Thank you for your great question!
Your questions require answers with a higher notch of depth… Here we go… 🙂
We probably need to realize that the only thing that we have the responsibility to understand is the self. God in relationship with us becomes an incentive, a source of inspiration and knowledge. Those things which God provides are meant for self realization, not to discuss if God is this or that.
I enjoy when I see the reaction of people when I say something like “God is omnipresent but also a soul…” 🙂
That will be the “highest manmat” for some, equivalent of receiving hell forever… 🙂
Caught up in words…
Please be mindful that those words are plain definitions. If we define God we cut off the experience that we may get. Many think that because we see BapDada then we “know God.” For some bhakti individuals God is equivalent to seeing Dadi Gulzar, for others, equivalent of Brahma Baba and yet for others, they just visualize a point of light in the subtle body of Brahma Baba who in turn is “loaning” Dadi Gulzar’s body. Describing that, they call that description “God.”
None of that gives the experience of self realization. As the murli mentions, “very few will know God as He is.” Please remember that. More concepts we use to try to define Him, the further from the truth we will be, because words are in the realm of duality and God is beyond that.
On your question: “Action is equal to equal and opposite reaction. If this is true then deities must also be getting the reaction for their actions.”
Sure. But it is “neutral” for there is no duality and… there is entropy so the quality of those activities will diminish until it gets to the point where it loses neutrality and then we have “good and bad actions.”
On your last questions about “karma,” “akarma” and “vikarma.” According to the sanskrit dictionary, we have “karma” as “action,” meaning “doing something,” then we have “akarma,” meaning- without performing actions (detached observer) and then we have- “vikarma,” as “sinful” actions. (I would suggest to use the word “dual action” rather than “sinful” for the “bad” connotation that this word brings.)
Karma can be neutral when there is a return without duality- Golden age.
Karma could be “sinful” when there is duality. The deep significance of that is once we understand duality, that an apparent “good action” has its counterpart of “bad” and viceversa. For example: I think I have done a “good action” by paying for the school tuition of a child. Now, because of that, this child experiences being beat up at school by “bullies.” As you can see, there is nothing “pure” good.
Akarma is the “doing” of actions of ego-less beings. Doing without doing. This is what BapDada calls: “doing for the sake of it.”