Since I don't believe that a supernatural entity intervenes in the world or will "come to Earth", I have been viewing Hindu deities and the God of the bible as purely symbolic.
If you wish to define gods as merely methaphores for natural phenomenon then fine, but it would immediately make any religions based around this definition kind of pointless as I doubt many theists would agree with this notion.
Don't underestimate the power of symbols; people's entire subconscious functions on that level.
There actually are a lot of liberal Christians for example who hold their faith quite loosely and non-literally. Their faith isn't pointless; it provides them with belonging, refuge, and incitement to be egalitarian and inclusive and to perform charitable works.
On a worldwide basis, last I looked, only about 17% of Christians identify as evangelicals. So it is almost a certainty that most Christians are less rigid than evangelicals concerning literalism, inerrantism, and authoritarianism in their religion.
I still consider liberal Christianity way too crufty for me to want to play in that sandbox. It still lacks a sufficient commitment, in my view, to critical thinking. However ... I do not discount the power of its appeal to many people.
Even as Catholic (and a more "Evangelical" Christian), I viewed the Trinity as a symbol. Despite my exit from the Catholic Church, I find myself using Christian language. At the end of the day, I don't care what theists think about my beliefs.
Aesop may have also had separate authors, but at least the stories were separate, instead of the fragmented, discordant vomit the bible presents.