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.

[FarWanderer]

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.

We "merit" being instilled righteousness by doing what? Being righteous?

[ttruscott]

.

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?

Of course he intends torture if he is not a judge and not a father giving an appropriate punishment and is doing horrendous evil for his own pleasure... you describe a perfect torture scenario and imply I reject it as torture for what reason...? Nothing I've written leads to that conclusion so must I conclude your seek to torture me emotionally?

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.

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?

Two sects of Christianity: one which believe that that is just the way it is and babies are created that way for reasons we never know and

PCEC which contends that all spirits born on earth are at least 5000 years old before coming to earth and have chosen to be sinners by their free will, in full knowledge of what YHWH thought of that idea, and have been practicing sin for most of that time in sheol.

Imagine a 6000 year old psychopathic criminal coming to earth and looking so innocent. Should we accept what he looks like or try to deal with what is there? We have movies with the birth of the Anti-Christ called Damian I think. This is the idea I accept for all people...all people born on earth are ancient sinners and until their rebirth into Christ are as evil as the devil, accruing suffering for themselves.

What Damian looks like has no bearing upon who he really is or what he will be capable of. I remember Rosemary's Baby, too...same idea.

Some of suffering is of legal judgemental value to the spirit who suffers and some of it has a chastising punishment value to change the sufferer's behaviour...we cannot tell which from our pov.

If a psychotic criminal could transmigrate his soul into a newborn, would he be suddenly innocent? I don't think so... Is it really so much better that the death of a baby be either random or the choice of GOD rather than the baby's choice itself before he became a baby?

Peace, Ted

[Bede]

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.

You haven't answered my questions. All you have done is repeat what you said before.

That suggests to me that you don't know what you are talking about.

Don't you know what you mean by "having God's son crucified to pay for your sins."?

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

Just repeating what you said does not explain what you mean by what you said.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 88 by ttruscott]

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

First, you can say whatever you want. Second, you can say that about atheism and I won't take it personally as I'm not one. Third, one's beliefs are fair game - if one doesn't like it they are in the wrong place. Lastly, you will note I said "...seems like reasoning to excuse the concept of 'original sin' and take the responsibility off your god." which it seems you are agreeing with by defending your 'doctrine'. Thank you for admitting that.

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.

Yes it is. The concept that you excuse god for something it's perfectly capable of eliminating while allowing the free will so many christians harp about.
Detestable indeed.

Taking responsibility of our sins by accepting we chose them by free will is disgusting in this enlightened day and age, eh?

Explain how a baby is taking responsibility for their sins

Original sin, to catch you up, ...

I don't need catching up - I was a member of the chritian cult for decades. But thanks anyway

I believe I remember you attacking Christianity for accepting original sin...

There are a myriad of legitimate reasons to attack chritianity. I'm sure you could pick a better one, no?

...now I'm attacked for avoiding original sin???

First, no one is attacking you - get over yourself. Second, it's not that you're avoiding original sin, but creating 'pre-sin' - which is an attempt to circumvent original sin and avoid holding your 'deity' (term used very loosley) from any resonsibility to fit your needs. But I'm sure you notice the difference, right.....

[Divine Insight]

You haven't answered my questions. All you have done is repeat what you said before.

That suggests to me that you don't know what you are talking about.

Don't you know what you mean by "having God's son crucified to pay for your sins."?

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

Just repeating what you said does not explain what you mean by what you said.

Consider this.

If every human refused to accept the crucifixion of Jesus to pay for their sins, then the act would be useless. Moreover there would be no need for God to have ever done this.

By accepting this act on your behalf you are condoning it.

When I bring this up many Christians have argued with me, "But it's already a done deal refusing to accept it now isn't going to change the fact that Jesus was crucified to pay for our sins".

But that argument doesn't hold water in terms of an omniscient God. My refusal to accept this crucifixion is valid clear back to the dawn of time, even before I ever existed. An omniscient God should have already known that I could never accept such an immoral act on my behalf. Nor should he have ever expected me to. The idea that he wouldn't have known this implies that his omniscient is worthless and he couldn't know that some humans would passionately reject this on moral grounds.

Moreover, what sense does it make for a God to condemn people who morally object to this. This would require that this God condemn people for simply having moral values.

There are many atheists who feel precisely this same way I do. They view this idea of having a supposedly perfect innocent divine God, demigod, son of God, or whatever you want to call him, crucified to pay for their sins as being an extremely immoral concept. Many of them say that's simply unacceptable. They would rather this God just send them to hell.

Many Christians argue, "Well, that's precisely what God will do then".

But therein lies the problem. This God would then be sending people to hell for having high moral values. And that's absurd.

So this is extremely problematic. This religion is asking us to condone having an innocent man, or demigod, crucified on our behalf. The religions is demanding that we condone an extremely immoral act all the while that it is claiming to be a religion that is all about morality.

It's utterly absurd.

And many atheists reject it passionately on the grounds that it is indeed an extremely immoral religion in this regard. And this is a valid objection, IMHO.

I do not condone having an innocent Jesus nailed to a pole to pay for my sins.

It's that simple.

And therefore I could never become a Christian because Christianity is demanding that I do this very thing.

[Bede]

You haven't answered my questions. All you have done is repeat what you said before.

That suggests to me that you don't know what you are talking about.

