What Would Be Your Appeal on Judgement Day?

[shmogie]

So you would have advised the Native Americans to accept Manifest Destiny? We are the ones being incinerated, but you think we don't have the right to question it?

That strikes me as bizzarre.

I get that this hypothetical being can act as they will regardless. That is basically the essence of a despot.



If all he wanted was blind obedience, he should have designed me with wool.

There are despots, and there were benevolent and beloved kings, with exactly the same power and freedom to act as they pleased. So, what's the difference, by your criteria aren't they both evil ? If so, your conclusion strikes me as bizarre

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There are despots, and there were benevolent and beloved kings, with exactly the same power and freedom to act as they pleased. So, what's the difference, by your criteria aren't they both evil ? If so, your conclusion strikes me as bizarre

I think the genocide part speaks to the difference. Unless your list of benevolent Kings includes those who would incinerate a race, and expect them not to question it?

 

[shmogie]

I think the genocide part speaks to the difference. Unless your list of benevolent Kings includes those who would incinerate a race, and expect them not to question it?

You are speaking of the Torah and the early years of Israel, as a Christian, I follow the commandments of The New Testament,, no genocide there, except perhaps the persecution of Christians by the Jews, as recorded in Acts.

We all can question as much as we choose, future events. Many of the answers to those questions have been around for 2,000 years.

That benevolent king in my illustration, when confronted with rebellion, and after innumerable offers to the rebels to return to the kingdom, with no response, will ultimately have to destroy the rebels, for the sake of peace in the kingdom. Dead is dead, the methodology is irrelevant.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You are speaking of the Torah and the early years of Israel, as a Christian, I follow the commandments of The New Testament,, no genocide there, except perhaps the persecution of Christians by the Jews, as recorded in Acts.

Nope. I'm responding directly to the OP. It's a hypothetical, although no doubt informed by some level of Abrahamaic belief.

We all can question as much as we choose, future events. Many of the answers to those questions have been around for 2,000 years.

Or longer, depending what question you mean. But ultimately my point was that I don't need permission to question.

That benevolent king in my illustration, when confronted with rebellion, and after innumerable offers to the rebels to return to the kingdom, with no response, will ultimately have to destroy the rebels, for the sake of peace in the kingdom. Dead is dead, the methodology is irrelevant.

Yep. So...where to start with that...
Let's keep it simple to start with.

1) Define 'rebel', in terms of your example.
2) You think all death's are equal? I would disagree. There are certain principles worth risking life for.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It also shows that some religious groups think they're automatically not included, and can't even answer a theoretical question properly.

Out of curiosity: what's your answer? I don't think I saw it.

What happens if you're wrong in your beliefs and Judgement Day comes?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are speaking of the Torah and the early years of Israel, as a Christian, I follow the commandments of The New Testament,, no genocide there, except perhaps the persecution of Christians by the Jews, as recorded in Acts.

The Gospels go more for promises of future genocide than accounts of past genocide. For instance:

Matthew 11:21-24

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you! 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be thrown down to Hades! For if the miracles done among you had been done in Sodom, it would have continued to this day. 24 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for the region of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you!”

 

[wizanda]

what's your answer?

What happens if you're wrong in your beliefs and Judgement Day comes?

Firstly the being knows I have great faith I do not know, and am always open minded to questioning everything again...

So if it says the criteria are not what i've expected that is fine, I will change entirely, apologize for any errors on my part, and get on serving it to the best of my abilities, with the new instructions.

If that isn't an option, and it still wants to incinerate me for having broken the rules, then so be it; who am i to argue with something that has created reality.

Tho would still appeal, "Lord you know we've made mistakes, and at times faltered; yet our heart is willing, and wanting to serve, thus show us how we can be the best we can be for your glory."

In my opinion.

 

[shmogie]

The Gospels go more for promises of future genocide than accounts of past genocide. For instance:

Matthew 11:21-24

This isn't genocide. The term implies destruction of innocents.

The Gospels make it clear that the final destruction is based on a judgement made, and acknowledged by the judged that they are guilty as charged. They have willfully rebuffed all efforts of forgiveness and reconciliation. They are denied life and cease to exist forever. Not genocide, justice

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This isn't genocide. The term implies destruction of innocents.

The Gospels make it clear that the final destruction is based on a judgement made, and acknowledged by the judged that they are guilty as charged. They have willfully rebuffed all efforts of forgiveness and reconciliation. They are denied life and cease to exist forever. Not genocide, justice

Ha! "It isn't genocide if they deserve it."

Genocide is the destruction - or attempted destruction - of an entire people, civilization, or identifiable group. There's nothing about innocence in the definition.

... though I suppose it's reasonable to believe that killing off an entire people would necessarily involve killing a lot of innocent people, so I could see someone reasonably deciding that genocide is always wrong. Still, wiping out an entire city certainly qualifies as genocide.

 

[shmogie]

Ha! "It isn't genocide if they deserve it."

Genocide is the destruction - or attempted destruction - of an entire people, civilization, or identifiable group. There's nothing about innocence in the definition.

... though I suppose it's reasonable to believe that killing off an entire people would necessarily involve killing a lot of innocent people, so I could see someone reasonably deciding that genocide is always wrong. Still, wiping out an entire city certainly qualifies as genocide.

. Wiping out an entire city, where every person has consciously, and repeatedly rejected reconciliation for their rebellious and wrong behavior is justice. It is genocide only in that it is death of a group of people, literal meaning. It IS NOT what the term generally means today, unlawful, unwarranted, killing of innocents. Legal execution can only be visited upon the guilty, whether i or 10,000

 

[shmogie]

Nope. I'm responding directly to the OP. It's a hypothetical, although no doubt informed by some level of Abrahamaic belief.



