ok... my own stand on these issues. the virgin birth?
Is a virgin birth integral or defining of Christianity? It is not in the earliest creed of Nicea 325AD by which I define the Christian religion.
Is it possible the virgin birth was used to appeal to older religious sentiments like Paul's use of the altar to an unknown god? Sure. It is also possible God used this by actually having Jesus born to a virgin.
All things being equal, is it probable? No. But this doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Is a virgin birth scientifically/physically impossible? No. As we know today a baby requires fertilization not actual intercourse.
Do I think it is possible that Jesus did not have a human father? No.
Where does the Bible stand on this? Frankly, it suggests a virgin birth but that Jesus had a human father as well as a heavenly father. the Resurrection?
Literal? Yes. Bodily? Yes. Physical? No.
That is where the Bible is on this issue as directly addressed by Paul in 1 Cor 15.
He explains that it is a resurrection to a spiritual body made of the imperishable stuff of heaven and not of the perishable stuff of the earth. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." But does that mean that the resurrected Jesus was a ghost? No. Ghost are dead spirits and a shadow of their former selves. But Jesus is a living spirit like God Himself, which is more real and substantial than all the physical universe, and capable of more rather than less in every way.the miracles?
Depends on how miracles are defined. If they are defined as a breaking of natural physical law then no I do not believe in them. I believe God made the laws of nature for a very good reason so I do not believe He breaks them. But clearly far more is possible that people usually presume. Most of the miracles have been reproduced or explained. Does this mean these were magic tricks or that Jesus was a magician? Jesus never claimed supernatural powers. He said that we would do everything He had done and more. What Jesus made clear was that these were things the Father had done, so if you call these things magic tricks then God was the "magician".
Also, I was amused at the waffling over whether or not Gandhi would go to hell for not being Christian.
You will get no waffling from me on this. The answer is no. I reject the Gnostic gospel of salvation by the mental works of secret knowledge or correct belief. Being a Christian does not mean one is saved. Not being a Christian does not mean one is not saved. Such issues of belief are largely irrelevant. In Romans 10 Paul distinguishes "righteousness based on the law" from "righteousness based on faith" (i.e. between legalism and faith) on the basis of whether you have pinned righteousness upon some kind of formula by which you think you can say who goes to heaven or who goes to hell. That is legalism according to Paul. To live by faith means you don't ask such questions. You simply love God and his children with all your heart without looking for some kind of payback. But doesn't that mean not believing in God means you cannot live by faith? No, this simply translates to doing what is right for its own sake.