What they often get at with "God" - or what is "logically real" or "empirically evident" or the "way of the market" for that matter - is really just another wave in that vast and infinite ocean we loosely call reality. This is apparent in the "God disapproves of this" and "God disapproves of that" language, which carves out a limited extended thing, made up of the "goods" and set against the "bads" and so on.
But somehow that wave is it and really all there is. Which is true to an extent, as it is difficult to entirely escape the wave in one's own lifetime, or even in multiple generations. But to mistake that failure to escape as some sort of ontological absolute - in which the wave is projected into all of eternity as all there is - is to commit some sort of spiritual imperialism, which leads eventually to just plain material imperialism. Which, to be fair, probably leads to the extent and the power of the wave, resulting in its inescapability.
If what one is is all that exists, then it follows that anything that contradicts what one is is necessarily out of place or worse, evil, and therefore should be destroyed, reorganized, and reincorporated into what one is. There are of course different disorganizations and different evils which have an entirely different quality from each other, depending on where they originate, and therefore they have a different moral heft or value depending on the observer. But that's another issue.
This is a situation in which one extends one's own limited imprint over the rest of the living world, and wherever one has the actual energy and power to extend, one has to crush and wipe away that living world that one is extending over, in favor of one's own living world. Which is all the more destructive the more dramatic the expansion one's own self is undergoing.
Which raises the question: what came first? Did the spiritual, ideological, and material imperialism arise out of the raw forces of expansion, or was the expansion encouraged and influenced by the imperialism? I'm being a bit coy perhaps, but raising naive questions can lead to all sorts of interesting avenues.
A bit like exploration. If one has already decided on where a given path goes, then one will choose whether to go down it or not, depending on one's intentions. One then carves a path. Or a rut. Just by being in motion in relation to previous activity. But if one cocks one's head and asks, "what if?" then who knows where one ends up? In an oasis? Dead? And maybe giving up and asking these questions - when all of the other paths turn out to be terminal - is itself a forced path.
