The secret non-Christian anti-Masonic agenda by some fundamentalist Christians

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


It depends what it is you're referring to.

lol, in that case it would depend on what you were referring to when you mentioned "occult aspects" of Freemasonry.

That's why I have a website - to put on record my position for all to see. Rehashing it here is (or should be) unnecessary.

reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


right, god forbid you actually bring a discussion to a discussion board.

Originally posted by scientist
reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men

 

right, god forbid you actually bring a discussion to a discussion board.

Ya, something like that. Sorry. But what in the hell does a loaded thread like this accomplish?

...However, the burden is on the originator if we must proceed. I asked him for specific examples; besides his personal story, I'm still waiting for something tangible (the agenda) to sink my teeth into.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men]

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
That's why I have a website - to put on record my position for all to see. Rehashing it here is (or should be) unnecessary.

Yes, I had a quick butchers (assuming it is www.conspiracyarchive.com...). An interesting read, although the bit on freemasonry had a few errors and a few assumptions I didn't agree with.

Perhaps instead of just referring people to your website why don't you take one or two themes you have developed and open them up for discussion on some new threads? I'm sure ATS members will have some interesting insights and perspectives.

I've been a mason for over a year and a half now. At first my wife had some misgivings, but once she actually learned more she accepted it. I personally get a kick out of reading some of the anti mason sites, I truly wonder if these people have any other life besides bashing a fraternal organization.

Here in Maryland and in our lodge in particular, there is a renewed interest in masonry and membership is flourishing. I think that only a small number of people are actually anti mason, just because you have websites spewing garbage doesn't mean you're that big.

If someone doesn't want to be a friend of mine because I'm a mason then they are not the type of people I would want to associate with. More then likely if I wasn't a mason, I wouldn't like them either.

On a funnier not, I had a table at the Grand Lodge Bull and Oyster Roast a couple weeks ago with my family. My father is in the Knights of Columbus and him and my mother raved about how good the party was, they told there KOC friends about it and now next year I'm going to have to hold several tables for his KOC friends. A good party always trumps any religious teachings against masonryLOL

Originally posted by Trinityman
Perhaps instead of just referring people to your website why don't you take one or two themes you have developed and open them up for discussion on some new threads?

Not a problem. How bout all the occult superstars that have taken it upon themselves to speak for Masonry proper. How about all the Adrian Gilberts who are extremely versed in all the arcane special magazines which you and I could only hope to have access to: Ars Quatuor Coronatorum.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men]

reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


OK. Let's pick a specific example of a site which claims to be Christian, and yet uses lies and deceit (most certainly non-Christian) to attack Masonry:

freemasonry.org

They claim to be Christian.
I contend that they are not, since no Christian would use lies and deceit in the name of God.

A non-Christian site pretending to be Christian must have some other agenda.

Why would they attack Masonry the way they do?
(And it isn't because they promote Christianity, since they blatantly use non-Christian methods in everything they do, so they can't be Christian.)

artial list of Christian Denominations which forbid membership in the Masonic Lodge


artial list of Christian Denominations which forbid membership in the Masonic Lodge

*

Methodist Church of England
*

Wesleyan Methodist Church
*

Russian Orthodox Church
*

Assemblies of God
*

Church of the Nazarene
*

Orthodox Presbyterian Church
*

Reformed Presbyterian Church
*

Evangelical Mennonite Church
*

Church of Scotland
*

Grace Brethren
*

Roman Catholic Church



*

Christian Reformed Church in America
*

Evangelical Mennonite Church
*

Synod Anglican Church of England
*

Free Church of Scotland
*

General Association of Regular Baptist Churches
*

Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America
*

The Evangelical Lutheran Synod
*

Baptist Union of Scotland
*

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod
*

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
*

Presbyterian Church in America

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


Not a problem. How bout all the occult superstars that have taken it upon themselves to speak for Masonry proper.

No "occult superstars" claim to speak for "Masonry proper". Even someone as opinionated and as knowledgeable as Pike began his treatise with a disclaimer to that effect.

