If you don't believe in the ressurection of Jesus, you're not a Christian.

[Zhade]

Or so I've been told by some Christians.

Others, who define themselves very much as followers of the purported teachings of Jesus, do not think one has to believe that traditionally-mythological happenings (virgin birth, miracles, etc) literally happened in order to be a Christian.

I've seen both types here on DU, and it leads me to wonder: if even here, between assumedly progressive people, two different believers hold two radically different interpretations of the same belief system, is it any wonder the history of violence amongst sectarian Christians?

We know, for example, that the Gnostics were essentially wiped out, eliminating the (likely closer to the truth?) mystical 'inner self' version of Christian teachings.

How do liberal, nonliteralist Christians here handle their interactions with literalists? Do you find a lot of pressure to "accept" unproven supernatural events before you could be called Christian? How do you work with those who insist those events actually happened, sans evidence? Do you find that while you are more a "live and let live" person, literalists are "live as I live" types?

I ask this because it occured to me that, in a sense, atheists actually have a lot more in common with nonliteralist believers (aside from the whole "god exists" thing) than nonliteralist believers may have with literalist believers.

Anyway, it's just a question I had. My intent is not to insult, but to examine. Curious as to your thoughts.

[Gato Moteado]

1. what about people that believe in the ressurection of jesus, but....

...all of their views and actions are completely incongruent everything jesus said and did.

are those people christians? because, damn, there are shitloads of them.

[LaurenG]

17. The word you are probably looking for is Pharisee

Most double speaking "Christians" the ones you refer to seem to have descended to the negative connotation of the word Pharisee.

1. Pharisee A member of an ancient Jewish sect that emphasized strict interpretation and observance of the Mosaic law in both its oral and written form.
2. A hypocritically self-righteous person.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Pharisee

Are these people Christians? Judge them according to their works, what they say and do and you will know.

And he called the people to him again, and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a man what goes into the mouth which by going into him defiles a man, but the things which come out of a man this defiles a man." Let anyone with ears to hear listen! And when he had entered the house,and left the people, the disciples came and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?" He answered, "Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit." But Peter said to him, "Explain the parable to us." And he said, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart passes into the stomach, and so passes on? " (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, But what comes out of the mouth a man proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a man.

http://virtualreligion.net/primer/Repute/in_out.html

[Gato Moteado]

19. exactamente!

and they're as common as cockroaches.

[LaurenG]

20. Maybe more so only worse, you can't spray for them. lol nt

:sarcasm:

[DoYouEverWonder]

70. Too bad the religious insane

don't actually read and understand the bible.

Like the Congressman on the Colbert Report who wanted to put the 10 Commandments in every building. Colbert asked him to name the 10 Commandments and the guy had to struggle to get figure out 3 of them.

[William769]

2. Faith is a wondrous thing.

I believe in the resurrection of Jesus. thats my belief. If someone doesn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus thats their belief. Who am I to judge? Doesn't mean that I think they are not Christian.

I being a homosexual, there are Christians who believe That is wrong & doesn't make me a Christian (and I will go to hell). I don't believe that me being a homosexual is wrong & that there is a place for me in heaven.

My point is, I don't judge & I don't understand why other people think they have to.

What I really don't understand is why a non believer would even care.

[arwalden]

18. Could You Ever Be In A Serious Romantic Relationship With An Atheist?

Or is that a deal-breaker?

[William769]

26. It's not a deal breaker.

It would only be a deal breaker if that person were to make fun of my faith.

[arwalden]

27. I Was Dating A Guy For A Couple Of Weeks...

... everything seemed to be fine. We hadn't gotten to the point of talking about more vital matters like religion or politics, but when he found out that I was an atheist... and that I didn't want to attend church with him, he broke it off.

Oh well... disappointing, but not heartbreaking. It was fun while it lasted.

[William769]

28. I am in a 13 year relationship.

The first 3 years we were together, I went to Church on Sundays he didn't. Religion never even came up between us..

Then one Sunday I asked him if he wanted to go & he said he didn't feel comfortable going to Church even though he believed in God. He said being raised he was told Homosexuality was wrong & he was very confused.

