God's amnesiac problem

[Burning Zeppelin]

Quite possibly the first in a series of logical problems facing God
For this problem, I'm assuming this God is like the one that if literally taken, the Bible & the Qu'ran speak about. None of that metaphorical Hell or Heaven stuff, although this question could present a problem to that as well. Basically, I’ll describe Allah, since there aren’t many Muslims who think metaphorically in terms of Hell and Heaven

Imagine a warlord. Let’s call him...Richie Rich. He has exploited the religious masses, systematically killed every Muslim in his nation, and funds Zionist expansionism. He has murdered his parents, raped his sister, and coveted his neighbours wife, and draws cows and demons in his spare time. Not only that, he uses the lords name in vain, and is also, to top it all off, a hardened atheist.

Now, imagine Richie Rich unfortunately (if that word can be used for this person) hit his head on a stone wall, collapsed, and lost all his memories – every single one.

When he woke up, from a coma lasting a year or so, he was forgotten by the people who feared and - oddly enough – admired him. He was thought to of died in a bombing on his diamond palace (no, the bombing didn’t lead to his accident, a banana slip of all things did). He was secretly moved to a hospital in Switzerland, where all records of his former life were kept secret for him. Just for added security, the only people who knew about this transfer committed suicide. His name was changed to Johnny Quest. Johnny Quest got up out of bed, wondered what the hell he was doing there, and left. Whether or not he forgot basic things like language and movement is irrelevant – we’re assuming he has just forgotten everything about his former ‘life’. He decides it is for the best to help out everyone around him. He helps out with the local Mosque, aids the elderly and disabled, never has sex, doesn’t ever use the lords name in vain, and of course believes firmly in Allah, and that Muhammad is the last messenger of God.

He dies in a state of Islam.

Now here comes the tricky bit. Who will God punish/reward? First we should define ‘person’ and ‘soul’. A person is described as ‘a rational and conscious agent that is morally responsible for its actions’. Remember, a person is different from a human being, one being a collection of particles, the other being a collection of mental states and identities. Soul is a bit trickier. It can be seen as the substance of mind. Mind is the formation of soul. So basically, soul is to mind what clay is to the finished sculpture . Keep this in mind.
I have come up with hypothetical answers, and responses to them.


God will send him to Heaven, because God is all-Merciful/God will send him to Hell, because the sins this person committed severely outweigh his good deeds

You are forgetting something. God is meant to be Just. A major precept of Justice, in every code of conduct (although it is sometimes not seen in some, but that doesn’t take away from the general perception of it), is that a person cannot be punished for what another person did. If we look at the definition of person as noted above, RR cannot be rewarded for what JQ did, and JQ cannot be punished for what RR did. One would not know what the other did.


God will restore the memory of the soul, and rejoin the two ‘people’

This too would not work. I could justly claim that the newly conjoined person would literally explode with all this new information. And why not? All this memory...both sides would probably be extremely shocked at the memory revelations. Utter disbelief will not allow for this to be an appropriate strategy.


God will split the soul in two!

This is probably the best solution, but it still presents some problem. Remember, the person’s soul will go to the afterlife. If indeed a soul is just like a piece of clay used for sculpturing, then there can only be one soul per person. Therefore, a person’s soul must be singular. It may have been shaped differently after the accident, but RR and JQ share the same soul. It seems very, very odd that God would decide to create two different people, thus destroying the original soul (a division in philosophical identity destroys the original). This presents a huge number of problems to Islamic, and also Christian, theology.


There are a huge number of solutions to this, and I may have thought about them previously, but forgotten. This was written in fifteen or so minutes, so I probably forgot a few things. If you’d like to, present your own solutions, ask questions about the dilemma, or criticize my reasoning. I hope it made sense, and mostly, I hope it is reasonable.

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

From a Judeo-Christian point of view...

I personally feel from my personal understanding of the Bible (I have a Theology minor) that God would permit grace for Richie Rich/Johnny Quest.  In my religious background I have come to think that one cannot escape the Grace of God.  When one knowingly commits sins, that person is living a life leading to a Hellish damnation.  However, when one repents (and it must be real and true), one enters into a state of grace with God.  God does not expect us to be 100% perfect 100% of the time, however, God wills for us to try our hardest to be good and follow his Will.

