Wow. "Can't balance these things"? Sure, I can. Along with the critical historians, I dismiss the transparently self-serving parts of the gospel narratives, such as the line of about Jesus handing over the keys to the kingdom to Peter, since I'm aware that the gospels were written decades after Jesus would have lived and that they were meant to promote Christian communities. Just because I grant for the sake of argument that the gospels present a coherent portrait of a character named Jesus doesn't mean I concede that every word of the New Testament is historical or is relevant to figuring out who Jesus likely was. Some parts are more likely to go back to a historical Jesus than others. So that's how I balance that.

No, I hardly put myself in a Christ-like position. I have nothing to do with it. I'm just an outsider stating the obvious which those who are too close and emotionally attached to the material can't see or admit.

And I'm not speaking to God here. I'm talking about what the most plausible version of Christianity entails. It's not my religion, so it's Christians who have the burden to not be outrageously hypocritical, given their stated principles.