Let's do some grown-up talk about "The Illuminati."
Options
Comments
-
1. And because one body calls it illegitimate does not make it so. For all we know, the French are more correct than the English on this issue.
2. It's called continental for the reason I already said. Islands aren't more legit than continents.
3. Stifling political discussion is equivalent to supporting the status quo. The French are more anxious revolutionaries than the English. -
Major pain soundin like a clergy. "This is how it is because we said so. Stop asking questions."
-
shootemwon wrote: »Major pain soundin like a clergy. "This is how it is because we said so. Stop asking questions."
I was thinking he's more like a third grader who started a club in a tree fort but when another smarter kid changed the rules, he kicked him out and got all mad about it.
But they'll be friends again in fourth grade and they'll start liking girls. Well, maybe Pain won't. And that's okay. -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »1. And because one body calls it illegitimate does not make it so. For all we know, the French are more correct than the English on this issue.
2. It's called continental for the reason I already said. Islands aren't more legit than continents.
3. Stifling political discussion is equivalent to supporting the status quo. The French are more anxious revolutionaries than the English.
You're missing the point. Its not illegitimate because one body says so. The requirements to become a mason were in place BEFORE either grand lodge was established. Its VERY clear. If you do NOT follow those requirements, then its null and void. Its no different from you claiming yourself to be a mason just because you want to. This isnt something the UGLE came up with.
The French grand lodge you are speaking of is not the only or first one to make an offshoot form of masonry. They call themselves something else in order to distinguish themselves apart.
Its not about stifling political discussion. You are showing a significant lack of knowledge on this subject. Politics should be left out of lodge meetings because of the personal implications one's political views can have on another member of the lodge. That's it. -
shootemwon wrote: »Major pain soundin like a clergy. "This is how it is because we said so. Stop asking questions."KTULU IS BACK wrote: »I was thinking he's more like a third grader who started a club in a tree fort but when another smarter kid changed the rules, he kicked him out and got all mad about it.
But they'll be friends again in fourth grade and they'll start liking girls. Well, maybe Pain won't. And that's okay.
So, we're not going to have a grown discussion? I never once said that its like this "because we said so". -
major pain wrote: »So, we're not going to have a grown discussion? I never once said that its like this "because we said so".
No, you just said anyone who isn't the same as your lodge is wrong because they aren't the same as your lodge. Which is basically the same thing. -
shootemwon wrote: »No, you just said anyone who isn't the same as your lodge is wrong because they aren't the same as your lodge. Which is basically the same thing.
No, thats not what I said. Different lodges do different things regarding many different subjects. There are some things that cannot be different, such as the requirements to become a mason. -
Why not ?
-
major pain wrote: »You're missing the point. Its not illegitimate because one body says so.
This contradicts your prior statement that it is illegitimate because the UGLE does not agree with it.
Then the UGLE is not the arbiter of Masonic law and the French can do as they see fit and still call themselves Freemasons, despite the English protesting.The requirements to become a mason were in place BEFORE either grand lodge was established.
It's radically different, as I have no intention of practicing a system of rituals that involve ethical teachings dressed up as stone masonry allegories. But the French do, and they seem to have (correctly) discovered that there is no need for a supernatural element in such a system.Its no different from you claiming yourself to be a mason just because you want to.
Exactly, you wouldn't want some right wing brother being questioned about the fallacies of his philosophy by some rational leftist.Politics should be left out of lodge meetings because of the personal implications one's political views can have on another member of the lodge. -
major pain wrote: »So, we're not going to have a grown discussion?
Well why don't we put on costumes and play with dull swords like men who are too old to get into Dungeons and Dragons but secretly think it's cool? -
shootemwon wrote: »Why not ?
How can I explain...
Consider the requirements to run for a public office. Those requirements are in place. Someone cant just change the requirements to allow someone lacking admittance. -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »This contradicts your prior statement that it is illegitimate because the UGLE does not agree with it.
Then the UGLE is not the arbiter of Masonic law and the French can do as they see fit and still call themselves Freemasons, despite the English protesting.
It's radically different, as I have no intention of practicing a system of rituals that involve ethical teachings dressed up as stone masonry allegories. But the French do, and they seem to have (correctly) discovered that there is no need for a supernatural element in such a system.
Exactly, you wouldn't want some right wing brother being questioned about the fallacies of his philosophy by some rational leftist.
There are many things that make a lodge illegitimate. The UGLE was the first grand lodge. It is the body that issued charters to subsequent lodges, that eventually formed grand lodges. If a lodge's lineage does not belong to one of these grand lodges, its illegitimate.
Anyone can do as they please. They can call themselves Freemasons all they like. My point is, its not a legitimate claim. Much like if you decide to call yourself a mason.
Politics tend to get people riled up negatively. Perhaps its best not to do this in a setting where we are supposed to work together? -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »Well why don't we put on costumes and play with dull swords like men who are too old to get into Dungeons and Dragons but secretly think it's cool?
Seriously, why say you want to have a grown discussion, then fall back into your usual antics? -
major pain wrote: »How can I explain...
Consider the requirements to run for a public office. Those requirements are in place. Someone cant just change the requirements to allow someone lacking admittance.
Those are the requirements to run for office in one country. If another country had different requirements, we wouldn't call that country illegitimate. -
major pain wrote: »How can I explain...
Consider the requirements to run for a public office. Those requirements are in place. Someone cant just change the requirements to allow someone lacking admittance.
