A quarter of British Christians do not believe in the resurection

[Whateverist]

Does describing oneself as Christian make it so ?

I subscribe to the idea that what a xtian believes is empirical.  Just ask them.  The role of the bible, resurrection and salvation do not play a definitional role.  Otherwise we fall into the "no true xtian" rut that they do.  Plus, I feel the same way about finding out what atheists believe: ask us.

---

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39153121

This is the hypocrisy of every religion. If you keep watering every story down to metaphor what the fuck is the point in buying the book at all? I have the same problem with Jews who call themselves "secular Jews", those whom like the tradition but don't buy the magic stories.

Humans don't understand that the further back in time you go, the more the fantastic claims were taken seriously as true. 

None of it should be taken seriously, that was then, this is now. 

Back then most humans believed in the purity of virgin births. Even in Buddhism the first mythology of his character had his mother Queen Maya giving birth to him avoiding the vagina.

Nobody survives the death myth if you attempted that in reality and killed someone like that in reality. But back then the readers really believed it. 

---

I see no point in continuing to relegate more and more of a book to metaphor. How about realizing that was then and this is now and we know better now.

I take the opposite approach. It should all be taken as metaphor.

[AceBoogie]

I think multiple people in my family who describe themselves as Christians fail to subscribe to quite a few of the different stories of the Bible. My grandmother 'identifies' as a protestant but she said she's not sure if she even believes Jesus was real or that there is actually a place called hell. She does believe in an afterlife though. I would argue that she's a weak theist or maybe even a deist.

So I can't say I'm surprised.

I think if a lot of "christians," if they were more honest with themselves, would realize they're not as religious as they think they are.

[The Valkyrie]

"The resurrection? Nah, how did he get a stiffy after he died?"

[SteveII]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39153121

A quarter of people who describe themselves as Christians in Great Britain do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus, a survey commissioned by the BBC suggests.

However, almost one in 10 people of no religion say they do believe the Easter story, but it has "some content that should not be taken literally".

A great example of nominal or cultural Christians. However, if they do not believe in what is the very definition of what it means to be a Christian, they are mistaken in their self-identity. 

In many cases, it probably is that the person believes in God and is NOT a Muslim, Hindu, Jew, or some other religion. They arrive at Christianity by cultural default.

[Brian37]

Does describing oneself as Christian make it so ?

I subscribe to the idea that what a xtian believes is empirical.  Just ask them.  The role of the bible, resurrection and salvation do not play a definitional role.  Otherwise we fall into the "no true xtian" rut that they do.  Plus, I feel the same way about finding out what atheists believe: ask us.

---

---

This is the hypocrisy of every religion. If you keep watering every story down to metaphor what the fuck is the point in buying the book at all? I have the same problem with Jews who call themselves "secular Jews", those whom like the tradition but don't buy the magic stories.

Humans don't understand that the further back in time you go, the more the fantastic claims were taken seriously as true. 

None of it should be taken seriously, that was then, this is now. 

Back then most humans believed in the purity of virgin births. Even in Buddhism the first mythology of his character had his mother Queen Maya giving birth to him avoiding the vagina.

Nobody survives the death myth if you attempted that in reality and killed someone like that in reality. But back then the readers really believed it. 

---

I see no point in continuing to relegate more and more of a book to metaphor. How about realizing that was then and this is now and we know better now.

I take the opposite approach.  It should all be taken as metaphor.

Yes and no. If taking something as metaphor will make you less violent and less political, I agree. But if it is all metaphor then why buy it in the first place? I like the motifs in Star Wars but I am not about to start a political party or war over that movie series.

[Angrboda]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39153121

A great example of nominal or cultural Christians. However, if they do not believe in what is the very definition of what it means to be a Christian, they are mistaken in their self-identity. 

In many cases, it probably is that the person believes in God and is NOT a Muslim, Hindu, Jew, or some other religion. They arrive at Christianity by cultural default.

You speak of "the definition" as if it exists independent of the people who claim themselves to be Christian. It's not. Christianity is what the self-professed Christian says it is. If 1,000 years from now, no Christians believed in the resurrection, your opinion would simply be regarded as a relic.

