Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > General Conspiracy Discussion > Freemasonry
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 12-28-2010, 08:34 AM
KSigMason's Avatar
KSigMason KSigMason is offline
KYCH
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Idaho
Posts: 747
Default Re: Are the Masons evil?


Quote:
Originally Posted by JBoy View Post
Stop child abuse and perverted Masons
Nice sign.

__________________
"Quia tu lucerna mea Domine et Domine inluminabis tenebras meas."
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 12-28-2010, 09:11 AM
JBoy JBoy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 453
Default Re: Are the Masons evil?

here is a better one !!!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg angleton.jpg (22.3 KB, 2 views)
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 12-28-2010, 09:12 AM
JBoy JBoy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 453
Default Re: Are the Masons evil?

What does that mean real mason ???
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 12-28-2010, 09:44 AM
KSigMason's Avatar
KSigMason KSigMason is offline
KYCH
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Idaho
Posts: 747
Default Re: Are the Masons evil?

It's quite apparent he is an elderly gentleman.
__________________
"Quia tu lucerna mea Domine et Domine inluminabis tenebras meas."
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 12-28-2010, 07:39 PM
JBoy JBoy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 453
Default Re: Are the Masons evil?

the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key to) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluations... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid and a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.
It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain ofevidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process.However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily ledastray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have
NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.
For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders anydiscussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the latter freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response.[examples & response- proparanoid.com]
Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):


Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic
which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed
with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 12-29-2010, 07:02 AM
KSigMason's Avatar
KSigMason KSigMason is offline
KYCH
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Idaho
Posts: 747
Default Re: Are the Masons evil?

All the experts agree, Freemasonry is bad.

__________________
"Quia tu lucerna mea Domine et Domine inluminabis tenebras meas."
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 12-29-2010, 07:07 AM
KSigMason's Avatar
KSigMason KSigMason is offline
KYCH
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Idaho
Posts: 747
Default Re: Are the Masons evil?

Anti-Masonic Tactics:

The motives of anti-Masons are sometimes blatantly obvious. Hawking books, audio and video tapes, and CDs they use breathless prose to extol the the 'truth' that you can get from them. Invoking God and/or some immediately pending cataclysmic catastrophe, it never seems to fail that their hands are always out for donations as well as article sales.
Invariably too, there's an 'appeal to authority'. A supposedly 'top leader' of Freemasonry is quoted ~ perhaps using just a few words ~ to somehow prove beyond any doubt that the lurid premise is completely proven. It is supremely ironic, of course, that they never refer to the MANY other things that the individual may have written since to do so would completely contradict the picture the anti-Mason tries to paint. Even Masonic authors who have said in clear and unequivocal terms what they really believe are quoted out of context in the hopes that the unknowing and unwary will be swayed by the strange-sounding titles and the intermingling of casually-related phrases. Sometimes it's the use of a book published by an anti-Masonic 'vanity' publisher or sometimes they'll claim that writings against Masons or Masonry cannot be published by 'legitimate' publishers because they're all Masonically-controlled.
In some cases, these purveyors of lies hide behind real or imagined paranoia claiming that the truth cannot be fully told for fear of retribution of some kind.
And sometimes, they believe that God has spoken to them directly and told them to destroy the Freemasons - as if God is somehow incapable of doing such things without their assistance!
In this section, we talk about those who're visible in their anti-Masonic activities (i.e., not hiding behind some on-line identity which changes frequently). We also provide a review of some internal inconsistencies in their arguments and offer some of our thoughts on responding to 'antis'. You can reach these various sections by clicking on their respective buttons on the right. In addition, we've got a quick summary of some of the more egregious activities of anti-Masons over the centuries.
The repertoire of techniques is varied but most involve simple deceit. Common tactics are listed below. Click on each method for more information about how it is used.

  • Change the Subject
  • Guilt by Association
  • Using Different Standards
  • If your were...
  • Refuse to Answer
  • Outright Lies
  • Oft-Repeated Falsehoods
  • Quibble over Semantics
  • Faulty Logic
  • Assumptive Positions
  • Prove It
  • Straw Man
__________________
"Quia tu lucerna mea Domine et Domine inluminabis tenebras meas."
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 12-29-2010, 07:26 AM
KSigMason's Avatar
KSigMason KSigMason is offline
KYCH
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Idaho
Posts: 747
Default Re: Are the Masons evil?

