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.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 107 by Divine Insight]

Excellent post!

It basically demands that every single human being on planet earth is a dangerously evil person who is a danger to everyone around them.

I have heard many a preacher say 'without god, we are nothing' and the like. I always wondered, other than the means to elevate god by devaluing oneself, what would be the benefit of such a claim?

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

Yes, but I would say it's perfectly acceptable if the one saying it is trying to legitimize their position by discounting yours. In other words, it makes perfect sense to them, silly as it is. This is a prime example of brainwashing those of little self esteem IMO

If Christianity depends upon that being true it's in really bad shape.

Certain, more 'hell fire and brimstones' types do. But there's a more modern movement that preaches love, kindess...you know the 'peace man!' more 'hippy' kind of movement.

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.

Yes, but she is evil because she hasn't accepted god! It's taught, in many churches, that if you aren't 'of god' or haven't accepted god, you ARE in fact, evil and of the devil.

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.

And I would bet more compassionate than many christians and others claiming compassion. It seems, many times, those who profess it are the worst offenders at it.

[Bede]

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.

Its not debateable. Its very clear. It means eternal separation from God. Jesus is not eternally separated from God.

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.

We are not talking about bar tabs and future payments, but the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You seem to be adopting the Calvanist theory that Jesus only died for the elect, pre-determined by God from the beginning.

I agree that not everyone benefits from the atoning work of Christ but because I do not believe in penal substitution. The penal substitution model is legalistic and under that model if Jesus died for everyone then everyone's debt has been paid.

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.

Well, we can agree on that.

[Strider324]

Bede scribed:

Its not debateable. Its very clear. It means eternal separation from God. Jesus is not eternally separated from God.

Yours is a Catholic definition. What scripture supports this definition? The Vulgate uses 'Infernus' - a place of 'fiery heat or destruction'. Other bibles substitute Sheol for Hades - a place of torment as described in the story of Lazarus and Dives (Luke 16: 19-31)

The Catholic apologetic appears to be a later revisionist definition pursuant to the need to distance themselves from the scriptures that describe hell as a place of physical torture: "Um, yeah - hell is REALLY just about seperation from God. There's no torture or burning or fire or brimstone involved."

Seems a tad too convenient an exegesis for my tastes.

[Bede]

Bede scribed:

Its not debateable. Its very clear. It means eternal separation from God. Jesus is not eternally separated from God.

Yours is a Catholic definition. What scripture supports this definition? The Vulgate uses 'Infernus' - a place of 'fiery heat or destruction'. Other bibles substitute Sheol for Hades - a place of torment as described in the story of Lazarus and Dives (Luke 16: 19-31)

The Catholic apologetic appears to be a later revisionist definition pursuant to the need to distance themselves from the scriptures that describe hell as a place of physical torture: "Um, yeah - hell is REALLY just about seperation from God. There's no torture or burning or fire or brimstone involved."

Seems a tad too convenient an exegesis for my tastes.

Are you suggesting that hell is NOT an eternal separation from God?

[Bust Nak]

Its not debateable. Its very clear. It means eternal separation from God. Jesus is not eternally separated from God.

That's theology, not really interested in defending any of it. I'd rather poke holes in it.

We are not talking about bar tabs and future payments, but the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

But we ARE talking about future payments. Judgement day isn't here yet, that is when humanity actually have to pay, and that is also when Jesus can step in.

You seem to be adopting the Calvanist theory that Jesus only died for the elect, pre-determined by God from the beginning.

I am only going as far as saying Jesus died for some. I don't take that extra step to say that who Jesus died for is pre-determined from the beginning. I would call pre-determining who gets saved is plain evil.

I agree that not everyone benefits from the atoning work of Christ but because I do not believe in penal substitution. The penal substitution model is legalistic and under that model if Jesus died for everyone then everyone's debt has been paid.

Well, aren't the common alternatives variations of the Anselmian Satisfaction theory anyway, meaning they would have the same problem? I would be interested in hearing how your favorite theory avoid the problems 1-4.

[Strider324]

Bede scribed:

Its not debateable. Its very clear. It means eternal separation from God. Jesus is not eternally separated from God.

Yours is a Catholic definition. What scripture supports this definition? The Vulgate uses 'Infernus' - a place of 'fiery heat or destruction'. Other bibles substitute Sheol for Hades - a place of torment as described in the story of Lazarus and Dives (Luke 16: 19-31)

The Catholic apologetic appears to be a later revisionist definition pursuant to the need to distance themselves from the scriptures that describe hell as a place of physical torture: "Um, yeah - hell is REALLY just about seperation from God. There's no torture or burning or fire or brimstone involved."

Seems a tad too convenient an exegesis for my tastes.

Are you suggesting that hell is NOT an eternal separation from God?

I'm suggesting that whatever definition christians give to hell, it should logically not exclude what actual scripture says it is. I asked you for the scripture that testifies to this Catholic apologetic you are presenting. Shall I assume you are unable to cite any?

While your definition might possibly be a necessary part of defining what hell is, it would not seem to be sufficient - if the scriptures mean anything.

