Freemasonry & Satanism???

[Guest guest]

Hi Simon

 

> Answering your earlier post of your.....regarding Satanist believing in God...an example I have from a public talk from Prof Walter Keith....concerning the

> Freemasons...apparently in a their written decree...they state that satan over-came Jesus

 

Sounds like fairly typical anti-Freemason propaganda to me.... and a complete load of rubbish. Unfortunately the Catholic Church has spent the past about 200 years putting out blatant lies about Freemasonry to try to stop Catholics becoming members (ironic, considering that "bearing false witness" is supposed to be in breach of one of the commandments!)

 

One of the most important aspects of Freemasonry is that it is completely non-religious...discussion of religious topics is actually banned in all Freemasonic Lodges. The only stipulation is that in order to become a Freemason, you must believe in the Great Architect of the Universe (in other words, some form of god, be it Christian, Islamic, Jewish, something else) - that's why the Catholic church hates Freemasonry so much... they promote the concept of different religions mixing.

 

There is certainly no decree that Freemasonry has ever put out which comments on Satan overcoming Jesus... or on any other religious matter, come to that!

 

> and that one pope in the 50's was the head freemason at that time...wearing

> the freemasons symbol around his neck...the slides he showed all sorts of interesting things.

 

That's possible. There are a lot of quasi-Freemasonic organisations who operate amongst the highest up people in the Vatican. There's a very good book by David Yallop (I forget the title right now, something like "In God's Name"?) which investigates the circumstances surrounding the murder of Pope John Paul I, and all the various groups such as P2 who were involved. However, while some of these organisations may have certain influences from Freemasonry, I do not believe that any of them are warranted by any of the recognised Grand Lodges, and are not therefore proper Freemasonic organisations.

 

BB

Peter

[Guest guest]

 

-

Peter

Friday, April 02, 2004 3:59 PM

Freemasonry & Satanism???

 

Hello Peter

 

Sounds like fairly typical anti-Freemason propaganda to me.... and a complete load of rubbish. Unfortunately the Catholic Church has spent the past about 200 years putting out blatant lies about Freemasonry to try to stop Catholics becoming members (ironic, considering that "bearing false witness" is supposed to be in breach of one of the commandments!)

 

>You can look up Prof Walter Keiths on the web.

 

He didn't seem to be the type of person to make things up to me.

I would find it hard to believe he would show all their symbols,rules and their recognizable hand shake etc..then write in to their rules and beliefs..(can't remember the exact words) that Jesus christ was defeated by satan.(It's possible)...... I'm not sure how he researched his findings.

 

The catholic church has it's own agenda....even though it says in the bible..no man can stand in place of God..it has priests taking the place of God...and has a pope, has statues, idols which some people treat as some how holy.

I have nothing against catholic people...but to blindly follow some thing which doesn't help to bring peace on this earth..is not right in my opinion.>

 

One of the most important aspects of Freemasonry is that it is completely non-religious...discussion of religious topics is actually banned in all Freemasonic Lodges. The only stipulation is that in order to become a Freemason, you must believe in the Great Architect of the Universe (in other words, some form of god, be it Christian, Islamic, Jewish, something else) - that's why the Catholic church hates Freemasonry so much... they promote the concept of different religions mixing.

 

 

 

There is certainly no decree that Freemasonry has ever put out which comments on Satan overcoming Jesus... or on any other religious matter, come to that!

 

>So you are 100% sure about that?>

 

> and that one pope in the 50's (I can't remember which one) was the head freemason at that time...wearing the head freemasons symbol around his neck...the slides he showed all sorts of interesting things.

 

That's possible. There are a lot of quasi-Freemasonic organisations who operate amongst the highest up people in the Vatican. There's a very good book by David Yallop (I forget the title right now, something like "In God's Name"?) which investigates the circumstances surrounding the murder of Pope John Paul I, and all the various groups such as P2 who were involved. However, while some of these organisations may have certain influences from Freemasonry, I do not believe that any of them are warranted by any of the recognised Grand Lodges, and are not therefore proper Freemasonic organisations.

 

< I'm glad you have said the above as it confirms at least there is a recognition of an association between freemasonry and the catholic church.

 

The fact that the Vatican hides biblical writings away from the public...and freemasonry being a mostly secret organisation... begs the question..what are they hiding?

 

Simon

To send an email to -

[Guest guest]

Hi Simon

 

> You can look up Prof Walter Keiths on the web.

 

I tried a search on a couple of search engines, but couldn't find anything on him.

 

> He didn't seem to be the type of person to make things up to me.

 

Perhaps he is not making it up himself, but is trusting what other people have told him. Even if he is making it up himself, a lot of people with an agenda can seem very convincing to people who don't have the time or inclination to look into the subject (no criticism of you or anyone else who's listened to him... just commenting that this is how many myths become popular... people rely on others not looking too deeply).

 

> I would find it hard to believe he would show all their symbols,rules and their recognizable hand shake etc..then write in to their rules and beliefs..(can't remember

> the exact words) that Jesus christ was defeated by satan.(It's possible)...... I'm not sure how he researched his findings.

 

I'd be intrigued to know how he knows the methods of recognition. I've seen a few people come up with what they claim to be the handshakes and other signs of recognition, but they virtually all differ from one another, and Freemasons themselves don't comment either way on any of them! I think it would be highly unlikely that Freemasonry would have any documents refering to Jesus or to Satan as they are not specifically Christian, and therefore don't, as an organisation, observe Christian mythos (although many of their members do).

 

> There is certainly no decree that Freemasonry has ever put out which comments on Satan overcoming Jesus... or on any other religious matter, come to that!

> So you are 100% sure about that?>

 

Yes. Freemasonry does not comment on religion - it is against the ethics of the whole organisation to do so. There may well be an individual Freemason who has made such a claim, and someone has confused the views of an individual with the views of an organisation to which he is affiliated. There have certainly been some dodgy individuals who have been involved in Freemasonry... Benjamin Franklin was both a Freemason and a member of Satanic cult - but his affiliation with that cult didn't represent Freemasonry as a whole.

