[
Replying to The Tanager in post #397]
It seems to me to logically follow from the definitions, so I don’t see why it shouldn’t fully address your concern. If you don’t explain (or re-explain) why you think it does undermine immutability, then I can’t help you.
I appreciate your effort to address my concern and agree that clarity in definitions is essential. My concern stems from how these definitions are applied in practice, which wasn’t fully addressed. Let me try to clarify my concern further:
While immutability ensures that core truths remain unchanged, the flexibility needed to adapt to evolving contexts can sometimes blur into relativism—the idea that truths or principles are entirely subjective or variable. My question centers on how OGM maintains a clear boundary between these two, particularly when its institutional safeguards might themselves be subject to interpretation or change.
Regarding Point 1 of the 12 SGM Points:
Co-Creation with GOD and Evolving Moral Truths
Relevance: This point emphasizes that moral truths are not static but evolve through engagement with GOD. While this approach fosters adaptability, it raises the question of how to avoid relativism, particularly if individuals define truth solely through their subjective experience.
Mitigation: SGM mitigates this risk by anchoring evolving moral truths in alignment with divined values. This alignment ensures that the evolution of moral truths remains grounded in a personal relationship with GOD, providing a spiritual framework for moral development.
Given this emphasis on the individual’s subjective relationship with GOD in SGM, I’m curious about how OGM navigates this dynamic in relation to its focus on a collective, objective relationship with GOD through institutional safeguards.
How does OGM operate in regard to the individuals subjective relationship with GOD re its focus on collective objective relationship with God through its various institutions.
Given OGM’s emphasis on collective, objective safeguards (e.g., texts, creeds, institutions and icons of objectification of God), how does it integrate the individual’s subjective relationship with GOD into its broader framework?
Specifically:
Balancing Subjectivity and Objectivity:
How does OGM ensure that personal, subjective spiritual experiences are acknowledged and integrated within its institutional safeguards?
Does OGM provide mechanisms for individuals to bring their unique experiences into dialogue with the collective understanding of truth?
Avoiding Subordination of Subjectivity:
Is there a risk that institutional interpretations might override or dismiss personal experiences, potentially limiting adaptability in addressing new or complex moral contexts?
How does OGM ensure that institutional safeguards remain flexible enough to incorporate evolving insights from individual relationships with GOD without compromising immutable truths?
Institutional Mechanisms for Feedback:
Are there specific processes within OGM that allow for subjective insights to influence or recalibrate collective understandings when necessary?
So, if I speak at the general level, you say I need to be more specific. Okay, for example, the story of Genesis shows that women should have equal rights to men, since they are pictured as two halves of humanity; meant to uphold each other. This also philosophically follows from both men and women being made in the image of God.
Your response completely ignored my question to you. Please answer it. (1) How does SGM determine that something was a moral error, but now is a moral non-error?
Thank you for elaborating with the example of Genesis. It’s a helpful starting point for understanding how OGM might draw philosophical conclusions about equality, such as women’s rights. However, my concern remains that these general principles, while compelling, don’t fully demonstrate how OGM applies its criteria in practice to navigate complex, evolving issues like historical shifts in slavery or women’s rights.
For example:
Genesis and Equality: While Genesis presents men and women as equally made in the image of God, this principle was often misinterpreted or ignored to justify systemic inequality for centuries. How does OGM ensure that such misinterpretations of its safeguards (texts, institutions, etc.) are corrected in time to avoid harm?
I appreciate that you are asking for clarity regarding SGM, and I will address your question directly:
How Does SGM Determine Moral Errors Versus Non-Errors?
In SGM, the process of determining whether something was a moral error versus a moral non-error involves several steps, rooted in relational spirituality and collective discernment. Here’s how it works:
Alignment with Divined Principles:
Actions are assessed against evolving understanding of divined values, grounded in ongoing engagement with GOD. This relationship provides a dynamic framework to evaluate whether past actions align with spiritual truths.
