It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
I am an advocate for the unborn over any rights the mother might claim as choice. I do not advocate rape. I advocate for the one raped. There is a difference.
This had nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with your vilification of Moses Harman who was imprisoned for fighting to stop marital rape.
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Right. It's an age or period of time. It's a good reason to post this on a forum so the idea can be refined. Either way, the the rest of what is listed still has a great deal of additional perspective for anyone to see. Are you suggesting that root morphology in Latin does not tell a larger portion of the story?
Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Right. It's an age or period of time. It's a good reason to post this on a forum so the idea can be refined. Either way, the the rest of what is listed still has a great deal of additional perspective for anyone to see. Are you suggesting that root morphology in Latin does not tell a larger portion of the story?
I am suggesting that you are imagining and inventing cognates, based on similar sound or appearance and a lack of familiarity with Latin. And that you are then working forward from these false friends and imaginings, and a poor grasp of Latin grammar, to assemble phrases and ideas that are simply not found in what you are attempting to analyze. "A New Nobility to set In Order what is Cut" translates exactly one word correctly, novus. You attempted to translate ordo twice, as both "nobility" and "to set in Order." The first might be defensible, the second is not. Your translation of seclorum as "what is Cut" is wrong in every respect. Wrong part of speech, wrong root. Sec- is not saec-, no matter how they were spelled in the 18th century. They are not the same in Latin, were not the same in Proto-Italic, and were not the same in Proto-Indo-European. See dnghu.org's Modern Indo-European Grammar, which suggests
*saitlom -> saeculum
*sekami -> seco
So the roots do not even have the same consonants, if you go back far enough.
Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Right. It's an age or period of time. It's a good reason to post this on a forum so the idea can be refined. Either way, the the rest of what is listed still has a great deal of additional perspective for anyone to see. Are you suggesting that root morphology in Latin does not tell a larger portion of the story?
I am suggesting that you are imagining and inventing cognates, based on similar sound or appearance and a lack of familiarity with Latin. And that you are then working forward from these false friends and imaginings, and a poor grasp of Latin grammar, to assemble phrases and ideas that are simply not found in what you are attempting to analyze. "A New Nobility to set In Order what is Cut" translates exactly one word correctly, novus. You attempted to translate ordo twice, as both "nobility" and "to set in Order." The first might be defensible, the second is not. Your translation of seclorum as "what is Cut" is wrong in every respect. Wrong part of speech, wrong root. Sec- is not saec-, no matter how they were spelled in the 18th century. They are not the same in Latin, were not the same in Proto-Italic, and were not the same in Proto-Indo-European. See dnghu.org's Modern Indo-European Grammar, which suggests
*saitlom -> saeculum
*sekami -> seco
So the roots do not even have the same consonants, if you go back far enough.
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Are you speaking of the author of the Lucifer the Lightbearer (Liberal) Anarchist Magazine? My comments were pointed at his magazine and ideology and not the protest he did in Kansas (Chicago possibly?). You are again mixing one idea with another to create your own pretext.
The concept of Harman and the Lucifer periodical was a rebellion against conventions of authority. I can't say I have studied his writings enough to know his position, but I can say that he was on the same page as the Theosophists. We know them by Gnosticism and the Gnostics were against being cast from Heaven by what they considered a vengeful and evil God. A thorough study of the truth will alert us to the fact that God is a loving God and we are here, not to rebel against Him, but to correct the error in ourselves. Ultimately, we cannot do it apart from Him. There are two Lords on this Earth. The one to follow is the one that leads back up the harmony toward the true God that cast us down. God is love. It's all about what he has done FOR us.
Of course, as children, we will rebel. Who knows, maybe we left willingly. I have always had it set in my heart that I was here for a reason. I have had the urge my entire life to assist others in finding their way back. I don't know where this comes from, but many suggest that there are waves of souls that come here to assist other back through the path back. I can't say for sure, but this seems to be what my heart tells me.
