The blog post only had pink blindfolded, her left breast exposed, and a checkerboard pants leg.
Masonic entered apprentices are blindfolded, left breast exposed, and stand on the checkerboard floor (yes it has occult meaning to masons).
This was a Masonic ritual right in front of you. I don't understand how some of you can be so blind to this. I also find it amazing how "the source" is attacked.
"Some blog". "Some person". "Some bishop". LOOK at the photo....
Just because there is a photo near somebody's text, does not mean you have to agree with their text. But the photo exists. Period.
I've POSTED QUOTES from Masonic texts that admit Lucifer is their god. What more do you want? Wow, such denial of obviousness...
And be responded with "NO this is not a luceferian church". LOL. Even thought their texts say it is. Also I'd be responded with "sicksadworld.info" is not a viable source for information. LOL - sicksadworld.info merely has a photo just like the blog. No wonder ecumenism has much of the EO church hoodwinked.
So while the main stream media mocks your sacraments, implements anti-Christian messages to your Christian youth, provokes blasphemy against the church, implements gnostic luciferian teachings into movies you & you kids enjoy - all many can do is deny and critique the sources.
I think its funny how people here can be so sure about arguments (in other threads) about the Nicean take on the Trinity, OO vs. EO, RC vs. EO - things that happened centuries to millenia ago - with certainty, but deny photographic and video blasphemy & masonry of things that happen "today".
So rather than ranting further, or even discussing these things on this board further I would like to see which people would be willing to ruin their full credibility by:
1) Denying that Freemasonry believes Lucifer as God.
2) Believes Freemasonry is only a fraternity (with an altar)
I have the book freemasons revere and love, written by a 33 degree mason right here in my hands. Now let's see who denies it.
I have dealt with these issues in your other thread on Orthodox Freemasons in this forum here
(and before that one, here
). I even admitted you were right (or in the right general area) in a couple of points there.
In particular, this section from the first post I linked to:
As for your quote from pg 321, how about providing a little more context for those words. Like so:
The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the nineteenth Degree, the Apothesis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer. LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, for traditions are full of sensual or selfish Souls ? Doubt it not! Divine Revelations and Inspirations: and Inspiration is not of one Age nor of one Creed. Plato and Philo, also, were inspired. The Apocalypse, indeed, is a book as obscure as the Sohar. It is written hieroglyphically with numbers and images; and the Apostle often appeals to the intelligence of the Initiated. “Let him who hath knowledge, understand! let him who understands, calculate !” he often says, after an allegory or the mention of a number. Saint John, the favorite Apostle, and the Depositary of all the Secrets of the Saviour, therefore did not write to be understood by the multitude.
Now we know that Lucifer, as in the Devil, can appear as an angel of light, and that his light can blind the feeble. We know that the churches throughout history (traditions) have had their share of believers who have been selfish and sensual at one time or another in their lives (just as those who are not Christian have been) leaving them open to being led astray by the Devil's false light. Also, Pike is clearly surprised that the name "Lucifer" is associated with the Prince of Darkness.
And we have proof, furthermore, that the word "lucifer" with a lowercase letter L is used to refer to Jesus. See here:
2 Peter 1:19
19 Et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem : cui benefacitis attendentes quasi lucernæ lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies elucescat, et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris:
19 And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts.
From that "day star" link:
The name Lucifer originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliance. The Vulgate employs the word also for "the light of the morning" (Job 11:17), "the signs of the zodiac" (Job 38:32), and "the aurora" (Psalm 109:3). Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) as preeminent among the princes of his time; to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus 50:6), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Apocalypse 2:28), by reason of its excellency; finally to Jesus Christ himself (2 Peter 1:19; Apocalypse 22:16; the "Exultet" of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life.
But, and this is a critical distinction, when Jesus is referred to as "lucifer" it is always with a lower case l. Jesus is NEVER referred to as "Lucifer" with a capital L. The Devil, meanwhile, is the capital L Lucifer. Albert Pike is referring to the capital L Lucifer in his text, as we can plainly see.
The fact that you have not addressed could mean a couple of things. First of all, it could mean that I am right. Secondly, it could mean that you have no interest in evidence that stands contrary to your particular point of view. Third, it might demonstrate either an ignorance of history/etymology (particularly of the word Lucifer), and an inability to place things in proper context.