Community Dialogue:
SGM incorporates diverse perspectives through collective discernment. Historical practices like slavery are revisited and re-evaluated in light of broader human experiences and shifts in moral understanding.
Evolving Understanding:
SGM acknowledges that while core moral truths (e.g., human dignity) are immutable, their application may evolve with new contexts and insights. For instance, historical acceptance of slavery might reflect a limited understanding of these principles rather than a change in the principles themselves.
Recognition of Human Agency:
Moral errors are often attributed to the misuse of human free will, acting outside divined alignment. This underscores accountability for past mistakes while affirming the potential for growth and recalibration.
Returning to the Core Question:
While SGM allows for moral truths to be revisited and refined through this dynamic process, I’m curious about how OGM navigates similar challenges. For example:
How does OGM’s reliance on fixed texts and philosophical reasoning address historical shifts where these safeguards were misapplied (e.g., using scripture to justify slavery)?
Does OGM incorporate processes to ensure that evolving moral understandings, such as shifts in societal perspectives, are meaningfully integrated without undermining immutable truths?
I hope this clarifies SGM’s approach and provides a starting point for comparing how both models address these challenges.
So, if I speak at the specific level you say I need to be more general? I can’t win. Okay, I’ll repeat my general answer once again. Historical shifts in moral understanding are due to the free will choices of humans, which, logically, doesn’t implicate God in those injustices because it wasn’t God’s will but humanity’s will.
Your response completely ignored two questions I asked you. Please answer them. (2) Please give me a specific example of a moral truth before and after the process of refinement in your SGM. (3) Do you believe GOD was complicit in previous moral frameworks or are you saying that co-creation didn’t take place there and that is something that is a new endeavor for GOD?
Thank you for clarifying your position regarding free will and its role in historical injustices. I acknowledge that OGM attributes moral shifts to humanity’s free will rather than GOD’s will, which absolves GOD from direct involvement in these perceived injustices. However, my concern lies in how OGM’s framework addresses the interplay between divined guidance and human error over time. Specifically:
How does OGM reconcile the fact that institutional safeguards (e.g., texts, creeds) were often used to justify past injustices if these were truly misaligned with GOD’s will?
That said, I recognize your request for me to address your questions directly. Let me do so below:
(2) Specific Example of a Moral Truth Before and After Refinement in SGM.
In SGM, moral truths are not static but evolve as humanity grows in alignment with divined principles. Here’s a specific example:
Before Refinement: The historical acceptance of slavery as morally permissible, often justified through cultural norms and even religious texts.
After Refinement: The recognition of the inherent dignity and equality of all individuals, leading to the rejection of slavery as incompatible with divined values.
Process in SGM:
Relational Spirituality: Individuals engaging with GOD recognize that human dignity is a core principle of divine morality.
Community Dialogue: Diverse perspectives and collective discernment highlight the moral failings of slavery and its misalignment with divined values.
Evolving Understanding: The realization that earlier acceptance of slavery was a human misinterpretation of moral truths, not a reflection of GOD’s will, prompts moral progress.
This process illustrates how SGM refines moral understanding over time without undermining immutable principles like human dignity.
(3) Was GOD Complicit in Previous Moral Frameworks?
SGM does not view GOD as necessarily complicit in previous moral frameworks. Instead, it emphasizes the following:
Misalignment of Free Will:
Historical injustices, such as slavery, reflect humanity’s exercise of free will outside of divined alignment. These actions stem from human agency and misinterpretation rather than being co-created with GOD.
GOD’s Tolerance of Temporal Development:
SGM posits that GOD is tolerant of humanity’s temporal stage of development. This means that GOD allows humanity the freedom to evolve morally and spiritually at its own pace, without forcing alignment with divined principles.
This tolerance is not complicity but rather an acknowledgment of the developmental nature of human growth, where mistakes and missteps are part of the process of moral refinement.
