WIll God save us if we don't believe in the Resurrection?

I think it is the death and resurrection of Christ himself that opens the door to heaven's potential for all people -- Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc. In other words, even though I as a Christian believe in Christ, if Christ never actually died nor was resurrected, then my faith in him would not earn my way into heaven.His death and resurrection is what tore open the infinite gulfs of chaos between God and man -- and my faith in him has nothing to do with Christ's ability to accomplish this connection to the Father in heaven. In other words, Christ can do it on his own whether I believe in him or not.

edit: If you're using a strict fundamentalist interpretation of the Scriptures, then I suppose yes. But I'm not a fundamentalist. edt: Yes. That's what I'm saying. edit: Do you mean the first three commandments?I take it you're speaking from a Protestant background? Yes, and God's word is pretty clear that he is a merciful God too. If someone has been fairly presented with the Gospel message, and there's no real reason for rejecting the Gospel meesage except for the fact that they "didn't want to accept it", then I personally don't think that God is very sympathetic toward them.However, in those grey areas where the Gospel has not been presented, or where the Gospel has been presented in such a hostile manner that those who were witnessed to perceive Christianity as evil or malignant, then I think that God is more understanding.I think the laws which talk about our duty to each other human being (such as not killing, not stealing, not sleeping with someone else's spouse), are written onto the hearts of all people. Laws like these are nearly universal throughout the world, even if they can't exactly agree on when these laws apply, or even the punishment required. If people partake in these things and never express regret, sorrow, and a desire to be forgiven in their lives (which would be an act of rejecting Christ in their lives whether they know Christ or not), then they are most likely damned.However, the laws about directly worshipping the true God are specifically revealed laws -- and they apply to people who have heard them clearly. In other words, I don't think God judges in such black and white terms as many fundamentalists absolutely insist. I think that God judges in proportion to that which is revealed in each individual.When it comes to laws which pertain to our duty toward each other, and they ARE written into the consciences of all people according to the Scriptures (and even a casual glance at humanity), then God holds us accountable.But when it comes to our duty toward God himself, and if the message hasn't been fairly presented, then God is merciful -- that is, God judges in proportion to that which is revealed to each individual. It depends on what you mean when you say this. Could you explain this further?edit: What I'm saying is that Christ doesn't need for us to believe in him in order to get the resurrection accomplished. He can accomplish this irregardless of our faith or lack thereof.However, many Christians speak of their own faith in Christ as being the thing which empowers Christ to save them -- which is wrong in my opinion. Christ's resurrection was in no way powered by other people's faith in him.In fact, contrary to this position, none of his apostle's actually beleived he was coming back from the dead -- they didn't even believe the initial reports of his reusrrection by the women, and Thomas took an extra long time to see the light.In short, Christ had his own power to do this on his own. However, when people believe in the power of his resurrection then they are tapping the unlimited power of God himself. And that's where Christianity's strength lays. Uh...no.You're not really grasping my position are you?What I've said is if Christ didn't die on the cross, then no one could be saved period -- Christian or otherwise. In other words, to rephrase your own statment above, Jesus can't save even one person without his death and resurrection because it is the power of his resurrection which empowers him to save people -- regardless of whether they believe in him or not.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-21-2005 08:32 AMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-21-2005 08:37 AMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-21-2005 12:23 PM

Brian, there's more than a few things that you're assuming which I don't actually agree with.1: You're using a very strict process of interpretation, one which is very similar to a fundamentalist one. I don't agree with their interpretation -- and I find it odd that you (apparently a non-believer?) would insist on using their method as well.2: You're assuming that God is all-powerful. I don't accept that God is all-powerful. He can't sin for one thing. I think he's also given up some of his omnipotence so that we can have a free-will.3: You're assuming that God is all-knowing. I don't accept that either. For example, at the end of time, when some people drift obliviously into hell, I'm fairly sure that God will not know anything about them. In fact, I think he will say, "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!"4: Your points are contradictory in some areas too. For example, the basis of this discussion appears to be arguing over the specifics of whether God will save us if we don't believe in the resurrection or not -- which assumes that the resurrection and God himself are true for the sake of this discussion. However, you turn around and argue that social conditioning plays an important factor in the development of religious ideas -- which assumes that the resurrection and God himself are actually social constucts for the sake of this discussion.5: You seem to be assuming that I consider George Bush a genius, or that I'm a Republican -- which I don't and am not.6: Some of your comments seem rather flippant, such as, "If God is a jealous God, He would require that you believe in Him and His son’s circus act."Circus act?Yeah, I think we're on different wavelengths here.If you want to continue a civil discusion with me then I would expect you to treat some of my ideas with respect. If you insist on being imprisoned within Fundamentalistville, you're welcome to enjoy your stay.However, it is my observation that many people who reject God simply read the Scriptures in the most literal sense they can so that they can mantain that God is non-sensical and evil. Thinking outside the box is simply too hard for them, so they resort to the same old stuff over and over again.I'm not interested in that kind of discussion.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-21-2005 09:17 AM