 

> I'm glad you have said the above as it confirms at least there is a recognition of an association between freemasonry and the catholic church.

> The fact that the Vatican hides biblical writings away from the public...and freemasonry being a mostly secret organisation... begs the question..what are they hiding?

 

Freemasonry really isn't that secret at all. The only things which are kept secret are the signs of recognition between Freemasons. They have public accounts, details of all of their rituals of initiation are available in the public domain - in fact, Bradford University have a website where you can go and look up all the details of past and present Freemasonic rituals. You'll generally find that if you walk into a Freemasonic Lodge and ask for a tour, they'll be happy to show you around. My main criticism would be that they are still a largely sexist organisation, in that very few lodges admit women (most have something called co-masonry, which to me just seems a tad patronising) - but all men can ask to become a Freemason, and it would be unusual to be turned down if your motives seemed honourable.

 

BB

Peter

[Guest guest]

My apologies...that should be Prof Veith not Keith!

 

-

Peter

Friday, April 02, 2004 10:26 PM

Re: Freemasonry & Satanism???

 

Hi Simon

 

> You can look up Prof Walter Keiths on the web.

 

I tried a search on a couple of search engines, but couldn't find anything on him.

 

> He didn't seem to be the type of person to make things up to me.

 

Perhaps he is not making it up himself, but is trusting what other people have told him. Even if he is making it up himself, a lot of people with an agenda can seem very convincing to people who don't have the time or inclination to look into the subject (no criticism of you or anyone else who's listened to him... just commenting that this is how many myths become popular... people rely on others not looking too deeply).>

 

>I agree, we all have to rely on others in some many situations, as it would be practicely impossible to check everything ourselves.

 

> I would find it hard to believe he would show all their symbols,rules and their recognizable hand shake etc..then write in to their rules and beliefs..(can't remember

> the exact words) that Jesus christ was defeated by satan.(It's possible)...... I'm not sure how he researched his findings.

 

I'd be intrigued to know how he knows the methods of recognition. I've seen a few people come up with what they claim to be the handshakes and other signs of recognition, but they virtually all differ from one another, and Freemasons themselves don't comment either way on any of them!>

 

 

 

I'm not sure myself..Prof Veith...reckons the masons use a thumb placed in a certain way in a handshake.

he showed a few well know people on film doing the handshake.

I went to his meeting in London a few years ago I didn't do much of a recap on it after..but It was food for thought.>S

 

I think it would be highly unlikely that Freemasonry would have any documents refering to Jesus or to Satan as they are not specifically Christian, and therefore don't, as an organisation, observe Christian mythos (although many of their members do).>

 

It's a matter of searching and finding the truth...I would like to get in touch with Prof Veith and see how he is doing....he was in the process of being sacked from his teaching job a few yrs ago.

 

He also has what seems like sound evidents that makes the 6 day creation look more realistic than the billion of years evolution.

Which got me thinking about the theory that we humans are 65 million years old.( In a nut shell)

How old are the paintings, writings human made artifacts etc 6000 yrs some say longer, Even if they were 100 or 200 000 yrs old . What the heck were we doing for 64 900,000 odd yrs? we couldn't have been much more intelligent than apes...look what we've done in a 100 odd yrs?>S>>>>>

 

 

 

> There is certainly no decree that Freemasonry has ever put out which comments on Satan overcoming Jesus... or on any other religious matter, come to that!

 

So you are a freemason?

 

> So you are 100% sure about that?>S

 

Yes. Freemasonry does not comment on religion - it is against the ethics of the whole organisation to do so. There may well be an individual Freemason who has made such a claim, and someone has confused the views of an individual with the views of an organisation to which he is affiliated. There have certainly been some dodgy individuals who have been involved in Freemasonry... Benjamin Franklin was both a Freemason and a member of Satanic cult - but his affiliation with that cult didn't represent Freemasonry as a whole.>

 

 

>It would seem that allowing satanic followers into an organisation would only make the Freemasons almost in agreement with satanism. W hen talking about people who start or encourage war or don't care about human or animal life...it matters a lot.>S

 

 

Freemasonry really isn't that secret at all. The only things which are kept secret are the signs of recognition between Freemasons. They have public accounts, details of all of their rituals of initiation are available in the public domain - in fact, Bradford University have a website where you can go and look up all the details of past and present Freemasonic rituals. You'll generally find that if you walk into a Freemasonic Lodge and ask for a tour, they'll be happy to show you around. My main criticism would be that they are still a largely sexist organisation, in that very few lodges admit women (most have something called co-masonry, which to me just seems a tad patronising) - but all men can ask to become a Freemason, and it would be unusual to be turned down if your motives seemed honourable.>

 

It seems strange to me to allow satanists, Christians, humanitarians, warmongers into a single organisation....how could they possibly get on..even if they kept their beliefs to themselves.

I wonder what their common bond could be.

I look into it a bit.

 

SimonTo send an email to -

[Guest guest]

Hi Simon

 

> My apologies...that should be Prof Veith not Keith!

 

Thanks - I looked him up, and this explains a lot.... firstly, the guy is a fundamentalist creationist / "young earthist". His religious beliefs clearly do more than cloud his judgement, and he bases every argument on his faith, rather than on any form of fact - where fact goes against his belief, he just ignore is. He has a degree & PhD in Zoology, which might make him an expert in animal medicine, but doesn't mean anything in terms of historical or political analysis. Basically, the guy has a *very* big agenda which he is promoting, and is not in any way interested in historical facts or even historical discussion. He simply wishes to denigrate anything which disagrees with his faith in any way. Considering that Freemasonry is largely (if not solely) responsible for the creation of modern scientific thought, it is hardly surprising that he should have an agenda against Freemasonry.

 

I couldn't find anything by Walter Veith on Freemasonry, so I have not "heard it from the horses mouth" so to speak, although what you have said about his views seems to be pretty similar to most of the ant-Freemason propaganda around, so it doesn't surprise me.

