At the point where you jumped into the conversation regarding my inquiry, I had been speaking with Giftedone and had asked for his explanation of what he was talking about. Have you been officially appointed as the spokesperson for Giftedone? Anyone can google something on the internet and receive information that may or may not be relevant to a subject matter, but ONLY the person who is being addressed with a question about his/her opinion can offer that opinion that is being sought. And you, obviously by you own admission, have no opinion of your own with regard to that subject. So why are you in this conversation if you do not desire to offer your own opinion?
Let me repeat what I previously stated: "If you cannot explain what you were talking about, then it becomes clear that you were speaking through a condition of ignorance of the subject matter." Directly addressed to you and directly requesting YOUR 'explanation'... not seeking 'definition' or the opinions of others.
You asked for my definition of religious right and it was given. Why are you still going on and on about this.
I see you are also editing your posts. Cool... the same answer applies. See my post two postings back.
You love pushing the envelope, don't you? Fine. TOS or no, you deserve an appropriate response. From the top down: >It's a public forum friend. You don't want people jumping in? Take it to PM's or start a blog and don't let anybody comment. Then you can really act superior to your heart's content without a threat of someone 'intruding' on a public space. >I don't speak for anyone but myself and further, that person doesn't seem to need anyone to speak for them. Your 'inquiry' was a stupid question where you feigned a lack of knowledge of what the religious right was. You got exactly the stupid response you deserved with a wikipedia link. A clever individual like you should have caught why you got that response and/or why it was given. >I clearly did not admit to anything along the lines of 'not having my own opinion'. Try including a subject you want an opinion on and I'll be glad to oblige you. Maybe something on topic for the thread? Just sayin'. >I'm in the conversation to this extent now because you're a smug jerk trying to out-clever everyone you can on here as an internet forum version of a bully and this is merely me returning the favor of your attention. Now, if you happen to be done masturbating for the audience, how about you stop focusing on the people and letting the thread get back on topic?
More of your presumptuous nature showing. Your presumption of KNOWING what I know is clearly a condition of ignorance of the subject matter... the subject matter being me and what I KNOW. In FACT I had no knowledge of what Giftedone was referring to when he published the term 'religious right', thus my reasoning for asking HIM for HIS explanation of what was being referred to. I did not ask for the opinions of others (a wiki response) nor did I ask for a definition from any standard dictionary ... my inquiry was into his viewpoint... As for the 'internet version of a bully'... I find it amazing that when someone makes an inquiry seeking clarification, that you interpret such action as that of being an internet bully. Bullies will take and or make demands not ask questions and or make requests (at least not from my point of view with regard to the actions of internet bullies). Mirrors are highly reflective but can also have the capacity of distorting reality.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYJQGSapz-A"]Powerwolf - Catholic in the morning Satanist in the night[/ame] It is my answer to this thread Satan rules!!!
I did already agree to a cease fire and letting the thread go back to topic. Seems like you want to keep it going, and the way you want to keep it going is by going after people instead of ideas or topics, making arbitrary rules, and demands (maybe you just don't see how your messages might be received or perceived by others?) as you go to try and dominate the discussion, which indeed, makes you a message board bully. If you had no idea what 'religious right' meant, that's ignorance on your part, in no small measure because (a) you're on a political forum site and (b) you inhabit the religion section of that site, and I stand by my statement of you feigning a lack of knowledge about such a thing. If you sincerely didn't know, that's pathetic, and the answer being given to you was the right thing to do in the first place. While 'any idiot can go and look up a wikipedia article' you chose not to, to badger another person about their opinion of something because you supposedly want that instead of knowing what something actually is and because you enjoy being a jerk apparently. Retort if you must. I'm done with discussing you or myself as far as this exchange goes, regardless of what you post. Apologies to anyone else sitting through this. I promise my part in it ends here.
