And the truth shall set you free (Part II)

This thread is dedicated to Masons, Pro Masons, Anti Masons and Non Masons with theories about Masonry.

The rules of this thread are simple:

No name calling
No obscene language
No ridiculing
No philosophical or religious views
No images
No one liner�s or posts with out a point
No double posting
No linking or quoting

We will start by appointing a neutral 3rd party consisting of 1 Mason 1 Anti Mason and 1 Neutral Member with a minimum of knowledge of masonry.

The first part may seem hard to do, but I don�t think it will be impossible also this thread should close within 14 days (20th September 2004) from this post so the arbiters can read the content and make a ruling.

Candidates I think should be considered are:

Mason: Masonic Light

Anti Mason: NeonHelmet*

Neutral Member: Esther

� The reason I picked my self is because I can�t say who is anti mason in this forum, they will have to do that themselves.

The 3rd party may not involve them selves in the discussion and may not share there opinion on this thread until the 14 days have passed.

Now I would like to hear from the people involved in these discussions and debates if there is an interest in this?

When the time is up the arbiters will make a vote and the result will be posted in this thread.

Also if any one sees a problem with the candidates or some of the candidates won�t participate, there will be selected 3 new ones.

I would ask about 1 day to get this thread started and give the candidates a chance to think about whether or not they will join this thread.

Baron Bilbo Baggins
Bilbo's Empire of the Neutral Zone

[edit on 3-9-2004 by NeonHelmet]

[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]

The purpose of this thread is:

1st end this negativity among the anti masons and the masons on this board.
2nd end the discussion once and for all.
3rd so that we can join in a common front against ignorance
4th so that we can join in a common front against the trolls who call them selves anti masons and give us true anti masons a bad reputation.

The goal of this thread:

1st Too prove with fair argumentation if there is anything solid to the anti Masonic claims.
2nd Too give the masons a fair chance to defend them selves without all the noise that these threads normally make.

Also the Anti�s should start out as it is us that are the accusers, it would be followed by the counter arguments and continue for about 14 days, and then we will declare it over and make our ruling.

Also please don�t post in here with arguments fore or against until we have found all the arbiters.

And Esther thank you for accepting I am sure no one will argue with me in this choice, I feel you have brains and you use them and I also know that you are neutral in this matter.

Also any statement fore or against a candidate should be backed up with an alternative and some arguments as to why the pre-selected arbiter wouldn�t do the job good enough, I would like someone to replace me as I would really like to participate in the general discussion.

And remember no chit chat in this thread please; we would like to keep it clean.


Baron Bilbo Baggins
Bilbo's Empire of the Neutral Zone


Ps: all we need now is for Masonic Light to answer, and then the debate will begin about 24 hours after that if he accepts.


[edit on 3-9-2004 by NeonHelmet]

I second Masonic Light as the mason rep (if he will accept, which I really hope he will).

BTW great idea, this thread might have a little more structure...something needed by both sides, anti and pro.

Neon I would personally like to see you in the descussion as I think you may have some better judgment/deliberation than other anti-masons, but then at the end of this I would like to see you be the anti-mason rep...so I will go with the latter and second you as the "anti-mason" (although I don't know how anti you really are).

As for a neutral....Esther?? I have not seen many posts by Esther so ya neutral would be a good place.

So I hope this thread takes off in the next 14 days, as I will be contributing throughout. BTW I am a pro-mason with a twist. You will see what I mean latter...

If masonic light wants to take the time to demolish your arguments as the rest of us have been doing, I have not problem with that... keep in mind your own rules:

facts only, no conjecture, innuendo or "I thinks or I feels", no biting, kicking or scratching and no name calling...

I will watch with amusement...

Have fun, guys. ---------------------------------------

[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]

I would like to remind everyone here that members do not set the rules here.

The rules are set by the site owner and administration. ALL are free to share their opinions or views on this or any topic on this site within the terms and conditions set by the site owner and administration.

A warning to everyone. This thread and all others are watched by ATS staff and moderators. and anyone can report abuse.

