v

[Gianna99]

There is a deep and continuing conversation between science and religion. While science uses reason and factual data to comprehend the natural world, religion frequently uses faith and tradition to investigate issues of morality and meaning. Both fields provide insightful understandings of the human condition and encourage a diverse range of viewpoints.GB Whatsapp download

[The Tanager]

There are of course different atheist personalities with varying beliefs. For those atheist who might assert and accept nature has intentions and goals, in what way have they failed to provide support for that belief?

Most of the atheists I’ve talked to and read don’t think nature has intentions and goals. The very few that do believe it, I honestly haven’t seen actual arguments offered in support. If you know of any, please share them.

Would you agree that atheists also observe that theists also practice this type of assertion-without-support, on the premise that the stories in holy books are in and of themselves something which asserts rather than supports?

No, atheists observe some theists just asserting, but they also observe some theists actually attempting to rationally support their beliefs. As far as I can think right now, on the issue of nature having intentions and goals, I am unaware of any actual reasoning offered.

Well I do when arguing with an atheist. I do not think it should be a problem when arguing with a theist.

This is why clarity is important. IF we are 2 theists who think differently about this concept (that we - human personalities - are/are not the sum total of a human form), THEN we should be able to agree that the form is designed in a manner that prevents us from doing certain things.

Yes, but we may not agree on what those certain things are. We are talking about a specific one where we do disagree.

This leads to thinking about a possible 2) which involves the concept that;

Possible 2). Minds freed from human-form (body) constraint we are literally able to see what is real beyond what a human body is designed to see in its real environment and in seeing we understand that we are all of the same source-mind (The Creator Mind).

If I accept that concept as true, I can also accept that just because the human form was designed in a manner which allowed for me to experience a certain type of real, and that there are different types of real which can be experienced (as real) outside of the experience of the human body, no real environment makes the experience any less real than any other real environment which one could experience.

The track that possible 2) has the mind thinking along, could be endless... and rewardingly revealing in relation to the ever-growing human mind personality.

First, this doesn’t sound like what I was asking you to carry your burden on. I said you need to show that humans are designed to make it difficult for them to transcend beyond like/dislike to objective morality. Why do you think that is true?

Second, to go down the track (in the sense of what is true), you need to establish the initial possibility as more than a possibility.

GPT. It sounds like you're delving into the philosophical and sociological aspects of law and governance. In essence, the question seems to be probing the relationship between laws, human nature, and societal order.

Here's a concise response:

"Indeed, the question touches on the complex interplay between human nature, societal organization, and the role of laws. Laws are crafted to address various aspects of human behavior and societal functioning, aiming to maintain order and facilitate desired outcomes. While some argue for grounding laws in a belief system or a 'Creator Mind' to establish authority and moral underpinnings, others view this as an attempt to mitigate the influence of inherent human tendencies on legal frameworks. By attributing laws to a higher authority, there's an effort to transcend individual biases and preferences, thereby fostering a more cohesive and structured society. This perspective highlights the intricate balance between human nature, governance, and the pursuit of societal harmony."

Okay, so I think you were asking me if I think God uses moral laws in order to move humans towards a desired outcome? I do not. I think moral laws reflect the desired outcome.

Re the idea of raping a child (The action).
Let's say that human personality a) likes the idea while human personality b) does not.
Which of the 2 personalities has to change (transcend that belief) and why?

I would say we share the same answer (since we are not strangers) - that it is a) who has to transcend from liking the idea of the action to not liking the idea of the action.

Do you think this because (b) is better or simply because that is what you like?

Does the reason have to do with mind transcending the body-influence and is this possible for everyone to achieve given the body-design?
I think the answer to that question is that IF we can achieve it THEN we must, because the design of the human body does not prevent us from making that effort to override more primal urges which are encoded within the overall design...since the design allows for/has built into it a certain amount of past information to pass through times passage, as certain sciences have revealed. (traits/genetics/patterns et al.)
Therein, is the act of transcending likes/dislikes even happening? Rather, isn't one taking the side of the one or the other?

