The point they were disbanded is in the public record. Feel free to provide proof they still exist. You're stubborn but still wrong. I did not make a claim. I asked you to support yours. Otherwise, you're without any credibility. How long will this go on before you admit you're wrong? Unless you're a part of this illuminati, then you have no right to claim you Do know. Get it? So, your answer as well should be don't know.
Not to my recollection - though it is better, should you feel the need to convey your meaning through expletives, to type them in full so the swear filter catches them rather than creatively typing them so that the word is more overtly displayed.Enemem
Nope.
Staff moderating is never off topic - and in this case a short reminder of something you seem to have missed (though you are not alone in this thread - we were alerted to a pentuple post from another member) and that has required several staff interventions in this thread to correct is wholly appropriate in a public medium.
The point at which it was used on bank notes is a distraction, the fact is that the design for the US seal was started in 1776, and the eye of providence was first suggested in that year. As such to have gotten it adapted for use by the US the Illuminati would have had to form, agree its use, travel from Bavaria across Europe, cross the Atlantic, travel to Washington, infiltrate the US government to the highest level and influence the final design. And they would have had no more than a year to manage all of the above (and that's assuming the Illuminati formed on the 1st Jan and the seal committee didn't agree until the end of the year).
One member of the committee was a Mason, Benjamin Franklin, and his design suggestions to the committee didn't include the eye. The masons also didn't include the eye in any part of its own iconography until 1797, as such its far more likely that the design on the US seal (which by this point had been publicly unveiled in its final form) influenced the adaptation by the masons, rather than the other way around.
) and if you read my replies to him you'll see the detail.
Mason's adapted it as the 'all seeing eye' but all your post does is illustrate that you have utterly ignored every other part of my post (in particular that the design has existed as the eye of providence since the medieval age).
I do disagree (as do many historians) as the change from masonry as a guild of craftsmen to the inclusion of non-stonemasons and its change into a fraternal order to its present incarnation (which has nothing at all to do with stone-masonry) is massively blurred. The symbols you mentioned for example were often the mark of the individual master-mason and a sign of who was responsible for the build rather than who paid for it.I disagree with some of @Scaff 's dating (of Masonry, his personal life isn't my concern
I don't disagree that the masons were an important part of the social order and would have been used by the clergy (as many were), nor that as masonry changed from a trade guild to a fraternal origination that its appeal grew and that by the period in discussion (18th & 19th century) it was reasonably commonplace and no more odd or suspicious that say being a member of GT Planet.Originally yes, but in the Cathedral age masonry and the clergy (again a very different breed to nowadays) formed strong allegiances. That's how the organisations were built. Obviously masonry itself (and its workers) gave it's name to Masonry as more trade groups were formed in the same fashion.
One historical argument is that the clergy actually drove the spread of Masonry following their success as 'agents' for the groups of free masons that were spreading across Europe spreading new technology. The Church, never shy of a groat, had one of the greatest communication networks in society and the ear of the court. They made a lot of money and understood business growth
The Church > Masonry theory gives another good reason why such religious iconography might appear in masonic symbology all over Europe.
@Enemem , just cos me and Scaff are arguing Masonry....you still need to answer that question... I'm dying to know
If you act like a kid, get ready to be treated like one...
So far you have made multiple claims and not provided a single thing to back them up and then when this has been pointed out you claimed you didn't need to (and that others should do it instead). When it was pointed out that this is not how the burden of proof works and the AUP also requires the one making the claim to back it up if needed you claimed harasment and said you were leaving (I note that youve not actually done that).
No it doesn't and it not your call either.
What personal attack?
Now that's a personal attack.
No. I want you (and all members to follow the AUP.
No.
No, and I've not come even remotely close to attacking you. All I've done is ask you to provide proof of your claims, that's not a personal attack and it is an AUP requirement, the same AUP you agreed to follow when you joined.
And that's now the second personal attack in a row from you. A formal warning is on its way.
"If you act like a kid you get treated like one" = statement
Don't believe in it. Got any evidence one exists?
Saying you're acting like a child might be insulting, but pointing out that if you act like a child you will be treated as one is not.
Apparently you read insults into things other people write quite a lot.
No-one here is insulting you. However if you keep insulting other people, you will stop.
If any member is insulting you, they have the consequence of having their access to the site limited. If any moderator is, they have the consequence of me removing their moderation abilities. If I am, I have the consequence of the site owner removing my administration abilities.
