> On Oct 14, 4:02 pm, "Pieter" wrote:
>
>>> A person can be seen (observed) as feeling hatred or anger, attack,
>>> etc but if the observer isn't come from ego (is in Right Mind/Spirit)
>>> it will just be observed, and seen as what it is, a call for love.
>>
>> Yes: that's what I meant; even when the person
>> *expresses* "hatred or anger, attack, etc".
>
> Course basics on an highly unethical "course discussion," newsgroup
> which tolerates, incites, and encourages attack as an authentic and
> legitimate part of course discussion and course teaching. In other
> words, justifying attack, by various ploys and arguments.
John, this is how you seem to wish to see this ng.
Well geez, Pieter --it kidda dishonest attempting to make this
personal and "how I wish to see," this newsgroup --when TRCM
Spiritual discussion predicated on an acceptance, tolerance, of attack
and unethical religious baiting , are well known, notorious, and
certainly not endorsed by any authentic course teacher or spiritual
teacher.
When by various ploys, apologies and arguments you defend spiritual
discussion under these conditions, you are by common definition
accepting and tolerating these conditions. Unless of course, you don't
have the basic education and intelligence to understand what you
doing.
But since you insist, let's make this personal, because you studiously
avoid answering whether religious baiting and bigotry is unethical.
If you don't believe religious baiting is highly unethical --then why
not? Give your reasons. Address the question --don't deny it was asked
and run like an intellectual coward, or cover your intellectual
ineptness with course quotes.
On the other hand if you agree religious baiting is highly unethical
then why would you encourage the association of religious baiting
along with systemic conditions tolerating attack with course teachings
and course discussion?
These are straight questions Pieter. They deserve straight answers and
not some cowardly deflection implying that somehow I'm spiritually
corrupt even asking these questions.
As I pointed out before this newsgroup and its conditions justify
attack --whether its justifying attack for discussion, or learning or
teaching. Or justifying attack for the purpose of testing one's
understanding of course principles. Yet clearly attack is never
justified by course teachings. As such the conditions of this
newsgroup represent up side down thinking out of accord with right
mindedness.
If you disagree
--Pieter, then make your argument and defense of TRCM
conditions, without justifying attack.
And we'll see what abundance of bullshit comes out of your mouth,
justifying the unjustifiable.
