Resurrection – Fact or Fantasy

The doctrine of resurrection teaches that one day our dead bodies will rise again from the dead by the power of God and we will be alive again and there will be no death anymore.  Some believers in resurrection hold that our bodies will be like what they are now except we will be perfectly healthy and happy.  On the other extreme are those who hold that the resurrection body will have strange powers such as being able to change how it looks at whim, go through walls, need no food or drink and glow with light. Why bother raising us at all if we have powers like angelic spirits? It seems raising us is adding nothing.
It is thought that the doctrine teaches that even if we survive death as souls we are not complete people until we get our bodies back.  
Resurrection is then about the salvation or the restoration of the whole person.  
The advantages of the doctrine are said to be these:
Resurrection supposedly implies that the body is sacred. But the doctrine demeans our bodies as they are. It suggests we need to be turned into magical bodies that can presumably turn into doves if we will them to. A body that can waft through a solid wall is not a body as we know it. A body to us means something solid and natural. The resurrection doctrine does not honour our life of blood and sweat and tears and courage. There is less magic with the doctrine of reincarnation than there is with resurrection. It is more rational to believe in reincarnation. Reincarnation has us returning in a real and normal body for a start! I am not recommending reincarnation though!
Resurrection implies that the body is necessary to be a whole person
The God who believers say will raise us doesn’t have a body by nature. Christians believe that by nature he is spirit and doesn't need a body though he became man in Jesus Christ. It would make more sense for God to make us as beings that have bodies but don’t need them or to convert us into beings that don’t need our bodies back at death. To believe in this perfect bodiless God is really to indicate that the body is a mark of our inferiority. It is a negative belief.
Resurrection by teaching that you need the body to be a proper person is inferring that people with damaged brains who have lost their memories or people who have lost the say the sense of sight, hearing and touch are not proper people.
There is no evidence that anybody has come back from the dead. Suppose a miracle such as somebody being turned into a frog or rising from the dead is reported.
What is more likely assuming the report is not down to lies or fraud? It is more likely that some uncanny and strange coincidences have happened to make it look like the miracle happened than that the miracle happened. Natural events are very likely. Uncanny coincidences are very unlikely. Miracles are more unlikely still. So it follows that though the uncanny coincidences may show some otherworldly power at work there is no need and no right to assume a miracle.
Believers in God hold that what is in the universe does not need to exist and can be done without. They say it exists only because God gratuitously made all things from nothing. This really says that all things - even a bird singing - are miracles. The order of nature is a miracle. A God believer could in the miracle of order. It keeps things in order. We can't live if people start turning into frogs! A God believer then does not need to believe in God setting up the miracle of the order of nature and then changing that order to do another kind of miracle. It is all so stupid. The miracle of creation can be taken as evidence that claimed miracles of apparitions and men rising from the dead are false.
The resurrection idea demeans. Reincarnation is so much better. The resurrection idea will produce psychological problems in those who believe it.

Lourdes etc
Free Books