Illuminati/Freemason symbols in the new Omen movie

Originally posted by ViolatoR
Hey Masonic Light, thanks for being polite in your post. I was playing "devil's advocate" (pun intended for the Omen thread!) on purpose, and you didn't get all defensive like I notice alot of people on ATS get. I didn't think the Crowley-Bush thing was real, but the Peirce-Guy Fawks connection is interesting, if true. Makes me wonder if theres more to the books/movie "V for Vendetta?" I wasn't sure what response I would get on such an easily flame-able (flammable?) post

(flammable.. fire.. devil.. another pun?)

I haven't seen Vendetta, but will take a look at it. Also, just to clarify my position:

I have been a student of occultism for a long time now, long before I became a Mason. It was during my studies of the Kabalah that I first read Albert Pike, whose writings led me to decide to join the Masons myself.

In Pike's time, Masonry was much more philosophically oriented than it is today. These days, only a handful of Masons care anything about the Kabalah or other forms of mysticism traditionally spoken of in Masonic ritual. This is unfortunate, but Masonry, at least in my opinion, still possesses those grains of primitive truth, even if they fall on deaf ears (which they often do).

I noticed that even Anton La Vey doesn't believe in the devil. You can see him quoted on the very last lines that are visible in this picture of an article: "We believe in neither God nor the Devil.." . Considering he founded the church of Satan and all.. ? It's like the devil just represents something else. Perhaps the giver of hidden knowlege, or illumination; he being the brightest of all angels after all.

LaVey was strongly influenced by both Nietzsche and Crowley, although he denied it (especially with Crowley). However, all three (Nietzsche, Crowley, and LaVey) shared the opinion that Christianity was an organized hypocrisy and scam, and that it's ultimate purpose was to foster a herd mentality.

All three also championed the devil as a symbol of individual liberty, resistance to arbitrary authority, and of forbidden knowledge.

A former member of the Church of Satan, Dr. Michael Aquino, pointed out that "Satan" was most probably just a Hebrew corruption of the Egyptian lunar deity Set. The Setian Dynasty was in power during the exodus, and so they made the Egyptians' god their own devil.

It's too bad that there arn't 33 degrees in Scottish Rite above the 3 degrees of the Blue Lodge. As opposed starting at 4 and going up to 33. Because that would make 36 total degrees. And if you add every number from 1 through 36 it equals 666. That would certainly make for far more interesting theories!

lol, perhaps. But it should be noted that in occultism there is no automatic prejudice against 666. Indeed, it is the sum of the magic square of Sol, which led Crowley to adopt it. One of my favorite Crowley quotes came when asked why he referred to himself by that number: "The number represents the sun: you may call me 'Little Sunshine'".

Rosemary buys some books on witches and one, as she quickly flips through it while handing it to someone, has a full sized image of "Baphomet."

Perhaps the oddest scene was while she was drugged and carried to the ritual room; she dreamt that she saw her friend Hutch standing in a desert yelling "Typhoon! Typhoon! It killed 55 people in London!" Considering typhoons are tropical, and he's in a desert talking about London.. I dont get it. Plus he is holding a huge oversized Compass, like "Masonic Light"'s avatar, plus a wall clock, and the top of a pitchfork with a white sheet/flag attatched. Does this remind anyone of anything at all???

Anyways, there's probably more stuff I missed.. I'll have to watch my Omen movie and get back to this thread.

Interestingly, this movie was what inspired the aforementioned Dr. Aquino to join the Church of Satan. LaVey was a consultant to the film. Aquino has an e-book called "The Church of Satan" which gives a history of that organization, and his time in it, available on his website, which I would recommend if for no other reason than it's entertaining, and explains Satanism from an inside perspective.

Originally posted by Thodeph
You defend freemasonry valiantly, but I would like to test your apparent open mindedness by asking how come sexual scandals involving violent paedophilia often implicate freemason dignitaries.

I will gladly await your answer bar the "where's the proof?"-stance.

And just which "freemason dignitaries" might those be?

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Masonic Light]

Are you hereby admitting that paedophilia is a deviate, abnormal form of sexual desire?

