Over Zealous Christians and Satan-loving Masons

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Your post is interesting, well-written, and cogent, but can you help me out a bit? Do you reside in a gothic metal band? Are you a band member; a sycophant? Do you practice a religion called Tiamat? Pardon my naivete.

[edit on 04/8/10 by GradyPhilpott]

Thank you for your words.

No none of the above. Tiamat is an ancient word for "earth".

No,
Plain old graden variety Christian. I was referring the a collection of Jewish writings called the Talmud. The Midrash is also a collection of Jewish writings.

Depending on which collection you are looking at, they range in age from 150 B.C. to 1100 A.D.

I enjoy gleening the Culture of the time, and the teachings that were prevelant at the time.

I was in a band for a while, but that is another story all together.

Sorry for my rantings.
Spider

Originally posted by GRENADIER
Would the Templars who are said to be devout and loyal to the Pope and God ( like the marine corp...God, Corp, Country or something like that) have been honor bound to follow the orders of the Pope? If the Pope told the order to absolve Phillip of his debt would they not have to comply?

Phillip was trying to finance his coming war with England ( the 100 years war) so My guess is he would have rather have had the Order in his pocket if he could get it. This inclines me to belive that the Order was not as Loyal to the Pope as they profess and Phillip knew they would never allow themselves to be dangled on the line.

You have to take everything in the context of the times.
Phillipe had to move quick. He was in a very tenuous position. He had already kidnapped one pope and possibly murdered another to place his man on the Vatican throne (well, actually he relocated him to France). Nation states were in their infancy, the kingdoms that we know now were inhabited by warlords and any position of power could literally dissapear overnight.

As AK said, Phillipe needed the money. Back then, one of the only ways to stay in power was to pay your way through. With the Templar money and by absolving the debts that he owed to them, Phillipe would be able to consolidate his power base. The Templars were the richest organisation in the world at that time. Only the Church had more land, money and power. Phillipe used his pope in the hope of acquiring all of the Templars possessions. He couldn't put the Templars in his pocket as he would have still had to pay them. The only way he could do this was by accusing the Templars of the most heinious crime of the day - heresy. He therefore invented the story of Templars being a non-Christian organisation that was out to subvert the Church (remember that the Church was in his pocket at this time).

You ask why Phillipe didn't just merely use the Templars through the Vatican to get his own way? Well, as I stated, Phillipe had to act quickly. If he had hung around, his debts would have grown and his hold on the Vatican would have weakened. Popes were two a penny and were installed by emperors and kings - the Church was a political tool for the nation state. If Phillipe didn't act fast, another emperor or monarch could depose his pope and install another in place. Once his power base had gone he would have lost everything - including France. He literally, had to get the pieces in place and then take the only course open to him - destruction of the Order.
Even the pope had no control over Templar finances. Their banking structure was independent and if a Pope had interfered with it, he would have proven himself to be corrupt and therefore owed no allegiance by the Order. The Templars weren't stupid. They would have known that any papal interference with their money was being made through Phillipe.
Phillipe also had the added problem that the Holy Land had fallen and the recent problems of the Albgensian Crusade. A private army sitting on your doorstep with nothing to do is naturally going to cause a leader the jitters. With the politics of the time and events being what they were, it was safer for Philippe to depose the Templars than take the risk of them rising up against him if the political or religious climate changed in some way. This doesn't necessarily mean that the Templars were plotting anything, but rather that they could undeniably be a threat to Philippe somewhere later down the line if circumstances changed as they invariably did in the fragile European states back then.

As for funding a war against England? Even though Phillipe had the Vatican in his pocket, it is doubtful that he could have gained total support for a war against another Catholic country (which England was at the time). Any war fund was going to have to be raised outside of the Church and the Templars would not have been expected to pay up either. You also have to remember that the Templars also owned large areas of England and that a lot of their members were English. Phillipe needed to raise his money another way.

As AK stated, the Templars were victims of greed. I guess that you could also say that they had also become victims to their own success. They were too wealthy and powerful for a monarch to either not covet their wealth or not to see them as a threat. Phillipe took the logical course of action that was befitting for the times - he created a heresy surrounding them and destroyed them.

Another generalising topic about Christians, yey!
It's too bad you don't understand that this very attitude towards Christians and their (according to some of you) negative viewpoint regarding freemasonry, is exactly as bad as a negative viewpoint towards freemasonry based on ignorance by anyone.

