in private; to pretend to charitable opinion and censoriously condemn; to profess the principles of Masonic beneficence, and close the ear to the wail of distress and the cry of suffering; to eulogize the intelligence of the people, and plot to deceive and be-tray them by means of their ignorance and simplicity; to prate of purity, and peculate; of honor, and basely abandon a sinking cause; of disinterestedness, and sell one's vote for place and power, are hypocrisies as common as they are infamous and disgraceful. To steal the livery of the Court of God to serve the Devil withal; to pretend to believe in a God of mercy and a Redeemer of love, and persecute those of a different faith; to devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers; to preach continence, and wallow in lust; to inculcate humility, and in pride surpass Lucifer; to pay tithe, and omit the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith; to strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel; to make clean the outside of the cup and platter, keeping them full within of extortion and excess; to appear outwardly righteous unto men, but within be full of hypocrisy and iniquity, is indeed to be like unto whited sepulchres, which appear beautiful outward, but are within full of bones of the dead and of all uncleanness.

Here, "Lucifer" is used as a synonym for pride run amok, and definitely does not square with your definition of Luciferian.

Pike's second use of "Lucifer" is found on p. 102:

The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahveh reversed; for Satan is not a black god, but the negation of God. The Devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry.

For the Initiates, this is not a Person, but a Force, created for good, but which may serve for evil. It is the instrument of Liberty or Free Will. They represent this Force, which presides over the physical generation, under the mythologic and horned form of the God PAN; thence came the he-goat of the Sabbat, brother of the Ancient Serpent, and the Light-bearer or Phosphor, of which the poets have made the false Lucifer of the legend.

In the first sentence, "the Kabalists" apparently refers to French author Eliphas Levi, from whom the rest of the passage is paraphrased. Pike, in semi-quoting Levi, states that what he speaks of is the force of free will, not a spiritual entity, which does not meet your definition of Luciferianism. Furthermore, Pike makes a passing reference to the "poets", where he apparently refers to John Milton, author of the epic "Paradise Lost", which popularized the myth the the devil was an entity named "Lucifer". Also note that Pike (or actually Levi) denotes such "legend" as being "false", i.e., the product of a poet, not of history.

Pike's third reference to Lucifer, also a quote from Levi, is from p. 321:

The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the nineteenth Degree, the Apotheosis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer. LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt it not! for traditions are full of Divine Revelations and Inspirations: and Inspiration is not of one Age nor of one Creed. Plato and Philo, also, were inspired.

This at first sight seems contradictory: "Lucifer" is first equated with pomp and hypocritical works, but then is apparently applauded by pointing out that the name means "light bearer", and that this is a strange name to give to the "spirit of darkness'.

However, if we recall Pike/Levi's earlier statement that what they here refer to is not a spirit at all, but is symbolic of free will, it begins to make sense. Man's light, his conscience, his ability to even be a man, lies within his free will. It is the "instrument of liberty". However, if used poorly, this freedom is abused. In this sense, it is symbolized by the Greek god Pan, or the "he-goat", because, in this case, will is under bondage to the animal instinct, and those gods, Pan and the Goat of Mendes, are symbolic of the animal nature which opposes reason.

Pike ends by mentioning Plato and Philo because those two philosophers commented on and explored this subject in depth. In Plato's "Republic", for example, that philosopher attempts to show the struggle of reason ("sofia") with the animal instinct ("Pan"), and how such a struggle can be won.

Therefore, your definition of Luciferianism does not apply to Pike's writings.

Originally posted by Huabamambo
Go to the Museum for yourself if you don't believe me.

It has already been demonstrated that the British Museum possesses no such documents. It was once claimed by anti-Masons that the British Museum had them back in the 1920's. Now this has shown to be fictional too.

Even those who still promote this make-believe letter on the Internet (with the exception of you) admit that "there's no evidence this letter was ever written").

www.threeworldwars.com...

www.threeworldwars.com...


[edit on 27-12-2005 by Masonic Light]

www.freemasons-freemasonry.com...

www.freemasons-freemasonry.com...

Chapter Three - Master (bottom of the page)

The following is an exerpt from the above version of Morals and Dogma. This following statement contradicts everything else that is published on the Masonic website above.

