Demystification: Phase One

Scientific atheists and Christian theologians alike contend that the crux of Christianity rests on the belief in Christ's resurrection - it's become the modern day litmus test that will once and for all establish whether someone is a Christian or not. 

I, for one, pose to both parties this question: since when did belief in someone's teachings require belief in said teacher's immortality? The first Christians - those who accompanied Christ before his death - were obviously oblivious to the "fact" that he would rise from the dead - and yet they were still Christians. Similarly, your present-day Cartesians, Darwinists, Marxists and Maoists entertain no illusions concerning the death of their respective idols - must we then say that Cartesians are not "true Cartesians," because they have not enough faith in Descartes to believe that he transcended death? Must the Maoists believe that their portly premier still haunts the streets of Beijing in order to call themselves Maoists? I think not. 

The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has set up a series of requirements that believers must meet before they can call themselves Christians has no bearing on the true meaning of the word "Christian" - to be a Christian is to adhere to (or at least attempt to adhere to) the teachings of Jesus Christ. Proving that corpses do not reanimate in no way disproves that humility is a good quality to have, or that love of one's neighbor is generally a good thing; and conversely, a man is not made humble and loving simply because he places his belief in a physical impossibility. A Christian is first and foremost a follower of Christ - the superstition is no more than icing on the cake. If you believe it, that is. 

Aside: A Word to a Loved One

I suppose it's something like luck that brings friends into our lives, and cruel fate that takes them out again. A man can never do enough planning, make enough efforts, or arrange enough circumstance to establish a relationship with someone; similarly, he cannot fight hard enough, work long enough, or give more than enough to maintain a relationship that's running through his fingers. The only thing over which he does have control is the place he makes in his heart for those central figures in his life he calls friends - and he should take care not to misplace them. But then I'm telling the moral before the story:

I knew somehow, and long before we met, that you would be a part of my life. I knew somehow, when we did meet, that you would mean more to me than anyone else I'd ever known. And I knew, after you'd stepped away, that I'd shown you too much. I let you know exactly what role you played in my life, and you weren't happy with the part; I let you know how much you meant to me, and you were overwhelmed with the responsibility; and I let you know that, in spite of all your shortcomings, I still loved you. That, I think, is when you realized exactly what it meant to take advantage of people - and you felt guilty for doing it.

It would be wrong to say that I begrudge you all the insipidity, insult and indifference that you've shown me over the years; in fact, I do believe I've grown from them. At the very least I can say that I've come to know a little better exactly what place in my heart you must occupy (it's somewhere near the ground floor, most probably in the maintenance closet) - perhaps the role suits you better? Come now, and do be honest: is that not the room I occupy in yours?