Cultural Christians.

[William]

Elon Musk has identified himself as a cultural Christian in a new interview.

“While I’m not a particularly religious person, I do believe that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise… I would say I’m probably a cultural Christian,” the Tesla CEO said during a conversation on X with Jordan Peterson today. “There’s tremendous wisdom in turning the other cheek.”

Christian beliefs, Musk argued, “result in the greatest happiness for humanity, considering not just the present, but all future humans… I’m actually a big believer in the principles of Christianity. I think they’re very good.”

{SOURCE}

For debate.

Q: Is it better for the world to be a Cultural Christian than an all-out anti-theist?

Also.

Q: Is it better to be a Cultural Christian that belong to any organised Christian religion?

Cultural Christian Definition = Anyone that believes that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise.

[The Tanager]

My main question is how the OGM maintains objective moral truths when subjective processing can lead to different moral outcomes—especially with complex ethical issues. Can you clarify how the OGM’s approach addresses such variability?"

Yes…some people are right and some people are wrong. For those that are wrong, there was a mistake(s) that lead them to the wrong conclusion.

My question to you, in this context, is how your SGM maintains that contradicting moral outcomes (I should abuse this person vs. I shouldn’t abuse this person) are equally valid, both true, subjective moral truths, however you want to phrase that. Or, like my view, are you saying some are right and some are wrong?

In the SGM, subjective experiences are central to both personal growth and discerning moral truth itself. Does the OGM also consider subjective insights crucial for discerning moral truth, or are they strictly secondary to objective standards?

Depends on what you mean. If you mean that a human comes to moral truths through subjective insights or simply by being told what the truth is, then it’s the former. If you mean that what the moral truth is (i.e., abuse is good or bad), then the latter.

In the SGM, co-creation with GOD directly shapes society through evolving insights. Could you elaborate on how the OGM ensures that collective wisdom doesn’t become rigid over time?"

Depends on what you mean. Moral truth is rigid; it doesn’t change. Abuse has always been wrong. If you mean that communities should be compassionate, understanding, i.e., not ‘rigid’ in that sense, then I agree. An OGM would try to influence that through it’s collective teachings and the examples of its leaders.

By ‘externalized, objective view of GOD,’ I mean an emphasis on GOD as outside human experience, leading to reliance on external truths over personal insights. How does the OGM integrate this external view while fostering personal spiritual growth?

Depends on what you mean. My OGM is all about fostering personal spiritual growth, in part, through the objective wisdom of God as passed down through the human community, but also through direct personal, devotional relationship with God.

But if you are saying that subjective perceptions determine truth over objective realities, then I definitely reject that.

The SGM similarly values diverse insights but prioritizes individual discernment over set interpretations. How does the OGM prevent institutional interpretations of Scripture from becoming barriers to individual growth?

Truth can never be a barrier to growth. It can be a barrier to decay, especially when we run straight towards it. Mathematical truths are not a barrier to growth for the individual who discerns that 2 plus 2 equals five.

From the SGM perspective, forgiveness as personal healing is essential, even without acknowledgment. Does the OGM see forgiveness as equally healing under these conditions?

Yes.

In the SGM, the concept of authenticity hinges on the premise that our human experience begins without knowledge or even suspicion of our prior, co-creative relationship with GOD. This initial lack of awareness ensures a genuine human experience—one that grows and evolves as we gradually realize our deeper connection. Even as humans might come to understand this prior reality, the authenticity remains, as we continue to live fully within the human framework while engaging in an authentic relationship with GOD.

This authenticity aligns with SGM’s vision of spiritual growth through co-creation, rather than imposing a static knowledge of prior existence from the start. How does the OGM view the role of this initial unawareness in fostering a genuine relationship with GOD during the human experience?

If we did pre-exist, then this initial unawareness does seem helpful in fostering a genuine relationship. Is that what you were asking me or something else?

Also, could you answer my question? In your view, did we choose our pre-existent state? I’m not asking if we chose this state and then forgot it, but did we choose the state from which we made that choice?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #379]
Tanager, I must address the recurring pattern of misinterpretations and fallacies that sidetrack from my actual points. This approach hinders constructive dialogue, as I find myself repeatedly redirecting the conversation back to my original arguments. Moving forward, I’m only interested in direct critiques of the SGM as I’ve presented it, and I would appreciate a clearer focus on those critiques rather than on hypothetical or tangential topics. Here are my responses to your points, with a final request for clarity in your critique.

1. Broader Definition of Abuse and OGM’s Consistency
You mention that my critique of abuse challenges only the biblical depiction of GOD within the OGM and not the model itself. I’ve clarified that my critique is about the consistency of any OGM that claims absolute moral opposition to abuse while simultaneously tolerating or allowing it in specific contexts. My point isn’t limited to Christianity but applies to any objective moral framework grounded in an external authority that selectively intervenes. By sidestepping this, you deflect from the ethical inconsistency I’m raising within the general OGM framework.

Request for Clarity: Please directly address whether you see the OGM as consistent in opposing all forms of abuse, given its claim to objective morality and selective tolerance of harm. If you believe it is consistent, please provide a rationale without shifting focus to the validity of Christianity specifically.

2. Holistic Approach to Abuse in the SGM vs. OGM’s Categorization
You’ve accused me of “moving the goalposts” by questioning how the OGM’s categorization approach risks prioritizing certain abuses over others. However, my critique is not a shift in argument but a consistent question of whether the OGM can avoid selective moral emphasis. The SGM’s holistic approach treats all forms of harm with equal moral urgency, avoiding the risks inherent in selective categorization.

Request for Engagement: Please respond to my point on the risks of selective categorization in OGM without reframing it as an inconsistency on my part. The SGM’s approach to treating all harm as equally significant is an essential part of its ethical consistency and a key contrast with OGM.

3. Equivocation on “Hate” and OGM’s Moral Opposition
By questioning my use of “hate,” you focus on semantics rather than the inconsistency within the OGM itself. I am pointing out the contradiction in an OGM that claims strong opposition to abuse yet allows it selectively. The SGM sidesteps this contradiction by positioning GOD as an internal guide rather than a judgmental authority.

Request for Focused Response: Please engage with the substance of my argument on moral inconsistency rather than the terminology. Do you believe that claiming an absolute stance against abuse is consistent with selectively tolerating it, or does this create an ethical dilemma within the OGM framework?

4. Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) and SGM’s Compassionate Model
You briefly acknowledge forgiveness but then divert to question the validity of NDEs. The SGM uses NDEs to illustrate a model of divine forgiveness that emphasizes empathy and healing over condemnation. This is a fundamental distinction between the SGM’s compassionate, non-judgmental approach to moral growth and the OGM’s more traditional judgment framework.

Clarification Request: My point isn’t about whether forgiveness exists in OGM but about how it’s practiced. In the SGM, NDEs highlight a divine forgiveness model centered on growth and compassion, while the OGM’s framework leans toward judgment. Could you clarify how the OGM reconciles these approaches?

Final Note:
To move forward productively, I need a commitment to directly engage with my points without deflecting to hypothetical issues or altering the arguments I present. If these patterns of fallacies and distractions continue, I’ll conclude that we’re at an impasse in this conversation. My goal here is to engage meaningfully on the distinct philosophical and ethical approaches of the SGM versus the OGM. If we can’t maintain that focus, I see little point in continuing the discussion.

[The Tanager]

To move forward productively, I need a commitment to directly engage with my points without deflecting to hypothetical issues or altering the arguments I present. If these patterns of fallacies and distractions continue, I’ll conclude that we’re at an impasse in this conversation. My goal here is to engage meaningfully on the distinct philosophical and ethical approaches of the SGM versus the OGM. If we can’t maintain that focus, I see little point in continuing the discussion.

I am doing so, as best I can. Do you feel you are treating me with the same respect? Are you the only one that gets to choose what we talk about? If you want to move forward productively, then stop assuming I’m playing these games of deflecting and altering. I’m trying to understand you and be understood. I think you are consistently misunderstanding me and ignoring my points. Is it possible that we are both at fault here?

If so, then please answer my questions or, at the least, explain why my questions are irrelevant with each specific issue. Just in my last post you didn’t address my 8 points. If they are all off-topic, then both of us simply haven’t done a good job of communication.

