What Would Be Your Appeal on Judgement Day?

[wizanda]

Westerners often suppose the Buddha taught nihilism.

My favorite text so far is the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra; if you know of other texts, to this standard of theological questioning, I'm open to any suggestions.

there is nothing true.

In the grand scheme of everything, it is possible everything is all Maya 3D a simulated reality...

Thus none of it exist; yet we're still inside it, and we still don't know the criteria that they've set for us (Neti Neti).

In my opinion.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

My favorite text so far is the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra; if you know of other texts, to this standard of theological questioning, I'm open to any suggestions.

I am far from an expert on all Sutras, so I'm in no position to do a comparison with texts I haven't read.

I will say just for your future reference that the Lotus Sutra is the most authoritative scripture for my school, but we are not discouraged from looking at other texts and making conclusions on their content. Tendai is not Nichiren Buddhism

I'll look at that Sutra later and maybe I'll be able to give you a good answer. Note: if I ever reference a Sutra saying something, I've read it.

 

[shmogie]

So bringing it back to the OP, I'm being incinerated because...



Yup...in this case the discarded and incinerated ones, rather than those who are saved.

If you have not accepted the gift of forgiveness from God, for any and all of the sins you have committed, as defined in the Bible, you will be incinerated, your choice. You are in a state of rebellion otherwise.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If you have not accepted the gift of forgiveness from God, for any and all of the sins you have committed, as defined in the Bible, you will be incinerated, your choice. You are in a state of rebellion otherwise.

Sounds like a despot to me.

 

[shmogie]

Sounds like a despot to me.

You will be incenerated regardless of your opinion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You will be incenerated regardless of your opinion.

As I agreed in my first post in this thread. But regardless, as we agreed, some things are worth dying for. It's interesting to me that you would defend the hypothetical despot God outlined in the OP, but then I've never really understood might being conflated with right.

 

[wizanda]

It's interesting to me that you would defend the hypothetical despot God outlined in the OP

Find it fascinating how neither of you answer the question of giving a worthy appeal, and both have reasons to be illogical; whilst blaming the being with the logic, for your own illogicality.

You will be incenerated regardless of your opinion.

That is not the case, this was stated as an appeal to possibly avoid incineration, and currently your answers would receive double, for trying to excuse yourself with no logical reason to do so.

In my opinion.

 

[shmogie]

Find it fascinating how neither of you answer the question of giving a worthy appeal, and both have reasons to be illogical; whilst blaming the being with the logic, for your own illogicality.

That is not the case, this was stated as an appeal to possibly avoid incineration, and currently your answers would receive double, for trying to excuse yourself with no logical reason to do so.

In my opinion.

You use the terms logic, and logically, apparently without an understanding of what they mean. Logic is a discipline of though with specific rules, used to verify or deny considered propositions. Your opinion of what you think is logical is just an opinion.

Excuse myself ? From what ?b I told him his options.The same options and decisions apply to me.

 

[shmogie]

As I agreed in my first post in this thread. But regardless, as we agreed, some things are worth dying for. It's interesting to me that you would defend the hypothetical despot God outlined in the OP, but then I've never really understood might being conflated with right.

Your definition of despot really means " I want to do exactly what I want, when I want. Any rules or laws that hinder my desires are promulgated by a despot and are despotic"

Right is an absolute. Therefore your opinion and desires are irrelevant. The created cannot judge the creator.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Find it fascinating how neither of you answer the question of giving a worthy appeal, and both have reasons to be illogical; whilst blaming the being with the logic, for your own illogicality.

I never claimed the being was illogical. I claimed it was a despot. As for my 'appeal', worthy or otherwise, I simply refuse to partake. I accept that this being will incinerate me for not begging. That's fine. There is only so much in this hypothetical I am in control of. If the being so desperately wants to hear me beg, I'm sure incinerating my children would reduce me to shameless begging, for whatever that's worth.