I go to Metropolitan community Church & he decided to go with me that Sunday 10 years ago, we have been going ever since.

ON EDIT: Speaking of politics, if he had told me he was a Republican now that would have been a deal breaker. I don't see how any Homosexual could support that party.

[InaneAnanity]

66. Don't worry

I'm still available.

[InaneAnanity]

67. Re-read your quote

"If someone doesn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus thats their belief."

doesn't believe....thats their belief...

Do you realize the error??

[elehhhhna]

3. I don't believ in immaculate conception OR Resurrection,

but the dude had some great advice.

Tough to follow, but SOLID.

[kwassa]

12. Great reply! gets down to the very basics!

[Zhade]

24. I can get down with that.

Real man or not, a good bit of the purported teachings of Jesus - the non-supernatural stuff - is right on.

[Kagemusha]

4. This will sound smartass but...

Yes, if you want to be considered part of a mainstream religion, you generally must display a minimal amount of faith in unproven spiritual events.

Myself, I'm an atheist largely because I don't trust human beings to relay "true" supernatural events faithfully. Maybe Jesus rose from the dead, but I do not presently trust the people by which this "fact" was relayed down through the centuries. So, I busy myself with trying to live an upstanding life rather than focus on the minutiae of doctrine like some Pharisee. I feel like if I actually was certain I was "saved" I'd treat my fellow man a lot worse.

Edited out a typo.

[Hoping4Change]

73. Everything considered spiritual has to be taken on faith because

the spiritual is everything outside the realm of the material wold. Only things in the material world can be proven and therefore don't require faith.

[intheflow]

5. Most nonliteralist Christians I know simply refuse to have the

literalists define their beliefs. What I found most disturbing in seminary was the vast number of my fellow seminarians who were liberal Christians who did not believe in the literal resurrection, but they were going to be leaders in churches where that is still the doctrine--and so they will perpetuate that version as opposed to preaching about non-literalism directly. Most will avoid any discussions about literalism/non-literalism from the pulpit, as if it were irrelevant. Maybe it is in their minds, but I couldn't live with myself if I believed something different from my denomination's doctrine.

(Luckily, as UU clergy, I have no set doctrine I have to believe or not. It's just so much simpler this way. They should all become UUs, imo! LOL!)

[LARED]

6. Christianity is a religion

As a religion you are defined as believing in the divine or supernatural. So it begs the question if you do not believe in the resurrection of Christ can you be part of the Christian religion or are just part of an Jesus Admiration Society?

[Bolo Boffin]

56. Mark me down for the Jesus Admiration Society!

Jesus is just alright with me! Oh, yeah!

[GrpCaptMandrake]

7. You deal with a literalist

the same way you deal with a deranged person, or the person who walks down the sidewalk yammering away at an invisible person (although these days the person may be on a hands-free cell phone). Trying to get an insane person to stop talking to imaginary people is fruitless. Usually, the best response is to ignore the person in question.

The problem is faith. In other circumstances, we treat it as irrational superstition. We consider a person "superstitious" who won't step on a crack or who throws salt over their shoulder. In religion, however, we regard someone who eats a sacred saltine as somehow "pious" give them special relevance and reverence letting "persons of faith" have some sort of elevation over us weirdos who only believe that which we may know and don't believe that a swig of Bolla Lambrusco turns into human blood once it's in our guts.

It's been my experience that most peoples' faith is false. They will talk about what they believe, but, if pressed by dint of circumstance, will rely upon what they may know.

True spirituality arises from the internal self, or "spirit" or "soul," if you prefer, not from external dogma. Thus, to that extent, I would think your thesis to be correct: that non-literalists DO have more in common with atheists than with the fundie demons.

"Thou art God."

[Rufus T. Firefly]

8. So what about "Jews for Jesus?"

Aren't they Christians?

[catbert836]

23. They are Christians

Jews for Jesus is mainly a tool of several Protestant churches to solicit conversion.

[Spinzonner]

9. Well, 'Christ' wasn't his surname

and it's Greek for Messiah (or something like that).

SO if he's merely a moral philosopher wouldn't that make his followers Jesusists or Jesists (a bit easier on the tongue).