As such, even though Richie Rich didn't seek grace by choice (it was an injury and a lack of knowledge of his formers deeds), when Johnny Quest he did try to live a whole life, and a decent life.  I PERSONALLY feel like God would count this as grace and would allow the HUMAN that is both MENTALITIES to enter into Heaven.

[ZeaLitY]

Oh, really? What about someone who sins on Wednesday knowing he can repent on Thursday? Or how about the ones who believes once they're baptized they're saved forever?

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

well as i see it, you can't KNOWINGLY sin just so you can repent.  thats like me going to the store and shoplifting just so i can apologize tomorrow.  and the 'forever saved' argument is for the person who wants a cop-out.

anywho...  i put in my two cents.  i leave it there.  i'm not super religious (religious, yes; theology minor, yes), and religion is one of those topics that people will go in circles over, as demonstrated above.

the correct answer to your question, zeppelin, would be:

who knows.

[Burning Zeppelin]

Although I can't assert myself as an authority on what God will and will not do (since God in essence, would have free will, and therefore is not some sort of karmic system), I can criticize him for not being Just or fair. The reason I used Allah was to avoid the solution you gave - Grace. That makes God Merciful, but does that make him Just? Justice is being punished for ones own crimes, and also, being rewarded for ones good deeds (though this is the difference between our justice systems and Gods ones - we don't get rewarded for good deeds here that often). Richie Rich is being sent to heaven for the completely wrong reason.

Also, remember that Richie Rich was, and I intentionally put this is, an atheist. He didn't believe in God. This is a very large sin, even compared to murder.

Also, when you say mentalities, do you mean both personalities will exist in the same body? Or that they will be split into two?

Sorry if I sound like a douche, but critical analysis is needed

[Thought]

Does Islam have a means of redemption? If not, then the apparent solution to the proposed problem is condemnation. All the "good" that Johnny Quest did is that which is expected of an individual and thus does not cancel out "evil" that Richie Rich did. Not "remembering" or "knowing" something is never an excuse (consider, for example, a person driving well over the speed limit; not being "aware" of the speed limit doesn't excuse a person for the crime).

Using the Lord's name in vain is a sin, but not using the Lord's name in vain is to be expected. One should no more be rewarded for that than we should reward citizens for driving at the posted speed limits (or, indeed, reward them for breathing successfully, or not stabbing themselves, etc).

Indeed, that is what makes redemption so religiously necessary (unless we assume that morality, like legality, has a sort of statute of limitations). How can one "undo" a sin by just not doing other sins?

Judge: Sir, you've been found guilty of murdering Mr. John Doe; do you have anything to say for yourself?
Man: Yes, I murdered Mr. John Doe, but I didn't murder the 129,897 different people I came in contact with since that time. Surely that should make up for it!

[BROJ]

To, thicken the plot, so-to-speak: What happens when you take the concept of a past life and replace it with someone with D.I.D.(Dissociative Identity Disorder); where said personalities are aware of each other, but cannot interfere with each other's actions or concepts of reality. How then, would said person be judged?

[Burning Zeppelin]

Does Islam have a means of redemption?

Yes.

If not, then the apparent solution to the proposed problem is condemnation. All the "good" that Johnny Quest did is that which is expected of an individual and thus does not cancel out "evil" that Richie Rich did.

Actually, it's quite the opposite. There is no "fullfilment" - you get rewards for not doing evil deeds. There is no middle ground in the afterlife - either hell, or heaven.

Not "remembering" or "knowing" something is never an excuse (consider, for example, a person driving well over the speed limit; not being "aware" of the speed limit doesn't excuse a person for the crime).

Actually, it is. Maybe not in our legal system, but that is only because the Judge does not know a persons true beliefs. However, an omnipotent God does. Ignorance of the law in this case, does apply. Also, this is not just "Not remembering". This is a completely new person.

The major problem with what you are saying (not really related with the problem here, but might as well address it) is that you are assuming that Johnny Quest just "did not do bad things". Quite the contrary, he did good things. He was a nice person, was kind to the people he knew. If you weren't rewarded for those things, what is the point? What is doing good then? Is it just, as you are saying, praying for redemption from Christ? This is one of the worst points of Christian theology - atonement. It is silly to believe that you can do slaughter thousands of people, and yet be saved due to your belief in Christ.

