Who Made God?

I'll just comment on your subtitle line.It is my understanding that uncaused quantum events are happening all the time.So who needs an uncaused cause, when such uncaused things are all around us?

I do follow Bruce Gerencser's blog.I'll give you my perspective. I was raised as a Christian. I spent considerable time reading the Bible. There was a lot that I liked about the ideas of Jesus.What I could not help noticing, was the hypocrisy in the Church.Politically I tend toward liberal (but not to the extremes of progressives). I'm liberal, because that's what Jesus taught. His "love your neighbor" ideas seemed to fit well with liberalism, but not with conservatism. I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but not a social conservative.I look at the social conservatives.Jesus said that we should welcome the stranger. The social conservatives say "deport, deport, deport."Jesus said that we should heal the sick. The social conservatives say "cut medicaid."Jesus said we should feed the hungry. The social conservatives say "cut SNAP".Jesus was concerned about "the least of these". The social conservatives care only about themselves.Objectively, the social conservatives are anti-Christian. Yet they claim to be Christian. That's the hypocrisy that I was seeing.That was when I left the church. I had thought of that as being an unchurched Christian. Maybe I still am. But I want nothing to do with the hypocrisy that I see in the church.On the God question, I'm agnostic. I don't think it is knowable whether there is a god. But, after leaving the church, it became increasingly clear that the stories about God are all made up by humans. In that sense, man created God. And theology seems to just be creative fiction. "Heaven" as described in Genesis is really just the sky. The Christian ideas about heaven and hell seem to all made up. But somehow the biblical literalists are not at all literalist about how they understand "heaven".I also follow John Pavlovitz's blog (or substack). Pavlovitz is a former pastor, and still a Christian. He seems to understand Christianity the way that I do. His opinion about the social conservatives is similar to mine.

I mostly agree with what you quoted from Bruce Gerencser, although I would not word it the same way. In particular, the religious right are not following the Biblical Jesus. I tend to think of them as anti-Christian or as fake Christians. They seem to have invented a racist Jesus.I recently came across a podcast featuring a discussion between John Pavlovic and John Fugelsang. 'The Christian Left' Conversation With John Fugelsang. John Fugelsang is doing most of the talking in that podcast. My view of Christianity is very similar to his.

I'm considering whether to buy it. But I won't get the audio version, as I prefer to read. At least it is giving you food for thought. I can't answer that. I never hated him. I mostly ignored him. However, if he spent time saying provocative things, maybe he provoked people.

quote:

---

Conservatives, well before Kirk’s time, have been trying to reclaim education from liberals whom they view as valuing equity and belonging instead of timeless values of order and traditional values in society.

---

I think you are quoting that from Fugelsang. It is probably correct as an assessment of how conservatives look at it. But they are mistaken. They cannot reclaim education from liberals, because liberals do not own it. It's just that liberals are better at it than conservatives.It's a mistake to see liberals as "valuing equity and belonging". That might describe a small fringe group on the left, but it does not describe most liberals. And liberals are concerned about timeless values. The "timeless values" that the conservatives want are not actually timeless.

quote:

---

It is focused on returning to what conservatives call Western and “traditional” values. This means rolling back the clock to an idealized time when men and women had set gender roles in society and life was more harmonious and wholesome.

---

Traditional values are not timeless values. That idealized time never actually existed and never could exist.

quote:

---

This philosophy also has to do with not feeling a need to apologize for one’s identity. A big divide between liberals and conservatives is how they explain disadvantage. Conservatives like Kirk believe they should not have to apologize for their identities, and other people’s identities should not be a reason for special treatment.

---

I have never felt a need to apologize for my identity. And I have never worried about explaining disadvantage. People are all different, and we can celebrate the differences.You prefer audio-books. I prefer reading text. That's a difference. That audio-books exist is a special treatment that suits you. Why should I object to that?It seems that liberals recognize that there is value in diversity, and they try to accommodate their teaching to the particular student.

quote:

---

This philosophy is not so much about making education more effective as much as it is about not being “woke.”

---

In terms of modern slang, Jesus was woke. If you reject woke, then you cannot be a follower of Jesus.

I'm about halfway through reading. I've just finished chapter 7.Fugelsang argues his position quite well.This is how I have always understood Christianity. I formed my ideas based on reading the gospels (and other parts of the Bible). When I reached middle teens in age, I began to notice that many Church members were not even trying to live up to the teachings of Jesus. I saw that as hypocrisy. As a result, the Christian nationalists seem not at all Christian.Because of the hypocrisy, I abandoned Church long ago.

Here's another podcast that I think you might appreciate. 'The Christian Left' Conversation With Thom HartmannIt's a conversation between John Pavlovitz and Thom Hartmann.

I would not say that.People are complex, with complex motivations. Some Christian Nationalists are supporting Israel, but I would be cautious about jumping to broad conclusions about that.I'm inclined to think of Revelation as fantasy rather than as prophecy.

Yes, much the same here. But I became disenchanted when I saw all of the hypocrisy in the Church. I left once I realized that the churches were preaching a counterfeit Christianity.It is indeed good to see some people (such as John Fugelsang and James Talarico) presenting the real deal.

You misunderstood what Rahvin was saying.It is James Talarico (not Fred Rogers) who is a Texas state legislator.