Now scratch computer games like
Sid Meiser's CIVILIZATION for a moment. In those games you only play the eternal leader of one tribe/city-state/nation/empire.
Think of
The Sims or
Sim City or that older game where you're literally god competing with a rivel god for mortal followers and domion over a whole world. What kind of personality among us enjoys that? The game,
Sim City was amusing to an extent, but eventually you have that evil impulse to bring disasters onto a city you worked so hard to plan, develop and maintain.
I never played
The Sims, because watching people live their daily humdrum lives, in my estimation, didn't require a computer and I hate that soap operah shit anyway. I get more than me
unfair share just within my own family.
As for the god game? Tried it for awhile, but too much effort and too difficult to get wily mortals to keep on the path I set. Constantly having to "amaze teh natives" with miracles and wonders, to then set them off for missionary work and even having to mold the land just ahead of where they'd step to aid their way. Fuck that shit! It's labor intensive! All while some wise-ass anti-god does the same thing to exact opposite ends just to fuck with'ya.
So if- as Christianity suggests, and the other Abrahamic religions
somewhat elude to, that a real god has certain human aspects to it, then what? Think about this god sitting in front of its computer- or in front of its
ant colony... watching... manipulating... brooding over every aspect of the lives fully within its unchallengable domion.
Would you trust it?
More importantly, I suppose, would you deem it worthy of the title "god?"
I suggest that whatever it is that passes for the real god [or gods- let's not be biased here] can't be remotely human. It has to be better, and possibly not even what we'd consider a person; something possessed with a personality. What if the god, in order to be all that's best in the universe and/or outside of the universe, has to be a thing, a phenomenon in order to pass muster? It still exudes unconditional love, omnipotent power and spiritual-intellectual illumination, just as a fire provides warming, versatility in purposes as well as light. But if it must be an impersonable thing to fit the bill would that not prove correct both the atheist and the theist/
believer? And if so, is that so bad?
Questions?
Comments?
insults?