If not, then there is no point in us continuing the discussion.

You mention that my critique of abuse challenges only the biblical depiction of GOD within the OGM and not the model itself. I’ve clarified that my critique is about the consistency of any OGM that claims absolute moral opposition to abuse while simultaneously tolerating or allowing it in specific contexts. My point isn’t limited to Christianity but applies to any objective moral framework grounded in an external authority that selectively intervenes. By sidestepping this, you deflect from the ethical inconsistency I’m raising within the general OGM framework.

I have not sidestepped this; I’ve directly answered it as well as making the other points. Claiming that abuse is wrong and allowing humans to commit it is, in no way whatsoever, inconsistent. If it is, then claiming 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong, but humans still being able to get it wrong would be inconsistent. That’s obviously not the case.

You’ve accused me of “moving the goalposts” by questioning how the OGM’s categorization approach risks prioritizing certain abuses over others. However, my critique is not a shift in argument but a consistent question of whether the OGM can avoid selective moral emphasis. The SGM’s holistic approach treats all forms of harm with equal moral urgency, avoiding the risks inherent in selective categorization.

You asked me for a specific example of an objective moral. You didn’t ask me what moral truths does the OGM emphasize or what is the greatest moral evil in my view or anything like that. But to address that, my OGM treats all forms of harm with equal moral urgency. The Bible doesn’t teach a hierarchy of sins. In fact, it’s the opposite. All sin is equal sin.

You briefly acknowledge forgiveness but then divert to question the validity of NDEs. The SGM uses NDEs to illustrate a model of divine forgiveness that emphasizes empathy and healing over condemnation. This is a fundamental distinction between the SGM’s compassionate, non-judgmental approach to moral growth and the OGM’s more traditional judgment framework.

Clarification Request: My point isn’t about whether forgiveness exists in OGM but about how it’s practiced. In the SGM, NDEs highlight a divine forgiveness model centered on growth and compassion, while the OGM’s framework leans toward judgment. Could you clarify how the OGM reconciles these approaches?

I asked you to clarify the “judgment framework” you see in my OGM. You haven’t. I gather that it’s a characterization that I would disagree is my actual view. I can’t see if you don’t clarify, however.

If you are asking for the mechanism that replaces NDEs, then it’s the teachings of Jesus which best highlights divine forgiveness centered on compassion and personal growth. It’s all over the gospels.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #383]

Tanager. I have created a list of 12 points which summarize all that I have said to you so far re SGM, which you can find here.

Perhaps you can do a similar thing for me re OGM.

[Replying to The Tanager in post #381]

I’m glad to see we now align on forgiveness as having intrinsic healing power, regardless of the offender’s acknowledgment. This appears to be a shift from your earlier position, which suggested that forgiveness required the offender to ‘fess up’ to be meaningful. This adjustment is important, as it moves closer to the SGM’s emphasis on personal healing through forgiveness, even when the offender may never take responsibility.

In the case of varying subjective interpretations within OGM, could you provide a concrete example of how OGM maintains objective moral truths? The specifics here are key to seeing how subjective experiences are processed without compromising objective standards.

Could you outline specific processes or practices within OGM that allow for flexibility in collective wisdom, ensuring that teachings and interpretations remain dynamic rather than static?

Could you share an example of how OGM reconciles GOD’s external authority with fostering deeply personal growth? The goal is to understand how personal experiences align with externally defined truths within OGM.

When discussing ‘hate’ as strong opposition to abuse, I’d like to clarify that this refers specifically to active prevention, not merely a stance. If OGM’s opposition to abuse is active, examples of this in action would help clarify the model’s position on intervention.

You mentioned that all can fail, yet institutional failures have broader impacts than individual ones, especially under OGM’s communal structure. Could you specify any safeguards within OGM designed to minimize institutional biases?

My aim is to understand OGM’s handling of moral issues in contrast to SGM, and that further questions should ideally align with these foundational distinctions.

If we did pre-exist, then this initial unawareness does seem helpful in fostering a genuine relationship. Is that what you were asking me or something else?

My focus here was on the authenticity of the human experience itself, rather than relationship.

The SGM posits that beginning our human journey without knowledge of a prior divine connection allows for a genuinely immersive human experience. This initial unawareness supports authentic growth and discovery within the context of being human, without any pre-existing knowledge of a co-creative relationship.

In your view, did we choose our pre-existent state? I’m not asking if we chose this state and then forgot it, but did we choose the state from which we made that choice?

SGM views our pre-existent state as eternal aspects of GOD, inherently part of a co-creative process. If GOD had no choice being the state of GOD, then the question is irrelevant.


In the SGM framework, the notion of choice becomes relevant specifically when it pertains to the decision to change states or enter a different mode of existence, such as the human experience. This choice reflects a deliberate movement within the co-creative.

[The Tanager]

Tanager. I have created a list of 12 points which summarize all that I have said to you so far re SGM, which you can find here.

Perhaps you can do a similar thing for me re OGM.

(1) Humans have an effective role in the creation of reality, including moral beliefs and actions, but not moral truths, scientific truths, mathematical truths, logical truths, etc.. God seeks to influence us in our beliefs and actions through an ongoing personal relationship, communion with the wider human race, and revealing objective truths to us in a variety of ways (science, history, texts, etc.).

(2) Moral authority resides with God and can be well reflected within individuals and institutions or not well reflected. I believe moral terms, such as ‘child abuse’ need clear definitions to facilitate focused dialogue and enhance moral understanding.

(3) I don’t believe in a pre-human existence, but that belief isn’t necessary for an OGM. Humans were created with limited free will. No being can have complete free will, as beings logically could not have a say to (ultimately) begin to exist or be eternal. Humans require what has been called an epistemic distance from God in order to have free will, which allows for growth and freely coming to join oneself with God. OGM emphasizes that human actions are distinct from God, with historical atrocities seen as products of free will acting independently of God’s will.

(4) Forgiveness is essential for personal healing and spiritual growth, which is an internal process whether or not the wrongdoer acknowledges their wrongdoing. This model empowers individuals to release resentment, seek inner peace with God, continue co-creating with God, and focusing on growth in themselves and others. Forgiveness comes from alignment with divine values, relying on divine wisdom and power, supporting spiritual resilience without condoning harmful actions.

(5) OGM holds individuals responsible for actions taken outside of divine alignment (i.e., immoral actions) as a result of their free will. OGM holds groups of individuals (i.e., institutions) responsible in the same way for their actions. God desires societal transformation on that level. God allows these evils to happen, but divine guidance is available to those who come to God in trust, thus promoting moral growth without undermining free will.

(6) OGM acknowledges the inherent subjectivity of human experience and the deep interconnectedness of all beings, promoting empathy, unity, and inclusivity, encouraging personal and societal growth, adapting objective moral principles to changing social contexts and prioritizing the well-being of all life. Inclusivity of individuals (not beliefs) and adaptability are core to OGM, emphasizing the need for continuous, co-creative development aligned with God’s wisdom and guidance.

(7) OGM values scientific and spiritual and philosophical and historical and aesthetic (maybe others) exploration, seeing them as complementary paths to knowledge and growth, encouraging a balanced approach to understanding and incorporating those insights into life

(8) OGM advocates for influential figures to the same objective morals as everyone else.

(9) God is experienced as an objective, real presence distinct from us that allows for a deep, personal, direct relationship with individuals. Institutional authority and individual self-centered desires are both critiqued by OGM. The Kingdom of God is discovered subjectively by individuals and manifested outwardly through actions aligned with objective spiritual truths.

(10) OGM doesn’t rule out God interacting with individuals through NDEs, but it at least isn’t a main way. Other things (like Biblical teachings) provide enough insight into compassion and forgiveness, even of serious wrongs, so NDEs aren’t needed for that to occur. I don’t know what a “synchronicity” is.

(11) OGM maintains that not all human actions are co-created with God; some, particularly harmful ones (such as the Holocaust), arise from human agency acting independently of divine will. Co-creation with God requires conscious alignment with divine values, making tragedies solely human creations rather than shared endeavors with God.