Evolving Co-Creation:
Co-creation with GOD is an ongoing process, where humanity progressively aligns itself with divined values. While earlier moral frameworks may reflect a limited understanding, they are not treated as static as they evolve through engagement with GOD and collective discernment.
Accountability Without Divined Complicity:
Responsibility for moral errors lies with humanity, as GOD’s guidance is available but not coercive. SGM underscores human accountability in refining moral understanding over time.
I’d like to understand how OGM navigates this distinction between divine tolerance and complicity:
GOD’s Role in Temporal Development:
Does OGM see GOD as tolerant of humanity’s temporal stage in moral development, or is divined will understood as requiring immediate adherence to immutable truths?
If the latter, how does OGM explain the persistence of grave moral errors like slavery over long periods?
Institutional Safeguards and Misinterpretation:
Given that institutional safeguards like texts and creeds and iconism were historically used to justify injustices, how does OGM address the tension between these safeguards and their misapplication?
Guidance Versus Coercion:
Does OGM allow for a developmental understanding of morality, where humanity’s growth is a gradual process? Or does it view historical moral shifts as failures to adhere to divined will from the outset?
We have had bits of that discussion before, so I thought you’d make the wider connection and might not want to go down that specific route since it will take awhile. If you want to, then we will need to stop everything else and focus on that for a while. Is that what you want us to do?
I understand that the example of the resurrection might lead to a deeper discussion that could take time to explore fully. While I’m open to that conversation if you think it’s essential, my primary concern here is understanding how OGM’s criteria work in practice to resolve significant conflicts, particularly in situations where interpretations differ or evolve.
If the resurrection example is key to illustrating this, perhaps we can focus specifically on how OGM applies its criteria—such as explanatory power, scope, and plausibility—in that context. For instance:
Explanatory Power: How does OGM’s interpretation of the resurrection resolve conflicts between differing theological or moral interpretations?
Plausibility: How does it account for historical and cultural shifts in understanding while maintaining its immutability?
Comparative Superiority: How does it address conflicts more effectively than SGM?
Alternatively, if there’s another example that better demonstrates OGM’s criteria in action, I’d be open to exploring that instead. My goal is to see how OGM’s safeguards and methodologies operate in resolving significant challenges, both historical and contemporary.
Does that approach sound reasonable to you?
For the third time, if I’m unclear on what you mean by proactive vs. reactive, then I cannot demonstrate how OGM is proactive. You might as well ask me to show how OGM is ganu. I don’t know if it is or not because I don’t understand your terms. What you mentioned as being proactive is how I see OGM, but you labeled it as reactive in my case. That makes no sense to me. You have to clarify what you mean by those terms to move this part of the discussion rationally forward.
Thank you for pointing this out. Let me clarify the distinction I’m making between proactive and reactive in the context of moral progress to ensure we’re on the same page:
Proactive Engagement:
This involves actively anticipating and addressing moral issues before they become widespread or codified in societal norms. Proactivity means guiding moral progress by identifying emerging ethical challenges and leading efforts to align societal practices with divined values.
Example: A proactive approach to addressing slavery would involve taking a firm stance against it, even before societal or cultural norms shifted toward abolition.
Reactive Engagement:
This involves responding to moral issues only after they’ve become evident or problematic, often as a reaction to societal pressures or shifts. Reactivity means addressing misalignments after they’ve already caused harm or been embedded in societal practices.
Example: A reactive approach to slavery would involve addressing its moral failing only after societal movements, such as abolitionist efforts, highlighted the issue.
With this distinction in mind, I’m curious how OGM demonstrates proactive engagement in guiding moral progress. For instance:
How does OGM anticipate and address emerging moral challenges, such as AI ethics or climate change, before they become widely recognized as issues?
Are there examples where OGM’s institutional safeguards actively led societal change, rather than responding to it after external pressures?