That is not the case, this was stated as an appeal to possibly avoid incineration, and currently your answers would receive double, for trying to excuse yourself with no logical reason to do so.

Wait, the being will...incinerate me...double? Like...incinerate me, then revive me to incinerate me again? And you find this being worthy of adoration?
Regardless, I am making no excuses for anything, and would humbly request you stop suggesting I am doing so. I would simply refuse to partake, and the consequences would result from that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Your definition of despot really means " I want to do exactly what I want, when I want. Any rules or laws that hinder my desires are promulgated by a despot and are despotic"

Nope. I'm just rolling with the regular old dictionary definition of a despot.

a ruler or other person who holds absolute power, typically one who exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way.

I have no idea why you feel the need to defend such a being by denigrating my character, but I'd suggest you're assuming much more than I'm saying, or the OP asked.

Right is an absolute. Therefore your opinion and desires are irrelevant.

I have no idea what 'right is an absolute' means, so I'd ask an explanation of that. Whilst clearly both my opinion and desires are irrelevant to the being mentioned in the OP, and they would similarly appear irrelevant to some of the people defending the being mentioned in the OP, I can assure you they are not irrelevant to me.

The created cannot judge the creator.

Of course they can. Whether they have any ability to influence or free themselves of this hypothetical creator is an entirely different proposition. As I stated, I don't believe might makes right. I accept that I would have no control in the scenario described in the OP. I would exercise what limited control I do have to remain silent when given the chance to beg for my life.

 

[Altfish]

So lets say we've already failed, and along comes Judgement day on earth, where after there will be eternal life in paradise on the new earth; everyone else is to be chucked into the incinerator...

What would you plead to show that there has been a mistake in why you should be worth keeping?

I'd ask her which god she was; Poseidon, Zeus, Allah or whatever.
Then ask why they made themselves so scarce?
Finally, I'd say, "Hey ho, I never accepted that Jesus guy, Where's my asbestos suit?"

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I never claimed the being was illogical. I claimed it was a despot. As for my 'appeal', worthy or otherwise, I simply refuse to partake. I accept that this being will incinerate me for not begging. That's fine. There is only so much in this hypothetical I am in control of. If the being so desperately wants to hear me beg, I'm sure incinerating my children would reduce me to shameless begging, for whatever that's worth.



Wait, the being will...incinerate me...double? Like...incinerate me, then revive me to incinerate me again? And you find this being worthy of adoration?
Regardless, I am making no excuses for anything, and would humbly request you stop suggesting I am doing so. I would simply refuse to partake, and the consequences would result from that.

@wizanda, you rated this as 'optimistic'.
Can I ask why? Your definition of optimistic appears to be quite different to mine.

 

[wizanda]

you rated this as 'optimistic'.
Can I ask why?

Because your decision is based on loads of assumptions from prior religious knowledge, and not the question at hand... Therefore find you're optimistically answering in that context.

I claimed it was a despot.

We don't know it is a despot; we know some are sent to the incinerator, and there could be a logical reason for it.

I accept that this being will incinerate me for not begging.

Didn't want begging, was asking people to search within for the answer to eternal life, and if they looked they'd find that asking righteously would provide the right answer...

Whereas you think by not answering, that is in anyways fitting within the criteria of the question to begin with.

It be like giving someone an exam, and they don't answer it, as their teachers were always mean, and now they're being marked by an exam review team, where they're still assuming they're mean.

I'm sure incinerating my children would reduce me to shameless begging

The appeal is for each individual, people's children can appeal for themselves, and would most likely get through, as they'd answer from the heart, depending on how old they were.

Wait, the being will...incinerate me...double? Like...incinerate me, then revive me to incinerate me again? And you find this being worthy of adoration?

This was from the Christian trying to excuse themselves as saved, and not needing to appeal, the Biblical text says they will receive double for their iniquity; this is then also followed up in the Quran, were it says they will burn twice.