(12) The bit about pre-existence is a repeat of 3. Either way, personal accountability is theoretically equal. Either way, there is a purpose behind earthly challenges.

I’m glad to see we now align on forgiveness as having intrinsic healing power, regardless of the offender’s acknowledgment. This appears to be a shift from your earlier position, which suggested that forgiveness required the offender to ‘fess up’ to be meaningful. This adjustment is important, as it moves closer to the SGM’s emphasis on personal healing through forgiveness, even when the offender may never take responsibility.

No, it’s not a shift. Earlier I said that forgiving someone requires that something objectively wrong was done. You thought I meant the offender must acknowledge the sin before forgiveness could occur. I directly clarified that wasn’t what I meant.

In the case of varying subjective interpretations within OGM, could you provide a concrete example of how OGM maintains objective moral truths? The specifics here are key to seeing how subjective experiences are processed without compromising objective standards.

I don’t understand what you asking for here.

Could you outline specific processes or practices within OGM that allow for flexibility in collective wisdom, ensuring that teachings and interpretations remain dynamic rather than static?

Objective truths (such as good moral principles) are static. How those are applied are dynamic. The collective wisdom of the Kingdom of God is flexible in that sense.

Could you share an example of how OGM reconciles GOD’s external authority with fostering deeply personal growth? The goal is to understand how personal experiences align with externally defined truths within OGM.

The rapist that comes to see God’s external authority and places his trust in Jesus is convicted and transformed through spending daily times with God reading scripture, praying, talking with other Christians, serving others, etc.

When discussing ‘hate’ as strong opposition to abuse, I’d like to clarify that this refers specifically to active prevention, not merely a stance.

Okay, then God doesn’t hate/actively prevent abuse in OGM. That’s the same in SGM, right?

You mentioned that all can fail, yet institutional failures have broader impacts than individual ones, especially under OGM’s communal structure. Could you specify any safeguards within OGM designed to minimize institutional biases?

Leaders are called on to have a body around them holding them accountable, to maintain a daily walk with God including confession, repentance, gratitude, etc., to maintain a servant’s heart mindset, to seek justice, etc.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #385]

Thank you for providing points re the OGM. I have placed these here for ease re referencing.

1. Human Role in Reality and Moral Truths:
To better understand the nature of "revealed truths" in the Objective GOD Model (OGM), could you provide specific examples of what OGM considers as revealed truths? For instance, are there particular moral, scientific, logical, or historical truths that OGM holds as definitively revealed by GOD, and if so, how are they identified as such? Additionally, are these truths open to reinterpretation or adaptation over time, or are they considered fixed and unchanging?

These examples would clarify the scope of "revealed truths" within OGM and help illustrate how they differ from the evolving, co-creative moral truths emphasized in SGM.

2. Moral Authority and the Role of Institutions:
Does OGM allow for any institutional flexibility in moral interpretation, or are OGM’s moral standards fixed regardless of context?

Suppose a religious institution upholds a longstanding moral standard against divorce, viewing marriage as a divine, unbreakable bond. However, over time, societal attitudes shift, recognizing circumstances where divorce may be necessary to protect individuals’ well-being, such as in cases of abuse. In SGM, such a moral standard would be open to re-evaluation through individual discernment and evolving understanding in alignment with GOD.

Question for OGM: Would OGM permit this institution to adapt its stance on divorce based on new insights, compassionate considerations, or evolving societal values? Or would OGM require that the institution adhere to the original, “revealed” moral standard without adjustment?

3. Free Will and Epistemic Distance:
How does OGM address human responsibility and divine non-intervention in cases of moral wrongdoing, particularly in comparison to the concept of free will in SGM?

To explore human responsibility and divine non-intervention in OGM, let's use an example related to historical atrocities, such as the Holocaust.

In SGM, such events are viewed as tragic outcomes of human free will, acting independently of GOD, and individuals are held accountable through a process of personal and collective moral growth. SGM would see such events as an opportunity for humanity to realign with divine values, using the lessons learned to promote compassion, justice, and societal transformation.

Question for OGM: In the context of a historical atrocity like the Holocaust, how does OGM view GOD’s role in terms of responsibility and non-intervention? Does OGM hold that GOD allows such evils purely to respect human free will, or does it also see them as opportunities for co-creative realignment with divine values, as SGM does? Additionally, does OGM interpret human accountability for these actions as a static failure or as a stepping stone toward spiritual and moral realignment?

4. Forgiveness as an Internal Process:
Is forgiveness in OGM seen as universally applicable across contexts, or does it adapt to individual and situational variations as in SGM?

In SGM, forgiveness is understood as a flexible, insight-driven act primarily intended to support the individual’s own spiritual growth and alignment with divine values, rather than as an obligatory release of the offender from accountability. Here’s how forgiveness is defined and approached in SGM:

Forgiveness as a Tool for Personal Healing:

Forgiveness in SGM is a personal, internal process that allows the individual to release resentment and emotional burdens, which supports their co-creative relationship with GOD. This act is focused on the well-being of the forgiver, enabling them to move forward in their spiritual growth without being anchored to negative feelings.
Forgiveness Without Forgetting:

SGM recognizes that forgiving someone does not mean forgetting the harm caused. Instead, the individual may remember the experience as a learning opportunity that informs their growth and discernment. This allows them to make wise, protective choices in the future, while no longer feeling controlled by past hurt.

Conditional Boundaries in Forgiveness:

Forgiveness in SGM does not imply automatic reconciliation or renewed trust with the offender. The individual may forgive the offender in spirit—recognizing the offender’s humanity and “wishing them well in their journey”—but still maintain clear boundaries. This approach respects the individual’s needs and safety while promoting forgiveness as an internal step toward personal peace.

Forgiveness for Self, Not Necessarily for the Offender:

SGM frames forgiveness as an act that primarily benefits the forgiver by releasing negative energy that could hinder their spiritual journey. The goal is to align with divine values such as compassion, but in a way that is self-directed and self-healing. The offender’s acknowledgment or behavior change is not a prerequisite for this type of forgiveness.
Forgiveness as a Step in Co-Creation with GOD:

In SGM, forgiveness is part of the evolving, co-creative relationship with GOD, where the individual aligns with divine values but remains free to interpret and apply them based on personal growth and insight. Forgiving someone who has caused harm is seen as a choice that, when made, contributes to the individual’s spiritual resilience and opens pathways for ongoing moral development.

Setting Boundaries with a Wish for Transformation:

SGM allows for a kind of forgiveness where one acknowledges the offender’s potential for change (“Go and sin no more”) but chooses to distance oneself for personal well-being. This form of forgiveness respects the divine value of compassion while setting healthy boundaries, illustrating that SGM’s forgiveness is flexible, prioritizing personal healing without forcing reconciliation.

Summary
In SGM, forgiveness is a process aimed at personal healing and spiritual alignment. It enables the individual to release resentment while retaining protective boundaries, aligning with divine values in a way that supports their growth. This approach allows for forgiveness as a flexible, insight-based act rather than a rigid obligation, empowering individuals to co-create their spiritual path with GOD in a way that feels constructive and authentic.

How does OGM define forgiveness, and does this definition differ from SGM’s approach? Specifically, does OGM view forgiveness primarily as an internal process for personal healing and spiritual growth, even if reconciliation or forgetting isn’t possible? Additionally, does OGM allow for forgiveness while maintaining boundaries with the offender, or is forgiveness more closely tied to an expectation of reconciliation or absolution?

5. Responsibility and Accountability for Actions:
In both SGM and OGM, forgiveness and accountability seem aligned as complementary principles. Forgiveness promotes inner peace and resilience, supporting individuals in moving beyond resentment, while accountability emphasizes responsibility and encourages moral and spiritual growth.
This alignment suggests that both SGM and OGM view forgiveness not as a release from responsibility but as a step toward healthier, more constructive moral development. Exploring any nuanced differences in approach could highlight how each model applies these principles in practice, particularly around setting boundaries, maintaining personal well-being, and balancing compassion with justice.
Given that both SGM and OGM recognize forgiveness and accountability as essential to moral growth, does OGM interpret accountability through fixed principles, or does it allow for adaptation based on individual and societal evolution, similar to SGM?

