who is god?

Continuing with this Nibiru thing ...

Was wondering the other day - as far as most religions are concerned, God is defined as the bloke that created us. So now, if He was some alien geek in whatever constitutes a lab coat on their planet, would our religions then settle for calling him God?

I personally wouldn't. Nothing short of the creator of the universe itself would do for me I realized.

As a Hindu, I was introduced to a plethora of Gods early in life. I once asked mom ... how is it that our gods seem to have all the human failings? They get angry, they can be flattered, they get seduced ... you name it ... they have it ... all the failings. I can't quite remember what she answered then ... but at some later point I remember dwelling on the thought that any God with emotions would be a lesser God.

The "One" I reasoned should be unbiased. Good and Evil are what we see when we look at the small picture. From up there, He should be able to see the whole ... and the balance therein. For example, if you break up an atom you see electrons and protons and neutrons ... so electrons are negative (evil) ... protons are positive (good) and neutrons are neutral (wise ones) ... let us assume.

The atom as a whole is balanced and it would come apart or change into something fundamentally different if we were to take out any of the components. So, while I may perceive all these differences while I am inside the atom, once I come out of it, I see it as a stable whole. The universe should be similar for Mr. God is what I think.

Another way of looking at it is that the true God (if he is a unity and not a duality or a trinity etc.) would need to be neither good nor evil. So he cannot be pro-good. Everything in the universe needs to be in some sort of cosmic balance. If God is good, then who is bad? If God decides to be good, then by being good, he creates evil. If God is an Unity (something I have begun to doubt as I write this post) then he can neither be good nor evil. Any God that is good is therefore a lesser God again.

Which brings us to the point ... would religion be so enticing without the carrot of salvation and the stick of damnation? Would we really pray and stuff if we realized that God does not give a damn what we do. It does not matter to him any way. And, if someone ever appears and says it matters, this must be a lesser God. Powerful perhaps ... but not Him.

We are really free to do whatever we want to do. Any laws that the God does not want us to break, we can't. Just because you don't believe in gravity, you can't levitate. It takes a little more than that as you may have noticed. If there is something that you can do, it must be because He doesn't care whether you choose to do it or not.

And morality? Some time ago, it was quite alright and highly noble to burn women at the stake or dunk them into a river ... just label them as witches and this was all in a perfectly good day of work. If you want a more famous example there is always Joan of Arc ... but there a thousands of others that are not even named in history.

Today we look at it differently though. For all you know in another couple of centuries, it may be ok to do this to men - because they did it to women earlier ... burn them as warlocks perhaps ... if you don't believe this can happen you can read up on the reservation policy in India.

So ... there is no such thing as a moral absolute. The only way you can take a moral stance over the ages ... and be agnostic to the changing values is if you evaluate an action based on why it was done. The reason that guided the action ... was that good or was that bad? Even this does get a little dicey since good and bad changes with time. Today, if I may consider that anything done for the good of the society is good. A thousand years later, that may be considered to be sacrilege when people automate the basics and live more individualistic life styles requiring little or no interaction.

Then, the only way to evaluate an action is to ask "Why was this done? What were they trying to accomplish by doing this?" and then, once that question is answered, ask "was this purpose considered to be good or evil at the time when the deed was done?". Simple enough. That is what the Gita tells us.

Think about it... I wouldn't be surprised if you have a different answer. Even what we generally think about is based on the vocabulary we have. Very few people go through the process of creating new words to describe new concepts that we have no words for in the current language. Even our thoughts are therefore bound by the limitations of the language that we think in -unless we consciously break away from it....