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.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 39 by Elijah John]

1) God is good. Not God is not good. What do you think hell will be like then. God is life. God doesn't destroy what he created and promised to live forever.

2) the first post deals with Islam and probably with Judaism. Given that I believe that first post I don't even know what a Muslim thinks they are worshipping. It's certainly not a relationship with God they are after. Without Jesus I don't think followers of either of those religions really are interested in bowing down to God. Because if you accept Jesus you accept there was no other way but God.

What is your evidence that God will not destroy what He created to live forever? How would it be a violaton of any promise He made, if He annihilated the "unsaved" instead of torturing them forever in hell?

Also, to answer point # 2, the answer is that they think they are worshiping God. If not, are you asserting that ONLY Jesus is God? Even from Trinitarian point of view, that would be inccorrect.

How then, why then do you think that Muslims and Jews are not worshiping the Father?

Why are the Muslims wrong, and you are right in your denial that Muslims worship God? (although with the Malaysian court ruling forbidding non-Muslims from using the word "Allah" they are not helping their case that all three religions worship the same God of Abraham.)

But could it be that Muslims are actually worshiping the SAME God under a different name, "Allah"? (which means THE God in Arabic)

Arab Christians use the name "Allah" in their Bibles to refer to God.

If you assert that "Jesus is God" , what is your evidence/proof? Even the NT is ambiguous on this point, or contradictory at best.

Also, there is a book written by a Jewish author entitled, "You take Jesus, I'll take God". Why is the assumption in the title wrong?

So to answer your wondering who Jews and Muslims think they are worshiping , it is God they think they are worshiping, and I agree.

[Bede]

Bede

Also, if humans are incapable of love on their own and all love is instilled upon them via this God, then why couldn't the same thing be true of righteousness?

Why can't this God then simply instill righteousness onto all humans. Then there would be no need for anyone to go to hell?

He can and does instill righteousness into us. But we have to merit it.

Your apologetic arguments for this religion are totally empty and devoid of any compelling reasons to believe in this religion. On the contrary, your claims actually raise far more questions and problems that you seem to think that the supposedly resolve.

In fact, I don't see how they resolve anything actually. If all humans are incapable of the things you claim then why should any humans qualify for grace at all. What would be the criteria for them to have "Earned" Grace?

And yes they most certainly would have needed to "earn" it, because the mere fact that not all humans are automatically given this grace demands that it is indeed something that specific humans have done that have "earned" them this grace.

The whole scenario is oxymoronic.

The humans who have obtained grace in this religion must have done something to "earn" it. But what exactly could they do to earn this grace?

Simply believe in Christianity as a matter of pure blind faith?

That's absurd. Why would that be sufficient for earning grace?

We don't earn it but we can merit it. There is a difference.

[Bede]

[Replying to post 56 by Divine Insight]

I didn't not say humans were garbage.

That is your interpretation and a very poor one IMO.

[Bede]

We are made in the image and likeness of God. We may not understand why God loves us but he does.

How can you claim that we are made in the likeness of God when you claim that God is capable of love, and simultaneously claim that we are not?

Again I didn't say we are incapable of love.

We can love becausewe are made in the image and likness of God.

But we can lose that image and likeness.

[Bede]

As to the idea that God does not really forgive our sins, where do you get that from?

Because according to you there never is any actual forgiveness. Instead we are just given "grace" which is not forgiveness at all. On the contrary the very concept of grace is the idea that it will not be forgotten that you are a sinner but instead you will just be accepted into God's presence anyway in spite of the fact that you are a sinner. That's not forgiveness.

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.

[Divine Insight]

He can and does instill righteousness into us. But we have to merit it.

If we "merit" it then we have earned it and it can no longer be said to be "grace".

We don't earn it but we can merit it. There is a difference.

And now it appears that you want to get into an extremely vague argument of semantics.

If you claim that someone had done something to "merit" grace, then clearly it would be something they did that had "earned" them that position.

It seems to me to go off into arguments of semantics over the difference between "merit" and "earn" would be an exercise in futility.

If a person's actions or decisions have in any way made them uniquely eligible for "grace" then clearly they are the one who earned this position via their own actions or decisions.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 39 by Elijah John]

1) God is good. Not God is not good. What do you think hell will be like then. God is life. God doesn't destroy what he created and promised to live forever.

And how do you know that? One big problem with that claim is that there are passages in the bible that disagree (god created evil), and then there is the observation of what happens in REAL life, situations that a GOOD god would not allow. Can you back this claim up?

[Divine Insight]

Again I didn't say we are incapable of love.

We can love becausewe are made in the image and likness of God.

But we can lose that image and likeness.

There are major problems with your claims here that you are clearly unaware of.

If our ability to love is said to come from the ideal that we are made in the image and likeness of God, then so too, our ability to hate must necessarily come from this same fact.

In fact, you seem to be suggesting that we are something "other" than God entirely since you believe that we can actually continue to exist in the absence of God.

This is actually a deep and fundamental problem with the entire Abrahamic picture, and with any religious that proclaim God to be an egotistically separate entity from humans.

Religions that actually describe a truly perfectly moral God also recognize that humans can never be separated from God. The very idea that humans could exist separate from God is highly problematic. It would require that humans are themselves capable of existing and sustaining themselves without the help of any magical God. In short, any religions that claim that humans can exist without a God are extreme polytheism in that they are demanding that every single individual human is actually a God in its own right.

Otherwise how could you exist in the absence of God?

[Bede]

He can and does instill righteousness into us. But we have to merit it.

If we "merit" it then we have earned it and it can no longer be said to be "grace".

We don't earn it but we can merit it. There is a difference.

And now it appears that you want to get into an extremely vague argument of semantics.

If you claim that someone had done something to "merit" grace, then clearly it would be something they did that had "earned" them that position.

It seems to me to go off into arguments of semantics over the difference between "merit" and "earn" would be an exercise in futility.

If a person's actions or decisions have in any way made them uniquely eligible for "grace" then clearly they are the one who earned this position via their own actions or decisions.

It's not a matter of semantics.

If we earn something in the sense that St. Paul uses it in the Bible then we are talking about something we are due because of a legal right.

If we merit something then that something is not legally earned - we have no legal right to it - but it is something that is given us as a reward. However the giver is not obliged to give it to us.

If we earn something then the the giver is legally obliged to give it to us.

Moreover "earn" implies some equivalent relationship between the action and what is due (e.g. a days wage for a days work). Eternal life with God can never be earned because there is no action we can do with has any equivalents to the gain of eternal life.

However merit need not have such a relationship. The gift of eternal life can be merited, but it is a free gift from God and bears no intrinsic relationship of worth to whatever merited it.

[Divine Insight]

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.