[
Replying to The Tanager in post #298]
Okay, but the higher moral understanding that Johnny is moving towards…is that a reflection of GOD’s moral understanding or is GOD also evolving towards a higher moral understanding?
I think it's important to emphasize that humans are always in the position of learning, moving toward a higher moral understanding. In the context of Johnny’s moral growth, the progression is about humans evolving toward a deeper understanding of morality, rather than GOD evolving. GOD, as the companion in the co-creation process, already understands the gap between where humans are and where they need to go.
In this view, GOD’s moral understanding naturally incorporates the reality that humans aren’t “there” yet. GOD’s role, as a guiding presence, is to support this growth, not to evolve alongside us. The co-creation process acknowledges that human moral understanding is dynamic and evolving, while GOD’s understanding remains stable, recognizing and embracing our potential for growth.
If we consider the idea that the planet itself is mindful—what I understand as the ambassador mind that may be regarded as a God in its own right—this adds another layer. The planet could be the medium through which the Creator interacts, and like human personalities, the planet's personality is also evolving morally within the constraints of its environment. The co-creation between the Creator and the planet mind would involve different expectations and processes from those of humans, but there would be an overlap, especially where humans are concerned.
We are, after all, children of the planet. The planet mind (or She) wants us to know and enjoy the Creator in the same way we have enjoyed Her presence—consciously. This adds a new dimension to the co-creation process, where the subjective interaction between the Creator, the planet, and humans is interwoven, and each relationship reflects the moral growth of its participants.
Importantly, morality is related to circumstance. If GOD were purely the only thing that existed, there would be no need for morality, as there would be no relationships or circumstances that required moral considerations. Morality arises in the context of interaction and relationship—between humans, between the planet, and with the Creator. It's the diversity of experiences and the interplay between these entities that makes morality relevant. In this framework, morality is shaped by the circumstances, environments, and consciousness of the beings involved.
So, to answer your question: Johnny’s evolving moral understanding reflects GOD’s awareness of where humans are in their moral development, but GOD’s moral understanding doesn’t evolve—it already embraces the process of human growth. This process unfolds through the subjective relationship between Creator, planet, and humanity, and as such, the expectations and processes for each participant in the co-creation are nuanced but interconnected, with morality being dependent on the circumstances that arise in those interactions.
Wait, so has your problem all along really been with the doctrine of hell, rather than morality being objective? That’s what it sounds like here.
I can see how my point might have led you to that question, but my focus hasn’t been on the doctrine of hell. My position has always been centered around the subjective nature of morality and how GOD works with individuals through their personal experiences, guiding them toward alignment with a Universal Moral Intuition.
The framework I’m discussing doesn't involve external punishment, but instead emphasizes growth and correction through the co-creative relationship between humans and GOD. This process helps individuals like Johnny evolve morally over time, rather than imposing external condemnation.
My concern isn’t with the idea of hell specifically—it’s with how we understand morality and GOD's interaction with human growth. I think we can have a deeper conversation about morality without assuming the need for external judgment or punishment.
Does that help clarify my position?
I agree. The question is what modern understanding is the more reasonable inference.
I’m glad we agree on the importance of not applying a double standard when examining ancient reports alongside modern understandings of consciousness and human experience. You raise a good question: what modern understanding is the more reasonable inference?
From my perspective, when we take into account the insights from psychology, neuroscience, and consciousness studies, it's more reasonable to view many of these ancient reports—such as Moses' encounter with the burning bush or the giving of the Ten Commandments—as symbolic or subjective experiences. These experiences likely reflect cultural, psychological, and personal factors rather than being literal, external events.
We know from modern research that the human mind can interpret and experience symbolic imagery in profound ways, and that such experiences can feel real to the person involved. It seems more reasonable to infer that Moses' experience was shaped by his cultural background and his own mind's attempt to communicate spiritual truths in a way that was deeply meaningful to him and later to his followers.
This approach doesn’t diminish the spiritual significance of these stories but rather provides a framework that aligns with what we know about how human consciousness interacts with symbolic and religious experiences.
What do you think is the most reasonable modern inference in understanding these kinds of ancient reports?
I didn’t say there was a need to accept the literal interpretation of such events, unless you meant that it was actually God communicating with Moses in some way. I also don’t think there is a need to reject the event literally happening as written.
Thanks for clarifying your position. I understand now that you don’t see a need to accept the literal interpretation of such events, but also don’t feel a need to reject the idea that they could have happened as written. I can appreciate that balance.
