Masons

[Rev Wayne]

Removed due to some technical glitch. See next post.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Just a note of reminder, I will post shortly a more comprehensive response showing the illogic of the accusations of antimasons. I am tied up this week out of town as a teller at our church's annual conference, and don't have the time to commit at the moment.

 

[Abbadon]

It most certainly is; according to the testimony of an Ex-Mason for Jesus. Bill Schnoebelen is a recognized authority on alternative religions and the occult, and spent sixteen years as a teacher of witchcraft, spiritism and ceremonial magick. His spiritual search also included seven years in the Church of Satan as a practicing Freemason; prior to coming to know the Lord and becoming an Ex-Mason for Jesus.

Ahem...

Ol' Billy claims that he became became a Witch and taught Qabbala (which is Jewish mysticism, not Pagan mysticism) in 1968. While still a Witch, he became a Mormon in 1980, which is the same year he went into Catholic seminary. A Catholic, Satanist, Witch, Mason, Mormon, and Qabbalist at the same time? Qabbala, Masonry, and Catholicism have touched base before (all three being inspired by Abrahamic religion), but Satanism and Witchcraft don't exactly match. He also claims to have ordained women priests, while a Catholic, which isn't possible in the Catholic Church, and claims to have been a vampire. Now, do you believe vampires exists, or do you acknowledge that there are crazy people out there that believe horror shlock like "OOoooh, the Freemasons are satanic!"? Do you believe that Harry Potter is honestly a satanic training program, as Ol' Bill says?

Don't quote stuff from Chick publications. Chick Publications is run by an idiotic bigot.

Bill Schnoebelen? (Pardon me while I turn my head, as my snicker just turned into a guffaw.) Wow, why not go to Jack Chick and round out your list of "respectable" antimasons?

How about the fine folks from Chick Publications like John Todd, a white supremacist compulsive liar who's currently being held in prison in our state for raping girls down at USC, who claims JFK is still alive, claims to have been his personal warlock, and claimed Jimmy Carter was the Antichrist?

Or how about Alberto Rivera, who claims the Catholic church is run by Satanists, who are responsible for communism, Islam, Nazism, the World Wars, homosexuality, and abortion?

Wow. Really credible sources. I honestly believe every word they've written I've seen... Psyche!

 

[DaBronx]

With all due respect, Masons, like anybody else can be very fine people indeed, very kind and generous and so on.

So can Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and Wiccans and whoever else.

I, on the other hand, by the Grace of God a Christian, can be ornery, short tempered and caustic.



The problem seems to be that your average Mason has no idea of the religious underpinnings of the group he belongs to.

It is basically a product of the 18th century enlightenment. It's just deism wrapped up in ritualistic mumbo-jumbo.

They borrow a lot of esoteric language to mystify their procedings, but, very basically, it's just the universal Fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man, let's all join hands and use science and reason and charity to solve all the world's problems since God is not really involved in the day to day operation of the planet but has charged us with doing everything.

The God of Scripture, of course is much different. The message of the Bible about sin, the fall, the exclusivity of Christ's atoning work, His return to establish His earthly reign, etc. are all, ultimately antithetical to the Masonic view.

But, as I said, the average Mason has no idea of any of this and has joined the lodge for some other reason.

So, I guess, if anyone is interested in my opinion, it's this:

If you know what Masonry really is, you cannot be a Mason and a Christian at the same time.

If you don't know what it is, you shouldn't be a Mason but any sin you might be guilty of by joining yourself to it is probably mitigated by ignorance, so you'd do well to get out of it, but don't beat yourself up over it.

Incredible.

Very well said!

 

[Rev Wayne]

The God of Scripture, of course is much different. The message of the Bible about sin, the fall, the exclusivity of Christ's atoning work, His return to establish His earthly reign, etc. are all, ultimately antithetical to the Masonic view.

It's all there in symbol, so much so that some Masons have even declared that the Mason who does not understand the Christian symbolism of Masonry does not understand Masonry correctly at all.

