Thanks Nelson for your tenacity in exploring the important question of "is literalism really the problem or is there something else at work here" -- I will concede that we do need to be more precise to get to the bottom of the issue, while still retaining a few points of disagreement (even though we clearly agree on many of the most important points as well as on the core of the thesis, or hypothesis if some prefer that term).
I admit that I do tend to use the word "literalism" as a short-hand -- and I have even discussed that in some books in which I explain that there are admittedly many "shades" of literalism. But in those discussions I always conclude by saying that I tend to use literalism (with respect to Christianity) as short-hand for all approaches which maintain that the literal and historical existence of the characters is an inviolable doctrine, regardless of whether they are more, or less, open to the "allegorization" of other aspects of the texts (traditionally, some very literalistic approaches have also been very open to the "allegorization" of those same stories, but they would protest vehemently and in fact declare it to be heretical if one suggests that perhaps the literal historicity is not a necessary component).
Your argument is that belief in the historicity and "literal-ness" of the characters in myth is not necessarily the problem, and I will concede that you present strong arguments to advance that point. Let's concede that point (because I think that you are correct there) and move on to your next argument, which is that "therefore, it is the New Testament myth-making" and the figure of Jesus and his teachings as found there which are the real problem.
To that point I would counter (as I have already) that we seem to have a group known as the Gnostics (and there were others, such as the Essenes and the Therapeutae, etc) who also used stories describing a figure named Jesus (along with disciples, including more than one named Mary, as well as a figure named Sophia, etc), who did not leave any record of trying to forcibly convert anybody, or take over anything, etc.
I would also counter that we have the writer calling himself Paul, who makes reference to the Christ, but who very likely was writing before the canonical gospels were composed (he never references specific events from the "stories," as Freke and Gandy have pointed out in their book Jesus Mysteries, 1999). He appears to have been advancing a gnostic understanding which used the understanding of the Christ in a gnostic way, and specifically rejected the approach of the "literalizers." I have argued that "
The Bible is essentially shamanic" in a previous post -- and have used some of Paul's writings to support that argument.
Freke and Gandy also point out that many aspects of the gospels which did make it into "the canon" contain references to gnostic concepts, as well as strong clues that they were not originally intended to be taken literally (such as the number of fish taken in the miraculous catch, which refers specifically to sacred geometry and the
vesica piscis -- see for instance discussion
here -- or the fact that the description of the visit of the Magi cannot work geographically if you take it literally, although it works quite well if you understand it celestially -- see for instance
here).
Based on this, and some other points I will offer in a moment, I would posit that what we have is not a fundamentally flawed set of metaphors (in the NT myths) but rather a weaponization of a set of metaphors (by those who decided to use them as a form of mind control and as an excuse for forcibly taking over land and eradicating the ancient sacred traditions of other cultures). It is possible that certain verses were added to the canonical gospel accounts to "excuse" or "encourage" the idea that only one belief-system is permissible and that the forcible conversion of others to that belief-system is a positive thing rather than a negative thing (indeed, a violation of universal law).
If we concede that the ancient Greeks, for instance, understood their stories "literally" (a point which I might contest, based on the fact that they had no problem entertaining stories of Achilles as a baby being dipped in one instance in the fire and in another instance in the River Styx, which is contradictory from a "literalistic" hermeneutic but no problem at all from a "Star Myth" approach, but which I will concede for the sake of argument), we see that the important point to focus on is probably the fact that the ancient Greeks (and other societies where the "ancient received wisdom" had not been "weaponized") still retained a world-view or cosmology that could be termed "shamanic" (to use that term rather broadly): it was shamanic in the sense that it acknowledged the existence of an Invisible Realm, a realm of the gods, which permeates everything, and which requires reverence for the natural world (which we might call the "spirit-infused natural world"). See for instance my essay "
Every fountain has its nymph" from April of last year.
On a related point, it would be foolish to try to argue that "non-Christian" cultures never try to conquer one another, or commit atrocities, etc. But we don't really have evidence that when they conquer one another, they immediately set out to destroy and suppress the culture and especially the sacred traditions of the conquered culture, as literalist Christianity did first to the other cultures of Europe (suppressing and indeed virtually eliminating the Druidic traditions of western Europe and the British Isles, as well as the Germanic traditions of northern Europe and later the Norse traditions of Scandinavia, etc) and then to the rest of the world in subsequent centuries. On the contrary, when the Romans conquered other cultures (pre literalist Christianity) they seem to have had no problem checking out their gods and goddesses and incorporating their worship alongside their own -- because they saw them as all being related to one another, a point you have already made previously, I believe.
So, I will concede that literalism is not necessarily the issue, per se, but rather a weaponized form of literalistic belief. I just take exception to the argument that this must necessarily be a flaw in the "New Testament myths" per se. As I've said, the Gnostic Library of texts recovered at Nag Hammadi contains plenty of Jesus stories, but they do not seem to support the "weaponized" version (which is probably why they had to be "got rid of" in the first place by the proponents of the weaponized version).
In fact, I would argue that this understanding (or this distinction), between "literalized" and "weaponized" is also supportive of some of your other observations, regarding Christians you know or historical figures you respect who were Christian and literalist, but who were not particularly supportive of ideas involving the use of these texts as support for atrocious behavior or institutionalized violence and oppression -- although there have been some in history who have indeed used these texts to support institutionalized violence and oppression.
I will conclude by saying that I think the old
Karate Kid metaphor, which I am fond of using in other discussions regarding the nature of "the esoteric," etc, is perhaps useful here as well. Karate itself is not necessarily good or bad. The instructor at the Cobra Kai school in that movie was obviously teaching a "weaponized" form of it, while Mr. Miyagi was obviously teaching it as a means of helping Daniel-San to avoid getting his head kicked in. And, in fact, at the end of the movie, we see that Danny's primary antagonist, Johnny, appears to have a sort of "change of heart" and a realization that the weaponized form of karate he has been learning is not the real path he wants to be on.
I would argue that the metaphors in the New Testament (along with those found in the Gnostic Library and other suppressed texts from the same general tradition) may well be a "useful form of karate" which can help to actually
prevent mind control and to
enhance integration with the spiritual nature within ourselves and the cosmos around us. The fact that they have been used in a "weaponized" way by some people does not necessarily mean that the "karate itself" cannot be beneficial to men and women, as long as coercion is not involved -- and I believe that they are much more likely to be understood in a beneficial rather than a weaponized way if the original "language" that they are speaking, which is a celestial and metaphorical language, is understood.
_/\_