Or longer, depending what question you mean. But ultimately my point was that I don't need permission to question.



Yep. So...where to start with that...
Let's keep it simple to start with.

1) Define 'rebel', in terms of your example.
2) You think all death's are equal? I would disagree. There are certain principles worth risking life for.

Within the framework of my kingdom, a rebel is one who undertakes to change some operation of the administration of the kingdom, that harms the people. Unlawfully destroys a common forest for personal gain selling the lumber. Debasing the gold coinage out of greed, robbery, extortion. Being known to be power hungry and totalitarian in mindset attempting to usurp without cause, or support of the majority of the people the lawful power of the king.

Dying is a process, and certainly there are things or causes worth dying for, mine may be different rhan yours.

Death is a state. When we are dead we are perfectly equal in every way to every other dead person

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

. Wiping out an entire city, where every person has consciously, and repeatedly rejected reconciliation for their rebellious and wrong behavior is justice.

... and genocide.

... and unrealistic: is it even possible for a whole city to be entirely evil?

It is genocide only in that it is death of a group of people, literal meaning.

So you agree with me, then.

It IS NOT what the term generally means today, unlawful, unwarranted, killing of innocents.

Your understanding of the term is different from mine.

Legal execution can only be visited upon the guilty, whether i or 10,000

Actually, there was a news story about that the other day. I'm trying to track down the story, but IIRC, it involved an American death row inmate; the court ruled that evidence of the inmate's innocence alone was not enough to overturn a conviction. There had to have been some sort of mistake of law.

 

[shmogie]

... and genocide.

... and unrealistic: is it even possible for a whole city to be entirely evil?


So you agree with me, then.


Your understanding of the term is different from mine.


Actually, there was a news story about that the other day. I'm trying to track down the story, but IIRC, it involved an American death row inmate; the court ruled that evidence of the inmate's innocence alone was not enough to overturn a conviction. There had to have been some sort of mistake of law.

God never makes a mistake.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

It also shows that some religious groups think they're automatically not included, and can't even answer a theoretical question properly.

I don't think there's usually any rules for how to answer a theoretical question, is there? To clarify as to why some religions might posit they aren't included, I'll use my own as an example:

Buddhists believe that the Buddha comes from the unconstructed. That Buddhas are higher than gods. That gods are in need of the teachings a Buddha can give. Therefore, a god has no power to harm a devotee of the Buddha, because they can't circumvent a power greater than theirs.

The Buddha himself said the Dharma is protection to those that live by it. I've gotten so many proofs of this in my own life, but that's another subject.

A god cannot pass condemnation on one of the Buddha's own because we don't belong to them. We belong to the Buddha. By virtue of our affirmation in the three jewels. The unconstructed cuts through all fetters and knots of the constructed. There is no fetter or binding cord any being in heaven, earth, or hell can make to restrain the Buddha's essence.

One that belongs to a deity and puts their entire trust and fate in it's hands, might very well be subject to what that entity may wish to do after life. That's certainly possible.

I hope you're confident that you chose a good overlord in one described like Yahweh- should such happen, and you are given over to him. I'm confident I chose the good Lord, who not only possesses the ultimate knowledge, but can free humans from bondage to the Maras and oppressive unseen realities.

However, back to the point. If one believes their religion excludes them, they're answering your theoretical with what they think. Yes?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God never makes a mistake.

You do realize that this isn't an answer to what I asked, right?

 

[wizanda]

I don't think there's usually any rules for how to answer a theoretical question, is there?

Depends on the range of the question; if someone answers outside of it, it shows their use of logic.

However, back to the point. If one believes their religion excludes them, they're answering your theoretical with what they think. Yes?

Yes, that is an entirely valid appeal within the constraints of the question...

It is those that excuse themselves from answering, like some how they're automatically saved, when everyone has been told they've failed in the questions premise to begin.

I hope you're confident that you chose a good overlord

Lets expand the question for us then, as Buddha, Lao Tzu, Yeshua (YHVH), Krishna, etc - are the Arch Angels deciding this is taking place, with the CPU allowing it...

What would be your appeal?

In my opinion.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Lets expand the question for us then, as Buddha, Lao Tzu, Yeshua (YHVH), Krishna, etc - are the Arch Angels deciding this is taking place, with the CPU allowing it...

What would be your appeal?

Well that's certainly an interesting view you have, but I can consider it to answer a hypothetical. I suppose my appeal would be I followed the Buddha, wouldn't it?

 

[wizanda]

I suppose my appeal would be I followed the Buddha, wouldn't it?

Buddha might say, enlightenment is found at the end of the reasoning... Which is why the question.

It is only when we're pushed to the limits, where we're imagining we're standing on that spot, and we're told go to the incinerator; that is when we truly seek all the depths within to solve it.

In my opinion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Within the framework of my kingdom, a rebel is one who undertakes to change some operation of the administration of the kingdom, that harms the people. Unlawfully destroys a common forest for personal gain selling the lumber. Debasing the gold coinage out of greed, robbery, extortion. Being known to be power hungry and totalitarian in mindset attempting to usurp without cause, or support of the majority of the people the lawful power of the king.

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

Death is a state. When we are dead we are perfectly equal in every way to every other dead person

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

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Buddha might say, enlightenment is found at the end of the reasoning

Certainly he would, but he wouldn't mean by that: there is nothing true, or no criterion for determination.

Westerners often suppose the Buddha taught nihilism. He was paradoxical and minimalist on the things he held as real, which is different.

The Parinirvana Sutra (Theravadan: Parinibbana Sutta- both vehicles possess a form of this work) has the Buddha affirming certain realities he holds definitely are, and strongly condemning any future followers of his that would deny these things.

Anathemizing them actually. Calling them adharmists and followers of Mara. That's about the strongest language the Buddha would use against a position.