I'm open to both traditional and contemporary interpretations, but I don't feel a need to reject one in favour of the other. I sense that in some cases the rejection of traditional interpretations stems from aversion rather than from an objective reading of the suttas - in which case I think a more honest response would be to adopt secular Buddhism.
And one can easily say that those who have a view of rebirth are clinging to a sense of self and clinging to doctrines and views, but as this thread has shown (by nearly approaching 200 posts) saying such things to each other gets us no where.
Instead we should just focus on dukkha and practice to overcome it in the here and now and help each other to do so, we should promote unity in the sangha and not argue and argue.
In ultimate terms rebirth isn't important to those who accept it and to those who don't since we should all practice to let go and stop giving birth to "i am" in there here and now ... And if that stops the birth of "I am" in some future life even better, in ultimate terms if we all focus on the practice in the here and now then we are all winners
Even If rebirth is true, or Valhalla or oblivion it's all not self. It's not "your" death, your rebirth or your oblivion.
Rebirth, Realist fact or just a view ... Or both, should be let go of.