[Bede]

Bede scribed:

Its not debateable. Its very clear. It means eternal separation from God. Jesus is not eternally separated from God.

Yours is a Catholic definition. What scripture supports this definition? The Vulgate uses 'Infernus' - a place of 'fiery heat or destruction'. Other bibles substitute Sheol for Hades - a place of torment as described in the story of Lazarus and Dives (Luke 16: 19-31)

The Catholic apologetic appears to be a later revisionist definition pursuant to the need to distance themselves from the scriptures that describe hell as a place of physical torture: "Um, yeah - hell is REALLY just about seperation from God. There's no torture or burning or fire or brimstone involved."

Seems a tad too convenient an exegesis for my tastes.

Are you suggesting that hell is NOT an eternal separation from God?

I'm suggesting that whatever definition christians give to hell, it should logically not exclude what actual scripture says it is. I asked you for the scripture that testifies to this Catholic apologetic you are presenting. Shall I assume you are unable to cite any?

While your definition might possibly be a necessary part of defining what hell is, it would not seem to be sufficient - if the scriptures mean anything.

Where did I say that eternal damnation is only eternal separation from God?

Answer: I didn't

I only highlighted that aspect because it pointed out the error of penal subsitution. Bust Nak wrote "It's debatable what eternal damnation means".

There is some debate about the torments of hell (not by the the Catholic Church) but I think everyone would agree it means eternal seperation from God.

[Bede]

Well, aren't the common alternatives variations of the Anselmian Satisfaction theory anyway, meaning they would have the same problem? I would be interested in hearing how your favorite theory avoid the problems 1-4.

That might be an interesting discussion but well off topic.

My point in outlining criticism of penal substitution was to show that Divine Insights criticisms of Christianity are based on a false understanding of it, not to start a discussion on the Atonement.

[Strider324]

Bede scribed:

Its not debateable. Its very clear. It means eternal separation from God. Jesus is not eternally separated from God.

Yours is a Catholic definition. What scripture supports this definition? The Vulgate uses 'Infernus' - a place of 'fiery heat or destruction'. Other bibles substitute Sheol for Hades - a place of torment as described in the story of Lazarus and Dives (Luke 16: 19-31)

The Catholic apologetic appears to be a later revisionist definition pursuant to the need to distance themselves from the scriptures that describe hell as a place of physical torture: "Um, yeah - hell is REALLY just about seperation from God. There's no torture or burning or fire or brimstone involved."

Seems a tad too convenient an exegesis for my tastes.

Are you suggesting that hell is NOT an eternal separation from God?

I'm suggesting that whatever definition christians give to hell, it should logically not exclude what actual scripture says it is. I asked you for the scripture that testifies to this Catholic apologetic you are presenting. Shall I assume you are unable to cite any?

While your definition might possibly be a necessary part of defining what hell is, it would not seem to be sufficient - if the scriptures mean anything.

Where did I say that eternal damnation is only eternal separation from God?

Answer: I didn't

I only highlighted that aspect because it pointed out the error of penal subsitution. Bust Nak wrote "It's debatable what eternal damnation means".

There is some debate about the torments of hell (not by the the Catholic Church) but I think everyone would agree it means eternal seperation from God.

So again - can you cite any scripture that validates this assertion that at least a part of the definition of hell is 'seperation from god'? That would be helpful.

[Bede]

Bede scribed:

Its not debateable. Its very clear. It means eternal separation from God. Jesus is not eternally separated from God.

Yours is a Catholic definition. What scripture supports this definition? The Vulgate uses 'Infernus' - a place of 'fiery heat or destruction'. Other bibles substitute Sheol for Hades - a place of torment as described in the story of Lazarus and Dives (Luke 16: 19-31)

The Catholic apologetic appears to be a later revisionist definition pursuant to the need to distance themselves from the scriptures that describe hell as a place of physical torture: "Um, yeah - hell is REALLY just about seperation from God. There's no torture or burning or fire or brimstone involved."

Seems a tad too convenient an exegesis for my tastes.

Are you suggesting that hell is NOT an eternal separation from God?

I'm suggesting that whatever definition christians give to hell, it should logically not exclude what actual scripture says it is. I asked you for the scripture that testifies to this Catholic apologetic you are presenting. Shall I assume you are unable to cite any?

While your definition might possibly be a necessary part of defining what hell is, it would not seem to be sufficient - if the scriptures mean anything.

Where did I say that eternal damnation is only eternal separation from God?

Answer: I didn't

I only highlighted that aspect because it pointed out the error of penal subsitution. Bust Nak wrote "It's debatable what eternal damnation means".

There is some debate about the torments of hell (not by the the Catholic Church) but I think everyone would agree it means eternal seperation from God.

So again - can you cite any scripture that validates this assertion that at least a part of the definition of hell is 'seperation from god'? That would be helpful.

Mk 9:47
"And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell".

At the end of our mortal lives there are only two destinations - the kingdom of God or hell. If you are not in God's kingdom then you are outside God's kingdom (which is hell).