Well...then I guess I write too much then. Having said that, I just don't think these kinds of deep questions can be answered with simple buzz-words and sound bites.I don't know how else to explain it. If someone is deeply moved to search for God, and contradictory positions are levelled against faith in God, then I'm most likely going to reply in full to them as consisely and politely as I possibly can.There are no quick and easy answers for some of these questions. In fact, I'm fairly sure that quick and easy answers actually do more damage to many people's faiths -- because they leave so much room for one to misunderstand by what is not being said.I would like to reply to your questions Ifen, but I suspect the answers would be too long. I'm not sure what else to say. When I talk about something, I usually follow the same format (although it might not always follow this exact order):1) explain my point in my own words as best as I can,
2) give some kind of Scriptural references to calrify what I'm explaining.
3) point out what I feel to be valid historical examples of what I'm explaining,
4) explain this relationship with other world religions where applicable,
5) and finally explain my conclusion in my own words (or with links to other's thoughts who have already expressed them to my liking).I admit that this formula usually makes for a very long post, and many do consider them to be long. However, no one usually says that I haven't explained my self clearly -- unless, of course, they haven't read my post in the first place. I'd rather explain things clearly the first time, instead of repeating myself a dozen times in order to clarify a point that I could have explained more clearly the first time.

To some extent I agree.However, when one looks at the incarnation of Christ, we see God in human form experiencing sin so that he can understand what it is like to be human and therefore have compassion on us. If God can understand and know sin from heaven's spiritual perspective, it seems kind of pointless for Christ the second person of the holy trinity to come in human form in order to be tempted in every way so that he could sympathize with our weaknesses.Although I do believe that Christ's incarnation was "without sin" in the sense that he was aware of what sin was (in his mind) and yet he never succumbed to it mentally or physically, I also believe that Christ "became" sin by knowing sin (in his mind) and becoming aware of its temptations so that God could pin-point sin and obliterate it through Christ's life, death and resurrection. When I look to the incarnation of Christ, I see the second member of the holy trinity emptying himself, making himself virtually nothing (for a small time) when compared to his former and future glory both before and after his humiliation he experienced as a human being.I think that Philippians 2:5-8 captures this very well... You had said above that "God cannot sin because God cannot be God and be someone else at the same time". However, when we look toward Christ on the cross we hear him speaking these words: I think the answer to this question can be found in Isaiah 59:1-2... In other words, I don't think the father could see into the heart of the son at this unique period in history because God cannot look upon the face of sin.If this is correct, I tend to think that Christ was going through utter agony not so much because of the physical abuse that was heeped on him via the crucifixion. I don't even think that the sins that he took unto himself in order to become sin were that bad by comparison of the possibility that Christ was truly separated from his father at this most unique event in human history. In other words, in order for Christ to truly know what it was like to be human, he had to be spiritually separated from his father just like all other people were. Unlike anyone else in the entire scope of human history, Christ continued to believe in his father even when totally separated from him and dropped into the depths and despair of the dead. This is to say, Jesus' faith in the father saved him from the depths of death -- and at that unique moment in history, Christ connected himself spiritually with all other souls past, present and future that would be saved in him, even those that did not know him per se in human life. This is what I mean by the power of Christ's resurrection. If Christ hadn't become fully human and died on the cross, even to the point of separating himself from his father in heaven, then every Christian's faith in him would be totally useless. Although others may disagree, this is my definition of Christ the savior and it works quite well for me.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-21-2005 04:32 PMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-21-2005 07:51 PM

