Is it "insulting" to refer to god as "mythical"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on context. If I’m talking to a group of believers, I would never use a term like that. It upsets people for no good purpose. If we’re having a comparative religion conversation, I would say “Christianity does this, Islam does that, and in Roman mythology they said xyz”. I’m not sure adding the phrase “mythical” to a deity humans living today actually believe in ever enhanced any conversation.

+1. If the question here is about whether OP is arguing in bad faith, then case closed. She is arguing in bad faith, because she repeatedly uses lower-case "god" and calls religion "mythical," both things that she knows insult living humans who actually believe.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. People can believe in myths. They're just stories that try to help us understand natural forces that are beyond our senses -- although science has come a long way to explaining much of that - so the only realm of religion now is the hereafter - which is speculation since no one has ever died and come back to tell about it.

No, God isn't just in the hereafter, he's in the present too. This is Religion 100 for all the major religions.

It's disingenuous to call religion "mythical" based on your false claim that, for believers, God is only in the hereafter. So now instead of straight-forward insults (god instead of God) you're dealing in rhetorical slights of hand to insult people. No difference.

You keep changing the words. I said the realm of religion (not God) is the hereafter. You did the same thing on the other thread. Insisting that what someone said religion is man-made they were saying God is man-made, which is not what they were saying all. You are just too slippery and squirrely to even talk to.

Syllogism alert. That's what's slippery and squirrelly.

What's squirrelly is trying to claim "religion" and "the realm of religion" are different concepts so that you can (1) assert that "the only realm of religion now is the hereafter" (direct quote from you), which you then assert (2) makes religion the same as mythology. Both premises are wrong.

Same for your attempt to distinguish "religion is manmade" from "God is manmade." The first implies the second and to pretend otherwise is dishonest, slippery and squirrelly.

If you don't see a difference you're too obtuse to talk to. And no, the first doesn't imply the second. "God" and "religion" are two very different concepts. Do we need a whole new thread to discuss that?

Go ahead and explain how these are "very" different concepts. We'll wait.

When OP (you?) talks about God being "mythical" they're necessarily bringing in all of religion. God by His nature entails everything rom the holy books to daily practice to God herself to the hereafter.

To pretend otherwise means either OP (you?) is dumb as a box of rocks, or they (you?) are completely disingenuous and trying to justify insulting believers.

You're kidding? One can believe in God without the priests and rituals and churches/tabernacles and "orthodoxy of belief" and passing the collection plate and all that. Religion is wholly different than a belief in God.

Of course. You're deliberately missing the point. OP wants to diss God, the holy books and the hereafter under the guise of calling "God" and "religion" mythical.

religion is mythical. It developed out of magic, and then soothsayers who predicted future events, then priests - do you honestly think Jesus would recognize these huge cathedrals and priests with the big pointy hats - and hunreds of pages of the book of Catechism? I just looked online and the Catechism book was $64 - what? There's you difference between God and religion right there.

Sigh from a different pp than the one with the Grammarly link.

We all--and this includes you--know the word "Religion" is a huge term that includes lots of things. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
1. personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2(a1). the service and worship of God or the supernatural
2(a2). commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2(b). the state of a religious -- a nun in her 20th year of religion
3. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Rambling on about the Catechism is just lazy (I'm not Catholic fwiw). "Religion" is all of the above.

You know perfectly well that when you call religion "manmade" you're insulting people along many dimensions, including their systems of beliefs and practices and the legitimacy of their God(s) if they have one. Or, you're dumb as a box of rocks where grammar and vocabulary are concerned. Take your pick.

?? Religion is man-made. How can anyone possibly argue otherwise? Go ahead, I'd love to hear it.

Roman Catholicism is the One True Religion, ordained by God. The protestant religions are all man-made off-shoots of it. That's what I learned in Catechism, anyway.

Coo. Do you believe that?

The atheist who was raised Catholic and now hates the religion was trying to be cute. Fail.

So do you think there is one true religion? Try not to be cute

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on context. If I’m talking to a group of believers, I would never use a term like that. It upsets people for no good purpose. If we’re having a comparative religion conversation, I would say “Christianity does this, Islam does that, and in Roman mythology they said xyz”. I’m not sure adding the phrase “mythical” to a deity humans living today actually believe in ever enhanced any conversation.