Objections to Freemasonry:

Freemasonry is the world's oldest and largest Fraternity. While its traditions look back earlier, Masonry in its current form appeared when its public events were noticed by the residents of London, England in 1717. Although Masonry, particularly in its earliest days, had elements of secrecy, the first 'exposure' of the supposedly highly-secret Masonic ritual actually appeared in 1696 - twenty one years BEFORE the founding of the first Grand Lodge nearly three hundred years ago.
That exposure marked the beginning of (now) more than 300 years of objections to the organization. Why? There are, surely, many causes: jealousy, fear of the unknown, superstition, bigotry, or a dozen more. The objections can be generally grouped into three categories and clicking on the hyperlinks below will bring you to additional pages which amplify what charges are being (or have been) made:

Religious A number of people object to Freemasonry (often quite vocally) on a religious basis, claiming that Masonry is a religion, supplants their religion or is not 'the way to {their idea of} Heaven'. In addition, many religious leaders with 'marginal' credentials (a degree received by mail from a non-accredited religious school, for example) need to create other 'areas of interest' to provide their congregations with fodder for inquiry thereby never giving them time to critically consider the shaky theological background of their leader. The major causes of the world's hurts (famine, war, etc.) are simply too amorphous and could cause dissent. Focusing on what they define as a 'false religion' allows them to bring their flock together against a common and easily identifiable enemy. Finally, Freemasonry encourages toleration - something that dictators of nations and of local church groups particularly fear.
Examples


Social Some object to Freemasonry on social grounds arguing that it is creating or part of a 'New World Order' - even if they can't provide a single scintilla of proof. The 'boogey-man' is always a convenient enemy. They'll argue too that Freemasonry is related to the Ku Klux Klan, that it protects its own members, or that it demands secrecy even to the point of murdering violators - again without tangible proof. These broad and often ambiguous claims shift and turn, never providing a single specific target against which responses can be mustered.
Examples

Other
There are miscellaneous other objections, including objections to the supposed foolishness of Masonic rituals and secrecy. When the larger issues are insufficient to prove a point - or when someone is desperate for attention, they use 'proof by verbosity', tossing in all sorts of snarky comments about "rolled-up trouser legs" etc. Anything at all to 'divert the discourse'....

Examples

SOURCE
__________________
"Quia tu lucerna mea Domine et Domine inluminabis tenebras meas."
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 12-29-2010, 08:04 AM
JBoy JBoy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 453
Default Re: Are the Masons evil?

Baal is a Judeo-Christian demon. In the Masonic Royal Arch Degree ritual (13th degree in the Scottish Rite) the sacred god of Freemasonry is revealed as Jah-Bal-On or Jahbuhlun. BUL = Baal, so the world is run by BAAL


The demon Bael, from Collin de Plancy's Dictionnaire infernal (1862)










Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 12-29-2010, 08:17 AM
JBoy JBoy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 453
Default Re: Are the Masons evil?