 

> I'm not sure myself..Prof Veith...reckons the masons use a thumb placed in a certain way in a handshake.

> he showed a few well know people on film doing the handshake.

 

I've heard that one from a few others as well... who knows, it may be correct, although how anyone would know it without actually going through Freemasonic initiation, I don't know.

 

> It's a matter of searching and finding the truth...I would like to get in touch with Prof Veith and see how he is doing....he was in the process of being sacked from his

> teaching job a few yrs ago.

 

If he was going around libelling Freemasons (i.e. several million people), I'm not surprised!

 

> He also has what seems like sound evidents that makes the 6 day creation look more realistic than the billion of years evolution.

> Which got me thinking about the theory that we humans are 65 million years old.( In a nut shell)

> How old are the paintings, writings human made artifacts etc 6000 yrs some say longer, Even if they were 100 or 200 000 yrs old . What the heck were we doing for 64

> 900,000 odd yrs? we couldn't have been much more intelligent than apes...look what we've done in a 100 odd yrs?>S>>>>>

 

I work on the basis that knowledge has been surpressed by those in power for several millenia. Ocassionally, a little inkling of this knowledge has crept out, and then been surpressed - just look at Roger Bacon's work, he was centuries ahead of his time! Look at the knowledge of the ancient world, which we somehow forgot about. You also have the advent of modern communication, which has really sped up technological "progress". Now, people from all round the world can and do work together to push things forward, whereas 200 years ago it would have been difficult to discuss your ideas with anyone living more than about 20 miles away. It's no wonder we've achieved so much in such a relatively short space of time. I don't think this argument particularly supports the "young earth" theory.

 

> So you are a freemason?

 

No - I don't believe in any form of god, so would have to lie if I wanted to become a member... I have too much respect for the organisation to do that. I also don't particularly find the idea of taking part in initiation rituals to be particularly interesting - just not my thing.

 

> It would seem that allowing satanic followers into an organisation would only make the Freemasons almost in agreement with satanism. W hen talking about people who

> start or encourage war or don't care about human or animal life...it matters a lot.>S

 

There have also been a lot of Christians in Freemasonry. Just visit the website of the English Grand Lodge - they've got a long list of famous Freemasons. Two particularly Christian ones that spring to mind are Christopher Wren (designer of numerous Cathedrals including St Pauls), and James VI of Scotland (he what writ the King James version of the Bible!) Not really satanists!

 

> It seems strange to me to allow satanists, Christians, humanitarians, warmongers into a single organisation....how could they possibly get on..even if they kept

> their beliefs to themselves.

 

I think you meant humanists rather than humanitarians :-). Actually, Humanists wouldn't be welcome in Freemasonry as they don't believe in a "Great Architect of the Universe".

 

As to how they could get on... well, people seem to manage in the ordinary world. I'm a member of 2 amateur dramatic groups in which the subject of religion has never come up at all. I suspect we all come from different religious backgrounds, but we all get on OK.

 

BB

Peter

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/10/04 3:29:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time, metalscarab writes:

 

>But it's a question worth thinking about...If we are an evolving species...could we really be called intelligent human beings for 65 million years. I personally think not.

> More like apes I would think.

 

where are you getting the 65 million yrs thing?

65 million yrs ago, the dinosaurs were greeting their demise..

humans, er the line of hominids actually, split off from their progentor ape cousins about 4-5 million yrs ago(assumin you believe in evolution),,,give er take 1/2 a million yrs...

the early hominids, Australopithecus (lived between 4.5 and 2 million yrs ago, dependin on the species) and Paranthtropus(3.2 to 1 million yrs ago) were the earliest...

the homo family begins about 2.3 million yrs ago...

homo habilis(2.3 to 1.6 million yrs ago)

homo rudolfensis(may or may not be different from habilis)(1.6 million yrs ago)

homo erectus(1.8 million to 27,000 yrs ago)

homo ergaster(1.8 to 1.5 million yrs ago)

then the homo sapiens came along..

homo sapiens antecessor (about 800,000 yrs ago..may have been a cannibal)

homo sapiens heildlebergensis (500,000 to 100,000 yrs ago)

homo sapien neaderthalensis..yer familiar neaderthals...(225,000 to 25,000 yrs ago)

and then anotomically modern homo sapiens..about 200,000 yrs ago to present...

of course..one group didn't evolve into another, some were evolutionary dead ends..and just whom was supposedly our ancestor/s is still up fer considerable debate....

[Guest guest]

 

-

Peter

Saturday, April 10, 2004 6:40 PM

Re: Freemasonry & Satanism???

Thanks - I looked him up, and this explains a lot.... firstly, the guy is a fundamentalist creationist / "young earthist". His religious beliefs clearly do more than cloud his judgement, and he bases every argument on his faith, rather than on any form of fact - where fact goes against his belief, he just ignore is. He has a degree & PhD in Zoology, which might make him an expert in animal medicine, but doesn't mean anything in terms of historical or political analysis.>

 

He is also an qualified archeaologist and genealogist and showed some interesting picture slides at a public meeting I went to..ie a glass bottle with solid rock formed around it. So that at least disperses the commonly held view that rock takes millions even billions of years to form.

Trees growing upright through genealogical stratum.

Have the old earth theorists forgotten about dust storms for instance?

 

 

< Basically, the guy has a *very* big agenda which he is promoting, and is not in any way interested in historical facts or even historical discussion. He simply wishes to denigrate anything which disagrees with his faith in any way. Considering that Freemasonry is largely (if not solely) responsible for the creation of modern scientific thought, it is hardly surprising that he should have an agenda against Freemasonry.>

 

Maybe he has an issue with freemasonary because or the facts he has found as a archealogist and genealogist don't fit the commonly accepted ones that the freemasonary promote.

