Well, when you nail it that way, yes; so then understand that my "Ha ha ha ha ha; ...emoticon..." was toward and solely for the coinage of GodDamocles; whose sword cut through the untie-able knot.

{Is Mangle-ese a language yet?}

Thanks for the "wink".

And, yes, I am mixing myths.

The study of comparative religions leads one's mind into seeing, in them, themes and parallels, to the very point of there being (as if in the basis of our own minds) a synthetical matrix of such; like a priori combobulations, or chthonically mythopoetic syntheses.
The only barrier (from whence the 'mixing') is not so much the myths, as it is the languages the myths are couched within.
But then all the more reason for the study of comparative religion, comparative mythology, etc. The more cross-associations the better.

To The Pragmatic--
Yes, ambivalence (or ambi-valency: going around whatever circle in opposite directions at the same time) is common to religious symbolism.

I was speaking mainly, not of the literalist interpretation of the New Testament, but of the metaphorical understanding (not of the carnal message, but of the mental message): to wit Christ is taken out of the way for being a barrier between man and God. And hence the appropriateness of the ⃠ sign. (Hell [a figure of speech], If you superimposed the cross and the naught sign, I guess you could call it the crossnaught, or maybe even the doublenaught.)

To me, at least, it doesn't matter if the Christ was killed on a cross (though this sign is perhaps the richest in cross-associational symbolism [--buh-dump-buh!]), or drawn and quartered, or iron maidened, or hit by a bus.
What matters is the fact that he is taken out of the way SO THAT we may experience the mind of God without some median unto whom, as Christianity teaches, we owe the favor.

Again, to me, "Christ crucified" is God's (or the Universal Mind's) way of saying,
"No, the messiah is not King of the Jews, nor is he a king at all, but is he who stands in the gap between man and God, and that one, the messiah, is therefore negated SO THAT there is no longer a gap."

If you think of the supposedly future Christ, as Christianity teaches, "To whom every knee shall bow and every tongue confess"--this is not the disposition of a King of kings, but simply the arrogance of yet another king.
Yet, so as not to leave out the mystics, I must also add that the statement "To whom every knee shall bow and every tongue confess", if, and only if, it is meant to refer to Love, then it makes sense. And is not God Love?
Yes, God is Love--, but only when the slave-mongering Son is taken out of the way, negated, rendered as ⃠ in order to a-suture the gap between God and man, which is his sole purpose.

I hope that makes sense. Or ⃠. hee hee hee hee...