Isis/Osiris consipracy, sexual and occult symbology in art, crucifixion scenes
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
Clock
Senior Member.
Very true. It's one of those "cannot un-see" moments. You see the Eye Of Providence, and you suddenly start seeing everywhere.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The same evidence used to prove a conspiracy exists is often the same evidence used to prove it doesn't exist . . . that is why concepts remain a conspiracy and not a fact . . . so why then do conspiracies remain vibrant . . . possibly because someone gains an advantage from their promotion . . . as in Masonic orders . . . it creates mystery and intrege . . . it is a great recruiting poster . . . hidden power that one can only imagine . . . if you are part of a secret order why argue against such thoughts . . . unless people take shots at you or your loved ones . . .
No I do not know that. All I know is, as someone who does not believe in god or the devil, I would not partake in any religious ceremony, other than maybe attending a religious funeral or wedding or suchlike, out of respect for that person.
I would not make oaths or pledges in an esoteric fashion or become involved in occult rituals unless I believed in the supernatural powers which they represent.
I can understand secrecy for fear of persecution, as in religious belief or lack of it, or something which is unlawful such as was the case with homosexuality and is currently the case with marijuana use, or as a personal security measure or in the case of national security but as a general rule of thumb, I believe evil flourishes in secrecy and things should be as transparent as possible whilst at the same time not being invasive. I agree the line is very difficult and highly debatable.
I think at best, such masonic oaths are comparable to oaths taken by pirates or mafia members. The key factor is, lack of admittance without such undertakings. This sets it apart from say an oath of allegiance to ones country or a oath of friendship as neither are prerequisites.
I strongly suspect that many public figures who profess a belief in or love of god do so for political gain. The fact they profess so and then dishonour that by taking part in secret highly pagan ceremonies means to me they cannot be trusted in the slightest. If they will lie about this they will lie about anything.
Can you give me any substantive reasoning why a person or body of people who professes to believe in god, as the freemasons do, would have rituals and ceremonies which are in direct conflict with their stated belief system?
Maybe because they don't think they are in direct conflict?
Can you be specific? What is the text of the oath you think is in conflict, and why?
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
I just figure the Bohemian Grove stuff is a continuation of the frat group logic that they would have got a taste for in their college days.
College is a time of invention and boundary crossing, and they are re-visiting the excitement that provided them, sort of a chance to be young and stupid again.
And post-college men's clubs were a big thing in England at the turn of the century, so it's just a continuation of that tradition too.
Belonging to special weird groups that outsiders don't understand creates a special feeling of belonging, I get the appeal. Creating rituals, borrowing from past cultures, all this seems logical in that context.
College is a time of invention and boundary crossing, and they are re-visiting the excitement that provided them, sort of a chance to be young and stupid again.
And post-college men's clubs were a big thing in England at the turn of the century, so it's just a continuation of that tradition too.
Belonging to special weird groups that outsiders don't understand creates a special feeling of belonging, I get the appeal. Creating rituals, borrowing from past cultures, all this seems logical in that context.
"Maybe because they don't think they are in direct conflict?" Maybe they don't and maybe they aren't as well. It all depends on who or what their god is.
They have their own god gaotu. They make blood oaths of dire consequence to God and kiss the bible. Mayhap they are not enforced but they are made.
The first point being, these oaths are not to God as set out in the Bible.
Equally the Catholic Church is no better in that it has corrupted and paganised the teachings of the Bible upon which the religion is founded, hence people do not throw stones.
Also many Christians were also Freemasons and vice versa
The second point being, many of these people are in public office of the highest level on the basis that they are Christian and adhere to Christian practices.
Freemasonry is not compatible with belief in Christianity. It is undeniably a cult and a pagan cult at that.
Pagans also believed in gods and some in a monotheist deity, it wasn't God.
If they want to practice this type of stuff they should be honest about it. 'Elect me I worship Lucifer as the light bringer illumination in the form of intellect'.
This is a conspiracy.
http://www.isaiah54.org/finney.htm
Judging from unquestionable evidences, how can we fail to pronounce Freemasonry an unchristian institution? We can see that its morality is unchristian. Its oath-bound secrecy is unchristian. The administration and taking of its oaths are unchristian and a violation of the positive command of Christ. And Masonic oaths pledge its members to some of the most unlawful and unchristian things:
1. To conceal each other's crimes.
2. To deliver each other from difficulty, whether right or wrong.
3. To unduly favor Masonry in political action and in business matters.
4. Its members are sworn to retaliate and persecute unto death the violators of Masonic obligations.
5. Freemasonry knows no mercy, and swears its candidates to avenge violations of Masonic obligations unto death.
6. Its oaths are profane, taking the Name of God in vain.
Just a few
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
That would be great! I'd vote for that dude.