[catbert836]

22. Yeshua ben Yusef

or Yeshua ben Nazareth, whether you're calling him by his family name or former name, was what he would have been called. So they should really be called "Yeshuites" or "Nazareans".

[TallahasseeGrannie]

10. Such an interesting topic

and one that in my denomination (Episcopalian) is causing schism.

I believe in all the "Holy Mysteries." I know that in order to be an Episcopalian you believe in them..it is like joining the club, I guess. It is actually written out somewhere what we believe. And we say it in the creed in every service. Is a person who does NOT believe in them not a Christian? Well.. perhaps you are whatever you think you are. There really isn't one set of qualifications, I guess. It is a continuum.

I personally think many of the Bible tales are myth and parable, although there is very valuable history, particularly Jewish history. But to me, the whole reason the faith spread was the fact that the Apostles were so blown away by the resurrection that they had to spread the word. I know it would have gotten my attention! And most of them were willing to be martyred for it, so that lends credence (to me) to the fact that it happened, or at least that they believe it happened.

I do like what one poster said that even if it isn't true, the actual words of Christ are valuable.

These are my beliefs..and I know many have others and that is the beauty of the world.

[Agnomen]

11. It is far easier to worship the messenger

than to live by the message.

[newswolf56]

13. I am not a Christian (nor a devotee of any Abrahamic religion), but I...

accept the resurrection of Jesus as a metaphor, in the same way that I accept that the severed head of Bendigeid Vran spoke prophecy for seven years at Harlech perhaps four millennia ago. Vran is the ancient British god Bran, whose bird is Raven and whose tree is the alder: The alders in the front line/ began the affray. Unlike Jesus, Bran celebrates his divine mother, the Great Goddess (whom Jesus not only denies but despises), though like Jesus, both are incarnations of the Dying God, "the Once and Future King" -- the pagan title that reflects the belief that in whatever body the god might be invoked to reside (the original purpose of the ritual of coronation), the spirit of the god is always the same. Metaphors -- but extremely powerful and enduring ones. And since words (though they are a reality unto themselves) are also never more than symbols -- who knows what mysteries they might conceal? As a writer I embrace the Muse, the Goddess, yet as an agnostic I openly acknowledge my inability to know anything beyond my senses: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa -- not at all the paradox it may seem since belief itself is speculation, in other words: metaphor.

(My profound differences with Abrahamac religion are entirely over its unnatural hatreds of woman, nature and therefore sensuality {whether emotional or physical}, and its resultant compulsion to "naturalize" those hatreds by imposing them on everyone else, whether in the past -- as in the Inquisition -- or now, as in Dominionism, Jihad and theocracy.)

[kwassa]

14. we live in different worlds, usually.

Zhade:
"How do liberal, nonliteralist Christians here handle their interactions with literalists? Do you find a lot of pressure to "accept" unproven supernatural events before you could be called Christian?"

No, because we have such little contact with each other. We don't move in the same social circles, not to sound elitist. In fact, there is almost no reason to have any contact. Aside from the denomination itself, there are often class, geographic , or cultural differences that separate us.

The Christian world is divided up into many small slices of the pie, and the norm is that there is little interaction between them, except for the occasional eccumenical or interfaith council.

[More Than A Feeling]

15. I think its nice that two versions you posit can be united

by common political beliefs. It's important to remember that one can have either an orthodox or liberal theology, and still be politically liberal.

I have only told someone they weren't a Christian once (they asked if they could be a Christian without believing in God. I deleted my response a minute later.) I know real life "live as I live" types, and people here aren't close to being as bad.

[elfin]

16. That was the query that caused me to drop

out of confirmation/membership classes at our family's Presbyterian church, never to return. I realized that in all honesty, I could not recite the affirmation of faith - or whatever it was called - that included the virgin birth, resurrection bit. My parents understood, but I fudged on the real reason to the minister, sayng I wasn't "ready."

However, I consider myself more "Christian" in values and practices that many of today's "true believers."