Oh how those pro-freemasonry people love to whine when "the evil Christians" misunderstand their little club-rituals or explain them in a bad way, but in the meantime Christians suffer the same fate as a result of ignorance and those with a "bad christian childhood" that made bashing christians and christianity a hobby.

It would be great if people would shut up about things they don't know anything about, it would be even better if people would not base their opinion of a religion on just one or two retards (the parents), following the religion.

But I guess it's easyer to give in to your primal prejudice and fears, instead of understanding yourself and choosing to resist such ignorant negativity.
We're not there yet...

Have you replied to the correct thread?
I don't see any Christian bashing occuring here.

If anything, I've seen a few masons here actually supporting Christian beliefs.

It would be great if people would shut up about things they don't know anything about, it would be even better if people would not base their opinion of a religion on just one or two retards (the parents), following the religion

Better? Why should people not learn about religion? Why should they take the word of a Church over all else? Why should they not listen to those who raised and nurtured them? Why should people not be allowed to question?

You are asking for a blind following. Unfortunately, history shows that a blind following of religion leads to utter disaster.

The topicstarter finds some anti masonry sites ran by "Christian" organisations, and bases his pretty broad, generalising conclusions on his findings. That's what I am talking about.

I was not talking about following any religion blindly, I was talking about how people tend to base their opinion of a religion on its followers.
Even though followers of a religion may tell you something about a religion it's at least extremely naiv to think followers of a religion don't make mistakes/are never ignorant/do everything according to their religion.

This is exactly what has damaged Christianity, and many other religions and groups, in the past, including masonry.

[edit on 11-8-2004 by Jakko]

Originally posted by Jakko
The topicstarter finds some anti masonry sites ran by "Christian" organisations, and bases his pretty broad, generalising conclusions on his findings. That's what I am talking about.

I don't see that anywhere in this thread. Perhaps you could provide an example of what you're talking about? The thread title is "Over-zealous Christians and Satan-loving Masons." Now, let's deconstruct the title. Do we see any textual or contextual clues that let us know how it's meant? Well, first of all, we notice the "Satan-loving Masons" phrase... it's clear that the poster of this thread does not actually think that Masons are Satan-loving. Maybe that indicates the title is a little tongue-in-cheek, no?

Now, how about the other part of the title, "Over-zealous Christians." There are two reasonable interpretations here: i) All Christians are over-zealous; or ii) there are over-zealous Christians which exist. I strongly suspect the second option was what was intended.

This is exactly what has damaged Christianity, and many other religions and groups, in the past, including masonry.

Um... not exactly. Masonry was not damaged because a few Masons did something terrible, and the rest of us got branded with it. What happened was that a few non-Masons made up some lies about Masonry in general and a bunch of disturbed people believed them and passed them on, until some perfectly reasonable people started believing them.

Now, Christianity has been unfairly tarred with the actions of a few people who claimed to be Christians... but this doesn't make Christianity inherently different from Freemasonry -- there have been many many more Christians throughout history than there have been Freemasons.

Originally posted by AlexKennedy
Masonry was not damaged because a few Masons did something terrible, and the rest of us got branded with it. What happened was that a few non-Masons made up some lies about Masonry in general and a bunch of disturbed people believed them and passed them on, until some perfectly reasonable people started believing them.

Do you really think that, looking at the large number of masonry members throughout the world and history, a few retards couldn't have given masonry a bad name?
To me this theory seems more likely than people spreading lies about masonry, succeeding in making everyone believe the most retarded things.

Originally posted by Jakko
Do you really think that, looking at the large number of masonry members throughout the world and history, a few retards couldn't have given masonry a bad name?

Really? Would you care to name any of these examples of Masonic misbehaviour? After all, your opinion is based on an intelligent grounding in facts, right? And it would be foolish to state that there simply must be Masons who have done all the things of which Masonry stands accused by the anti-Masons of the world, right? So please, at your leisure, present this evidence.

I have no evidence, but it seems rather foolish to me to expect masonry to be the only religion/group/club that does not suffer from having "bad members".

Originally posted by Jakko
I have no evidence, but it seems rather foolish to me to expect masonry to be the only religion/group/club that does not suffer from having "bad members".

Nobody ever said that. Masonry has had bad members in the past, and they have been duly ejected from the Order as dictated by our constitutions.

