Daniel,

As always, I really enjoy our conversations and it might seem bitter to some looking in, but it is very helpful for me (I hope for you too). I do have a couple of issues with your last statement:

1) I never said this story didn’t happen, but I do mean to say that it becomes a “myth” when an interpretation of meaning is applied and the story is shared. It likely even grows to help emphasize one meaning or another. I bet if you chase the story back and could get to its roots you would find that it has already morphed as it was handed to you and then to me. I don’t say that to belittle the story, but to suggest that this is a very normal way that humans apply meaning to life’s events. The events are history but we don’t have a video recording of the history. We need to distinguish between retelling the historical events and creating the mythical explanation of the events meaning. Even in modern times when we do have video, the same thing happens as people apply their own meanings and morph the story to fit their intentions. Try asking 10 different people about the events in the civil rights movements. You are likely to get 10 different myths.

2) You said: “I submit to you that you likewise do violence to Jesus’ story when you say it didn’t really happen”. I never said it didn’t happen. What I’ve consistently said is that we ONLY have the mythical explanations of Jesus life. We have no historical video tapes or eye witness notes taken at the time. I leave room for the likelyhood of historical roots to the myths. The mistake of fundamentalism has always been to confuse the 2 different forms of communication. The insistence on making these stories into historical facts for the last few hundred years has caused many generations of people to lose touch with the “more than literal meanings”. Fundamentalists mistep when they assume the gospels are the facts and we are only now applying interpretations. That isn’t how it works. The Gospels were ALREADY later interpretations. That is why they differ so much.

3) You said: “New Creation means nothing if it is not actually happening”. I never said it wasn’t actually happening. I do think creation is always being transformed. I have tremendous faith it will continue to be transformed. What I suggest is that the transformation is a change of our hearts, minds, communities, nations, and environment that is accomplished through humans doing this work. We can say that God is the spirit of change in us, or that God is a set of ideals that drives us, or that God is the mythical figure that motivates us. Any or all of those definitions can work as explanation of God’s involvement. But I think it is damaging to insist that the only valuable image of God is one as a alien being living on another plant that has magical powers to beam down to earth and manipulate our world. It turns our faith into a joke when we try to force that ancient understanding of the universe down the throats of modern people. If Jesus was interested in change on a spiritual level then no Empire or Temple system would have objected. If Jesus assumed God was going to do the change him/her/itself then why did Jesus tell people to make changes? Why would he need to confront any authorities if he didn’t expect those authorities to make changes to the sytems under their control? The stories of Jesus don’t paint a picture of a person who was waiting for God to magically impose his change no matter what any human did? If Jesus had taken that approach then I doubt they would have killed him.

4) You continue to ignore my request to explain how “creation is made over”. Is that a molecular change? Would the world still be a “physical thing” or would we all exist in a dream like mental/spiritual state? Do people continue to reproduce but not die? If so, how long can a planet survive that process? Are we still “human” or is it the next step in evolution? Do people still get sick but we have all the tools to heal every disease or do people just stop ever getting sick? I have yet to see you explain this but you seem to have problems when I explain my views.

It seems like you (and Tom Wright as well as many fundamentalists) are stuck on the surface level of the metaphor and you despise anyone actually talking about what those metaphors mean. If you have a better explanation of how this transformation can happen, then please let me know.