Actually, "God plays the villain" all the time

It is interesting that Baden seems to accept, though in a wishy-washy manner, that God can be a "villain." There are a few points that I do agree with him despite having different reasons and interpretations. For instance, I agree that when it comes to explaining/accepting the existence of evil; "This is our problem, not the Bible’s." I would differ from him in some fairly obvious ways. Namely, since the Bible is a work of fiction created by us the impetus in figuring out evil still falls on us. Even if you insist on the Bible being some type of supernatural work it still would not be the fault of the Bible directly. The Bible is pretty clear that God is a tyrannical psychopath so it is not likely to help us with examining the nature of evil in any meaningful way.

This line of thought leads to some other differences I take with the overall approach and implications of Baden's "When God plays the villain" piece. The title suggests it is only an occasional thing that God is the bad guy. How does that not eviscerate some of the most commonly held beliefs about God. If God is the supreme being and the creator/source of all things then God must the origin of evil. God cannot "play" the villain since God is the villain. It is equally true (within the context) that if evil is always present then God is constantly rather than occasionally the villain. This in turn leads to a variety of dilemmas and paradoxes for theists. How can an all-powerful and perfect God be both benign and malevolent simultaneously? How can an absolute divine being create freewill? If humans cannot violate the basic traits of  a perfect entity (Omnipotent, Omniscient...) how can we possess freewill or any responsibility or meaning? And so forth...

Overall, it is an interesting piece. I enjoyed reading most of it but was a bit disappointed with how he winds it down. I should have seen it coming despite hoping for something more substantial. The very last sentence was an all too common theistic dodge.
"In other words, it is our changing concept of God, over two millennia, that is responsible for the moral dilemma. It’s our problem, not the Bible’s."
No, in other words, bullshit. Every version of the God concept is problematic. The concept is by its nature a paradox. It is from its contradictions and incompatible components that makes it a dilemma.

Another Theistic Conundrum

Assuming the basic premise of "Not all religious convictions are written in stone" it still leads to some inconvenient questions. For instance, if religious convictions are not universal and unchanging what makes them sacred? What makes them any different from any other type of belief(s)? Why should special allowances, which most theists still insist on, be made for faith? It seems to me that this is a theological catch-22. If you allow for change and accept, at least partially modernity and reality, you loose any special claims. If you don't allow for change you add to the variety and strength of criticisms that advancing knowledge inevitably pile up against religion as a whole, which results in religion's irrelevance.

This dilemma is not blunted by the author's preference to focus almost entirely on Homosexual rights. The ideas and questions implied in the title remain no matter hard theists try to deflect them with special pleading or delusional ploys.