Now lets understand what the fire is according to a majority of religious texts, it is the holy presence of God, it is a fire of sanctification surrounding the throne; where unfortunately no iniquity can come near it, else it is burned away...

So it isn't burning them because of being a despot; it is because they're such scumbags to begin, the burning takes longer for some to remove all their nasty character traits.

Like us telling everyone we're near Hell, and deal with our inner demons isn't being mean; like the religious texts are trying to help people before the day where the whole world will be Baptised with Fire.

It isn't optional; therefore it is being optimistic that we don't have to answer.

In my opinion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Because your decision is based on loads of assumptions from prior religious knowledge, and not the question at hand... Therefore find you're optimistically answering in that context.

Nope. I'm deliberately limiting myself to the 'facts' as stated in the OP. Nevertheless, feel free to point out where I am not.

We don't know it is a despot; we know some are sent to the incinerator, and there could be a logical reason for it.

You think logical reasoning precludes despotism? Why? That doesn't come into it at all. I'll repeat the simple definition of despotism;
a ruler or other person who holds absolute power, typically one who exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way.
Source : Just google despot. Nothing more to it.

Didn't want begging, was asking people to search within for the answer to eternal life, and if they looked they'd find that asking righteously would provide the right answer...

Whereas you think by not answering, that is in anyways fitting within the criteria of the question to begin with.

I wouldn't answer. That is my answer. Your hypothetical God can take whatever action he wishes based on that, and I understand I'm completely powerless to prevent it. How is this not acceptable as an answer?

It be like giving someone an exam, and they don't answer it, as their teachers were always mean, and now they're being marked by an exam review team, where they're still assuming they're mean.

You can try and reduce my answer to an emotional teen complaining about unfair treatment, but I am quite the opposite. Rather than emotional arguments about how I woulda, coulda, if only, whatever...I'm just not. This being can do as he will. I'm not answering. Playing along to your hypothetical, I've already stated he can mark me as 'wrong' (ie. incinerate me). That's fine. I can't stop him. Nor can he force me to pick up a pen and answer his questions. That is all. Think of it as non-violent protest, if you prefer, I really don't mind.

The appeal is for each individual, people's children can appeal for themselves, and would most likely get through, as they'd answer from the heart, depending on how old they were.

Likely. Sure. He could say something like 'Now little girl, just tell me what's in your heart.' My 7 year old would probably say something like 'Blood'. If pressed that he actually wanted to know what she felt about things, it would be more like a massive list of people she loves, and then finally ending with her sister's name, 'who is pretty much annoying, but I love her. Sometimes anyway. And mum says I have to. So...'

Super enlightening. Of course, she has some pretty mixed up ideas about religion, and currently believes in Jesus, in some form. Her older sister finds religion a little weird, and is more apatheist if I had to label a 9 year old. She also isn't especially articulate, so I guess there is more chance of her getting fried. As a father, I would of course not beg for her life, because...she's being given a chance to beg for her own. Or not beg. Speak from the heart. And be incinerated if the answer is not the correct one. I mean, the whole scenario is pretty bizarre. I wouldn't stand by and let me children be potentially fried. Of course, this being can force me to stand by. I'd suggest that's a despotic act, regardless of the 'logic' in having a father watch his kids potentially get a question wrong and get fried.

This was from the Christian trying to excuse themselves as saved, and not needing to appeal, the Biblical text says they will receive double for their iniquity; this is then also followed up in the Quran, were it says they will burn twice.

Neither book holds any meaning for me, but I'd humbly suggest;
1) The translations aren't quite as black and white as you're painting
2) Anyone that translates things that way and continues to follow said being needs to have a good hard look at themselves, and their claims around objective morality being superior to subjective.

Now lets understand what the fire is according to a majority of religious texts, it is the holy presence of God, it is a fire of sanctification surrounding the throne; where unfortunately no iniquity can come near it, else it is burned away...

