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.

[Divine Insight]

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

I think it's called creating a straw man.

This is actually a derogatory personal accusation. By proclaiming that I am falsely presenting Christianity and calling it a straw man, you are implying that I actually know better and that I am purposely being deceitful. Nothing could be further from the truth.

My views of the Bible and Christianity are my honest and sincere views. To imply otherwise is an insult of the highest order.

~~~~~

This also brings up a very interesting insight.

I've read the bible, and have studied these stories for many decades. I've been seriously involved with this religion from a very early age. In the early years I was actually making my own excuses and apologies for it like Christian apologists so. That burden became so heavy and unsupportable I had no choice but to abandon it. In fact, to continue to pretend to support it would have been an act of deceit and dishonesty.

My view of this religion today is as sincere and honest as it can be. For you to suggest otherwise is an extreme insult. I am totally convinced that this religion is a politically motivated collection of superstitions that has deviously been used to attempt to control people and pass bigoted judgements on enemies of the church for centuries.

That is my honest and sincere view of this religion, and I believe that Islam is just another spin-off of this same sort of religious/political agenda. These religions are still being used to this very day for political agendas and to condemn anyone who disagree with the cult as being unworthy scum that has been condemned by their God.

These are my honest and sincere views Bede. For you to suggest otherwise is highly offensive and precisely the type of tactics that these religions incite in their followers.

~~~~~

Here is the real bottom line.

If the Bible were truly from God then why is it that a sincere person like myself could not make any sense from it and could only see it as an obvious man-made scam?

This Bible demands that things must be true of me that I know for a fact are not true. There has never been a time in my entire life when I had ever "turned against God". On the contrary in my young life as a child I totally believed in God and always wanted to do the will of God and do what is right and just.

This is in fact, why I wanted to preach the word of God, because I was taught that this is what God wants us to do. So I set about to do precisely that so that other people could see the wisdom of this God and learn the truth of its divine plan.

But the real truth turned out to be the fact that the Bible is highly stupid, highly immoral, unethical, and ultimately utterly absurd.

That is my honest and sincere evaluation of this ancient Hebrew religious/political scam. And this is precisely what I am convinced it is. It's no better than Islam when you get right down to it.

