I Would be a Better God than God

One common theme I've come across in my discussions with Christians about things like the nature of God is this attempt to paint a picture of Him as beleaguered father, who has made the difficult but responsible decision to cut his children loose, allow them to make their mistakes, but still strive patiently with them and provide a way back to grace when they come and see my ways.

This metaphor of "God the father" of course is very well known, but I don't think people generally have an adequate appreciation of how literally this concept is understood. God the father has a relatable, emotional dilemma and is forced - just as you or I would - to do the right thing by us (his children) and just as anyone parent would understand, that right thing always comes with trade offs. 

This sort of personification possesses an incredible power. The sense of comradery and understanding from an all powerful being is one of the many tactics used from the pulpit that bring the ever malleable concept of the Judeo-Christian God to fit the emotional needs of a congregation. 

But it is a tactic that comes with baggage. 

Any time the notion of God made more accessible and is brought down from some abstract concept that is beyond our ability to perceive to a very human or physical basis, that concep is immediately brought down to a place where he can be scrutinized, questioned, criticized and yes, disproven.

If God didn't have an incorrect opinion on how the world began, or the timeline of certain historical milestones, then we would be oblivious to his failings on the matter. If God didn't behave exactly as you would expect the god of a violent Bronze Age tribe to behave, then maybe we would be more inclined to take him seriously in the 21st century. 

So how about fatherhood? What about the metaphor of God being a responsible father places his now relatable, human attributes under criticism. 

I was asked this question in a slightly different manner recently when a friend asked me how, as a hypothetical all powerful being, I would go about creating a world in which free will is possible and be loving at the same time? Clearly God, who is now brought down to relatable human terms, couldn't have possibly done anything different and his extension of free will is the only loving course of action for him. Right? 

So what would I do? It's simple really:

I would make it so that sin was not hereditary. 

As the creator of all living things and the rules we play by, God must have at some point decided to make it so that the sin of one man can render all of his descendants worthy of eternal damnation regardless of their personal decisions. 

Of course my main criticism against this is simply that it is unfair and very clearly not loving, but more importantly it is extremely unnecessary. I've asked a few theists this question, and no one hs ever even gander end a guess as to why it is either necessary or good. 

That is how I would be a more responsible God than God. I would not arbitrarily condemn every subsequent generation. I would respect free choice. 

How would you be a better God? 

CNN Covers the Boston Marathon Bombings like a Football Game

Maybe it's the gimmicky hologram, or maybe it's the oddly enthusiastic presentation from the commentator, but cable news sure does feel like a spectator sport these days. It's mostly harmless, but it's definitely not the best way to handle a national tragedy. I fear that treating it like a spectator sport just gets in the way of properly approaching the issue with the gravity and respect it deserves. 

A Boston Marathon and a Common Humanity

If you can suffer through a half hour of international coverage on any of the major news networks, odds are you will encounter footage of some Muslim individuals angrily decrying US imperialism en masse. Whether by design or not, this footage typically has the effect of scaring us and just contributing to the general sense that the non-Western world is a very scary, and very different place with a whole lot more barbarism than us sensible Americans would ever allow in our civilized culture.

The most effective snippets from this genre actually display celebration. Showing a large group of people with brown skin and a foreign tongue jumping up and down in ecstasy over some inevitable mishap in US foreign policy - whether it is a downed helicopter, an imprisoned CIA agent, or a successful terrorist attack - the image of jubilee over the desecration of something that we hold dear is particularly horrifying to us and it adds considerably to our mistrust of all things Muslim.

After all, how could a culture that celebrates our deepest pains ever be an ally? How can the hate that drives a population to behave in such a manner ever allow for coexistence?

These are legitimate concerns and questions that reflect significant obstacles to progress. Perhaps the sub-human fanfare seen this footage is only marketable and does not represent a majority of the present population. Maybe it does reflect widespread sentiments, but cultural education and understanding will correct that fact.

Perhaps.

But what if it is completely understandable? What if it is an extremely logical reaction to conditions on the ground? How would we react under similar circumstances?

Complete congruence is impossible, of course, but there are enough interesting parallels between your run of the mill successful-suicide-bombing party in Afghanistan or Iraq and the way we respond to events such as the killing Osama Bin Laden or, say, the capture of those responsible for the Boston Marathon Bombing to take notice.

Perhaps it is understandable to feel a sense of unity in the presence of a threat. Perhaps it is completely normal to celebrate when that threat has been dealt some justice. Maybe we get the occasional taste of what it is like to be a Muslim who is celebrating some violence against the United States.

Events such as the killing of Osama Bin Laden or the capture and killing of Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, respectively, give a reasonable answer to these questions. Just as we can go on the internet or watch the news and come across footage of foreigners celebrating violence against us, so too can Muslims find footage of us celebrating violence against them. I suspect that such images elicit the same feelings of anger, vengeance and distance in certain populations that similar footage elicits in us here at home - and regardless of who is right, that is a bad thing.

Please understand that this is not a comparison between the actions of terrorists who strike on US soil and soldiers who protect US interests abroad. I am not trying to make that judgement call. I am just trying to point out that responses to these types of events are extremely visceral and that we are not better than anyone who participate in such moments.

More specifically, I am trying to point out that such events create a distance between the two cultures that does not reflect reality or necessity.

Maybe we'd be better off not celebrating the defeat of enemies in ways that could be perceived as disrespectful.

Maybe it is advantageous to minimize the number of reasons they have to celebrate our sufferings.

I'm just asking