Dunblane Inquiry Was a Cover Up and Peers Bullied Me to Keep Quiet, Says Lord Burton, Ex-Masons Leader


Cullen Inquiry Whitewash
-- "I asked Lord Cullen to recuse himself if he was a Freemason. He denied he was a Mason following the question posed. I then asked him to instruct every witness to the Inquiry to declare if they were Masons, because too many sinister loopholes were created for Thomas Hamilton over a number of years to enable him to retain his gun licence and continue running boys clubs. Hamilton was given this seal of approval despite many misgivings from worried members of the public, certain police officers and others. [...] As it happened, Lord Cullen did not recuse himself, even though, as I have recently discovered, he is numbered 1702 on the membership list of the ‘Speculative Society of Edinburgh’, which is an exclusive off-shoot of Freemasonry. In fact, Masons from Lodge Canongate Kilwinning No 2, founded the “Speculative Society” in Edinburgh in 1764."

Dunblane update: Police involved in paedophile ring
-- "Lord Cullen, who led the inquiry and imposed the 100-year ban, was asked to recuse himself if he was a Freemason. (Hamilton, reportedly, was himself a lodge member.) Cullen denied that he held membership. Cullen was then asked "to instruct every witness to the Inquiry to declare if they were Masons." Cullen declined. Since the inquiry, Cullen has been found to be "Number 1702 on the membership list of the ‘Speculative Society of Edinburgh’, which is an exclusive off-shoot of Freemasonry. In fact, Masons from Lodge Canongate Kilwinning No 2, founded the 'Speculative Society' in Edinburgh in 1764."

Believe The Children -- Conviction List: Ritual Child Abuse
-- "Children who attended Christchurch Civic Creche described bizarre sexual abuse with references to frightening rituals. The children allege they were removed from the day care facility and transported to other locations, including a cemetary and a Masonic lodge, where they were abused by adults dressed in black and white and wearing masks. [similar stories can be found in many countries (eg. Belgium) and each time the children's stories were discredited as fantasies]

Freemason accused of indecent assault alleges conspiracy - says he was only concerned with ensuring boys proper hygene
-- "Giving evidence, Richardson, a freemason, said: “I personally think it’s been orchestrated by one of them, I’m not mentioning any names."

Information on Ritual Abuse
-- "Luciferian cults (where God is capable of good and evil) are described by some [of their] patients. Many of these patients have alleged ritual abuse where Masonic ceremonies, items or members were there."

[edit on 27-2-2007 by Thodeph]

I didn't see any "freemason dignitaries" just a bunch of unsubstantiated claims put out by bigots (which is usually the case). You even admitted in your post that many of those stories have been discredited.

But if you want to talk about a REAL pedophilia conspiracy, you need look no further than the Christians: it was just announced last night that the Archdiocese of San Diego was declaring bankruptcy due to the number lawsuits pending against them for allowing and covering up child sexual abuse.



[edit on 28-2-2007 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by Thodeph
Are you hereby admitting that paedophilia is a deviate, abnormal form of sexual desire?

What kind of question is that? Of course it's deviate and abnormal. Do you really need me to tell you that?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
The word "Lucifer" was not introduced into the Scriptures until the middle ages, and it did not originally signify the devil.

Jerome introduced the term Lucifer into the Bible in the 5th Century. (Vulgate Bible). Just to clear it up for everyone involved here. It was actually the translation of heosphorus which is "dawn-bearer" or Venus. Which of course was a much older translation of the Hebrew texts "הילל בן שחר" - meaning "heilel ben-schahar" or "Helel son of Shahar" who was a Babylonian/Canaanite God and the Son of another Babylonian/Canaanite God.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I didn't see any "freemason dignitaries" just a bunch of unsubstantiated claims put out by bigots (which is usually the case). You even admitted in your post that many of those stories have been discredited.

I knew such answer would come.

An honest reply would have been: "I don't exclude freemasons being guilty of paedophilic crimes. But such crimes are far from a freemason's prerogative. Catholic dignitaries have been found guilty of them as well."

Instead, your state of denial is indicative for the fact that you're incapable of self-criticism and allows for the possibility that you've been softly brainwashed in order to defend freemasonry against any attack. Which would demonstrate the replacement of a sense of right and wrong by the blind obediance to a cult's prescriptions. You could hardly be farther from freedom.