To, thicken the plot, so-to-speak: What happens when you take the concept of a past life and replace it with someone with D.I.D.(Dissociative Identity Disorder); where said personalities are aware of each other, but cannot interfere with each other's actions or concepts of reality. How then, would said person be judged?

Hm, never heard of this. But speaking of past life, to contemplate how Johnny Quest would feel when remembering all this, imagine yourself, suddenly remembering everything Trotsky knew. It seems that you are the reincarnation of Trotsky! But remember, it isn't just memory...it's an entirely knew personality. He isn't replacing yours - he is just living by you.

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

zeppelin,

christian theology isn't based of 'atonement' - it's based off grace.  there's a difference.  and yes, it is sad that there are some sects of christianity that claim 'belief in jesus is all you need to get into heaven'.  in my understanding there is a certain recognition that jesus is the messiah, but i feel that it's mostly about a LIFESTYLE.

and i feel that lifestyle is the key factor.

[placidchap]

and i feel that lifestyle is the key factor.

Absolutley.  Whether you believe or not, you should follow the Golden Rule, as much as possible, if not always.

[Thought]

Does Islam have a means of redemption?

Yes.

Oh splendid... what is it?

Actually, it's quite the opposite. There is no "fullfilment" - you get rewards for not doing evil deeds. There is no middle ground in the afterlife - either hell, or heaven.

Which is why condemnation is the apparent solution. You do not get rewarded for "not doing evil deeds" but rather doing "good ones." As you said, there is no "middle ground," you can't be passive. Either you sin and are punished or you do good and are rewarded (and everyone will either do one or the other).  However, that which we call "good" is just what is expected, it is the baseline, the middle ground. What is the opposite of sin in Islam? What "good deed" can cancel out a bad one when evil is specifically when one fails to do good?

Actually, it is. Maybe not in our legal system, but that is only because the Judge does not know a persons true beliefs. However, an omnipotent God does. Ignorance of the law in this case, does apply. Also, this is not just "Not remembering". This is a completely new person.

That is in direct contradiction to a perfectly just god. If right and wrong are malleable, able to be changed by a person's knowledge and thoughts, then how can there be a definite measure? A person who's intentions are pure yet still murders, under such a system, would seemingly not be guilty, while a person who does good reluctantly (indeed, even grudgingly) has resulted in naught.

And no, it isn't a completely new person. If it were, you're original supposition wouldn't be problematic at all. The mental pathways and memories that were "Richie Rich" are still there in Johnny Quests mind, as these are physical things. Johnny Quest just isn't aware of them, those memories aren't being accessed, but there is no brain surgery in the world capable of actually removing them. Indeed, those memories could be accessed, they just aren't being so.

The major problem with what you are saying (not really related with the problem here, but might as well address it) is that you are assuming that Johnny Quest just "did not do bad things". Quite the contrary, he did good things. He was a nice person, was kind to the people he knew.

But those good things are expected, they are the norm, in short they are defined as "good" merely because not doing them are bad. As I gave an example before, murder is not excused just because it wasn't then followed with more murders. Doing these "good" things does not incur a debt but they do not pay a debt off (or create a savings). As I said, you might as well reward something for continuing to breathe as for doing "good deeds."

If you weren't rewarded for those things, what is the point? What is doing good then?

Because humans are not dogs and God is not Pavlov? The point is that is how things are supposed to be, to ask what is the point of being kind (and you are limiting his kindness only to those he knew, how terribly selfish and limited of him!) is like asking what is the point of breathing.

Is it just, as you are saying, praying for redemption from Christ? This is one of the worst points of Christian theology - atonement. It is silly to believe that you can do slaughter thousands of people, and yet be saved due to your belief in Christ.

First, if you will note, I did not say any such thing. Second, your claim that "this is one of the worst points of Christian theology" is ill-formed.

From an internal consistency perspective, the claim is flawed. You have essentially stated that one can slaughter thousands of people, forget about it, and those actions then incur no punishment, they no longer matter. Yet when one is presented with the opportunity to actively address the deeds that demand punishment, you balk? This is curious indeed; ignoring sin is good and addressing sin is bad?

