I suppose the safest approach when citing specific examples relating to religious faith and doctrine is to be sure and always preface it by saying, “some people believe that . . . ,” or “according to the biblical account of . . . , apparently . . . , at least as the story goes,” or even “some religions teach that . . . ,” etc. That way, whomever you’re talking to will be clear that whatever you’re mentioning about whatever biblical or religious account you might be referring to is not something in any way from you or even in agreement with you, but simply a fact about a story or concept which already has been put out there by someone else. For example, whatever you said regarding the “story of the Nephilim,” as long as it was prefaced by something like “according to . . . ,” or “I heard that some people believe that . . . ,” then you should be relatively fine. (As opposed to just starting off with “So, the wicked angels see the daughters of men and . . . ,” blah, blah, as though giving some subtle indication that it’s somehow something you believe in and may even be personally passionate about.)
It’s like when a newspaper article is referring to something to which the editors don’t want to possibly convey any impression that they might be adopting the views or opinions of whatever it is they’re reporting on and so they be sure to put lots of quotation marks around things and use syntax that just informs but only in a purely objective and dispassionate manner.
In other words, you can get away with a lot simply by simple semantics incorporating a complete dispassionate neutrality. It may seem a trifle dry and robotic, but those neutral prefaces and precious quotation marks are the tools of the trade for effectively covering one’s butt in any situation.