How about all the Adrian Gilberts who are extremely versed in all the arcane special magazines which you and I could only hope to have access to: Ars Quatuor Coronatorum.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you insinuating that you do not have access to the Quatuor Coronati magazine? They are in the public domain.

[edit on 16-5-2008 by Masonic Light]

There must be some agenda...

I believe the agenda is to keep their pews full and equally keep their coffers full. They need anything but them to be satanic to support their dogma. Look at the witch hunt way back when. Witch prickers were invented, stories were made up, a system that created fear was used.

Why wouldn't they scare people with their false claims?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
No "occult superstars" claim to speak for "Masonry proper".

This standard asinine excuse is really quite old and insulting. Ya, sure; every minion of Masonry is an autonomous entity, totally void of dogma or of partaking in consensus. Go forth into the world my children and repeat ad infinitum: "No one speaks for Masonry"; "No one speaks for Masonry"; "No one speaks for Masonry"; "No one speaks for Masonry".

The fact remains, however, that the occult superstars did and do exist. In fact, Freemasons have cornered the market on occultism in toto since at least the 18th century. As a student of history - that much I've gathered from my brief time spent here - you know that there's no need for me to further elaborate upon this extremely suspicious truth.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men

Originally posted by Masonic Light
No "occult superstars" claim to speak for "Masonry proper".

The fact remains, however, that the occult superstars did and do exist. In fact, Freemasons have cornered the market on occultism in toto since at least the 18th century. As a student of history - that much I've gathered from my brief time spent here - you know that there's no need for me to further elaborate upon this extremely suspicious truth.

Well you could certainly help your position a bit more if you

1. named names (preferably of the ones who are still alive... no point in covering Mackey, Waite, Pike, Crowley, et al)
   
2. were able to back up those names with proof that they're both "occult superstars" and Freemasons.
   

Originally posted by JoshNorton

named names (preferably of the ones who are still alive... no point in covering Mackey, Waite, Pike, Crowley, et al)

were able to back up those names with proof that they're both "occult superstars" and Freemasons.

Already have; ditto to both question. See Midwife to an Occult Empire:
www.conspiracyarchive.com...

"no point in covering ..." so and so, you say? That is the WHOLE point. The entire edifice of the occult industry that pervades society today is solely because of the efforts and teachings of certain individuals who happened to be Freemasons. Once you start accumulating names and assembling them together, it is clear that it can't be coincidence that it is this organization that either produces, or attracts, such people. It says something about the nature of the organization itself.

Hell, that article was written a while ago. My studies now have firmly been occupied with the all-important 18th century. The rites and rituals invented in that century (by masons) are the core of such things - for one - as today's ritual magick practiced by the likes of OTO and Golden Dawn. The Elus Cohen, Les Amis Reunis, The Strict Observance, the Golden and Rosy Cross, the Primitive Rite of Les Philadelphes, the Asiatic Brethren; the work of Willermoz, Pernety, Cagliostro, Martinism-proper (Louis Claude de St. Martin and Martinez Pasquales), Mesmer, St. Germain, and much, much more (even the Tarot studies by the Neuf Soeurs initiate-extraordinaire, Antoine Court de Gébelin - whom Weishaupt admired quite a bit, even translating some of the former's Monde Primitif).

All extremely crucial for what we dub today as occultism; in fact, without the foregoing Freemasons having existed at all, the industry of esotericism or occultism would have a very different face - and it wouldn't be an industry at all. Those men midwifed the earlier scattered bits of hermeticism, kabbalism, gnosticism, theurgy and alchemy squarely into the modern age; and into a coherent discipline.


[edit on 18-5-2008 by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men]

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men

Originally posted by JoshNorton

named names (preferably of the ones who are still alive... no point in covering Mackey, Waite, Pike, Crowley, et al)

were able to back up those names with proof that they're both "occult superstars" and Freemasons.

Already have; ditto to both question. See Midwife to an Occult Empire:
www.conspiracyarchive.com...