So I don't go around "falsely presenting Christianity" nor do I build straw man arguments. I tell it like it is. I give my honest and sincere evaluation of this historical religion.

~~~~

Finally, even if we try to imagine that there could be a supposedly all-wise perfectly moral and just God behind the Bible what would that require?

Well, for one thing it would require that this God was totally unable to convince me, and honest and sincere person, via this bible.

Not only did I find the Old Testament totally unconvincing and filled with absurdities and self-contradictions, but I find the New Testament equally unconvincing and also filled with absurdities and self-contradictions.

Now, just to entertain a genuinely absurd hypothetical. Let's supposed that some mortal human preacher, or evangelists were to come along and "Show me the Light".

In other words, some mortal person eventually convinces me that the Bible can be made to make sense and they explain all the absurdities away in a way that make perfect sense to me and I finally say, "Oh my God! Your right, the Bible does make sense after all!"

What would that mean? Well that would obviously mean that this mere mortal person had trumped both Jesus and God. This mere mortal human was able to achieve what neither Jesus nor God could achieve. This mere mortal person was able to convince me that the Bible is true, even though neither Jesus nor God could convince me in their own Bible.

This would mean that this mortal human was a far better communicator than either Jesus or God. And that would totally fly in the face that Jesus and God are far superior to any humans.

In short Bede, it's impossible for the Bible to ever be redeemed for me. If neither the Father God could convince me in the Old Testament and Jesus couldn't convince me in the New Testament then clearly there can be no one left who could convince me.

The idea that some evangelist, theologian, or apologist is going to somehow justify all of the absurdities, immoralities, and self-contradictions of the Bible isn't even a realistic option.

And besides, I don't even feel "lost". I'm not struggling with anything emotionally. I'm totally at peace already. I don't even have any reason to believe that I need to be "saved" from anything. So I'm certainly not about to break down in a state of emotional distraught begging for some God to save me from my horrible situation. And even if I did, would that mean that the Bible makes sense? Hardly. All it would mean is that I got into a situation where I was so distraught that I would be willing to reach out to anyone who is promising to make things better. It would be an act of pure desperation, not at act of intellectual understanding that the Bible makes any sense.

There is no hope for this religion to make any intellectual sense.

That is my honest view and position on things. And this in no way amounts to "falsely representing Christianity" or building deceitful "straw men" just for the sake of winning arguments.

Those empty accusations on your part actually constitute a personal attack against my character whether you realize this or not.

I won't report you for this because I give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply don't realize that what you have done was indeed accuse me of being an unethical person who is actually aware of being purposefully deceitful.

There is no truth to that accusation at all.

I honestly and sincerely believe and have intellectually concluded that the Holy Bible of Christianity is chuck full or utter absurdities, self-contradictions, and outright lies in some cases. And it doesn't portray a God worthy of anyone's worship.

That is my honest and sincere evaluation like it or not.

[Divine Insight]

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

This argument is fine as an argument for a reason why you personally retain "Blind Faith" in a religion.

But by your own admission you are admitting that you are waiting in the hope that the rationale for it all will be revealed at a later time.

That's not a very useful argument in a debate over why other people should believe it to be true. On the contrary you are actually confirming that there is no rational reason to believe in now and that the idea is to have faith that a reason to believe it will be revealed later.

All this amounts to is a proclamation that you personally believe that "Blind Faith" will pay off.

[Bust Nak]

S

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.

Surely it's more charitable to say Divine Insights criticisms of Christianity are based on the usual understanding of it, although it is an understanding that you don't share? Penal substitution is a typical Christian doctine.

[Divine Insight]

S

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.

Surely it's more charitable to say Divine Insights criticisms of Christianity are based on the usual understanding of it, although it is an understanding that you don't share? Penal substitution is a typical Christian doctine.

Exactly.

Also, I didn't see where Bede had explained where the crucifixion of God's son supposedly makes any sense. And how a belief that Jesus was the son of God is sufficient reason for this God to "save" anyone from his own wrath and threat of damnation?

I don't see where Bede has offered any rational justification for this religion.

All he appears to have done is claim that many of the popular Christian views are "False".

But where is the "truth" then?

What is it that Bede believes to be the "truth"?

Let's get that on center-stage and debate the rationale of that idea.

[Korah]

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.

Many common variations on Atonement theology build upon St. Anselm, but he lived in the 11th Century. That obviously means a millennium of Christian theology preceded his time. The traditional theology of salvation is the Classical Theory, now revamped as Christus Viktor theology by Swedish bishop Gustav Aulen. Theologians got too uppity to want to talk about Satan, but by doing so they kicked out the main prop under Atonement theology. The Bible labels Satan as the Prince of This World, and the Bible teaches that Christ died to undo his authority. There is no ridiculous and immoral penal substitution about it. To the extent to which Romans does teach such an idea it leads the better theologians to Universalism, that Christ died for all. Now, I don't think everyone springs into Heaven at death, but all kinds of subtlety and sophistication is necessary here. We don't know what happens to each person at death. Christian theology is fragmented here. It's not all one (un)happy family the way D. I. and others here would have it.

True, there was Paulism from the start, and then Augustine by 400 A. D., but the Church never emphasized the elements of Paul (who basically wrote Pastoral Theology, not theology proper) in Romans 9 and such that later were misused by Calvinist predestinarian theory. Unfortunately the Calvinism in early Protestantism was retained in this regard by the later Evangelicals.

[Divine Insight]

The Bible labels Satan as the Prince of This World, and the Bible teaches that Christ died to undo his authority. There is no ridiculous and immoral penal substitution about it.

You say, "There is no ridiculous and immoral penal substitution about it.

But what you have proposed as an alternative to that interpretation of this religion is that "Christ died to undo the authority of Satan". But how is that not equally ridiculous?

Who gave Satan his authority in the first place?

All you are doing here is replacing one absurd interpretation with another one that is equally absurd, IMHO.

It's not all one (un)happy family the way D. I. and others here would have it.

Where do you come up with this idea? I've never suggesting that Christianity is one unhappy family. On the contrary I argue that the Christianities are in extreme disagreement and confusion just as you have suggested above. Some try to justify this religion using concepts of "penal substitution" etc. And others try to justify this religion via ideas that Christ had to died a brutal crucifixion to somehow "defeat" Satan's Authority.

What I am saying is that every single one of these confused and disagreeing views of Christianity are utterly absurd and unreasonable. And even ridiculous to use your own characterization of "Penal Substitution".

What I argue across the board is that I have never seen, heard, or found an excuse (or apology) for this religion that has ever made any sense.

I reject your claim that Christ had to die to defeat or undo the authority of some supposed fallen angel named Satan. I won't argue that on grounds that it's an immoral apology. I'll just argue against that one on the grounds that it's an utterly ridiculous apology IMHO.