+1. If the question here is about whether OP is arguing in bad faith, then case closed. She is arguing in bad faith, because she repeatedly uses lower-case "god" and calls religion "mythical," both things that she knows insult living humans who actually believe.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. People can believe in myths. They're just stories that try to help us understand natural forces that are beyond our senses -- although science has come a long way to explaining much of that - so the only realm of religion now is the hereafter - which is speculation since no one has ever died and come back to tell about it.

No, God isn't just in the hereafter, he's in the present too. This is Religion 100 for all the major religions.

It's disingenuous to call religion "mythical" based on your false claim that, for believers, God is only in the hereafter. So now instead of straight-forward insults (god instead of God) you're dealing in rhetorical slights of hand to insult people. No difference.

You keep changing the words. I said the realm of religion (not God) is the hereafter. You did the same thing on the other thread. Insisting that what someone said religion is man-made they were saying God is man-made, which is not what they were saying all. You are just too slippery and squirrely to even talk to.

Syllogism alert. That's what's slippery and squirrelly.

What's squirrelly is trying to claim "religion" and "the realm of religion" are different concepts so that you can (1) assert that "the only realm of religion now is the hereafter" (direct quote from you), which you then assert (2) makes religion the same as mythology. Both premises are wrong.

Same for your attempt to distinguish "religion is manmade" from "God is manmade." The first implies the second and to pretend otherwise is dishonest, slippery and squirrelly.

If you don't see a difference you're too obtuse to talk to. And no, the first doesn't imply the second. "God" and "religion" are two very different concepts. Do we need a whole new thread to discuss that?

Go ahead and explain how these are "very" different concepts. We'll wait.

When OP (you?) talks about God being "mythical" they're necessarily bringing in all of religion. God by His nature entails everything rom the holy books to daily practice to God herself to the hereafter.

To pretend otherwise means either OP (you?) is dumb as a box of rocks, or they (you?) are completely disingenuous and trying to justify insulting believers.

You're kidding? One can believe in God without the priests and rituals and churches/tabernacles and "orthodoxy of belief" and passing the collection plate and all that. Religion is wholly different than a belief in God.

Of course. You're deliberately missing the point. OP wants to diss God, the holy books and the hereafter under the guise of calling "God" and "religion" mythical.

religion is mythical. It developed out of magic, and then soothsayers who predicted future events, then priests - do you honestly think Jesus would recognize these huge cathedrals and priests with the big pointy hats - and hunreds of pages of the book of Catechism? I just looked online and the Catechism book was $64 - what? There's you difference between God and religion right there.

Sigh from a different pp than the one with the Grammarly link.

We all--and this includes you--know the word "Religion" is a huge term that includes lots of things. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
1. personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2(a1). the service and worship of God or the supernatural
2(a2). commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2(b). the state of a religious -- a nun in her 20th year of religion
3. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Rambling on about the Catechism is just lazy (I'm not Catholic fwiw). "Religion" is all of the above.

You know perfectly well that when you call religion "manmade" you're insulting people along many dimensions, including their systems of beliefs and practices and the legitimacy of their God(s) if they have one. Or, you're dumb as a box of rocks where grammar and vocabulary are concerned. Take your pick.

So to be clear:

You are free to express your beliefs here, without consideration of if it offends anyone, but a non-believer is not.

That seems fair.

Non-believers are certainly welcome to engage in discourse but those who present themselves falsely like OP are understandably dismissed out of hand. That’s generally how civil society works. People have little patience for scoundrels and liars.

Ha ha. We're on 12 pages here so I don't think OP's question has been dismissed "out of hand." Do you have an answer to it?

12 pages of multiple posters calling OP disingenuous and posting in bad faith.

PP here -- meant to say 12 pages of multiple POSTS, not posters

Editor here. It’s definitely multiple posters. I couldn’t say how many but I certainly am not a sock puppet. OP, otoh, seems to be.

And I'm not the atheist editor, although I appreciate her contributions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on context. If I’m talking to a group of believers, I would never use a term like that. It upsets people for no good purpose. If we’re having a comparative religion conversation, I would say “Christianity does this, Islam does that, and in Roman mythology they said xyz”. I’m not sure adding the phrase “mythical” to a deity humans living today actually believe in ever enhanced any conversation.

+1. If the question here is about whether OP is arguing in bad faith, then case closed. She is arguing in bad faith, because she repeatedly uses lower-case "god" and calls religion "mythical," both things that she knows insult living humans who actually believe.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. People can believe in myths. They're just stories that try to help us understand natural forces that are beyond our senses -- although science has come a long way to explaining much of that - so the only realm of religion now is the hereafter - which is speculation since no one has ever died and come back to tell about it.