 

 

 

<I couldn't find anything by Walter Veith on Freemasonry, so I have not "heard it from the horses mouth" so to speak, although what you have said about his views seems to be pretty similar to most of the ant-Freemason propaganda around, so it doesn't surprise me.>

 

I didn't get the impression he out to go against anyone for the sake of it.He seemed to be a man looking at the evidence to me.

 

 

 

> I'm not sure myself..Prof Veith...reckons the masons use a thumb placed in a certain way in a handshake.

> he showed a few well know people on film doing the handshake.

 

I've heard that one from a few others as well... who knows, it may be correct, although how anyone would know it without actually going through Freemasonic initiation, I don't know.>

 

> It's a matter of searching and finding the truth...I would like to get in touch with Prof Veith and see how he is doing....he was in the process of being sacked from his

> teaching job a few yrs ago.

 

If he was going around libelling Freemasons (i.e. several million people), I'm not surprised!

 

> He also has what seems like sound evidents that makes the 6 day creation look more realistic than the billion of years evolution.

> Which got me thinking about the theory that we humans are 65 million years old.( In a nut shell)

> How old are the paintings, writings human made artifacts etc 6000 yrs some say longer, Even if they were 100 or 200 000 yrs old . What the heck were we doing for 64

> 900,000 odd yrs? we couldn't have been much more intelligent than apes...look what we've done in a 100 odd yrs?>S>>>>>

 

<I work on the basis that knowledge has been surpressed by those in power for several millenia. Ocassionally, a little inkling of this knowledge has crept out, and then been surpressed - just look at Roger Bacon's work, he was centuries ahead of his time! Look at the knowledge of the ancient world, which we somehow forgot about. You also have the advent of modern communication, which has really sped up technological "progress". Now, people from all round the world can and do work together to push things forward, whereas 200 years ago it would have been difficult to discuss your ideas with anyone living more than about 20 miles away. It's no wonder we've achieved so much in such a relatively short space of time. I don't think this argument particularly supports the "young earth" theory.>

 

Yes but do we had records or people 65 million yrs back? no and why not?

 

But it's a question worth thinking about...If we are an evolving species...could we really be called intelligent human beings for 65 million years. I personally think not. More like apes I would think.

If that were true that would give support to the biblical creation theory. And there are who would not like that.

 

There have also been a lot of Christians in Freemasonry. Just visit the website of the English Grand Lodge - they've got a long list of famous Freemasons. Two particularly Christian ones that spring to mind are Christopher Wren (designer of numerous Cathedrals including St Pauls), and James VI of Scotland (he what writ the King James version of the Bible!) Not really satanists!

 

Thats what I'm saying..Christians and satanist and others under the same roof.( under the same roof especially going back to earlier times in britain). Maybe it's a bit like vegan and meat-eaters getting along.

 

..I think you meant humanists rather than humanitarians :-). Actually, Humanists wouldn't be welcome in Freemasonry as they don't believe in a "Great Architect of the Universe".

 

I mean humanitarians....those that care for human life. Freemasons and the ruling churches have never had those quailities ( for the most part).

 

SimonTo send an email to -

[Guest guest]

Hi Simon

 

> He is also an qualified archeaologist and genealogist and showed some interesting picture slides at a public meeting I went to..ie a glass bottle with solid rock formed

> around it. So that at least disperses the commonly held view that rock takes millions even billions of years to form.

 

I don't think any geologist would tell you that *all* rock takes millions of years to form. A lot of it does, but quite a lot of rock comes from volcanic erruption, which starts out molten and cools very quickly - rock can be formed in no more than a few minutes, and any geologist worth their salt will tell you that.

 

> Maybe he has an issue with freemasonary because or the facts he has found as a archealogist and genealogist don't fit the commonly accepted ones that the

> freemasonary promote.

 

Freemasonry doesn't make any specific claims about Geology or Archaeology. There is no "rule" within Freemasonry that states one must accept either a young earth or old earth viewpoint. They do make a few historical claims, but even many Freemasons (particularly United Grand Lodge of England) believe that these claims are more mythological / metaphorical than actually historical. English Lodge Freemasonry would not be affected if, for instance, Archaeological evidence proved that Solomon's Temple had never existed.

 

> I didn't get the impression he out to go against anyone for the sake of it.He seemed to be a man looking at the evidence to me.

 

As I said before, people with agendas can often look "legitimate" to those who aren't prepared to look into the background of what is said. That's how people like Hitler can get away with writing things like Mein Kampf. There's nothing different in what Veith is doing... he is denigrating a whole organisation out of personal prejudice, and clearly has little knowledge of what actually goes on in a Freemasonic Lodge if he waffles on about Satanism.

 

> Yes but do we had records or people 65 million yrs back? no and why not?

 

We have plenty of records... just not written ones. That's what archaeology is used for. If we are going to use the argument that God created all archaeological evidence prior to 4,000 BC, why did he not also create a written record to compliment that?

 

> But it's a question worth thinking about...If we are an evolving species...could we really be called intelligent human beings for 65 million years. I personally think not.

> More like apes I would think.

 

That would depend on how quickly we develop. I'm by no means an expert on evolution theories, but I gather that it is now thought that the rate of evolution is much slower than originally thought.

 

> If that were true that would give support to the biblical creation theory. And there are who would not like that.

 

The problem is that the "young earth" theory is based on a dubious reading of the Bible, anyway. It assumes that the number of years of each generation is exactly correct, but when you consider that most of it was only written down during and after the Babylonian Exile, based on centuries (possibly millenia) of a tradition transmitted purely verbally, it would be incredible if it was still 100% accurate. Now, if you look at the far older King Lists from Sumer, you can see the origins of the Biblical traditions, but these give reign lengths of tens of thousands of years for each of the earliest kings, extending the time line considerably.

 

But, of course, if people are convinced that the "young earth" theory is correct, then they will inevitably ignore any other traditions because their faith is more important to them.

 

> Thats what I'm saying..Christians and satanist and others under the same roof.( under the same roof especially going back to earlier times in britain). Maybe it's a bit

> like vegan and meat-eaters getting along.