So it isn't burning them because of being a despot; it is because they're such scumbags to begin, the burning takes longer for some to remove all their nasty character traits.

So, I'm running from the OP. Incinerated is incinerated. There was no mention of 'holy presence of God'. But okay. God is sanctifying the scumbags. And if I don't answer the question I get...torched? Maybe twice? Or once?

Like us telling everyone we're near Hell, and deal with our inner demons isn't being mean; like the religious texts are trying to help people before the day where the whole world will be Baptised with Fire.

It isn't optional; therefore it is being optimistic that we don't have to answer.

It is entirely optional. Else there would be no requirement for an answer, and God would simply read my heart. Figuratively.
What would be optimistic is thinking that my actions would have no consequence. However I don't think that way, and have never claimed to.

 

[wizanda]

You think logical reasoning precludes despotism?

In this scenario it does; yet agree there could be situations where a being is a logical despot.... For all we know, we could be grateful the being is doing this; we've not been told the reasons.

How is this not acceptable as an answer?

Because if we're the being judging, we'd get frustrated with the obstinance, and chuck you in the fire just for being awkward...

Please note tho that is like a parent chucking you in the bath, as you need to wash off that stubborn ego.

And if I don't answer the question I get...torched?

Regardless we're all going to get torched soon, according to global religious eschatology; this appeal was a pointer to recognize our own inner issues, that could prevent us from getting through it.

Maybe twice? Or once?

This depends if we want to answer this question before the fire comes or after; personally think it is far easier to question it now, without the pain of it being burned out of us.

It is entirely optional. Else there would be no requirement for an answer, and God would simply read my heart.

This is the point, we're already in a place near Hell ready for burning; we've already failed, and if our hearts were true, we'd already have ascended out of here...

Thus the appeal is to be fair, as we've clearly got issues, and are purposely heading the wrong way; so it was a chance for us to answer why we think we've been justified in our chosen path.

In my opinion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In this scenario it does; yet agree there could be situations where a being is a logical despot.... For all we know, we could be grateful the being is doing this; we've not been told the reasons.

Despot doesn't change definition dependent on the scenario. And I'm not grateful. I know this. Whether I should be or not is another question, but I find it literally impossible to imagine a scenario where a creator being needs to burn people in order to 'fix' them.

Because if we're the being judging, we'd get frustrated with the obstinance, and chuck you in the fire just for being awkward...

Which would be the actions of a fallible despot, rather than some all-logical creator being, but regardless...his frustration is not something I can control. Just like I can't control him throwing my kids into a fire. Just my answering. That's all.

Please note tho that is like a parent chucking you in the bath, as you need to wash off that stubborn ego.

I'm not a child. This creator being realises this. Were my parents to try and chuck me in a bath without explanation, I would take none-too-kindly to it.

Regardless we're all going to get torched soon, according to global religious eschatology; this appeal was a pointer to recognize our own inner issues, that could prevent us from getting through it.

'global religious eschatology'? That would seem a uniquely long-bow you are drawing there. There is no global religious eschatology.

This depends if we want to answer this question before the fire comes or after; personally think it is far easier to question it now, without the pain of it being burned out of us.

You're entitled to your opinion. I still wouldn't answer, based on the premise in the OP.

This is the point, we're already in a place near Hell ready for burning; we've already failed, and if our hearts were true, we'd already have ascended out of here...

If God wanted me to have a 'true' heart, he could have made this the case. Or made me a sheep. Instead, he gave me the ability to think for myself, and free will, according to Christian belief. He can burn me for exercising those if he chooses. That would seem hypocritical as well as despotic, but as has already been mentioned in this thread, it's entirely possible he doesn't care the least for my opinion.

Thus the appeal is to be fair, as we've clearly got issues, and are purposely heading the wrong way; so it was a chance for us to answer why we think we've been justified in our chosen path.