From my perspective, the question isn't necessarily about rejecting the possibility of these events happening as described, but rather about asking what’s the most reasonable explanation given what we now know about the science of the mind. It's not about ruling out divine communication but considering how subjective experiences, shaped by cultural and psychological factors, might have influenced the way these events were understood and recorded.
For example, if we look at Moses' encounter with the burning bush, it could be seen as a powerful, subjective experience through which he interpreted divine communication. The symbolism could be deeply meaningful, but it might not require a literal bush that burns without being consumed. The subjective interpretation aligns more closely with modern understandings of how the mind processes and expresses spiritual experiences.
I’m not suggesting we dismiss the spiritual significance of these accounts, but rather that we interpret them in a way that fits with our understanding of human consciousness. Would you agree that it’s reasonable to use these insights to explore how such stories might be symbolic or subjective experiences, even if we leave open the possibility of divine interaction?
People take truths in these fields and use them in philosophical arguments (far too often unacknowledged as such) to try to point to their philosophical worldview. What we know about psychology and human consciousness does not prove that God didn’t speak to Moses in a burning bush or that God didn’t speak to Moses through a vision of some kind, if that is what you mean.
I see what you’re saying, and I’m not claiming that psychology or human consciousness studies definitively prove that GOD didn’t communicate with Moses. What I’m suggesting is that these insights provide a reasonable alternative way to understand the experiences described, one that fits within our modern understanding of how the mind works.
I’m simply making a case that these experiences could be subjective or symbolic rather than literal events, allowing room for both interpretations.
Why? If you could show that God only works through subjective influence, sure, but not without that.
Exactly—while the reports in the Bible, like the burning bush or GOD’s finger carving the commandments, are meaningful within the religious context, they don’t count as verifiable evidence in the way we would need to establish an objective GOD. These stories, though spiritually significant, don’t provide the kind of evidence that allows us to definitively conclude that GOD interacts with humanity in a literal, external way.
This is why I lean toward a subjective interpretation—we have no concrete evidence that these events happened as literal physical occurrences, but we do know that subjective spiritual experiences are common and can be deeply meaningful.
Would you agree that without verifiable evidence, we should be open to interpreting these events as symbolic or subjective rather than literal?
I would be more than happy to offer my case after you offer yours. You brought up this issue and you made positive claims, so it is your burden to support that first. So far, you need to show that the best inferences are (1) that God only works through subjective means and/or (2) that the psychological truths point towards your conclusion about Moses’ “encounter” rather than one of the two I offered as logically possible ones.
I want to clarify something regarding your second offering: the "Vision or Spiritual Experience" interpretation. To me, this aligns closely with what I’ve been describing as the subjective GOD framework. Both interpretations involve Moses receiving communication from GOD in a subjective, symbolic way—whether through visions, spiritual experiences, or what might be described as audio-visual phenomena.
I’ve noticed that you’ve used terms like hallucination in the context of NDEs and related phenomena, but I’m not using that term in a materialist sense. Instead, I’m using it to describe subjective spiritual experiences—what you might refer to as visions or spiritual encounters. So, in a way, we are talking about the same type of experience, just using different terminology.
When it comes to making the best inference, here are my reasons for leaning toward a psychological or symbolic interpretation:
Subjective spiritual experiences are well-documented in psychology. We know that the human mind often uses symbols and metaphors to convey profound spiritual insights, particularly in religious or mystical experiences. This makes it reasonable to view Moses’ encounter through this lens, without needing to assume the literal, external event occurred as described.
The lack of objective evidence supporting the literal occurrence of these events strengthens the case for a symbolic or psychological interpretation. We have no verifiable proof that a burning bush or GOD's finger carving stone occurred in a literal sense, but we do have centuries of understanding about how the mind processes and expresses spiritual experiences symbolically.
Considering the cultural context Moses was in—raised in Egyptian royalty, exposed to religious symbolism, and tasked with leading a people—it seems more plausible that his experiences were filtered through his own mind’s way of interpreting divine communication. These were powerful spiritual experiences, but there’s no requirement for them to be literal physical events.
I’m not ruling out the possibility of GOD interacting in other ways, but I think it’s more reasonable to interpret these types of biblical events as symbolic or subjective rather than literal physical occurrences.
Now that I’ve laid out my reasoning, I’d be happy to hear the case you have for interpreting these events as literal.
