That’s quite enough: there are so very many modern Christians who do think and feel that that’s an appropriate role for their god…
I wouldn’t call them bastards of the world, but they might think that of themselves, since they also believe in original sin and the necessity of becoming reconciled, through their own effort, splus the intercession of a sacrificed deity/sibling, with a very demanding father figure.
I would be more inclined to call them spiritual orphans of the world. Civilization both alienated humans from nature (which is figured as the mother, even while we’re raping her) and put them in thrall to the masculine/patriarchal/militaristic command-structure. This was a huge loss of status, autonomy and control for the vast majority of men. (For women, it was straight bondage and punishment.) Civilization does to men what it does to dogs: keeps them in a perpetual state of dependency, or puppyhood. So, of course they long for a better father - an authority figure above the sergeant, the department-head, the district judge, the sheriff, the governor, the king, generalissimo the fuhrer or whatever mortal man they have to obey.
There is. of course, a simpler explanation: Nature is dangerous, indifferent and implacable. Early humans were very much at its mercy. Yet, in the activities of weather, water, vegetation and wildlife, they could see - or imagine - purpose and intelligence. If they could perceive a mind behind nature, they might be able to influence the decisions of that mind. If they could just figure out what the gods want, they could maybe have their own wishes granted. So they projected their own kind of though-process onto the forces of nature: invented something they could talk to, plead with, coerce, bribe, cajole or regulate into more benevolent behaviour toward humans… that is, toward a particular group of humans.
A third - and most likely - possibility for regarding the deity as a parental figure is that early humans tended to die young, leaving a lot of even younger humans literally orphaned. People simply missed the nurturing of their mothers (and so began to attribute maternal characteristics to Nature, which provides sustenance) and the guidance of their fathers (and so they attributed paternal characteristics to source of their moral principles.)
I wouldn’t call it weakness to call one’s god a father. I would call it intellectual cowardice to defer to that imaginary character, and accept his ancient rules, rather than make rules you consider to be right for reasons you understand. I would certainly call it fraud (at the very least) to advocate and enforce obedience to such an imaginary authority without actually believing in it, the way all religious leaders do.