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]

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.

In defense of the 'christians', there's so many different sects of christianity all proclaiming to be 'the one' and 'the truth', that it's bound to cause confusion with the believers!
It's basically, too many hands in the basket of christianity over the centuries - everyone making it what THEY want it to be to suit their needs.
It would be seriously amusing if they didn't have so much power & influence over the lives of others that don't give two 'poos' over what their particular god(s) is claimed to want.

[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.

In defense of the 'christians', there's so many different sects of christianity all proclaiming to be 'the one' and 'the truth', that it's bound to cause confusion with the believers!
It's basically, too many hands in the basket of christianity over the centuries - everyone making it what THEY want it to be to suit their needs.
It would be seriously amusing if they didn't have so much power & influence over the lives of others that don't give two 'poos' over what their particular god(s) is claimed to want.

Do the individual Christians actually need a "defense"?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that anyone is to even blame for the confusion.

The argument being made by those who do not believe in these religious doctrines is not an argument of "blame".

The argument against these religious doctrines is that it should be crystal clear to everyone (including the myriad of disagreeing Christians) that these doctrines are anything but clear about anything.

If the doctrines were clear then why would there be any confusion in the first place?

And the argument that non-Christians make is quite simple. Why would the creator of humanity have created such an absolutely confused message that even people who want to believe in it are clearly confused by it?

It's not a matter of pointing blame on anyone. It's just a matter of asking why a supposedly all-wise God would create a message that no two humans can even agree is the same message?

[connermt]

[Replying to post 132 by Divine Insight]

Do the individual Christians actually need a "defense"?

Some say yes, some say no.....

I don't think anyone is suggesting that anyone is to even blame for the confusion.

There are times when that's true, but times when it's not. There are times when people accept things out of 'blind faith' that they shouldn't. In those times, yes there are people to blame to accepting ridiculous things as truth 'just because'. But that's probably best left to another thread I suppose

The argument against these religious doctrines is that it should be crystal clear to everyone (including the myriad of disagreeing Christians) that these doctrines are anything but clear about anything.

Needy people who believe anything and blind faith can make anything 'unclear'

It's just a matter of asking why a supposedly all-wise God would create a message that no two humans can even agree is the same message?

Agreed!

[Korah]

....
Korah follows this with the claim that all forms of Christianity that view the crucifixion of Christ as "penal substitution" are all false.

I do not insist that penal substitution is necessarily wrong, but that if it is true then we must follow the logical consequences of the top theologians like Barth and von Balthasar into Univeralism. Not Calvinism at all, but maybe hyper-Calvinism, that we are all so inherently faulty and limited that God "has to" make allowances for us and gives us all a break. But I think that's over-simplified.

And that "True Christianity" is about undoing the authority of Satan.

Again, over-simplified, but yes, I view the Universe as infinitely variegated with its vastness encompassing all different kinds of God/demigod/angels/"human-likenesses"/demons of varying influences depending on who/what/when/where/how one "looks"

[Divine Insight]

Again, over-simplified, but yes, I view the Universe as infinitely variegated with its vastness encompassing all different kinds of God/demigod/angels/"human-likenesses"/demons of varying influences depending on who/what/when/where/how one "looks"

But why imagine all manner of evil demons influencing human behavior? Why not simply believe that humans themselves can do nasty things? Wouldn't that be a far simpler picture of reality?

In fact, this very issue is a big problem I have with the Biblical story of the fall from grace.

According to the Bible Adam and Eve fell from grace because Eve was beguiled by an evil serpent.

For me, this brings up all manner of questions. Like what was an evil serpent doing in the garden of Eden in the first place?

Also, it begs the question, "Would humans have fallen from grace on their own?" Would it have been their idea to do this? Apparently not since they hadn't thought about doing this until they were beguiled by an already evil demon.

And that brings up the question of whether the 'fall from grace' was even a fair judgment against humans. If the fall wasn't their own idea then maybe they never would have fallen left to their own. So in a sense it seems like a faulty test and a faulty judgement.

Moreover, if humans themselves aren't evil but instead they are just being constantly deceived and beguiled by evil demons then why blame the humans. Obviously humans are just dust in the wind and they are so extremely innocent and naive that they can be persuaded to do anything by anyone.

The poor humans would be in a predicament where they are basically not even responsible for anything.

It seems to me that if we're going to hold humans responsible for their "evil acts" we need to give them the ability to make these choices without imagining evil demons who are influencing them.

I don't see why the concept of evil demons would even be remotely necessary is humans are themselves capable of being evil on their own.

And if they aren't capable of being evil on their own then they are just dust in the wind vulnerable to being corrupted by the next evil demon that just happens to come along.

Suddenly the excuse "The Devil made me do it" becomes a valid excuse.

[Zzyzx]

.

For me, this brings up all manner of questions. Like what was an evil serpent doing in the garden of Eden in the first place?

Also, it begs the question, "Would humans have fallen from grace on their own?"

The A&E story suggests entrapment -- (A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm )

[Korah]

[Replying to post 135 by Divine Insight]
So you prefer the other horn to be gored with? That Hyper-Calvinism and Predestination gives humans total excuse and carte-blanche entry into Heaven?

Since you preferred to attack only the other horn of the dilemma, I take it you find Determinism sufficiently explains and excuses the human condition. That worked for me in 1970, but I've had lots of major experiences since then that indicate humanity is more complicated than that, such as three (so far) major theological revampings.

In 1977 I was baptized in the Spirit, in 1992 I had to abandon Catholicism and plenary inspiration of the Bible, and in the 21st Century I've been grappling with not having anyone or anything I can trust, just myself and God.

[ttruscott]

...

In fact, this very issue is a big problem I have with the Biblical story of the fall from grace.

According to the Bible Adam and Eve fell from grace because Eve was beguiled by an evil serpent.

