I'd like to suggest that an important distinction needs to be made when we discuss who and what God is, and who and what we as creatures of God, are.
It is all too easy to slip the ego into the definition of God, thereby projecting our ego-centricity onto God, and sometimes, onto God’s numerous great Teachers of the past. To state that God is everything, and then to name those everythings, and define them as God, may be accurate, from the point of view of God’s transcendent position, and explains why those great Teachers could state “God and I are one”, because they viewed everything from that transcendent perspective, but it is too easily confused to mean that “so and so is God”, but another “so and so isn’t God.” This is what creates cults, and religious groups, and creates all the many horrors that have been projected in the name of God throughout history. And this exclusionary process reflects the speaker’s position, but not necessarily the transcendent position.
Therefore, in stating that God is everything, then, the reverse, everything is God applies. But this includes “everything”, otherwise we start excluding this and that, and end up where we started, classifying those things, or people that we resonate with, as Godly, and those things that we don’t like as unGodly. From my perspective, this is simply not the case, however myopic we may be, and however unholy some individuals may appear, or religious groups may appear to be.
To understand the concept that God is all there is, must, by sheer logic alone, therefore include everything, both the good and the bad, and NOT exclude anything, both the good and the bad. If we find that uncomfortable -- to include the more abhorrent individuals of mankind’s history, for example -- this says little about God, but it does say much about us. Our ability, or lack of ability, to wrap our minds or hearts around all creation, inclusive of everything, is based on our ability, or inability, to let go of our defined personalities and concepts, and allow ourselves to admit we essentially know nothing, and we are, therefore, unable to define God, much less name God. In my own experience, this admission is the first step toward finding God, within and without, and it can take a long, long time to get any further than this. Indeed, it may be that one can go no further than this, and the rest is done by God alone.
To support this position, don’t all the scriptures, in all the various disciplines, one way or another, exhort the religious to refrain from using the name of God, (perhaps obliquely stating that God does not have “a” name), call no man your father, (perhaps admonishing the disciple to realize that any human being is not “THE FATHER”, but God is), the mind cannot take you there, (all eastern religious texts one way or another state this, as do western mystics), only through Grace does one approach God, (again, all eastern religious texts imply this, as does many western as well,) blessed are the meek and so forth? Because of the intellectual emphasis that our western culture has encouraged, and which has resulted in great worldly accomplishments, I might add, we are at a disadvantage when it comes to the ease of embracing this position, and in many cases, even understanding its value. Nonetheless, its difficulty does not make it untrue, it simply makes it difficult.