Are you talking about a kind of determinism here? Are you saying we are simply following our predetermined nature into different likes/dislikes? Or something else?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #41]

I’m taking atheists at their own beliefs, where they don’t believe nature has intentions and goals or, if they do, they simply assert this is the case with no support (at least in my readings and interactions, I’m always open to hearing the support).

There are of course different atheist personalities with varying beliefs. For those atheist who might assert and accept nature has intentions and goals, in what way have they failed to provide support for that belief?

Most of the atheists I’ve talked to and read don’t think nature has intentions and goals. The very few that do believe it, I honestly haven’t seen actual arguments offered in support. If you know of any, please share them.

I can agree then, that what atheists (or theists for that matter) believe which is contrary to the assertion and acceptance that nature has intentions and goals, is of no value as critique to my particular position re science and religion/science and theism.
This is also to note that I recognise that atheism isn't to be conflated with science (as in that the two are the same thing).

No, atheists observe some theists just asserting, but they also observe some theists actually attempting to rationally support their beliefs. As far as I can think right now, on the issue of nature having intentions and goals, I am unaware of any actual reasoning offered.

Nor is there likely to be by all accounts. This is about science and theism.

IF we are 2 theists who think differently about this concept (that we - human personalities - are/are not the sum total of a human form), THEN we should be able to agree that the form is designed in a manner that prevents us from doing certain things.

Yes, but we may not agree on what those certain things are. We are talking about a specific one where we do disagree. and theism.

I am speaking about a specific theistic notion (that we - human personalities - are/are not the sum total of a human form.) Which notion you agree with?

First, this doesn’t sound like what I was asking you to carry your burden on. I said you need to show that humans are designed to make it difficult for them to transcend beyond like/dislike to objective morality.

Before I could for down that track, I would have to be shown that objective morality is an actual thing and that it transcends like and dislike.

Why do you think that is true?

I do not think it is true since I have not been shown that such a thing as objective morality actually exists.

Name me a human being who has transcended the like/dislike train of thinking and subsequent behaviour, and we shall examine that example together. Perhaps then I will have the understanding of what it is you are meaning with the phrase (objective morality) you are using.

Second, to go down the track (in the sense of what is true), you need to establish the initial possibility as more than a possibility.

I think that about the track you are currently on too. What have you shown that I should change tracks?

Okay, so I think you were asking me if I think God uses moral laws in order to move humans towards a desired outcome? I do not. I think moral laws reflect the desired outcome.

How is it you think these two things are unrelated and have nothing to do with The Creator Mind (re human minds)?

Re the idea of raping a child (The action).
Let's say that human personality a) likes the idea while human personality b) does not.
Which of the 2 personalities has to change (transcend that belief) and why?

I would say we share the same answer (since we are not strangers) - that it is a) who has to transcend from liking the idea of the action to not liking the idea of the action.

Do you think this because (b) is better or simply because that is what you like?

Both.

Does the reason have to do with mind transcending the body-influence and is this possible for everyone to achieve given the body-design?
I think the answer to that question is that IF we can achieve it THEN we must, because the design of the human body does not prevent us from making that effort to override more primal urges which are encoded within the overall design...since the design allows for/has built into it a certain amount of past information to pass through times passage, as certain sciences have revealed. (traits/genetics/patterns et al.)
Therein, is the act of transcending likes/dislikes even happening? Rather, isn't one taking the side of the one or the other?

Are you talking about a kind of determinism here? Are you saying we are simply following our predetermined nature into different likes/dislikes? Or something else?

I am speaking of transcendence as a matter of choice from our growing human personality perspective, thus not easy for any of us to observe and predict outcomes given the nature of our bodies and the data available for us to have such a perspective.

I am also speaking of The Creator Minds' perspective in observing the things we each do as "predictable" and thus, so too are the outcomes.

Two perspectives, one of which has more grandiose data available in which to predict/know outcomes re individual and collective human mindfulness, while the other is more "in the dark" and unable to predict any more than what data human mindfulness (re body) is allowing us to be aware of.

Re that, from The Creator Mind perspective, all things are predetermined/predictable, and from the human mind perspective, things appear to be more randomlike and chaotic and thus difficult to see as predetermined and predictable.

