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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so we're all in agreement then it's NOT insulting.
I haven't heard otherwise.

It can be insulting, particularly when used as an insult as 11:59 pointed out. Comparing the God of modern Christians and Jews and Muslims to Santa Clause or the gods in ancient mythology texts, as an intentional insult to the intelligence of modern people of various religions is insulting. Also, usually when it is insulting, it is not necessarily because of the word "mythical," which has a broad academic meaning that can be aptly applied to any belief system, but because the insulter is often intentionally mischaracterizing the belief system, e.g., mockingly suggesting that the believer thinks God is a white man with a white beard in the white clouds granting wishes and striking down sinners with lightening, and such. In other words, taking paintings, and literature, and movies and other imagery in a literal sense for the purpose of mockery, and reducing an entire religion to that imagery.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here since plenty of people believe exactly that. I agree that mocking them isn't nice, but to suggest that they don't "literally" believe that is a bit delusional also.

Agreed. There is one painting of a blond, blue eyed Jesus that was very popular. Chances are that Jesus, a 1st century mideastern Jew, didn't look like that at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so we're all in agreement then it's NOT insulting.
I haven't heard otherwise.

It can be insulting, particularly when used as an insult as 11:59 pointed out. Comparing the God of modern Christians and Jews and Muslims to Santa Clause or the gods in ancient mythology texts, as an intentional insult to the intelligence of modern people of various religions is insulting. Also, usually when it is insulting, it is not necessarily because of the word "mythical," which has a broad academic meaning that can be aptly applied to any belief system, but because the insulter is often intentionally mischaracterizing the belief system, e.g., mockingly suggesting that the believer thinks God is a white man with a white beard in the white clouds granting wishes and striking down sinners with lightening, and such. In other words, taking paintings, and literature, and movies and other imagery in a literal sense for the purpose of mockery, and reducing an entire religion to that imagery.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here since plenty of people believe exactly that. I agree that mocking them isn't nice, but to suggest that they don't "literally" believe that is a bit delusional also.

No, plenty of people don't believe exactly that. That kind of thinking went out with the Ark of the Covenant's mercy seat, i.e. several thousand years ago. Just because Michelangelo painted a pretty picture of God reaching out to Adam doesn't mean he or viewers of the time thought that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which god? Odin? Siva? Perun? Athena? Herne the Huntsman? Nah, I don't think it's offensive.

These days, no one believes in those gods, so it's perfectly obvious that when you're talking about "god" you mean the one god that believers believe in, even though people have many different ways of manifesting their beliefs.

You’re very confident in your ignorance. I don’t see how it’s any less offensive to call your god mythical than anyone else’s. If you call Zeus mythical, you really can’t be offended someone someone calls your god mythical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so we're all in agreement then it's NOT insulting.
I haven't heard otherwise.

It can be insulting, particularly when used as an insult as 11:59 pointed out. Comparing the God of modern Christians and Jews and Muslims to Santa Clause or the gods in ancient mythology texts, as an intentional insult to the intelligence of modern people of various religions is insulting. Also, usually when it is insulting, it is not necessarily because of the word "mythical," which has a broad academic meaning that can be aptly applied to any belief system, but because the insulter is often intentionally mischaracterizing the belief system, e.g., mockingly suggesting that the believer thinks God is a white man with a white beard in the white clouds granting wishes and striking down sinners with lightening, and such. In other words, taking paintings, and literature, and movies and other imagery in a literal sense for the purpose of mockery, and reducing an entire religion to that imagery.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here since plenty of people believe exactly that. I agree that mocking them isn't nice, but to suggest that they don't "literally" believe that is a bit delusional also.

No, plenty of people don't believe exactly that. That kind of thinking went out with the Ark of the Covenant's mercy seat, i.e. several thousand years ago. Just because Michelangelo painted a pretty picture of God reaching out to Adam doesn't mean he or viewers of the time thought that.

I don't think you've talked to any fundamentalist baptists or listened to Christian radio.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which god? Odin? Siva? Perun? Athena? Herne the Huntsman? Nah, I don't think it's offensive.

These days, no one believes in those gods, so it's perfectly obvious that when you're talking about "god" you mean the one god that believers believe in, even though people have many different ways of manifesting their beliefs.

You’re very confident in your ignorance. I don’t see how it’s any less offensive to call your god mythical than anyone else’s. If you call Zeus mythical, you really can’t be offended someone someone calls your god mythical.

I agree with this. And evidence was shown earlier that people do still believe in Zeus and other ancient gods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheist here. I think it's insulting to refer to a god (any god) that someone believes in as a myth when talking to that person.