6. Empathy, Inclusivity, and Moral Adaptability:

Does OGM hold certain moral principles as fixed and universally applied in all situations? If so, could you provide an example of such a principle? Alternatively, are there any principles that allow for contextual interpretation based on specific circumstances?

7. Integration of Scientific and Spiritual Exploration:
How does OGM integrate insights from scientific, spiritual, and other fields into moral and spiritual development, and are there differences from SGM’s integration approach?

Suppose a series of scientific studies examines NDEs, reporting common elements among people who’ve had these experiences—such as feelings of peace, seeing light, and encountering deceased loved ones. Some researchers suggest that these experiences might reflect a universal aspect of consciousness, while others argue they’re merely neurological phenomena.

You have indicated (10.) that OGM does not focus on NDEs as a primary source of divine insight, suggesting that other sources, like Biblical teachings, provide sufficient guidance on values such as compassion and forgiveness. From an OGM perspective:

Scientific Study Interpretation:
re (10.)
OGM might view these studies as interesting but secondary to established sources of divine wisdom, such as scripture or historical texts.

Objective Moral Insight: OGM could acknowledge that NDEs may offer insights into the human experience but might not consider them authoritative in shaping moral or spiritual truths.
Scientific Approach: Since OGM values a balanced approach, it might appreciate the scientific method in studying NDEs but ultimately not rely on them for core spiritual or moral guidance.

Given that science is a process of integration and discovery, how does OGM demonstrate its integration of scientific and spiritual exploration, especially in areas like NDE studies? If OGM values science but places less emphasis on subjective experiences, what criteria does it use to integrate scientific findings that explore subjective aspects of consciousness, such as NDEs, with its spiritual framework?

Since science embraces the integration of new data, especially subjective data when reliably gathered, this question asks OGM to clarify how it upholds scientific integration while potentially limiting its focus to more traditional sources (like religious texts).

8. Moral Standards for Influential Figures:
Does OGM’s accountability for influential figures adjust according to personal growth, or is it applied uniformly?

In SGM, judgment on influential figures is an adaptable, reflective process that promotes discernment, collective learning, and moral growth. Rather than imposing a permanent label, SGM’s accountability encourages influential figures to realign with divine values while fostering collective self-examination. Judgment serves as guidance, not as absolute condemnation, and respects the potential for continuous personal evolution.

This approach is rooted in SGM’s commitment to flexible, evolving standards, aiming for constructive accountability rather than fixed, punitive judgment.

We could example Elon Musk as to how different perspectives of human subjectiveness judge his actions differently.

Which objective truths or moral standards within OGM would you use to evaluate whether Elon Musk’s actions are morally true or false? Could you provide examples of how these standards apply to his contributions in areas like environmental innovation, as well as to his more controversial actions, such as management practices or public behavior?

9. Objective vs. Subjective Divining Presence:
How does OGM reconcile GOD’s objective nature with the subjective discovery process, particularly in terms of the role of personal insight in divining truth?

King David’s life is known for its deeply personal relationship with God, marked by moments of faith, repentance, moral failings, and divining forgiveness. David’s subjective experiences, as described in the Psalms and biblical narratives, reflect a relationship where he seeks God’s guidance, expresses profound devotion, and navigates complex moral situations.

SGM’s Perspective: David’s Relationship as a Model of Subjective Alignment with GOD
In SGM, David’s relationship with GOD would be seen as a deeply subjective and evolving journey, where he seeks to align with divine values through personal insight and internal discernment. While SGM respects the core moral values seen in David’s story, it allows for a more flexible, insight-driven interpretation.

Evolving Moral Understanding:

SGM interprets David’s journey as a dynamic process in which he discerns and aligns with divine values like compassion, humility, and justice, but in ways that adapt based on his personal growth and context. His repentance and remorse would be valued as steps toward internal realignment with GOD rather than as necessary actions to satisfy an external moral standard of God.
David’s actions, such as seeking forgiveness, are seen as part of his evolving moral understanding rather than as adherence to any particular fixed standards. His relationship with GOD would be flexible, emphasizing personal insights and spiritual growth over rigid rules.

Divine Presence as Subjective and Internal:

In SGM, GOD is experienced as a subjective presence within David, guiding him through his own internal feelings, reflections, and insights. The prophetic voice that confronts David (like Nathan’s rebuke) would be interpreted as encouraging David’s internal alignment with values like accountability and humility rather than as delivering an objective moral judgment (thus through synchronicity)
This perspective emphasizes that David’s relationship with GOD is shaped by personal intuition and spiritual insight, allowing him to engage with divine values in ways that reflect his unique journey.

Moral Discernment over Fixed Judgment:

SGM views David’s moral choices as opportunities for co-creation with GOD, where each action contributes to his moral evolution. Rather than applying fixed judgments, SGM encourages David to interpret divine values dynamically, focusing on how his actions contribute to his alignment with GOD over time. (Hench the songs David wrote through this subjective, internal relationship)

For instance, SGM would interpret David’s remorse not simply as a response to a fixed wrongdoing but as a meaningful part of his ongoing journey of self-discovery, allowing his understanding of compassion and justice to deepen.

10. Divine Interaction and NDEs:
Does OGM see any value in subjective spiritual experiences like NDEs or synchronicities as part of divine interaction?

In David’s story, Nathan’s prophetic guidance serves as an example of synchronicity—an event that feels subjectively meaningful and aligned with divine values, even if it appears externally objective to others. This synchronicity allows both David and Nathan to act as conduits for GOD’s guidance, each through their unique subjective connection with the divining.

Example of Synchronicity in David’s Story:

When Nathan confronts David, this moment acts as a synchronistic event. For David, Nathan’s rebuke arrives at the right moment, reflecting divine values like accountability and justice, yet it resonates subjectively, deeply impacting David’s personal journey and prompting introspection.
From David’s perspective, Nathan’s appearance may seem objective, as if GOD sent him. But within SGM, this encounter is subjectively experienced as divine guidance, helping David realign with GOD’s values.
Essentially David accepts that GOD sent Nathan and perceives this guidance through his internal moral discernment, encouraged by the prophetic insight Nathan provides.
In this, David is not assuming GOD came to Nathan as some objective entity, as Nathan received the message through his own subjective experience.

Synchronicity as Subjective yet Aligned with Divine Values:

In SGM, synchronicities like Nathan’s confrontation are seen as divinely meaningful but recognized through subjective interpretation. David and Nathan each connect with GOD through personal insight: Nathan receives the prophetic insight, and David interprets it as a call to repentance and realignment.

SGM emphasizes that these synchronistic moments are opportunities for co-creation with GOD, where individuals align their personal understanding with broader divine values.


Using this understanding, would OGM consider interactions like Nathan’s rebuke of David as divinely orchestrated moments, or would OGM view such guidance as entirely external and objective? How does OGM interpret divining messages that come through other people?

11. Distinction Between Co-Creation and Independent Actions:
In OGM, are moral misalignments viewed as static failures or as opportunities for co-creative realignment with GOD, as in SGM?

In SGM, participants operate within a GOD model, meaning they act not independently but in an interconnected, co-creative relationship. Human actions, particularly those aligned with divined values, are seen as part of a collaborative process with GOD. Moral choices are thus made with divine guidance and influence, reflecting an ongoing relationship rather than purely autonomous actions.

12. Pre-Existence and Earthly Challenges:
Does OGM consider earthly challenges to be divined as appointed for growth in a way that aligns with the concept of a “pre-human agreement” to experience life?

In SGM, earthly challenges are viewed as divined—meaning they’re subjectively discerned as purposeful opportunities for growth that were chosen or agreed upon in a pre-human context. This pre-human agreement reflects the individual’s commitment to spiritual evolution, framing life not just as a series of arbitrary events, but as a co-creative journey where challenges serve to deepen one’s alignment with GOD.

In this model, every challenge is a potential lesson or invitation for realignment with divined values such as compassion, resilience, and empathy. SGM holds that individuals, through their insight-driven relationship with GOD, interpret these challenges as meaningful steps in their spiritual development, chosen to fulfill the unique lessons each soul seeks.

