The trilemma all gods face

[Wootah]

Hi all,

It just seemed like a lot of people on the site were not familiar with the trilemma all gods worth following face. This is the trilemma of is the God good, is it just and is it loving.

So what's the issue.

If the God is good then it is just. If it is not just then it is not good.
If the God is just then it cannot be merciful. if the god wants to show mercy on someone then it is not being just. If it wants to be just then it is not being merciful.
If a Good is merciful then it is not being just and nor is it being good.

No god outside of God resolves this trilemma. For instance Allah is claimed to be just and merciful but never explains how it is being just or merciful when it shows mercy on someone. Worse since we know Allah is claimed to be merciful then we know Allah is not just or good. If a God is not good then there is nothing to trust and so why does anyone follow Allah? What proof is there that Allah actually is merciful.

So in Christianity the trilemma is resolved.

Mankind's sins require justice.
God justly sentences us to hell.
God also loves us and so pays for our sins.
Those that wish to accept that payment for their sins are able to justly go to heaven.
In this way God shows that he is good, just and loving.

Obviously the floor is open to disagreement or refinement of the above.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 69 by Bede]

But what you just said IS matter of semantics. We say "I've earned some brownie points" and no one thought to debate whether our other halves are legally obliged to give us recognition. We say "this work merit an A" and no one sits down to analyse whether a teacher is legally obliged to give it.

The argument revolves around whether a) there is something inherent in us that warrent righteousness, or b) is it something outside of us that warrent righteousness, no matter what you label "merit" or "earn."

[ttruscott]

...

Remember, non-believers don't see YHWH as a false god, but as no god at all. Non-believers aren't rejecting anything, except for the claims that YHWH exists and has made promises and warnings.

I was not speaking to your experience of non-belief as a human but to the Christian understanding of the reason someone might reject a claim to Deity in the face of great promises and dire warnings... There are too many forms of non-belief in Christ to separate and manage them all in one small post...

Why a person becomes a non-believer and whether that is a temporary or eternal non-belief or how they perceive their situation is of no matter to me but is their business only, as they must make their own choices and do their best with the consequences, the same as all of us.

Peace, Ted

[Korah]

[Replying to post 71 by Bust Nak]
It's all just fun and games, people, just semantics piled on top of false dilemmas (trilemmas per the OP).

No one has an argument anyone else will accept. What's the purpose of this forum if we're all just throwing darts at each other?

May I suggest that a "winner" here would be someone who could show how various apparently conflicting views can be harmonized? A "king" would be someone who could show such a resolution that even solved something? For myself I see no bother trying, as no one is going to admit defeat, being bested, or even having their paradox elucidated by someone else.

Just to exhibit something outside the box, I once-upon-a-time about 1970 toyed with Hyper-Calvinism (not to be confused with mere Calvinism per Calvin) as the reality for human existence: We are all so utterly pre-determined that God attributes no blame to us intrinsically but He saves whomever He will out of His own good pleasure. Yes, philosophical Determinism but with a real God outside the box Who does not intervene and does ultimately save us through His own good pleasure. And since there does not seem to be any good or truth that people can agree on, God just saves everyone? Universalism? (And as does seem to be sort of the theological conclusion of the greatest theologians of the 20th Century, Karl Barth and Hans Urs von Balthasar., respectively Protestant and Benedict XVI-approved Roman Catholic).

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 31 by Wootah]

If you were omnipotent, all you have to do is make your beloved object indestructable (by all but yourself).

I believe this is the source of the problem with an eternal hell for an eternal evil...no annihilation.

Furthermore, there is no reason that the "safe room" has to be the only desirable place to be. There is nothing stopping you from having another nice room set aside for your other beloved (but dangerous) objects.

The safe room is a good analogy but as you have pushed it to the limits of usefulness I'll explain why I don't think it works:

The purpose for our creation was to share the heavenly experience with God and each other, the full, loving and holy telepathic communion within all of created reality through-out all created 'rooms' so to speak.

And just like Galatians 5:9 "A little leaven works through the whole batch of dough." leaven is the symbol of pernicious bad doctrine, political influences and wickedness of heart which cannot be stopped. For our purposes, leaven is that tiniest bit of evil minded attitude hidden in the corner of a not fully repentant person who, if they came into the heavenly link would sooner or later poison the whole of it throughout all of created reality.

Thus the eternally evil must be banished from all of created reality into the outer darkness before the telepathic heavenly communion link is established so their influence (not so small or subtle) would not destroy HIS whole purpose for our creation.

Peace, Ted

[Divine Insight]

May I suggest that a "winner" here would be someone who could show how various apparently conflicting views can be harmonized?

This comes up a lot in debates on Christianity, but is this even remotely possible?

How does anyone harmonize with a religion like Christianity where the advocates of the religion are basically demanding that the Bible is the "Word of God", Jesus is the only way to get to God, and Jesus died for your sins, etc., and absolutely nothing else is acceptable. Not even Judaism or Islam which are very closely related religions.

How do we harmonize views with such an intolerant religion?

I, for one, would be more than happy to live in peace with Christians in a world where they would also respect me for not believing in their religion.

But I mean, genuine respect. Not the hypocritical stance that I'm free to believe anything I want, but in the meantime they consider me to have rejected the one true God and be destined to their hell. Their dogma even claims that if I don't believe in their religion I necessarily must be evil because the bible clearly states that those who do not believe in their God are evil and do abominable things, and that there are none who doeth good.