Keep this discussion civil. DO NOT get involved in personal attacks on anyone in this or any other thread or topic here.

[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]

I would like to remind everyone here that members do not set the rules here.

The rules are set by the site owner and administration. ALL are free to share their opinions or views on this or any topic on this site within the terms and conditions set by the site owner and administration.

True they are not rules as I can�t make any, but consider them guidelines, however any post that don�t abide to the guidelines will in my own personal opinion be over looked, also are they so far out that it needed a comment from a site moderator?
There are good reasons for not wanting pictures and quotes in this thread, but you seem like you don�t really care about that, you just want to force you rightful ATS bible on me and in the same strike say to all others that they should break them.

A warning to everyone. This thread and all others are watched by ATS staff and moderators. and anyone can report abuse.

Keep this discussion civil. DO NOT get involved in personal attacks on anyone in this or any other thread or topic here.

What is this warn for? What have we done in THIS thread that would need a warning? First you are saying that the rules I just made don�t apply and then you say that the rules apply anyway.

No name calling
No obscene language
No ridiculing
No philosophical or religious views
No images
No one liner�s or posts with out a point
No double posting
No linking or quoting

Can�t you see the reasons for these rules (guidelines), this discussion can�t succeed unless they are uphold, I appreciate you moderators keeping and eye out, but overruling some perfectly good rules, that only apply to this discussion is not smart!

If masonic light wants to take the time to demolish your arguments as the rest of us have been doing, I have not problem with that... keep in mind your own rules:

facts only, no conjecture, innuendo or "I thinks or I feels", no biting, kicking or scratching and no name calling...

I will watch with amusement...

Thank you for judging this thread as your little fun corner, but I would really like you to participate when it starts instead of just RIDICULING it before it has begun.

Have fun, guys. ---------------------------------------

Good LTD nice ONELINER there, good to see that the masons on this board take this so seriously!

My goal with this thread is to take this subject up once and for all so that we can take a united front against some of the trolls in this forum, they would leave faster if we were united and didn�t got fueled by us arguing in between.

So far there seems no interest by the masons to participate or take this thread serious but we still have time so don�t despair.


Baron Bilbo Baggins
Bilbo's Empire of the Neutral Zone

Ps: Esther perhaps I am just to optimistic and the purpose and goals will not happen, but is there anything wrong with trying, I have changed my views about the masons since joining this thread, but I still have issues I need cleared out.
There are regular posters and then there are sporadic posters, if we could unite against some of the more irregular naysayer perhaps we could get more time to actually do what is it we all want to do on this thread.

Without compromising their oaths, I don't know how much confirmation or discrediting can come of that. You might say, "Masons sacrifice little kids for their god, Molech." Masonic Light could counter with, "No, we don't. We actually donate $$$ to children's charities!" Would you believe him? IS there a way to even verify this to anyone's satisfaction, on both sides?

No there are not, we should only write what can be proven masons can prove they donate to charity but that doesn�t prove that they don�t sacrifice children, but really who can bring proof of that, I know I can�t. I know this was an example; we should how ever try to keep this on topic with facts that can be proven, such as 54 or what ever presidents were masons and so fourth we should not bring the proof (i.e. fill it with links or pictures) to this thread, the research are up to the panel, the readers and the people who take a part in this discussion.

Pps: Also I see now that there don�t seem to be an interest in all this and perhaps it will just be added to another failed attempt to parley. I give it another 24 hours if its still negatively received I will drop it and ask the moderators do delete this thread.

[edit on 3-9-2004 by NeonHelmet]

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
I would like to remind everyone here that members do not set the rules here.
........
The rules are set by the site owner and administration. ALL are free to share their opinions or views on this or any topic on this site within the terms and conditions set by the site owner and administration.
...........
Keep this discussion civil. DO NOT get involved in personal attacks on anyone in this or any other thread or topic here.

I have a quick question.... Would there be any way to set this up in the debate forum? I think that would be a great idea and a way to get both points out. Masonry: Good or Bad

My preference would be that the operators of ATS control and monitor the debate using rules the same or similar to the debate forum. I have no confidence in members that have partcipated in the secret societies thread to provide a balanced forum. I also take issue the lack of ability to enforce control within a set of defined parameters.