No, God isn't just in the hereafter, he's in the present too. This is Religion 100 for all the major religions.

It's disingenuous to call religion "mythical" based on your false claim that, for believers, God is only in the hereafter. So now instead of straight-forward insults (god instead of God) you're dealing in rhetorical slights of hand to insult people. No difference.

You keep changing the words. I said the realm of religion (not God) is the hereafter. You did the same thing on the other thread. Insisting that what someone said religion is man-made they were saying God is man-made, which is not what they were saying all. You are just too slippery and squirrely to even talk to.

Syllogism alert. That's what's slippery and squirrelly.

What's squirrelly is trying to claim "religion" and "the realm of religion" are different concepts so that you can (1) assert that "the only realm of religion now is the hereafter" (direct quote from you), which you then assert (2) makes religion the same as mythology. Both premises are wrong.

Same for your attempt to distinguish "religion is manmade" from "God is manmade." The first implies the second and to pretend otherwise is dishonest, slippery and squirrelly.

If you don't see a difference you're too obtuse to talk to. And no, the first doesn't imply the second. "God" and "religion" are two very different concepts. Do we need a whole new thread to discuss that?

Go ahead and explain how these are "very" different concepts. We'll wait.

When OP (you?) talks about God being "mythical" they're necessarily bringing in all of religion. God by His nature entails everything rom the holy books to daily practice to God herself to the hereafter.

To pretend otherwise means either OP (you?) is dumb as a box of rocks, or they (you?) are completely disingenuous and trying to justify insulting believers.

You're kidding? One can believe in God without the priests and rituals and churches/tabernacles and "orthodoxy of belief" and passing the collection plate and all that. Religion is wholly different than a belief in God.

Of course. You're deliberately missing the point. OP wants to diss God, the holy books and the hereafter under the guise of calling "God" and "religion" mythical.

religion is mythical. It developed out of magic, and then soothsayers who predicted future events, then priests - do you honestly think Jesus would recognize these huge cathedrals and priests with the big pointy hats - and hunreds of pages of the book of Catechism? I just looked online and the Catechism book was $64 - what? There's you difference between God and religion right there.

Sigh from a different pp than the one with the Grammarly link.

We all--and this includes you--know the word "Religion" is a huge term that includes lots of things. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
1. personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2(a1). the service and worship of God or the supernatural
2(a2). commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2(b). the state of a religious -- a nun in her 20th year of religion
3. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Rambling on about the Catechism is just lazy (I'm not Catholic fwiw). "Religion" is all of the above.

You know perfectly well that when you call religion "manmade" you're insulting people along many dimensions, including their systems of beliefs and practices and the legitimacy of their God(s) if they have one. Or, you're dumb as a box of rocks where grammar and vocabulary are concerned. Take your pick.

?? Religion is man-made. How can anyone possibly argue otherwise? Go ahead, I'd love to hear it.

Roman Catholicism is the One True Religion, ordained by God. The protestant religions are all man-made off-shoots of it. That's what I learned in Catechism, anyway.

Coo. Do you believe that?

The atheist who was raised Catholic and now hates the religion was trying to be cute. Fail.

It's possible to appreciate religion without believing in it.

[Anonymous]

From now on, so as not to offend anyone -- I'l use God/god. So does anyone think the God/god depicted in Genesis is anything other than myth? If so, how do you characterize it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on context. If I’m talking to a group of believers, I would never use a term like that. It upsets people for no good purpose. If we’re having a comparative religion conversation, I would say “Christianity does this, Islam does that, and in Roman mythology they said xyz”. I’m not sure adding the phrase “mythical” to a deity humans living today actually believe in ever enhanced any conversation.

+1. If the question here is about whether OP is arguing in bad faith, then case closed. She is arguing in bad faith, because she repeatedly uses lower-case "god" and calls religion "mythical," both things that she knows insult living humans who actually believe.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. People can believe in myths. They're just stories that try to help us understand natural forces that are beyond our senses -- although science has come a long way to explaining much of that - so the only realm of religion now is the hereafter - which is speculation since no one has ever died and come back to tell about it.

No, God isn't just in the hereafter, he's in the present too. This is Religion 100 for all the major religions.

It's disingenuous to call religion "mythical" based on your false claim that, for believers, God is only in the hereafter. So now instead of straight-forward insults (god instead of God) you're dealing in rhetorical slights of hand to insult people. No difference.

