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.

[Bede]

[Replying to post 99 by Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 100 by Divine Insight]

My understanding of the Protestant position is that Jesus took upon himself all the sin and guilt of mankind, past present and future and underwent the legal penalty, not just for one other individuals sins, but " because he was God " it was sufficient to pay the legal penalty for the sins of all mankind.

Thus mankind was freed from legal punishment from sin because Jesus had been legally punished instead.

This theory is known as "penal substitution"

Is that what you both understand by Jesus being punished for our sins?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 101 by Bede]
Yes and no. "Penal substitution" is how I understand Jesus's death and resurrection, but the way you explain it, misses out that Jesus only substitute for the repentant. Jesus is enough to pay for all sin, but only actually paying for a tiny subset of all sin.

[Bede]

[Replying to post 101 by Bede]
Yes and no. "Penal substitution" is how I understand Jesus's death and resurrection, but the way you explain it, misses out that Jesus only substitute for the repentant. Jesus is enough to pay for all sin, but only actually paying for a tiny subset of all sin.

Basically that is a fudge to get out of the problems of "penal substitution".

If Jesus death was enough to pay for all sins then it paid for all sins. How can you suggest that Jesus paid for the sins of "X" but "X" is not going to get the benefit of that payment? It's a legal nonesense.

There are four problems with "penal substitution":
1. It would not be just for God to punish an innocent person for the sins of someone else

2. The punishment due for sin is not only death but eternal damnation. Jesus is not suffering eternal damnation.

3. If Jesus paid the legal penalty for all sins then it would be unjust to punish anyone for their sins. That would be double punishment for the same offence.

4. If the legal penalty for sin has been paid then no-one should be refused entry to heaven for their sin. There is no penalty due to us for any sin we commit.

My guess is that Divine Insight is actually rejecting "penal substitution", although he appears not to understand it. If he is arguing against it then I'm with him on that.

[mwtech]

[Replying to post 99 by Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 100 by Divine Insight]

My understanding of the Protestant position is that Jesus took upon himself all the sin and guilt of mankind, past present and future and underwent the legal penalty, not just for one other individuals sins, but " because he was God " it was sufficient to pay the legal penalty for the sins of all mankind.

Thus mankind was freed from legal punishment from sin because Jesus had been legally punished instead.

This theory is known as "penal substitution"

Is that what you both understand by Jesus being punished for our sins?

That is never how I was taught about Jesus' death. I was never taught that it had anything to do with legality. I was taught that the wage of sin is death, and all people (old enough to understand morality) sin, therefore everyone dies a spiritual death unless forgiven. In the old testament, the forgiveness of sin was by the sacrifice of a spotless lamb. In the New Testament, Jesus was the spotless lamb, and to be forgiven from sin you just had to recognize his great sacrifice instead of performing your own. There is no purging of sin in purgatory or legal punishment for sin. Either you sin and die and go to hell; or you sin, accept the sacrifice, and are forgiven and go to Heaven.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 101 by Bede]
Yes and no. "Penal substitution" is how I understand Jesus's death and resurrection, but the way you explain it, misses out that Jesus only substitute for the repentant. Jesus is enough to pay for all sin, but only actually paying for a tiny subset of all sin.

Basically that is a fudge to get out of the problems of "penal substitution".

If Jesus death was enough to pay for all sins then it paid for all sins. How can you suggest that Jesus paid for the sins of "X" but "X" is not going to get the benefit of that payment? It's a legal nonesense.

There are four problems with "penal substitution":
1. It would not be just for God to punish an innocent person for the sins of someone else

2. The punishment due for sin is not only death but eternal damnation. Jesus is not suffering eternal damnation.

3. If Jesus paid the legal penalty for all sins then it would be unjust to punish anyone for their sins. That would be double punishment for the same offence.

4. If the legal penalty for sin has been paid then no-one should be refused entry to heaven for their sin. There is no penalty due to us for any sin we commit.