Who is 'we' in this? Humanity? Kinda a broad brush being used, don't you think? Although I know Christians who seem entirely reasonable and yet have no issue with God having drowned the world previously (in their opinion) so what do I know.

 

[shmogie]

Nope. I'm just rolling with the regular old dictionary definition of a despot.



I have no idea why you feel the need to defend such a being by denigrating my character, but I'd suggest you're assuming much more than I'm saying, or the OP asked.



I have no idea what 'right is an absolute' means, so I'd ask an explanation of that. Whilst clearly both my opinion and desires are irrelevant to the being mentioned in the OP, and they would similarly appear irrelevant to some of the people defending the being mentioned in the OP, I can assure you they are not irrelevant to me.



Of course they can. Whether they have any ability to influence or free themselves of this hypothetical creator is an entirely different proposition. As I stated, I don't believe might makes right. I accept that I would have no control in the scenario described in the OP. I would exercise what limited control I do have to remain silent when given the chance to beg for my life.

Denigrating your character, nope, just stating the obvious conclusion, I apologise if you felt the comment was personal. You statements aren´t the best. I slipped up.

Since God is ultimately and completely good, he is also absolutely right, therefore a human trait like despotism cannot apply. God is not human

The created can try and judge the Creator, but it is a futile exercise and can never lead to a valid result. We use human standards to judge, either collectively or individually. These standards do not apply to God. He has revealed his standards, judge by those.

Begging for your life would be a fruitless exercise. God doesn´t ask that you beg, he gives you your life freely. By the time you reach the point in the OP, you have decided to choose death, not life. Itś too late

 

[wizanda]

Who is 'we' in this? Humanity? Kinda a broad brush being used, don't you think?

Lots of times 'I' write 'you', then change it to be none personal; as me mum gets offended in dialogue, if 'I' repeatedly say "all 'you' evil scumbags down near Hell."

The question was meant to be broad, it is an observational what if question; to provide inner dialogue for anyone who tried the thought process.

In my opinion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Denigrating your character, nope, just stating the obvious conclusion, I apologise if you felt the comment was personal. You statements aren´t the best. I slipped up.

Oh, don't worry, I didn't find it personally insulting or anything. Moreso just that it is entirely possible to question, or to disagree, without it being a direct reaction to laws one doesn't want to adhere to. I am sometimes presented with strange assumptions about atheism equating to hedonism which I find completely ridiculous, so it's something I may be a little over-sensitive to.
If we make the assumption that the God referred to in the OP is some flavour of Christian God, which seems likely, then the main issues for me in terms of being 'rebellious' are around my lack of belief, rather than my behaviours.

Let's assume, for a moment, that I did believe in God. I would like to think I would still give the same answer to the OP, and would still find the creators behaviour despotic. Perhaps I would not, perhaps I would take the easier path. But I hope not.

Since God is ultimately and completely good, he is also absolutely right, therefore a human trait like despotism cannot apply. God is not human

Who told you God is ultimately and completely good? God?
I am a human, therefore I define things in human terms. I am not assuming God is human, or thinks like us, but as presented in the OP, he's behaving in despotic fashion.

The created can try and judge the Creator, but it is a futile exercise and can never lead to a valid result. We use human standards to judge, either collectively or individually. These standards do not apply to God. He has revealed his standards, judge by those.

His revealed standards get a little hazy, depending on who exactly you ask. Regardless, the OP was pretty deliberately vague about why I was going to get incinerated. I won't be a sheep, no matter how 'exceptional' God is. He can take that as an insult if he so chooses, although I would find that pretty informative.

Begging for your life would be a fruitless exercise. God doesn´t ask that you beg, he gives you your life freely. By the time you reach the point in the OP, you have decided to choose death, not life. Itś too late

See, you say that, but the OP is pretty adamant that my unwillingness to plead for my life is not a valid answer. I actually think the same as you, in terms of my decisions having already been made by that point. Judge me for what I am, not what I might suddenly blurt out under the pressure of imminent incineration.