[catbert836]

21. No true Scotsman...

Certainly most Christians believe in the resurrection of Jesus, but I know a few myself who don't. Those Christians I also find to be much more likable and tolerable than a lot of the rest of the species. You'd think that it would make sense Jesus' life mattered a lot more than his death... apprently not. I'm starting to think the purpose of Christianity nowadays is to kill Jesus all over again, and make sure that he's dead.

[Zhade]

25. Wow, great last line.

Been meaning to say, I've watched your journey and I am remarkably impressed with the growth I've witnessed.

You're one of the good ones.

[catbert836]

31. Thanks so much, Zhade.

I'm glad so many people here are supportive, because it hasn't been easy for me.

[Zhade]

33. As an ex-Mormon, ex-conservative Christian, I fully understand.

It may or may not have been a little easier for me, only because belief in unproven supernatural events never really "took" (but then, I don't know if it did for you or not).

I even mentioned your journey to my offline friends, who happen to be atheists, and they were equally supportive of your efforts to understand yourself better. It truly has made an impact, even on some of us nonbelievers, and you should be proud of that.

Rock on!

[catbert836]

34. Yeah, I was a conservative Catholic

I "came to Jesus" after being an athiest for a while when a friend asked me if I believed in god, and I said yes, even though I didn't. I don't remember why, but it was then I started buying the whole church line. Maybe because I had never really thought that much about religion before... I dunno. I was pretty religious until about a year ago, and a faithful churchgoer, until my life imploded as I watched, and it didn't really matter that much to me anymore. After I had picked up the pieces, I did some soul-searching, and realized I wasn't a Christian anymore. The rest is history, as they say.
Well, enough of my story tonight. Peace.

[BurtWorm]

29. The original (gnostic) Christians probably did not believe in a literal

birth or resurrection, so it might be argued that if you do believe in the resurrection you're not a real Christian. ;)

[GrpCaptMandrake]

30. For gnostic thought

as much as it may be reconstructed, have a look at www.gnosis.org

Translations of all the Nag Hamadi texts are there.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. What evidence is there the gnostic Christians were the 'original' ones?

It seems to me to include many more god 'personalities' than 'mainstream' Christianity (which only has 3), or Judaism (down to 1 by that stage), which I would have thought would indicate that it merged early Christianity with other religions, and was thus later than it.

[BurtWorm]

41. I base my statement on my reading of Elaine Pagels

and "The Jesus Mysteries," which argues (convincingly, I think) that the earliest Christianity was a Jewish form of Pythagorean paganism formed in the Hellenic diaspora.

[Laotra]

69. The Kingdom

as Jesus refers to the "supreme god", is not a personal God, but can be only spoken about apophatically, if even that - Cf. Plato's Hen/Agathon. Demiurge, Sophia, Logos, Aions etc. are 'personalities', helpfull mythical concepts to reveal the true nature of being for the seeker.

[Dorian Gray]

35. "Christian" is a broad word

and it is just a word, afterall. I think that people relate as Christians both on a theological level or on a cultural level. There are many "Cultural" Catholics. Though their theology doesn't necessarily match the Catholic Church, they identify as Catholics. (The same is true of any other religion, but I am using R. Catholicism because it's what I know.)

I wouldn't presume to declare that somebody wasn't a Catholic for any reason, nor would I do so with anybody claiming to be a Christian. I may discuss the theological issues, debate them even. I do personally believe that it is difficult to be a practicing Christian (whether Catholic, Born-Again, Lutheran, Methodist, etc.) without believing in the resurrection. But, I'm not the arbiter of vocabulary, and people identify as many different things which may seem not to make sense.

And, on a final note, it's definitely impossible to know what exactly is in another person's heart/brain/soul. To presume, even in the course of discussion, is ridiculous. Hence my unwillingness to ever classify someone outside of a category that they claim they belong in.

[Zhade]

42. Reading your post, I realize that you will not try to define my atheism.

Even though the dictionary uses a twisted definition of the word, and I use the original "lack of belief in gods" version, some here will not allow us to define ourselves, and arrogantly try to do so while hypocritically disallowing atheists to define their beliefs for them (not that we really care to do so).

I may not believe what you believe, but I tip my hat to you and all who allow us our self-description. It takes security in oneself and the willingness to let people be their own selves to not attempt to impose your definition on us.

