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.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 141 by Divine Insight]

Its a false dichotomy being presented. Perhaps that is why you reason as you do? Your false dichotomy is limiting you from seeing other alternatives.

And the other alternatives are what exactly??? Can you list them, and show the other alternatives are rational and reasonable?

Please support the claim it is a false dichotomy.

[Divine Insight]

Does repressing the memory of your crime absolve you of guilt? But hey, her eyes were opened to her repressed crime of being naked, not her new crime of eating because naked refers to her sinful nature, not the act of any particular sin. We are guilty for what we self create ourselves to be when we become sinful, not just for the act that self created us that way...

Peace, Ted

In a very real way this very notion causes me to become extremely angry over Christianity.

Christianity demands that everyone is a sinner by choice. That alone is a very negative and degrading accusation made against all humans by this religion. Moreover, it's certainly not a situation that any sane person would wish to be true as a matter of pure faith. On the contrary it would be far wiser and more optimistic to believe on pure faith that it's a totally false notion.

Moreover, Christianity as a religion is extremely arrogant in that it not only demands that people are sinners, but it also demands that they not merely feel remorse for their sins but that they also "confess their sins" via the act of accepting Christianity.

This is what makes Christianity such a hateful religion IMHO. It demands that remorse or a desire to be forgiven for past mistakes is not even valid unless it is accompanied by a complete confession that Christianity is the ONE TRUE CULT.

This isn't about any God.

Have I done things in my life that I wish I had never done? Absolutely!

Am I remorseful over those things? Absolutely, I kick myself over and over again for all the stupid mistakes I made in my life (many of which wouldn't even remotely qualify as "sins")

If there exists a creator would I ask for this creator's forgiveness for the things I've done that are less than honorable? Sure I would.

But NONE OF THIS is good enough for the arrogance of Christianity.

Christianity demands that I not only confess my sins to God and ask for forgiveness, but Christianity also demands that I acknowledge Christianity as the ONLY TRUE RELIGION and support the idea that Jesus is the demigod Son of God, and that the entire Christian religious agenda represents the WILL OF GOD.

And I say to all of that, "Hogwash!"

Christianity is actually a very underhanded deceitful that uses the excuse that if you don't join and support the religious bigotries of this cult then you are refusing to repent your sins and ask a supposedly all-righteous creator for forgiveness.

Christianity actually represents one of mankind's unethical and underhanded attempts to shove a religious cult down people's throats under the totally unsupportable guise that if they refuse to recognize Jesus as "The Christ" this means that they are evil people who are refusing to repent their sins.

In truth Ted, it ultimately amounts to a very hateful religious scam.

And Christianity isn't alone in this. Islam pulls this same kind of unethical deceit by proclaiming the same type of thing with their prophet Muhammad and their God named Allah.

I hold that the ancient Hebrews or Israelites who created this religion in the first place where pulling this same unethical stunt.

In remembrance of Cnorman18 (peace be upon him) I'll grant that there are modern Jews who will disagree with me on this latter point.

But still, Christianity and Islam have no excuses. All they are doing is using a claim that if a person doesn't join and support their particular cults then they can't be remorseful of any potential wrong-doing or sins. And they can't be willing to ask a potential creator for forgiveness.

That simply doesn't wash. It doesn't hold water.

This whole approach to religion is nothing more than a very unethical and deceitful scam created by men.

I mean, gee whiz if there truly is a God then, yes, by all means I am totally in remorse for all the things I've done in my life that were less than righteous. And I most certainly request forgiveness for having done those things. I kick myself everyday for the petty things I've done. And yes, they most certainly were petty in comparison with what I consider to be serious crimes.

I mean, I most certainly never committed any of the biggies, (i.e. Murder, major theft, even adultery which apparently quite many humans are guilty of)

I'm not even guilty of lying in any major way to purposely deceive in an attempt to hide ulterior sinful motives. Most of the "lies" I've told were lies to simply avoid further questioning and judgements by people who have no business sticking their nose in my life in the first place.

I mean this idea that just because someone refuses to join and support Christianity it necessarily follows that they are sinners who are unwilling to repent, is truly nothing short of absolute hogwash.

That whole scheme can be nothing more than a deceitful religious scam made up by a society who was trying to construct a religion to trump the religion of their neighbors.

"Either you worship our religion or we proclaim that you are in denial of God himself."