JAH-BUL-ON
by Stephen Knight
(The Brotherhood by Stephen Knight p. 236-240)
In the ritual of exaltation, the name of the Great Architect of the Universe is revealed as JAH-BUL-ON -not a general umbrella term open to any interpretation an individual Freemason might choose, but a precise designation that describes a specific supernatural being - a compound deity composed of three separate personalities fused in one. Each syllable of the 'ineffable name' represents one personality of this Trinity:
JAH = Jahweh, the God of the Hebrews.
BUL = Baal, the ancient Canaanite fertility god associated with 'licentious rites of imitative magic'.
ON = Osiris, the Ancient Egyptian god of the underworld.
Baal, of course, was the 'false god' with whom Jahweh competed for the allegiance of the Israelites in the Old Testament. But more recently, within a hundred years of the creation of the Freemason's God, the sixteenth-century demonologist John Weir identified Baal as a devil. This grotesque manifestation of evil had the body of a spider and three heads - those of a man, a toad and a cat. A description of Baal to be found in de Plancy's Dictionary of Witchcraft is particularly apposite when considered in the light of the secretive and deceptive nature of Freemasonry: his voice was raucous, and he taught his followers guile, cunning and the ability to become invisible.
In 1873, the renowned masonic author and historian General Albert Pike, later to become Grand Commander of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Supreme Council (of the 33rd Degree) at Charleston, USA, wrote of his reaction on learning of Jah-Bul-On. He was disquieted and disgusted by the name, and went on: 'No man or body of men can make me accept as a sacred word, as a symbol of the infinite and eternal Godhead, a mongrel word, in part composed of the name of an accursed and beastly heathen god, whose name has been for more than two thousand years an appellation of the Devil.'
I have spoken to no less than fifty-seven long-standing Royal Arch Freemasons who have been happy to talk to me, to help me in my ambition to give Freemasonry 'a fair crack of the whip'. Most of them spoke quite freely, explaining without hesitation their views, reactions and answers to the criticisms and queries I raised. However, all but four lost their self-assurance and composure when I said, 'What about Jah-Bul-On?' Some, although they had previously told me they had been exalted to the Royal Arch, and therefore must have not only received the lecture on the name but also studied the passages and enacted the ritual relating to Jah-Bul-On, said they had never heard of it. In most cases the interviewees very rapidly brought the meeting to a close when I asked the question. Others laughed unconvincingly and extricated themselves from having to reply by jauntily saying such words as, 'Oh, that old chestnut', and passing quickly on to some other subject, normally going on the offensive with something like, 'Why are you so interested in Freemasonry in particular? Why don't you look into Christianity or something? Why do people always pick on Freemasonry?' -thereby diverting the conversation from the course I had plotted. If I insisted on returning to Jah-Bul-On, almost invariably the interview would be unceremoniously terminated. Others said that although they had heard of the word, they did not know what it meant. To them it meant God, and previously erudite Freemasons, with a precise knowledge of every other aspect of Masonry we had discussed, suddenly became vague and claimed ignorance of this most central of all Freemasonic subjects. While professing an almost total lack of knowledge of Jah-Bul-On, several dismissed it as of no real importance.
Charles Stratton, one Royal Arch Freemason for whom I have the utmost admiration, told me this of Jah-Bul-On: 'No one ever has time to think about its meaning, you're too busy trying to remember your words. As far as I know it's just another name for Jehovah.'
Acute silences, chiefly of embarrassment, followed my question on many occasions, as happened when I spoke to a most co-operative officer both of Grand Lodge and Grand Chapter.
We had been discussing whether or not Freemasonry was a religion, and I had run through my customary list of religious terms used in Freemasonry. Then I added, 'One comes across the phrase, "the sacred tenets of Free*masonry". This seems to imply that Masonry thinks of itself as a religion.'
The Grand Officer replied, 'No, I haven't said that. .. the sacred tenets?'
'Yes.'
'Well, the word sacred means holy.'
'Yes. Then there's the "Holy" Royal Arch.'
He paused. When he began to speak again it was much more slowly.
'Yes. The Holy Royal Arch. They are all expressions of ... religion in its fullest sense, not in a masonic sense. I cannot stress too strongly the fact that there is no masonic religion, no masonic god, deity or someone or something to which a Freemason must swear loyalty. No.'
'What about Jah-Bul-On?'
He was obviously taken off-guard. He said nothing for nearly ten seconds and looked most discomfited. At length, proceeding with the extreme caution of a man feeling his way through a thicket of thorns, he said: 'These are ... Hebrew words which are ... murdered from their original. And Jah is the Hebrew word for God, so it's God again. You come back to God, the real God. But these - ha! [he chuckled] - these are ways in which we express our loyalty to God.'
'It's interesting you should choose only to define the first syllable, which is of course the most acceptable to those with religious convictions. But what about the other parts of that word which are, are they not, Baal and Osiris?'
Another long pause. 'I don't know them. That's the higher echelons of Freemasonry.'
'That's in the Royal Arch, isn't it?'
'I don't do Royal Arch. I do Chapter, but not Royal Arch.'
This was the first lie he had told me, and I could see it was unpleasant for him.
I continued: 'It is established that Jahbulon is a composite name for God, made up of Jah—'
'What's Bul-On?'
'Bul is Baal and On is Osiris, the Ancient Egyptian god of the dead.'
'Well...'
'Pike was outraged when he heard that name for the first time and saw it associated with Freemasonry, which of course was so dear to him. He said that nothing would induce him to accept as the name of God a word which is in part the name of a pagan god and for more than two thousand years an appellation of the devil.'
'I agree on that, but I... I... I don't know about it. It's not that I don't want to. I don't know about it so I really can't comment. You'll have to ask someone who knows.'
'Does it worry you?'
'In one of the higher degrees they use Jesus Christ.'
'Yes, there are several masonic orders which are exclusively Christian - the Knights Templar, the Ancient and Accepted Rite, the Societas Rosicruciana, the Knights of Malta, the Order of Eri. But does the name Jah-Bul-On worry you?'
'Many Masons wouldn't subscribe to those Christian degrees.'
The implication was clear: if Christ was an acceptable part of Freemasonry even to a non-Christian, why not the devil as well? Unacceptable though he might be to most initiates, he has his place.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ex-Masons For Jesus Freemasonry 39 03-04-2009 08:34 PM
A prayer for the masons marypopinz Freemasonry 22 03-04-2009 08:31 PM
if architecture is the religion of the masons, can certain architectural designs be evil omens? Thumper General Conspiracy Discussion 13 05-26-2008 10:18 PM
Free Masons and the church 55132 Freemasonry 1 07-26-2005 05:12 PM
Nakedsnake calling all Masons..... nakedsnake Freemasonry 42 05-19-2005 03:27 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.