This clarification isn’t meant to dismiss OGM’s efforts but rather to better understand its methodology. If you see OGM as proactive in ways I’ve overlooked, I’d love to hear examples that demonstrate this.
First, I feel that I’ve given you the exact same level of explanation that you have given when talking about SGM’s one safeguard. Second, the one you offered and the two additional ones I offered seem pretty straightforward. The one we share is that God tells an individual stuff to guide them from immorality. Straightforward. The second I added is that God also tells other individuals the same stuff to guide them from immorality and then calls all of these individuals to be in community together and hold each other accountable since God won’t contradict himself. Just as straightforward. The third I added is that we apply objective, logical reasoning to facts in reality. Also straightforward. I don’t know what you are looking for.
Thank you for reiterating the three safeguards—each is indeed straightforward at a conceptual level.
My concern isn’t with the clarity of these safeguards in theory but with understanding how they function in practice, especially in resolving tensions between personal and institutional authority.
Here’s why I’m asking for more specificity:
Potential for Rigid Interpretations:
Institutional frameworks (e.g., texts, community standards) are often interpreted rigidly, which can lead to stagnation or exclusion. How does OGM’s safeguard of community accountability ensure that diverse perspectives are integrated without devolving into conformity or dogmatism?
Balancing Authority:
While OGM emphasizes that GOD won’t contradict himself, human interpretations of divined guidance often do. How does OGM navigate conflicts between an individual’s perceived guidance from GOD and the collective or institutional understanding of morality?
Application of Logical Reasoning:
Objective reasoning is essential, but its application can be influenced by cultural biases or incomplete information. How does OGM ensure that its use of logic and facts remains adaptable to evolving contexts without compromising foundational truths?
While SGM primarily relies on the dynamic interaction between personal spirituality and collective discernment, OGM appears to integrate institutional safeguards more heavily. This creates a potential strength but also introduces risks—like rigidity or the suppression of individual insights.
I’m interested in how OGM mitigates these risks in practical scenarios, particularly when conflicts arise.
Could you provide examples or scenarios where OGM’s safeguards have resolved such tensions effectively? This would help me better understand how these mechanisms operate beyond the conceptual level.
There is no need to strengthen the case if you haven’t established that the doctrines inherently shape the scope of inquiry negatively. If you can do so, then actually do it. If not, then this is a baseless accusation.
Let me clarify my critique further, as I see this as a fundamental point for understanding the dynamics of pre-established doctrines and their influence on inquiry.
My concern is not simply that doctrines shape the scope of inquiry—this is to be expected. The issue lies in how doctrines may limit the scope of inquiry in ways that hinder adaptability or the exploration of new insights. This can occur if:
Questioning is Discouraged: When pre-established doctrines are treated as untouchable, it can create an environment where questioning or re-examining them is seen as a threat rather than an opportunity for growth.
Frameworks Become Rigid: Institutional reliance on doctrines may lead to a lack of flexibility in addressing new or unforeseen challenges, such as evolving societal norms or ethical dilemmas.
To support this critique, here are examples where pre-established doctrines have shaped inquiry negatively:
Historical Justifications for Slavery: Certain religious doctrines were historically interpreted to justify slavery. These interpretations often limited the ability to question the morality of slavery within institutional frameworks until external societal pressures forced change.
Resistance to Scientific Discoveries: Doctrinal rigidity has, at times, delayed acceptance of scientific advancements, such as heliocentrism or evolutionary biology, due to perceived conflicts with theological teachings.
To better understand how OGM addresses this potential limitation, I’d ask:
What Mechanisms Exist for Questioning Doctrines?
Does OGM actively encourage questioning of its doctrines to adapt to new insights, or does it primarily rely on defending their pre-established interpretations?
Examples of Adaptability:
Can you provide examples where OGM frameworks have adapted to questioning in ways that led to significant shifts or refinements in doctrine or practice?
