Here I need your help for a minute. It is my understanding of Islamic thought, that not only is Allah (swt) Almighty, but Allah (swt) is also sinless. What I am not sure of is the degree to which Allah (swt) can be associated with that which is sinful. Can a sinful person join Allah (swt) in Paradise? My understand is that one must be cleansed of the sins we have committed in this life before one can be admitted to Paradise. (Please correct me on this if I am wrong.)
Yes, that is correct.
If All is truly Almighty, then there is nothing that would necessitate the ridding one's self of sin before being admitted to Paradise -- except of course the very nature of Allah (swt) and Paradise being that they are exclusive of sin.
Well, Allah is
just. It would not be fair to allow a sinful person into paradise without being cleansed because they do not deserve it as much as those who sinned less. We cant say that it is outside of God's power to admit the sinful into paradise, however it is simply something that Allah does not intend to do (as far as what Islam teachs us anyway).
Yet sin is something that is foreign to God.
hmm.. sin is something that can not be attributed to God. It is something that can only apply to the creations, not the Creator. I assume you understand that though?
In the Christian understanding, sin brings with it the curse of death, spiritual death. Jesus (pbuh) who never knew anything but a holy, righteous and sinless life, would be exposing himself to sin and its curse when he went to the cross.
hmmm... :-\ So isnt that like saying if anything were to ever destroy God, it would be sin. :? I must be missing something here.
Christians see this ultimately in Jesus (pbuh) cry from the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." You mentioned that there was a paradox in Christians beliefs; I think there in fact many. And here is one, how could God cry out to God that he was forsaken by God. I don't have a definitive answer for you.
Very true lol. Massive, confusing paradox.
Again, remember according to the Kenosis theory (which I don't expect you to accept for your understanding of either God nor Jesus (pbuh), but which Christians do and so I have to answer from that perspective when you ask questions relative to what Christians believe) Jesus (pbuh) would have experienced every human emotion, including doubts. Jesus (pbuh), in his human experience of life, was NOT personally All-Knowing. What he knew, would have been only that which the Father would have revealed to him.
So, what everything comes down to, is this Kenosis theory. It would seem that if a person accepted this theory then everything else comes naturally. Therefore, I think it would be useless to discuss anythign other than this theory.
From what I have understood so far, God is one but is composed of three: the father, the son and the spirit. Now, christian belief is that God, in the form of the son, came down to earth as Jesus and had to be offered as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind because there is no sacrifice big enough to do the job, other than God. While in this form- Jesus was human though still divine, and therefore acted as anyother human would too.
Now here is what bothers me. If God is everything that we believe him to be- the all-knowing, the all-seeing, the all-hearing, the wise, the patient, the
almighty, can he possible go from being perfect to being imperfect? A human?
Being Almighty means to have unlimited power, right? It represents an ability. God can do
anything. This is where yet another paradox comes up- if God can do anything, surely it is within his power to 'transform' himself to a state (i.e. human), in which he is no longer the almighty? He can do anything, so therefore He can make Himself human. But then, once He is human, He no longer exhibits those characteristics that are exclusive to God- i.e. all knowing, almighty, etc.
The solution to this paradox is that when when we say God is almighty, we are refering to an
ability. But then to say that since He is almighty, it must be within His power to become human and 'give up' some of his awesome traits for an amount of time, during which he is no longer almighty and is falable as any other human is- this is not refering to an ability an longer, it is refering to both and ability AND disability.
To break it down: the 'ability' aspect comes in when one considers whether God can do something or not. So to ask 'Can God do so and so?' is refering to an ability. But when that so and so is actually itself an inability, the question breaks down into something meaningless because it goes against the very nature of God. The inability in this case is the idea that God can be a human.
To reinforce what I mean by the above, consider this example: "If God can do anything, can He create a rock so heavy which He Himself can not carry?"