Yes, Masonry arose and flourished in Enlightenment times, and elements entered into it just as surely as they entered into the church during the same period. But I see Masonry as more of a product of the Reformation than of the Enlightenment. The battle for reform took its toll at the highest levels, affecting the monarchy and thus affecting the entire land. The country was an enforced theocracy during the period, and which way it leaned was entirely dependent upon the whims of the person who occupied the throne. You have to understand that anyone who went against Catholic wishes and printed the Bible in their own language was subject to the penalty of death, a price William Tyndale eventually paid after first having to flee to Germany to complete the work, and then smuggling it into England as the only alternative. There were times when anyone caught with a Bible in English was subject to the same penalty. Anyone even professing Christianity without holding membership in the Catholic Church, opened themselves up to the same likely penalty. These were the times when Masonry developed, and they cherished their faith without cherishing the Roman Church. Secrecy was of primary importance, and that secrecy extended even to the lessons that were taught in Masonry, which, though directly founded on biblical principles, could not be overtly so. For this reason, these things were taught in symbol, and for this reason those symbols were, for the most part, rather unconventional where Christianity is concerned--mainly because they had to be. It was not a matter of having something to hide, it was a matter of survival.

The problem seems to be that your average Mason has no idea of the religious underpinnings of the group he belongs to.

To this I will agree, but by that I mean there are quite a large number of Masons who are unaware of the Christian roots of Masonry.

If you don't know what it is, you shouldn't be a Mason but any sin you might be guilty of by joining yourself to it is probably mitigated by ignorance, so you'd do well to get out of it, but don't beat yourself up over it.

Gee, I'm flattered by your attempt to at least try to be gracious, but somehow a choice between being guilty of sin or just ignorant (although mitigated) is not very appealing.

I examined Masonry very thoroughly before joining, and I must say, the veil that was erected by those early Masons is impressive. I was nearly two years in intensive study of the teachings and the history and the accusations and every other angle you can conceive of, before piercing through the "veil of allegory, illustrated by symbols," to see where the true foundation lay. And I finally found it in the witness of some Masons that Masonry and Christianity teach the same things, but by different methods.

I feel the real problem in the current state of debate over Masonry is not ignorant Masons, but uninformed Christians who simply pick up on a lot of the antimasonic hype being peddled by those interested in making a buck off people's fear of things they don't understand. Most of these are already aware of the serious flaws in their conspiracy theory, but continue to accuse, because if the information got out that Masonry is not the evil they claim it to be, then the bucks go out the window along with their accusations.

A correct understanding of Masonry is impossible without learning of its history and origins and understanding why it came to be as it is. Understanding that history would be well nigh impossible, had it not been for the tendency in Masonry to preserve and protect the rituals and the symbols as they were handed down. For that reason, the small changes which have occurred over time are easily detectable when found, although most of the substantive changes occurred long enough ago that they are difficult to find in our day.

By "substantive" I mean those which were intentionally removed in the attempt to remove the direct Christian references in the interest of neutrality. Much of what I intend to post here in the near future are evidences of such changes, to reveal the true underpinnings of the Christian faith which were the original strong foundation of Masonry.

 

[ZionKnight]

Hey guys,
Not sure where this goes but I like to come in here and read a lot so I posted it here (PLEASE send me a private message is it has been moved!!) ...

OK.. here goes my question:

What is the deal with The Masons? Who are they? Are they considered Christians? Is this a Cult? Can you "get out" of this fraternity?

Thanks!

This is the original inquiry. Our sister, wanted it know a little more background info for her husband, because he felt the need to witness to a mason. Let's assume the mason, who is reqired to believe in a god, wasn't christian, and that is why the husband felt the need to witness.
I wonder if Dabronx knew she would open this can of worms!

The first 2 pages were various answers. At first, I thought that I had found a bunch of outlandish answers the first time I read through this thread, but there really wasn't until Amadeus came in and suggested those answers, and as well as,.....well... yours truly. (page 7, post 61).

It isn't until post 20, that someone suggests that a christain can, in good consience, be a mason.

This time, I read through all of the links, and made myself read through posts 18 and 19 .
If I had read these the first time, I probobly wouldn't have participated in this thread. My heart would have been settled on the matter. But then, I wouldn't have come to the same conclusion based on the posts of the masons here in this thread alone. In their responses to the accusations and the information that they, themselfes have given. Now that I have, I have gone back to theses links, and found their presentations to be valid in the sense that Freemasonry is not Christ freindly.
That's pages 1-3, posts 1-27, until imind, who actively defends freemasonry to the point of claiming that it's critics are simply ignorant of the vast and comlex intricatecy of the fraternity. I will start with him in my next post.