My guess is that Divine Insight is actually rejecting "penal substitution", although he appears not to understand it. If he is arguing against it then I'm with him on that.

I understand the apologetics surrounding the idea of "legal payment for sin" or "penal substitution" etc. I just don't buy into them at all. I think they are all lame and irrational apologies for this utterly absurd superstitious religion.

In what way should a God being crucified by humans supposedly justify their salvation? Or their sins? Moreover, why should every human need to condone and accept this personally before they can be "saved"?

I don't see where you have provided an explanation for any of this.

I'm not sold on the idea that all humans need to be 'saved' in the first place. But even if I was, I don't understand how humans crucifying a God on a pole could make this possible.

The idea that humans themselves would need to take personal responsibility for their salvation makes far more sense to me. But in Christianity the idea of any human taking responsibility for their own sins is totally taboo!

It's out of the question.

The only way to God in this religion is through the approval of the religion itself.

And for me, that is a crystal clear sign that this religion is indeed nothing more than a man-made scam.

If there really were a God, taking personal responsibility for your own sins would be paramount. Having them forgiven just because you condone, accept, and support a particular religious dogma is nonsense. Yet this is the very heart of Christianity.

[ttruscott]

...

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.

...

I'm afraid you have missed an important part of salvation. It starts with God's promise to save you if you ask to come under HIS protection from sin, so to speak. Then when you choose to come under the influence of the addiction of sin, you reject HIM and all that, as a sinner does. Salvation starts with your eyes being opened to your guilt, the depths of evil in your soul that make you a hazard to all those whom you love and a real danger to others.Then you will actively seek HIM again and desire above all else to come out of your addiction to sin, die of guilt and be reborn into GOD's family.

By HIS promise this will take place. What you suggest has already happened by (to?) those in their sin who in fact DID all reject God and refuse repentance during the time after the fall and before their eyes opening experience of Adam and Eve. Rejection GOD and Christ is par for the course for all sinners.

GOD will not nor even cannot let HIS promise of salvation fail because of the choices of HIS depraved elect to reject Christ's work for them. So this world is what happens when all of HIS sinful creation rejects Christ's work.

[I remember pre-conversion tackling the issue of Jesus' death for me on the cross the same way you are now and I expect, many if not all sinners, react the same way but once sin is proven to be awful, we just want shut of it.]

I believe we have gone over the righteousness of Christ's death for us, not as a sacrifice of Him by His Father but as a willing player in the debt forgiveness system. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness, is the basic rule. Why this is so I do not know, except for some reason it was the best system the Trinity worked out for any of their elect who became depraved. The shedding of blood implies death and death implies hell and hell implies facing the wrath of GOD.

But in Christianity the idea of any human taking responsibility for their own sins is totally taboo!

Not quite...it is just that to "take responsibility" by facing the judgement as you define it is to be destroyed which HE promised us would never happen if we accepted HIM as our GOD and accepted HIS promise we would indeed inherit heaven by the salvation of all our sins by Christ's work.

It has been asked how HIS death is equal to our death if HE did not stay dead...? Well, once He resurrected we do not stay dead either. If blood shed were all that was needed, the spear in His side would have been enough. If a death were all what was needed, HIS death was enough. But no human survives (as human) the wrath which is the judgment. He did not just die for us, or bleed for us but He took the wrath of GOD for us which we could not have survived.

Since we could not survive in this reality the shedding of blood from the wrath of GOD to attain forgiveness, then by taking that for us, on our name, He fulfilled His promise of our salvation if we accepted Him as our GOD. Whatever happens to people to send them to hell happened to Him but since He was righteous and holy, He came though it unscathed. It was not the effect of the judgment that had to be equal but the fact that the judgment was put upon Him in our names... He was the aggrieved party and so can set any consequence HE wants, I guess.

Are these analogies of spiritual truths perfect? No, not at all and many of the intersections of spiritual truth and our world are not understood but we wait with patience to learn the truth of it all.