Anti-Masonic Tactics Change the Subject: In our daily lives, we generally experience a fairly straight path when we discuss things with others. We're not experienced with those who would deliberately mislead or misdirect. Thus, when this tactic of deceit is used, Masons are caught off-guard. Assuming that the person with whom they're dealing has the same degree of honesty and integrity as themselves, it's a surprise to find that they're being led around in circles. Guilt by Association: Those against Masons and Masonry will point out human foibles or errors an individual Mason may have made as if somehow once a man becomes a Mason, he loses all of the weaknesses of the flesh. Because one person does a wrong, the argument goes, Masons are all guilty of it. What those against Masonry fail to acknowledge is that there were also those with whom they have been associated in the past engaged in similar wrongs. Using Different Standards: Anti-Masons will use any convenient argument to support their position. Despite the passage of decades (or even centuries), they'll readily apply 1990's standards to those in the 1850s or 1770s! Did George Washington own slaves? Then obviously - so the argument goes - he wasn't a very good Mason! It's convenient to use the political correctness of today to condemn Masonry as practiced many years ago. Don't fall for this sometimes overlooked ploy. "If You Were....": This presumptive position often taken creates an untenable position - which is exactly the way the anti-Mason wishes it. "If you were to hit your wife...." is not far from the question "When did you stop beating your wife?". Such innuendo should be recognized for what it is. Refuse To Answer: In an attempt to understand the motives of hatred, the Masonic supporter will often ask, "Why do you feel this way?" or "What religion do you belong to?" hoping that the answers will somehow provide enlightenment into the rationale for the position the anti-Mason is taking. As might be expected, those who want to 'tear down the walls of secrecy' they see in Masonry are often the most secretive themselves. Certainly, there's the exception who will even boast about certain parts of their lives, almost inviting the onlooker to become involved. In reality, though, they've done nothing more than to set a trap which they'll later use against others. "Why I even had some Mason show up at my door the other night. He had tracked me down and...." Outright Lies: In our section on the categories of anti-Masonic activity, we identify several outright lies. This, however, does not stop them from being spread again and again. Oft-Repeated Falsehoods: Sometimes when a charge is made, it's difficult to determine whether it's true or not. "All of the police who're 'on the take' in London are Masons." is an example seen recently. Of course, this presumes that the one making the statement knows not only the Masonic membership status of every London police officer but also all of those who engage in illegal activities. It should be clear to even the most cursory observer how foolish this is - but to those who use this tactic, it makes perfect sense. Further, perpetuation of such foolishness will surely occur at some later time ("I read somewhere that all of the police...."). Quibbling Over Semantics: This is a ploy of some who have engaged in these debates for a long period of time. One anti-Mason has frequently argued that he's not "anti-Masonic" but rather a "Masonic critic" and furthers the ruse by claiming that he specifically opposes the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. When called an 'anti-Mason', he'll protest loudly. A discerning eye can see that it's merely a technique to give him further opportunity to expound his hatred (because it simultaneously encourages the Mason to think that if only the question of language could be resolved, this person would change his position). Faulty Logic: We see it often in the arguments which start with the wrong premise. For example: "All eggs are white. This round object is white and has all the properties of an egg. Therefore, this must be an egg." Wrong. You've forgotten (or perhaps don't know) that eggs come in brown also. It is an easy trap to fall into. Assumptive Positions: One of the most common tactics used against Masons and Masonry is designed to provoke a response which ignores the false premise. "If a Mason did (thus and so), what would you do?" Of course, any time a Mason violates a law, rule, or trust, we are all the lesser for it - and, being human, that sometimes happens. This argument, however, often makes wild and fanciful suppositions in order to provoke the reader/listener into drawing the conclusion that such things did/do indeed happen - and perhaps regularly. "Prove It!": The reality is that negatives can rarely be proven but detractors ignore this, always looking for some other avenue to exploit. "Post all of the degree work right here and we'll see what it says...." goes a common challenge. Of course, regardless of what was posted, the anti-Mason will find some fault, even if it's a spelling error - and then will proceed to make some particular issue out of that. ("See? Those stupid Masons. They can't even spell!") Straw Man: One very common tactic used by anti-Masons is to put forth a 'Straw Man': one who claims to have 'seen the light' and now can explain to the world from the 'inside perspective' the many supposed problems with Masons and Masonry. Most of these are readily seen as a total fraud (the supposed former Mason who's now a 'minister' but is apparently too embarrassed to reveal his denominational affiliation or the person who claims to be a 'high ranking Mason' who'll reveal all). To the unknowing, however, these pretenders are sometimes difficult to discern and can be very persuasive. Behave More Like a Mason: We've always found it ironic that those who believe Masonry to be so very wrong would use this argument. It seems, though, that whenever a Mason has been goaded enough and lashes out at his tormentor, you frequently see the retort "That's not very Masonic behavior, is it?". Strange that in one breath they want us to abandon Masonry but in the next, they remind us of the standards we set for ourselves and encourage us to act in accordance with them.
