Freemasonry, An Anchor of Morality in A sea of Moral Relativism

Originally posted by theron dunn

Originally posted by PublicGadfly

EXACTLY what "moral teachings" does masonry provide that are NOT available through public sources?
no secrets here- explain

Moral teachings. You made a very good point... masonry does not teach any moral teachings that you did not learn (or should have anyway) learned from your parents or your church.

PublicGadfly, for a welcome change, nice post!!

Thank you (moral teachings) finally, after bunches of posts!

As to the accolade- don't get carried away now.

I still believe much of the masonry stuff is wrong headed on a forum such as ATS. 'Sis-boom-bah' is just out of place on a board such as this.

I edited 'our' discourse, as you can see-

alt.freemasonry is, as you stated correctly, run by masons. At alt.freemasonry is a FAQ- that on its surface appears to be anti-masonry. This is duplicity.

The �anti-mason FAQ� of which you may be familiar is more easily located at soc.org.freemasonry which is moderated Usenet forum unless it has changed.

Most current FAQ as of Sept.12, 2004.

This FAQ is nothing more than the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon's position statement on various masonic issues.

I read it for reasons other than to acquaint myself with the supposed beauty of masonry. I suppose a neophyte wondering what all the hullabaloo from masons and their detractors is all about could easily believe they had hit the �mother lode.� Such, of course, is the opposite. The FAQ is propaganda nothing more nor less.

As an example: the cite regarding the P2 imbroglio in Italy begins:

What was the P2 Lodge?


Originally a lodge under the jurisdiction of the Grand Orient of Italy, their warrant was revoked and a number of their members expelled for unmasonic conduct.


The P2 Incident was a by-product of three related factors; the vagaries of Italian masonic history, the joint effects of past repressions and social patronage on the Italian Craft, and certain defects in their Constitution.

Alright! Masons looking good! Smacking one of their own, good internal policing job- wow!

Oh, wait a minute-
Where are the links to the Knights of Malta and the Vatican connections? Where are the links to the assassinations, corruption and bribery?

Where's the reference to this little jewel?

�(The Italian Masonic Lodge) P2 provided a means of furnishing anti-Communist institutions in Europe and Latin-America with both Vatican and CIA funds. Calvi also claimed that he personally had arranged the transfer of $20,000,000 of Vatican money to Solidarity in Poland, although the overall total sent to Solidarity is believed to have exceeded $100,000,000. �

There are others, but I suspect you see my point even if you disagree with my apparent or seemingly apparent conclusion(s).

Here masonry, in the product of �the FAQ,� has an opportunity to either be blunt or be full in disclosing unhappy events. It has done neither but rather is 'glossing over' and making something appear complete when it is no where nearly so is nothing short of propaganda and disinformation.

See theron if something is a secret it is a secret, but if something is not then it fully and completely is not.

As an additional note on disinformation in �the FAQ,� the Albert Pike- KKK article is rich in its obvious propaganda.

Hey theron, like I sometimes post-

I have been wrong~

Yep, you've DEFINATELY been wrong... especially about alt.freemasonry and Albert Pike, and your SPIN on the P2 lodge. Regardless of what they have done since, they did have their charter pulled and members expelled for unmasonic activities.

The fact that we (masonry) pulled their charter does not forbid them to operate in the manner of any free man. They are not under our jurisdiction, they are not masons, and we have no control over their actions, and now that they are not masons, why should we worry about them?

Whatever they do is what they do, in much the same manner as yourself. Masonry has no control over you, nor does it want any.We are happy, frankly, with people like you acting as straw men, offering up the indefensible positions you offer so that we can provide the truth...

As for cheerleading, I am really sorry you see it that way... sorry, but not surprised. Folks the act as you do want their voices to be the only ones heard, and folks like you certainly don't want folks like me asking you for pesky little things like PROOF and FACTS...

But you keep up what you are doing and we will keep making you and folks like you look ignorant... sorry, but the facts are the facts, and you just don't have any...

You have a nice day now, y'hear?

Oh, and by the way, is your name Mike Gentry?

george W. Bush, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Al Gore, Ariel Sharon, Henry Kissinger etc etc are not Freemasons. Many famous men are Freemasons, and if these men were Freemasons, the fellowship would be enriched therefrom, as among these men, George W. Bush is a most religious, pious, honorable and respectable man! However, President Bush is a "Bonesman", a member of the college fraternity, the Skull and bones, but this fraternity is NOT Masonic in nature

Dick and Bush
www.prisonplanet.com...
This document exsists, it was shown on 911- the conspiracies channel 4 last week.
en.wikipedia.org...

Ariel Sharon said - 'We control america', he is a zionist right wing leader.

Colin Powel - Absolute puppet and lied to the UN about saddams nucs. Lied countless other times to media and commissions

Bush jr - Lied as well, would not testify under oath in the 911 commission, niether could cheney. Took his country to war to get oil from 2 locations. Now terror exsists on a bigger scale!

