The Satanic Approach: When One cannot attack the Message, Must Not One Attack the Messenger?

[Guest Raymond Karczewski]

The Satanic Approach: When One cannot attack the Message, Must Not

One Attack the Messenger?

 

Tim Wingate wrote:

 

Raymond Karczewski (arkent3@earthlink.net) wrote:

 

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:20 pm

 

tw: > "No other man but I in the recorded History of

mankind, including JESUS CHRIST, has directly

revealed to the World the SATANIC WEAPON used to

enslave mankind -- INTELLECTUAL THOUGHT!!"

Raymond Ronald Karczewski

[Guest buddhapest]

"Raymond Karczewski" <arkent3@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:469d0733.25642618@news.west.earthlink.net...

> The Satanic Approach: When One cannot attack the Message, Must Not

> One Attack the Messenger?

>> rk: Has anybody noticed, that "almost" nobody responds directly to

> the issues contained within my spiritual and political messages? Why?

> Because they find the content of my articles to be inarguable. Indeed

> - Inarguable they are; for they are Truth.

 

maybe they just don't feel a need to

argue things that are somewhat

unprovable in a contextual, conceptual

framework such as non-duality. true

non-duality puts a perspective prior to

concept which means there is no describing

it and that there are no words or concepts which

can frame it because even your descriptions

of satanic intellectual thought imply that its

opposite is divine awareness but then you're

right back to duality again and divine awareness

is not a duality of intellect. besides, for the everyday

run of the mill human agenda intellect you couldn't

really expect them to relinquish that comfort zone

negotiation tool which is their intellect. it's not likely

that even if they relinquished their human intellect that

it would necessarily throw them immediately into a

non-dual state.

> rk: Should anyone want to disprove that statement,

 

prove, disprove, right, wrong. for someone like

yourself who boasts of a non-dual perspective

you certainly fling the duality concepts around

with entertainingly wild abandon.

[Guest buddhapest]

"duh" <duh@hu?.com> wrote in message

news:469ed9cf$0$25591$d94e5ade@news.iglou.com...

>

> "buddhapest" <pestaroonie@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:CJgni.8752$Od7.8696@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>>

>> "Raymond Karczewski" <arkent3@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>> news:469d0733.25642618@news.west.earthlink.net...

>>> The Satanic Approach: When One cannot attack the Message, Must Not

>>> One Attack the Messenger?

>>>> rk: Has anybody noticed, that "almost" nobody responds directly to

>>> the issues contained within my spiritual and political messages? Why?

>>> Because they find the content of my articles to be inarguable. Indeed

>>> - Inarguable they are; for they are Truth.

>>

>> maybe they just don't feel a need to

>> argue things that are somewhat

>> unprovable in a contextual, conceptual

>> framework such as non-duality. true

>> non-duality puts a perspective prior to

>> concept which means there is no describing

>> it and that there are no words or concepts which

>> can frame it because even your descriptions

>> of satanic intellectual thought imply that its

>> opposite is divine awareness but then you're

>> right back to duality again and divine awareness

>> is not a duality of intellect. besides, for the everyday

>> run of the mill human agenda intellect you couldn't

>> really expect them to relinquish that comfort zone

>> negotiation tool which is their intellect. it's not likely

>> that even if they relinquished their human intellect that

>> it would necessarily throw them immediately into a

>> non-dual state.

>

> funny you should say such things when "4th way" is based on "self

> verification".

 

but what verifies the self? are there two

seperate selves, one to verify the other?

this may then need an infinite number of

verifiers when even the act of verification

could only be based on a movement in

that play of the elements and the elements

have no substantiation for verifying much

of anything.

>

>>

>>> rk: Should anyone want to disprove that statement,

>>

>> prove, disprove, right, wrong. for someone like

>> yourself who boasts of a non-dual perspective

>> you certainly fling the duality concepts around

>> with entertainingly wild abandon.

>

> such things can only be used in context of 'personal experience' otherwise

> it's as....

> "an ass carying a load of books".

 

a dead sloth lies in the middle of the

road and yet many people stop to

inquire about it.

[Guest duh]

"buddhapest" <pestaroonie@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:CJgni.8752$Od7.8696@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>

> "Raymond Karczewski" <arkent3@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> news:469d0733.25642618@news.west.earthlink.net...

>> The Satanic Approach: When One cannot attack the Message, Must Not

>> One Attack the Messenger?

>>> rk: Has anybody noticed, that "almost" nobody responds directly to

>> the issues contained within my spiritual and political messages? Why?

>> Because they find the content of my articles to be inarguable. Indeed

>> - Inarguable they are; for they are Truth.

>

> maybe they just don't feel a need to

> argue things that are somewhat

> unprovable in a contextual, conceptual

> framework such as non-duality. true

> non-duality puts a perspective prior to

> concept which means there is no describing

> it and that there are no words or concepts which

> can frame it because even your descriptions

> of satanic intellectual thought imply that its

> opposite is divine awareness but then you're

> right back to duality again and divine awareness

> is not a duality of intellect. besides, for the everyday

> run of the mill human agenda intellect you couldn't

> really expect them to relinquish that comfort zone

> negotiation tool which is their intellect. it's not likely

> that even if they relinquished their human intellect that

> it would necessarily throw them immediately into a

> non-dual state.

 

funny you should say such things when "4th way" is based on "self

verification".

 

>

>> rk: Should anyone want to disprove that statement,

>

> prove, disprove, right, wrong. for someone like

> yourself who boasts of a non-dual perspective

> you certainly fling the duality concepts around

> with entertainingly wild abandon.