Here are the oaths set out by John Quincy Adams, who turned against the Freemasons.
http://www.shadowlitrealms.com/masons.htm
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quincy_Adams
Note not one word about Freemasonry
http://www.texemarrs.com/072001/john_quincy.htm
For John Quincy Adams, writer, poet, faithful husband, patriot, former Ambassador and Secretary of State, and sixth President of the United States, there was no question. The dispute was firmly settled in his mind. The teachings and practices of Freemasonry, Adams asserted, are detrimental, noxious, and unfortunate. John Quincy Adams was persuaded that the Lodges were a bane to society, evil and Luciferian.
and that's without Bohemian Grove
http://www.shadowlitrealms.com/masons.htm
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quincy_Adams
Note not one word about Freemasonry
http://www.texemarrs.com/072001/john_quincy.htm
For John Quincy Adams, writer, poet, faithful husband, patriot, former Ambassador and Secretary of State, and sixth President of the United States, there was no question. The dispute was firmly settled in his mind. The teachings and practices of Freemasonry, Adams asserted, are detrimental, noxious, and unfortunate. John Quincy Adams was persuaded that the Lodges were a bane to society, evil and Luciferian.
and that's without Bohemian Grove
Lol, I thought you were an athiest... got that wrong
I can see how you might think that Freemasonry was somehow satanic if you were of that mindset in seeing satanic stuff everywhere. But I think just some kind of fraternity type organization.
I just scanned over:
http://www.shadowlitrealms.com/masons.htm
Can you quote exactly what you think is so bad about it? Then can you show any evidence that this oath has caused harm? And what evidence is there that it's even genuine and still in use?
I just scanned over:
http://www.shadowlitrealms.com/masons.htm
Can you quote exactly what you think is so bad about it? Then can you show any evidence that this oath has caused harm? And what evidence is there that it's even genuine and still in use?
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
No, you would be correct, but someone who professes to follow the light bringer of intellect... that sounds good to me.
Also I'd vote for him just for being fearlessly honest, that's a principle I'd support in a politician.
(eta, athiest as far as a christian god is concerned, it could get complicated if I try to explain my every thought on the possibility for 'god-ness' out there somewhere.)
Whether or not I think it's satanic is not really the issue. Many people do think it is satanic and if Freemasons wish to be elected public office and especially high office, many people think they should make it clear they are in the craft. Personally, I agree.
There has been much controversy over it through the years and moves to ban members have been made with varying success and against much resistance.
The quotes you refer to are allegedly from letters by John Adams and are not therefore exhaustive and I have not verified their authenticity but I note their consistency with the previous link I provided from
http://www.isaiah54.org/finney.htm
The main complaints I would have and no doubt many others, would be concerning the following allegations but of paramount importance must be the oaths concerning concealment of crimes (at the lower levels 'excepting murder and treason' which is bad enough but later He swears to conceal members crimes, MURDER AND TREASON NOT EXCEPTED.
Such oaths, whether honoured or not, are a conflict of interest to anyone as they go against a criminal justice system.
Undoubtedly members have been found guilty of crimes but this does not negate an undertaking by powerful and intelligent people to pervert the course of justice. IMO
but more specifically11. Its religion is false.
12. It professes to save men on other conditions than those revealed in the Gospel of Christ.
13. It is wholly an enormous falsehood.
14. It is a swindle, obtaining money from its members under false pretenses.
15. It refuses all examinations, and veils itself under a mantle of oath-bound secrecy.
16. It is virtual conspiracy against both Church and State.
No one, therefore, has ever undertaken to defend Freemasonry as judged by the above. Freemasons themselves do not pretend that their institution as revealed in reliable books, and by some of their own testimony, is compatible with Christianity. So it must follow that, First, the Christian Church should have no fellowship with Freemasonry; and those who adhere intelligently and determinately to such an institution have no right to be in the Christian Church. We pronounce this judgment sorrowfully, but solemnly.
