I’m sorry, I might have biased your answer. Surely, like I said, people go to war on God’s behalf but there are some more humane crusades and some finer jihads than literal war. In the name of God people spread lots of love, they volunteer to build houses and community centres, to deliver 28 flavours of basic education to the needy, to provide food and water and shelter.
If we are to infer a personality from God based on what people say and do in the name of God, then we must take into account everything that’s done on his behalf, not just the cosmically hilarity of us, fleas of the universe, killing each other as if it actually mattered. But my major problem with your argument is that it explains past events at the cost of not being able to foresee what people are going to do on God’s behalf. That’s like being vaguely acquainted to God, it makes sense that he did this and that, but you’re not really sure what he’s going to do next. Can’t say we know his personality, now, can we?
(Plus, your argument begs the point that Godwise, the nazis and commies were the Good Guys, a rather tough to swallow collateral).
Except I don’t like memes. But yes, in part, yes. Most of the time, if we have two different wills inside of our heads (call them memes if you must), and they seem to oppose each other, then one of them must prevail before we’re able to take action. Society isn’t like that: if a society has two wills among its people and they seem to oppose each other, it might just as well be that both prevail.
Then, either God is an inconsistent pile of memeplexes, or else he’s one step removed from them: he’s a person just like us, subject to memes just like us, but taking action with an eye on those memes unlike us. The question then would be: why, and how. But don’t use memes, they weren’t conceived for that, they seem to confuse, more than enlighten… everything. But especially God. I’m trying to think of God as a politician of sorts, not as meme stuff.
(Otherwise the whole discussion becomes rather boring anyway but it would be good to try and back up that yes, I’m still undecided about it and it’s definitely food for thought).
That has some interesting implications, but one is rather intriguing. Your explanation begs the point that God is happening, that’s to say, he’s embeded in time. We are his inner turmoil, and history is the resolution of God’s own opposing wills. History is his biography, the many forces behind each historical event, his wills. Now, if we accept (and I can rather elegantly argue this point if you want) that the Devil is Time, or at least is determinant to Time, we would have to accept that our perception of God is at best in relation to (and under the strict terms) of the Devil. Which is a quite intriguing point.
Also, your notion seems to encompass human action to such an extent that it cannot account for those people who act relative to God, but not on his behalf (atheists, commies, nazis, hindus &c)… even worse when it comes to people who are indifferent to God.
When people take action relative to God, or on behalf of God, what do they say that makes them sure God really approves of their decisions?