Originally posted by Thodeph


An honest reply would have been: "I don't exclude freemasons being guilty of paedophilic crimes. But such crimes are far from a freemason's prerogative. Catholic dignitaries have been found guilty of them as well."

Instead, your state of denial is indicative for the fact that you're incapable of self-criticism and allows for the possibility that you've been softly brainwashed in order to defend freemasonry against any attack. Which would demonstrate the replacement of a sense of right and wrong by the blind obediance to a cult's prescriptions. You could hardly be farther from freedom.

As of yet, you've offered nothing for me to deny in the first place. You would first have to back up your claims with evidence for me to enter a "state of denial", which you haven't done.

I'm also still waiting for the names of these "freemason dignitaries". Yet all I hear is the distant sound of grasshoppers chirping.



[edit on 28-2-2007 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by Thodeph

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I didn't see any "freemason dignitaries" just a bunch of unsubstantiated claims put out by bigots (which is usually the case). You even admitted in your post that many of those stories have been discredited.

I knew such answer would come.

An honest reply would have been: "I don't exclude freemasons being guilty of paedophilic crimes. But such crimes are far from a freemason's prerogative. Catholic dignitaries have been found guilty of them as well."

Instead, your state of denial is indicative for the fact that you're incapable of self-criticism and allows for the possibility that you've been softly brainwashed in order to defend freemasonry against any attack. Which would demonstrate the replacement of a sense of right and wrong by the blind obediance to a cult's prescriptions. You could hardly be farther from freedom.

And the masons are closed-minded.......got it.

Explain how denying allegations that are without merit is a state of denial? Personally, not being a mason and with no biases whatsoever, I can freely say that I think each man is subject to his own sins, and it is at his discretion and the judgement of whatever awaits him in the afterworld to do as he feels he should. Can Freemasons stop this from happening among their membership? Of course not, but neither will they continue to tolerate repetitive destructive behavior. It is well established that Freemasons will do what they can to aid a brother in need, but there comes a point where he will be "banished" if his ways cannot be mended.
Grouping Freemasons as a whole into crimes such as this is just ridiculous. No group can speak for one man. Unless, of course, they've all been brainwashed......which seems to be your dogma. Well, there's only so much fact and history you can throw at people before you have to leave them to decide for themselves. To each their own, I suppose....

Eden, I think you are 100% correct.

It would be moronic to think that Freemasonry, which has had many millions of members, did not have a few scoundrels here and there. All organizations do. All Freemasonry can do is point out the proper way to live; it can't physically force men to do so.

However, the other poster's accusations are blatantly false. There aren't any "freemason dignitaries" involved in the sort of stuff he's talking about, and when Masons commit crimes, they are quickly and unequivocally expelled from the fraternity, and must carry that dishonor with them from then on.

Originally posted by Masonic Light


But if you want to talk about a REAL pedophilia conspiracy, you need look no further than the Christians: it was just announced last night that the Archdiocese of San Diego was declaring bankruptcy due to the number lawsuits pending against them for allowing and covering up child sexual abuse.



[edit on 28-2-2007 by Masonic Light]

why would you associate a catholic archdiocese with a christian? people can call themselves christian till they turn blue in the face but unless they follow the teachings of christ...well you get my point.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by Funkydung]

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by Masonic Light
The word "Lucifer" was not introduced into the Scriptures until the middle ages, and it did not originally signify the devil.

Jerome introduced the term Lucifer into the Bible in the 5th Century. (Vulgate Bible). Just to clear it up for everyone involved here. It was actually the translation of heosphorus which is "dawn-bearer" or Venus. Which of course was a much older translation of the Hebrew texts "הילל בן שחר" - meaning "heilel ben-schahar" or "Helel son of Shahar" who was a Babylonian/Canaanite God and the Son of another Babylonian/Canaanite God.

thanks odium. ive been trying to tell people this for a while now but nobody seems to get it. keep on trying i guess. religion itself was born in ancient babylon. nimrod himself help birth the monster.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by Funkydung]

why would you associate a catholic archdiocese with a christian? people can call themselves christian till they turn blue in the face but unless they follow the teachings of christ...well you get my point.