You keep changing the words. I said the realm of religion (not God) is the hereafter. You did the same thing on the other thread. Insisting that what someone said religion is man-made they were saying God is man-made, which is not what they were saying all. You are just too slippery and squirrely to even talk to.

Syllogism alert. That's what's slippery and squirrelly.

What's squirrelly is trying to claim "religion" and "the realm of religion" are different concepts so that you can (1) assert that "the only realm of religion now is the hereafter" (direct quote from you), which you then assert (2) makes religion the same as mythology. Both premises are wrong.

Same for your attempt to distinguish "religion is manmade" from "God is manmade." The first implies the second and to pretend otherwise is dishonest, slippery and squirrelly.

If you don't see a difference you're too obtuse to talk to. And no, the first doesn't imply the second. "God" and "religion" are two very different concepts. Do we need a whole new thread to discuss that?

Go ahead and explain how these are "very" different concepts. We'll wait.

When OP (you?) talks about God being "mythical" they're necessarily bringing in all of religion. God by His nature entails everything rom the holy books to daily practice to God herself to the hereafter.

To pretend otherwise means either OP (you?) is dumb as a box of rocks, or they (you?) are completely disingenuous and trying to justify insulting believers.

You're kidding? One can believe in God without the priests and rituals and churches/tabernacles and "orthodoxy of belief" and passing the collection plate and all that. Religion is wholly different than a belief in God.

Of course. You're deliberately missing the point. OP wants to diss God, the holy books and the hereafter under the guise of calling "God" and "religion" mythical.

religion is mythical. It developed out of magic, and then soothsayers who predicted future events, then priests - do you honestly think Jesus would recognize these huge cathedrals and priests with the big pointy hats - and hunreds of pages of the book of Catechism? I just looked online and the Catechism book was $64 - what? There's you difference between God and religion right there.

Sigh from a different pp than the one with the Grammarly link.

We all--and this includes you--know the word "Religion" is a huge term that includes lots of things. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
1. personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2(a1). the service and worship of God or the supernatural
2(a2). commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2(b). the state of a religious -- a nun in her 20th year of religion
3. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Rambling on about the Catechism is just lazy (I'm not Catholic fwiw). "Religion" is all of the above.

You know perfectly well that when you call religion "manmade" you're insulting people along many dimensions, including their systems of beliefs and practices and the legitimacy of their God(s) if they have one. Or, you're dumb as a box of rocks where grammar and vocabulary are concerned. Take your pick.

?? Religion is man-made. How can anyone possibly argue otherwise? Go ahead, I'd love to hear it.

Roman Catholicism is the One True Religion, ordained by God. The protestant religions are all man-made off-shoots of it. That's what I learned in Catechism, anyway.

Coo. Do you believe that?

The atheist who was raised Catholic and now hates the religion was trying to be cute. Fail.

It's possible to appreciate religion without believing in it.

This is a great point. I adore studying religion. It's very close to myth, and some of those are unbelievably colorful and instructive about the human condition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From now on, so as not to offend anyone -- I'l use God/god. So does anyone think the God/god depicted in Genesis is anything other than myth? If so, how do you characterize it?

Time for a new thread!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From now on, so as not to offend anyone -- I'l use God/god. So does anyone think the God/god depicted in Genesis is anything other than myth? If so, how do you characterize it?

Not-the-editor here.

You're carefully narrowing the scope of your question to Genesis. As you know, the Christian Bible goes through Revelations and other religions also go much further than Genesis or don't use Genesis at all.

So I'll be very clear and equally specific in my answer. Yes, it's true that many believers think Genesis is literature.

But God in general is NOT a myth. Hope that forestalls the atheist who is always coming on to make "We all agree" posts about how, this time, God is a myth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From now on, so as not to offend anyone -- I'l use God/god. So does anyone think the God/god depicted in Genesis is anything other than myth? If so, how do you characterize it?

Not-the-editor here.

You're carefully narrowing the scope of your question to Genesis. As you know, the Christian Bible goes through Revelations and other religions also go much further than Genesis or don't use Genesis at all.

So I'll be very clear and equally specific in my answer. Yes, it's true that many believers think Genesis is literature.

But God in general is NOT a myth. Hope that forestalls the atheist who is always coming on to make "We all agree" posts about how, this time, God is a myth.

Not-the-editor here again. And you shouldn't need to be told this, but this is why it's insulting to refer to God as a myth. Because we know you don't just mean the God of Genesis, you mean the God of the whole Bible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on context. If I’m talking to a group of believers, I would never use a term like that. It upsets people for no good purpose. If we’re having a comparative religion conversation, I would say “Christianity does this, Islam does that, and in Roman mythology they said xyz”. I’m not sure adding the phrase “mythical” to a deity humans living today actually believe in ever enhanced any conversation.

