April 18, 2004
Raymond Karczewski: A theology without reason
“Our consciousness is the One consciousness of all mankind, past and present.” - - Raymond Karczewski
As many of you know, we’ve been plagued by an odd kind of theologian on our site: one who has invented his own theology. Based on energy, a general problem with authority, and a terrible understanding of how the mind functions, Karczewski simply invented a theology, which judging by his site hasn’t been accepted by many. He has also unloaded a barrage of almost impenetrable hogwash on several areas of this site. So, I decided to visit his website in an attempt to see what Mr. Karczewski believes – he could never articulate an actual belief in his posts on our site.
Here’s a sample of Mr. Karczewski’s theological insight:
“In His speaking, Christ revealed the ways to the deeper, nondualistic levels of the mind and beyond, the levels of understanding and Love. One such quote pointing to the deeper, nondualistic level of mind can be found in the statement "Except that Ye come as little children, Ye shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven." This clearly points to the fact that children have not yet been fully corrupted in their [sic] thinking (through conditioning) and are still free, honest and unencumbered in their perceptions and actions. Unfortunately, this state of grace is soon lost as the child is inexorably drawn into the thought structures of adult society.”
In my mind, this is the perfect example of someone who developed a personal theology and then entered the Bible to find it. His mind is closed to what the Bible is actually saying, rather he goes in seeking a specific “truth” and finds any verse that might, in some obscure way, support his position. The biggest problem with this modus operandi is the blindness with which you must operate – Karczewski must ignore most of the Bible if his theology is to be accepted.
The best summary of what Raymond teaches is “dualism.” He seems to teach that “truth” is found within each of our minds. But he’ll attack you personally if you don’t agree with this odd philosophy. He suggests the mind is limited and truth is external (his philosophy is completely focused internally), but somehow if our “energy” is right we can know truth, apparently:
If your reality is based on information gained through suggestion, words, and images which are impressed upon your consciousness from outside sources, you are being hypnotized. If, on the other hand, you listen or observe quietly (without interpreting what is perceived) and allow the perceptions to tell its story, you have stepped into the realm of understanding, of truth.
To be rational, if you think you can think, rationalize, or even “observe quietly” “without interpreting” and without allowing your mind to function, you’re fooling yourself. Raymond ultimately believes we are all Pavlov’s dog and society, religion, and even our parents are Pavlov in a collectivistic sense (without realizing their role, of course since they also function as Pavlov’s dog). But somehow, despite the obvious efficiency of the scheme, Raymond has “uncorrupted” his “energy” and figured it all out. He alone has understood this truth. Forgive me if I don’t jump onboard the paddywagon.
What I find most fascinating in Raymond’s writings is that he never seems to answer the basic questions. He meanders around a subject and then abruptly shifts. For example, a chapter in Journey Beyond Thought is called “What is God?” and Raymond never actually answers the question. He calls himself a “Christ with Amnesia” perhaps this is why?
He does ultimately believe in the existence of God, despite the fact that his belief structure would render this unknowable, but he does not believe in the legitimacy of the Bible:
“Can it not be seen that all of these things are of the unknown, made known only by the mind? This projected reality exists in man's mind, to this day, by way of the mind's ability to postulate. The word postulate as defined in Webster's Dictionary means; "to assume without proof to be true, real, or necessary." Go to your Bible and examine what is meant by the "Word of God" when the phrase "IN OUR IMAGE" is used in describing the creation of man. Is that use of the plural merely a limitation of language, or is it the minds of men who sought identification with an idea of something greater than they for the sake of having power over others? Using simple logic, ask yourself the question--is it more likely that man was created in the image of God, or was the thought of what GOD is-- created and defined in the image of man?”
Which I find fascinating. Is it not possible that God communed with man and passed along this information? I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a philosophy that adamantly demands that no other being could have discovered the existence of the proposed “truth” first. It is fascinating. But to take it further, Raymond has no basis for which to proclaim his musings are “truth” – he can’t rely on an inspired book from God or a church built by God or even a heavenly vision. Raymond simply invented a religion and believes it’s so compelling in a new age, spacy kind of way that you should instantly be converted. It is an amazing act of hubris on the scale of Nietzsche. Why this isn’t “satanic” (a favorite term of his despite his apparent belief that Satan was an invention of our “dualistic minds”), I’ll never know.
Ultimately Raymond Karczewski is good at one thing: invention.
God bless,
Jay
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
I am responding to Raymond Karczewski's blog and your response to him and his response to you that you blocked but he posted elsewhere.
I was also raised a Catholic until I discovered several items that shocked me. One, priests were allowed to marry until the 11th century when the church wanted the inheritance of sons of the wealthy rather than their families inheriting, two, we didn't even have a Bible until around 360 AD and then it was called the "Books". In it, they took out some of Johns writings including some from Hebrews that were considered "heretical", now how is that possible if these were written by man through the spirit of God???? There is much more as I am sure you realize, but I just decided to use these for an example.
Given the above, don't you think Raymonds points are somewhat well taken? Has not man in his weakness corrupted and polluted the teachings of Jesus???? Just a question. Glad I found this site through Raymond. P
Posted by: Prophit at April 19, 2004 09:38 AMPhophit,
I've simply stopped Raymond from posting links to his website here - he can still show up and rant as much as he wants (we can't really stop that).