Who ever posted the online version did a good job of rewriting the original version of Morals and Dogma from the 1800's and editing out all the major Pike quotes which are supposedly misquotes.

I'm going to read it thoroughly to find more which contradict the entire version and I will find them. Here is the chance to finially come clean and admit the disinformation about Pike. There is more then meets the eye to this man.

He who controls the past controls the future. I can't wait until 20 years from now when the History books finially tell the whole story.

You can't fool the people all the time. It's inevitable that everybody is going to realize the truth sooner or later.

"...Masonry Like all the religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy conceals it's secrets from all except the adepts and sages or the elect and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of it's symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled to conceal the Truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it. Truth is not for those who are unworthy or unable to recieve it, or would pervert it.

The Teachers, even of Christianity, are in general, the most ingorant of the true meaning of that which they teach. There is no book of which so little is known as the Bible. To most who read it, it is an incomprehensible as the Sohar..."

Thats Pike in his own words as shown to us by a Masonic website.

And when it comes to 9/11 there is just too many contradictions that we can no longer ignore. Bush fails to realize that the public is smarter then he thinks.




[edit on 27-12-2005 by Huabamambo]

Mod Note: You Have An Urgent U2U- Click Here.

Originally posted by Huabamambo
Thats Pike in his own words as shown to us by a Masonic website.

I'm confused. On the one hand you are saying that 'they' are hiding this stuff. But on the other its right there on the site. Also, what is it in that quotation that you find objectionable? Also, Pike notes in other places in the book that masonry is not a religion.

It appears as though they forgot at least one paragraph. It'll take me a little while to read through the rest but if there are any more sections that contradict the entire thing rest assured I'm going to find them.

I believe that there is more then meets the eye when it comes to Pike and what he said and believed.

There is just too many "misquotes" circulating around. I could understand if a website here and there "misquoted" Pike but the volume of it all leads me to believe otherwise.

Nonetheless that one section contradicts the entire online published book. Maybe perhaps whoever put it online did it on purpose.

Like when CNN used pictured from MI5 of the terrorists after 7/7. At least one of the Mi5 photos of the "terrorists" was clearly faked. I'm talking about the photo that had 3-4 terrorists walking on a platform and you could clearly see a rail that was superimposed over top of one of the terroristos.

The fact that cameras on the buses weren't working either is an indication of inside job.

I think that in the case of the MI5 photo someone in the agency can't bring themselves to carry out the lies of the Elite and is trying to warn us. Same goes for the paragraph that contradicts the whole online book.

Thats a masonic website and that paragraph is very important. Perhaps someone on the inside can't bring themselves to continue the lies of the Elite.

Just my two cents of course.

[edit on 27-12-2005 by Huabamambo]

Huabamambo

Mod Note: You Have An Urgent U2U- Click Here.

Originally posted by piboy
This is how I would define Luciferian:

Giving tribute, accolades, praise, or reverence to a spiritual entity known as Lucifer or Satan that is opposed to the happiness of man, according to Christian tradition.

Just a thought. Going by this definition Luciferians would have problems joining freemasonry. It's not the 'supreme being' clause that would necessarily be the problem though, but they would have diificulty declaring a sincere wish to be 'more extensively serviceable to their fellow creatures'. They would also have serious problems following the moral code of freemasonry and would probably fail the interview anyway, as a freemason must be of 'good character'.

Given this limitations, if Pike was a Luciferian he did pretty well IMO.

Originally posted by Huabamambo
There is just too many "misquotes" circulating around.

I am sure that if you examine it the misquotes and misrepresentations are on anti-masonic websites that make other unverified and extraordinary claims.I could understand if a website here and there "misquoted" Pike but the volume of it all leads me to believe otherwise.

Nonetheless that one section contradicts the entire online published book.

How?

Thats a masonic website and that paragraph is very important. Perhaps someone on the inside can't bring themselves to continue the lies of the Elite.

Or perhaps they just included the full text. That quoted section doesn't reveal anything damaging, so I am not sure why anyone that was 'sick of it all' would be motivated to release.

[edit on 28-12-2005 by Nygdan]