Types of Opposers "Religious Intolerants" use their religious beliefs to argue that Masons and Masonry are evil. Their understanding (or misunderstanding) of beliefs is often in conflict with many mainstream religious groups. "Conspiracy Theorists" are convinced there is a huge, evil, world-wide conspiracy afoot. Many believe that the Masons are involved in this conspiracy or perhaps even leading it. (Some argue that it's only the "higher degree" Masons who are involved.) "Hate Groups" can be either a group or a single individual who exhibits rage and hatred (far more than simple animosity) towards other groups or individuals. Freemasonry is sometimes the object of their passion. "Self-Servers" have seen the opportunity to make money, gain attention or both. Their primary motivation is their own self-interest. The differences between these groupings are frequently blurred. For example: The 'Religious Intolerant' and 'Self-Servers', while stating an intention to obey the commandments of Jesus Christ, can be found selling a wide variety of books and tapes and asking for donations to their personal 'ministry' (usually one with special tax treatment from the government). 'Self-Servers' will use any argument for attention and will rail against Masonry often using the arguments of the 'Religious Intolerant' or the 'Conspiracy Theorist' in order to further their personal goals. When their 'revelations' are shown as foolishness, they feel justified in joining those who hate Freemasonry. 'Hate Groups' will detest any other group which contains a someone who represents the object of their hate. Thus anti-Semites see Freemasonry having members of the Jewish faith and will rail against it; white supremacists will find Masonic members who are black and thus hate all Masons; and those not content spreading the message of love and redemption as taught by their religion will use religions arguments to complain bitterly that men of mixed religions are welcome in the fraternity, Freemasonry. Those who hate will also jump at the opportunity to find a 'conspiracy' of some sort supposedly hidden in the fantasized secrecy of Freemasonry.
Perhaps you should go back and check the chronology of postings between you and me and you will find, that after the point in which you 'agreed', I posted nothing, until now. Quit telling lies. Well of course it is ignorance on my part. I am not one who will be so presumptuous as to think that I might KNOW what others are thinking or what level of knowledge others might have (unless that presumed knowledge that others hold includes a presumed KNOWING of what is in my mind). So what point are you attempting to make. That it is wrong to inquire what another may have in his/her mind with regard to a particular subject matter? Exactly my point. Why look to wiki when I am desiring to know how that particular person may view a subject matter. Is wiki now the Bible of non-theists? Is wiki now the ultimate in scientific research and or the ultimate in scholastic resources? Well of course I must retort. Under the laws of commerce, I would be acquiescing to your statements if I did not retort. BTW: I don't acquiesce.
Seriously, this is getting way beyond stupid with you two. Get back on message and quit taking shots at each other.
A little history of the usage of the title "Satan " that will surprise many . This name was used to title the Chief Scribe and Judas Iscariot reached that position when he succeeded Judas the Galilean .As such he had Mary the mother of Jesus under his authority in AD 23 when Joseph died and Mary became a " crippled woman" which meant "aged" and thus bound to Satan .She was from that moment deemed a celibate woman ( fundamental to Essenes) and would prepare for Ministry within the Order of Widows but bound to the authority of Satan . And of course , the Satan that tempted Jesus in the wilderness was none other than the zealot , Judas Iscariot--- Chief Scribe and close ally with the Pharisees . . At that time Jesus was probably at rock bottom . Caiaphas had acceeded and Jesus was no longer regarded as Crown Prince of David's line . In this new scenario , where traditionalists held sway over Hellenists , Jesus once more became " The man of a Lie" and his younger brother James became the Crown Prince . It was at that time that the political movement that wanted to put a David in power in Judea would -- if the kingdom came -- appoint James and not him . Then there would have been an Eastern nationalistic policy and Gentile members kept in an inferior status . Christianity as it became would have been strangled . How political matters changed just in time is another chapter .