What about in a forum like this when you are talking to virtually everyone?

You may not know their specific religion but you can be pretty sure that they don't believe in an ancient religion that has multiple gods.

For centuries now, the major religions have had only one god, and I think it's the same god, but with different beliefs depending on the specific religion (e.g., , etc.)

^ That's highly debatable. There were posts on the other thread (the one that got reported) by one or more people who strongly disagreed with that, and indeed were offended by that assertion.

I certainly didn't intend to insult anyone. When you say "...people who strongly disagreed with that...." are you saying that there are people today who believe in multiple gods? Which religions are those? Or are you saying that people (e.g., Christians, Jews, Muslims) don't believe in the same god?

The Hindus believe in multiple gods.
I've heard in argued the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three gods. Trinitarianism can be a difficult concept to grasp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so we're all in agreement then it's NOT insulting.
I haven't heard otherwise.

It can be insulting, particularly when used as an insult as 11:59 pointed out. Comparing the God of modern Christians and Jews and Muslims to Santa Clause or the gods in ancient mythology texts, as an intentional insult to the intelligence of modern people of various religions is insulting. Also, usually when it is insulting, it is not necessarily because of the word "mythical," which has a broad academic meaning that can be aptly applied to any belief system, but because the insulter is often intentionally mischaracterizing the belief system, e.g., mockingly suggesting that the believer thinks God is a white man with a white beard in the white clouds granting wishes and striking down sinners with lightening, and such. In other words, taking paintings, and literature, and movies and other imagery in a literal sense for the purpose of mockery, and reducing an entire religion to that imagery.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here since plenty of people believe exactly that. I agree that mocking them isn't nice, but to suggest that they don't "literally" believe that is a bit delusional also.

Agreed. There is one painting of a blond, blue eyed Jesus that was very popular. Chances are that Jesus, a 1st century mideastern Jew, didn't look like that at all.

Art is art, not belief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheist here. I think it's insulting to refer to a god (any god) that someone believes in as a myth when talking to that person.

What about in a forum like this when you are talking to virtually everyone?

You may not know their specific religion but you can be pretty sure that they don't believe in an ancient religion that has multiple gods.

For centuries now, the major religions have had only one god, and I think it's the same god, but with different beliefs depending on the specific religion (e.g., , etc.)

^ That's highly debatable. There were posts on the other thread (the one that got reported) by one or more people who strongly disagreed with that, and indeed were offended by that assertion.

I certainly didn't intend to insult anyone. When you say "...people who strongly disagreed with that...." are you saying that there are people today who believe in multiple gods? Which religions are those? Or are you saying that people (e.g., Christians, Jews, Muslims) don't believe in the same god?

Are Allah, Yahweh and Jesus the same god? Some say no; this was indeed a bone of contention on the other thread. Personally, lean toward yes, but views on this vary markedly. You seem to be pretending they don't, which is either naive or disingenuous.

Jesus is the son of god, i.e., "Yahweh" right? Maybe I'm wrong about the names/relationships of the various gods, but I don't think non-believers, or people who have different beliefs, can be expected to know the intricacies of other religions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheist here. I think it's insulting to refer to a god (any god) that someone believes in as a myth when talking to that person.

What about in a forum like this when you are talking to virtually everyone?

You may not know their specific religion but you can be pretty sure that they don't believe in an ancient religion that has multiple gods.

For centuries now, the major religions have had only one god, and I think it's the same god, but with different beliefs depending on the specific religion (e.g., , etc.)

^ That's highly debatable. There were posts on the other thread (the one that got reported) by one or more people who strongly disagreed with that, and indeed were offended by that assertion.

I certainly didn't intend to insult anyone. When you say "...people who strongly disagreed with that...." are you saying that there are people today who believe in multiple gods? Which religions are those? Or are you saying that people (e.g., Christians, Jews, Muslims) don't believe in the same god?

The Hindus believe in multiple gods.
I've heard in argued the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three gods. Trinitarianism can be a difficult concept to grasp.

A Christian would not make such an argument. People of other religions don't need to grasp the beliefs of a religion they don't believe in themselves. I think the insult comes in deriding such beliefs, not in not believing in them, or in not understanding them.

[Anonymous]

No. It's insulting for the beliefs of a religion to infringe upon the rights and lives of non-believers.

It shows a lack of respect. I then reciprocate that lack of respect back for most organized religions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which god? Odin? Siva? Perun? Athena? Herne the Huntsman? Nah, I don't think it's offensive.