This perspective differs from viewing life’s events as purely external trials; instead, it emphasizes that each challenge is subjectively “divined” as integral to one’s spiritual path, with the individual actively engaging in interpreting and integrating these experiences.

Note: (re "divine" and "divined")
Adding a single letter—changing “divine” to “divined”—shifts the entire perspective, transforming what might be seen as external, fixed truths into personal, insight-driven discoveries. This subtle adjustment deepens the meaning, reinforcing that in SGM, values and guidance are not just received passively but actively discerned and co-created through the individual’s relationship with GOD.
______________________

[The Tanager]

Thank you for providing points re the OGM. I have placed these here for ease re referencing.

Thank you! William, your mind works in a way mine naturally doesn't. You see lots of connections. I naturally take a more focused approach, wanting to cover one step at a time, looking at all the branches in an order. All that to say, I'm trying to keep up with you, but I ask grace in the times I misunderstand and seem to be skipping over or ignoring.

To better understand the nature of "revealed truths" in the Objective GOD Model (OGM), could you provide specific examples of what OGM considers as revealed truths? For instance, are there particular moral, scientific, logical, or historical truths that OGM holds as definitively revealed by GOD, and if so, how are they identified as such?

That God is the creator of the world (the Kalam, fine-tuning, applicability of mathematics, consciousness, etc. arguments). That killing an innocent human is wrong (Biblical texts, philosophical reasoning). That Jesus died on the cross and rose again (historical study of the texts and time period, coupled with philosophical reasoning). Stuff like that.

Additionally, are these truths open to reinterpretation or adaptation over time, or are they considered fixed and unchanging?

Fixed and unchanging.

Does OGM allow for any institutional flexibility in moral interpretation, or are OGM’s moral standards fixed regardless of context?

Suppose a religious institution upholds a longstanding moral standard against divorce, viewing marriage as a divine, unbreakable bond. However, over time, societal attitudes shift, recognizing circumstances where divorce may be necessary to protect individuals’ well-being, such as in cases of abuse. In SGM, such a moral standard would be open to re-evaluation through individual discernment and evolving understanding in alignment with GOD.

Fixed, but it takes context into account. For instance, it could be okay to kill out of self defense (although I’m not sure about that myself), but not out of being annoyed. The situations allowed do not change because of shifting societal attitudes. In the Biblical understanding, divorce has always been allowed in some cases.

Question for OGM: Would OGM permit this institution to adapt its stance on divorce based on new insights, compassionate considerations, or evolving societal values? Or would OGM require that the institution adhere to the original, “revealed” moral standard without adjustment?

This is a different question, though. Yes, OGM permits (and calls for) institutions to adapt its moral stances based on new insights about the eternal fixed truths (which include considering compassion) and how they apply to that situation. One should not simply go with the current fad of values that fickle society holds.

This doesn’t mean that the texts have laid out every conceivable application of the moral principle, just that the moral principle is there and we are called to use God’s wisdom, in a vibrant relationship with God, to apply those fixed moral principles to ever new situations. So, it should adhere to the revealed, objective moral truths and continually adjust itself to that.

How does OGM address human responsibility and divine non-intervention in cases of moral wrongdoing, particularly in comparison to the concept of free will in SGM?

To explore human responsibility and divine non-intervention in OGM, let's use an example related to historical atrocities, such as the Holocaust.

In SGM, such events are viewed as tragic outcomes of human free will, acting independently of GOD, and individuals are held accountable through a process of personal and collective moral growth. SGM would see such events as an opportunity for humanity to realign with divine values, using the lessons learned to promote compassion, justice, and societal transformation.

Question for OGM: In the context of a historical atrocity like the Holocaust, how does OGM view GOD’s role in terms of responsibility and non-intervention? Does OGM hold that GOD allows such evils purely to respect human free will, or does it also see them as opportunities for co-creative realignment with divine values, as SGM does? Additionally, does OGM interpret human accountability for these actions as a static failure or as a stepping stone toward spiritual and moral realignment?

It seems identical to me, except that you think we existed with free will prior to when I think we began to exist. The Holocaust was a tragic outcome of human free will, acting independently of God and individuals are held accountable and may never show moral growth, but moral growth (individual and collective) is worked towards by God and an opportunity for humanity to realign with divine values, using the lessons learned to promote compassion, justice, and societal transformation.

Is forgiveness in OGM seen as universally applicable across contexts, or does it adapt to individual and situational variations as in SGM?...

I, within my OGM context, agree with everything you said about forgiveness.

Given that both SGM and OGM recognize forgiveness and accountability as essential to moral growth, does OGM interpret accountability through fixed principles, or does it allow for adaptation based on individual and societal evolution, similar to SGM?

Could you provide specific examples of what you are talking about so that I can better understand what you mean here?

Does OGM hold certain moral principles as fixed and universally applied in all situations? If so, could you provide an example of such a principle? Alternatively, are there any principles that allow for contextual interpretation based on specific circumstances?

I am not an absolutist (i.e., moral rules are the same, no matter the situation). I’m a relativist. Moral principles are fixed, but the situation must be taken into account to determine how best to apply the moral principle.

How does OGM integrate insights from scientific, spiritual, and other fields into moral and spiritual development, and are there differences from SGM’s integration approach?

Suppose a series of scientific studies examines NDEs, reporting common elements among people who’ve had these experiences—such as feelings of peace, seeing light, and encountering deceased loved ones. Some researchers suggest that these experiences might reflect a universal aspect of consciousness, while others argue they’re merely neurological phenomena.

OGMs should seek to integrate all true insights from all fields of research into one’s moral and spiritual development. I don’t think this is different than SGM, although the models may disagree on what is an actual, true insight.

For instance, if NDE research provides truth, then OGM should take it into account, including for spiritual and moral guidance if there is connection to those things. If there is uncertainty over the truth of NDE (or other examples) one can be conservative and fall back on the body of knowledge that already touches upon moral and spiritual guidance, for it is (generally speaking) enough to live a moral life, although some individuals could conceivably benefit from such experiences in coming to truth.

Some Christians have looked into NDEs. I haven’t read them on this subject, but some names I know of are Michael Zigarelli, John Burke, Gary Habermas, JP Moreland.

If OGM values science but places less emphasis on subjective experiences, what criteria does it use to integrate scientific findings that explore subjective aspects of consciousness, such as NDEs, with its spiritual framework?

Since science embraces the integration of new data, especially subjective data when reliably gathered, this question asks OGM to clarify how it upholds scientific integration while potentially limiting its focus to more traditional sources (like religious texts).

OGM would use the normal criteria for integrating scientific findings, much of the ones I’ve already named since science is largely a case of inferences to the best explanation.

As far as limiting the focus, I think the reverse is true. OGM widens the focus more than SGM because it includes all sources and analyzing them. SGM (it seems) looks at all sources minus things like religious texts, while OGM looks at all the SGM’s sources and adds to it things like religious texts. SGM has the narrower focus.

In SGM, judgment on influential figures is an adaptable, reflective process that promotes discernment, collective learning, and moral growth. Rather than imposing a permanent label, SGM’s accountability encourages influential figures to realign with divine values while fostering collective self-examination. Judgment serves as guidance, not as absolute condemnation, and respects the potential for continuous personal evolution.

This approach is rooted in SGM’s commitment to flexible, evolving standards, aiming for constructive accountability rather than fixed, punitive judgment.

OGM encourages influential figures to realign with divine values, too. Judgment is a chance for growth, not absolute condemnation, although one can choose to never grow towards divine wisdom.

I don’t see how this kind of thing can come from evolving standards. If the standard is always moving, then one can’t know if they are evolving or devolving. In fact, if the standard moves, there is no such thing as evolving or devolving, but just changing. Value judgments like evolving (vs. devolving) require objective standards to exist.

Which objective truths or moral standards within OGM would you use to evaluate whether Elon Musk’s actions are morally true or false? Could you provide examples of how these standards apply to his contributions in areas like environmental innovation, as well as to his more controversial actions, such as management practices or public behavior?

Environmental innovation is judged based on its usefulness to and treatment of life on earth. If it causes more harm then good than alternative actions in the same situation would, then it is immoral. This is the same with management practices and public behavior. We are to treat all beings as images of God.