Henry Kissinger - A man who thinks the little people don't need to know what the powerful are doing

Al Gore - I don't know who is he? if I remember correctly he was the guy who won the president of the united states until it was stolen?

Ahhh yes. What kind of group could be enriched by a bunch of neo cons and a right wing zionist????

[edit on 13-9-2004 by 7th_Chakra]

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra

george W. Bush, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Al Gore, Ariel Sharon, Henry Kissinger etc etc are not Freemasons. Many famous men are Freemasons, and if these men were Freemasons, the fellowship would be enriched therefrom, as among these men, George W. Bush is a most religious, pious, honorable and respectable man! However, President Bush is a "Bonesman", a member of the college fraternity, the Skull and bones, but this fraternity is NOT Masonic in nature

Dick and Bush
www.prisonplanet.com...
This document exsists, it was shown on 911- the conspiracies channel 4 last week.
en.wikipedia.org...

Ariel Sharon said - 'We control america', he is a zionist right wing leader.

Rehetoric

Colin Powel - Absolute puppet and lied to the UN about saddams nucs. Lied countless other times to media and commissions

Unsubstantiated opinon

Bush jr - Lied as well, would not testify under oath in the 911 commission, niether c(w)ould cheney.

AND? I wouldn't have wasted time in front of that partisan group either. Good for President Bush. He IS the president, after all.

Took his country to war to get oil from 2 locations. Now terror exsists on a bigger scale!

Uh, huh... if the goal were oil, we would have invaded SAUDI ARABIA, a country that supports terrorists. Its NOT about oil.

Henry Kissinger - A man who thinks the little people don't need to know what the powerful are doing

Prove that... I love these unsupported contentions...

Al Gore - I don't know who is he? if I remember correctly he was the guy who won the president of the united states until it was stolen?

Actually, recount after recount by both sides show the George W. won... you may not like the result, but he did win, despite the plain attempts by the Dems to contrive a different result. Republicans won, dems lost. Deal with it.

Oh, and by the way, George will win this time as well...

Ahhh yes. What kind of group could be enriched by a bunch of neo cons and a right wing zionist????

Always been conservative... but I like the not to subtle slander of conservatives by the contrived NEOCON title...

And, just asking, but, what does the war on terrorism have to do with my article on morality and masonry?

War on terror = a fake lie to gain control of oil supplies from non-us supporting countries. As US oil reserves is nearly finished.

As the war is fake so are those who arranged and gave the orders, the idea of the war that was planned even before sept 11th. Nearly all those people you mentioned had something to gain by lying to the public about the war, even ariel sharon. Therefore, in my opinion of course, those men could only enhance a power hungry group.

However 3/4 of the Sept 11th high jackers where Saudi. So to flip your argument around if the war was REALLY about terror you would have gone there first no???

You will however go to Afganistan and build an oil pipe which the Taliban refused American permission. You will go to Iraq and take out a leader with the mantra of him having Nukes, chemical weapons then changing it saying we where there for human rights. Then take control of the oil fields whilst 4 of the govenment officals who started this war invest/own oil companies. Iraq has no terror connection. Afganistan has a tiny one compared to Saudi whom 3/4 of the hijackers were citizens. American would not attack Saudi anyway, the bush family have a nice history with them.

I can't prove henry said that but knowing his views and his 'Realpolitik' ideas I am confident he thinks along those lines.

You missed out Ariel Sharon by the way!

I am just suprised you think these men would enhance your craft.

[edit on 14-9-2004 by 7th_Chakra]

Well, these are real... interesting OPINIONS, 7th Chakra, but they smack of paranoia. Do you have ANY facts to back them, or are they just from the gut? You see, I ask because I watch the news and the spin, and I simply don't see what you are claiming.

I listen to both sides, and what I see from the Liberal/Socialist side is a lot of ANGER that they lost the election, and a ton of spin, lots of hot air, but no facts. Now, while I find opinions endlessly fascinating, when I see opinons devoid of facts, I tend to dismiss them out of hand, so, if you could provide any FACTS you might have at hand that would tend to support your contentions, I would be fascinated in reading them.

That would be citations of FACTS, by the way, citations of other peoples interpretations or opinions don't count...

Thanks for helping me learn more.

Well the only true fact I would say it the hi jackers being mostly saudi.

Like yourself though I watch both sides of the argument then weigh it up, you have too in order to get the whole picture. Some questions though lead to others, and if true lead to others and so on. This is what I mean:-

Hi jackers mostly saudi, why didn't they go there to stop terror? 'open door' Oh its because the bush family have a long connection with them I wonder what for?? 'open door' I see bushes are also connection with oil companies 'open door' But why are they ceasing oil from other countries when America has vast supplies? 'open door' America supply is running out of oil which means nothing to power the military machine!!!'back through some past doors' So what gives America the right to cease oil from other nations? 'open door' The war on terror is a good reason to go head first into a country without objections 'open door' Shooting yourself in the foot is a good way to earn some sympathy and leeway also the public will back you on almost anything 'open door' so these people in the US govenment right now, are they part of any past plan to this? 'open door' AHh the New American Century file, witnessed by key people in the Bush govenment which states a some form of attack of American soil would have to happen before the ball can start rolling for sure. 'open door' etc etc etc etc

Sure you find some bull along the way but one truth more then often leads to another. I say truth, what I believe is the truth. Unconnecting things seem to have a connection, 2 opposite hands ajoining the same body in the shadows. Control 2 opposing sides and you control the outcome of the game.