+1. If the question here is about whether OP is arguing in bad faith, then case closed. She is arguing in bad faith, because she repeatedly uses lower-case "god" and calls religion "mythical," both things that she knows insult living humans who actually believe.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. People can believe in myths. They're just stories that try to help us understand natural forces that are beyond our senses -- although science has come a long way to explaining much of that - so the only realm of religion now is the hereafter - which is speculation since no one has ever died and come back to tell about it.

No, God isn't just in the hereafter, he's in the present too. This is Religion 100 for all the major religions.

It's disingenuous to call religion "mythical" based on your false claim that, for believers, God is only in the hereafter. So now instead of straight-forward insults (god instead of God) you're dealing in rhetorical slights of hand to insult people. No difference.

You keep changing the words. I said the realm of religion (not God) is the hereafter. You did the same thing on the other thread. Insisting that what someone said religion is man-made they were saying God is man-made, which is not what they were saying all. You are just too slippery and squirrely to even talk to.

Syllogism alert. That's what's slippery and squirrelly.

What's squirrelly is trying to claim "religion" and "the realm of religion" are different concepts so that you can (1) assert that "the only realm of religion now is the hereafter" (direct quote from you), which you then assert (2) makes religion the same as mythology. Both premises are wrong.

Same for your attempt to distinguish "religion is manmade" from "God is manmade." The first implies the second and to pretend otherwise is dishonest, slippery and squirrelly.

If you don't see a difference you're too obtuse to talk to. And no, the first doesn't imply the second. "God" and "religion" are two very different concepts. Do we need a whole new thread to discuss that?

Go ahead and explain how these are "very" different concepts. We'll wait.

When OP (you?) talks about God being "mythical" they're necessarily bringing in all of religion. God by His nature entails everything rom the holy books to daily practice to God herself to the hereafter.

To pretend otherwise means either OP (you?) is dumb as a box of rocks, or they (you?) are completely disingenuous and trying to justify insulting believers.

You're kidding? One can believe in God without the priests and rituals and churches/tabernacles and "orthodoxy of belief" and passing the collection plate and all that. Religion is wholly different than a belief in God.

Of course. You're deliberately missing the point. OP wants to diss God, the holy books and the hereafter under the guise of calling "God" and "religion" mythical.

religion is mythical. It developed out of magic, and then soothsayers who predicted future events, then priests - do you honestly think Jesus would recognize these huge cathedrals and priests with the big pointy hats - and hunreds of pages of the book of Catechism? I just looked online and the Catechism book was $64 - what? There's you difference between God and religion right there.

Sigh from a different pp than the one with the Grammarly link.

We all--and this includes you--know the word "Religion" is a huge term that includes lots of things. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
1. personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2(a1). the service and worship of God or the supernatural
2(a2). commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2(b). the state of a religious -- a nun in her 20th year of religion
3. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Rambling on about the Catechism is just lazy (I'm not Catholic fwiw). "Religion" is all of the above.

You know perfectly well that when you call religion "manmade" you're insulting people along many dimensions, including their systems of beliefs and practices and the legitimacy of their God(s) if they have one. Or, you're dumb as a box of rocks where grammar and vocabulary are concerned. Take your pick.

?? Religion is man-made. How can anyone possibly argue otherwise? Go ahead, I'd love to hear it.

Roman Catholicism is the One True Religion, ordained by God. The protestant religions are all man-made off-shoots of it. That's what I learned in Catechism, anyway.

Coo. Do you believe that?

The atheist who was raised Catholic and now hates the religion was trying to be cute. Fail.

It's possible to appreciate religion without believing in it.

This is a great point. I adore studying religion. It's very close to myth, and some of those are unbelievably colorful and instructive about the human condition.

Sounds like the subject of a new thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From now on, so as not to offend anyone -- I'l use God/god. So does anyone think the God/god depicted in Genesis is anything other than myth? If so, how do you characterize it?

Not-the-editor here.

You're carefully narrowing the scope of your question to Genesis. As you know, the Christian Bible goes through Revelations and other religions also go much further than Genesis or don't use Genesis at all.

So I'll be very clear and equally specific in my answer. Yes, it's true that many believers think Genesis is literature.

But God in general is NOT a myth. Hope that forestalls the atheist who is always coming on to make "We all agree" posts about how, this time, God is a myth.