How are we supposed to ever find harmony with a religion that flat out denies and condemns everything and anything that doesn't cower down to its beliefs and religious propaganda?

Please answer me that.

I think most, if not all, non-Christians wouldn't even bother with Christians or Christianity at all if it wasn't for the absolute arrogance of the Christian dogma and therefore the arrogance of those who follow that dogma.

Just look at this very thread. It's a thread that tries to make a case for the morality of this Christian God who casts everyone into a state of eternal damnation if they merely fail to cower down to the demands of Christianity.

How do you find "harmony" with an attitude like that?

It's basically saying, "Believe in Christianity and accept Jesus as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, or go to hell and it's entirely your fault, and our God is totally blameless because it's totally moral to cast you heathen perverts into hell.

Where is there any "harmony" in that"

It basically amounts to nothing short of a very hateful accusation and condemnation of non-Christians.

[Zzyzx]

.

The purpose for our creation was to share the heavenly experience with God and each other, the full, loving and holy telepathic communion within all of created reality through-out all created 'rooms' so to speak.

How, exactly, do you know all that to be true? It may be a popular pronouncement in church or among fellow believers, but not in debate -- unless it can be substantiated with something more than religion promotional material (the bible and its derivatives).

[Bede]

You keep making up things I haven't said.

I have never said that God doesn't truly forgive us.

I think you have garnered some weird Protestant version of grace and are imputing it to me.

But in Christianity how could you ever be forgiven of your sins?

There is no way to even get to the Christian God without confessing that you are a sinner whilst simultaneously committing an even greater sin of condoning having God's son crucified to pay for your sins.

So in order to get into heaven you need to both confess that you are a sinner, and commit the greater sin of condoning having God's innocent Son crucified on your behalf.

And you will need to live with that for the rest of eternity.

That hardly amounts to forgiveness for anything.

What do you mean by "having God's son crucified to pay for your sins."

And "having God's innocent Son crucified on your behalf. "

[ttruscott]

May I suggest that a "winner" here would be someone who could show how various apparently conflicting views can be harmonized?

This comes up a lot in debates on Christianity, but is this even remotely possible?

How does anyone harmonize with a religion like Christianity where the advocates of the religion are basically demanding that the Bible is the "Word of God", Jesus is the only way to get to God, and Jesus died for your sins, etc., and absolutely nothing else is acceptable. Not even Judaism or Islam which are very closely related religions.

How do we harmonize views with such an intolerant religion?

I, for one, would be more than happy to live in peace with Christians in a world where they would also respect me for not believing in their religion.

But I mean, genuine respect. Not the hypocritical stance that I'm free to believe anything I want, but in the meantime they consider me to have rejected the one true God and be destined to their hell. Their dogma even claims that if I don't believe in their religion I necessarily must be evil because the bible clearly states that those who do not believe in their God are evil and do abominable things, and that there are none who doeth good.

How are we supposed to ever find harmony with a religion that flat out denies and condemns everything and anything that doesn't cower down to its beliefs and religious propaganda?

Please answer me that.

I think most, if not all, non-Christians wouldn't even bother with Christians or Christianity at all if it wasn't for the absolute arrogance of the Christian dogma and therefore the arrogance of those who follow that dogma.

Just look at this very thread. It's a thread that tries to make a case for the morality of this Christian God who casts everyone into a state of eternal damnation if they merely fail to cower down to the demands of Christianity.

How do you find "harmony" with an attitude like that?

It's basically saying, "Believe in Christianity and accept Jesus as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, or go to hell and it's entirely your fault, and our God is totally blameless because it's totally moral to cast you heathen perverts into hell.

Where is there any "harmony" in that"

It basically amounts to nothing short of a very hateful accusation and condemnation of non-Christians.

My basic answer is I agree, there can be no harmony and you are correct in your understanding of the necessity of righteousness from GOD's pov to have a heavenly experience (please translate into your own words, I use Christian words) and

that when I studied the other religions, or at least when I talked to their local leaders, gurus etc, they all to a person agreed that YHWH existed and was one of the enlightened though somewhat inflexible persons of real history the same as their leaders etc, alive or dead or ascended so convincingly I decided to give HIM another chance and committed to reading the Bible that year...

and thus it was that I came to contrast this attitude with what I was reading in the OT about HIM, which you just pointed out. It was obvious that if the OT GOD existed, these religious teachers did NOT know HIM nor HIS religion at all and IF HE existed as they claimed as an enlightened being, HE could never have written scripture as it was nor treated people like HE did during those times.

So I had to make up my mind who was wrong; was the Bible written by satan or mere man or did the other religions have a wrong interpretation of reality? Since they did not seem to know who HE was or what HE claimed to be or of HIS implacable hatred of any other claimant to Deity, I decided they were in the fault and YHWH was indeed the one true living GOD, yikes.

So that is how I reconciled the dilemma you present...no proof of its correctness in reality I know, but it resonated as truth within me, <shrug> and the ringing has only gotten clearer and sweeter over the years.

Peace, Ted

[Wootah]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Just a quick reply. Islam has 99 names for God and father is not one of them. It's hard to believe we are worshipping the same being when they can't make that connection to God.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 73 by Korah]

I see that you claim it is a false trilemma but I don't see you giving a reason for your claim. Did I miss that post?