That's the scam Ted.

And I'm not suggesting that you are pat of the scam. But if you hold to believing in this religion, I would (as politely and honorably as possible) suggest that you have been taken in by this scam yourself. In other words, I would simply view you as a victim of this religion, not as someone who had any part in creating it.

[ttruscott]

.

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)?

It was not entrapment because HE was not enticing them to sin

Notice that the definition of entrapment includes "or their agents." The supposed serpent was an agent placed by God (who is credited with creating all things and managing affairs of the universe).

HE did not hire or ask or entice the serpent to beguile Eve, HE only left the gate open...

but it was therapeutic in that HE was trying to get them to understand

HOW, exactly, do YOU know what God intended or did? Did he tell someone? OR, is that just another guess / conjecture / supposition?

HE told someone...

that they were already sinners by letting them sin..

Let's see . . . . a god supposedly creates two humans without knowledge of good and evil; however, he creates them as "sinners" (already, per-serpent),

No sir, their being made in the garden was not their creation as I think you well know I contend, but they were already mature and experienced spirits fallen into sin when placed into their new human bodies....

When HE created them, they were indeed ingenuously innocent without knowledge of good and evil but they became evil when they rebelled against the will of GOD for the reprobate. Then they resisted GOD's estimation of their rebellion as sinful and so they needed their eyes opened to the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, about themselves.

then has his agent (serpent) entrap them into "sinning" (disobeying God) so they will realize they were created as sinners.

Please show where you think the scriptures prove Satan was GOD's agent, because I contend there is no proof that GOD did anything but allow Satan to do his own thing with them, ie, lead them astray.

.a fact they rejected as shown by their not being ashamed of their sin, that is, their nakedness.

What "sin" had they committed prior to the serpent incident -- and how is that known?

Their sin was rebelling against GOD's will for the reprobate and idolizing the reprobate over GOD. It is known by a revelation from GOD.

I'm cutting off here as this multi-quote thing is getting out of hand...will continue,

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

I have no "interpretation" of the story but simply read what is written. If a source does not mean what it says and say what it means, it is not credible in my view.

If a story has multiple "interpretations" of what is actually said, I give NONE of them preference.

All sources are open to interpretation and I know you understand this so your protest is disingenuous at best.

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?

ttruscott"]They arranged themselves to be sinful and evil (ie, naked) by their free will decision to stand against GOD after accepting HIM as their GOD and being chosen to be HIS elect.

WHEN and HOW, exactly, did they "stand against God" before the serpent incident (according to the story).

Had they already been disobeying God (according to the story)? Where is that written " or how do you know such a thing? Is that an "interpretation" of what is NOT written (i.e. pure conjecture / guesswork)?

It is revealed in the meaning of the word "naked" and the fact that their eyes were opened to the sin of their nakedness, not their eating, a nakedness they had before they ate.

Who, exactly, are "his elect" and how is that determined?

HIS elect are those who accepted HIS promise of salvation from all their sin by accepting YHWH as their GOD. HE promised everyone who would accepted HIM as their GOD, HE would choose them to heaven, no matter what sin they may do by means of the gospel salvation found in HIS son the Christ.

Their arrival was GOD's work for them to reach repentance for their evil and to seek redemption...which worked out just fine.

The "arrival" of A&E in the garden (according to the tale) was by being created by God. Right?

Evidently, then, God created them as sinners.

No sir,
HE created them as ingenuously innocent in sheol long before the creation of the physical universe, and even long before they chose to become evil in HIS sight.

...

It is not uncommon for bible believers / defenders to claim "symbolic sense" for some things and "literal sense" for others " with NO WAY offered to distinguish which is correct when.

Ummm, the problem was a misinterpretation of what I wrote not, a quote, I believe...

...

Religionists often claim "there is no proof of anything" as a cover or excuse for their lack of credible verification of their stories and claims.

While faith is an unproven hope, after awhile as one grows in faith and the understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in his life, his unproven hope becomes a conviction and sometime later after much experience with the spiritual things of GOD, it becomes a certainty...

To that I respond, "Absolute proof may be elusive, but RATIONAL proof is not. How much proof do you need to convince you that stepping off a high cliff unaided will produce undesirable consequences?"

Let's apply that concept to unverified / unverifiable stories and claims (religious or not). What rational proof exists that there are undesirable consequences for "sins" against one of the "gods?"