 

[amadeus72]

The first 2 pages were various answers. At first, I thought that I had found a bunch of outlandish answers the first time I read through this thread, but there really wasn't until Amadeus came in and suggested those answers, and as well as,.....well... yours truly. (page 7, post 61).

Me? Outlandish? Hmmm....I guess I've always had a flare for the dramatic, and let's face it: controversy is just plain fun.

It isn't until post 20, that someone suggests that a christain can, in good consience, be a mason.

I'm nowhere near patient enough to go back through this whole thread again, so I'll take your word for it. Nevertheless, a Christian can be a Mason in good conscience. He can also be an Elk, a Knight of Pythias, a Moose, an Eagle Scout, and a Rotarian. I don't think any Mason has ever denied this, and the vast majority of Masons are Christians in good conscience.

If I had read these the first time, I probobly wouldn't have participated in this thread. My heart would have been settled on the matter. But then, I wouldn't have come to the same conclusion based on the posts of the masons here in this thread alone. In their responses to the accusations and the information that they, themselfes have given. Now that I have, I have gone back to theses links, and found their presentations to be valid in the sense that Freemasonry is not Christ freindly.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I'm curious: in exactly what way is it not "Christ friendly"? And would you consider the Boy Scouts to be not Christ friendly, and why or why not?

Lastly, let me say that it is absolutely impossible to understand or interpret Freemasonry without placing it in its proper historical context. Another poster had mentioned something about modern Masonry being derived from the Enlightenment, which I agree with: the only problem is that he says it as if it were a bad thing.

The Enlightenment came as a result of the Renaissance, which led the west out of the dark ages. And they weren't called "dark" for nothing. The medieval culture was built upon oppression, both political and religious. And the foremost tools used by the oppressors were superstition and fear.

When modern Masonry first came on the scene, it gave an alternative. Instead of blindly accepting the "divine right of kings", Masons elected their officials, and had a voice in the fraternity's government. All men of good character were admitted on an equal basis, shunning the religious persecutions and bigotries of the recent past. Men were encouraged to think for themselves without blindly accepting some dogma taken up just because some dude in a red dress at Rome said so.

In essence, what Masonry was at this point was a miniature society based on Enlightenment ideals, where men were practicing to become free. I don't think it's any accident that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Paul Revere, and Marquis de Lafayette were all very active Masons before and after the Revolution. The very Constitution of the United States itself, an archetypal document of the Enlightenment, was largely based on the book "Constitutions of the Free Masons", published years before in the Colonies by Benjamin Franklin.

The ceremonies of initiation also concern the allegorical leaving behind of the dark ages, and embrace of the Enlightenment, i.e., individual liberty, freedom of conscience, responsibility with newly found freedom, respect for others, and dependence upon God. In other words, manhood.

 

[KEPLER]

Brother Amadeus,

Although you now know my position on Freemasonry, I will say I aplaud your restraint in having to deal with the Jack Chick-like rantings of some people here.

OTOH, I have "no idea" how you are going to counter the arguments of a former mormon-wiccan-buddhist-new age-shaman-Roman Catholic Priest turned Mason... What's that? Oh, it turns out he also has an M.D. and used to perform abortions. But he's out of all that, now, and that's why we should listen to him!!!!

Lastly, let me say that it is absolutely impossible to understand or interpret Freemasonry without placing it in its proper historical context. Another poster had mentioned something about modern Masonry being derived from the Enlightenment, which I agree with: the only problem is that he says it as if it were a bad thing.

The Enlightenment came as a result of the Renaissance, which led the west out of the dark ages. And they weren't called "dark" for nothing. The medieval culture was built upon oppression, both political and religious. And the foremost tools used by the oppressors were superstition and fear.

Ummm... The term "dark ages" is an epithetical construct used in the Renaissance for people to bootstrap themselves into some social positioning. It's a meaningless term, anymore. It's the equivalent of us saying something like, "Well we don't just hang people...we don't live in the wild, wild west, you know." where "wild west" is a term of denigration.

There were actually quite a number of smart people who lived during the so-called dark ages. IN fact, it's from one Marsilius of Padua from whom we get our modern concept of the separation of church and state.

"Enlightenment" (also an epithetical term) bears a an inherent anti-religious connotation.