[Isis]

I think multiple people in my family who describe themselves as Christians fail to subscribe to quite a few of the different stories of the Bible. My grandmother 'identifies' as a protestant but she said she's not sure if she even believes Jesus was real or that there is actually a place called hell. She does believe in an afterlife though. I would argue that she's a weak theist or maybe even a deist.

It's a similar case with my grandparents as well. They donate monthly to the local church, occasionally participate in different events but when I ask them if they think Jesus and all that was real, they take a minute to think it over and ask me "Why does that matter?"  

[emjay]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39153121

This is the hypocrisy of every religion. If you keep watering every story down to metaphor what the fuck is the point in buying the book at all? I have the same problem with Jews who call themselves "secular Jews", those whom like the tradition but don't buy the magic stories.

Humans don't understand that the further back in time you go, the more the fantastic claims were taken seriously as true. 

None of it should be taken seriously, that was then, this is now. 

Back then most humans believed in the purity of virgin births. Even in Buddhism the first mythology of his character had his mother Queen Maya giving birth to him avoiding the vagina.

Nobody survives the death myth if you attempted that in reality and killed someone like that in reality. But back then the readers really believed it. 

I see no point in continuing to relegate more and more of a book to metaphor. How about realizing that was then and this is now and we know better now.

I agree and the more a theist does that, the less I personally respect them/take them seriously as representative of the religion they claim to follow. I just call it wishy-washy theism that says far more about what someone wants (eg an afterlife) than what they believe.

But as an aside, and at the risk of incurring your wrath, since you keep bringing it up, I disagree with what you say on Buddhism. Though your objections may be true where it is fused with various religions, when treated as a philosophy in its own right, sans theism, I disagree. You may charge me with being a 'wishy washy' theist on similar lines as above but the difference is I'm not a theist... I neither know nor care about any mythological claims made about the Buddha by these religions, nor do I care who the Buddha was or even if he existed, because the words attributed to him... pertaining to this life... speak for themselves regardless of author. I see it as simply good psychology, and therefore see Buddhism as basically a psychological school of thought. Since the logic and observation speaks for itself, there is no faith required at all, and that was one of the points he (allegedly) made himself; the difference between faith in the unknown and knowing something through seeing it for yourself with the former disparaged and the latter encouraged because true understanding (of anything) only comes through knowing, not faith. So therefore, according to him, it doesn't matter who or what the source of the information is, just whether it's demonstrable, and therefore no teacher (including himself) should be worshipped, just what they say taken or dismissed on its own merits. So on that score his teachings about mindfulness, meditation, attachment etc demonstrably speak for themselves (to me... if they don't to you... then according to his own teachings you should dismiss them on the basis that for you they require faith in something unknown) whereas his theories on the afterlife, though logically presented and without any of the arbitrary embellishments put on them by religions in time since... presented as the logical continuation of the cycles etc observed in life, though interesting, are ultimately unknowable, and therefore since that part would require faith in an unknown, are something I dismiss. But if he were alive (and if I cared what he thought) I think he'd be perfectly happy with that... because minus religious input since, there is no God posited, just a means for living a happier life... so whatever you took from his teachings - a little or a lot - that helped in that regard, would mean it had served its purpose.

Just wanted to get that out. Other than that, I agree with what you say about religions.

[Amarok]

Theists have sacrificed there god on the alter of  modern convenience . Then they either give it a vanier  of quote on quote sophisticated theology which is really damage control. Or go full answers and genesis and  activate the reality nuclear option. Or worst Presup.

Remember there ultimate goal is to escape having to make a case for there invisible friend by reworking reason in there image

[vorlon13]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39153121

A great example of nominal or cultural Christians. However, if they do not believe in what is the very definition of what it means to be a Christian, they are mistaken in their self-identity. 

In many cases, it probably is that the person believes in God and is NOT a Muslim, Hindu, Jew, or some other religion. They arrive at Christianity by cultural default.

Um . . .

your definition of 'Christian' is based on Paul's retconning of Jesus.  Jesus was very clear about being sent to perfect Judaism and your Paul based definition doesn't acknowledge Jesus' very own self proclaimed primary objective.