It absolutely does engage with the SGM perspective by asking how these aren’t contradictions. Either the resurrection was physical or it was not. Either Jesus’ claims to being the Divine Messiah come to save all of humanity from Sin is true or it’s not. Either Jesus is the only way to the Father or he is not. How are NDEs, which take differing viewpoints, not contradicting each other? Show that this is even logically possible.
Let me clarify how SGM approaches the issue of contradictions, as it differs from the framework OGM might apply:
Diverse Spiritual Journeys:
From the SGM perspective, contradictions may not necessarily represent factual errors but rather diverse interpretations of spiritual truths. Individual experiences, such as NDEs, are understood as personal encounters with divined reality, shaped by the individual’s cultural, emotional, and spiritual context. These differences don’t invalidate the experiences but highlight the subjective nature of the relationship with GOD.
Reconciling Apparent Contradictions
Apparent contradictions—such as differing interpretations of Jesus’ resurrection—can reflect varying layers of understanding rather than binary conflicts. From the SGM perspective, these interpretations are not mutually exclusive but complementary, showcasing the richness of individual spiritual experiences.
Resurrection as Physical or Spiritual:
SGM can view these interpretations as complementary, reflecting diverse ways individuals engage with the divined significance of the resurrection. For some, the physical resurrection symbolizes renewal and hope in a tangible sense, while others might see it as a spiritual event emphasizing transcendence and eternal connection to GOD. Both perspectives can coexist as facets of a larger truth, shaped by personal spiritual journeys.
Jesus as the Only Way:
SGM could interpret this as highlighting the unique spiritual path Jesus represents for those who engage with him, without invalidating other spiritual journeys that align with GOD’s underlying principles.
For example, different Christians may hold varying interpretations of Jesus' role and teachings based on their personal relationship with GOD. These differences don’t necessarily negate Jesus’ message but reflect individual ways of understanding and applying divined truths.
Jesus’ Ministry and Individual Relationships:
Jesus’ own ministry, as recorded in scripture, emphasizes encouraging a personal connection and relationship with GOD rather than focusing solely on institutional claims about him or even specific doctrinal assertions.
This aligns with SGM’s emphasis on relational spirituality, suggesting that Jesus’ role is to guide individuals toward GOD rather than to insist on rigid institutional interpretations. His role as "the way" is specific to that end.
NDEs and Contradictions:
NDEs might appear contradictory on the surface, but SGM posits that they reflect the personal and subjective dimensions of divined interaction. The diversity in these accounts highlight GOD’s ability to communicate with individuals in ways that resonate uniquely with them, rather than suggesting objective contradictions.
How does OGM address diverse interpretations of doctrines like the resurrection or Jesus’ role as the “only way”?
Does OGM allow for complementary interpretations, or does it prioritize resolving such differences into a singular objective truth?
I’ve shared how both scientific and moral investigations use empirical observation and philosophical reasoning. You say moral investigations have unique challenges that would make it so that I cannot say some moral opinions are simply wrong, but you haven’t spelled out what those unique challenges are and why they lead to that conclusion. Please do so.
Let me clarify the unique challenges I see in moral investigations and how they differ from scientific investigations, which may help explain why dismissing some moral opinions as simply “wrong” can oversimplify the complexity of moral discourse.
Cultural Relativity:
Moral principles are often shaped by cultural norms and historical contexts, meaning they can vary significantly between societies and eras. For example:
Concepts of justice, fairness, and equality differ between collectivist and individualist cultures.
Historical acceptance of practices like slavery or gender inequality was deeply rooted in cultural frameworks, even when they conflicted with broader moral ideals.
Dismissing divergent moral interpretations as “wrong” risks ignoring the role of culture in shaping moral perspectives and may overlook the opportunity for mutual understanding and growth.
Experiential Subjectivity:
Moral reasoning is often influenced by personal experiences, which introduce subjective elements into moral investigations. For instance:
A person who has suffered injustice might prioritize principles of fairness differently than someone who has not.