Secondly, your basic understanding of "Christian theology" seems to be flawed. Belief in Christ does not save a person (it is said that even the demons believe in him, and tremble). Rather, it is specifically accepting him as a savior that then offers redemption. The debt of sin is passed on to him (not merely tossed aside because it is inconvenient to the "new person") and he pays (or paid, depending on how you want to look at it) that debt. Thus, under such a system God is both just and merciful. Sin is still addressed and all parties can come to a happy end.

christian theology isn't based of 'atonement' - it's based off grace.  there's a difference.  and yes, it is sad that there are some sects of christianity that claim 'belief in jesus is all you need to get into heaven'.  in my understanding there is a certain recognition that jesus is the messiah, but i feel that it's mostly about a LIFESTYLE.

Actually, most Christian theology is based on atonement through grace (need both, as grace without atonement is no grace at all, and atonement without grace is impossible). The need for atonement is why grace is provided. Indeed, depending on the sect, several forms of grace might be provided. To list them (and keep in mind, not every Christian believes in all of these):
There is Divine Grace, which allows humans, as utterly corrupt creatures, to do any good.
Prevenient Grace allows humans to accept or reject redemption.
Irresistible Grace is grace (and thus, ultimate salvation) that are given to the elect (humans have no choice if they are to be saved or not).
Sanctifying Grace is what actually forgives the sins of believers (that which sanctifies and makes holy).

I think there are few others that I am forgetting right now. To put things in perspective, Calvinists believe in Irresistible Grace while Wesleyans believe in Prevenient Grace (and I think Divine Grace as well).

As for the "lifestyle," that sort of gets into the question of Works v. Faith. There are Christian sects that are almost entirely on the "Faith" side. Faith in God is all one needs to get to heaven and it doesn't matter how one behaves. Then there are Christians that are almost entirely on the "Works" side. It is through doing good deeds that one gets to heaven. And finally, there are various shades of the middle ground in which Faith is necessary, but Faith results in Works ("Work without faith is meaningless, faith without work is dead.")

[Burning Zeppelin]

Oh splendid... what is it?

Just praying to God, asking him to wipe away your sins.

Which is why condemnation is the apparent solution. You do not get rewarded for "not doing evil deeds" but rather doing "good ones." As you said, there is no "middle ground," you can't be passive. Either you sin and are punished or you do good and are rewarded (and everyone will either do one or the other).  However, that which we call "good" is just what is expected, it is the baseline, the middle ground. What is the opposite of sin in Islam? What "good deed" can cancel out a bad one when evil is specifically when one fails to do good?

As I said, if you have the intention of doing a bad deed, and instead do an evil one, you get rewarded. Not doing bad deeds when there is pressure on you do it gets you rewarded.

That is in direct contradiction to a perfectly just god. If right and wrong are malleable, able to be changed by a person's knowledge and thoughts, then how can there be a definite measure? A person who's intentions are pure yet still murders, under such a system, would seemingly not be guilty, while a person who does good reluctantly (indeed, even grudgingly) has resulted in naught.

How is it unjust? If you kill someone, and yet you firmly believe that you did nothing wrong, and you didn't know of the moral law sent down by God, then how would it be just to punish someone for something they didn't know was wrong? Again, ignorance of the law in our legal systems doesn't work, because we don't know if someone truly was ignorant.

And no, it isn't a completely new person. If it were, you're original supposition wouldn't be problematic at all. The mental pathways and memories that were "Richie Rich" are still there in Johnny Quests mind, as these are physical things. Johnny Quest just isn't aware of them, those memories aren't being accessed, but there is no brain surgery in the world capable of actually removing them. Indeed, those memories could be accessed, they just aren't being so.

So is it just to Richie Rich to heaven for something he didn't do? How about we flip it around - if Johnny Quest came first, then Richie Rich. Is it just to send Johnny Quest to hell for something he didn't do?

But those good things are expected, they are the norm, in short they are defined as "good" merely because not doing them are bad. As I gave an example before, murder is not excused just because it wasn't then followed with more murders. Doing these "good" things does not incur a debt but they do not pay a debt off (or create a savings). As I said, you might as well reward something for continuing to breathe as for doing "good deeds."

So what is an example of a good deed?