~~~~~

My stance in debates on Christianity is that no one has ever come up with a rational meaningful or sane apology for these religious fables.

I have never seen anything that even remotely justifies these tales or comes close to making any sense.

Your claim that Christ had to die a horrible crucifixion to undo the authority of some Satan makes no sense to me because the question then arises "From whence did Satan get this authority in the first place?"

You'd need to rationalize that one. And I don't see how you could even begin to make a rational or sane argument for this.

In fact, the "penal substitution" arguments actually make more sense in some ways, but as many point out they ultimately lead to a predicament that ends in the conclusion that this idea would necessarily be unjust and immoral in the end.

So even though "penal substitute" makes more sense than defeating the "authority" of a fallen angel, in the end it has its own insurmountable problems.

Neither of these interpretations make any rational sense.

This religion is hopeless. No amount of apologetics can redeem it.

[Divine Insight]

I would also like to bring to light in this discussion that Christians apparently have no clue what Christianity even means.

Bede accuses me of presenting a "False Picture of Christianity".

Korah follows this with the claim that all forms of Christianity that view the crucifixion of Christ as "penal substitution" are all false. And that "True Christianity" is about undoing the authority of Satan.

It's crystal clear that it doesn't even make sense to accuse people of creating "False Pictures of Christianity" when the Christians themselves are in such extreme disagreement over what their religion even means.

[Zzyzx]

.

I would also like to bring to light in this discussion that Christians apparently have no clue what Christianity even means.


It's crystal clear that it doesn't even make sense to accuse people of creating "False Pictures of Christianity" when the Christians themselves are in such extreme disagreement over what their religion even means.

That summarizes debate with defenders of Christianity. Those who promote and/or defend Christianity in debate cannot even define the term, let alone agree among themselves regarding what Christianity "really means."

"Follow Jesus" is often mentioned by groups and individuals that point in opposite directions. Follow Paul/Saul appears to be what many or most actually practice as "Christianity."

"Follow the bible" is mentioned by others -- but they cannot agree WHICH bible to follow and argue among themselves how to "interpret" the bible (to mean whatever they want it to mean -- and to justify whatever they want to do). Most seem to have no knowledge of how or when what has become known as the bible was compiled under direction of Roman emperors.

A common ploy when confronted with reasoned challenge to biblical stories and statements is to maintain that English language translations of the bible cannot be trusted to be accurate so one must go "to the originals" (none of which exist) or to the original languages (which requires linguistic skills far beyond the ability of the public).

Redefining words is popular as a "way out" of nonsensical claims. stories, statements. "A day can mean 1000 years" is an example. However, the term "day" is defined in relation to one rotation of the Earth -- which is approximately 1/365,000 of a thousand years.

[Strider324]

Bede scribed:

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).

Then we appear to agree that damnation includes BOTH the seperation from god AND the casting into hell, which logically must have the attributes attested to in scripture - a place of torment and burning (Infernus).

That affirms my complaint against those who assert that hell ONLY means seperation from god, while ignoring the other scriptural attributes.

[Zzyzx]

.

That affirms my complaint against those who assert that hell ONLY means seperation from god, while ignoring the other scriptural attributes.

There is great disagreement in Christendom about the meaning of "hell." Many sects and individuals favor "fire and brimstone" or "lake of fire" while others favor "banishment from god."

Since no opinion can be shown to be based on anything more substantial than speculation (modern or ancient), there is no assurance that either is true -- so perhaps "none of the above" applies.