Divergent experiences lead to different emphases on moral values like forgiveness, retribution, or communal responsibility.
Unlike scientific investigations, where empirical observations can be objectively tested, moral experiences are deeply personal and cannot always be evaluated by the same universal standards.
Evolving Moral Contexts:
Morality evolves as societies grow and gain new insights. Historical shifts—such as the abolition of slavery, the recognition of women’s rights, or the ongoing discourse on LGBTQ+ rights—illustrate how moral understandings develop over time.
Moral opinions once widely accepted are later viewed as profoundly “wrong,” not because core moral principles changed but because societal understanding and application of those principles evolved.
Interplay Between Universal and Contextual Morality:
While there may be universal moral principles (e.g., valuing human dignity), their application is not always straightforward. For example:
Cultures may disagree on what constitutes a dignified life or how best to achieve it.
Divergent interpretations of universal principles can lead to disagreements that are not easily resolved by labeling one interpretation as "wrong."
Why This Matters:
Given these challenges, dismissing divergent moral interpretations as simply “wrong” oversimplifies the nuanced interplay between universal principles, cultural norms, and personal experiences. Moral discourse often requires a balance of empathy, contextual understanding, and philosophical reasoning to navigate these complexities.
How does OGM address the influence of cultural and experiential dimensions on moral reasoning?
Does OGM provide mechanisms for reconciling divergent moral interpretations, particularly when they arise from differing cultural or experiential contexts?
This discussion could help clarify how OGM navigates these unique challenges and distinguishes between “wrong” moral opinions and those that reflect legitimate diversity in interpretation.
Colonial slavery. OGM inspired individuals are the ones primarily responsible for the ending of the slave trade. This came from those individuals’ personal relationships with Jesus, in its traditional Christian sense, as well as the communities of fellow individuals who had a relationship with Jesus encouraging and challenging each other, as well as reflecting objectively on the soundest philosophical reasoning off of facts.
It’s an interesting claim for how personal relationships with Jesus, community accountability, and philosophical reasoning contributed to moral progress. I’m curious about how OGM’s framework specifically addressed this issue and navigated the challenges of misaligned interpretations and systemic change. Here are a few questions to explore this further:
Institutional Role in Misalignment and Correction:
Historically, institutional safeguards like biblical texts and creeds were sometimes interpreted to justify slavery.
How did OGM-inspired communities reconcile these interpretations with their opposition to the slave trade?
Were there processes within OGM’s framework that explicitly challenged these misinterpretations, or did the push for abolition emerge more from external pressures or shifts in cultural understanding?
(You need to provide concrete historical examples to back the claim.)
Re that.
Personal Relationship Versus Institutional Authority:
You mentioned that the abolition movement was driven by personal relationships with Jesus in the traditional Christian sense.
How did this personal engagement navigate tensions with institutional frameworks that were slower to denounce slavery?
Did individuals who opposed slavery face resistance within OGM communities, and if so, how was this resolved?
Philosophical Reasoning and Cultural Bias:
Reflecting on the soundest philosophical reasoning from facts was key to abolition efforts, but how did OGM address the cultural biases of the time that influenced what was considered “reasonable”?
For instance, were there specific philosophical arguments rooted in OGM that effectively countered pro-slavery positions justified by institutional or doctrinal interpretations?
Framework’s Proactivity:
Was OGM’s role in addressing colonial slavery proactive or reactive?
Did its safeguards anticipate and oppose slavery early on, or did OGM respond primarily after abolitionist movements gained momentum through external societal changes?
(In other words, is the claim taking credit for the changes by ignoring the external influences which gave these things momentum. Is the claim pointing to a reactive stance when the numbers got to high to ignore?)
I cannot answer this until you better clarify your terms, probably with a specific example.