Kudos! :toast:

[Dorian Gray]

51. Of course I wouldn't...

The last thing that I would want to do is aggravate another person by defining their own beliefs. I could never presume to do that. That's why I often get frustrated while reading the "religious wars." It makes me so sad to see all the presumptions flying around. I do think that we all can be guilty of presuming things about others, but the most important thing in dialoging with those of different beliefs is opening the heart and the mind to what the other feel, think, and say.

:)

[JerseygirlCT]

36. I think you've basically got it right

as a nonliteralist, liberal Christian, I'm pretty much live and let live on issues of theology. I mean, I do think I've got it right on a few things that literalists have quite wrong ;), but if they're not going to insist on agreement with their ideas, we can get along.

In my little corner of Christianity, doubt is not the opposite of faith, but an integral part of faith. Questions mark the real searcher; blind obediance does not.

And yes, I've often been puzzled by the friction between atheists and liberal Christians here... we're usually coming from similar places, even if we don't share the same religious beliefs.

As to worrying about whether literalists think I'm Christian... I don't. I can't accept their interpretation of the term, so I can't worry about whether I fit their definition. In some ways, its a comfort NOT to fit their definitions!

[Zhade]

43. "I've often been puzzled by the friction..."

It's really not between atheists and liberal Christians, so much as between atheists and arrogant hypocritical assholes who want to impose their worldview on us, even to the point of refusing our self-description (which is, of course, based on the ORIGINAL "absence of belief in gods" definition of atheism).

In reading your final sentence, I must conclude that most liberal Christians and atheists share the same problem involving such controlling, power-trip-hungry believers. That means we are a lot closer than some might think, putting the question of god-belief aside.

[JerseygirlCT]

45. I always thought so nt

[Maat]

37. In the Unity Church ..

they talk about the 'inner self' and 'the mystical;' perhaps the Gnostics' teachings survive.

[Zhade]

44. If this Jesus guy ever existed, and his purported words are even close...

...to what he might have uttered, I'd have to argue that he was a Buddhist.

[Maat]

50. What is interesting is that the "mystical" faiths ..

such as Church of Religious Science, Divine Science, Unity, Sufism, etc. incorporate many Buddhist principles.

[bluecollarscholar]

38. Literal fact and fundamentalist truth...

As Dominic Crossan has said, "Jesus is a man is a statement of FACT; Jesus is the Son of God is a statement of FAITH."

Christianity is FAITH in the MAN Jesus as a representation of the divine on earth.

If a fundamentalist and a mainline Christian agree to the same meaning of an event, are they that far apart?

After Jesus' death, his power was still available to his followers. That is a statement of FACT. Resurrection is a FAITH claim.

[Zhade]

46. "Jesus is a man is a statement of FACT"

Don't know that such a statement is fact - no real evidence of that (the Josephus claim has been acknowledged by biblical scholars to be a forgery) - but you make some good points nonetheless.

[FM Arouet666]

39. I don't know how to reply, other than I like your stance

Non-confrontational, and well reasoned.

I wonder, do literalist christians and non-literalist christians have much contact? I have seen a number of posts condemning DU christians for not speaking up against fundamentalism. I wonder, do liberal christians worship in churches which espouse progressive ideals? Or do they hide in the closet in the house of the fundamentalist lord?

Regarding DU christians, are the calls to action against fundamentalism preaching to the choir? You bring up an interesting point, as an atheist I have no idea what occurs in the various Christian sects. However, judging form the number of objections I have received, I still wonder how accepting progressive christians can be.......

[Zhade]

47. Per Kwassa, there is no contact.

That is not the truth of my experience, both as an atheist and during my "I really, really want to believe but this stuff just isn't believable" phase, but perhaps it is true of her experiences, which may say a lot about why she does not seem to want to take on literalist fundamentalists - she may have no experiences from which to tackle the issue.

I still contend the effort should be made, and that the responsibility (while shared somewhat) lies heavily on believers, as it is their faith and I am not equipped to argue from a stance of belief.

I would like to see what believers think of your questions.

