I applaud your effort and energy in writing this article.

I often wonder about this sort of discussion, however, because it seems that religious people are not motivated by wrong, right, metaphor, or literalism. They just want to relish their beliefs no matter how problematic, irrational, or absurd. They don't want to look at any evidence or lack thereof that adversely affects or threatens these beliefs. And they find their happiness in stories of the supernatural, refuge, miracles, angels, and epic fights between good and evil. Historical facts, pointing out conflicts and contradictions, and even the idea that there is no mention of Jesus outside of the New Testament have no bearing on religious followers. They just want to be followers and not face any facts. If we go from this premise then we are at least being realistic in trying to deal with the effects of such woefully religious minds.

It seems quite clear that Christianity is full of great metaphors that are easy to explain. There was a man named Neville Goddard who had some interesting things to say about the misinterpretations of Christians regarding their own scriptures. On the other hand, Goddard was also saying some other things that sounded as absurd as the claims of Christianity. Campbell's clarity on the metaphors of Christianity are a lot more grounded and thought-out.

My takeaway from Christianity, as well as all other religions, is that they are divisive and appeal to people who want a ready-made belief system to protect them from the cold, cruel, confusing and scary world. I have seen enough people on social media try to prove their religious ideas to others based on the most ridiculous claims. What is their goal? To assuage their own insecurity. If they truly believed their god and savior were all-powerful and running the show then they would have no need to go to such lengths to force their ideas on others.

You wrote: "Why is Christianity the only religion that’s based on literal reports of what’s supposed to have happened in a key historical period, rather than on myths?" I don't think Christianity is the only one that does this.

You wrote, "If there was only one true God, as Jews said, why did nature seem to run itself?" Maybe we can mete out what “one true God” implies. In the Hebrew prayer, the Sh’ma, the words expressed are “God is one.” So what does this mean? Perhaps it means not that there is only one god, but that everything is god. Or maybe I am giving people too much credit.

I think this mythical interpretation sums things up very well, as you wrote, “The meaning of life, according to this myth, is to “die” to our old self and to awaken to a spiritual perspective.”

This is so well stated: “As inspiring as such peak states of consciousness may be, they won’t support the shenanigans of an organized religion.”

Lastly, when I read religious texts I can't help but hear the Monty Python characters in my head. It would all be so silly except that it leads to so much hatred, murder, divisiveness, and all other sorts of suffering.

What more can we say about a religion based on an ancient Jew whose members find a way to be antisemitic? This is just the beginning of the absurdities.