It is my belief that in a moderated debate that the anti-Masons would be no-shows, because I have yet to see one defendable fact presented by the anti-Masons.
.



Edit: Added 2nd paragraph.

[edit on 3-9-2004 by df1]

[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]

Originally posted by esther

Originally posted by df1
I have no confidence in members that have partcipated in the secret societies thread to provide a balanced forum.

Respectfully, sans sarcasm, I promise:

df1, just so I understand, do you mean Masonic members could not provide a balanced forum? I'm not asking for any reason other than I'm not sure I'm clear on what you mean. Since NeonHelmet and I are not members of secret societies (at least I'm not), do you mean the Masons then? Deductive reasoning tells me that you have to be referring to them and not NH or myself, is that right?

I'm just not quite sure I understand what you mean in the way you are trying to convey it. MasonicLight wouldn't have to be balanced in his presentation, per se, as he would be contrasting it with NeonHelmet's, who also wouldn't necessarily have to be balanced. I mean, they ARE on opposing sides, right? I thought having a neutral party (whether it be myself or someone else) was the method of trying to achieve the balance.

Am I just missing the point of your statement? Please advise because I am a little confused as to your intent, but that may merely be my own fault.

Thanks.

esther.

.

What I am trying to convey is that Masonic Light would hand you your head on a platter in a moderated debate. And that I find it unlikely that anti-Masons would even participate in a 2nd debate after their best anti-Mason member was humiliated by Masonic Light with facts. And that without a moderator the anti-Masons would resort to same tripe they always use.

I was just being polite in the first post, but you when decide to be a gadfly I suppose it is best that I just tell it as I see it.
.

[edit on 3-9-2004 by df1]

Originally posted by df1
What I am trying to convey is that Masonic Light would hand you your head on a platter in a moderated debate.

And that I find it unlikely that anti-Masons would even participate in a 2nd debate after their best anti-Mason member was humiliated by Masonic Light with facts. And that without a moderator the anti-Masons would resort to same tripe they always use.

I was just being polite in the first post, but you when decide to be a gadfly I suppose it is best that I just tell it as I see it.

As you see Esther, there's no such thing as an independent on an ATS Freemasonry thread...If you're not with them, your against them, it seems!!

[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]

I am sorry if you thought I was questioning your neutrality, I have looked at some of your other posts (granted not all). I was wondering if there was a better suit, but hence there is not, if the glove fits wear it.

As for others here, on this board, I do think this is in the best interest of all parties involved as this thread will be founded on evedence and not speculation. If the facts are presented in a cohearent manner then it will be clear what freemasonry is and/or is not.



[edit on 3-9-2004 by amike555]

As another independent I would like to see a thread based on evidence and arguement, not the kind of intimidation and ridicule as exhibited by df1 in his rude and accusing reply to Esther.

I've only contributed to a couple of masonic threads, and experienced similar responses myself, and worse from a number of posters here.

[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]

Originally posted by esther
Please advise, either here or via U2U.
.

I tend to view you as having an open mind on the esoteric philosophy and practices of Masonry, but that you are anti-Mason in terms of the oganization. IMHO you would be the most capable ATS member to debate "Masonic Light" because you do not see Masonic philosophy as an inherently evil philosophy, but merely dislike, not hate, the organization in humanistic terms. This would allow you put forth your arguement in rational terms. Your strength is also your weakness in the debate. Masonic Light has found much what he seeks and as such he holds his beliefs strongly and fervently. Whereas you have not really found what you are seeking to your personal satisfaction, so your arguement will be weakened by the lack of fervent belief your presentation would express. This is not an opinion of the value of what either of you have found in your personal journey, but just an opinion on the strength of belief each of you hold.

As for those members that are staunchly anti-Masons, any debate against Masonic Light would be the equivalent of throwing "spit wads" at a battleship as they range between religious zealots and the lunatic fringe. I doubt that any of these could string together 500 words that even appear sane, let alone put together a rational arguement in 500 words.
.