I wanted to thank folks for the thoughtful responses to my easter post. Here's some of the thinking behind my post. Process thinkers make a distinction between objective and personal immortality. One is focused on the way our actions carry on beyond us to affect the future while the latter is some personal existence after death.
I recognize that the church has largely pinned it's hopes on personal immortality, but I was seeking to recast the resurrection in terms of objective immortality. One reason is that I have reason to believe in the latter while after life language has become largely inexplicable to me, especially given an evolutionary understanding of the world.
Should our religious language relate to our understanding of the world? I'd argue yes. I'm not suggesting that such language can fully capture matters of religious concern...only that there is something of it which references the world as we know it. If this is given up, we have the problem on the left of an abandonment of checks over what counts as a valid religious claim.
On the right we have an abandonment to some religious authority which dictates how we will think. But in directing religious claims to the world of experience, we make claims public, subject to criticism, revision and we provide the place where religion can impact and be impacted by other fields of inquiry. It could be one route for a religious vision which integrates all areas of human life.