I don't mean to lecture you but it is how I come to many conclusions. Right or wrong thats my bit. Thats why I had to question you on these men enhancing freemasonry.

[edit on 15-9-2004 by 7th_Chakra]

Please keep essays down to a 100 word minimum. Some people like myself that have real small brains get headaches reading too many words. Maybe there is a program one of you could come up with, a sort of reader that condenses the complicated essay structure to a non complicated structure.

Symbols perhaps?

Your cooperation is appreciated

Originally posted by theron dunn
a lot of ANGER

Well for myself I was just PO'd that the only options were Bush/Gore in 2000 and I am not too thrilled at Bush/Kerry this time around. It seems to me that the Bush fundamentalist religious mentality clearly runs contrary to the philosophy of Freemasonry and that the anti-Individual rights stance of Kerry does also. A choice between the lesser of evils is no option all.
.

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by theron dunn
a lot of ANGER

Well for myself I was just PO'd that the only options were Bush/Gore in 2000 and I am not too thrilled at Bush/Kerry this time around. It seems to me that the Bush fundamentalist religious mentality clearly runs contrary to the philosophy of Freemasonry and that the anti-Individual rights stance of Kerry does also. A choice between the lesser of evils is no option all..

Well, first of all, I see President Bush as quintessentially masonic, even though he is not a mason. Let me justify my position. First, Masonry teaches us all to worship G-D as we know Him. Masonry also teaches us IN LODGE that we should seek that which unites us, rather than that which separates us, that together we may learn and grow and serve.

Ok, that being written, I see the objection ot President Bush's (gosh, I really like the way that looks...) PRESIDENT BUSH'S public religious positions as unmasonic, for what right do we have to dictate how he acknowledges g-d? He is a very devout man, and he LIVES that devotion in his every breath. I admre that.

Do I agree with his every position? No. Do I agree with MOST of his positions? Well, yes, of course. I have absolutely no problem with public professions of faith... as long as no one tries to make me profess THEIR faith. Our society is going in the wrong direction, in my opinion, in trying to remove all public displays of religious affiliation/faith in personal actions and declarations.

PRESIDENT Bush is a devout man, and that shows in what he says and how he acts. I don't see anyone complaining about the push of Human Secularism over religion in public life, so why complain because PRESIDENT Bush is a religious man publically?

As for the comments about the Terrorists being Saudis... I agree that we should be doing something about them, and we are... with them, it is not as simple as simply sending in the troops to kick a little butt and break some things. Most Muslims know that Sadaam was not a religious man, and was a terrorist dictator... though they may dislike us just a little less than Sadaam.

HOWEVER, if we strolled on into Saudi Arabia, we would be facing an uprising of ALL Muslim states against us, and I, for one, am not willing to kill tens of thousands of Muslims (yet) to stop the terrorists. However, PRESIDENT Bush is working to bring the Saudis around, and it is working.

They are arresting terrorist leaders, they are closing down the training camps, they are closing the schools that teach hatred of America, and addressing the issues.. but it is a slow process. Might or arms is not always the best solution, though in the case of Sadaam it was the best answer, though frankly I wish that President G.W. Bush SR. had addressed the issue twelve years ago in Gulf War I when we had the chance.

Oh, well.

Originally posted by theron dunn
PRESIDENT Bush is a devout man, and that shows in what he says and how he acts. I don't see anyone complaining about the push of Human Secularism over religion in public life, so why complain because PRESIDENT Bush is a religious man publically?

I don't think it is a problem of President Bush being publicly religious, its a problem of him trying to enforce his religious views as the laws of a nation, as we have seen with his effort to amend the constitution to discriminate against homosexuals. It would be a sad day when a President would be forced to hide his religious views for fear of public reprisal.

Hey guys, never misunderestimate President Bush.






Sorry, Theron.

Heretics, Schismatics and Lothsome Apostates, repent from your offenses against Religion and the Unity of the Church, and withdraw now from your contumacy! Submit to the jurisdiction entrusted to the Latin Church by Christ!

No.





enjoy.

[edit on 16-9-2004 by LTD602]

Originally posted by GessoI
Heretics, Schismatics and Lothsome Apostates, repent from your offenses against Religion and the Unity of the Church, and withdraw now from your contumacy! Submit to the jurisdiction entrusted to the Latin Church by Christ!

Uh... right, thanks for staying on point and making so much... sense?