For me, this brings up all manner of questions. Like what was an evil serpent doing in the garden of Eden in the first place?

The logical interpretation is that HE wanted them to face the serpent on their own for some reason.

Also, it begs the question, "Would humans have fallen from grace on their own?" Would it have been their idea to do this? Apparently not since they hadn't thought about doing this until they were beguiled by an already evil demon.

The question is, "Why follow the serpent?' Why think his suggestion to defy GOD was good since if they were not evil they would not be making an evil decision... An innocently wrong act is not a sin, only the intent to defy is a sin. To have the intent is to sin already without the act, as Jesus taught.

Since sin was proven, it is proper to believe that she knew she was breaking HIS rules / law but did it for a 'good' reason since she was not yet fallen....(unless she was).

And that brings up the question of whether the 'fall from grace' was even a fair judgment against humans. If the fall wasn't their own idea then maybe they never would have fallen left to their own. So in a sense it seems like a faulty test and a faulty judgement.

You seem to argue from the effect to the cause,..since she ended in sin, allowing her to chose was faulty. But their eyes were opened to sin but not the sin of eating but the sin of nakedness which they had before they ate...

The story flows perfectly if she were already a sinner before she ate but resisting GOD's determination of her sinfulness as noticed by her not being ashamed, and as a sinner making bad decisions about accepting the word of the serpent above the word of GOD but thinking she was doing good by trusting him,

Then GOD allowing her to be beguiled so she ate and had her eyes opened to her sin, that is, her nakedness and knowing the serpent had tricked her and was not her friend so she repudiated him from her life, was a perfect allowance for her to be brought to an understanding of her sin so she could repent and be brought to seek HIS forgiveness as noticed by the fig leaves, the first effort of a sinner to appease GOD but without the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Moreover, if humans themselves aren't evil but instead they are just being constantly deceived and beguiled by evil demons then why blame the humans. Obviously humans are just dust in the wind and they are so extremely innocent and naive that they can be persuaded to do anything by anyone.

Yes, correct. The focus of the story is not their being deceived but of having their eyes opened to the sin they arrived in the garden with, their nakedness.

The poor humans would be in a predicament where they are basically not even responsible for anything.

Yes, an obvious conclusion for the orthodox interpretation of the story which is blatantly false but ignored, and why I reject their version and like mine better. It shows a logically consistent story.

...

Suddenly the excuse "The Devil made me do it" becomes a valid excuse.

You are right unless they had already made their free will decisions to be evil in HIS sight and HE allowed the serpent to beguile them so they will turn against HIM, (hinting that the serpent had something to do with their fall?) It does not say they became evil though that is the current favourite explanation of what happened, because it says clearly that they became aware of their nakedness which they had before they ate...and since being nude is no sin then nakedness must be being used in its symbolic sense of being unclothed before GOD by sin.

That they 'covered themselves' with fig leaves is a weird reaction to being convicted of sinful eating but quite in accord if the sin they had seen and become ashamed of was their spiritual nakedness which they had before they ate is a strong indication that they were sinful before they ate and that this sinfulness allowed the serpent to beguile them.

In other words, by trying to do them evil the serpent helped them understand their guilt and their shame and so brought them to repentance.

Peace, Ted

[Divine Insight]

So you prefer the other horn to be gored with? That Hyper-Calvinism and Predestination gives humans total excuse and carte-blanche entry into Heaven?

To begin with I have no reason to believe that humans will be transferred upon their death to either a state of extreme anguish and damnation or a state of total bliss in a perfect paradise. And all of that based upon how they behaved in a very brief and confusing human lifespan. A lifespan that is even cut very short for quite many humans?

No, that absurd.

Since you preferred to attack only the other horn of the dilemma, I take it you find Determinism sufficiently explains and excuses the human condition. That worked for me in 1970, but I've had lots of major experiences since then that indicate humanity is more complicated than that, such as three (so far) major theological revampings.

Once again you seem to be trying to put me into a very tiny box of options.

I clearly do not think in the limited way that you are suggesting that I should.

Also, where did I ever even mention any concept of "Determinism". I personally don't believe in determinism.

In 1977 I was baptized in the Spirit, in 1992 I had to abandon Catholicism and plenary inspiration of the Bible, and in the 21st Century I've been grappling with not having anyone or anything I can trust, just myself and God.

I have always just trusted myself and God and that has always been sufficient for me. I've never felt that I needed to "grapple" with it.

[Zzyzx]

.

For me, this brings up all manner of questions. Like what was an evil serpent doing in the garden of Eden in the first place?

The logical interpretation is that HE wanted them to face the serpent on their own for some reason.

How is that not entrapment (A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case)?

According to the story the entire scene was God's making (including the serpent, the tree, and nakedness) and A&E were ignorant of good and evil and were entrapped by an agent created by God (who supposedly is all knowing) into eating from a tree provided by God -- a clear case of entrapment by a supposedly loving entity (a clear case of deception in advertising).

Moreover, if humans themselves aren't evil but instead they are just being constantly deceived and beguiled by evil demons then why blame the humans. Obviously humans are just dust in the wind and they are so extremely innocent and naive that they can be persuaded to do anything by anyone.

Yes, correct. The focus of the story is not their being deceived but of having their eyes opened to the sin they arrived in the garden with, their nakedness.

If A&E arrived at the garden in the "sin" of nakedness, WHO exactly arranged for them to arrive naked?

By what standard is nudity a "sin?"

Yes, an obvious conclusion for the orthodox interpretation of the story which is blatantly false but ignored, and why I reject their version and like mine better. It shows a logically consistent story.

A story that is logically consistent need not be truthful or accurate.

An alternative to accepting or rejecting the story is to conclude that it is religious myth, legend, folklore, parable, etc.