Second, should the question be asked, "What shall be done with the great number of professed Christians who are Freemasons?" I answer, let them have nothing more to do with it. Let it be distinctly pressed upon their consciences that all Masons, above the first two Degrees, have solemnly sworn to conceal each other's crimes, murder and treason alone excepted; and that all above the sixth Degree have sworn to espouse each other's cause, and to deliver them from any difficulty, whether right or wrong.
Third, if they have taken those Degrees where they have sworn to persecute unto death those who violate their Masonic obligations, let them be asked whether they really intend to do any such thing. Let them be distinctly asked whether they intend to aid and abet the administration and taking of these oaths. Or if they still intend to countenance the false and hypocritical teachings of Masonry. Or if they mean to countenance the profanity of their ceremonies, and the partiality of their sworn practice. If so, surely they should not be allowed their place in the Christian Church.
Fourth, can a man who has taken, and still adheres to the Master's oath to conceal any secret crime of a brother of that Degree, murder and treason excepted, be a safe man with whom to entrust any public office? Can he be trusted as a witness, as a juror, or with any office connected with the administration of justice?
Fifth, can a man who has taken, and still adheres to, the oath of the Royal Arch Mason be trusted to public office? He swears to espouse the cause of a companion of this Degree when involved in any difficulty, so far as to extricate him, whether he be right or wrong. He swears to conceal his crimes, MURDER AND TREASON NOT EXCEPTED. Is such a man bound by such an oath to be trusted with office? Ought he to be accepted as a witness or juror when another Freemason is a party in the case? Ought he to be trusted with the office of Judge, or Justice of the Peace, or as a Sheriff, Constable, Marshal or any other office?
My brother is a Freemason and he is very insistent on the existence of God. He also thinks Atheists should be exterminated... nice
People should be killed for not believing in something?!
How long has your brother suffered from his mental illness?
Another perspective - should Christians be allowed to hold office of serve on juries? They participate in a bunch of strange rituals. They worship before the image of a man being crucified. They can confess murder to a priest, and he won't report them to the law. They believe that a spirit in the sky will listent to their thoughts, and then advise them what to do.
Anyway, I'm a little unsure of the drift of your argument here. How does the freemason stuff tie in with the super old conspiracy to bring about one world order? Are the Freemasons the illuminati? Who is actually in charge here? How does it work?
Anyway, I'm a little unsure of the drift of your argument here. How does the freemason stuff tie in with the super old conspiracy to bring about one world order? Are the Freemasons the illuminati? Who is actually in charge here? How does it work?
In all fairness it was an outburst in the middle of an argument we had over evolution v creation. But yes he has very strong views on creationism and racism as well.
The founder of the KKK was allegedly Albert Pike.
http://freemasonrywatch.org/albertpikeandkkk.html
It is refuted hereMany have speculated on what happened to the millions of KKK Members that were on the rolls up to the KKK's final downfall at the hands of the IRS in the 40's. We now know. They simply carried on inside the masonic lodges as if nothing had changed at all. And what really had changed? In most regions of the country the local KKK Klavern's membership was indistinguishable from the local 'Blue' masonic lodges membership.
After all the KKK had openly advertised in newspapers for new recruits specifiying that masons were preferred! The only change was the sheets were stowed away, but the political goals and willingness and capability to follow through on them carried on. The letter that the head of the Supreme Council wrote about a Roman Catholic president in 1960 in the official organ of the Scottish Rite - 'New Age' magazine, and the continuing practically non-existant black membership in the 'blue' lodges, plus the non-recognition as 'regular' of black only Prince Hall lodges testify's boldly to that.
The 1940's folding was a complete sham. That is why the desperate defense of Albert Pike. They're still at it, they never went away.
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/kkk.html
It was not until Dr. Walter L. Fleming republished Lester’s booklet in 1905 that a list of names of key Klansmen was included in a preface. In 1924, Ms. Susan L. Davis published her Authentic History, in which she contradicts a number of points made by Lester, denigrates Fleming for his superficial knowledge of the Klan and condemns Lester’s co-author, David L. Wilson, for suggesting the Klan had failed.Any other book or article promoting Albert Pike’s association with the Klan will either cite Fleming or Davis, cite other authors who cite Fleming or Davis, or not cite anyone. Both Fleming and Davis accepted, unquestioningly, the fifty year old reminiscences of several of the founding members of the Klan. There is no source documentation, corroborating evidence or other testimony to implicate Albert Pike with the Klan. Pike had been dead fourteen years when Fleming first published, and was in no position to address the issue.