How does OGM reconcile GOD’s objective nature with the subjective discovery process, particularly in terms of the role of personal insight in divining truth?

King David’s life is known for its deeply personal relationship with God, marked by moments of faith, repentance, moral failings, and divining forgiveness. David’s subjective experiences, as described in the Psalms and biblical narratives, reflect a relationship where he seeks God’s guidance, expresses profound devotion, and navigates complex moral situations.

SGM’s Perspective: David’s Relationship as a Model of Subjective Alignment with GOD
In SGM, David’s relationship with GOD would be seen as a deeply subjective and evolving journey, where he seeks to align with divine values through personal insight and internal discernment. While SGM respects the core moral values seen in David’s story, it allows for a more flexible, insight-driven interpretation.

And what do you think my OGM says here? I would say exactly what you said. The only way that these experiences of David make logical sense as being moral growth or improvement is if God is an objective being with an objective nature that created reality with objective moral truths.

SGM interprets David’s journey as a dynamic process in which he discerns and aligns with divine values like compassion, humility, and justice, but in ways that adapt based on his personal growth and context. His repentance and remorse would be valued as steps toward internal realignment with GOD rather than as necessary actions to satisfy an external moral standard of God.
David’s actions, such as seeking forgiveness, are seen as part of his evolving moral understanding rather than as adherence to any particular fixed standards. His relationship with GOD would be flexible, emphasizing personal insights and spiritual growth over rigid rules.

I see no difference between “internal realignment with God” and “satisfying an external moral standard of God”. What difference do you see? David believed in moral rules and objective truths. That was a huge part of his subjective experience and desire to return to God. He knew he had sinned (against God’s moral standards), that God existed, that God was distinct from him, that God loved him and would show compassion.

For instance, SGM would interpret David’s remorse not simply as a response to a fixed wrongdoing but as a meaningful part of his ongoing journey of self-discovery, allowing his understanding of compassion and justice to deepen.

OGM interprets that that way as well.

Does OGM see any value in subjective spiritual experiences like NDEs or synchronicities as part of divine interaction?

In David’s story, Nathan’s prophetic guidance serves as an example of synchronicity—an event that feels subjectively meaningful and aligned with divine values, even if it appears externally objective to others. This synchronicity allows both David and Nathan to act as conduits for GOD’s guidance, each through their unique subjective connection with the divining.

I am personally agnostic on NDEs; I just haven’t investigated them. From your description of synchronicity, I definitely accept those. Why do you think OGM doesn’t?

When Nathan confronts David, this moment acts as a synchronistic event. For David, Nathan’s rebuke arrives at the right moment, reflecting divine values like accountability and justice, yet it resonates subjectively, deeply impacting David’s personal journey and prompting introspection.
From David’s perspective, Nathan’s appearance may seem objective, as if GOD sent him. But within SGM, this encounter is subjectively experienced as divine guidance, helping David realign with GOD’s values.
Essentially David accepts that GOD sent Nathan and perceives this guidance through his internal moral discernment, encouraged by the prophetic insight Nathan provides.
In this, David is not assuming GOD came to Nathan as some objective entity, as Nathan received the message through his own subjective experience.

The last bit is what I don’t understand. David did believe God came to Nathan as an objective entity (i.e., a real, distinct Being from Nathan and David) with a message to pass on to David. Nathan experienced that subjectively (because all of our experiences are subjective experiences, logically).

If Nathan came talking about Baal or how David needed to sacrifice his child to appease God, then David would have rejected that because of the objective truths he already knew (through subjective experiences, including reading Biblical texts).

Using this understanding, would OGM consider interactions like Nathan’s rebuke of David as divinely orchestrated moments, or would OGM view such guidance as entirely external and objective?

That question doesn’t make sense to me. It is divinely orchestrated, i.e., it is guidance from an external and objective Being, God. Please clarify what you mean by these terms that I’m missing.

In SGM, earthly challenges are viewed as divined—meaning they’re subjectively discerned as purposeful opportunities for growth that were chosen or agreed upon in a pre-human context. This pre-human agreement reflects the individual’s commitment to spiritual evolution, framing life not just as a series of arbitrary events, but as a co-creative journey where challenges serve to deepen one’s alignment with GOD.

This is where we definitely disagree. I see them, from God’s perspective, as unintended events that are used as opportunities for growth, but they weren’t pre-planned by God with or without agreement by beings in a pre-human context. Every challenge is still a potential lesson and there is always an invitation for realignment with divine values.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #387]

Thank you! William, your mind works in a way mine naturally doesn't. You see lots of connections. I naturally take a more focused approach, wanting to cover one step at a time, looking at all the branches in an order. All that to say, I'm trying to keep up with you, but I ask grace in the times I misunderstand and seem to be skipping over or ignoring.

I appreciate the thoughtful articulation of the Objective God Model (OGM) and its underlying principles. I resonate with many aspects of its framework, particularly the emphasis on moral accountability, personal growth, and the pursuit of divined alignment. Interestingly, I too once adhered closely to an OGM perspective—what I describe as Cultural Christianity, deeply rooted in fixed moral standards and an externalized understanding of GOD's authority.

However, over time, I found myself stepping outside of that framework, a journey that rewired the way I approach spirituality, morality, and the nature of my relationship with GOD. This shift didn’t come from abandoning the truths I once held but from re-examining them through a more subjective, co-creative lens. By doing so, I discovered new ways of understanding moral truths as dynamic and evolving, shaped through personal insight and alignment with divined values.

My intention here is not only to critique OGM as a framework but to share how embracing the Subjective God Model (SGM) opened pathways for me to engage with GOD’s presence in a deeply personal, evolving manner. I think this comparison of perspectives—OGM and SGM—can illuminate meaningful distinctions that highlight the differences of both approaches and why those differences are important to understand.

Jesus died on the cross and rose again (historical study of the texts and time period, coupled with philosophical reasoning).

The Subjective God Model (SGM) allows me to step back and consider other plausible reasons as to why the story of Jesus exists. My stance presently on the question is that—given the history of Cultural Christianity—the story is most likely an invention influenced by intellectual Roman, Greek, and Jewish perspectives. In this sense, it serves as a useful fiction designed to control humans through belief systems.

This perspective, however, does not diminish my ability to engage with GOD. Instead, it enables me to ask deeper questions, such as, 'Why is it important to think about or believe in the resurrection?' This inquiry allows me to explore how such beliefs connect with my own evolving relationship with GOD. Interestingly, I’ve found that questioning these narratives has not harmed that relationship in any way. On the contrary, it has strengthened my alignment with GOD by encouraging a more authentic, personal exploration of spiritual truths.

Fixed and unchanging.

It appears to me that neither the Objective God Model (OGM) nor the Subjective God Model (SGM) considers the subject of divorce (as exampled) to be a fixed moral standard. Both frameworks seem to account for contextual factors, such as individual well-being and compassionate considerations, rather than imposing a universal, unchanging rule. This shared flexibility suggests that both models recognize the complexity of human relationships and the need to adapt moral principles to specific circumstances.

Since no examples of supposed fixed, objective morals have been offered beyond general principles or abstractions, it appears the Objective God Model (OGM) may not have any specific, unchanging moral rules that can be universally applied. This raises the question of whether the term 'fixed morals' within OGM refers to actual concrete standards or simply to overarching principles that require interpretation in context—making them less 'fixed' than initially claimed.

Historical Atrocities like the Holocaust:
OGM and SGM share similarities in viewing such events as outcomes of human free will, with accountability serving as an opportunity for moral realignment. The key divergence lies in SGM’s framing of accountability as part of a dynamic divined process, whereas OGM grounds accountability in (unspecified) unchanging divine truths.

NDE's:
The Objective God Model (OGM) emphasizes integrating scientific insights that align with (currently unspecified) objective truth, considering subjective experiences like Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) valid only when corroborated by (currently unspecified) objective evidence. In contrast, the Subjective God Model (SGM) values subjective phenomena as intrinsic elements of spiritual evolution, treating the reports of NDEs themselves as (specified) meaningful evidence. There doesn’t appear to be any distinction in the approaches other than specifying evidence (re objective from subjective)

Expanded Perspective on Synchronicity
Both the Objective God Model (OGM) and the Subjective God Model (SGM) recognize synchronistic events, such as Nathan’s rebuke of David, as moments of divined guidance. OGM views these moments as externally objective, orchestrated by GOD from outside human perception, while SGM emphasizes their subjective impact on individual growth.