When you refer to Christ's death and resurrection as a "circus act", then you've made fun of something which almost all Christians cherish. In fact, it's almost impossible to type that phrase without knowing in advance that it will offend the Christian you're replying to.I've always attempted to deeply respect anyone's position -- that is, until they start showing signs of irreverance toward my faith, or general flippancy towards something which I hold dear to me. If you want to continue with that line of discussion with others, feel free. I obviously can't stop you. Even if I wanted to stop you, I don't have any authority to stop you anyway.I deeply respect each individuals freedom of speech. I think people should be free to speak according to the dictates of their conscience -- no matter how much I might disagee with them. However, if you're expecting me to believe you when you say that you're honestly looking for answers within the Scriptures, all the while insulting the faith of many Christians at the same time, then no I don't believe you.Hopefully jar will be able to explain to you what I was trying to explain patiently to you already. As for me, I've had enough. If explaining my faith to some stanger means I have to listen to the stranger mock the faith I believe in, then I'm stepping out of the discussion.I hope you find all the answers you're searching for. Just remember, sometimes the questions you ask are more important than the answers you find.Take care.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-27-2005 08:18 AM

I have no problem with this. There is an alternative to bailing. One can also choose to ignore the a**holes who don't really respect your thoughts in the first place.Ifen has presented some very interesting insights into the nature of why he has rejected the faiths based mostly on the Abrahamic covenants. He's specifically mentioned critical reasons as to why he has rejected Christianity in general -- and he has done it without being insulting in the process. When I have some time, I will respond.Similarly, arachnophilia has presented some very interesting insights into why he believes the way he does. He's backed it up with some Scriptural quotes and ideas, explained some points, and done it without really being insulting in the process. I respect his opinions in regards to how he has formulated his ideas about God in relation to the question of evil -- even if I don't necessarilly agree with them. That's why I've invited him to engage in a formal debate here at EvC.Edit: editted swearing.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-27-2005 10:29 PM

My apologies. What have I done wrong and what can I do to correct it?

I don't understand. I'm honestly asking for advice on what I can do to fix the post that you've just warned me about.What do you want me to go back and change? I'll go back and change it.

I realize that I'll probably get a ban for this, but I think it needs to be said. I don't understand why I was warned for this. I've never specifically named anyone when I said the following: As far as I can tell, I phrased this as a general statement which is basically true. I've also seen a lot worse than this elsewhere in these forums -- and without naming names, I've noticed that their attitude goes way across the line to the point of being personal attacks.In addition to this, many people of faith are expected to tolerate the accusations that are routinely levelled against them -- such as that their faith is a joke, or meaningless, or somehow stupid (and this applies to both creationists and evolutionists).In addition to this, it is often implied that if people believe a certain way (either creation or evolution), then they are basically the same as the faith they espouse to believe. It's not a personal attack per se, but the message is generally well received that if the person believes a certain way, then they too are basically just as much of a joke as what they believe in.Like I said, I'll probably get a ban for saying this. And I accept whatever you might decide for me for challenging you on this Adminjar. However, I think there's a double standard going on here -- and I don't think these kinds of warnings are being applied fairly accross the board to all individuals.

Did you read through my messages in this thread?Edit: I apologize if there was any misunderstanding -- but I thought I explained why I beleived the resurrection was necessary fairly well.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-03-2005 11:28 AM

All right...I'll try to explain this better. Yes, and many may yet choose him at this time -- moved by the Spirit once the truth has been finally revealed to them. Then it's very possible that you may simply not be looking too hard.When I read the Gospel according to Luke, I read the following: Consequently, when I read other accounts of what happened to Christ during this same time, I read things such as this... To be honest, I don't think I would have the kindness in my heart to dismiss such actions simply because those who did the actions "didn't know better". But, as I've been maintaining all the way, I believe that God judges in proportion to what is revealed to each individual -- and that he holds each individual accountable to what they believe their conscience holds to be true.Or, stated more clearly in Christ's own words, from everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. Again, and I may be wrong as well -- but his character does appear quite forgiving to me.