Salvation
The Heart of the Good News
The man who is God is known as "Christ".
He has arisen to fulfillment from death, transformed not disembodied.
He is pioneer of a new, ripening humanity.
In the Fullness of Time
Ripening is a process and God's becoming a man is an event, prompting the question: at what stage of humanity's ripening is it proper for God to become a man?
(1) If humanity had not defected? I see no way to answer this. Whether God would have waited until late in the process, with humanity almost ripe, or come among us early in the process as part of guiding us to ripeness, or somewhere between, I cannot tell. I incline to the "late" theory but see no way to be confident.
(2) But in fact humanity did defect, so any "late" plan would have failed, for humanity was not only far from ripeness but on a path of endless unripeness. God does not do failure, so the light came into the world while the world lay in darkness.
Reasons to believe it
See Christ's Career for the generally-agreed facts.
Now for the reasons.
(1) Christ's Character presents an insoluble mystery unless we accept his claim.
(2) The Easter Story has no parallels, and the only explanation that strikes me as plausible is that it is true.
(3) Christ is like the final piece of a puzzle, the solution to a problem. Given all the beliefs listed earlier in our creed, this one makes sense. Logically it comes near the end of this Creed, but biographically it sometimes comes first, for sometimes it is only in encountering Christ that a self comes to understand the realities of the human condition, and some of the reasons given for believing those earlier items may sudenly seem more convincing when one encounters Christ, who (in this sense and others) is "Alpha and Omega".
Christian Objections
"You hardly mention Christ's death. Accepting death may be the most important thing he ever did."
All animal life leads to death, humans included, Christ included, and the fact that Christ died is not remarkable and has no beneficial effects. He died for us in the sense that he became a man, not in the sense that having become a man he also died, and he became a man not in order to die, but in order to be alive forever to raise his followers from death.
"You never mention the manner of Christ's death, that he not only died for us but was crucified for us. His exceptionally severe suffering is what saves us."
Life in the ruined world inevitably involves suffering, so like all of us Christ's death involved suffering. The form and extent of this suffering is less important. An easier death would not have stopped him saving us.
So in what sense was such severe suffering necessary for him? Presumably because the alternative modes of death would have entailed more suffering for humanity during its subsequent ripening. If so, the mode of his death was part of what he underwent for man, but salvation itself does not depend on it, and that is why our Creed never mentions it.
"You are neglecting the main purpose of Christ's work, to save us from God's retribution. All this other stuff is secondary, even if it's true."
No it wasn't. God had long been turning foes into friends, but that could not restore humanity to ripening. A welldoer's experience is incomplete until they experience salvation in Christ, and every welldoer who understands the message about Christ immediately trusts him.
On the reality of non-Christian welldoing, see Realignment.
On the insufficiency of non-Christian welldoing, see The Need for Salvation.
(Satisfaction or Appeasement Theory) "The need was simpler than you suggest. Someone had to suffer for humanity's sins. God cannot simply overlook his friends' previous wickedness; he must be appeased, his justice must be satisfied. He can only befriend evildoers if he knows that he did or will receive satisfaction for their previous evildoing. And only God the Mediator, by dying in a certain manner, can give adequate satisfaction."
Human life amidst wickedness always involves suffering of one kind or another, and in this sense the Mediator pays the price for our sins. Satisfaction theory takes this metaphor too literally.
For details see The Satisfaction Theory of Atonement.
Other Objections
"The idea of Christ's significance is based on the Bible. But since the Bible can mean whatever we want it to, depending on which version or translation or interpretation we use, and since there are so many competing versions of Christianity all contradicting each other, it is foolish to pay any attention to what it says."
Differences of text and translation are in fact minor. Different interpretations are certainly rife, but this is no reason to ignore it. There are many quacks but also some real doctors. Judge on merit. Remember, as explained in the "Reasoning" page, neutrality is not an option.
"The legends of Christ resemble those of Gotama the Buddha, Muhammad of Mecca, and others. Why should we believe one and not the others?"
None of the alleged parallels is real. See Alleged Parallels.
"If God had really begun to save mankind 2000 years ago, history would not be the series of disasters it still is."
It takes time. This is not like waving a magic wand; it is more like planting a seed, an image used by Christ himself.
"It may not be Christ, it may be someone else."
Much of the reasoning that supports belief in such a saviour is based on Christ, so to accept the reasoning without accepting Christ seems very odd. I have never known anyone to be really in this position, but if you are in it please contact us.