This is why faith is a first step requirement, as per Matthew 6:25-34 KJV that the individual human personality can grow in knowledge by applying that which allows for The Creator Mind to show something more of Its actual existence and perspective (as evidence) to said human personality.

[The Tanager]

I can agree then, that what atheists (or theists for that matter) believe which is contrary to the assertion and acceptance that nature has intentions and goals, is of no value as critique to my particular position re science and religion/science and theism.

I wasn’t critiquing your position; we were analyzing atheistic worldviews in relation to objective morality.

This is also to note that I recognise that atheism isn't to be conflated with science (as in that the two are the same thing).

I agree.

I am speaking about a specific theistic notion (that we - human personalities - are/are not the sum total of a human form.) Which notion you agree with?

But we weren’t previously. Whether I agree or not depends on exactly what you mean by “human personalities” and “human form”. Could you define those?

Before I could for down that track, I would have to be shown that objective morality is an actual thing and that it transcends like and dislike.

Then what did you mean when you talked about the difficulty for humans to transcend like/dislike?

Okay, so I think you were asking me if I think God uses moral laws in order to move humans towards a desired outcome? I do not. I think moral laws reflect the desired outcome.

How is it you think these two things are unrelated and have nothing to do with The Creator Mind (re human minds)?

What two things? I just said moral laws are a reflection of the desired outcome. That is a relationship.

Do you think this because (b) is better or simply because that is what you like?

Both.

It logically can’t be both. Either it is better or it is only/simply the same as your subjective view and different from other subjective views. If you think it is better (in this sense), then you are an objectivist.

Re that, from The Creator Mind perspective, all things are predetermined/predictable, and from the human mind perspective, things appear to be more randomlike and chaotic and thus difficult to see as predetermined and predictable.

So, you are talking about determinism. I see no reason to believe determinism is true. To support your claim you need to show determinism is the reasonable belief to hold. What is your case for that?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #43]

What did you mean when you talked about the difficulty for humans to transcend like/dislike?

I mean that like and dislike are aspects of the human experience.

I am speaking about a specific theistic notion (that we - human personalities - are/are not the sum total of a human form.) Which notion you agree with?

Whether I agree or not depends on exactly what you mean by “human personalities” and “human form”. Could you define those?

Human personalities are what grow within the confines of human form. Form is body and a human personality is what is grown through the mindful experience of being human in form.
The body eventually dies, and the human personality continues to experience being.

Okay, so I think you were asking me if I think God uses moral laws in order to move humans towards a desired outcome? I do not. I think moral laws reflect the desired outcome.

How is it you think these two things are unrelated and have nothing to do with The Creator Mind (re human minds)?

What two things?

Moral Laws and Desired Outcome

I just said moral laws are a reflection of the desired outcome. That is a relationship.

And I asked why you think Moral Laws and Desired Outcomes are not something The Creator Mind uses to produce the one (Desired Outcome) through the other (Moral Laws).

a) has to transcend from liking the idea of the action to not liking the idea of the action.

Do you think this because (b) is better or simply because that is what you like?

Both.

It logically can’t be both.

If I like something and also think it is better, I have nothing to transcend in that regard.

Given the choice is always potentially there, if I changed my mind and decided a) was something I now liked and thought of as better, (than b) then this change would signify a transcendence in the sense that I have moved beyond the limitations of b). This is also true the other way around.

One has to like something in order to support said something.

Either it is better or it is only/simply the same as your subjective view and different from other subjective views.

Subjective views are all that they are, whether one is viewing from position a) or position b).

If you think it is better (in this sense), then you are an objectivist.

If the personality holding position a) thinks it is better, then is that personality also an objectivist?

Search: What is an objectivist?
What is the meaning of Objectivist?
1. a tendency to lay stress on the objective or external elements of cognition. 2. the tendency, as of a writer, to deal with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings.

How then is it that if a) and b) both think their position is better (than the other) that the thinking (subjective elements of cognition) involved is only to do with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings?

Re that, from The Creator Mind perspective, all things are predetermined/predictable, and from the human mind perspective, things appear to be more randomlike and chaotic and thus difficult to see as predetermined and predictable.

So, you are talking about determinism.

