I am most curious about this need that human beings have to categorize and label everything — what’s religious, what’s not. Related to another article you wrote, even New Age “free thinking” pundits are also in a box of their own making. And so are atheists who take pride and refuge in atheistic concepts and brotherhood.

While it may be argued that religion is full of metaphors, the truth is that almost no religious followers or clergy see it that way. And it would seem that if a person actually saw religion as nothing more than myth and metaphor there would be no need to affiliate with any religion.

Without getting into the nuances of atheism and religiosity, I would point out that we are always dealing with the psychological needs of people when we speak of such things. People want security and to reinforce their sense of importance, and all isms, belief systems, and institutions cater to such desires. Human beings invent institutions to sate their needs and not to answer questions or create freedom of the mind. Even atheists do this, as do scientists and the most ardent of radicals. It’s a human tendency.

While I am partial to the idea of mythology, your point is a good one: “What worked for previous audiences needn’t work as well for contemporary ones…” Joseph Campbell offered the same idea and said that one of the greatest problems of modern society is that we no longer have myths to guide us.

Considering the age of all major religions, even if they contain good metaphors and moral or spiritual lessons, and even if they are regarded only on this basis, they are not relatable to modern peoples. Each time a minister stands up and starts yelling at his congregation about the wonders of ancient, robe-and-sandal-wearing Biblical figures, he is like an old grandpa trying to relate to his grandkids about how hard it used to be to get around Manhattan with a map or get a wire long enough on his old phone to be able to talk and sit on the sofa at the same time. Maybe you said it better: “…just because a story addresses universal themes doesn’t mean it does so in a way that’s relevant or impressive to all times and places.”

I can’t really sit through an entire Peterson monologue long enough to decipher how he interprets Christianity, so I’ll take your word for it. You seem to do your homework. In my estimation, it is pretty easy and simple to interpret the myths embedded in Christianity, especially because they have been copied from much earlier myths. Even though Christian myths and metaphors are obvious, they are pretty incomplete and incongruent as compared to the myth of the Buddha, for example. And thus people like Petersen and a host of others have to work pretty hard to convince everyone how great and profound Christianity is, because it’s not so obvious to the logical, modern mind.

For what it’s worth, my take on Christianity, mythologically speaking, is that it’s a story about the transformation from the self of the egocentric human being to the Self of unalloyed and omnipresent consciousness. A man died and then was reborn as God (consciousness). It’s a story of spiritual enlightenment. This is the greatest lesson that is never discussed and rarely understood, especially because if a Christian were to do so then he would have no real need for his own religion. Along with the transformation away from the self comes the unmooring of consciousness from all attachments, groups, identities, relationships, isms, and so on.

In the final analysis, it seems that people are wont to believe in something that resonates with them. Maybe it helps many to believe in people and events that are so unreal and unrelatable that they can be regarded as nothing short of special, different, anciently wise, and unassailable. Western religion, especially, works just fine and dandy in this respect.