When modern Masonry first came on the scene, it gave an alternative. Instead of blindly accepting the "divine right of kings", Masons elected their officials, and had a voice in the fraternity's government. All men of good character were admitted on an equal basis, shunning the religious persecutions and bigotries of the recent past. Men were encouraged to think for themselves without blindly accepting some dogma taken up just because some dude in a red dress at Rome said so.

True, to a point. It also, however, denied the concept of divine revelation, and any concept of moral certainty. So, it's not just a guy in a red robe, but a book, too.

Our modern-day multi-culturalism is a direct product of this type of thinking.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for diversity, to a degree. I loathe xenophobia. But I also loathe relativism, which enlightenement philosphy inevitably led to.

In essence, what Masonry was at this point was a miniature society based on Enlightenment ideals, where men were practicing to become free. I don't think it's any accident that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Paul Revere, and Marquis de Lafayette were all very active Masons before and after the Revolution. The very Constitution of the United States itself, an archetypal document of the Enlightenment, was largely based on the book "Constitutions of the Free Masons", published years before in the Colonies by Benjamin Franklin.

Better to look at Locke's Two Tretises on Civil Government....

Kepler

 

[ZionKnight]

Ok, I was going to post more, but it will have to wait. I thought it would be helpful to list all the post #s that have links that I could find so that one would not have to hunt for them.
I may have overlooked some, if I did, I apologize, I skimmed through nearly 200 posts, and couldn't resist stopping at a few and re-reading them.
In a sense of fairness, I underlined the ones that are from the masons, I think that, if somone is taking the time to read all this stuff, they should get a full view from both sides of the fence.

Post #:
9, 12, 16, 21, 31< but that one just takes you to a book you buy, 93, 96 not a link but at the end there is a reference you can search , 121, 122, 124, 132, 144, 161, 186, 196, 198.

And yes, rev, you are long 'fingered', but I think you are doing great. What you are posting now is more clear and concise (well, mostly) and much more in the 'spirit' (I use that term loosely here,) of debate. I hope to 'weigh in' on the subject of those posts shortly.

 

[Rev Wayne]

And yes, rev, you are long 'fingered', but I think you are doing great. What you are posting now is more clear and concise (well, mostly) and much more in the 'spirit' (I use that term loosely here,) of debate. I hope to 'weigh in' on the subject of those posts shortly.

All I could ask for, and kind words to boot! Thanks, and I hope to receive all remarks in that same spirit.

 

[amadeus72]

OTOH, I have "no idea" how you are going to counter the arguments of a former mormon-wiccan-buddhist-new age-shaman-Roman Catholic Priest turned Mason... What's that? Oh, it turns out he also has an M.D. and used to perform abortions.

Hehehe, yes, Mr. Schnoebolen does indeed possess impressive credentials.

There were actually quite a number of smart people who lived during the so-called dark ages. IN fact, it's from one Marsilius of Padua from whom we get our modern concept of the separation of church and state.

Absolutely. The term "dark ages" is generally used to contrast against the enlightenment. There were many great thinkers during that period, but western culture in itself was underdeveloped.

"Enlightenment" (also an epithetical term) bears a an inherent anti-religious connotation.

It does, but perhaps unjustly so. It wasn't necessarily religion that enlightenment intellectuals opposed, but the abuse of religion for the personal gain of the status quo (a staple of the dark ages).

It also, however, denied the concept of divine revelation, and any concept of moral certainty. So, it's not just a guy in a red robe, but a book, too.

I'm not aware of many Enlightenment scholars who embraced moral relativism. Kant is a perfect example, but even those half-blessed heretics Voltaire and Franklin were moral absolutists. It could be argued that the philosophy behind the French Revolution was relativistic, but such philosophy was based much more on the ideas of Rousseau than Locke, and Rousseau was as about as anti-Enlightenment as one can be.

 

[ZionKnight]

post# 22: The first sustantiated argument against Freemasonry, refering to thier many oaths and swaring allegience to the cause of freemasonry. That no man can serve two masters, and if there is a conflict between freemasonry and the Word of God, then the christian should note that difference and prayerfully consider if such a difference is worth the comprimise.

post#28: imind asks if oaths of office also should be held in that some light. The answer was yes, by all means!

post# 30: imind introduces the reoccuring argument of the masons, that the concern about the matter is only ignorance fueled by the 'lies' of conspiracy theorists.

page 4: Kepler and Dmckay discuss the origens of the fraternaty. (personally, I have to agree with Kepler and Amadeus, that freemasonry, as we know it, started in the age of enlightenment. A time where intellectualls were questioning the way things were, and trying to establish a standard for thought and reason.)
It is also the first time, in this thread, that Albert Pike is mentioned, and quoted. (I thought all this was secret, before reading here, it brings me to the observation: If all this stuff is so readily available on the web, then what is so secret about this secret society?)