 

Yep - very much like that. We all join a variety of groups where we have one common bond, but other areas of our lives don't mesh at all.

 

> I mean humanitarians....those that care for human life. Freemasons and the ruling churches have never had those quailities ( for the most part).

 

Freemasonry is responsible for numerous public hospitals, particularly around the US, and provide billions of dollars worth of charitable work in time and money each year. I would say that, as an organisation, they could indeed be classified as humanitarian. Of course, good ole Mr Veith wouldn't want to highlight this, because it doesn't fit in with his personal prejudice.

 

BB

Peter

[Guest guest]

I'm glad someone spotted that. I did foolishly confuse the supposed wipe out date of dinosaurs with the human evolution theory

..

Just by looking at your chart below and considering the debates..would it not just be possible that a new type of human appeared roughly a few thousand years ago?

 

 

-

EBbrewpunx

Saturday, April 10, 2004 11:54 PM

Re: Freemasonry & Satanism???

In a message dated 4/10/04 3:29:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time, metalscarab writes: where are you getting the 65 million yrs thing?65 million yrs ago, the dinosaurs were greeting their demise..humans, er the line of hominids actually, split off from their progentor ape cousins about 4-5 million yrs ago(assumin you believe in evolution),,,give er take 1/2 a million yrs...the early hominids, Australopithecus (lived between 4.5 and 2 million yrs ago, dependin on the species) and Paranthtropus(3.2 to 1 million yrs ago) were the earliest...the homo family begins about 2.3 million yrs ago...homo habilis(2.3 to 1.6 million yrs ago)homo rudolfensis(may or may not be different from habilis)(1.6 million yrs ago)homo erectus(1.8 million to 27,000 yrs ago)homo ergaster(1.8 to 1.5 million yrs ago)then the homo sapiens came along..homo sapiens antecessor (about 800,000 yrs ago..may have been a cannibal)homo sapiens heildlebergensis (500,000 to 100,000 yrs ago)homo sapien neaderthalensis..yer familiar neaderthals...(225,000 to 25,000 yrs ago)and then anotomically modern homo sapiens..about 200,000 yrs ago to present...of course..one group didn't evolve into another, some were evolutionary dead ends..and just whom was supposedly our ancestor/s is still up fer considerable debate.... To send an email to -

[Guest guest]

 

-

Peter

Saturday, April 10, 2004 11:09 PM

Re: Freemasonry & Satanism???

 

Hi Simon

 

> He is also an qualified archeaologist and geologist and showed some interesting picture slides at a public meeting I went to..ie a glass bottle with solid rock formed

> around it. So that at least disperses the commonly held view that rock takes millions even billions of years to form.

 

I don't think any geologist would tell you that *all* rock takes millions of years to form. A lot of it does, but quite a lot of rock comes from volcanic erruption, which starts out molten and cools very quickly - rock can be formed in no more than a few minutes, and any geologist worth their salt will tell you that.>

I assume he had good reason to publicly display what he called a freemasons own printed decree...stating that they believe satan defeated Jesus Christ.<<<<<<<<<

 

> I didn't get the impression he out to go against anyone for the sake of it.He seemed to be a man looking at the evidence to me.

 

As I said before, people with agendas can often look "legitimate" to those who aren't prepared to look into the background of what is said. That's how people like Hitler can get away with writing things like Mein Kampf. There's nothing different in what Veith is doing... he is denigrating a whole organisation out of personal prejudice, and clearly has little knowledge of what actually goes on in a Freemasonic Lodge if he waffles on about Satanism.>

 

So you do know what goes on in the core of freemasonary....if some of the most powerful people in the world or freemasons...it doesn't seem like world peace is on their agenda...more like greed keeping the rich rich and the poor poor( with some middle ground). More like the more influential freemasons have the divide and conquer rule on their agenda...I would say that is satanic...and personally I don't liked to be mocked by the super rich...they are an offence to decent people....

 

The fact that the freemason are for the most part a secret order..who have it seems some of the riches and most influential people in the world in it....and it being basically a closed door organisation speaks mountains.

 

>

 

We have plenty of records... just not written ones. That's what archaeology is used for. If we are going to use the argument that God created all archaeological evidence prior to 4,000 BC, why did he not also create a written record to compliment that?/

 

This earth came into being some how...Has carbon got intelligence? Matter must have some sort of intelligence if it makes creatures like us>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

 

That would depend on how quickly we develop. I'm by no means an expert on evolution theories, but I gather that it is now thought that the rate of evolution is much slower than originally thought.>

 

Only thoughts as yet.

 

> If that were true that would give support to the biblical creation theory. And there are who would not like that.

 

The problem is that the "young earth" theory is based on a dubious reading of the Bible, anyway. It assumes that the number of years of each generation is exactly correct, but when you consider that most of it was only written down during and after the Babylonian Exile, based on centuries (possibly millenia) of a tradition transmitted purely verbally, it would be incredible if it was still 100% accurate. Now, if you look at the far older King Lists from Sumer, you can see the origins of the Biblical traditions, but these give reign lengths of tens of thousands of years for each of the earliest kings, extending the time line considerably.

 

I have not interest in believing the evolutionary or the creation theory..for the sake of belief.

I don't really spent too much time looking into it..(as you might guess).

What I do have and interest in at the moment is with The Big Bang theory..what would the universe have been like 6 days after the bang?

 

Any thoughts or information on that would interest me.

 

 

> Thats what I'm saying..Christians and satanist and others under the same roof.( under the same roof especially going back to earlier times in britain). Maybe it's a bit

> like vegan and meat-eaters getting along.

 

Yep - very much like that. We all join a variety of groups where we have one common bond, but other areas of our lives don't mesh at all.

 

> I mean humanitarians....those that care for human life. Freemasons and the ruling churches have never had those quailities ( for the most part).

