In other words if the bodily resurrection of Jesus is not an historical event then all of Christianity is a waste of time. If the resurrection isn`t historical then Jesus was delusional and although the message he preached may ring true for us there is no real reason to give it any credibility.
So why would it be a waste of time if there's no historical event?
I agree with the implication here, Tram law. I don't think 'the message' is a waste of time at all if there's no historical event. In fact, I think it's far more important of a message if there was no historical event.
Message of Christianity: "Be a good person" Basis: Historical accuracy of the resurrection, real existence of Jesus/God.
This, in essence, is saying that you should be a good person because Jesus/God is telling you to be a good person and they are real beings with real authority.
Message of human imagination: "Be a good person" Basis: None.
This, in essence, is saying that you should be a good person simply because you want to be.
What is 'better'? What is 'more right'? What is 'honourable'? Should we be good people because some ultimate authority says we should? Doesn't that make us sheep in some sense? Doesn't that reduce our good actions to simply following orders? Or, should we be good people because we want to be? Doesn't that make us good for the sake of being good?
For me, it is more important to be good because we want to be that way, because we have faith in the honour of "good" being better than "evil". If we base our morality on some factual aspect of the world (resurrection, authority, loyalty, fear...) then we are restricting how far it can reach. Faith is as boundless as our imagination. Facts are restricted to what they are. "Good" must be unrestricted in order to triumph over evil, and the only way to do that is to base it on faith in itself that good really is good (boundless)... not faith in some fact being true to give us a reason to be good (restricted).
I would add though that the fact that just because someone believes that the resurrection was an historical event, does not mean that they actually love goodness for its own sake.
A good point. I did not mean to imply that the two were mutally exclusive. Although, in reading my message again, it can easily come off that way. This was an unintended mistake.
One can very easily have faith in the resurrection, Christianity, Catholicsm or any other religion and also enjoy being a good person just for the sake of being good. It is also possible for one to not have any religious faith and also reject "goodness" and favour evil for their own reasons (likely selfish ones).