Thanks Prudence, your question is worthy of a longer response and I may attempt that. I think what Paul meant is that we the foundations of our faith rest on the resurrection and so if it is not true, we have built our house on sinking sand. The foundations? The Incarnation, for one. It is almost impossible to believe if Jesus simply died and rotted away. The risen Christ demonstrated his completely and totally unique status in the human history. Teachings. If the Incarnation is true (based on the resurrection, then we must take his teachings as coming from the very mouth of God. That makes them serious, very serious. Destiny. Our ideas of self-sacrificing love, as I explained in my post, depend to a large degree on seeing all things from the economy of eternity. Take that destiny away, and self-sacrificing becomes, well, pitiful. Die for the name of Jesus? Pitiful. Yes, as Richard Dawkins apparently said recently, he's a Christian in the cultural sense and believes there is some value in the culture. But, as Matthew recently posted, without adherence to key beliefs of the faith is not pointless, but completely misses the point. It's hard for me to see it being transformative.