No proof is offered which will be acceptable, sorry, as per: Luke 16:27 He answered, Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.

29 Abraham replied, They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.

30 No, father Abraham, he said, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.

31 He said to him, If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.

<shrug>

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

I have no "interpretation" of the story but simply read what is written. If a source does not mean what it says and say what it means, it is not credible in my view.

If a story has multiple "interpretations" of what is actually said, I give NONE of them preference.

All sources are open to interpretation and I know you understand this so your protest is disingenuous at best.

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?

ttruscott"]They arranged themselves to be sinful and evil (ie, naked) by their free will decision to stand against GOD after accepting HIM as their GOD and being chosen to be HIS elect.

WHEN and HOW, exactly, did they "stand against God" before the serpent incident (according to the story).

Had they already been disobeying God (according to the story)? Where is that written " or how do you know such a thing? Is that an "interpretation" of what is NOT written (i.e. pure conjecture / guesswork)?

It is revealed in the meaning of the word "naked" and the fact that their eyes were opened to the sin of their nakedness, not their eating, a nakedness they had before they ate.

Who, exactly, are "his elect" and how is that determined?

HIS elect are those who accepted HIS promise of salvation from all their sin by accepting YHWH as their GOD. HE promised everyone who would accepted HIM as their GOD, HE would choose them to heaven, no matter what sin they may do by means of the gospel salvation found in HIS son the Christ.

Their arrival was GOD's work for them to reach repentance for their evil and to seek redemption...which worked out just fine.

The "arrival" of A&E in the garden (according to the tale) was by being created by God. Right?

Evidently, then, God created them as sinners.

No sir,
HE created them as ingenuously innocent in sheol long before the creation of the physical universe, and even long before they chose to become evil in HIS sight. Their "arrival" was their being breathed into a human body.

...

It is not uncommon for bible believers / defenders to claim "symbolic sense" for some things and "literal sense" for others " with NO WAY offered to distinguish which is correct when.

Ummm, the problem was a misinterpretation of what I wrote not, a quote, I believe...

...

Religionists often claim "there is no proof of anything" as a cover or excuse for their lack of credible verification of their stories and claims.

While faith is an unproven hope, after awhile as one grows in faith and the understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in his life, his unproven hope becomes a conviction and sometime later after much experience with the spiritual things of GOD, it becomes a certainty...

To that I respond, "Absolute proof may be elusive, but RATIONAL proof is not. How much proof do you need to convince you that stepping off a high cliff unaided will produce undesirable consequences?"

Let's apply that concept to unverified / unverifiable stories and claims (religious or not). What rational proof exists that there are undesirable consequences for "sins" against one of the "gods?"

No proof is offered which will be acceptable, sorry, as per: Luke 16:27 He answered, Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.

29 Abraham replied, They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.

30 No, father Abraham, he said, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.

31 He said to him, If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.

<shrug>

Peace, Ted

[Korah]

Divine Insight botched-up his reply to my #137 in the Trilemma Thread. My #145 could not undo the mess combining mine with cnorman. so how about a do-over. Let's try again for someone to make something of a reply to me.
(Parenthetically, this sub-forum is nothing like a debate anymore, it's just rapid-fire questions by atheists until they wear down opposition or just don't reply to what they can't answer.)
I had been saying that sophisticated theology offered us Universalism as an answer to the Problem of Evil. Alternately the Universe can be viewed as a battle between (our) God and a primordial evil that has been thwarting God from before our Creation.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 156 by Korah]
Should be as a separate issue to my Post #156 above, but I had intended it as a question with which to start over a NEW THREAD, which I don't seem to have figured out how to do. I was thinking of starting new threads for each of the times that atheists and deists have let debate here die (or throttled it to death with interminably long posts) when I have (to my mind, anyway) bested them.
I should add parenthetically that I have also been frustrated with this sub-forum to see Christians routinely lose what debating there is here by staking out hardly defensible positions. One discards most people as irreparably evil and the more standard Christian apologists limit the saved even more than this by restricting salvation to basically Fundamentalists. I'm thinking of declaring myself a "Neo-Mormon" to express some idea of what my theological position is, even though I have never attended an LDS church or read any Mormon literature besides the Book of Mormon. (Some missionaries claimed to like my theology, but I never got the visit from the bishop they promised.)