Pets (Theory 13473 (Revised) of Religious Behavior)

Christianity has classically placed God in a parental role and cast humanity as children. Christian literature is replete with endless references to "children of God," "God the father," "our heavenly father," and similar drivel. This is, on a certain, puerile level, an attractive metaphor, intended to inspire us to love God in the manner we normally love our parents. There is, however, a far more accurate model for the relationship between humanity and God: pet and owner. The pet/owner analogy makes the attraction of the divinity concept just slightly more understandable, and helps explain some of the weirder aspects of Christianity.

Analog Magazine presented one vision of human servitude Christian mythology ascribes to humanity a role of total servitude and slavish devotion to the one true god. Humans are so insignificant as to be pets for God's amusement. But religion is largely storytelling, so we should not be surprised if a similar theme can be found in other, non-religious sources. A few years ago there was a popular song called "Pets" by the defunct rock group "Porno for Pyros." The lyrics speculate that humans might be superseded by some other species, perhaps Martians, much as we replaced the dinosaurs. If this were to happen, the song suggests, "we'll make great pets" for the new masters of the planet. This theme of humanity relegated to the role of pet to some other species is a science fiction cliché, recounted in numerous stories and the movie "Fantastic Planet." The Porno for Pyros song has something of a haunting tone, but does not paint the prospect of petitiude in dire tones. The video, which was very popular on MTV, featured bikini-clad female bodybuilders cavorting about, demonstrating the sort of skills that would be essential to people who would "make great pets." Perhaps they had a Mars Needs Women scenario in mind. It all looks rather like fun, as if it wouldn't be too bad to be a pet. I can remember times in my childhood when I caught myself envying my dog, particularly when I had to leave early in the morning to partake of another day of parochial school hell. Dogs had no such worries. They live in a kind of heaven not unlike that presented in Christian lore, laying at their master's feet, their very reason for being only to provide amusement and affection. Perhaps this vision of the care-free dog's life and Christian cosmology are both attractive for the same reasons. They are certainly similar. More on this later.

The pet analogy is an improvement over the parent-child model, and I suggest that Christians and the similarly afflicted incorporate it into their teachings. I offer it freely, as a service to the religious community. It would help to resolve certain problems in Christian apologetics. For example, parents generally like to see their children happy, and share any suffering the offspring experience. This brings us squarely against the problem of the existence of evil, which Christians will generally brush aside as an unfortunate by-product of human free will. Even if one is willing to grant other large concessions in the Christian world view, did God really have to permit so much evil to befall its children? Couldn't it have tweaked a dial or moved a butterfly somewhere along the line so that we would have missed devastating events such as floods in Bangladesh or earthquakes in China? On the other hand, if we think of earth more as an ant farm than the children's play room, these events might make more sense - well, maybe a little more.

If humanity were really God's children, then we could look forward to someday achieving a functional parity with our parent. Even now, as children, we should be entitled to certain considerations and rights. This is unthinkable in the Christian context. Like pets, we are destined to be no more. The thought of humans becoming gods is a concept which has been condemned by religious leaders throughout the ages. In this case it is apparently not good to aspire to become too much like the parent. Why it would be wrong for us to become gods does not seem clear, other than that it would perhaps cut down on the stock of people to adore the original article, Jaweh. Apparently our love and adoration of God should be based largely upon fear. Other than its ability to frighten us, God offers little to engender devotion. As gods of equal status, without fear, we might not think much of Jaweh.

Parents should also treat their children in an evenhanded manner, but God certainly felt under no obligation to be fair with its subjects. It is even said to have chosen a favorite people, the Hebrews. It commanded them to smote their siblings, leading to generations of violent rivalries. Teaching children to smote can hardly be considered enlightened parenting. On the other hand, favoring one pet over the others is not considered abnormal.

Christians will argue that we are children of God because it made us in its image. A parent makes a child roughly in her or his image through sexual reproduction. Although God is said to have created sex, it isn't big on it. Even though it will take direct and effective action to kill, when it comes to the act of love, it just likes to watch. Evolution must be the means by which God created humanity. It could be viewed as similar to the breeding techniques by which humanity has derived such wonderfully deformed creations as the dachshund, the Hereford, and the seedless grape. This process of domestication makes us pets, not progeny.

As if any more proof were needed, the most revealing evidence is found right in our own language. As my father pointed out to me many years ago, god is dog spelled backwards. In the symmetric, dualistic Christian world, if it is our God, the we must be its dog. After all, belief is centered around dogma, much of which can be termed doggerel. Pardon me for waxing Farrakhanesqe with the word play, but can these be just meaningless coincidences? Remember: "God does not play dice with the universe."