Don't you know what you mean by "having God's son crucified to pay for your sins."?

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

Just repeating what you said does not explain what you mean by what you said.

Consider this.

If every human refused to accept the crucifixion of Jesus to pay for their sins, then the act would be useless. Moreover there would be no need for God to have ever done this.

By accepting this act on your behalf you are condoning it.

When I bring this up many Christians have argued with me, "But it's already a done deal refusing to accept it now isn't going to change the fact that Jesus was crucified to pay for our sins".

But that argument doesn't hold water in terms of an omniscient God. My refusal to accept this crucifixion is valid clear back to the dawn of time, even before I ever existed. An omniscient God should have already known that I could never accept such an immoral act on my behalf. Nor should he have ever expected me to. The idea that he wouldn't have known this implies that his omniscient is worthless and he couldn't know that some humans would passionately reject this on moral grounds.

Moreover, what sense does it make for a God to condemn people who morally object to this. This would require that this God condemn people for simply having moral values.

There are many atheists who feel precisely this same way I do. They view this idea of having a supposedly perfect innocent divine God, demigod, son of God, or whatever you want to call him, crucified to pay for their sins as being an extremely immoral concept. Many of them say that's simply unacceptable. They would rather this God just send them to hell.

Many Christians argue, "Well, that's precisely what God will do then".

But therein lies the problem. This God would then be sending people to hell for having high moral values. And that's absurd.

So this is extremely problematic. This religion is asking us to condone having an innocent man, or demigod, crucified on our behalf. The religions is demanding that we condone an extremely immoral act all the while that it is claiming to be a religion that is all about morality.

It's utterly absurd.

And many atheists reject it passionately on the grounds that it is indeed an extremely immoral religion in this regard. And this is a valid objection, IMHO.

I do not condone having an innocent Jesus nailed to a pole to pay for my sins.

It's that simple.

And therefore I could never become a Christian because Christianity is demanding that I do this very thing.

You still haven't explained what you meant by "having God's son crucified to pay for your sins."?

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

Now you say " having an innocent Jesus nailed to a pole to pay for my sins.
"
And

"Jesus was crucified to pay for our sins".

You just keep repeating the same thing without explaining what you mean.

It seems that you really don't know what you are talking about.

No point in discussing it further then is it?

[Bust Nak]

You still haven't explained what you meant by "having God's son crucified to pay for your sins."?

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

Now you say " having an innocent Jesus nailed to a pole to pay for my sins.
"
And

"Jesus was crucified to pay for our sins".

You just keep repeating the same thing without explaining what you mean.

It seems that you really don't know what you are talking about.

No point in discussing it further then is it?

What do you think he means? What's wrong with the regular English interpretation? He is obviously referring to the central doctrine of Christianity re: the wages of sin is death, and Jesus' blood washes away sin. If you are inferring that there is some secret knowledge about his resurrection that we are missing, then just explain it.

[Bede]

You still haven't explained what you meant by "having God's son crucified to pay for your sins."?

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

Now you say " having an innocent Jesus nailed to a pole to pay for my sins.
"
And

"Jesus was crucified to pay for our sins".

You just keep repeating the same thing without explaining what you mean.

It seems that you really don't know what you are talking about.

No point in discussing it further then is it?

What do you think he means? What's wrong with the regular English interpretation? He is obviously referring to the central doctrine of Christianity re: the wages of sin is death, and Jesus' blood washes away sin. If you are inferring that there is some secret knowledge about his resurrection that we are missing, then just explain it.

You mean that is your interpretation. And that is not even an explanation.

I think I know what he means but why should I guess? That just leads to misunderstandings.

[Bust Nak]

You mean that is your interpretation. And that is not even an explanation.

Yes, my interpretation and I would argue, the most obvious interpretation. What do you even mean by explanation? I don't how else you could interpret "having God's son crucified to pay for your sins," what is so complicated about the meaning of that sentence? It means, having Jesus killed as compensation for man's sin. Again, if you think there is some hidden meaning we are missing then tell us what we are missing.

I think I know what he means but why should I guess? That just leads to misunderstandings.

It just looks like you are stalling without addressing his point. I would charge you with the same stalling with that earlier business with "earn" vs "merit."

[Divine Insight]

You mean that is your interpretation. And that is not even an explanation.

I think I know what he means but why should I guess? That just leads to misunderstandings.

I think you're the one who is in need of explaining yourself Bede.

The standard Christian picture is that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of God who was given by God to pay for our sins.

This is the central idea behind Christianity. If you have a different interpretation then it is you who would need to explain your idea.

Please explain to us how we can get to this God without accepting that Jesus died to pay for our sins as our "savior". Also please explain where this option is offered in the Bible.

Most Christian denominations would passionately object to the idea that anyone can be "saved" without Jesus. That would require that we can "save" ourselves which is absolutely not permitted in certainly all the popular versions of Christianity.

Any versions of Christianity that suggests that anyone can get to the Father without Jesus are certainly outliers from the norm, and they are most likely passionately rejected by all the mainstream versions of Christendom as being absolutely wrong. Not to mention John 3:18 and Mark 16:16.

So if you believe in such a version, then it's you who would need to explain that very rare and unorthodox version of Christianity.

So please explain to us how we can be "saved" without having to condone the crucifixion of Jesus on our behave.