 

such things can only be used in context of 'personal experience' otherwise

it's as....

"an ass carying a load of books".

[Guest jp.motg]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:28:02 -0500, "duh" <duh@hu?.com> wrote:

>

>"buddhapest" <pestaroonie@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>news:CJgni.8752$Od7.8696@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>>

>> "Raymond Karczewski" <arkent3@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>> news:469d0733.25642618@news.west.earthlink.net...

>>> The Satanic Approach: When One cannot attack the Message, Must Not

>>> One Attack the Messenger?

>>>> rk: Has anybody noticed, that "almost" nobody responds directly to

>>> the issues contained within my spiritual and political messages? Why?

>>> Because they find the content of my articles to be inarguable. Indeed

>>> - Inarguable they are; for they are Truth.

>>

>> maybe they just don't feel a need to

>> argue things that are somewhat

>> unprovable in a contextual, conceptual

>> framework such as non-duality. true

>> non-duality puts a perspective prior to

>> concept which means there is no describing

>> it and that there are no words or concepts which

>> can frame it because even your descriptions

>> of satanic intellectual thought imply that its

>> opposite is divine awareness but then you're

>> right back to duality again and divine awareness

>> is not a duality of intellect. besides, for the everyday

>> run of the mill human agenda intellect you couldn't

>> really expect them to relinquish that comfort zone

>> negotiation tool which is their intellect. it's not likely

>> that even if they relinquished their human intellect that

>> it would necessarily throw them immediately into a

>> non-dual state.

 

 

or just maybe ( like myself ) it's as simple as no responds to his

posts because they have dropped the idiot into their kill filter.

 

if all of the rest of you did the same , then maybe this mentally

imbalances dimwit would just go away . even if he didn't , no one

would know he was there and the rest of us wouldn't have to see these

snippets of his diatribe !

 

sheeeesh .......... you just feed his disability by responding to

him !

[Guest buddhapest]

"jp.motg" wrote in message

news:ifrt931rbkc4ofrt7rfc989ac9dmoodu6q@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:28:02 -0500, "duh" <duh@hu?.com> wrote:

>

>>

>>"buddhapest" <pestaroonie@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>>news:CJgni.8752$Od7.8696@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>>>

>>> "Raymond Karczewski" <arkent3@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>> news:469d0733.25642618@news.west.earthlink.net...

>>>> The Satanic Approach: When One cannot attack the Message, Must Not

>>>> One Attack the Messenger?

>>>>> rk: Has anybody noticed, that "almost" nobody responds directly to

>>>> the issues contained within my spiritual and political messages? Why?

>>>> Because they find the content of my articles to be inarguable. Indeed

>>>> - Inarguable they are; for they are Truth.

>>>

>>> maybe they just don't feel a need to

>>> argue things that are somewhat

>>> unprovable in a contextual, conceptual

>>> framework such as non-duality. true

>>> non-duality puts a perspective prior to

>>> concept which means there is no describing

>>> it and that there are no words or concepts which

>>> can frame it because even your descriptions

>>> of satanic intellectual thought imply that its

>>> opposite is divine awareness but then you're

>>> right back to duality again and divine awareness

>>> is not a duality of intellect. besides, for the everyday

>>> run of the mill human agenda intellect you couldn't

>>> really expect them to relinquish that comfort zone

>>> negotiation tool which is their intellect. it's not likely

>>> that even if they relinquished their human intellect that

>>> it would necessarily throw them immediately into a

>>> non-dual state.

>

>

> or just maybe ( like myself ) it's as simple as no responds to his

> posts because they have dropped the idiot into their kill filter.

>

> if all of the rest of you did the same , then maybe this mentally

> imbalances dimwit would just go away . even if he didn't , no one

> would know he was there and the rest of us wouldn't have to see these

> snippets of his diatribe !

>

> sheeeesh .......... you just feed his disability by responding to

> him !

 

glad to oblige. what else is

on your mind?

[Guest mL]

"duh" <duh@hu?.com> wrote in message

>> such things can only be used in context of 'personal experience'

>> otherwise it's as....

>> "an ass carying a load of books".

 

 

buddhapest" <pestaroonie@yahoo.com> wrote > >

> a dead sloth lies in the middle of the

> road and yet many people stop to

> inquire about it.

 

that sloth died many years ago....

[Guest buddhapest]

"mL" <sonicq666@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:46a7fa50$0$25600$d94e5ade@news.iglou.com...

>

> "duh" <duh@hu?.com> wrote in message

>>> such things can only be used in context of 'personal experience'

>>> otherwise it's as....

>>> "an ass carying a load of books".

>

>

> buddhapest" <pestaroonie@yahoo.com> wrote > >

>> a dead sloth lies in the middle of the

>> road and yet many people stop to

>> inquire about it.

>

> that sloth died many years ago....

 

and they still keep asking about it

[Guest JohnnyCrash]

"buddhapest" <pestaroonie@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:z2Vpi.12057$zA4.4530@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>

> "mL" <sonicq666@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:46a7fa50$0$25600$d94e5ade@news.iglou.com...

>>

>> "duh" <duh@hu?.com> wrote in message

>>>> such things can only be used in context of 'personal experience'

>>>> otherwise it's as....

>>>> "an ass carying a load of books".

>>

>>

>> buddhapest" <pestaroonie@yahoo.com> wrote > >

>>> a dead sloth lies in the middle of the

>>> road and yet many people stop to

>>> inquire about it.

>>

>> that sloth died many years ago....

>

> and they still keep asking about it

 

too bad it's not a sloth anymore

>