 

Freemasonry is responsible for numerous public hospitals, particularly around the US, and provide billions of dollars worth of charitable work in time and money each year. I would say that, as an organisation, they could indeed be classified as humanitarian. Of course, good ole Mr Veith wouldn't want to highlight this, because it doesn't fit in with his personal prejudice.>

 

Less hospitals more health would be better. Which charities do they spent billions of dollars on..I wonder?

 

SimonTo send an email to -

[Guest guest]

Hi Simon

 

> I assume he had good reason to publicly display what he called a freemasons own printed decree...stating that they believe satan defeated Jesus Christ.<<<<<<<<<

 

In his own mind I'm sure he did. I'm sure Hitler thought he had good reason to persecute Jews. Does that make either of them right?

 

> So you do know what goes on in the core of freemasonary....if some of the most powerful people in the world or freemasons...it doesn't seem like world peace is on their

> agenda...more like greed keeping the rich rich and the poor poor( with some middle ground).

 

Then why does Freemasonry do more than virtually any other organisation in providing affordable hospital treatment to everyone in the US? Doesn't sound like an elitist organisation to me.

 

> The fact that the freemason are for the most part a secret order..who have it seems some of the riches and most influential people in the world in it....and it

> being basically a closed door organisation speaks mountains.

 

1. It's not a secret organisation.

2. It's not a "closed door" organisation.

3. Even rich and influential people have hobbies.

 

Why don't you try writing to English Grand Lodge, and asking them what goes on in a Freemasonic meeting? You'll find that they'll be very happy to discuss it - the only exception will be the signs of recognition between Freemasons.

 

> This earth came into being some how...Has carbon got intelligence? Matter must have some sort of intelligence if it makes

> creatures like us>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

So, who created God?

 

> What I do have and interest in at the moment is with The Big Bang theory..what would the universe have been like 6 days after the bang?

> Any thoughts or information on that would interest me.

 

Not really my area of expertise. I have a vague knowledge of what the Big Bang theory is... although, I don't see why that should be mutually exclusive with a "god-creator" theory... could a god not have created a universe through a Big Bang????

 

> Less hospitals more health would be better. Which charities do they spent billions of dollars on..I wonder?

 

I agree about health & hospitals, but at least they do something rather than just condemn what they don't understand! I'd suggest you right to your local Lodge, and find out what charitable organisations they support... you'll probably get a long list back from them.

 

BB

Peter

[Guest guest]

the old watson and crick experiments at least prove you can sythesize the building blocks of life pretty simply...

 

and wot is all that foam on the seashore??? lipids....stick some amino acids into a circle of lipids, and you've got a proto-cell....

 

of course...the universe was created fer one reason..

beer...

hallowed be its name

hee hee

fraggle

 

spontaneous generation, though disproven long ago as it relates to our world now, is viable in considering our emergence. the conditions of earth as it existed at the time of life's arising (rapid temperature fluctuations, storming, atmospheric elements) have been recreated in laboratories. there, in the proverbial (then lifeless) "soup," amino acids and proteins began to form from nothing other than having been incubated under the right conditions. such was our coming. ~~brii

[Guest guest]

, " Peter " <metalscarab@o...> wrote:

 

Carbon doesnt need intellegence it has finite properties that

interact with the other 50 some odd " organic " elements and in concert

they creat the grand illusion we refur to as " intellegance " .

 

Francly I find it more miraculous and amazing and marvalous that were

are the result random interactions of elements that the fancy of the

dabbling of a God looking for some one to worship it.

 

> > This earth came into being some how...Has carbon got

intelligence? Matter must have some sort of intelligence if it makes

> > creatures like us>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>

> So, who created God?

 

Good question. I concider it no less outlandish to think that the

universe was self-created than it is to believe that some humanoid

intellegance has existed for eternity.

 

> > What I do have and interest in at the moment is with The Big

Bang theory..what would the universe have been like 6 days after the

bang?

> > Any thoughts or information on that would interest me.

>

> Not really my area of expertise. I have a vague knowledge of what

the Big Bang theory is... although, I don't see why that should be

mutually exclusive with a " god-creator " theory... could a god not

have created a universe through a Big Bang????

 

 

The most modern theories concider that the major events of the big

bang happen in the first few seconds byr four seconds the univers had

infalted from the size of a subatomic particle to the size of a grape

fruit. By the equivalent of 6, 24 hr earth days the universe looked

pretty much like it does now. Of course these theories can't be

proven with out destroying the current universe (theoretically) just

as the existance of God can't be proven whit out him re-ordering the

universe at will in a way that we mere mortals can comprehend it.

 

I have faith in physics because thus far everything that I have been

told about the physical behavior has been demonstrably true. Even

the more intricate functions of the brain which have satified my

question about the unity of th mind and body.

[Guest guest]

spontaneous generation, though disproven long ago as it relates to our world now, is viable in considering our emergence. the conditions of earth as it existed at the time of life's arising (rapid temperature fluctuations, storming, atmospheric elements) have been recreated in laboratories. there, in the proverbial (then lifeless) "soup," amino acids and proteins began to form from nothing other than having been incubated under the right conditions. such was our coming. ~~brii

>"David Brown" <quickformgreen > > > Re: Freemasonry & Satanism??? >Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:50:09 -0000 > > , "Peter" <metalscarab@o...> wrote: > >Carbon doesnt need intellegence it has finite properties that >interact with the other 50 some odd "organic" elements and in concert >they creat the grand illusion we refur to as "intellegance". > >Francly I find it more miraculous and amazing and marvalous that were >are the result random interactions of elements that the fancy of the >dabbling of a God looking for some one to worship it. > > > > This earth came into being some how...Has carbon got >intelligence? Matter must have some sort of intelligence if it makes > > > creatures like us>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > So, who created God? > >Good question. I concider it no less outlandish to think that the >universe was self-created than it is to believe that some humanoid >intellegance has existed for eternity. > > > > What I do have and interest in at the moment is with The Big >Bang theory..what would the universe have been like 6 days after the >bang? > > > Any thoughts or information on that would interest me. > > > > Not really my area of expertise. I have a vague knowledge of what >the Big Bang theory is... although, I don't see why that should be >mutually exclusive with a "god-creator" theory... could a god not >have created a universe through a Big Bang???? > > >The most modern theories concider that the major events of the big >bang happen in the first few seconds byr four seconds the univers had >infalted from the size of a subatomic particle to the size of a grape >fruit. By the equivalent of 6, 24 hr earth days the universe looked >pretty much like it does now. Of course these theories can't be >proven with out destroying the current universe (theoretically) just >as the existance of God can't be proven whit out him re-ordering the >universe at will in a way that we mere mortals can comprehend it. > >I have faith in physics because thus far everything that I have been >told about the physical behavior has been demonstrably true. Even >the more intricate functions of the brain which have satified my >question about the unity of th mind and body. > Limited-time offer: Fast, reliable MSN 9 Dial-up Internet access FREE for 2 months!

