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.
Not at all, I am just approaching the predicament from a pragmatic perspective. As under the original situation you presented, Johnny Quest was only a "good person," that is he wasn't actively evil like Richie Rich was, the entire argument for his entry into paradise would be that works, apart from the divine, can suffice to merit bliss. I am thus then arguing that there are no works that can "make up" for evil deeds.
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?
Actually, from the Christian perspective, they didn't get away with evil, as IF one "look
towards God for forgiveness," THEN that would necessitate a change in one's actions. A person who acts the same before and after Christian "conversion" did not actually convert (or at least, most Christian doctrines would claim).
So in short, no "Christian Leader" would do evil. If an individual did act in an evil manner, then that is a sign they aren't actually Christian. A very convenient doctrine, admittedly.
And "my" view of redemption is merely ascribing actions to their proper place. Charity, helping the sick, etc, have a great deal of meaning, but that meaning is quite apart from redemption. If you are doing such deeds only to redeem yourself, then those actions are hardly the best good. You seem to be saying that one could go murder someone, serve at a soup kitchen, and all is right with the world.
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.
Actually, I'd argue that there was. If something is bad, you'd know it to be bad and you'd have to argue that it is good before being able to do it. But that is another argument in itself.
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!
Exactly, "knowing and accepting." Knowing is all well and good, but it is the accepting that does the trick.
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.
Perhaps that is an old Christian doctrine that doesn't follow over into Islam? God being God is perfect; any attribute of God must thereby be perfect as well. God's love must be perfect love, his hate perfect hate, his justice perfect justice, etc.
If he allowed evil actions to go without consequences, then that would not be perfect justice (and thus violate his own nature). That might, however, still meet perfect mercy.
Yes, God made the law, which is exactly why there was a need to have sins atoned (not necessarily having someone die; as you said, under Islam, for the purposes of this discussion, merely praying would suffice, but that atonement is still necessary). If the law was some weak, transient thing, it could easily be broken. But to ask God to not be God (that is, not be perfectly just) is just nonsensical.
Now if you presented this same thought problem under a system that allowed good works to earn redemption, then that would be a different matter
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?
Oh they've provided plenty of plausible explanations; you just don't accept them (and to be fair, many people don't accept them). They have also failed to provide a plausible explanation for the various miracles recorded in the various religious texts. Indeed, Theologians have failed to provide a plausible explanation for a lot of things. But that is a false dilemma. The choice isn't just "plausible explanation" or "rejection."
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?
Personally, I'd say both. I think C.S. Lewis put it along the lines of "That which turns to God is good, that which turns away is evil." Murder, then, is only a sin because God created the Moral Law so that murder is bad. Under such a system, murder would be no worse than, say, lying, because both would "turn away" from the divine. It is the difference between saying to God "Thy will be done" and "My will be done," as it were. But such is by no means a universal perspective. For the particular discussion of sin under Islam (and thus, relating back to Richie Rich and Johnny Quest), BZ could probably provide a more relevant answer.