What an interesting thread... Masons...Illuminatii...Christians...and hell even a Satanist or two...LOL First I want to let y'all know that I have done some mild study on all of your organizations. Of them, I find the Satanists to have the least impact on society. Satanists are funny. They follow a doctrine that essentially says, "Do what thou whilst." Buddha said essentially the same thing...yet nobody ever calls Buddhists "evil"... The Satanic bible is a book of contradiction, written by Anton Zandor LeVey. LeVey was a Hungarian Circus "carnie". The book is as big a joke as the man...the Church of Satan in San Francisco, is merely a front for vegetable oil parties. Lots of drugs...lots of sex. The Masons once tried to get me to join a local chapter. One of their members contacted me and took me to lunch. I declined joining because I don't feel I need to be a member of a group, in order to help validate myself. That and...I have 3 kids and a wife...which means, no time for Masons... I find though, that Masons are generally good meaning people who usually work to help a society progress. They also tend to patronize other members' businesses which I think is smart. The Illuminatii...if they even exist...are fabled to be the intellectual leaders of society. The ones intelligent enough to engage in social engineering. There are allot of other accusations leveled at this fabled group...yet because there is no real proof of their existence...its all essentially nonsense. Christians do exist...and have allot to be ashamed of. Of the 4 groups I've briefly touched on...it is the Christians who should concern people the most. They lie...they cheat...they kill...they sensor...they do all sorts of harm to the human psyche, and still find time to molest alter boys at a startling rate. If there's an enemy of the Human Race...this is it. Constantin's folly is the single most destructive influence on man. It convinces people they can do harm with impunity.
Please hurry up and finish that chapter as well as the remainder of the novel. It is quite interesting and funny. Humor is one ingredient that is not found on this forum too frequently.
It's called a Lodge not a chapter From your signature I see the Canadian flag, so I'm taking a guess that you yourself are Canadian. I cannot speak for Canadian policy, but I know most of the Grand Lodges in the US do not allow Brothers to invite members in, they must join of their own free will and accord. I have mixed feelings about inviting vs not. I know a few guys who joined in my year as Master of the Lodge who had to stop coming because they either just had a kid or the kid was getting to an age of parental involvement (sports, etc). It happens and family should come first. One does join for many reasons, not just validation of themself.
OK "LODGE"...better? Ya the guy did mention they didn't really engage in this sort of membership drive thingy...but I'd been debating with them on the web for a while and I guess I'd asked some rather pointed questions that got me noticed... I was most interested in the theological research they apparently engage in. Unfortunately one must be a member for quite some time before one can partake in such activities. I'm not a patient man by nature...
Incorporeal wrote Please hurry up and finish that chapter as well as the remainder of the novel. It is quite interesting and funny. Humor is one ingredient that is not found on this forum too frequently. I have Black and Surreal humour in spades -- and of the highest quality , being British . However , that's the position of current scholarship today and if you want an engrossing introduction , read the Australian Barbara Thiering who has spent her adult life poring over the manuscripts and fragments . The last documented reference to Jesus is when he was about 70 years old . It is assumed he died of natural causes somewhere in Asia Minor still preaching and probably with his elder son Jesus Justus . It is widely believed that Mary along with her daughter and younger son settled down in southern France --- another subject widely written on . I can understand the titters and guffaws . But the evidence for such stories is there for all to see , if you make the effort to search . And it bothers me not one jot whether you are engrossed with this as a mystery thriller or regard it as the biggest all time load of tosh . __________________
Hell yeah! lol I'm going to be Master of the Lodge of Research in Idaho. I'm also a member of a Masonic Templar research group in Ohio, member of the Masonic Society (a national research group based out of Indiana), and I do my own independent research (which has been an awesome little trip). I have been talked to about joining the SRICF (an invite only group), but that wasn't a sure invite and I would have to travel a good distance to join that college.