From the SGM perspective, synchronicity highlights the alignment between an individual's internal state and the external world. What appears as external orchestration by GOD is better understood as the natural outcome of an internal process of co-creation with GOD. Nathan and David, for example, were acting from subjective perspectives, with no GOD orchestrating from an external position. Instead, what seems to be GOD working from the outside in is a mirage-like perception, stemming from a lack of understanding about how GOD enables the external to align with the internal.

SGM and Internal Co-Creation

Point 1: SGM views morality and spiritual evolution as co-creative processes, shaped by the individual's active engagement with GOD. This perspective suggests that synchronistic events are not imposed by an external GOD but arise naturally as individuals align their internal values with divined truths.
Point 9: GOD is experienced as a subjective, internal presence, rather than an objectified external authority. This internal presence fosters personal alignment, which manifests outwardly as synchronistic events.
Point 10: Synchronicities serve as subjective validations of an individual's internal alignment with GOD. These events are meaningful not because they are orchestrated externally, but because they reflect the individual's ongoing spiritual growth and alignment.

By integrating these points, SGM understands that synchronicities like Nathan’s rebuke are not external interventions but rather reflections of internal processes that create alignment between subjective experiences and the external world.

Human Challenges and Divined Orchestration:
"The Objective God Model (OGM) and the Subjective God Model (SGM) offer contrasting perspectives on the nature of human challenges and their relationship to divined orchestration. OGM sees challenges as unintended events that GOD leverages for human growth, emphasizing divine responsiveness rather than pre-planned design. In contrast, SGM frames these challenges as pre-agreed upon (intended) in a pre-human context, highlighting a co-creative journey where human experience actively engages with GOD in shaping spiritual evolution."

1. Methodology for Revealed Truths
In the Objective God Model (OGM), truths are said to be revealed by GOD, but the methodology for identifying these truths remains unclear. It appears to rely on sources such as scripture, science, and history, but how these sources are discerned as divinely revealed is not well specified.
By contrast, the Subjective God Model (SGM) adopts an insight-driven approach, where individuals engage directly with GOD through subjective experiences and personal discernment. This co-creative process allows truths to emerge dynamically, grounded in personal alignment with divined values rather than external validation.

2. Institutional Adaptation
Unlike OGM, which must reconcile compassionate considerations with fixed moral principles, SGM has no need for such reconciliation. In SGM, moral principles are not fixed but evolve with human understanding and societal progress. This adaptability eliminates the tension between compassion and rigid standards, allowing institutions or individuals to prioritize inclusivity and well-being without conflicting with any specified immutable moral framework which may be argued for.

3. Role of Co-Creation
SGM approaches historical atrocities, such as genocide or slavery, not merely as static failures of human free will but as opportunities for co-creative realignment with GOD. Through this lens, humanity is seen as capable of learning and evolving from these tragedies by actively engaging with GOD’s values to foster societal transformation. This contrasts with OGM, which tends to frame such events as unintended consequences of human free will, with growth occurring reactively rather than proactively through co-creation.



Closing Thought
These themes highlight the key distinctions between OGM and SGM. Where OGM emphasizes external validation, fixed principles, and external orchestration, SGM focuses on internal discernment, evolving truths, and proactive co-creation. Exploring these differences further could provide greater clarity on how each model addresses the complexities of human experience and spiritual alignment.

SGM’s Perspective on Biblical Events Implicating an External GOD
The Subjective God Model (SGM) approaches biblical narratives with an understanding that events implicating an external entity claiming to be GOD are likely elaborations by the reporter, stemming from a misunderstanding of what actually occurred. Instances such as the burning, talking bush; the 'finger of GOD' carving commandments; or the voice in the garden are interpreted as the authors projecting their belief that GOD must be an external fixture. SGM frames these depictions as reflective of the limited understanding of the authors, shaped by their cultural and perceptual frameworks, rather than as accurate accounts of GOD’s interaction with humanity.

SGM’s Perspective on Audial and Visual Hallucinations in Divined Interaction
The Subjective God Model (SGM) acknowledges that GOD can interact with humans through experiences often referred to as audial or visual hallucinations. These interactions occur subjectively, aligning with the internal processes of the individual. However, SGM also recognizes the challenge humans face in differentiating between fixed objective realities and the subjective realities used by GOD. This difficulty often leads individuals to misinterpret such experiences, invoking supernatural explanations to rationalize what has occurred.

For example, phenomena like a burning, talking bush or a voice in the garden could be understood as subjective interactions that were misinterpreted by the individual, based on their cultural framework and limited understanding. The need to externalize and objectify such events reflects a common human tendency to project internal experiences outward, resulting in narratives that describe GOD as an external, supernatural fixture.

[The Tanager]

The Subjective God Model (SGM) allows me to step back and consider other plausible reasons as to why the story of Jesus exists.

Are you saying OGM doesn’t allow this?

My stance presently on the question is that—given the history of Cultural Christianity—the story is most likely an invention influenced by intellectual Roman, Greek, and Jewish perspectives. In this sense, it serves as a useful fiction designed to control humans through belief systems.

This perspective, however, does not diminish my ability to engage with GOD. Instead, it enables me to ask deeper questions, such as, 'Why is it important to think about or believe in the resurrection?' This inquiry allows me to explore how such beliefs connect with my own evolving relationship with GOD. Interestingly, I’ve found that questioning these narratives has not harmed that relationship in any way. On the contrary, it has strengthened my alignment with GOD by encouraging a more authentic, personal exploration of spiritual truths.

Whether your perspective diminishes your ability to engage with God or not depends on if you have an accurate perspective. If Jesus really was resurrected, then what he claimed about himself and what he taught is validated, which would change how you engage with God.

It appears to me that neither the Objective God Model (OGM) nor the Subjective God Model (SGM) considers the subject of divorce (as exampled) to be a fixed moral standard. Both frameworks seem to account for contextual factors, such as individual well-being and compassionate considerations, rather than imposing a universal, unchanging rule. This shared flexibility suggests that both models recognize the complexity of human relationships and the need to adapt moral principles to specific circumstances.

We must not be using “fixed moral standard” in the same way. I believe it is a fixed moral standard. I also believe this fixed moral standard takes contextual factors into account, such as individual well-being and compassion. I think this is the unchanging, universal rule that is applied to different situations. But it is the rule being applied, not the context determining the rule, if you catch the order there.

You seem to think this is a logical contradiction, to hold these two parts both as true. That seems to come from how you define “fixed moral standard,” which is probably different from the concept I have in mind.

Since no examples of supposed fixed, objective morals have been offered beyond general principles or abstractions, it appears the Objective God Model (OGM) may not have any specific, unchanging moral rules that can be universally applied.

William. You can’t really think this is true. I gave you a very specific example of child abuse. Instead of engaging with me on that, you said that was too specific and narrow and neglected other specific examples and you made it more general and abstract. And then when I offered to just talk about general abuse as the specific example, you ignored (or missed) that. Come on.

This raises the question of whether the term 'fixed morals' within OGM refers to actual concrete standards or simply to overarching principles that require interpretation in context—making them less 'fixed' than initially claimed.

Ah, so that is what you mean by “fixed”. You can’t hold me to your understanding of terms, if you don’t clarify what you mean. This isn’t me changing what I initially claimed. Yes, OGM has overarching moral principles that have always been true that must be applied to specific contexts. As I said, I’m an objective relativist, not an objective absolutist.

OGM and SGM share similarities in viewing such events as outcomes of human free will, with accountability serving as an opportunity for moral realignment. The key divergence lies in SGM’s framing of accountability as part of a dynamic divined process, whereas OGM grounds accountability in (unspecified) unchanging divine truths.

I don’t think this is accurate. OGM frames accountability through the dynamic personal divine relationship AS WELL AS the wider community of people relating to God AS WELL AS the collected wisdom of previous individuals and communities who related to God.