To not understand how a car works let alone a nuclear device is not proof that cars and nuclear devices are not real or have no validity in our estimations of reality. Therefore I will wait to understand the full truth of what He did for us and how it fits into the rational of forgiveness, and wait happily, knowing by faith all will be revealed.

Peace, Ted

[Divine Insight]

Salvation starts with your eyes being opened to your guilt, the depths of evil in your soul that make you a hazard to all those whom you love and a real danger to others.

Peace, Ted

Well, that's a show-stopper right there.

I don't see where I am a hazard to anyone. That's ridiculous.

The "depths of evil in my soul"?

You've got to be kidding me.

This is a major problem with this religion. It basically demands that every single human being on planet earth is a dangerously evil person who is a danger to everyone around them.

It's based on a clearly false premise to begin with.

I'm totally confident that I am not an evil person. The very idea that anyone could suggest otherwise is absolutely absurd.

If everyone were like me there would be no need for police, locks, criminal lawyers, etc. No one would ever be raped, no child would ever be abused. No spouse would ever be cheated on. There would be no wars, because if everyone were like me they would work things out before things ever got that far out of hand.

The idea that I'm evil to the core and a danger to anyone is utterly absurd. If Christianity depends upon that being true it's in really bad shape.

And I don't even need to use myself as an example. There are plenty of atheists and non-Christians who are not evil or a threat to anyone.

My very own sister is a convinced atheist. Yet she is very concerned about the welfare of other people. She works as a social worker helping battered wives and abused children. She gets very emotionally upset and is easily brought to tears even just hearing about the horrible situations people she never even met are in.

She's also a vegetarian because she doesn't believe in eating animals. She is very much protective of animal rights.

Yet according to you should needs to have her eyes opened to her evil ways and the fact that she's a danger to everyone around her, simply because she doesn't believe in God, or Jesus, or Christianity.

Nothing could be more absurd. The mere fact that Christianity demands this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's a false religion.

And I am in agreement with you that Christianity does indeed demand this. The bible makes it perfectly clear that all atheists are evil, have done abominable works and there are none that doeth good.

That is a flat-out lie.

Thus we have proof positive that the religion cannot be anything more than a false man-made religious/political brainwashing scam.

And I'm absolutely certain that my sister and I are not the only examples of highly moral, caring, and compassionate atheists. In fact, I'm absolutely certain that there are atheists out there who are far more caring and compassionate than even myself and my sister.

So the Bible is necessarily a lie.

It doesn't have a prayer in hell of being true, as they say.

[Elijah John]

...

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.

...

I'm afraid you have missed an important part of salvation. It starts with God's promise to save you if you ask to come under HIS protection from sin, so to speak. Then when you choose to come under the influence of the addiction of sin, you reject HIM and all that, as a sinner does. Salvation starts with your eyes being opened to your guilt, the depths of evil in your soul that make you a hazard to all those whom you love and a real danger to others.Then you will actively seek HIM again and desire above all else to come out of your addiction to sin, die of guilt and be reborn into GOD's family.

By HIS promise this will take place. What you suggest has already happened by (to?) those in their sin who in fact DID all reject God and refuse repentance during the time after the fall and before their eyes opening experience of Adam and Eve. Rejection GOD and Christ is par for the course for all sinners.

GOD will not nor even cannot let HIS promise of salvation fail because of the choices of HIS depraved elect to reject Christ's work for them. So this world is what happens when all of HIS sinful creation rejects Christ's work.

[I remember pre-conversion tackling the issue of Jesus' death for me on the cross the same way you are now and I expect, many if not all sinners, react the same way but once sin is proven to be awful, we just want shut of it.]

[quote="Divine Insight"
Peace, Ted

Moderator Comment

This part especially comes accross as personal (the use of "you and yours" instead of "one and one's") and is also considered preaching. Strive to state your position as opinion, rather than established fact.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Bust Nak]

Basically that is a fudge to get out of the problems of "penal substitution".

