'Perhaps there are many “lapsed” believers who would gladly return to the fold if the acceptance of miracles wasn't so pivotal to the “Christian” label.'

But take away the miracles and there is nothing left. Intangible all-powerful God in the sky -- a miracle, surely? Creating the Universe out of nothing? Another miracle. Extracting non-material sentient beings out of dead people and providing them all with virtual wings and harps -- gotta be a miracle. Papal infallibility? A miracle if ever there was one.

The Anglican Church provides a wonderful example of what happens to religion when it tries to be sensible and honest: numbers nose-dive when the members realise that the priests can't guarantee them salvation after all. Catholicism is going the same way. A warm fuzzy non-miraculous God just doesn't provide that sense of moral superiority which keeps religion going.

Trav, the historical evidence is that lots of people believed in them, as they do in Christ. But if you mean written accounts, there's the Bhagavad Gita for all your Hindu resurrection needs, the Grimm Brothers tell of Snow White's miraculous return from death, and of course the holy Koran reminds us that Mohammed is God's prophet. Not very relevant, though, because the Bible and Koran are no more reliable than oral histories, although the Koran gets points because it's more recent and coherent.

Oh, and the Australian aboriginals have a few resurrection figures, too.

And what do you mean by "experiential"? Do you know someone alive today who was present at Christ's resurrection?

Most Christians would affirm the resurrection, but there has always been a diversity of views about what this means, stretching from the most literalist reanimation of Jesus’ corpse to a (non-supernatural) developing sense among Jesus’ disciples that his presence continued with them after death.

The NT itself is oblique on these matters. No-one actually witnessed a resurrection, the only testimony is to what happened after. Elements of the post-resurrection appearances suggest Jesus had a physical body (scars, eating fish) but others indicate something other than a “normal” body (the failure of disciples to recognise Jesus, sudden appearances and disappearances, a vision appearing only to Paul but not seen by others with him). Plus, the genre of the post-resurrection appearances is disputed.

I get very nervous when people, whether believers or non-believers, assert that Christians “must” accept one particular interpretation of the resurrection

Trav c'mon mate you are only reading stories by men, show me the evidence then I will beieve you, there is no evidence that a God or Gods exist keeping in mind there are over 3000 different Gods, which one is correct, not one of them. If we look at the Pope he is chosen by men to control the masses, it has nothing to do with some divine being to select him for that role, lets get in the real world.
I was dead before I came, a short interlude living, and will be dead again after I go, I will not know I ever existed, do I really want to be some ficticious soul or spirit and be in no man's land for trillions of years. I don't think so.
Children should not be taught religious instruction until they are old enough to make up their own mind about it, parents should have no say in this area when young and influence them, this is wrong.
Lastly special rooms are being set up with prayer mats to accommodate a certain religion, this is als wrong, I would suggest that every other religion have special rooms set up as well and that includes Atheism.

I have read Phil Dye's sensible article and simply make these comments: 1. To most Australians, the Easter break is just another 4 or 5 day holiday, and the majority of Australians do not attend a church service at Easter (or most other times); we are essentially a secular nation. 2. For many Australians, and certainly myself, the various accounts in the Bible are just not credible in today's enlightened world. Thus the concepts of miracles, virgin births, resurrections, an afterlife (in heaven or hell), a six-day creation about 6000 years ago, Noah's Ark, and so on are just mythsand legends. 3. The challenges and problems faced by parents in raising their children cause us to lead little children to believe in the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, and so on. But sending children to Sunday School or to a church school where their heads are filled with nonsense before they are old enough to face reality is nothing short of indoctrination. "Give me the child till he is seven, and I will give you the man" so the Jesuits were alleged to have said. 4. Today's modern, scientifically aware world where humans now know about electronics, evolution, genetics, DNA, etc precludes the "miracle" stories of the Bible from any rational belief. 5. Notwithstanding all that I have just said, I fully realise that raising kids in today's technological is a daunting challenge when it comes to establishing codes of acceptable moral and ethical behaviour, but the simple "Golden Rule" is not a bad start.

I really don't get people who cite modern scientific understanding as a reason for disbelieving fundamental Christian tenets. Events like the Resurrection are described as 'miraculous' and 'supernatural' for a good reason - by definition, they don't conform to natural laws. You wouldn't bother founding a religion over something that could have happened naturally.