That's all for now, until next post. At this rate, I will be doing this still when I am 50!

 

[Rev Wayne]

(I thought all this was secret, before reading here, it brings me to the observation: If all this stuff is so readily available on the web, then what is so secret about this secret society?)

Good point. I have a response prepared that addresses that issue, but it goes to the next section I will be posting concerning accusations based on the writings of Masonic authors, which I felt needed to be moved up from the outline as I posted it, because it encompasses so much of what is your basic Antimasonry 101 course in how to create a conspiratorial enemy. This session will also be the one that is least germane to the overall focus of Masonry in its historical and present state, and will focus more on the current state of antimason accusations.

I will hold off on it for now, but I have a feeling I will not hold back as long as originally intended, and it will probably hit the board early this evening. It's just itching to hit print. For now, I have to be away, duty calls.

 

[QuantaCura]

The reason Masonry is anti-Christian is because it has very strong leanings towards syncretism and rationalism/naturalism rather than the authentic divine revelation from the one true God.

 

[Rev Wayne]

The reason Masonry is anti-Christian is because it has very strong leanings towards syncretism and rationalism/naturalism rather than the authentic divine revelation from the one true God.

(1) It is not "anti-Christian." In fact, the majority of Masons by far are Christians.

(2) It is not "syncretistic." Syncretism is making a composite of two or more systems of belief and then merging them into something separate, and new, and different than any of the components were separately. Masonry does not choose the individual path of faith for any individual.

Nor does Masonry teach "universalism." Masonry does, however, speak of truths and principles that it considers to be universal in scope. But that does not mean it tried to equate all beliefs into one, it just means that it affirms a set of truths which apply across the board in all times, in all places, and for all people. Do good, be honest, love your neighbor, serve God our Creator, observe charity to those in need. These all seem to have crossed all religious barriers and can be found in all religions. But that is not syncretistic, it is almost directly opposite--rather than joining all beliefs of all religions of those who join to make a more expansive new system, it maintains the integrity of all those systems of belief and locates a smaller core of truths that all may affirm from what their own system already teaches, by finding the common threads in each one. It reminds me, more than anything else, of our study of archetypes in literary criticism.

(3) Sure, there is a strong bent toward rationalism, mainly because it did not develop in a vacuum as it sprung up during a time of rationalistic thinking that was rampant everywhere you wish to look, even in the church. But that need not be viewed as a negative in an organization which is not trying to teach religion, but instead emphasizes moral principles to live by. In Methodism, we hold the Bible central, but we use a quadrilateral approach which places the Bible irrevocably in the center, with the three-pronged spokes of reason, tradition, and experience. But all are out of place if put at the center in place of Scripture. Some of the thinking that has come out of the Tubingen school has shown us the danger of unchecked reason at the center. I much prefer to have a reasoned faith than one founded on blind obedience; but I would never accept one which is founded on reason.

As for naturalism, all religion has its own naturalistic tendencies, it is inescapable. "The heavens declare the glory of God," says David, and "there is no voice or language where their voice is not heard." "No language" almost automatically includes "no religion" where the voice of nature fails to witness to God.

As for "authentic divine revelation," the Great Light of Masonry is the Holy Bible, it is the only book sacred to any religion which has ever been called the Great Light. It is the only sacred book quoted in any of the rituals, and is the source of divine revelation affirmed by the huge majority of Masons. Masonry sees it as primary, but certainly not as the only source of revelation. Pike put it as well as anyone:

The oracles of God do not speak from the pulpit alone.

 

[ZionKnight]

Page 5: Amadeus enters the thread and begins to 'shed a masonic light' (by that I mean only a clever way of saying that he presents a masonic perspective to the historical events mentioned.) and discusses with Rick Otto the conspirasies involved.

Rick Otto alludes in post 48, to the 'inner' and 'outer' orders that the rev just addressed.