Well it does seem to get out of problem 3 & 4 listed below quite nicely.

If Jesus death was enough to pay for all sins then it paid for all sins. How can you suggest that Jesus paid for the sins of "X" but "X" is not going to get the benefit of that payment? It's a legal nonesense.

I didn't suggest that. If Jesus paid for the sins of "X" then "X" is going to get the benefit of that payment. I am saying Jesus didn't paid for the sins of many "X"'s so those are obviously not going to get the benefit of anything. Jesus death was enough to pay for all sins dosn't mean it paid for all sins.

There are four problems with "penal substitution":
1. It would not be just for God to punish an innocent person for the sins of someone else

Agreed.

2. The punishment due for sin is not only death but eternal damnation. Jesus is not suffering eternal damnation.

It's debatable what eternal damnation means. I'll leave it up to the theologians. I've heard it means spiritual death, and that is something Jesus can defeat.

3. If Jesus paid the legal penalty for all sins then it would be unjust to punish anyone for their sins. That would be double punishment for the same offence.

4. If the legal penalty for sin has been paid then no-one should be refused entry to heaven for their sin. There is no penalty due to us for any sin we commit.

Which is why I said Jesus didn't/does not/will not paid the legal penalty for all sins. Having enough done enough to pay is one thing, actually paying is another. The same way opening a tab in a bar is one thing, actually paying is another. Jesus have enough cash to pay for everyone in a bar, but only a tiny subset of drinkers used the tab.

My guess is that Divine Insight is actually rejecting "penal substitution", although he appears not to understand it. If he is arguing against it then I'm with him on that.

Well, as an atheist, I would say problem 1 is already enough to sink the whole idea.

[Bede]

[Replying to post 101 by Bede]
Yes and no. "Penal substitution" is how I understand Jesus's death and resurrection, but the way you explain it, misses out that Jesus only substitute for the repentant. Jesus is enough to pay for all sin, but only actually paying for a tiny subset of all sin.

Basically that is a fudge to get out of the problems of "penal substitution".

If Jesus death was enough to pay for all sins then it paid for all sins. How can you suggest that Jesus paid for the sins of "X" but "X" is not going to get the benefit of that payment? It's a legal nonesense.

There are four problems with "penal substitution":
1. It would not be just for God to punish an innocent person for the sins of someone else

2. The punishment due for sin is not only death but eternal damnation. Jesus is not suffering eternal damnation.

3. If Jesus paid the legal penalty for all sins then it would be unjust to punish anyone for their sins. That would be double punishment for the same offence.

4. If the legal penalty for sin has been paid then no-one should be refused entry to heaven for their sin. There is no penalty due to us for any sin we commit.

My guess is that Divine Insight is actually rejecting "penal substitution", although he appears not to understand it. If he is arguing against it then I'm with him on that.

I understand the apologetics surrounding the idea of "legal payment for sin" or "penal substitution" etc. I just don't buy into them at all. I think they are all lame and irrational apologies for this utterly absurd superstitious religion.

In what way should a God being crucified by humans supposedly justify their salvation? Or their sins? Moreover, why should every human need to condone and accept this personally before they can be "saved"?

I don't see where you have provided an explanation for any of this.

I'm not sold on the idea that all humans need to be 'saved' in the first place. But even if I was, I don't understand how humans crucifying a God on a pole could make this possible.

The idea that humans themselves would need to take personal responsibility for their salvation makes far more sense to me. But in Christianity the idea of any human taking responsibility for their own sins is totally taboo!

It's out of the question.

The only way to God in this religion is through the approval of the religion itself.

And for me, that is a crystal clear sign that this religion is indeed nothing more than a man-made scam.

If there really were a God, taking personal responsibility for your own sins would be paramount. Having them forgiven just because you condone, accept, and support a particular religious dogma is nonsense. Yet this is the very heart of Christianity.

Of course, in the way you falsely present Christianity it is nonesense.

I think it's called creating a straw man.