Reply – Re: NXIVM - part TWO: INVERTS/INVERSIONS\AVERSIONS(to the Ladies) - A Catami...
Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: NXIVM - part TWO: INVERTS/INVERSIONS\AVERSIONS(to the Ladies) - A Catamites Bible o Bile!
— by Maestro Maestro Maestro Maestro
OK Bel,

I feel sorry for you.

The following is for the record only.

1. No quid pro quo was expected.  I attached links to some of your blog entries in my postings elsewhere because I thought they offered information and facts pertinent to the matter at hand.
2. Buddha himself asked his followers to not write down his teachings and thus create an institution out of them.  All the Buddhism sects that came into being therefore embody a *betrayal* of the Buddha to one extent or another.  I saw Buddhist monks in Thailand bless newly bought cars inside temples for a fee.  How stupid is that for a religion which teaches non attachment?  Buddha does not equate to Buddhism just as Christ has nothing to do with Christianity.
3. Bel, just like 99.9999 percent of the human race, you don't understand shit about satanism per se.  You can smear anyone with the label of satanism.  For instance, all the Semitic religions (hopefully you know which those are?) tacitly claim and certainly believe that they can know what God thinks or says, right?  Well, by definition, *only* God can know what God thinks.  Therefore, anyone who claims that he can know and/or understand what God thinks is putting himself on the same level as God.  In other words, he thinks he's equal to God, that he IS God.  Lucifer, the Lord of Light (=KNOWLEDGE!), hello?  You can thus categorize as satanic any and all sects of the three monotheistic religions as satanic if you wanted to.  You can claim that Adam became Satan the moment he ate the apple from the tree of knowledge.  So stick your gratuitous satanic label where the sun don't shine for it can be applied to anyone and anywhere where knowledge claims are made -- including philosophy, all of science and scientists as well.  Whether you label something as satanic or scientific instead only betrays your own personal bias as regards the subject of discussion, where you stand in relation to it, self-proclaimed genius.
4. You haven't actually addressed or refuted a *single* issue I raised in my detailed and courteous "missive" in response to your challenge, instead regurgitating your usual litany of complex and convoluted ad hominems.
5. Good luck with the book in the process of writing which you may hopefully come to grips with your own vanity and hubris.
6. Which I doubt very much.  ;o)

Have a nice day.