The trilemma all gods face

Wootah · Post by **Wootah** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 6:48 am

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.

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 6:06 pm

Zzyzx wrote: .
ttruscott wrote: 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).

Nope, this is a spiritually based forum and the spirit cannot be validated in the physical...I read the various suggestions as to how to deal with that and think none of them are suitable. The debate format serves no one. Atheists cannot prove their contention behind their decision not to believe HE exists and we can't prove ours that HE does - what a format, eh?

And, I think you'll find a strict adherence to the rules of debate are more seen in the breaking of them than in keeping them by both sides...this seems to be only called a debate forum when the social discussions are breaking down.

I do accept it as true because it is taught in the Bible, alas.

Peace, Ted

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 6:15 pm

Korah wrote:
...

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

...

Not seeking a win here but I am happiest when I can reconcile Christian doctrine with the attributes of GOD without conflict or fancy dancing or double think sophistry...

and second happiest is when I can help someone to understand how their antipathy to Christianity is based on a wrong definition of something, a definition that is not Christian so they are fighting a strawgod.

A win would imply they convert to my pov, which I do not expect nor particularly care about, I just like saying my piece,

Peace, Ted

Wootah · Post by **Wootah** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 6:15 pm

[Replying to Jashwell]

Not really - hell plus hell is just hell. You are just grappling with how bad not God is.

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 6:42 pm

Jashwell wrote: [Replying to post 43 by Wootah]

Will people be tortured in hell?
If so, why?

NO. Torture is in the intent of the person inflicting the suffering. It has no punishment / chastisement value to elicit a change of behaviour nor is it a judgment for a crime. But, that said, it is in the eye of the beholder whether it feels like a torture to them, that is, an unbearable suffering, which it isn't or they couldn't be complaining about it. So, no matter how they feel about it, GOD does not torture.

All suffering on earth or in hell is perfectly in accord with the sins of the person which accrued suffering.

No innocents suffer on earth or in heaven, only sinners.

Jashwell wrote:This isn't merely *not God*, this is *not God* PLUS torture.

[This emotional rant ignored...]

Jashwell wrote:If hell is merely the absence of God, there would be no brimstone, fire, suffering, etc. It would just be Earth, without the specific group of religious that are correct.

I'm pretty sure that the physical descriptions of pain in a spiritual, non-physical setting must refer to the peak experience of suffering, not the true or exact nature as the cause of that suffering. I contend it is no more HIS intent to cause the suffering than the banishment of a criminal from your boat is to get him wet...that is, both getting wet and the suffering of hell are natural consequences of the situation of being in the water, or in hell, and not the intent of the judge putting the criminal there.

All of created reality must be swept clean so the telepathic communion between us all will remain holy and loving, untainted by any hint of sin. Since this heavenly communion will spread throughout all of reality it strikes me that the outer darkness where hell is must be past the edge of created reality somewhere, not a created part used for a prison but that place that was not created and has no other creation in it than the souls of the reprobate.

It is a banishment FROM polite society, not a banishment TO a torture chamber.

Peace, Ted

connermt · Post by **connermt** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:15 pm

[Replying to post 84 by ttruscott]

All suffering on earth or in hell is perfectly in accord with the sins of the person which accrued suffering.

So you're saying the baby born with a disease is suffering for its sins?
That seems like reasoning to excuse the concept of 'original sin' and take the responsibility off your god.
Which is, IMO, detestable.

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:09 pm

.

ttruscott wrote:
Jashwell wrote: Will people be tortured in hell?
If so, why?
NO. Torture is in the intent of the person inflicting the suffering.

Thus, if a person drills holes in someones kneecaps or beats people for personal entertainment or enjoyment it is not torture unless the driller INTENDS torture?

ttruscott wrote: It has no punishment / chastisement value to elicit a change of behaviour nor is it a judgment for a crime. But, that said, it is in the eye of the beholder whether it feels like a torture to them, that is, an unbearable suffering, which it isn't or they couldn't be complaining about it. So, no matter how they feel about it, GOD does not torture.

All suffering on earth or in hell is perfectly in accord with the sins of the person which accrued suffering.

