The thing is people only look and view things through the lens of what we are brought up with. It takes people a lot of work to view things out side that lens.
Like many people here, I was not brought up in or around Orthodox Christianity.
To this day I can't make heads or tails of the trinity I'm not going to lie. I have talked to all kinds of different Christians to find out the answers no matter what they bring to me just don't get it.
This makes me wonder about the god of Islam. The Muslims I know seem fine admitting that he is beyond their comprehension, but some converts (to all religions) seem to be really bothered by what they can't understand, as though the things that all the faithful of all ages have grappled with should be made clear to them now before they can have faith, for some reason. If Islam's Allah is to be a reasonable God for a reasonable people, then why end everything with "Allah 'alem" (God knows), as though you haven't figured it out? From a Christian perspective, it just seems weird that Muslims would go on and on about "God knows" and "If God wills" and "There is none like Him" and all that, but then when we say "Yes! Exactly! None is like the Holy Trinity!", they back up and go "Heyyy...hold on a minute...we didn't mean that
...I mean, that's unreasonable!
It is beneath God that He should have a son!"
So you are left in a very strange conceptual space where you have to say "It's not that he couldn't do it, it's that there wouldn't be need for Him to do it", as though God operates based on some perceived 'need'. Other Christians like to spin their wheels in alternative universes, too, also for the sake of making what actually happened anything but the focus of the discussion. God could've come to earth as a 500 foot-tall jello mold piloting a spaceship covered in Christmas lights, but He didn't. Now who's doing more to disrespect God's majesty or whatever by saying "He didn't need to do this", or "It's beneath Him that this would happen"? If the things you are objecting to are things He already did
, then why does He need
your armchair quarterbacking 600 years after the fact, or today, or ever? So long as we're going base what we can accept based on what we hypothesize about what God would need, we might as well mention what He doesn't. And Christianity certainly had that covered long before Muhammad, the Qur'an, or Islam ever existed: "You are my Lord; You have no need of my goodness."
(St. Augustine, Confessions
So it is telling to me, in this context, that Poppy has written elsewhere that in Islam the goal is that your good deeds outweigh your bad (or some such; sorry, Poppy...this thread is moving too fast for me to recall the exact quote). And this connects to the incarnation and the crucifixion and the resurrection, all of these. They're nothing He needed to do. They're nothing we made Him do. They're what He did
, and I respect His prerogatives as God.
To me I use this pc here and I don't have to become a pc to understand how it works and what it does. Allah (swt) made me so I don't think that its not he couldn't become man but there is no need for Allah (swt)to become man.
Ah, but see above. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the incarnation. Rather, as St. Gregory teaches us, that which is not assumed is not healed. That God should want to save us from the devil is not a foreign concept in Islam, is it? I have heard with my own ears Muslims pray to Allah for protection against the devil. And who among us, Christian or Muslim, would dare to face the demons without calling on divine assistance? The difference, of course, is that in Christianity that salvation was incarnated in the God-man Jesus Christ, such was His love for us and desire to save us from eternal damnation. Could he have done so some other way? Sure. St. Athanasius the Apostolic says nothing less in his treatise on the Incarnation: "He could have revealed His divine majesty in some other and better way. No, He took our body [...] This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die..."
The analogy with the computer is a little odd. It would seem to reduce the Lord to a purely tactile creature, as though He could not understand His creation if He did not become part of it. Heaven forbid! It is because
He understands our plight that He willed Himself to go through it to the utmost, beyond what any of us could do, and came to us as a servant, trampling down death by death and restoring life to those in the tombs.
I know most here don't try to view it as we do or even try cause they go by what feels good on the inside.
This is needlessly insulting, don't you think? I was not a fan earlier in the thread when someone here insinuated that love of a Muslim man was behind Poppy's conversion to Islam, and I am not a fan now when you presuppose that Christians adhere to their religion because it "feels good on the inside". You are not made out of different stuff than the rest of humanity, Muslim Voice. I don't know if you got some sort of Secret Club decoder ring down at the masjid so that only you and other Muslims really understand what religion is about, but whatever it is, you're fooling yourself if you think other people are driven by emotionalism, but neophyte Muslims such as yourself have it all figured out by logic and reason. We're all people, and chances are you ended up in Islam because you find it true, no different than how converts to other religions (including from Islam) find their new religions.
Tons of people die everyday don't mean I get saved from it does it.
And none of those tons of people are Jesus Christ.
Only way Christians make use of Jesus on the cross is by saying he is a god other wise his death is no different than mine or their own. As Paul said if Jesus isn't god then being Christian is all for nothing.
If you are meaning to allude to his first epistle to the Corinthians, the wording is "if Christ is not risen
, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty" (15:14; emphasis mine). It is in answer to those who would deny the resurrection of the dead (see the immediately preceding verses), as there was some controversy among the various communities on this point. It does not deny either the divinity of Christ nor His resurrection, but says, in effect, "if you do not believe in the resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen, and if Christ is not risen, our faith is meaningless". Seeing as how Islam believes in the resurrection of the dead (yawm el-qiyama and whatnot), this is an odd matter for a Muslim to bring up as though it provides some defense for their religion.
Though I suppose it is interesting to see a Muslim finally say that they agree with St. Paul on something. I never thought I would live to see the day.