Page 6: discusses the origens, briefly, of Freemasonry as we know it, the philosophical order.
post 52, discusses the Regius Manuscript, and Am' states that Freemasonry is not anit-christian but, non-christian.

post53: I underlined it because, even though it may label me as one of theose 'conspiracy nuts', I believe that this is my central concern. That the dangers of freemasonry lie in the spirit realm, more so, but not excluding, then the soulish (mental) realm.

post 54: Am' introduces the more outlandish claims of the anti-masons. And, suggests that the origen of conspiracy theorists and anti-masons can be traced to the inquisitions of the church. Also, points out that it was the religious folk who were often wrong and oppossed to anyone who suggesed anything diffrent then what they have established as 'fact'.

post 56: truthminer claims that the whole fraternity canbe traced to a group called THE SYNAGAGUE OF FREEMEN, that were involved in the death of Stephen.

post 57: mentions the Shriners, I thought nothing of this until I did my own homework.... ... I DID MY OWN HOMEWORK, I must be comming down with something. I found out that the shriners are closely connected to the masons, and that while no mason is required to be a shriner, only very high degree masons can be shriners. Also, their full name, which I have forgoten and don't want to mis-qote it, suggests things that should probobly be adressed at some point.

post 58: discusses the gnostic influence on freemasonry, while I cannot deny their 'tip of the hat' to that form of thought, I suspect that it goes much further back then that to take their influences. In searching this subject out, I strongly suggest that one looks up these terms to name a few for now:
esotoric
deism
hermeticism
rosicrusionism
mystery religions
Manly P. Hall< rev did discuss him, but only sugessts that he is a philosipher, search him out and see for yourself, (that is the mantra of freemasonry, think for yourself.)
hermetic order of the golden dawn
Alister Crowley

that's all for now.

 

[ZionKnight]

Shriners: Antient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine, and they used to only accept masons who completed all degrees, but after 2000 they accept any master mason (3rd degree).

 

[ZionKnight]

in all your explanations you only seem to solidify my own belief: that all the agendas of this secret society can be sumed up in the building of a one world religion, (philosophy, form of belief, whatever you want to call it) that encompasses all 'former' systems of belief. That, by definition, is contrary to christianity and was described in Biblical prophesy. It seems to be setting the foundations of a throne that only one man will have claim to (at least for a while).
Now, about the history of masons, I think that the worst of it (and I admit my ignorrance of all the technichal stuff) happened when Albert Pike, whom you have mentioned, joined. I live in Arkansas, which seemed to be his old 'stomping grounds', and came accross a book in the public library that started me on my own personal conspiracy theory. The book (which I don't remember because I didn't think it would go this deep,) described Mr. Pike as a war criminal/ poet/ philosipher who was rumored to be involved in some sort of group sex magic stuff ( not that that would have any thing to do with the subject at hand, unless it was true, but I don't know,) then he joined the freemasonry and revamped the whole thing. I guess what I am trying to say is that whatever it was before him may have been historicaly innocent and simplistic. But, whatever it is now is very dangerous to mankind, and has been around in many forms since the second flood (Noah's). In the Word, it seems to me that God has seen fit to use two people in history to be symbols of what is going on in the spirit realm: Jezebel, and Elijah. The spirit of Jezebel, which was her god/godess Baal and Ashtoroth (also known as Isis and Osiris) and the Spirit and Power of Elijah. If you study these two referances you will see that God isn't talking about either humans but the spirits driving them: the Holy Spirit of God and the spirit of perversion.
But, I suppose I may be going too deep for a candid and 'objective' discusion.

Page 7: introduces this nut. Now that I have searched it out a little more, I cant find anything to sustantiate the claim that I read about Pike, as to his being a 'war criminal', Am' clears it up, other then the fact that he was a confederate officer.
As to the other content, after going on quite an adventure of clicking on links, I may have been closer then I realized. I will prestent what I found when I can put it together and make it comprehensible.

post 65: starts my "rantings", where I babble incoherently.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I have an idea: since Bill Clinton brought disgrace upon the presidential office with his escapades, let's vilify every president who ever lived and denounce the office forever.

What? No takers? I must say, I expected as much--after all, Bill Clinton is not the U.S. Presidency.

 

[Abbadon]

that all the agendas of this secret society can be sumed up in the building of a one world religion

There's a difference between providing a place for members of different religions to unite and syncretism designed for some "new world order."

