OVer the RaInBoW

Human law versus Natural law
Submitted by forfunt1 on Sat, 2007-12-22 21:16.
Culture
law
No matter how any action is considered, there is no argument, as to the ethicality, that cannot be argued both for and against. If the mind cannot succeed in labeling an act as "wrong" or "right", the act will come into consideration for accordance with law.
There are two basic laws: Natural law and human law.
Action happens by virtue of natural law; if it could not happen in this way, it would not happen. There are no natural properties of “being wrong” or “being right”; either the allowance is made by virtue of the right of way, or it is not. Natural law is simple, and nothing can contradict it. However some foolish monkey wondered if there is a will to contradict the law of nature, can there possibly be a way? The monkey became the human being in order to answer this question.
Humans do not leave well enough alone and the human so-called-life experience was complicated by the invention of human law. For example: The idea of wrong was invented in order to oppose the “right” or original virtue in reasonable terms.
In consideration of the act of being human, the imagination had to attribute meaning to the act, otherwise being human cannot be said to mean anything. Humans are trained, or programmed, in order to keep all or most humans operating within a theoretically acceptable range defined by the parameters of "human law". Trends have been observed through trial and error in the process of developing a "socially successful" human specimen that have aided the engineering of "people" to increase the production margin of acceptable "socially successful" human individuals. The “socially successful” human is one that is optimally designed to carry (contribute to the labor of conducting) the task of finding (inventing) the reasonable terms that might be used (of course all reasonable terms become obsolete in time) to define the human will to contradict nature. The trends that increase the productivity of such people are encouraged as "human law".
The will of an individual is not real, however it can be thought of, and that is all that matters in the context of human law.
When the idea of will was invented, it was meant to create reason for freedom (however there is no real reason, and therefore no real reason for freedom). Individuals can be taught to act according to their “freedom to will”, as long as the will of freedom is in definite-reasonable terms. Language is therefore the collective reasonable means of supporting the idea of human law in the process of defining the human will as an aspect of human character and the original means of challenging freedom.
Humans cannot exist without “human law”, but the organism, the living entity that was trained to be human, is alive, and is only acting the role of human because it can. Disobeying the rules it has been taught to act by (as human) and possibly jeopardizing the vested privilege to access the surpluses of society is considered an act against the will of self-preservation; this is only an illusion. Human law will eventually fail to check and balance the human will in any way, for there is no way to guaranty that the idea of being human will not fail. Any idea can be forgotten, either by choice or circumstance, as the human population dies off, or the human mind becomes exhausted by the process of scrutinizing the human character (essentially itself) for integrity. In this way the human mind and memory end as well. The only order that will endure the end of humanity is the natural order that made the original allowance for the human endeavor of will, or the human experiment. Natural law may rule out humanity, but humanity may not rule out natural law.
Human law is a contradiction of natural law. The way of humanity seems to be in willing for it’s own end


I like this article.its speaks of the thoughts deep in my heart that i have aways been trying to express with words...

posted by iRiS2U @ 10:51 PM