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Are you speaking of the author of the Lucifer the Lightbearer (Liberal) Anarchist Magazine? My comments were pointed at his magazine and ideology and not the protest he did in Kansas (Chicago possibly?). You are again mixing one idea with another to create your own pretext.
No, your comments were at him as well:
The concept of Harman and the Lucifer periodical was a rebellion against conventions of authority. I can't say I have studied his writings enough to know his position, but I can say that he was on the same page as the Theosophists. We know them by Gnosticism and the Gnostics were against being cast from Heaven by what they considered a vengeful and evil God. A thorough study of the truth will alert us to the fact that God is a loving God and we are here, not to rebel against Him, but to correct the error in ourselves. Ultimately, we cannot do it apart from Him. There are two Lords on this Earth. The one to follow is the one that leads back up the harmony toward the true God that cast us down. God is love. It's all about what he has done FOR us.
Of course, as children, we will rebel. Who knows, maybe we left willingly. I have always had it set in my heart that I was here for a reason. I have had the urge my entire life to assist others in finding their way back. I don't know where this comes from, but many suggest that there are waves of souls that come here to assist other back through the path back. I can't say for sure, but this seems to be what my heart tells me.
Glad to see you need to 'assist others in finding their way back' particularly when they advocate against marital rape.
Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
I am suggesting that you are imagining and inventing cognates..
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
In the first century, Cesar asked Jesus, "What is truth?"
Really? When did 'Cesar' (or Caesar for that matter) hold a conversation with Jesus?
Here is where it gets interesting. Seclorum is not listed in my lexicon. The only reference I have is this.
That is because your book is based on Classical Latin. Medieval Latin saw the shift from the Classical 'æ' to 'e'. The word you should be looking up is 'sæclorum'. The phrase in question is taken from Virgil's Fourth Eclouge and reads 'Magnus ab integro sæclorum nascitur ordo', 'The great order of the ages is born afresh'.
Pluribus - Is it interesting to know that this word does not appear in my lexicon.
The almost exact phrase was used again by Virgil (who may not be the orignal author) in his poem Moretum. It reads 'color est e pluribus unus' and refers to blending of colors into one.
edit on 3-3-2013 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer.....in any language
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Augustus Masonicus, paulo maiora canamus.
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Augustus Masonicus, paulo maiora canamus.
Incipe, parve puer.edit on 4-3-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Care to explain this video to the public?
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Care to explain this video to the public?
What does a random video have to do with me? Should you not be asking whoever made it to explain it to you if you do not understand it?
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Random? Are you sure you are a Mason? And you call me the deceiver.
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Care to explain this video to the public?
What does a random video have to do with me? Should you not be asking whoever made it to explain it to you if you do not understand it?
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Care to explain this video to the public?
What does a random video have to do with me? Should you not be asking whoever made it to explain it to you if you do not understand it?
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Random? Are you sure you are a Mason? And you call me the deceiver.
It is a crap cover of a crap song with crap dubbing. What the hell is the relevance?
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Either you really don't know, or you are playing dumb.
Either way, you should know if you call yourself a Mason.
Your last comment to me was: Incipe, parve puer, risu cognoscere matrem: Begin to know your mother with a smile, baby boy!
Granted, you only quoted part of it, but you likely knew what you were saying. Or did you?
I think this may be part of the problem you always have with my threads. You don't know what the Masons actually believe. If you can decipher this video, go back to the Lodge and ask about it. If you do know, then simply tell us in the open.
Again, ON TOPIC!
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Random? Are you sure you are a Mason? And you call me the deceiver.
It is a crap cover of a crap song with crap dubbing. What the hell is the relevance?
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Notice the horns on the masks. Why does everyone in the IMAGE have on masks? Who is coming up and why do you need to get ready? What does the 2nd nobility need to cut so they can be ready for what is coming up? Any clues?
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Notice the horns on the masks. Why does everyone in the IMAGE have on masks? Who is coming up and why do you need to get ready? What does the 2nd nobility need to cut so they can be ready for what is coming up? Any clues?
Who cares? What sane person agonizes over lame music videos looking for secret messages and hidden meanings that are completely and totally irrelevant to daily life?