[Guest guest]

 

 

 

>Carbon doesnt need intellegence it has finite properties that

 

>interact with the other 50 some odd "organic" elements and in concert

 

>they creat the grand illusion we refur to as "intellegance".>

 

Well I'm of the view that 'intelligence' ' awareness' etc whatever you want to call it, the unseen force within matter, is not just some accident of some organic matter that just happens to exist.

 

 

>

 

>Francly I find it more miraculous and amazing and marvalous that were

 

>are the result random interactions of elements that the fancy of the

 

>dabbling of a God looking for some one to worship it.

 

I'm in agreement with you there, except I see a God as seeing us more like children...who'se doing the best that can done for us ( some call it Mother Nature)...funny not many dispute that.

 

More like a son or daughter who takes the good advice of their parents, but doesn't acknowledge their existence.

 

>

 

> > > This earth came into being some how...Has carbon got

 

>intelligence? Matter must have some sort of intelligence if it makes

 

> > > creatures like us>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >

 

> > So, who created God?

 

Does a God need to be created by someone?

 

 

 

>

 

>Good question. I concider it no less outlandish to think that the

 

>universe was self-created than it is to believe that some humanoid

 

>intellegance has existed for eternity.

 

I DON'T BELIEVE GOD IS SOME HUMANOIDAL CREATURE...MORE AN INTELLEGENT UNSEEN FORCE WITHIN AND BEHIND NATURE/THE UNIVERSE THAT IS THE GOOD FORCE THAT GIVES LIFE.

 

>

 

> > > What I do have and interest in at the moment is with The Big

 

>Bang theory..what would the universe have been like 6 days after the

 

>bang?

 

> > > Any thoughts or information on that would interest me.

 

> >

 

> > Not really my area of expertise. I have a vague knowledge of what

 

>the Big Bang theory is... although, I don't see why that should be

 

>mutually exclusive with a "god-creator" theory... could a god not

 

>have created a universe through a Big Bang????

 

>

 

>

 

>The most modern theories concider that the major events of the big

 

>bang happen in the first few seconds byr four seconds the univers had

 

>infalted from the size of a subatomic particle to the size of a grape

 

>fruit. By the equivalent of 6, 24 hr earth days the universe looked

 

>pretty much like it does now. Of course these theories can't be

 

>proven with out destroying the current universe (theoretically) just

 

>as the existance of God can't be proven whit out him re-ordering the

 

>universe at will in a way that we mere mortals can comprehend it.>

 

So a 6th day creation doesn't seem so outlandish by some that don't believe in a God.

 

>

 

>I have faith in physics because thus far everything that I have been

 

>told about the physical behavior has been demonstrably true. Even

 

>the more intricate functions of the brain which have satified my

 

>question about the unity of th mind and body.

 

Physics can explain the mechanics of matter..but doesn't disprove the existence of a God.

 

>

 

 

Limited-time offer: Fast, reliable MSN 9 Dial-up Internet access FREE for 2 months! To send an email to -

[Guest guest]

 

-

EBbrewpunx

spontaneous generation, though disproven long ago as it relates to our world now, is viable in considering our emergence. the conditions of earth as it existed at the time of life's arising (rapid temperature fluctuations, storming, atmospheric elements) have been recreated in laboratories. there, in the proverbial (then lifeless) "soup," amino acids and proteins began to form from nothing other than having been incubated under the right conditions. such was our coming. ~~brii

I'm sure if the bible went into the mechanics of the creation, 'The Sixth Day Creation' would fill the whole book and not just one page. To send an email to -

[Guest guest]

Hi Simon

 

> Does a God need to be created by someone?

 

Does the Earth need to have been created by someone?

 

BB

Peter

[Guest guest]

Does the Earth need to have been created by someone?

 

of course, you can always go into the Cathar belief that the world was created by the devil, rex mundi, and that god is a benevlonet god, but aloof, and we need to shed our physical bodies to join him, we are trapped here and all that...shun earthly belongings and things of that nature, so you can join god....

jesus never died on the cross, since as the son of god he was incorporial and not of this earth...

beliefs they apparantly descended from the bogomils and as far back as zorastrasism in persia...

my, have we left the subject of vegan things faaaaaaaaar behind

fraggle

[Guest guest]

Simon

 

I have always thought that if the Christian God is meant to be like a father he is not very good at it.

 

 

I'm in agreement with you there, except I see a God as seeing us more like children...who'se doing the best that can done for us ( some call it Mother Nature)...funny not many dispute that.

 

I DON'T BELIEVE GOD IS SOME HUMANOIDAL CREATURE...MORE AN INTELLEGENT UNSEEN FORCE WITHIN AND BEHIND NATURE/THE UNIVERSE THAT IS THE GOOD FORCE THAT GIVES LIFE.

 

It could equally be true that the intelligent unseen force is our own collective spiritual mass visiting this pre-formed Earth. It would not necessarily be all good or all bad. There are alternatives to an 'outside' god.

 

Jo

[Guest guest]

 

-

Peter

Monday, April 12, 2004 10:01 AM

Re: Re: Freemasonry & Satanism???

 

Hi Peter

 

> Does a God need to be created by someone?