These days, no one believes in those gods, so it's perfectly obvious that when you're talking about "god" you mean the one god that believers believe in, even though people have many different ways of manifesting their beliefs.

You’re very confident in your ignorance. I don’t see how it’s any less offensive to call your god mythical than anyone else’s. If you call Zeus mythical, you really can’t be offended someone someone calls your god mythical.

People can get offended over anything they want. It doesn't have to make sense to others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheist here. I think it's insulting to refer to a god (any god) that someone believes in as a myth when talking to that person.

What about in a forum like this when you are talking to virtually everyone?

You may not know their specific religion but you can be pretty sure that they don't believe in an ancient religion that has multiple gods.

For centuries now, the major religions have had only one god, and I think it's the same god, but with different beliefs depending on the specific religion (e.g., , etc.)

^ That's highly debatable. There were posts on the other thread (the one that got reported) by one or more people who strongly disagreed with that, and indeed were offended by that assertion.

I certainly didn't intend to insult anyone. When you say "...people who strongly disagreed with that...." are you saying that there are people today who believe in multiple gods? Which religions are those? Or are you saying that people (e.g., Christians, Jews, Muslims) don't believe in the same god?

The Hindus believe in multiple gods.
I've heard in argued the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three gods. Trinitarianism can be a difficult concept to grasp.

A Christian would not make such an argument. People of other religions don't need to grasp the beliefs of a religion they don't believe in themselves. I think the insult comes in deriding such beliefs, not in not believing in them, or in not understanding them.

o.k, I think you're right about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheist here. I think it's insulting to refer to a god (any god) that someone believes in as a myth when talking to that person.

What about in a forum like this when you are talking to virtually everyone?

You may not know their specific religion but you can be pretty sure that they don't believe in an ancient religion that has multiple gods.

For centuries now, the major religions have had only one god, and I think it's the same god, but with different beliefs depending on the specific religion (e.g., , etc.)

^ That's highly debatable. There were posts on the other thread (the one that got reported) by one or more people who strongly disagreed with that, and indeed were offended by that assertion.

I certainly didn't intend to insult anyone. When you say "...people who strongly disagreed with that...." are you saying that there are people today who believe in multiple gods? Which religions are those? Or are you saying that people (e.g., Christians, Jews, Muslims) don't believe in the same god?

The Hindus believe in multiple gods.
I've heard in argued the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three gods. Trinitarianism can be a difficult concept to grasp.

A Christian would not make such an argument. People of other religions don't need to grasp the beliefs of a religion they don't believe in themselves. I think the insult comes in deriding such beliefs, not in not believing in them, or in not understanding them.

But the question is whether it's insulting to refer to god as a "myth." Do you think that's "deriding" their beliefs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which god? Odin? Siva? Perun? Athena? Herne the Huntsman? Nah, I don't think it's offensive.

These days, no one believes in those gods, so it's perfectly obvious that when you're talking about "god" you mean the one god that believers believe in, even though people have many different ways of manifesting their beliefs.

You’re very confident in your ignorance. I don’t see how it’s any less offensive to call your god mythical than anyone else’s. If you call Zeus mythical, you really can’t be offended someone someone calls your god mythical.

People can get offended over anything they want. It doesn't have to make sense to others.

True. Christians are really good at being hypocritical like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so we're all in agreement then it's NOT insulting.
I haven't heard otherwise.

It can be insulting, particularly when used as an insult as 11:59 pointed out. Comparing the God of modern Christians and Jews and Muslims to Santa Clause or the gods in ancient mythology texts, as an intentional insult to the intelligence of modern people of various religions is insulting. Also, usually when it is insulting, it is not necessarily because of the word "mythical," which has a broad academic meaning that can be aptly applied to any belief system, but because the insulter is often intentionally mischaracterizing the belief system, e.g., mockingly suggesting that the believer thinks God is a white man with a white beard in the white clouds granting wishes and striking down sinners with lightening, and such. In other words, taking paintings, and literature, and movies and other imagery in a literal sense for the purpose of mockery, and reducing an entire religion to that imagery.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here since plenty of people believe exactly that. I agree that mocking them isn't nice, but to suggest that they don't "literally" believe that is a bit delusional also.

You'll have to enlighten me on which religions define and teach that God is a literal old man sitting on a literal cloud. I'm not familiar with any, but always interested to learn. I realize that there are some Biblical literalist sects arising from a movement at Princeton Seminary in the 1920s (today's tent revivals), but I don't think even they hold this image as literal.

Deepok Chopra wrote a book called "How to Know God," which walks through the levels of intellectualism in modern religion. It's short and interesting starting point for those interested in exploring what different religions actually believe.