[JerseygirlCT]

64. I think most people tend to wish to worship where they feel

comfortable. That may not mean that the entirety of their church believes exactly as they do -- it may mean there's a diversity of opinion.

Some people stay in the church they were born with and hope to change things from inside.

[garybeck]

40. a Christian is a follower of Christ.

don't let them sell you snake oil.

it is not "literalist" to believe a lie that was made up 300 years after Jesus lived.

the true teachings of Jesus are very different than what the Romans concocted up at the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople.

The are not literalists. They are liars.

[Zhade]

48. Strong statement!

But I would have to agree, from my research into the matter.

[garybeck]

49. and I stand by it

as does the historical and archeological evidence

check the Gnostic Gospels, which the Romans burned when they codified the bible. also the Dead Sea Scrolls.

the councils of Constantinople and Nicaea were two of the biggest scams of the last 2,000 years.

[Disturbed]

52. People used to torture and kill others for these concepts.

I guess some progress has been made here.

I cannot force myself to believe in the story of Jesus as told in the Bible. It is not logical and my mind just works that way. The Sermon on the Mount is something that does make sense to me and an ideal to strive for. The teachings of Jesus are grand ideals and to strive to live in their accordance is a positive thing to do. All the rest is conjecture.

[saltpoint]

53. It would be healthy for the nation to call a convention of consideration

about spiritual matters. There could be break-out workshops all over the place, on every topic and every INTERPRETATION of every topic imaginable.

Scholarly folks, pagan Buddhist folks, institutional celebrities, poets & authors, glossalalia transcribers, mystics, palm-readers. The whole human enrollment.

I don't see any reason to limit the event to one or another point of view. A slap-dash, hodge-podge, potluck menu would work just fine, and give almost everybody a shot at personal participation and learning. The world press would be on hand to get the word out and the global conversation started.

I personally hope Bill Moyers and Matt Fox show up. I trust his version of things quite a hell of a lot more than I trust Pat Robertson's.

And let's see... let's have this convention in either Berlin, Sao Paulo, or Toronto, just to pick 3 random spots for discussion.

[JerseygirlCT]

54. That's what I like about my church

diversity of opinion on these matters is not only allowed, but encouraged. And then we all sit next to each other, talk to each other, worship together. (At least most of the time, lol -- we're human!)

I'm not sure what I believe on that count anymore. I do think that Christ's teachings are the heart of it, and the metaphysics of the resurrection are less important to me. Was it symbolic? Actual? Does it matter? I'm not sure.

I suspect, personally, that the message was: "look you people, I love you so much, I'm going to give you the ultimate demonstration in terms you'll understand. Watch me conquer death, and then you'll get it"

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

55. When I was a Christian,

I read "The Passover Plot", and it really shook my concepts about Jesus. I reexamined exactly WHY I was a Christian and decided it wasn't about "say you believe in Jesus so you could get to heaven"-I decided that what mattered were the teachings He gave.
I was (and still am) made uncomfortable by those "in your face" fundamentalists who insisted to know if I'd accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior, using it as a litmus test to tell if you were worthy to be their friend, etc. The narrowness and judgement oozed from their persons. I've decided that they were really using religion as a method of control over someone else. No, I didn't play their game, either then or now.

[SPKrazy]

57. I Avoid Discussions With Literalists

it's hard, but I just avoid it.

it's a no win argument that in my position in the community I'd rather not fly my flag so to speak against the First Baptist political powerhouse that runs the community.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

60. Do you consider a person who

believes in the resurrection a literalist?

I usually don't use the term in that way.

[SPKrazy]

65. Probably Not TG

I have my own belief in the resurrection.

It may not be the literalist story, but it is the story of forgiveness, eternal life, and encouragement of life here on earth with redemption and love.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

58. I think a Christian is one who believes in the resurrection, by definition

I think that the definition of a Christian is, roughly, one who believes that Jesus was the son of God, died, was resurrected, and in doing so attoned for humanity's sins.

One could make a case, I suppose, that a Christian is anyone who believes that Jesus was the son of God, irregardless of their other beliefs, but I think that's probably less accurate.