 

Does the Earth need to have been created by someone?

 

There has to be a reason why the Earth exists.

 

Maybe much like a chair you stumble across, you ask " how did that chair get there"?

If you start looking at the physics and the mechanics of the chair you won't get very far.

 

Simon

To send an email to -

[Guest guest]

Jo

 

I've come to realise that any misery on the earth is our own doing.

We ought to know better than going around hating,killing etc.

We all basically have a free will.

-

 

Heartwork

Monday, April 12, 2004 10:51 AM

Re: Re: Freemasonry & Satanism???

 

 

Simon

 

I have always thought that if the Christian God is meant to be like a father he is not very good at it.

 

 

I'm in agreement with you there, except I see a God as seeing us more like children...who'se doing the best that can done for us ( some call it Mother Nature)...funny not many dispute that.

 

I DON'T BELIEVE GOD IS SOME HUMANOIDAL CREATURE...MORE AN INTELLEGENT UNSEEN FORCE WITHIN AND BEHIND NATURE/THE UNIVERSE THAT IS THE GOOD FORCE THAT GIVES LIFE.

 

It could equally be true that the intelligent unseen force is our own collective spiritual mass visiting this pre-formed Earth. It would not necessarily be all good or all bad. There are alternatives to an 'outside' god.

 

JoTo send an email to -

[Guest guest]

 

-

EBbrewpunx

spontaneous generation, though disproven long ago as it relates to our world now, is viable in considering our emergence. the conditions of earth as it existed at the time of life's arising (rapid temperature fluctuations, storming, atmospheric elements) have been recreated in laboratories. there, in the proverbial (then lifeless) "soup," amino acids and proteins began to form from nothing other than having been incubated under the right conditions. such was our coming. ~~brii

I'm sure if the bible went into the mechanics of the creation, 'The Sixth Day Creation would fill the whole book and not just one page.

Not that the physics were understood at that time. To send an email to -

[Guest guest]

 

 

 

>Carbon doesnt need intellegence it has finite properties that

 

>interact with the other 50 some odd "organic" elements and in concert

 

>they creat the grand illusion we refur to as "intellegance".>

 

Well I'm of the view that 'intelligence' ' awareness' etc whatever you want to call it, the unseen force within matter, is not just some accident of some organic matter that just happens to exist, but one of purpose.

 

 

>

 

>Francly I find it more miraculous and amazing and marvalous that were

 

>are the result random interactions of elements that the fancy of the

 

>dabbling of a God looking for some one to worship it.

 

I'm in agreement with you there, except I see a God/an intelligent Creator as seeing us more like seriously naughty children with a free will. Us more like a son or daughter who takes the good advice of their parents, but doesn't acknowledge their existence.

 

.. ( some call it Mother Nature)...funny not many dispute that.

 

 

> > > This earth came into being some how...Has carbon got

 

>intelligence? Matter must have some sort of intelligence if it makes

 

> > > creatures like us>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >

 

> > So, who created God?

 

Does a God need to be created by someone?

 

 

 

>

 

>Good question. I concider it no less outlandish to think that the

 

>universe was self-created than it is to believe that some humanoid

 

>intellegance has existed for eternity.

 

I DON'T BELIEVE GOD IS SOME HUMANOIDAL CREATURE...MORE AN INTELLEGENT UNSEEN FORCE WITHIN AND BEHIND NATURE/THE UNIVERSE THAT IS THE GOOD FORCE THAT GIVES LIFE.

 

>

 

> > > What I do have and interest in at the moment is with The Big

 

>Bang theory..what would the universe have been like 6 days after the

 

>bang?

 

> > > Any thoughts or information on that would interest me.

 

> >

 

> > Not really my area of expertise. I have a vague knowledge of what

 

>the Big Bang theory is... although, I don't see why that should be

 

>mutually exclusive with a "god-creator" theory... could a god not

 

>have created a universe through a Big Bang????

 

>

 

>

 

>The most modern theories concider that the major events of the big

 

>bang happen in the first few seconds byr four seconds the univers had

 

>infalted from the size of a subatomic particle to the size of a grape

 

>fruit. By the equivalent of 6, 24 hr earth days the universe looked

 

>pretty much like it does now. Of course these theories can't be

 

>proven with out destroying the current universe (theoretically) just

 

>as the existance of God can't be proven whit out him re-ordering the

 

>universe at will in a way that we mere mortals can comprehend it.>

 

So a 6th day creation doesn't seem so outlandish by some that don't believe in a God.

 

>

 

>I have faith in physics because thus far everything that I have been

 

>told about the physical behavior has been demonstrably true. Even

 

>the more intricate functions of the brain which have satified my

 

>question about the unity of th mind and body.

 

Physics can explain the mechanics of matter..but doesn't disprove the existence of a God.

 

>

 

 

Limited-time offer: Fast, reliable MSN 9 Dial-up Internet access FREE for 2 months! To send an email to -

[Guest guest]

 

-

EBbrewpunx

Monday, April 12, 2004 2:33 PM

Re: Re: Freemasonry & Satanism???

 

Does the Earth need to have been created by someone?

of course, you can always go into the Cathar belief that the world was created by the devil, rex mundi, and that god is a benevlonet god, but aloof, and we need to shed our physical bodies to join him, we are trapped here and all that...shun earthly belongings and things of that nature, so you can join god....jesus never died on the cross, since as the son of god he was incorporial and not of this earth...beliefs they apparantly descended from the bogomils and as far back as zorastrasism in persia...my, have we left the subject of vegan things faaaaaaaaar behind>

 

Not when you read the first page of Genesis...which is basically saying human, animals, birds... in fact everything with the breath of life in it....should be vegan.

 

 

 

:)fraggle To send an email to -

[Guest guest]

Hi Simon

 

> > > Does a God need to be created by someone?

> > Does the Earth need to have been created by someone?

> There has to be a reason why the Earth exists.

 

Is the same not true of a god?

 

BB

Peter