Dear JP,

«Yuyutsu – the best I can make of what you are saying is that you believe that God is everything/ everything is God. Is that right?»

To fully explain the rationale of my statements about God would require deep and thorough scriptural study of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, so my skimpy OLO comments, within the limitations of time, context and word-count, are obviously lacking in depth and only present the final summary of the observations and contemplations of sages, rather than the full process of how they got there.

Nevertheless, my short answer to your question is that there is nothing but God.
To speak of anything outside God, would [mentally] introduce a competition to God, a limiting factor, which would mean that what we innocently thought of as 'God' is actually limited and not the final Truth - why would anyone want to worship a limited god anyway? The Bible gives a name to the worship of limited entities - idolatry!

This means that everything is God.
It does not, however, mean that God is "everything".
If it helps you to understand the above, you could say (metaphorically of course because God has no size) that God is much much bigger than "everything".

«If so, then it would seem to follow that God is both the rapist and the person being raped. That God is both evil and good.»

God is neither the rapist nor the raped, but both the rapist and the raped ARE God. This is the best short answer I can give without filling up many pages.

If you are pure and devoted enough, you could find God in both, the rapist and the raped - as did Jesus, but for practical reasons, most people would find it easier to find God in victims than in perpetrators.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." [Isaiah 45:7]

Dear JP,

I think there is neither an objective morality nor a God. You apparently think there is both. Our positions are contradictory and cannot be resolved. I think it pointless to continue our discussion.

Why am I here.

I have been pondering.
And the short answer is: 'I don't really know'.
But I think the truth is that life is inherent in matter.
When conditions are right, life will flourish.
This time, along with all the other plant and animal life around us, it produced the human race we know.

I think we see this world as 'beautiful' because for us it is 'normality'.
Had we been born in another place, perhaps on another planet, we might have different standards?
We might think that orange skies with a blue sun were delightful?
Along with purple grass and grey trees to add to our enjoyment?

Of all the things we do with our ability to think and assess, I fear that organised religion was not our best effort.
It is in effect a form of (unsolicited) government. There is emphasis on control and money.
And worse than that, it is a dictatorship.
It can behave in a very 'unforgiving' way when one of its members doesn't adhere to its rules?
Not all religions are the same of course. Some are docile and placid compared to their brethren.
But I think that this is because democratic laws are able to keep them in check?

The only authority it has for its attitudes is a book of 'stories'.
Supposedly written long ago.
Written by man about man, and re-interpreted by man on dozens of occasions?
I do think those who gathered the stories in to a book meant well at the start.
But it has got out of hand.
Luckily democatic processes keep it in check in most countries.
Where organised religion has overtaken a government, their is no one to rein in religious excess.
It must be mentally debilitating to exist in those places?

Hi IF,

"Luckily democatic processes keep it (reeigion) in check in most countries. Where organised religion has overtaken a government, their is no one to rein in religious excess. It must be mentally debilitating to exist in those places?"

Human beings are very adaptable, and the vast majority in countries ruled by religious authoritarianism, don't give a thought to what we see as injustice, knowing no other, they are simply accepting of their situation, and often happy with it. That's why education is always a casualty when those in authority see what a danger it is to them. As the saying goes; "ignorance is bliss".

Paul 1405 wrote:

“Human beings are very adaptable, and the vast majority in countries ruled by religious authoritarianism, don't give a thought to what we see as injustice, knowing no other, they are simply accepting of their situation, and often happy with it.”

The above is questionable. Humans can give much thought to the tyranny that rules them. However, in many cases they may feel that the tyranny is so encompassing that their only reasonable alternative is to shut up and endure. Early in the history of Christianity there were many sects and divisions among Christians as there is now. Most sects were intolerant of other sects to a much greater degree than currently. In many Christian countries one sect ruled other sects, and their rule was harsh. That explains the ease of the early conquests of Christian countries by Islam. Early Islam was not a missionary religion. They regarded their faith as a religion for Arabs. From MacCullough’s book: “The Muslim conquerors did little to explain their faith to their new subjects or to convert them to it.” As long as Christians paid their taxes and accepted Muslim rule they were left in peace to practice their various Christian faiths as they wished. This was much preferable to the restrictions placed by one Christian sect on another. Muslim rule was less burdensome than the rule of another Christian sect. Several centuries later Islam became a missionary religion and emulated the Christian intolerance.

Hi David,

I don't agree, one needs to understand the alternative before one can become discontented with what exists. Take American slavery for example, I don't believe the majority of slaves were constantly thinking about escaping to freedom, as they had no concept of freedom. if you are born into slavery, and know nothing else in life, then most likely you become passively accepting of what is your reality. The danger for the slave owner is the slave will become educated to the alternative, that is why it was the law not to teach a slave to read and write, are allow them more that a limited distance from the plantation etc. Ignorance is bliss, when many slaves in the south were pronounced "free", they didn't shout "hallelujah", but rather milled around in bewilderment