But that's not the claim you made earlier. The claim you made earlier are that the slanders and lies we have to live with as Masons are due to the actions of Masons in the past. So, for example, the idea that we are Satanists must stem from certain Masons being Satanists... very well, please give me some evidence.

Using the idea that every organisation has bad members to tar an organisation is not a new idea. I would contend to you that I suspect there is a lower proportion of "bad men" in Masonry than you would find in an equivalent random sample of roughly demographically equivalent non-Masons (i.e., non-convict men over 21). I would further contend that you probably find a lower rate of lifetime criminal activity among Masons than among a roughly demographically equivalent randomly selected group of non-Masons.

In other words, I'm not saying that there cannot be a bad Mason. No-one would say that. but I am saying that i) bad Masons are less populous than bad non-Masons, and ii) Masonry tends to remove from the Order men known to be bad.

Don't put words in my mouth, read my posts again if you want to know what I said.
There's one really weird thing about rumors, and that's that sometimes they turn out to be true. I am not saying some masonry members worshipped satan, or ate babies, but I do think some masonry members tried to make more out of masonry than what it originally is. People desire power and influence, and unfortunately masonry is not immune to reality. I do believe a part of the rumors could be true, as examples of "retarded" masonry members, but this is based on common sense, not on evidence.

[edit on 11-8-2004 by Jakko]

Originally posted by Jakko
There's one really weird thing about rumors, and that's that sometimes they turn out to be true.

Really? I heard a rumor that all guys names Jakko are child molesters... does that make it true? Of course not. It just makes it a malicious lie.

I am not saying some masonry members worshipped satan, or ate babies, but I do think some masonry members tried to make more out of masonry than what it originally is.

Based on what evidence? Oh, right, I forgot. You don't need evidence, because you're somehow able to deduce a priori that some vague accusations against Masonry (which you still have not clearly expressed, mind you) are true. It's great to be able to say something is true by "the light of nature," isn't it (that's a little Descartes reference for the fans out there)? It completely eliminates your need to prove your slanders, or even to follow any logic whatsoever.

I do believe a part of the rumors could be true, as examples of "retarded" masonry members,

Which part? In what way true? Which members? Where? When?

Oh, wait, you just want to smear the Order... you don't need to answer those questions.

but this is based on common sense, not on evidence.

Well, I'm glad you admit that your slanders are not based on evidence. Now I just wish that you could admit they're not actually based on common sense, either.

Originally posted by Jakko
The topicstarter finds some anti masonry sites ran by "Christian" organisations, and bases his pretty broad, generalising conclusions on his findings. That's what I am talking about.

Unfortunately it's a hard, cold fact, that in some places, Christian churches slander masonry. We're not talking about just a few anti-masonic sites here either.
Go to Australia and you will see a recent edict by the Anglican church showing ignorance and bias.

www.cesnur.org...

Come to the UK and you will see the Archbishop of Canterbury condemning us.

www.stbryde.co.uk...

Let's not even mention the Catholic Church and their blinkered view of Freemasonry.


So you see, it's not just a few Christians who slander Freemasonry. Their operative bodies do a pretty good job themselves. But where are the condemnations of Christianity from the Grand Lodges? Where are the Freemasons with their anti-Christian web-sites?
Oh. There are none.

Jakko. Throw off your blinkers. You're doing exactly the same as the mainstream and then denying it. It's a waste of time.
Freemasonry suffers far more from insidious attacks by so-called Christians than it ever warrants or metes out in return. It's not a case of "You started it, so we'll finish it" on this forum. But it is a case of "Face up to facts. We will defend what is true."

You joined this thread to defend a non-existent attack against your faith and in doing so, attacked those who did not warrant it. Can't you see the hypocrisy there?

And by the way. I don't condemn Christianity. But I do get annoyed by those who profess to be Christians and then show an un-Christian attitude by falsely judging others.

Originally posted by Leveller
Jakko. Throw off your blinkers. You're doing exactly the same as the mainstream and then denying it. It's a waste of time.
Freemasonry suffers far more from insidious attacks by so-called Christians than it ever warrants or metes out in return.

What return are you talking about?
It was never about a christians vs masonry comparison, it was about christians dealing with the same kind of prejudice and ignorance that masonry deals with.
So you found sites of christians saying masonry is bad, so what?!
I know enough christians and churches I have been to that choose not to speak of things they don't know anything about.
You truly don't understand what I am talking about, but I think this has nothing to do with lacking capabilities, you seem unwilling to.