To your points. First, some priests are allowed to marry now - this isn't a required doctrine of the church, it's just a recommended way of life that St. Paul makes a strong case for in the Bible. Also, the Faith is similar to an acorn in that it grows over time without changing it's essence. We can learn more about God as time passes - Jesus taught the people of His day that there was much He wanted to teach them, but they were not ready. The Holy Spirit leads us into Truth as we are able to accept it.
The Old Testament of the Bible has been around longer than the New, obviously. The New Testament was compiled by the Catholic Church closer to 395 A.D. The books were all considered inspired by the Holy Spirit and infallible in matters of faith, religion, etc. Just because the Holy Spirit inspired John to write some Scriptural text does not mean that everything John (or anyone else wrote) was inspired by God. This doesn't disprove the value of the Bible, since we accept the Church's authority in deciding what books to include. We trust the Church, not the individual authors.
If you believe that man has corrupted and polluted the teachings of Jesus, then you believe that God is not powerful enough to stop this from happening. After all, Jesus guaranteed that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matt 16:18). So your suggestion is that the gates of hell have prevailed and God is so weak He could not stop it. If this is so, then how can Raymond find the truth? He is but a man, apparently polluted just like the rest of us. If he can remove the "pollution" from his "mind," then why couldn't God give the same ability to those leading His Church? Especially since He promised to do just that.
The reason I say "a theology without reason" is that Raymond's points are not valid. They are all based on assumptions that are not well thought out. Raymond's theology removes any chance that he could be right; it insists that man corrupts, but Raymond is not corrupted. This is unreasonable.
No, I do not think Raymond has made good points, rather I think he's simply regurgitating heresies that died out long ago.
God bless,
Jay
One particular link on Ray's website really had me in hysterics. Apparently Ray is a rabid conspiracy theorist, and one of his links is to a site panning attorneys. Consider the last paragraph of the post.
"Fire your BAR Attorney. Refuse to acknowledge their corrupt inner-bar courts of thievery. Formally charge them with the illegal act of practicing law without lawful authority. Why? A BAR Attorney is not a lawyer by lawful definition. An Esquire is an officer of the State with the duty to carry out State activities, including 'attornment.'
"State officers have no constitutional authority to practice law as lawyers, barristers, advocates, or solicitors. Americans should begin formally charging these false lawyers with unlawfully practicing the profession of law since their BAR licenses only give them the privilege to be Attorneys and Squires over land transfers."
All of this based on the etymological origins of the words "attorney", "lawyer", and "esquire". There is also a laugh out loud funny (though it attempts to be serious) anacronym for the term "Bar", as in "Bar Association". The best part is that earlier in the article the author actually gives the correct etymological origins of the word. The s/he makes up this conspiratorial anacronym. And to think, I've been part of this huge conspiracy all along and didn't even know it! Ray, I really hope you did not write this drivel, unless of course you were trying to be funny.
All kidding aside, folks, a visit to Ray's website is enough to convince anyone that this man is very disturbed. Ray, you are not Christ. You are not a Christ. The picture of your grandson was very cute. Please, for all that is good and righteous, do not pollute his mind with cultism. What you are doing is no different than Jim Jones, David Koresh, Hari Krishna, etc. and so forth. Ray, Christ loves you and your family just like He loves the whole world. If you would simply recognize that your greatest value comes in being a small part of Christ's Body, you could rid yourself of your myopic and selfish perspective. Yes, the state is not Christian and is frequently responsible for polluting the minds of the people. But that has always been the case for the past 2000 years. The antidote is the Church, the people of God, standing together without pride or ambition, completely unified just as Christ prayed we would be, and always giving adoration and worship to God alone, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Come on Ray, Jesus wants you on His team, not yours!
In Christ,
Dave
Greetings;
I found this bulletin board on a Bravenet forum that has been completely destroyed by Mr. Karczewski. His vicious vitriolic venom so vehemently attacks anyone who dares to disagree with his impoverished intellect. I have numerous times advised him to embark upon the necessary reconstitution of his polluted soul, for the man thinks that HE is Jesus Christ.
Examine the following forum - pay strict attention to who monopolizes it. I gave up posting there a year ago because Mr. Karczewski prevents meaningful dialogues by excessively posting his own dithered perspective even when asked to cease.
http://pub30.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=2508730665
A usenet newsgroup has been created that contains individuals who are familiar with Mr. Karczewski and his various disturbing ideas. It isn't exactly a "Christian" newsgroup, but these people have been putting up with him for nearly a decade and are best equipped to offer the necessary caveats for dealing with this dubious individual.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=alt.fan.art-bell&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&edition=us&hl=en
Posted by: Argent Klausmein at April 20, 2004 07:38 AMI've been a reader of alt.fan.art-bell and other Usenet groups for about as long as brother Ray has spammed them. Let me say this about that:
It's pointless to try to engage Raymus in a dialog. He's irrational and mentally ill, as well as being a kook (Usenet Kook of the Year, 2003) and a 7-time convicted felon.
Just accept the Kazoo for what he's good for....
Entertainment Purposes Only.
HTH. Enjoy.
dr. digger, BsD, PMAFA
Ambushing Sidewinder of the SKEP-TI-CULT®
http://www.skepticult.org/digger