Because humans are not dogs and God is not Pavlov? The point is that is how things are supposed to be, to ask what is the point of being kind (and you are limiting his kindness only to those he knew, how terribly selfish and limited of him!) is like asking what is the point of breathing.

1. How can he be kind to those he doesn't know?
2. You're comparison with breathing is intrinsically flawed. If I don't breathe, I die. This is biological. However, evil and good are completely subjective, and are not necessary for living. If being kind was "just the way things are meant to be", God has failed. Heaven is pointless. If being good was just fulfilling certain requirements, there should be no Heaven. Just death, and Hell.

First, if you will note, I did not say any such thing. Second, your claim that "this is one of the worst points of Christian theology" is ill-formed.

From an internal consistency perspective, the claim is flawed. You have essentially stated that one can slaughter thousands of people, forget about it, and those actions then incur no punishment, they no longer matter. Yet when one is presented with the opportunity to actively address the deeds that demand punishment, you balk? This is curious indeed; ignoring sin is good and addressing sin is bad?

Actually, I never said the actions shouldn't 'incur no punishment'. I was asking how God would deal with it. If you claim that splitting the soul in two is not an option, then the only other alternative is sending Johnny Quest along for the ride.

This should provide some understand on my perception of "person": http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/

Secondly, your basic understanding of "Christian theology" seems to be flawed. Belief in Christ does not save a person (it is said that even the demons believe in him, and tremble). Rather, it is specifically accepting him as a savior that then offers redemption. The debt of sin is passed on to him (not merely tossed aside because it is inconvenient to the "new person") and he pays (or paid, depending on how you want to look at it) that debt. Thus, under such a system God is both just and merciful. Sin is still addressed and all parties can come to a happy end.

Actually, I was spot on. A human being who believes in a Godly Christ - note, a human being (demons would know Christ the God obviously exists, while for humans, it would take a lifetime of faith to do it - will automatically think of him as a saviour, messiah, so on so on.

And even after your explanation, I still have a foul perception of it. Passing on our sins to Jesus? What the hell is this? If we accept that this is actually a teaching of Christ, which is quite doubtful, we have to look at the theory behind it. Looking at Wikipedia, the "Gregory of Nyssa" and "Anselm" view (Anselm being a shady philosophical character in himself - look at his ontological argument ) is that Jesus was a sacrifice. The Gregory version is less popular these days, but it is worthwile to look at it. He says the ransom was to Satan. Jesus needed to die to save us from Satan? What!? Satan is not an all power being, God didn't need to pay him a ransom to save us. The Anselm version is that the sacrifice was to God himself. Again, what!? Why did God need a sacrifice to save us from...him? Why is God under the constraints of some law, that he put down, that someone needs to die for someone elses sin?

The third version of atonement is used by progressive Christians (apologists), which is that the image of Christ on the cross is so influential that it wipes away our sins. Did someone say fail?

[Thought]

How is it unjust? If you kill someone, and yet you firmly believe that you did nothing wrong, and you didn't know of the moral law sent down by God, then how would it be just to punish someone for something they didn't know was wrong? Again, ignorance of the law in our legal systems doesn't work, because we don't know if someone truly was ignorant.

Our legal system isn't based on if someone was truly ignorant or not; that is a non-issue (it doesn't matter if someone was truly ignorant or not). These are the laws, it is on your head if you break one. Didn't know? Too bad. But that is just human laws; I am quite willing to admit divine law might function differently.

It would seem that there is a fundamental divergence here based on different understanding of the moral law. If one were to believe in the Moral Law, then those laws are innate. One cannot murder without knowing it is wrong, or steal, or any other sin (personally, I'd even argue that such actions are impossible without the individual first justifying those actions to themselves, to explain why "in this instance" it isn't wrong). Indeed, we see that this is true in human society, as no society has ever held murder, stealing, false testimony, etc as social virtues, only as things to be condemned and punished. Indeed, could you imagine such a society where these things were not rejected?

But the Moral Law aside, lack of knowledge cannot result in lack of accountability. Such a concept negates the possibility of moral absolutes (and thus Allah could not be a perfectly just deity). If mere knowledge of laws either binds one or excuses one from those laws, then those are no laws at all but circumstances. If two men murder, then how is it just for one to be punished and one to be utterly free from punishment? This is unfair! (and ah, where does our sense of fairness come from if not innate understanding of the Moral Law?)