The Objective God Model (OGM) emphasizes integrating scientific insights that align with (currently unspecified) objective truth, considering subjective experiences like Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) valid only when corroborated by (currently unspecified) objective evidence. In contrast, the Subjective God Model (SGM) values subjective phenomena as intrinsic elements of spiritual evolution, treating the reports of NDEs themselves as (specified) meaningful evidence. There doesn’t appear to be any distinction in the approaches other than specifying evidence (re objective from subjective)

Yes, OGM values more than subjective experience. It’s irrational not to. If we don’t, then there will be NDEs that flat out contradict each other on points. There are Christians who report NDEs who are traditional Christians and will say God is not what you call GOD. Both of you cannot be correct. If we rely on subjective experience alone, both are correct; that’s irrational. We have to bring objective evidence and philosophical reasoning into the mix.

1. Methodology for Revealed Truths
In the Objective God Model (OGM), truths are said to be revealed by GOD, but the methodology for identifying these truths remains unclear. It appears to rely on sources such as scripture, science, and history, but how these sources are discerned as divinely revealed is not well specified.
By contrast, the Subjective God Model (SGM) adopts an insight-driven approach, where individuals engage directly with GOD through subjective experiences and personal discernment. This co-creative process allows truths to emerge dynamically, grounded in personal alignment with divined values rather than external validation.

OGM includes the insight-driven approach of SGM and then adds to that scripture, science, and history, philosophy, that is analyzed through the criteria in those fields, largely the same criteria I’ve already talked about (explanatory power, scope, etc.) using abductive reasoning (i.e., inference to the best explanation).

2. Institutional Adaptation
Unlike OGM, which must reconcile compassionate considerations with fixed moral principles, SGM has no need for such reconciliation.

There is nothing to reconcile since the fixed moral principles are built upon things like compassion. That’s like saying one must reconcile the American flag with 13 stripes.

In SGM, moral principles are not fixed but evolve with human understanding and societal progress. This adaptability eliminates the tension between compassion and rigid standards, allowing institutions or individuals to prioritize inclusivity and well-being without conflicting with any specified immutable moral framework which may be argued for.

The problem with this is human understanding of what is compassionate changes and since you agree that we can reject alignment with God, it is possible that the human understanding becomes less compassionate. So, in the name of inclusivity and well-being, they actually move away from true compassion, while if one maintained the moral truth this would be avoided.

For instance, let’s look at abortion. But we are going to look at it both ways to avoid a discussion on which stance is correct.

First, let’s say allowing abortion is the truly compassionate thing. What happens if human culture moves back to thinking fetuses are human beings that deserve protection; that this is the compassionate thing to do? In the name of inclusivity and well-being, they actually move away from true compassion.

Second, let’s say not aborting is the truly compassionate thing. What happens when human culture comes to believe that fetuses aren’t truly human and deserving of protection on their own accord until they exit the womb and the cord is cut and that what matters is the personal autonomy of women over their own body? In the name of inclusivity and well-being, they actually move away from true compassion.

In both cases, we are following the subjective experiences alone, so there is no criteria to judge one as better than the other. That can only be done through objective evidence and reasoning. SGM doesn’t provide that. And SGM actually allows, due to its very foundation and core, atrocities like this to happen (whichever way you think the atrocity lies and one of them is correct).

SGM approaches historical atrocities, such as genocide or slavery, not merely as static failures of human free will but as opportunities for co-creative realignment with GOD. Through this lens, humanity is seen as capable of learning and evolving from these tragedies by actively engaging with GOD’s values to foster societal transformation. This contrasts with OGM, which tends to frame such events as unintended consequences of human free will, with growth occurring reactively rather than proactively through co-creation.

Yes, absolutely. I think a GOD who orchestrates historical atrocities so that we learn from these tragedies is guilty of the evil of these atrocities. For you to say GOD does that, but the actual evil is not GOD’s fault, seems to me to be a logical contradiction.

Reality could be such that humans learn what they need to learn without historical atrocities. Unfortunately, humans use their free will and choose harder and more damaging paths. Fortunately, God doesn’t give up on us. But more fortunately, the God that doesn’t give up on us is one that is against such atrocities and wishes they never occurred, rather than one who actually plans or orchestrates them to teach us lessons. A truly good God will try to make good out of evil, but will not make evil.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #389]

I’m not suggesting OGM prevents questioning entirely, but rather that SGM places a greater emphasis on the active exploration of such narratives. SGM encourages subjective discernment and evolving understanding as integral to one’s relationship with GOD, while OGM’s reliance on fixed truths and external frameworks can constrain this process.

Your response seems to suggest that the rule remains fixed but its application varies based on context. However, this flexibility raises the question: how can a moral standard be truly ‘fixed’ if its practical meaning evolves with circumstances? In SGM, this evolution is embraced as part of a dynamic process of moral co-creation with GOD, whereas OGM’s framework appears to impose a rigidity that becomes flexible only in practice.

My critique wasn’t that child abuse isn’t a valid example, but rather that its application highlights the ambiguity in defining and applying fixed morals across contexts. What constitutes ‘abuse’ varies historically and culturally, demonstrating that moral principles often require contextual interpretation, which aligns more closely with SGM’s dynamic approach to morality.

While OGM may incorporate personal relationships and communal wisdom, it ultimately grounds accountability in fixed truths. SGM, by contrast, sees accountability as part of a dynamic and evolving process of moral co-creation with GOD, where even moral truths themselves are subject to refinement through alignment with divined values.

SGM acknowledges the challenges of conflicting subjective experiences but resolves them through alignment with divined values and internal coherence. Your critique assumes SGM lacks discernment criteria, which isn’t accurate. Furthermore, OGM’s reliance on external validation doesn’t eliminate interpretive conflicts; it simply shifts them to a different domain.

I did not suggest that GOD orchestrates atrocities. Rather, SGM sees these human-driven events as opportunities for co-creative realignment with GOD, where humanity learns and evolves through engagement with divined values. This proactive approach contrasts with OGM’s reactive framing, where growth occurs despite atrocities rather than through intentional co-creation.

Your analogy oversimplifies the complexity of reconciling fixed principles with evolving societal norms. SGM’s adaptability ensures moral principles evolve with our understanding of compassion and inclusivity, avoiding the rigidity that can arise in OGM’s framework.

______________

Observation 1: The Shift from "Divine" to "Divined"
Through our discussions, I’ve come to recognize the importance of replacing the word ‘divine’ with ‘divined.’ This shift reflects the realization that the term ‘divine’ reinforces the miraged perception of an external entity—often referred to as ‘God’ by Cultural Christianity. This externalized understanding creates a separation between individuals and their subjective experiences with GOD. By using ‘divined,’ I emphasize the internal, co-creative process central to SGM, which acknowledges the role of subjective discernment in shaping moral and spiritual alignment.

Observation 2: The Distinction Between GOD and God
The term ‘GOD,’ as I use it, is deliberate. It differentiates the internal reality of GOD as experienced through subjective alignment, from the externalized construct of ‘God’ perpetuated by Cultural Christianity. This distinction is crucial to SGM, as morality is understood as being ‘divined’—a dynamic process inclusive of human subjectivity within an objective creation. By emphasizing GOD, I aim to steer away from the mirage of an external authority and toward the internal reality of co-creation and personal alignment with divined values.

Observation 3: The Role of Iconism in Reinforcing Externalized Frameworks
Both the pagan-inspired and Cultural Christian representations underscore the role of iconism in reinforcing the externalization of the divined. These icons, whether a mystical forest deity or a majestic throne within a cathedral, create a mirage of a separate, hierarchical entity that oversees humanity. Such imagery strengthens the Objective God Model (OGM) framework, where divined authority is external, fixed, and mediated through symbols or institutions.






Below I include an example from a modern sector of Cultural Christianity (Jehovah's Witnesses) showing how operating through OGM produces iconism.





By contrast, the Subjective God Model (SGM) emphasizes internal alignment and co-creation with GOD, rejecting iconism as a representation of divined truth. SGM reframes divined interaction as an internal process, where morality and spiritual truths evolve dynamically, free from the constraints of externalized depictions. This shift moves away from the mirage of an external ‘God’ toward an internal experience of GOD, fostering a more personal and transformative engagement.