Not exact matches
First, its premisses concerning society and modern man are pseudoscientific: for example, the affirmation that man has become adult, that he no longer needs a Father, that the Father -
God was invented when the human race was in its infancy, etc.; the affirmation that man has become rational and thinks scientifically, and that therefore he must get rid of the religious and
mythological notions that were appropriate when his thought processes were primitive; the affirmation that the modern world has been secularized, laicized, and can no longer countenance religious people, but if they still want to preach the kerygma they must do it in laicized terms; the affirmation that the Bible is of value only as a cultural document, not as the channel of Revelation, etc. (I say «affirmation» because these are indeed simply affirmations, unrelated either to fact or to any scientific knowledge
about modern man or present - day society.)
There certainly are for those who regard all language
about an act of
God or of a decisive, eschatological event as
mythological.
Because of
God's transcendence it would be
mythological to refer to
God's action in terms appropriate only to objects available, in principle at least, to ordinary sense perception.13 This especially means that one can not speak of
God in terms of the categories of time and space; 14 i.e., whatever is predicated of
God can not apply only to some particular time and space, but must apply equally to all times and spaces.15 Thus the implication of Ogden's criterion for non-
mythological language
about God corresponds to his statement of several years ago, that «there is not the slightest evidence that
God has acted in Christ in any way different from the way in which he primordially acts in every other event.
Once one has given up as incredible and impossible (save for
mythological purposes) the Greek idea of a
god who comes down to earth and walks
about as a human being, there are two possibilities open for the interpretation of Jesus Christ.
If, on the other hand, they choose to postulate the existence of
God in order to account for these phenomena, as Kant and Hegel did, and as Krüger has recently done, I would contend that it is really
God they are talking
about, not, however, in the
mythological sense, but in the Greek sense of the Arché.
But I can not accept what you say
about an organized rebellion against
God, for that is undoubtedly
mythological.
Here is Bultmann's own answer: «There certainly are for those who regard all language
about an act of
God or of a decisive eschatological act as
mythological.»
One should not in this connection let himself be deceived by the observation that the abstract thinking of the Greeks made it possible for them to understand in its purity the essence of the spiritual, and that therefore
mythological, anthropomorphic ideas of
God were abandoned by the Greeks, while in Judaism naïve
mythological and anthropomorphic expressions
about God, although they decrease, do not by any means disappear.
But that's post apocalyptic not
mythological... Complaining
about Gods fighting like
Gods is dumb and the thought shouldn't be entertained lol.