I suppose it comes down to how we each view divine law. I am claiming that it is a universal absolute, that it is the same here as on the other side of the universe, that it is eternal, constant, and reliable, and that it can no more be ignored than one can ignore gravity. You seem to be claiming that it is malleable and all that then implies.

So is it just to Richie Rich to heaven for something he didn't do? How about we flip it around - if Johnny Quest came first, then Richie Rich. Is it just to send Johnny Quest to hell for something he didn't do?

As stated, the obvious conclusion is damnation. Merely being "kind" is not enough as it does not excuse past actions. Now, if JQ were to actively seek the divine, he would presumably eventually be led to the realization that sin is a barrier and thus would seek redemption. As he would be living in Islam, this apparently would be "praying to [Allah], asking him to wipe away [his] sins." If we add that to the original situation, then the obvious conclusion is he'd go to heaven but as things were presented... well he's stuck in the hot place (as it were).

And if we flip it, then that opens another issue not yet addressed. How does Islam view "redemption"? To illustrate what I mean, in Christianity there is a great divide between some who claim that once a person becomes a Christian, they cannot loose salvation and others who say that people can fall from grace (this is specifically in regards to individuals who appear to be Christian but then later reject Christianity). So then, if Islam allows one to pray for forgiveness of "future sins," even those committed if one ceases to believe, and for that prayer to be answered in the affirmative, then JQ (who came first in this situation) and RR (who is the same person) would go to heaven IF he did so (again, that wasn't stated in the original problem). However, if Islam does not allow for that, then again, he's stuck in the hot place (as his "good life" under JQ did not excuse his "bad life" under Richie Rich. Indeed, as you presented it his "good deeds" are utterly meaningless once he forgot about them; it is as if they never happened).

And it isn't that Johnny Quest is being sent to hell for something he didn't do. He DID do it (as JQ and RR are the same person; if they weren't, then again your original situation wouldn't be problematic in the least).

So what is an example of a good deed?

Exactly!
That is the point of many religions; you can't earn your way to heaven without divine aid. Following the divine law is the norm; in a "perfect" world there would be no deviation, but once that deviation has been made one is presented with the impossible divide between imperfection and perfection. If Islam recognized good deeds that could cancel out evil deeds, then why would it have a means of redemption?

1. How can he be kind to those he doesn't know?
2. You're comparison with breathing is intrinsically flawed. If I don't breathe, I die. This is biological. However, evil and good are completely subjective, and are not necessary for living. If being kind was "just the way things are meant to be", God has failed. Heaven is pointless. If being good was just fulfilling certain requirements, there should be no Heaven. Just death, and Hell.

1. Quite easy (and I am slightly surprised that you are asking since I do know that Islam has tenants for this). Give aid to the poor, treat everyone fairly regardless of if you know them (and indeed, even if they are your enemy), etc.

2. Not at all, my comparison is rather apt as not breathing and not following divine law leads to essentially the same thing (bodily death on one hand, spiritual death on the other). And no, evil and good are not completely subjective (if they are subjective, then they are meaningless... though I am surprised Islam is so postmodern). Being kind is the way things should be (the alternate is that being kind is not the way things should be, in which case kindness is then a vice and not a virtue). How, then, do you conclude that the divine has failed? While it might be good for kindness to be universal, it is better for people to choose to be kind than being forced to be kind, thus the current world.

Actually, I was spot on. A human being who believes in a Godly Christ - note, a human being (demons would know Christ the God obviously exists, while for humans, it would take a lifetime of faith to do it - will automatically think of him as a saviour, messiah, so on so on.

Well yes, they will think of him as a savior, messiah, and all that, but that still doesn't mean anything. Knowledge apart from action is meaningless.

Why did God need a sacrifice to save us from...him? Why is God under the constraints of some law, that he put down, that someone needs to die for someone elses sin?

Well that is a rather curious objection; why should a perfect God be constrained by perfection? If God is perfectly just, then he can truck with no crime. Indeed, how can we expect anything perfect to associate with imperfection? Indeed, it is only an imperfectly just deity that could allow a crime to go unaddressed.