From the perspective of the Creator Mind, yes.

I see no reason to believe determinism is true.

You don't believe The Creator Mind has such a perspective?

To support your claim you need to show determinism is the reasonable belief to hold. What is your case for that?

I gave a case example re Matthew 6:25-34 KJV. If you have a problem with that, you would have to ask Jesus to support his claim by showing determinism is the reasonable belief to hold
I simply have reason to think his belief is pertinent re my own human experience.

[The Tanager]

I mean that like and dislike are aspects of the human experience.

Okay. I agree.

Human personalities are what grow within the confines of human form. Form is body and a human personality is what is grown through the mindful experience of being human in form.
The body eventually dies, and the human personality continues to experience being.

Okay, I disagree, then. I think humans will either (1) exist eternally with a body or (2) have their mind cease to exist with their body.

Moral Laws and Desired Outcome

But I said moral laws reflect the desired outcome of the Creator Mind for us. How is that saying they are unrelated to each other and have nothing to do with the Creator Mind?

And I asked why you think Moral Laws and Desired Outcomes are not something The Creator Mind uses to produce the one (Desired Outcome) through the other (Moral Laws).

To which I answered that moral laws are a reflection of the desired outcome. I’m saying the reflect what God wants us to do; they aren’t an X used by God to produce a Y.

If I like something and also think it is better, I have nothing to transcend in that regard.

Given the choice is always potentially there, if I changed my mind and decided a) was something I now liked and thought of as better, (than b) then this change would signify a transcendence in the sense that I have moved beyond the limitations of b). This is also true the other way around.

One has to like something in order to support said something.

Sure, but you are using “I like” and “I think it is better” as synonyms here. Objectivists are talking about a different kind of “better”. Subjectivists have to reject that that “better” exists. That’s the “better” I’m asking you about. Is our desire for people to change/transcend from (a) to (b) just a change towards what we like or a change for the better (in the objectivist sense)?

Subjective views are all that they are, whether one is viewing from position a) or position b).

That’s the question for debate. Moral objectivists say that our subjective opinions can be true or false. Just like with the shape of the Earth. (Subjective views are not all that exist there.)

I see no reason to believe determinism is true.

You don't believe The Creator Mind has such a perspective?

I don’t think all things are predetermined by the Creator Mind. That doesn’t mean God can’t predict what we will freely choose to do in any given situation.

I gave a case example re Matthew 6:25-34 KJV. If you have a problem with that, you would have to ask Jesus to support his claim by showing determinism is the reasonable belief to hold
I simply have reason to think his belief is pertinent re my own human experience.

How does Jesus show belief in determinism there? He says to not worry about your life because God will take care of you and provide what you need when you pursue his kingdom.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #45]

Human personalities are what grow within the confines of human form. Form is body and a human personality is what is grown through the mindful experience of being human in form.
The body eventually dies, and the human personality continues to experience being.

Okay, I disagree, then. I think humans will either (1) exist eternally with a body or (2) have their mind cease to exist with their body.

I don't disagree with (1) but would add that one is not confined to one type of body forever. Bodies are clothing put on for a particular experience said body can produce for the mind occupying it.

I don't disagree with (2). In relation to "Bodies" these a understood by me to mean "houses' within The Creator Mind (mansion) which houses these.

A human personality (mind) can (theoretically) exist outside of all "rooms/houses" (bodies) but not outside of the Mansion that is The Creator Mind.

I said moral laws reflect the desired outcome of the Creator Mind for us.

I am not sure what you are asking there. Perhaps there has been a miscommunication re that aspect?

In the above do you mean moral laws reflect The Creator Minds intentions in relation to human minds?

I’m saying they reflect what God wants us to do; they aren’t an X used by God to produce a Y.

I would agree with the provision that it is recognised/agreed these Laws can be tweaked and twisted to suit minds with a different agenda to that of The Creator Mind.

Is our desire for people to change/transcend from (a) to (b) just a change towards what we like or a change for the better (in the objectivist sense)?

I see that as a different aspect of the subject.
I am not speaking of any desire to change others perspectives (on any given morality) so they align with my perspective. I am speaking only of my desire (or lack thereof) to change/transcend my perspective.

