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.