As to the other content, after going on quite an adventure of clicking on links

The internet is not the best place to look up info on Freemasonry. It's worse than trying to find info on Catholicism.

esotoric

Simply means that the preacha' and the old ladies in the back row don't know much about it. There is no single "esoteric" point of view, philosophy, or belief system. May or may not be reconcilable with Christianity, depending on what esoteric subject you speak of.

deism

The complete opposite of esoteric thinking. The fact that freemasons have been interested in this, and in esoterism, and that freemasonry has been called deist and esoteric, two complete opposites, kind of shows that they aren't really either.

hermeticism

Goes under "esoteric". Without this, we wouldn't have developed alchemy, which means that we wouldn't have developed chemistry.

rosicrusionism

A MYTHICAL secret society created by a Lutheran preacher, with the thinking "wouldn't it be nice if a secret society got together to the benefit of all?"

mystery religions

You know, about 2000 years ago, there was this one mystery religion, where they worshipped some guy called Jesus. Means jack squat. Mystery religions were religions that concealed their teachings because they didn't want to be killed or they thought that the teachings would be misinterpretted.

Manly P. Hall

Wrote a bunch of crap. He quoted Eliphas Levi. By that simple merit, he wrote a bunch of crap.

Same goes for Albert Pike.

Basically, anyone you can quote as "famous masonic authors", they wrote a bunch of misinformed crap, partly inspired by anti-freemasons who just made up stuff. And the fact that most of the people in the Victorian era were stupid or crazy.

hermetic order of the golden dawn

Not a Masonic order. They claimed they were, kind of like French lodges do, but they aren't Masonic orders. It's kind of like, when a new-ager says Jesus is the cosmic Buddha, and He wants us to worship crystals because they did so on Atlantis, that ain't Christianity, despite what the new-ager says.

alison crauss

Alison Crauss doesn't exist.

Alison Krauss is a country/bluegrass singer and fiddle player, born in 1971. Nothing related to Freemasonry.

WOW. It's Aleister Crowley. You obviously haven't read anything true on Freemasonry. He got in through a French Lodge, which as I've mentioned, aren't Masonic.

Start with the basics: Freemasons for Dummies. Best book on Freemasonry written. The local library should have a copy, if you don't want to pay money.

Freemasonry was started from stone mason's guilds in the middle ages. The developed the secret signs and handshakes and such as a form of union card. Because you can't have a castles and towns without stonemasons, the stone masons became rather popular and honorable. Eventually, the noblemen wanted to joing, just because they thought so highly of the stone mason's guilds.

Some of the founding fathers of America were Freemasons. But some of the people fighting for England were Freemasons. Some of the people behind the French Revolution were Freemasons. But some of the people getting killed in the French Revolution were Freemasons. Some occultists have been Freemasons. But most Freemasons were Christians. Lots of people have been Freemasons. Generally, whenever someone says "the freemasons were responsible for this," or "this is freemasonry," it's something that isn't true.

I found out that the shriners are closely connected to the masons, and that while no mason is required to be a shriner, only very high degree masons can be shriners. Also, their full name, which I have forgoten and don't want to mis-qote it, suggests things that should probobly be adressed at some point.

Shriners: Antient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine, and they used to only accept masons who completed all degrees, but after 2000 they accept any master mason (3rd degree).

The fact that you didn't know that shows you have NOT done your homework. They were created to have fun. The word "mystic shrine" was thrown in for fun. Honestly, the worst they do is get drunk, and occasionally end up in the hospital from falling off of something (say, the balcony at the hotel where the Shriner's convention was taking place). They base the code words and stuff off of 1001 Arabian Nights. They aren't ancient, they just tossed the word in for fun. That group does NOTHING but have fun and build hospitals for kids. Good stuff.

As for "higher degree masons" you've not done your homework there either. There are only three degrees in Freemasonry. That's all. York Rite and Scottish Rite (and a few others, but those are the most popular), grant additional degrees, but those are considered third degree. You did have to be a 32 or 33 degree Scottish Rite Freemason to join the Shriners. But, joining the Scottish rite pretty much means you are a 32 degree. You don't even have to get the 4th degree, 5th degree, or so on, before getting the 32 degree. You don't even have to get them in order. The 33 degree is granted whenever they think you've done a good service to Freemasonry, the community, humanity, or some other good deed.

Get Freemasonry for Dummies, and watch the bit that the History Channel is doing every now and then. That's the homework.