From: fedora@fea.st
On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 15:25:53 -0800, Dude wrote:
>On 2/16/2026 2:27 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 13:56:08 -0800, Dude wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/16/2026 7:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 05:13:24 +0000, Creon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> At Fri, 13 Feb 2026 12:50:06 -0500, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 12:14:08 -0500, Wilson
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/13/2026 12:53 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/12/26 9:15 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2026 9:29 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What I mean is that governments can grant that they will not impose
>>>>>>>>>> certain situations on you, which they still might.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But as far as the universe is concerned. You have no rights. There
>>>>>>>>>> is no natural law to base social structures on.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It there were natural laws that are inherent, universal, and
>>>>>>>>>> inalienable, derived from human nature and reason rather than
granted
>>>>>>>>>> by governments, to be inalienable natural laws, there would be no
way
>>>>>>>>>> to not receive them. Nobody would die, everybody would have
liberty,
>>>>>>>>>> and loving spouses. The truth is you have no right to such things,
>>>>>>>>>> and far too many around the world don't have them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To be natural laws that are inherent, universal, and inalienable,
they
>>>>>>>>>> would have to apply to everybody in the world, not only americans.
And
>>>>>>>>>> when suffering people come to america seeking a place where they can
>>>>>>>>>> have such things, we could not send them back where they came from.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is a deliberate misstatement of what natural law is all about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is: There are certain principles that work better than others.
>>>>>>>>> When human law and society aligns with those principles, the systems
>>>>>>>>> created within that structure perform better, allowing greater human
>>>>>>>>> flourishing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> what worked last century, may not work this century, and will not work
>>>>>>>> next century
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > the "law" can change when as technology unfolds
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > #god
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not how universal principles work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Things like:
>>>>>>> - Don't steal
>>>>>>> - Don't initiate harm to or murder other people
>>>>>>> - Don't deliberately speak untruth
>>>>>>> - Take responsibility for your actions
>>>>>>> - Don't envy or promote resentment for what others have
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christian principles. Not universal. Although it might seem like
>>>>>> that to a true believer.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you feel about the "perennial philosophy" school of thought?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I remember from my communal days, sitting in a room listening to some
>>>> guy talking about, jesus says this, buddha says that, rumi says
>>>> thisnthat. And so putting together what feels like to him a coherent
>>>> something which is none of those. I don't think that works.
>>>>
>>> Not sure you've thought this through.
>>>
>>> They were probably talking about Aldous Huxley's The Perennial
>>> Philosophy, where he goes to great lengths to demonstrate the common
>>> themes which are present in religions across the planet, and tie them
>>> together into what he terms the perennial philosophy.
>>
>> Sure aldous you can do that, but when you jumble it all together do
>> you have more than a jumble.
>>
>Compared to reading the originals?
> > > Intent:
>>
>> Do you refrain from killing because there is something wrong with
>> doing that or because killing things interferes with your spiritual
>> progression?
>>
>Some people refrain from killing but others do not. There are hunters
>and there are gatherers. Everything you do or act on can effect your
>spiritual progress, o not.
So Buddha was wrong. Could be, but I don't think you would know
either way.
>What's needed is a middle way, not too extreme, but practical.
> >
>
>> After learning the difference between good and evil, as he should not
>> have, is mankind now doomed to be ever obsessed with doing or not
>> doing evil? Or was there something more important for him to do here?
>>
>The most important thing for mankind to have learnt was to realize the
>fallacy of dualism - the belief in dual opposing forces.
I invite you to fight that out with yhwh.
>
>In reality, there is just one reality - the Singular.
>
>Indian philosophers define non-dualism as the reality that only one
>undivided, absolute consciousness exists. All ideas of separation and
>duality are illusions created by the mind.
> > > One eternal message of all religions is said to be: there is
>> something wrong with life and we know what to do about it.
>>
>According to the Buddha, the first historical yogi in India, we are all
>bound and destined to suffer. At first this sound pessimistic, until you
>think it through, or live a little while and see fr yourself.
It was absolutely more physically true in his time.
>So, if we are bound, by what means can we free ourselves?
> >
>> Is that so?, the monk says to the mother giving away her baby. Is
>> that so?
>>
>The phrase highlights accepting the reality of the present moment
>without judging it or fighting against it. Be here now!
Is that so?
> > >
>>> We read that in philosophy class in college. It's required reading.
>>>>
>>>> In tone and intent, it seems to me that buddhism has nothing like the
>>>> 10 commandments. Although buddha does sorta say that you should avoid
>>>> killing things because it interferes with spiritual development. Adam
>>>> and eve were thrown out of eden because they disobeyed and learned the
>>>> difference between good and evil. Buddha says forget about all that
>>>> and seek enlightenment one way or the other.
>>>>
>>>> Sure you can say that, in effect, they hold similar ideas, if you want
>>>> to forget about that tone and intent stuff.
>>>>
>>> In some Buddhist sects, the factor of intent is very important. For
>>> example, you are a Buddhist walking in the woods and you accidentally
>>> step on a beetle and crush it. What was your intent?
>>>
>>> According to Buddha, it's extreme to go about sweeping the ground before
>>> you, in case you might encounter an ant, walking to the store.
>>>
>>>
--
Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
Don't get political with me young man
or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
<<>> to <<>>
Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
dares: Ned
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