Hey, that's fine. At least you're answering the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From now on, so as not to offend anyone -- I'l use God/god. So does anyone think the God/god depicted in Genesis is anything other than myth? If so, how do you characterize it?

Not-the-editor here.

You're carefully narrowing the scope of your question to Genesis. As you know, the Christian Bible goes through Revelations and other religions also go much further than Genesis or don't use Genesis at all.

So I'll be very clear and equally specific in my answer. Yes, it's true that many believers think Genesis is literature.

But God in general is NOT a myth. Hope that forestalls the atheist who is always coming on to make "We all agree" posts about how, this time, God is a myth.

But do you find it insulting if someone refers to God as mythical? If so, why? (I think that was the question). I mean, what's the alternative explanation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From now on, so as not to offend anyone -- I'l use God/god. So does anyone think the God/god depicted in Genesis is anything other than myth? If so, how do you characterize it?

Not-the-editor here.

You're carefully narrowing the scope of your question to Genesis. As you know, the Christian Bible goes through Revelations and other religions also go much further than Genesis or don't use Genesis at all.

So I'll be very clear and equally specific in my answer. Yes, it's true that many believers think Genesis is literature.

But God in general is NOT a myth. Hope that forestalls the atheist who is always coming on to make "We all agree" posts about how, this time, God is a myth.

Not-the-editor here again. And you shouldn't need to be told this, but this is why it's insulting to refer to God as a myth. Because we know you don't just mean the God of Genesis, you mean the God of the whole Bible.

I see. Now we're getting somewhere. It's ok, to insult the OT because that's just myth, but not the NT?
So the virgin birth, the bodily ascension into heaven, walking on water, raising people from the dead -- that's not myth, that all really happened?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From now on, so as not to offend anyone -- I'l use God/god. So does anyone think the God/god depicted in Genesis is anything other than myth? If so, how do you characterize it?

Not-the-editor here.

You're carefully narrowing the scope of your question to Genesis. As you know, the Christian Bible goes through Revelations and other religions also go much further than Genesis or don't use Genesis at all.

So I'll be very clear and equally specific in my answer. Yes, it's true that many believers think Genesis is literature.

But God in general is NOT a myth. Hope that forestalls the atheist who is always coming on to make "We all agree" posts about how, this time, God is a myth.

But do you find it insulting if someone refers to God as mythical? If so, why? (I think that was the question). I mean, what's the alternative explanation?

Of course it's insulting too tell a believer their god is a myth. That you even have to ask says a lot about you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From now on, so as not to offend anyone -- I'l use God/god. So does anyone think the God/god depicted in Genesis is anything other than myth? If so, how do you characterize it?

Not-the-editor here.

You're carefully narrowing the scope of your question to Genesis. As you know, the Christian Bible goes through Revelations and other religions also go much further than Genesis or don't use Genesis at all.

So I'll be very clear and equally specific in my answer. Yes, it's true that many believers think Genesis is literature.

But God in general is NOT a myth. Hope that forestalls the atheist who is always coming on to make "We all agree" posts about how, this time, God is a myth.

Not-the-editor here again. And you shouldn't need to be told this, but this is why it's insulting to refer to God as a myth. Because we know you don't just mean the God of Genesis, you mean the God of the whole Bible.

I see. Now we're getting somewhere. It's ok, to insult the OT because that's just myth, but not the NT?
So the virgin birth, the bodily ascension into heaven, walking on water, raising people from the dead -- that's not myth, that all really happened?

That's not what I said. I never said the entire OT is a myth, you made that up. Your snark about the NT says everything about your bad faith and how its not worth engaging with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From now on, so as not to offend anyone -- I'l use God/god. So does anyone think the God/god depicted in Genesis is anything other than myth? If so, how do you characterize it?

Not-the-editor here.

You're carefully narrowing the scope of your question to Genesis. As you know, the Christian Bible goes through Revelations and other religions also go much further than Genesis or don't use Genesis at all.

So I'll be very clear and equally specific in my answer. Yes, it's true that many believers think Genesis is literature.

But God in general is NOT a myth. Hope that forestalls the atheist who is always coming on to make "We all agree" posts about how, this time, God is a myth.

But do you find it insulting if someone refers to God as mythical? If so, why? (I think that was the question). I mean, what's the alternative explanation?

Of course it's insulting too tell a believer their god is a myth. That you even have to ask says a lot about you.

What exactly? And what's wrong with myths? Be specific please