That is an argument put forward by Richard Dawkins to some extent. But can I ask, it seems only fair as you asked me about my religious beliefs, how you feel about the Freemasons?
I get the feeling that people here are generally supportive of them... just a feeling I get.
Is there any evidence that Freemasons pervert justice more than non-masons?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Good questions . . . I suspect that like most conspiracies the evidence is very, very hard to find, verify and validate . . . otherwise it would be established history . . . we are always left with the same questions . . . how do you prove something that has been designed to be covert by its very nature ??
I'm not supportive of them. I don't known any Masons that I'm aware of. I just don't see them as particularly different to other fraternal organizations or even religions. I don't see any evidence that they have perverted justice.
It's not about proving things. It's about seeing if there is even any evidence at all beyond feelings and suppositions.
MikeC
Closed Account
Freemasonry requires acknowledgement of the existence of some "supreme being" - not necesarily the x-ian god or any other particular one. I've never heard that it requires anyone to kill anyone else for not believing in that - I suspect that is just your brother.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Then the question is how do you obtain evidence of and about something that is designed to be covert . . .?
That's not a question. It's a rhetorical statement.
The question is: what verifiable facts give reason to suspect that something is taking place.
If there is truly NOTHING, then why is there speculation about a particular thing?
Fair enough. I don't disagree that Masons have every right to exist and I am pretty sure that most of them are fine and believe what they are doing is good and probably do, do a lot of good.
I am merely putting forward a well postulated argument that the secrecy and oaths to cover up wrong doings etc is i) inconsistent with the church teachings, (whilst at the same time recognising that it is not necessarily inconsistent with church practices) and ii) When a Christian campaigns politically, they often rely heavily and make much of their Christianity, which cannot be said for Freemasons, be they Christians or not. i.e. if they are both xtian and fremason, they will hype the xtian and play down the freemason aspect.
Well IMO the only answer to that is you must rely on whisleblowers who then sometimes get arrested and locked up indefinitely as with Bradley Manning, also Julian Assange, also Mordechai Vanunu and others.
[h=1][/h]
Seems reasonable. But in practice I doubt few would, although some have.
The consensus appears to be:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...er-David-Cameron-is-actually-a-Christian.html
“A depressingly large number of intelligent and educated people, having outgrown religious faith themselves, still vaguely presume without thinking about it that religious faith is somehow good for other people, good for society, good for public order, good for instilling morals, good for the common people even if we chaps don’t need it,” the academic will say.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...e-blower-Mordechai-Vanunu-back-in-prison.html
[h=2]Israeli nuclear whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu has started a three-month jail sentence for breaking the terms of his release and meeting a foreigner. [/h]"Shame on you, Israel, and the stupid Shin Bet and Mossad spies who are returning me to jail after 24 years in which I have spoken only the truth," Vanunu shouted in court before being led away, referring to Israel's internal security arm and its international spy service.
[h=2]Israeli nuclear whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu has started a three-month jail sentence for breaking the terms of his release and meeting a foreigner. [/h]"Shame on you, Israel, and the stupid Shin Bet and Mossad spies who are returning me to jail after 24 years in which I have spoken only the truth," Vanunu shouted in court before being led away, referring to Israel's internal security arm and its international spy service.
What does? That I should be forced to make some statement about my religious beliefs, or absence thereof?
If I were to run for office, I would probably say I was an atheist if asked (depending in the context, it might be "none of your business"), but I'd prefer it if religion were simply left out of politics.
Whistleblowers alone are not that strong evidence - it's the documentation that they produce that is actual evidence. Wikileaks is a big pile of evidence.
But did it have anything about the Freemasons perverting justice? Isis and Osiris? Would the absence of mention in Wikileaks no be evidence against your theory?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
One of my questions is why do public buildings have Masonic Plaques on them . . . did they pay for the construction? Did they give construction advice or expertise to the process . . . seems an odd custom . . . do other international organizations place Plaques on public buildings in the US, Canada, UK, Australia, NZ, etc. ???
This seems to be evidence of a secret society with much influence . . .
This seems to be evidence of a secret society with much influence . . .
