Is it wrong to humanize, tame and domesticate the idea of God in a way where it is suitable for consumption and inheritance of what Godliness means? When I think of God I want to think of it as a nurturing force, as we homogenize milk made fit for our consumption of human beings. The question I ask is how can we make God beneficial to humanity? Should the idea of God be made secular (abiding to government), ethically and done with practicality? We do it everyday without considering this fact, so lets go all out on this idea. A tool, a friend and a overseeing father who has three possible functions in maintaining a meaningful perspective in life. As much as I want to have a beautiful exotic lion in the house, how practical would it be to keep this lion (I’ll call God for now) rather than a pet cat or dog. At the peril of getting eaten by one, mauled or injured I may not put up with the Lion. Where as a household pet with the potential and capabilities of God would be ideal. Just as you would prefer to surf the net or listen to music on your phone rather than on that clunky yet powerful, immobile, computer of yours, practicality is key.
I would rather have a pocket sized informative encyclopedia of ideal models of ideas of what makes up life rather then a primitive recollection of all the random events that lead up to modern day for example. This also depends on the situation or function which you require this form of information (book in this case) to be used. If you are looking for the roots of some religion about god. There are stories describing the roots of Christianity/The Bible, Islam/Quran and Jewish/Torah. If we can make a collective effort to map out the collection of ideas completely with alternatives included that would give oversight and weed out terrible ideas. The comparison of what is “to be” in the end and what was initially at the start is an unfair comparison but that is what is happening with this situation right now. People cannot be looking to a religious books for an expansion of knowledge but more so for insight. For example looking into a timeline where a person is tending goats, farming, punishing those for blasphemy, worrying about their next meal and where to fetch clean water more so than living in a city and dealing with laws of man, you cannot use these books based on their targeted timeline in a modern age.
This day and age, the idea of slavery is changed humanized to know it is wrong to own another human, discrimination is changed domesticated to know that we should be understanding of our differences yet step up when someone is intolerant of a person based on their racial identity, sexuality is changed civilized to understand that people are just born a certain way and to accept them. In this day and age a black, gay, Muslim man can exist in Britain, Canada or USA (many other countries) whereas the life expectancy of one in any other country in the middle east drastically goes down, why is this? If life was a popularity contest and popularity is based on agreement of what is fair and not Islam being the center of religious conflict divided even among its people would be losing and we need not any brains to identify why. It has a problem with intolerance, anti-gay and possibly even anti-woman.
I will admit i am intolerant of intolerance. I will not stand by to see a person be hateful and destructive towards another person’s life based on their intolerance. If ever i were to identify as a bigot i would identify as a bigot for bigotry. Which in my opinion we should all be, no one should sit by while someone is slut shaming, bullying or displaying great hate towards a special minority. In this case I may be pointing out that Islam has a problem and by me putting it on a spectrum where it is at the wrong i may be contradicting my ideas of being intolerant of intolerance. But there is a difference of being intolerant of intolerant action, and just being intolerant of intolerant thought. Just because I draw out a spectrum, identify which system i prefer, God I follow, and then come to the conclusion which is undesirable does not make me a hand of intolerance. I am simply an independent realization helping those see their options and opportunities. I have no radical interest or hand in where this intolerance goes, I am simply one who gives oversight of the situation, rerouting and inspiring.
The building of paradigms gives the ability for oversight which is the over seeing and assessing of all information as a collective, taking into consideration all aspects of life and putting it into a spectrum to be evaluated for yourself what comes first and last so we can weed out terrible ideas from decent ones. I plan to do this in my upcoming project. I have a neutral stance and completely open to ideas, I have no real agenda other then to help those have options, opinions and opportunities in the matter that is life. This is all just a healing process, I may just appear to be the scab (undesirable and ugly) but the end result will be better.