Saying "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in the resurrection" is like saying "I'm an atheist, but I believe God exists" - you're welcome to follow Jesus's moral teachings, inasmuch as it's possible to accurately discern what they were, but that doesn't make you a Christian.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

59. Most Christians who go to church

say some sort of creed: Our contains this: "He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, died and was buried and on the third day rose again according to the scriptures."

Interesting to note that when I was a child I thought it said "He was crucified under a bunch of spiders."

So much more visually interesting.

[Finder]

61. I tend to categorize religious vs philosophical christians...

based on whether they believe in the irrational aspects. Thomas Jefferson rewrote the bible so that people who were educated or at least had commmon sense could still embrace the tenets.

[kwassa]

62. There are a multitude of definitions of what a "Christian" is

[Donald Ian Rankin]

63. Yes and no

There are a great many definitions each of which is acceded to by a few people, but there's also a fair degree of consensus.

[TreasonousBastard]

68. The National Council of Churches won't let you join if...

your church doesn't accept a doctine the divinity and resurrection of Christ. That leaves out Quakers, UUs, and a bunch of other non-doctrinal sects. Other than that, there's no defining authority for who is a Christian, and it's pretty much up to the individual to decide whether he or she is one or not.

Even within churches, beliefs vary between congregations and individuals, and there are seminaries that downplay a lot of this stuff.

This is where we get into trouble with trying to assign definitions. When someone says he is a Jew, do we think ultra-orthodox, orthodox, conservative, reform, or secular? Muslims, Buddhists, even Bahai's have split into various sects that often don't talk to each other and hold differing beliefs. What's a Wiccan, really? So, I accept the generic term "Christian" to mean simply that one is not something that is not Christian. Circular logic? Sure, but unless it's important for some reason to go further, why bother?

Over the years I have interacted with many different "Christians" and have no problems with progressive Catholics, Baptists and others where we can meet on issues that concern us and agree to disagree on others. We all have problems with people who are rigidly doctrinaire and ideological in politics, religion, food, or any other human activity where they simply refuse to compromise or even listen, and I have found it extremely difficult to find a meeting ground with the few Bible-thumpers around here.

I'm just guessing, but I suspect since the NYC area is so diverse, the fundies here are harder in their attitudes than many in the Bible Belt-- they don't have the social acceptance and support they get in other areas. In the Bible Belt, you just grow up that way, without much exposure to diversity, and beliefs often may not be that deep.

I still insist that the warfare between Christian sects is often overplayed. Yes, there was the Inquisition where Philip II tried to purify the faith, and there were the witch-burnings, but most of the violence was using religion as a cover for power plays. The English civil wars bouncing back and forth between Catholics, Puritans and Presbyterians, etc. is a case in point. They didn't chop off Mary's head because of her views on transubstantiation.

Even the Reformation in Germany was successful largely because some German Electors were tired of dealing with the Pope and Luther gave them a chance to declare their own independance. Luther's theology was irrelevant-- keeping those trade routes to themselves and reducing the political power of the bishops were the important things.

[Odin2005]

71. Christians must beleive in the Ressurection by definition.

Without the concept that Jesus's execution was a sacrifice negating the Original Sin for all that beleived in him,, Jesus's followers would of just been another messianic Jewish sect from the time period.

[TRRepublican]

72. Creeds were created by early Christians to give a summary....

of their beliefs. One of the earliest is called the Apostle's Creed (I do not know its date, or necessarily believe that one of the apostles wrote it, but it probably dates to the early 100's). It goes like this:

"I believe in God the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, suffered, died and was buried. He rose on the third day, ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy, catholic church, the forgiveness of sin and the resurrection of the dead unto life everlasting. Amen."

The above is of course a translation from the original, and phrases have been changed over time to fit our current English (and I may have a faulty memory on a few words). Additional creeds were created over time, especially to correct points of dispute with "heretics". For example, the Council of Nicea (mid 300's) created the Nicene Creed (recited by the Catholics at each mass) to respond to the Arian heresy, which stated that "Jesus Christ is not God".

As you can see, the resurrection is part of the very early beliefs of Christians, and the extent you can call your self a Christian can be judged by the extent to which you can agree to these creeds.