Originally posted by Jakko

Originally posted by Leveller
Jakko. Throw off your blinkers. You're doing exactly the same as the mainstream and then denying it. It's a waste of time.
Freemasonry suffers far more from insidious attacks by so-called Christians than it ever warrants or metes out in return.

What return are you talking about?
It was never about a christians vs masonry comparison, it was about christians dealing with the same kind of prejudice and ignorance that masonry deals with.
So you found sites of christians saying masonry is bad, so what?!
I know enough christians and churches I have been to that choose not to speak of things they don't know anything about.
You truly don't understand what I am talking about, but I think this has nothing to do with lacking capabilities, you seem unwilling to.

Jakko:

None of us Masons are bashing Christianity nor any other faith, theology, or spiritual way of life. My brother Leveller was simply stating his factual opinion, one which the record of the world clearly illustrates and supports. The very premise of Masons beint anti-any religion is contradictory to the very nature of Freemasony. We don't even ask our members or even applicants what their religion is, we do not care as long as they believe in a GOD. So to think that we would not only choose to judge but attack others outside of ourselves for their religious preference is rediculous. Additionally MOST MASONS ARE CHRISTIANS, and very faithful, and good ones in my opinion. I have my opinion about Christianity as I do with with all religions. There are some aspects of my opinion which are positive and some negative but I do not slander the entire religion, its history, and its perposed perpose because of that, because ones religious choice is ones choice, of ones free will and accord and who am I to judge. Now if the topic of religions, and christianity in general comes up, I will voice my opinion in a fair, justified, respectful, detailed, honest and objective manner, but this is not Christian bashing. There is a way to discuss things you don't necessarely agree with, and there is a way not to. Sadly those who are against Freemasonry don't seem to know how to do this.

Its not about Christianity to us, I don't see where you are extracting this from. Various brothers showed that the source of some of the anti-Masonic propaganda was from Christian sites. Are they wrong for pointing out the truth? Does that make them anti-Christian? If so your judgement is way off, and this is not meant as an insult but rather an honest observation.

Your stance is all off, Christians have suffered their persecutions, but so have Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, and basically every other major theology on the planet. All have found some place, some region, or some group of people who have had some issues with it for some reason or another. However you must realize that for much of its history Christianity has spread and ruled with an iron fist, the sword and the cross walking hand and hand. Christianity has persecuted as well, so nots act like its so pure and innocent, it has blood on its hands too. Freemasonry on the other hand has never participated in any such activity as an organization nor dare I say as individuals. In fact its been the victim of them and history has recorded this in the sands of time, in the history books from around the globe. Its quite easy to understand really, just take this site for instance, look how our craft is attacked everyday, hundreds of times on a monthly period, and for nothing, for simply existing and being misunderstood, feared, and consequently hated. Secrets societies, and clandestine organizations have never been liked by the masses nor the Church, and although Freemasonry is not a secret society but rather a society with secrets we still don't go over well, but most of us could care less.

If you believe so strongly in your claims prove it, and for every instance of religious persecutions by Freemasons ill show you many more of Masonic persecution by Religions, Governments, and dictators.

HOTEP

Originally posted by Khonsu
If you believe so strongly in your claims prove it, and for every instance of religious persecutions by Freemasons ill show you many more of Masonic persecution by Religions, Governments, and dictators.

Bro. Khonsu, I'd go even further than this: I'd challenge someone to provide a single verifiable instance of Freemasonry as a group persecuting any single religion. If Freemasonry has any strength, it is not the kind of strength that allows (e.g.) a government to persecute a religion or people. Additionally, persecuting a religion is so contrary to the most essential principles of Freemasonry that to do so would require completely altering the ideals of every mason, not just in a single Lodge, nor in a single Grand Lodge, but throughout the entire world.

Originally posted by Khonsu
Your stance is all off, Christians have suffered their persecutions, but so have Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, and basically every other major theology on the planet.

I am not talking about prosecutions Khonsu, I am talking about todays crap. Just browse on these forums for a while and you will probably see what I mean.

If you believe so strongly in your claims prove it, and for every instance of religious persecutions by Freemasons ill show you many more of Masonic persecution by Religions, Governments, and dictators.

I have no clue where you're getting this from, I never claimed anything regarding persecutions by freemasons or christians, I was talking about the crap that both Christians and freemasons have to deal with, not only on these boards.