Subjective views are all that they are, whether one is viewing from position a) or position b).

That’s the question for debate.

Re Science and Theism?

Moral objectivists say that our subjective opinions can be true or false.

Moral Subjectivists say the same.

Just like with the shape of the Earth. (Subjective views are not all that exist there.)

Without subjective views re the shape of the Earth, of what importance/relevance would its shape be?

You don't believe The Creator Mind has such a perspective?

I don’t think all things are predetermined by the Creator Mind. That doesn’t mean God can’t predict what we will freely choose to do in any given situation.

Then we are not exactly talking about the same things.

Re The Creator Mind perspective, I am not talking about "predetermination". I am talking about "Exactness of prediction".

Being able to predict exactly the outcome of oncoming/evolving/growing/ et al events - while similar to the idea of predetermination, are (perhaps) different in practice.

It is possible to grant The Creator Mind has the perspective which has it that the Universe was created with the complete knowledge of its outcome, so predetermination - in that sense - can be granted.

This appears to be what the bible-god is saying re the notion of being the Alpha and the Omega (re the Greeks) or the Aleph and Bet (re the Hebrews)...

How does Jesus show belief in determinism there? He says to not worry about your life because God will take care of you and provide what you need when you pursue his kingdom.

The key ingredient is "The Kingdom" and we are also informed by Jesus as to "where" that Kingdom is to be found.
IN The Creator Mind (not outside of it).

[The Tanager]

I don't disagree with (1) but would add that one is not confined to one type of body forever. Bodies are clothing put on for a particular experience said body can produce for the mind occupying it.

I don't disagree with (2). In relation to "Bodies" these a understood by me to mean "houses' within The Creator Mind (mansion) which houses these.

A human personality (mind) can (theoretically) exist outside of all "rooms/houses" (bodies) but not outside of the Mansion that is The Creator Mind.

Okay, I thought you were saying something else in relation to (1). As for (2), what I meant was that personalities can cease to exist; I thought you believed all personalities were eternal. Do you believe they can cease to exist forever or did you misunderstand my point?

I said moral laws reflect the desired outcome of the Creator Mind for us.

I am not sure what you are asking there. Perhaps there has been a miscommunication re that aspect?

In the above do you mean moral laws reflect The Creator Minds intentions in relation to human minds?

I mean that moral laws reflect the Creator Mind’s intentions in relation to how humans ought to live for their own good.

I would agree with the provision that it is recognised/agreed these Laws can be tweaked and twisted to suit minds with a different agenda to that of The Creator Mind.

Absolutely.

I see that as a different aspect of the subject.
I am not speaking of any desire to change others perspectives (on any given morality) so they align with my perspective. I am speaking only of my desire (or lack thereof) to change/transcend my perspective.

I’m not speaking of changing others’ perspectives, but what we think about our and others’ perspectives on moral issues. We can view the differing perspectives as simply different or as one better than the other (improvement). Do you think the pedophile only has a different (but “equal”) perspective or that yours is actually an improvement? Yes, maybe you’ll change your mind later, but would you view that as an improvement from your current position if you actually made the change or would be a change but not an improvement?

Think about all of this with the example of ice cream flavors. When one changes from disliking pistachio ice cream to liking it, is that an improvement or just a change? When you compare someone who likes a flavor you dislike (for argument’s sake, say it is pistachio) and someone who likes a flavor you like (say, chocolate), do you see one of those people as an improvement over the other?

That’s the question for debate.

Re Science and Theism?

No, re: morality, which is what we were talking about in that portion of our discussion here.

Moral objectivists say that our subjective opinions can be true or false.

Moral Subjectivists say the same.

No they don’t. If they did, they wouldn’t be subjectivists by definition. Opinions about the shape of the Earth can be true or false because there is a fact of the matter. Moral subjectivists don’t think that same thing holds in moral issues. A shape subjectivist would think there is no true/false shape of the Earth.

It is possible to grant The Creator Mind has the perspective which has it that the Universe was created with the complete knowledge of its outcome, so predetermination - in that sense - can be granted.

