In the brain of a believer, and there are former believers here, anything can be justified once you swallow the naked assertion prior to applying any reason or logic to it. The justifications are after the fact, not going in.
It does not matter that Santa isn't real, what matters is that you got presents, and you assume he is real and not your parents.
But again, what is not done enough in the skeptic community is explaining the historical aspects as to why these omni characters in all the holy books are written like they were. Back then, even in polytheism you had your immovable ruler, and even the Ancient Greeks and Romans had that. Even their senates were ruled over one figure who while allowed the senate, still had the final say and absolute say, and the only way to remove him, back then was through assassination usually by a family member or a rival senator.
The religions of Asia and the Orient also had the same set ups, you had your ruling family, ruling class/including the military, and then the rest of society. Humans mistook their good fortune to the divine.
Monotheism simply was a streamlined spin off of the kingships of the time. It is why you see words like "Kingship" "lord" and "master" used, because that is what most humans lived under in antiquity.
The God character of all three books of Abraham is not an elected official whom you can vote out of office or have impeached. The "leave to Caesar" is still a puppet government and is merely telling followers to obey their dictators, but the dictators are still ultimately ruled by the ultimate immovable absolute power, God himself.
Those books do not reflect our modern concepts of rule by consent one bit, because back then, at best, you the layperson were a pet as long as you towed the tribal lines. Those holy books reflect the social norms of the times they lived in.
It does not matter that Santa isn't real, what matters is that you got presents, and you assume he is real and not your parents.
But again, what is not done enough in the skeptic community is explaining the historical aspects as to why these omni characters in all the holy books are written like they were. Back then, even in polytheism you had your immovable ruler, and even the Ancient Greeks and Romans had that. Even their senates were ruled over one figure who while allowed the senate, still had the final say and absolute say, and the only way to remove him, back then was through assassination usually by a family member or a rival senator.
The religions of Asia and the Orient also had the same set ups, you had your ruling family, ruling class/including the military, and then the rest of society. Humans mistook their good fortune to the divine.
Monotheism simply was a streamlined spin off of the kingships of the time. It is why you see words like "Kingship" "lord" and "master" used, because that is what most humans lived under in antiquity.
The God character of all three books of Abraham is not an elected official whom you can vote out of office or have impeached. The "leave to Caesar" is still a puppet government and is merely telling followers to obey their dictators, but the dictators are still ultimately ruled by the ultimate immovable absolute power, God himself.
Those books do not reflect our modern concepts of rule by consent one bit, because back then, at best, you the layperson were a pet as long as you towed the tribal lines. Those holy books reflect the social norms of the times they lived in.