Can you give some examples?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Last edited by a moderator:
There are rumours... and yes you could have a go at me for spreading rumours... but the evidence is hard to get as discussed... how do you go about getting evidence and how do you use it if you get it and it concerns people of immense power.
viz a viz... 'do you get evidence that the Pope is a Satanist and approach the Pope and say... Oh I have evidence here implicating you in Satanic practices'
But there are people who actually attest to what they saw but unsurprisingly it does not meet with the usual treatment.
I don't know... and who does but it is alleged?
So I will leave you with the following... make of it what you will
http://www.4rie.com/rie 7.html
viz a viz... 'do you get evidence that the Pope is a Satanist and approach the Pope and say... Oh I have evidence here implicating you in Satanic practices'
But there are people who actually attest to what they saw but unsurprisingly it does not meet with the usual treatment.
I don't know... and who does but it is alleged?
So I will leave you with the following... make of it what you will
http://www.4rie.com/rie 7.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvY7thwBVu4Recent [O'Brien and Phillips, TRANCE Formation of America (pp 170-1)] information may radically change this perception of Bohemian Grove. Not merely drunkenness, unbounded use of alcohol and drugs with vague homosexual tones (confirmed by our sources) but reported activities much more serious - kidnapping, rape, pedophilia, sodomy, ritual murder. Investigation is blocked under the 1947 National Security Act. (!) And like the Omaha child abuse case, includes illegal detention of children.
Freemasons derive from actual masons. They have actual masonic customs. They participated in cornerstone laying:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone#Freemasonry
Hardly seems like a secret society with much influence type of thing. Just a traditional ceremony, semi-religious in nature. Like getting a priest to bless something.
The cornerstone (or foundation stone) concept is derived from the first stone set in the construction of a masonry foundation, important since all other stones will be set in reference to this stone, thus determining the position of the entire structure.
Over time a cornerstone became a ceremonial masonry stone, or replica, set in a prominent location on the outside of a building, with an inscription on the stone indicating the construction dates of the building and the names of architect, builder and other significant individuals.
...
In modern practice, normally, a VIP of the organization, or a local celebrity or community leader, will be invited to conduct the ceremony of figuratively beginning the foundations of the building, with the person's name and official position and the date usually being recorded on the stone. This person is usually asked to place their hand on the stone or otherwise signify its laying.
Often still, and certainly until the 1970s, most ceremonies involved the use of a specially manufactured and engraved trowel that had a formal use in laying mortar under the stone. Similarly, a special hammer was often used to ceremonially tap the stone into place.
The foundation stone often has a cavity into which is placed a time capsule containing newspapers of the day or week of the ceremony plus other artifacts that are typical of the period of the construction: coins of the year may also be immured in the cavity or time capsule.
[edit]Freemasonry
Freemasons sometimes perform the public cornerstone laying ceremony for notable buildings. This ceremony was described by The Cork Examiner of 13 January 1865 as follows:...The Deputy Provincial Grand Master of Munster, applying the golden square and level to the stone said ; " My Lord Bishop, the stone has been proved and found to be 'fair work and square work' and fit to be laid as the foundation stone of this Holy Temple".' After this, Bishop Gregg spread cement over the stone with a trowel specially made for the occasion by John Hawkesworth, a silversmith and a jeweller. He then gave the stone three knocks with a mallet and declared the stone to be 'duly and truly laid'. The Deputy Provincial Grand Master of Munster poured offerings of corn, oil and wine over the stone after Bishop Gregg had declared it to be 'duly and truly laid'. The Provincial Grand Chaplain of the Masonic Order in Munster then read out the following prayer: 'May the Great Architect of the universe enable us as successfully to carry out and finish this work. May He protect the workmen from danger and accident, and long preserve the structure from decay; and may He grant us all our needed supply, the corn of nourishment, the wine of refreshment, and the oil of joy, Amen. So mote it be.' The choir and congregation then sang the Hundredth Psalm.[6]In Freemasonry, which grew from the practice of stonemasons, the initiate (Entered Apprentice) is placed in the north-east corner of the Lodge as a figurative foundation stone.[7] This is intended to signify the unity of the North associated with darkness and the East associated with light.[8]
See also the US Capitol:
http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2011/01/freemasons-and-us-capitol-cornerstone.html
Last edited:
It sounds like a load of unsubstantiated and highly improbable nonsense. That's what I make of it.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Mick, this would seem to be a breach between church and state . . . what semi-religious organization gets this freedom . . . can the Mormon, Catholic, Baptist Churches, etc. place a plaque on the cornerstone of a public building . . . ??
Similar threads
- Locked