I believe the point was only to say that taking a "My dogma is better than yours" perspective here wouldn't be the wisest choice. It is agreed upon that the beliefs of a christian, as well as his moral disposition and adherence to the commandments is what makes up his faith. However, to be completely literal, a Catholic Diocese is considered a Christian organization. Which only further demonstrates the point.

What you have basically done here is solidified the fact that you can't blame the flock just because a few sheep have strayed. I wouldn't call the Bishops who committed these acts Christian, but neither would I say that all Catholics are pedophiles. This is the point Masonic Light is trying to make. Freemasons are not inherently evil just because a member here and there commits an atrocity.

Originally posted by Funkydung

why would you associate a catholic archdiocese with a christian? people can call themselves christian till they turn blue in the face but unless they follow the teachings of christ...well you get my point.

Roman Catholicism is the "original" branch of Christianity. The Protestants may have left the Catholic Church, but it's certainly where they came from.

Originally posted by EdenKaia

I believe the point was only to say that taking a "My dogma is better than yours" perspective here wouldn't be the wisest choice. It is agreed upon that the beliefs of a christian, as well as his moral disposition and adherence to the commandments is what makes up his faith. However, to be completely literal, a Catholic Diocese is considered a Christian organization. Which only further demonstrates the point.

i dont understand why they would consider themselves a christian organization other than a deceptive motive.

What you have basically done here is solidified the fact that you can't blame the flock just because a few sheep have strayed. I wouldn't call the Bishops who committed these acts Christian, but neither would I say that all Catholics are pedophiles. This is the point Masonic Light is trying to make. Freemasons are not inherently evil just because a member here and there commits an atrocity.

true we cant blame the flock but its the ones in charge that will ultimatly be the downfall of all of them. there are people that hate all of america because of the leaders greed. not all americans have the same view point as the ones in charge but as a whole all are blamed.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by Funkydung]

[edit on 28-2-2007 by Funkydung]

Freemasons are not inherently evil just because a member here and there commits an atrocity.

Exactly. But the way MasonicLight reacted to the links I presented, linking Freemasons with paedophilia scandal, suggests Freemasons do not apply for such atrocities and would be above good and evil -- namely godly.

Originally posted by Funkydung
thanks odium. ive been trying to tell people this for a while now but nobody seems to get it. keep on trying i guess. religion itself was born in ancient babylon. nimrod himself help birth the monster.

Babylon isn't even mentioned in history until the reign of Sargon. You can trace Dravidianism to about 6,000 B.C. As Hinduism takes its roots in this origin, one could argue that this is where religion was born. Not to say that this is fact, only that these are the facts of the facts we know.

Originally posted by Thodeph
Exactly. But the way MasonicLight reacted to the links I presented, linking Freemasons with paedophilia scandal, suggests Freemasons do not apply for such atrocities and would be above good and evil -- namely godly.

I think it more precisely demonstrates his/her passion for their brotherhood, which is being brought up on charges unbecoming, with no facts to back up those accusations. I believe I would react the same way. In fact, I have done so in the past. Quite vehemently, might I add, and I'm not even a Freemason. It is only that to see so many times, over and over, Freemasons and others posting facts that are only ignored for idiocy, even those like myself will get fired up. Honestly, there is only such many times you can link to something that is fact, not hearsay or propaganda, but fact before you get so frustrated you want to throw your monitor at someone. I've seen this particular Freemason's attempts to properly educate go disregarded countless times. The most popular response to MasonicLight's insight and links?

"You are a Mason and have obviously been brainwashed. Why should I come to you to learn the truth about their practices?"

Honestly, I've seen a lot of stupid remarks in my short time, but this one ranks high.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by EdenKaia]

Those who call journalistic reports and children's testimonies 'hearsay' and insist upon 'facts' don't install a lot of confidence. Your chivalrish rescue of those poor, falsely accused freemasons doesn't either.

Again, it might be wiser to admit that at least a lot of indications exist that freemasons have given into paedophilic crimes, or are protecting those accused -- which amounts to the same.

Freemasons are not the only ones guilty of such acts. Catholic priests and bishops apparently can suffer from a similar disease. Which, in their case, could be explained by years of celibacy, not by the compliance to a cult's inherent amoral beliefs.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by Thodeph]