Side note, a good many Christian would state that God isn't saying us from him, rather he is saving us from ourselves. It is either his will or our will, but our will is nothing. C.S. Lewis put it that the gates of Hell are locked from the inside.

The third version of atonement is used by progressive Christians (apologists), which is that the image of Christ on the cross is so influential that it wipes away our sins. Did someone say fail?

I think you meant third version of grace (which is different from atonement). I am thinking this because I am not seeing three versions of atonement being listed thus far. But what do you mean by "fail"?

[Burning Zeppelin]

Well, we can't truly know if moral law is inherent or not. We'd need to do some sociological experiments - although, these will probably be called unethical by every living thing. Think about it this way - if you park next to a sidewalk, and there is no sign telling you it is illegal in that specific spot, and yet you are still fined, is that just? No, it is not. Ignorance of the law may not be a good case to get you out of paying the fine, but as a Judge once said:

"This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."

However, God works along the lines of justice, not law.

You still do not understand the predicament. If Richie Rich had lost his memory, woken up, and died instantly, this wouldn't be a problem. However, Johnny Quest lived for years after the accident. He has created his own identity, he is no longer Richie Rich, but is now Johnny Quest. As Lisa Simpsons said to Bart when he sold his soul and got it back again:

"But you know, Bart, some philosophers believe that nobody is born with a soul -- that you have to earn one through suffering and thought and prayer, like you did last night."

Thought not entirely the same situation, it still shows how we view personal identity.

Asking forgiveness for future sins reminds me of this passage from The Amber Spyglass:

"Preemptive penance and absoluteion were doctrines researched and developed by the Consistorial Court, but not known to the wider Church. They involved doing penance for a sin not yet committed, intense and fervent penance accompanied by scourging and flagellation, so as to build up, as it were, a store of credit. When the penance had reached the appropriate level for a particular sin, the penitent was granted absolution in advance, though he might never be called on to commit the sin. It was sometimes necessary to kill people, for example; and it was so much less troubling for the assassin if he could do so in a state of grace."

Your view of redemption is quite strange. It belittles us to nothing but praying machines. You are saying that we can't do anything good, except pray. No matter how much good I do in my life, whether it be charity, helping the sick or whatever, it is meaningless without asking for forgiveness. On the other hand, no matter how much evil I do, as long as I look towards God for forgiveness, I will get it. Does this explain how so many Christian leaders were able to get away with so much evil?

I was being a smart-arse when I said "how can you be kind to those you don't know". When you give something to someone, you automatically know of them. But in reality, I made a mistake when I said "he is kind the people he knew". He was actually kind to everyone!

For one thing, I'm not a Muslim, I'm agnostic, although since I know most about Islam I can use it for argumentitive purposes. What I am saying is that good and bad can be interpreted in many ways by us. There is no warning light when I do something bad. If I believe what I did was good, not even my conscience will tell me to stop. Breathing on the other hand, affects the body itself.

Again, kindness is also subjective. Many people believe being kind is futile. It is a waste of energy. Why be kind when you can act upon your own self-interests? Although I can say "you ought to be nicer", I can't say "what you are doing is naturally wrong".

What do you mean knowledge without action is meaningless? The very act of knowing and accepting Christ as your messiah will get you into heaven!

I do not understand how you moved from "law" to "perfection". He could easily save us from him - or as you say, from ourselves - by allowing us to pray towards him. Jesus Christ did not need to die. What I am saying is that God didn't need to have someone die for our sins. He made that law. Either God was constrained by some already existing law, God is stupid, or God is not omniscent; he did not say this Jewish deviation coming.

Actually, I mean atonement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement#Main_theories_in_detail.

By fail I mean the theorists failed in providing a plausible explanation for the death of Christ. Can't they just accept he died because a lot of the people didn't like him?

[Radical_Dreamer]

Well that is a rather curious objection; why should a perfect God be constrained by perfection? If God is perfectly just, then he can truck with no crime. Indeed, how can we expect anything perfect to associate with imperfection? Indeed, it is only an imperfectly just deity that could allow a crime to go unaddressed.

Are sins sins because God declares them to be, or are they sins intrinsically, and God, being perfect, is perfectly able to determine what acts are sinful which aren't?