This appears to be what the bible-god is saying re the notion of being the Alpha and the Omega (re the Greeks) or the Aleph and Bet (re the Hebrews)...

While I don’t agree that is what the Alpha and Omega talk is about, I do agree that God would be able to have complete knowledge of how the Universe all unfolds.

How does Jesus show belief in determinism there? He says to not worry about your life because God will take care of you and provide what you need when you pursue his kingdom.

The key ingredient is "The Kingdom" and we are also informed by Jesus as to "where" that Kingdom is to be found.
IN The Creator Mind (not outside of it).

I don’t see why “the kingdom” makes this passage about determinism or even knowing how everything will work out. I’ll see about that second point in the other thread.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #47]

Okay, I thought you were saying something else in relation to (1). As for (2), what I meant was that personalities can cease to exist; I thought you believed all personalities were eternal. Do you believe they can cease to exist forever or did you misunderstand my point?

I think it possible that personalities can either remain active, be stored or deleted.

I mean that moral laws reflect the Creator Mind’s intentions in relation to how humans ought to live for their own good.

Not sure entirely what you mean by "for their own good" and suppose we would have to examine each and every moral law to see where this is true since it is recognised/agreed these Laws can be tweaked and twisted to suit minds with a different agenda to that of The Creator Mind.

Do you think the pedophile only has a different (but “equal”) perspective or that yours is actually an improvement? Yes, maybe you’ll change your mind later, but would you view that as an improvement from your current position if you actually made the change or would be a change but not an improvement?

I am not here to judge others and your question implies that I should.
I do not understand why some folk are (pedophile) and some folk are not. I am not, and am unlikely to change for a variety of reasons which include knowing what it feels like to be a victim of a pedophile, and also once being married to a victim of pedophiles, suffering her unwillingness to deal with the underlying issues and find healing, which eventually lead to the demise of that relationship.

If I were to judge the actions of those who were the victims unwilling to heal and those who were the victimizers unwilling to change, I would have problems with both and likely have developed a hatred for them, which in turn would have affected my growth as a human personality.

In the interim, I leave it to the lawmakers and enforcers to determine what is done about the pedophile and the victims of the pedophile who become victimizers themselves due to their unwillingness to heal.

I have seen and been victimized by the looping patterns involved in the dynamics and prefer to kept such dynamics at arms length having learned how to recognize those.

Think about all of this with the example of ice cream flavors. When one changes from disliking pistachio ice cream to liking it, is that an improvement or just a change?

I cannot say that my preferences are any better or worse for everyone (re the ice-cream judgement scale) because there is nothing to show such being the case.

I could agree that in theory, if the world did not operate through pedophile tendencies, everyone would be happy, but I am not so sure that the current state of humanity is the result of this or even if the world does indeed operate through pedophile tendencies.

Rather, I suspect that having a scale of abuse that most folk can agree with tends to prioritized certain types of abuses over other types even to the point where humanity turns a blind eye to some forms of abuse through demonising other forms they consider "worse".

Overall I see that the human experience on this planet (in this particular "room") has this factor built into it and that it (abuse of any sort) doesn't appear to be a major concern with The Creator Mind because such things are not meant to be sorted in this room due to its design and no amount of moral laws have been shown to mitigate that.

No they don’t. If they did, they wouldn’t be subjectivists by definition. Opinions about the shape of the Earth can be true or false because there is a fact of the matter. Moral subjectivists don’t think that same thing holds in moral issues. A shape subjectivist would think there is no true/false shape of the Earth.

I am wondering if "moral objectivism" is simply another way of saying "Those who judge others and find those others inferior to themselves".

It is possible to grant The Creator Mind has the perspective which has it that the Universe was created with the complete knowledge of its outcome, so predetermination - in that sense - can be granted.

This appears to be what the bible-god is saying re the notion of being the Alpha and the Omega (re the Greeks) or the Aleph and Bet (re the Hebrews)...

While I don’t agree that is what the Alpha and Omega talk is about, I do agree that God would be able to have complete knowledge of how the Universe all unfolds.

Apples and oranges?

I don’t see why “the kingdom” makes this passage about determinism or even knowing how everything will work out.

