No? Well, how about all the stories each Divali that cast doubt on the goddess Lakshmi’s ability to bless her worshipers?
No? Then how about those articles for Eastertime questioning whether Jesus really did rise from the dead?
Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!
Yep, those come out every year.
Case in point: a feature in the Washington Post on how divisive is this central tenet of the holiest day of Christianity.
The story, actually from the Religion News Service, sets up the resurrection almost as a straw man. First it briefly states the doctrine; then the next four paragraphs try to chip away at it.
It’s “the source of some of the deepest rifts in Christianity,” the story says — “and a stumbling block for some Christians, and more than a few skeptics.” Then it questions whether the doctrine is really that important:
Did Jesus literally come back from the dead in a bodily resurrection, as many traditionalist and conservative Christians believe? Or was his rising a symbolic one — a restoration of his spirit of love and compassion to the world, as members of some more liberal brands of Christianity hold?
As Easter approaches, many Christians struggle with how to understand the Resurrection. How literally must one take the Gospel story of Jesus’ triumph to be called a Christian? Can one understand the Resurrection as a metaphor — perhaps not even believe it happened at all — and still claim to be a follower of Christ?
When a story poses rhetorical questions favoring one side, you get a strong feeling that the tracks have already been laid for this train.
The article tries to argue that the doctrine of a physical resurrection keeps some people from celebrating Easter: