I don't get Buddhism

Ecmandu,

Before replying me, you have to read my previous post addressed to MagsJ and consider it in your reply.

As I said there, the concept of spiritual atheist is oxymoron to me. An atheist cannot be spiritual in strict sence, unless you consider morality as spirituality, which is not logical. Moraliy is spirituality but only a part of it and does not cover spirituality completely. Means, one can be moral without being spiritual which is fine to me but being spiritual demands many others things also, of course including morality.

Not violating other consents is only morality not spirituality, unless you explain me otherwise.

Let me ask you one thing.
Think of a child suffering of diabetes. As we all know that it is not right for parents to let him have cakes and pastries but he continues to demand these.

Now, what should the parents do? Either they shoud reject the demand of the child to have more sweets because of his heath condition or should allow him having more sweets in order to honour his consent?

See, understanding and decoding even the morality is not as simple as only not violating others consent. That would not be enough. Spirituality is even more complicated.

With love,
Sanjay

It violates the child’s consent to have diabetes in the first place.

I deal with voices and possessions on a daily basis. I meet gods on a regular basis. I have no choice but to believe in gods and spirits. But, my mind is tough. Anyone less than me would believe what my life has been would believe in god, that it was god interacting with them. But I had a very simple revelation through all this demonstration of power, if I were god, reality would not violate consent or even be zero sum in nature (winners and losers), and so I balked at the spirit world. I’ve seen things that would certainly turn anyone else into a theist. But, then again, my mind is tougher than that. The illusion never got to me as it does to the weak minded.

Sure, and yes.

Amen brother.

Fixed Cross,

“Amen brother”. That’s the best you can do for zinnats idiocy…

I’ve been to hell. I took the entire wrath of the god you call god and I’m still fucking standing. There are not many people who’ve ever lived on earth who can do that.

When zinnat states that Spirituality is more complicated than nobodies consent being violated, he sounds mentally fucking retarded!

I was actually in hell. I know that of which I speak. Zinnat just thinks it’s some kind of joke “pfft Consent violation smialation… what a laughable thing! Spirituality is complicated man!” Fuck you assholes! Life is very simple. This is how I survived hell… I made friends. I made sense to lots of people. I taught that consent violation is the only problem in existence. I taught that you have to regret all of your memories stretching back to forever because god fucked up so bad (making a zero sum existence) Slowly, slowly I crawled out of hell… you make a spiritual friend here, a spiritual friend there, next thing you know… gods in the hotseat…

This was my next reply to zinnat, which you avoided:

viewtopic.php?p=2772311#p2772311

Have you considered toning it down … avoiding words like idiocy, fucking and retarded?

I’ve been tormented in hell for much longer than you recall your life. I survived shit you can’t even comprehend. I know what happens when people talk like you guys. Tormentors talk like you guys. I’m not just protecting myself from you, I’m trying to protect you from yourselves. There aren’t words in the human language to speak about not only the degree of threat you pose to others, but also to yourselves.

The way you talk makes life crappier for other people than it has to be.

Do you think that Zinnat likes the way that you describe him and his posts?

How do you think he feels when he reads your posts?

Ecman is AWOL. Everybody knows that.

I know how he feels. He feels like the cocky, pompous , self righteous cloud he sits on is being undermined.

I need people to understand… if one single being in all of existence is having their consent violated, god is evil. My words are a joke compared to hell.

The point is that you don’t have to use those words.

In fact, people may be more open to what you are saying if you don’t use those words.

From my life experience (which I don’t really expect people to have). Zinnat is a flaming asshole. Preaching the praises to and sucking up to the supreme consent violator. Extra senses are common in the human species, even some strange ones.

What zinnat is saying is actually meaner and more aggressive than what most people say. Being in hell for so long, I’m finely attuned to it.

There are some people who only understand force, otherwise zinnat might spend the rest of his life abusing people. That’s unconscionable to me.

I’ve resurrected at least 3 times, I’ve been to hell for a long time… I’m an extremely sensitive person to slight abuses being massive to the regard zinnat is using them.

Fundamentals of Buddhism: Morality
From the BuddhaNet web site

Mountain climbing? That’s the example used in order to explore the existential relationship between human suffering and Buddhist morality?

Why not instead the summit being Buddhist morality and abortion or just war or animal rights or suicide or the right to bear arms?

If you are a Buddhist and your life begins to revolve around, say, acknowledging that you are a homosexual, what might the summit be construed as here? What behaviors might be deemed to be either enlightened or benighted? By the Buddha himself. Or suppose you are either a homosexual or a heterosexual and you find yourself feeling attracted to a fourteen year old. But: A very precocious fourteen year who is mature beyond his or her years. A fourteen year old willing and able to consent to sexual intercourse with an adult.

In other words, reconfigure the assessment above into a context of this sort such that the steps you take morally to the summit are in sync with that which you would want the fate of “I” to be on the other side of the grave.

Iambiguous,

I always tell people…

The goal of philosophy is not to learn how to die. The goal of philosophy is to learn how to live forever.

As much as death scares people! Living forever scares them more! What’s even worse than that is that people don’t ‘invest’ in forever. They invest in like 200 years max, maybe in their great, great grandchildren!

[b]Note to others:

He’s all yours. I’m ending my exchanges with him. Why? Because I am really beginning to wonder just how close he might be to toppling over into, well, whatever the nature of his “condition” might precipitate: “I’ve resurrected at least 3 times, I’ve been to hell for a long time…”; “I deal with voices and possessions on a daily basis. I meet gods on a regular basis.”

Unless this is all tongue and cheek, I don’t want to be the one who pushes it all too far.

Really, this happened to me once before in an old Yahoo philosophy venue. I was accused of causing someone to attempt suicide. It turned out to be just a stupid prank, but you can never really be sure of these things online.

Whatever the actual reality here, I hope things turn out well for him. But that’s it for me.[/b]

Interesting how your reply borrowed from other posts and not the one you quoted. You didn’t respond to the post you quoted …

That people are more terrified of living forever than dying.

Iambiguous, I’m just going to tell you straight up.

Let’s assume I’m crazy. That I even have schizophrenia. Sociologically, schizophrenics are the least violent sub-group in the entire human population. You know why ?? Because they’re too busy suffering too much to even have the luxury of being violent.

Look at your bias before you try to speak to the peanut gallery.

Ecmandu,

First of all, you need to understand one thing very clearly is that using insulting language does not prove your point. On the contrary, it tells that you do not have much to support your arguments thus using this tactics to divert the conversation from actual issue. Nevertheless, this does not work on me because I have enough of life experience and thus derived understanding to discern between real anger and fake posing. So. Please get passed to it.

Now, to your points-
Getting diabetes does not require anybody’s consent. It just happens like an accident whether one wants it or not so your argument does not hold any water. And, it is not only the only one example which shows that it is impossible to honour the consents of all at the same time as most of the time they tend to violate each other. I can give you million such examples.

Assume that there is a very beautiful lady and every man wants to have her. Yes, he wants a particular man and goes for it. In this way, her consent is honoured but what about the consent of all those other men who cannot have her? How your theory of consent is supposed to address this issue?

Lastly, you talk very highly about honouring everyone’s consent yet you use such filthy language to all. Why? Do you have other’s consent for this! At least, try to behave according to what you say, believe or propose.

With love,
Sanjay

Ecmandu, by the way, religions answered you deliema of conflicting consents long lime ago, if you have an eye for it.

--------God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference. -------

That is precisely the solution for conflicting consents. Think over it.

With love,
Sanjay

That doesn’t satisfy the people who think that conflicts ought to go away … that there ought to be one solution that everyone accepts as the only right one.