, , , , , , , , , , ,


God is neither male nor female and can easily be called mother as father. Although we are still very much involved in patriarchal structures, we are swiftly moving into an era where the masculine and feminine, the patriarchal and the matriarchal, will come together in harmony.

The god is an irresistible might which is always right. An irresistible power which has the right to rule and command those who cannot resist. The right to do anything whatsoever is an essential and direct attribute of the omnipotence called god. The ideology is that individuals cannot always act rightly and are attributable to committing injustice, hence, they remain accountable to god.

In an unjust world, the identity of god as an irresistibly powerful being can only be portrayed as a social necessity. Every religion identifies “god’s power as infinite”. A god has his existence from his own power and it does not derive its power from anything else, and it exists from eternity and for eternity, it must, therefore, be eternal or infinite. Since there was nothing which gave god existence, hence there also will be nothing which will make him not exist. 

The idea constitutes of an infinite substance wherein everything existing is a mode, thereto, if there were any other substances but god, it would have to be explicated through some attribute of god, simultaneously creating two or more substances with the same attribute, which is absurd. Thus, there can be no substance external to god. Therefore, “whatever is, is in god, and nothing can be conceived without god. God, an infinite substance, of which each of us is a mode, acts solely from the laws of his own nature, constrained by none“. The power with which god acts is infinite, and as a mode of god we, therefore, act, by nature, with the power of god. Each thing acting in accordance with the laws of nature.

God’s power, however, delimits an individual’s power, making it the only entity whose might always makes right. Therefore there is a quantitative limit to the natural rights with which an individual can act.

Thus, however it persists, there can be no difference between fools, madmen, the sane, and those endowed with reason, since whatever an individual does by the laws of its own nature, it does so with sovereign right, within the ambit of god. Problems arise only when we interpret god’s will and individual’s action as separable events. Within (and technically without) the context of a natural state, any action taken by an individual is to be understood as right insofar as that action coheres with god’s will. When in the natural condition an individual cannot violate god’s will vis a vis every action undertaken by an individual in nature occurs by god’s will.

But, to say that an individual can commit injustice in nature is tantamount to saying god can violate his own will, which is a self-defeating statement. An individual will act in such a way that he considers to be conducive to his preservation and in doing so he is acting by nature, which justifies the use of any means necessary to preserve himself. But god does no wrong, it cannot wrong, so how can an individual be wrong? 

Then where does it lead to? If god’s will is inseparable to an individual’s act, then is god’s identity through an individual himself? If god and nature are inseparable, then is nature an embodiment of god itself? Or is god a limitless being within whom lies the characteristics of nature and its parts thereof?

 Maybe, god is merely a “being” invented out of sheer human necessity!