All of this is merely conjecture on my part, of course, but I don't think it's entirely baseless. If I have lacked sufficient charity or overstepped my bounds here, I do apologize, but I am merely trying to call things out as I see them.
The reason why we have not taken these websites seriously is not because we wish to shield ourselves from the truth or that we refuse to take the "hard medicine". It is because they are laughable. In any serious discussion forum other than here, those sites would have been drowned out in tides of justly earned laughter and ridicule, and the person posting them would probably be treated with much less charity than even the worst of us have extended to you in this thread. That Vigiliant Citizen site, for example, reminds me of the Perry Stone types. What the Bible plainly says is not good enough for them. No, there have to be hidden meanings and codes everywhere in the text foretelling all sorts of things, not the least of which is the Apocalypse. So it is the same with these mason sites you cite. The government blew up the WTC, the moon landing was staged, the chemtrails are over my house, and the masons are everywhere and quite literally hellbent on world domination and controlling our minds.
Conspiracy theories are conjured up by fervent imaginations who quite often cannot accept that the truth is so simple. Sometimes a spade is just a spade.
Also, most of the information you have posted can be traced
to a well debunked
hoax created by Leo Taxil
. It was something
he later retracted
. If that is not enough, one of Taxil's contemporaries A.E. wrote an entire book, Devil Worship in France
, debunking the hoax and the idea that freemason's worshiped the Devil. The author should should know a thing or two about the occult, since he practiced it!
Since you're so fond of mentioning Youtube, try this one
Though I'm not sure if you have here, I have seen you post the "Yes, LUCIFER IS GOD, and unfortunately Adonay is also god..." passage before. You have cited pages 321 and 324 as the sources of the passage. I'm looking at those pages right now
and cannot find the passages in question
. This guy could not either
, because it does not exist
The origin of this “quote” is from a book entitled Woman and Child in Universal Freemasonry published by Abel Clarin de la Rive. The “Luciferian Quote” in this book is credited in a foot note to a woman by the name of Diana Vaughan. Diana Vaughan was a character introduced in the writings of a man named Marie Joseph Gabriel Antoine Jogand-Pagès who wrote under the pen name Leo Taxil. For obvious reasons I shall use the pen name when referring to him from here on.
Taxil wrote what he called a history of Freemasonry, in four volumes which claimed to contain eye witness accounts of Masonic Satanic activity. Another book written in 1894 by Leo Taxil and “Dr. Karl Hacks” was titled the Devil in the Nineteenth Century. This is the book that introduced the character of Diana Vaughan who was supposed to have been involved in Satanic Masonry and an informant for Leo Taxil.
The “Luciferian” quote has ever since been repeated by anti-Masonic conspiracy enthusiasts even though its real creator Leo Taxil admitted his hoax. That’s right! On April 19, 1897 Leo Taxil called a press conference with the pretension of introducing Diana Vaughan to the public. When the press was assembled, Taxil began a speech in which he admitted that he had in fact been perpetrating a hoax and that all of his secret information about Freemasonry was a fabrication.
Hey, there's Taxil's name again! Did you even read Morals and Dogma
Let me provide a quote that is actually from page 324
that should leave no doubt as to who Albert Pike believes Lucifer is:
The conviction of all men that God is good led to a belief in a Devil, the fallen Lucifer or Light-bearer, Shaitan the Adversary, Ahriman and Tupho_n, as an attempt to explain the existence of Evil, and make it consistent with the Infinite Power, Wisdom, and Benevolence of God.
Now, I have some problems with his theology here as to how the Devil came into exist (I don't think he is real, not just a work of human belief), but this ought to make plain what he means when he uses the word Lucifer, if my explanation earlier was not sufficient.
Threads like this remind me of why I try to avoid debates in general and internet debates in particular. They are a waste of time. I'm done here. If the posts I have made here are not sufficient to show you that these conspiracy theories are wrong, then I do not believe it is within my human capabilities to persuade you. I never thought I'd be such an adamant defender of freemasonry, given my problems with it that I have stated elsewhere, but threads like this sure can turn me into one, I suppose.
As I said before in this reply, if what I have said is too intemperate, blunt, or uncharitable for the standards of this forum, or if I have overstepped my bounds, I do apologize.