How is 'Jesus Son of God' different from sons of Greek gods? Ever hear sermon on this?

[NeoGreen]

44. I could say the same thing about anyone...

...who treats the bible as historical, informative and/or useful (in a positive sense).

However, the supposition that jesus is merely an amalgamation of magical attributes and associated miracles gleaned from historic fictional figures is supported by a preponderance of the narrative similarities between them (i.e. Mithra, Hercules, Horus, Attis, and Adonis) and what is written in the text of the bible.

Your ability to provide apparent criticism of a few elements of comparisons, provided within the ffrf non-track references, is notwithstanding. Graves names 16 crucified saviors, you provided criticism of only the comparison (i.e. Krishna). Then you jump to the broad dismissal that "Graves and similar authors provide us nothing useful", all the while apparently supporting narratives from the bible as true? Wow.

It should be noted that not all of the attributes of each of these historical fictional figures were applied to the fictional jesus. That is not the claim. Finding individual elements that don't match the separate jesus narrative isn't valid criticism.

The "Nothing Useful" tagline truly should be applied to the bible as a whole.
It maybe historically significant (can't get the full gist of Shakespeare without a passing knowledge of the bible) but as a stand-alone document it provides almost nothing useful to the human condition.

The bible is the fictional story that should be earnestly labeled as garbage.