Perhaps you realize, as I trust readers do, that "all who suffer deserve their suffering because they sinned against my favorite god" is not rational.

ttruscott wrote: No innocents suffer on earth or in heaven, only sinners.

A newborn struggling to breathe with improperly developed lungs is a SINNER and deserves their suffering? Those born with AIDS deserve their suffering because they are SINNERS?

What religion teaches such things?

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:50 pm

.

Bede wrote:
The absence of God is not merely life as is now, but without God looking down on us going tut! tut!

Hell is not merely the absence of God but of all that God is and brings to us.

There will be no love, only hate.

There will be no friends, only enemies.

There will be no beauty, only ugliness.

There will be no peace, only war.

There will be no pleasure, only suffering.

There will be no ecstasy, only agony.

And so on.

Is this an honest appraisal of humans without the influence of "gods" -- devoid of love, friends, beauty, peace, pleasure, ecstasy, etc -- nothing positive -- all negative?

Chimpanzees appear to do better than that.

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:03 am

connermt wrote: [Replying to post 84 by ttruscott]

All suffering on earth or in hell is perfectly in accord with the sins of the person which accrued suffering.
So you're saying the baby born with a disease is suffering for its sins?
That seems like reasoning to excuse the concept of 'original sin' and take the responsibility off your god.
Which is, IMO, detestable.

Can you say my doctrine is detestable when I can't say that atheism is detestable, hmmm?

All suffering is by the free will choice of the person to sin, not sin from GOD, not sin from Adam not sin from anyone else - yup pretty detestable. Taking responsibility of our sins by accepting we chose them by free will is disgusting in this enlightened day and age, eh?

Original sin, to catch you up, is the doctrine we inherit our sin from Adam, that GOD makes us sinners in him and I find that detestable and somewhat blasphemous to punish us for someone else's sin and never give us a chance to choose...

I believe I remember you attacking Christianity for accepting original sin and now I'm attacked for avoiding original sin??? Wow, I must be very very bad, sniff.

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:15 am

.

ttruscott wrote: All suffering is by the free will choice of the person to sin, not sin from GOD, not sin from Adam not sin from anyone else - yup pretty detestable. Taking responsibility of our sins by accepting we chose them by free will is disgusting in this enlightened day and age, eh?

Bold and color added for emphasis

Kindly demonstrate how that statement applies to newborn infants who suffer because they are "taking responsibility" for their "sins."

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:56 am

Bede wrote: 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. "

Well, what do you think it means to accept the crucifixion of Jesus to pay for your sins?

By accepting this act on your behalf you are condoning the act. If you don't condone having Jesus crucified to pay for your sins how can you claim to have accepted the crucifixion of Jesus to pay for your sins?

It seems pretty simple to me.

What I am saying to this biblical God (not to you) is that I reject the whole idea of having his innocent son crucified to pay for my sins. I refuse to be party to this. I simply don't condone this on what I consider to be moral grounds.

Yet, ironically this religion demands that I must then be cast into hell for eternity for refusing to go along with this God's Plan.

So Christianity demands that because I have a moral consciousness and refuse to accept or be party to having Jesus crucified to pay for my sin I will be cast into a state of eternal damnation.

And from my perspective, you on the other, are endorsing this extremely immoral act to save your own soul. You don't seem to be bothered about having Jesus pay for your sins.

I refuse to allow it on moral grounds. I would rather be cast into this God's eternal hell than condone having his innocent son brutally beaten and crucified to pay for my sins.

I also hold that if everyone were like me, then no one would condone this method of salvation, and this would make the crucifixion absolutely meaningless and useless.

That only thing that can possibly give the crucifixion of Jesus any meaning in terms of being a useful method of salvation is if people condone it on their behalf.

So by condoning this action you are giving it your seal of approval and accepting this atrocity to save your soul.

I refuse.

Therefore the only people who can obtain heaven in Christianity are people who are willing to condone having Jesus crucified for their sins. People who have higher moral values are rejected from heaven and cast into hell.

This is a religion where moral people are being excluded from heaven and only those who are willing to have an innocent man crucified for their sins are permitted to enter.