No, you haven't. I'm asking for a list of people who are alive, and the closest you can get me on your list died 18 years ago. It's all fine and good to look at history, but I'm challenging you for information and proof on what's going on TODAY.

reply to post by JoshNorton


Sorry pal, I don't give a # about your "challenge."

My original post had nothing to do with Freemasonry today, which is a joke. I'm talking about history and precedent and tangible lines of influence.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
reply to post by JoshNorton

 

Sorry pal, I don't give a # about your "challenge."

My original post had nothing to do with Freemasonry today, which is a joke. I'm talking about history and precedent and tangible lines of influence.

Then I must have misinterpreted when you wrote "The fact remains, however, that the occult superstars did and do exist."

The "do exist" bit was what I was asking you to elaborate on. And you've now refused to do so. Ah well.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
The "do exist" bit was what I was asking you to elaborate on.

Lack of information. You guys hold all the cards, and are not sharing with anyone. Isn't it funny how we find out, finally, all the affiliations of a person only when they die. Obituaries are great sources for secret society confirmation.

There should be a law that requires Grand Lodges to register all their members with a public body. We ostensibly live in a free society, but without transparency, it is only a pipe-dream. I demand to know if the judge, police officer, or the prosecuting attorney is on the square; I demand to know if my councilman, landlord, or bank manager is on the square.

Don't give me that sh%^t about it's a private matter and everyone has a right to privacy. When it comes to public positions, no. I don't care if joe-schmuk doing the floors at the 711 is a Mason; I do care, however, if members of the judicial establishment are.

And, also, I suppose, I care if the latest ying-yang tauting the most recent new age bestseller is a Mason. But alas, it is forbidden for me to know - unless, that is, the person has the integrity and the balls to actually admit it in public.

So, I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage. How convenient.


[edit on 18-5-2008 by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men]

Originally posted by Saurus
Why would they attack Masonry the way they do?

There you go again. What will it take for you to be specific? Unless you provide an exact quote along with an exact URL, we have no idea what sort of "attacking," exactly it is you are speaking of.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men

Originally posted by JoshNorton
The "do exist" bit was what I was asking you to elaborate on.

Lack of information. You guys hold all the cards, and are not sharing with anyone. Isn't it funny how we find out, finally, all the affiliations of a person only when they die. Obituaries are great sources for secret society confirmation.
..
So, I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage. How convenient.

Not at all, and no need to be condescending. Waite, Crowley, Hall, etc. all published during their lifetimes, so saying it's a secret until you're dead doesn't cut it. I'd love for there to be a respected occult authority, alive to day and currently publishing. I'm wondering if there is such a person, because if there were, I'd like to read what they had to say. Such a person would indeed be an "occult superstar." You've named superstars of the past, and I'm not disagreeing with you there. You've said there are such people today, but can't name any, and are now trying to say we won't know they were Masons until they die. I don't buy that excuse. If there's a contemporary equivalent to the historical names you've covered, they'd be on the shelves of my local bookstore for all to see. Crowley was in his day, as were Waite, Mackey, and all the rest. They mostly got respect from their peers (Ok, there are plenty of arguments against Crowley as well, but for sake of argument...) The Freemasonry for Dummies type books aren't particularly esoteric. So where is the good, published, esoteric work today that equals that of the past? I'd like to know, because I'd like to add it to my collection.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
You've said there are such people today, but can't name any, and are now trying to say we won't know they were Masons until they die. I don't buy that excuse.

Adrian Gilbert; the Lomas and Knight idiots who have become quite influential; and let's not forget Michael Baigent. The latter is extremely important as far as indoctrination of society on the theories that Jesus was married to Magdalene, had kids and progeny; that his occult secrets were preserved in Gnostic secret societies and that an entirely made-up secret society, Priory of Sion, is the most powerful of said underground movements. Direct from Baigent we have, then, the heretical nonsense of the Da Vinci Code. Taken together, these aforementioned Masons have done quite a bit of indoctrinating - indeed!

I'm sure there are more influential masons besides those; but alas, I wasn't making it up that membership is secret. And thus, I wasn't making it up that you have me at a disadvantage, and that it is some convenient.