Again, this line of thinking is based on the idea of ability/inability. The ability is in the part of the question that says 'can God...', and the inability is in the idea of the rock. Such a rock cannot even exist in the first place (not to mention that he only thing that makes the rock heavy is gravity and that God is not bound by gravity in the first place lol).
Okay... i hope that made sense. The point of all that was (incase you missed it lol) was: Can the almighty really 'transform' into a being that is not almighty? (No, of course He cant)
(I apologize for my poor explanation of this. But I can't explain covalent bonding very well either, and still except it to be true.)
Right, but once a better model comes around to explain covalent bonding, that theory would be put aside, just like if there is a religion with a better understanding of the nature of God, then all other religions must also be put aside in favour of the one that makes the most sense.

Afterall, the number one most important and central aspect of a religion is the understanding of God.
And I can understand why you might find that offensive. Can you see why I (coming from a different place) might find it to be wonderful?
Perhaps, but only if one takes a shallow look. Anything that could possibly be wonderful about it is over shadowed by the horror of it all (at least for me anyway, no offense intended.:thankyou: )
Several things here. First Jesus (pbuh) is not a man/god. Jesus (pbuh) is both 100% man and 100% God, but he is not a hybrid. You would be right if we viewed Jesus (pbuh) as some sort of hybrid for everything to have been easier for him. Like some sort of amphibious divine/human being he could call on whatever part he needed at the time. But that is NOT who Jesus (pbuh) is.
Is this the paradox coming out again? How can Jesus be 100% human, which means that he is imperfect, sinful, lacking in absolute knowledge and understand, and at the same time is 100% God, meaning that he would be perfect, sinless (as sin is a comcept that by definition can not be attributed to God), all-knowing and full of understanding? :uuh:
But even with these prophets people have strayed, and continue to stay from God.
That might be true for version of stories of the prophets that christians believe in (as far as I know, in biblical versions, your prophets committed adultey, got drunk... :uuh

. That is in NO WAY true for the Islamic version of events.
In essence, the prophets were successful only in pointing out how imperfect we are in following the way of Islam. Is it the belief of Islam that there was ever anyone who was 100% a true follower of Islam over the entire course of one's life? (Again corret me if I am wrong...) I don't even think that it is claimed that the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) lived totally a sinless life, even though he did live a life of Islam, in submission to Allah (swt).
Yes... the prophets were all perfect when it came to the belief in the oneness of God. They never made a mistake when it came to the religion, i.e. revelation and stuff like that, things that were directly linked to prophethood. They only made
mistakes regarding their worldly lives, and then if it was a noteworthy mistake they would be corrected by Allah swt, (and also it was never major sins!! only minor ones.)
So yes, they are perfect examples for us. And the fact that they made mistakes is very important because we as humans make mistakes also and we need to have someone to look-up to as a role-model to teach us what to do once we make mistakes.
From what I understand, Jesus didnt make mistakes (as he was God)? How then can we relate to him?
Thus it is that Christianity thinks we need more than a prophet, more even than an example, we need a redeemer.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by a redeemer? Can you please explain?
Now humans can't redeem other humans from their sins, we can't even redeem ourselves -- Christians hold that that which is imperfect cannot become perfect under its own power.
And yet you have no problem believing the reverse- that God, who is perfect, can become imperfect under his own powers?
Where I think Christians and Muslims differ is that Christians believe that only by Christ's redeeming work on the cross can that atonement be made, but once it is done it puts us right with God.
Huh? :-\ So you are saying, mankind wronged God by being openly disobiedient to him, and in order for us to be forgiven for this, God has to sacrifice himself. :? But isnt that just wronging God yet again?? So here we have two wrongs against God- making a right??:muddlehea
Again, Cheese, thank-you for providing me an opportunity to address these questions.
No problem. I hope the next batch of questions arent too overwhelming.
I just wish I knew how to give shorter answers.
Mine are prhaps just as long! lol sorry about that.
take care,
Cheese