It tells us that in order for us to come to that perspective, we have to drop all baggage of a prior perspective which influenced a resistance to the idea.
Once a human is "in the service of" The Creator Mind, the personality eventually understands the predetermination involved re their experience.

It doesn't even matter that those outside of this knowing, claim otherwise or explain such away as being "all in ones imagination" (and variations of that theme).

[The Tanager]

I think it possible that personalities can either remain active, be stored or deleted.

Okay, I’ll try to remember that.

Not sure entirely what you mean by "for their own good" and suppose we would have to examine each and every moral law to see where this is true since it is recognised/agreed these Laws can be tweaked and twisted to suit minds with a different agenda to that of The Creator Mind.

I mean that these rules aren’t just arbitrary, but that they work in concert with our natures so that they are moral rules because they are good for us.

I am not here to judge others and your question implies that I should.
I do not understand why some folk are (pedophile) and some folk are not. I am not, and am unlikely to change for a variety of reasons which include knowing what it feels like to be a victim of a pedophile, and also once being married to a victim of pedophiles, suffering her unwillingness to deal with the underlying issues and find healing, which eventually lead to the demise of that relationship.

If I were to judge the actions of those who were the victims unwilling to heal and those who were the victimizers unwilling to change, I would have problems with both and likely have developed a hatred for them, which in turn would have affected my growth as a human personality.

In the interim, I leave it to the lawmakers and enforcers to determine what is done about the pedophile and the victims of the pedophile who become victimizers themselves due to their unwillingness to heal.

I have seen and been victimized by the looping patterns involved in the dynamics and prefer to kept such dynamics at arms length having learned how to recognize those.

I’m not asking you to judge people, but to judge actions. And you seem to be judging actions in an objective way. Yes, maybe even bad choices can lead the perpetrator to grow, but the action itself you sound like you view as bad and the cause of real damage. You aren’t talking about it like you talk about ice cream flavors you don’t like. Even calling it “abuse” is a value judgment.

I am wondering if "moral objectivism" is simply another way of saying "Those who judge others and find those others inferior to themselves".

It’s not.

It tells us that in order for us to come to that perspective, we have to drop all baggage of a prior perspective which influenced a resistance to the idea.
Once a human is "in the service of" The Creator Mind, the personality eventually understands the predetermination involved re their experience.

It doesn't even matter that those outside of this knowing, claim otherwise or explain such away as being "all in ones imagination" (and variations of that theme).

Matthew 6 doesn’t talk about dropping all baggage of a prior perspective that influenced resistance to predetermination; it only talks about trusting God and not worrying.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #49]

I’m not asking you to judge people, but to judge actions. And you seem to be judging actions in an objective way. Yes, maybe even bad choices can lead the perpetrator to grow, but the action itself you sound like you view as bad and the cause of real damage. You aren’t talking about it like you talk about ice cream flavors you don’t like. Even calling it “abuse” is a value judgment.

Why are you asking me to judge actions?

Call it "abuse" when the action is claimed/perceived by the one receiving the action, as being "abusive". (agree with them but also observe their actions for signs that this is a factual claim)
In any case (and all cases) it is the subjective reaction to the objective action and the objective action is done through a subjective fundamental. There is no objective reason (that I know of) to believe there is any action which isn't fundamentally sourced in the activators subjective reality (mindfulness).

I am wondering if "moral objectivism" is simply another way of saying "Those who judge others and find those others inferior to themselves".

It’s not.

So what is "it"?

It doesn't even matter that those outside of this knowing, claim otherwise or explain such away as being "all in ones imagination" (and variations of that theme).

Matthew 6 doesn’t talk about dropping all baggage of a prior perspective that influenced resistance to predetermination; it only talks about trusting God and not worrying.

It tells us that in order for us to come to that perspective, we have to drop all baggage of a prior perspective which influenced a resistance to the idea.
Once a human is "in the service of" The Creator Mind, the personality eventually understands the predetermination involved re their experience.
I am saying that trusting that The Creator Mind knows all things, is the same thing as understanding the idea of predetermination.
Why baulk? Why split hairs? Why does it matter to you that The Creator Mind did not predetermine how things would play out?