Those requirements can and do change.
For example, some states required that you believe in ? to hold public office. These rules got overturned because there's no reason why a public official needs to be superstitious to perform their job.
And the French seem to think there's no reason why a man can't be morally upstanding, appreciative of symbolism, of sound mind and body, and free-born without believing in a magical wizard.
Now you've contradicted yourself again and appealed to the amusing idea that because "we did it first" you must be the most correct.The UGLE was the first grand lodge. It is the body that issued charters to subsequent lodges, that eventually formed grand lodges. If a lodge's lineage does not belong to one of these grand lodges, its illegitimate.
Nothing wrong with being riled up, if you've got a valid complaint. Perhaps networks of brothers can work together to affect the political system in their state, openly and without pretending that they don't want to.Politics tend to get people riled up negatively. Perhaps its best not to do this in a setting where we are supposed to work together? -
shootemwon wrote: »Those are the requirements to run for office in one country. If another country had different requirements, we wouldn't call that country illegitimate.
We're not talking about another country. The country has nothing to do with it. Let me clarify. Lets say I find, 22 of the baddest men ont he planet and gear them up for football in complete Dallas Cowboys gear. Should I be able to walk this group into the stadium to play an NFL team and declare ourselves legit? -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »Those requirements can and do change.
For example, some states required that you believe in ? to hold public office. These rules got overturned because there's no reason why a public official needs to be superstitious to perform their job.
And the French seem to think there's no reason why a man can't be morally upstanding, appreciative of symbolism, of sound mind and body, and free-born without believing in a magical wizard.
Now you've contradicted yourself again and appealed to the amusing idea that because "we did it first" you must be the most correct.
Nothing wrong with being riled up, if you've got a valid complaint. Perhaps networks of brothers can work together to affect the political system in their state, openly and without pretending that they don't want to.
The requirements for being a mason have not changed. A person can literally go and start up a lodge whenever they want to and call it United Offshoot Freemasonry and make whatever requirements they want for people to join, and call themselves masons. There is nothing in place to stop them. Now, that does not mean its legit. I dont see how this isnt clear.
You also keep saying this thing about the French. The country has no bearing on this. There are lodges in France that are recognized by other legit grand lodges.
Again, you show your lack of knowledge on this political subject. You are trying to fit it into your view of how things are, but its simply not the case. The business of the lodge should not be to affect political affairs. If one has a valid complaint, they should take that complaint to the correct channels to voice it. It has nothing to do with quieting or suppressing one's political view. -
major pain wrote: »We're not talking about another country. The country has nothing to do with it. Let me clarify. Lets say I find, 22 of the baddest men ont he planet and gear them up for football in complete Dallas Cowboys gear. Should I be able to walk this group into the stadium to play an NFL team and declare ourselves legit?
If they're that good wouldn't they rather just join a team and make lots of money than join your team to prove a point about the freemasons? -
Ok, so nvm about the grown discussion...
-
illuminati? idk....dnt really give two ? about em. however I do believe sum kinda group is out there behind the scenes doin some sinister ? . Jigga kanye and all them other nikkas with the symbolization in the videos I think they're just doin it for publicity. yes its wrong but that's on them
-
They have.major pain wrote: »The requirements for being a mason have not changed.
You simply choose not to acknowledge it because of your allegiance to a particular sect.
The problem is that you have repeatedly contradicted yourself about the UGLE's role.I dont see how this isnt clear.
The events we're talking about took place in France and continue to affect affairs there.You also keep saying this thing about the French. The country has no bearing on this.
This amounts to the business of the lodge implicitly endorsing the status quo.The business of the lodge should not be to affect political affairs.
Political involvement is inescapable, or as some more poetic person put it, "Even dissidents speak as members of the empire."
I have noticed that people who cannot support their arguments often resort to sports metaphors as a way to needlessly simplify the issue or even distract the arguer with a red herring. This seems to be what you're doing.football metaphors -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »They have.
You simply choose not to acknowledge it because of your allegiance to a particular sect.
The problem is that you have repeatedly contradicted yourself about the UGLE's role.
The events we're talking about took place in France and continue to affect affairs there.
This amounts to the business of the lodge implicitly endorsing the status quo.
Political involvement is inescapable, or as some more poetic person put it, "Even dissidents speak as members of the empire."
I have noticed that people who cannot support their arguments often resort to sports metaphors as a way to needlessly simplify the issue or even distract the arguer with a red herring. This seems to be what you're doing.
No, the requirements have not changed. A group has decided to do their own thing. That does not make them the same as the group they are trying to imitate.
How is anything I've said contradictory?
What events are you talking about?
How do you come to the conclusion that the lodge is endorsing the status quo because it should not involve itself in political affairs. Thats not what freemasonry is about so where do you get this notion that it should be a political entity?
How am I not supporting my argument? I've answered every one of your assertions with valid information. Using an analogy that can easily be identified with to try and explain something better is a tool often used when trying to teach someone. -
sapp08_2001 wrote: »yes its wrong but that's on them
Why is it wrong? -
I think Major Pain is a little disturbed by the fact that the godless are privy to Freemasonry's secrets.
-
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »I think Major Pain is a little disturbed by the fact that the godless are privy to Freemasonry's secrets.
You would be mistaken. The info you are privy to, has been privy to the public for a many number of years. There is more information that isnt public.