Let me explain the distinction I’m making between proactive and reactive engagement with moral progress, using a specific example to ground the discussion:
Proactive Engagement:
This would involve anticipating and addressing moral challenges before they become broadly recognized as societal issues. For example, if OGM’s framework had explicitly opposed slavery from its inception, championing the inherent dignity and equality of all humans even when it was widely accepted, this would reflect proactive engagement.
Reactive Engagement:
This would involve addressing moral challenges in response to societal pressures or evolving cultural norms. For example, if OGM’s opposition to slavery primarily emerged in alignment with external abolitionist movements gaining momentum, this would reflect reactive engagement.
My Question Restated:
Does OGM view human agency as proactively shaping the moral landscape, identifying and resolving misalignments independently of external pressures, or are moral shifts understood primarily as responses to divined revelation?
How does OGM distinguish its engagement with moral progress from being a purely reactive process, where moral corrections occur only after external or cultural shifts highlight the need for change?
I already addressed the first in this post earlier, so I won’t repeat it here.
On the second, to critically assess whether commitments inadvertently constrain open-ended questions, we use logic and analyze those doctrines. I know of no doctrine that inherently does this. If you have a specific example in mind, then share it and show how it constrains. If you don’t have a specific example in mind, then you should drop this critique.
I’ll focus on the second question regarding how doctrinal commitments might inadvertently constrain open-ended questioning.
You mention that logic and doctrinal analysis are used to ensure this doesn’t happen, which is helpful to know. However, the issue arises not from doctrines themselves being intentionally constraining, but from how they are interpreted or applied within historical and cultural contexts. Let me provide a specific example to illustrate this concern:
Example: The Role of Women in Religious Leadership
Historically, many doctrinal interpretations, grounded in biblical texts, have been used to argue against women holding leadership roles in religious communities.
While these interpretations may have been culturally influenced, they constrained open-ended questioning about the broader principle of equality and inclusion, potentially delaying moral progress within those communities.
My Question Restated:
How does OGM’s framework ensure that doctrinal commitments don’t inadvertently reinforce cultural biases or limit open-ended questioning about issues like gender equality? Specifically:
Mechanisms for Critical Reassessment:
Beyond logic and doctrinal analysis, are there specific processes or practices within OGM to ensure historical or cultural biases are recognized and corrected when interpreting “fixed truths”?
Balancing Doctrine with Flexibility:
How does OGM navigate the tension between upholding doctrinal commitments and remaining open to questioning them in light of evolving moral and cultural contexts?
The difference I see is the safeguards available. If you see other differences, then please share them unless it’s what we’ve already been talking about.
I agree that safeguards are an important part of this discussion, but I think the concept of a divined partnership in shaping moral frameworks raises additional questions about how humans engage proactively in moral refinement.
Exploring Co-Creation in OGM and SGM
OGM’s Approach:
OGM emphasizes safeguards such as institutional frameworks (texts, creeds, and philosophical reasoning) to ensure alignment with divine truths.
This raises questions about how OGM views human agency in co-creating moral frameworks:
Is human engagement primarily about interpreting pre-established truths, or does OGM allow for the proactive development of moral understanding over time?
Are there examples where OGM-inspired communities shaped ethical frameworks by contributing new insights rather than refining existing doctrines?
SGM’s Approach:
SGM views moral refinement as an ongoing, co-creative process between individual humans and GOD, emphasizing relational spirituality, collective discernment, and evolving understanding.
This proactive engagement allows humans to play a direct role in refining ethical frameworks, with safeguards rooted in adaptability rather than institutional authority.
Key Question:
Beyond safeguards, how does OGM view the human role in navigating moral challenges? Specifically:
Does OGM see humans as co-creators alongside GOD, shaping moral truths dynamically, or as interpreters applying fixed truths to evolving contexts?
This distinction might help clarify how the two models differ not only in safeguards but also in their understanding of human-divine collaboration.
Understanding whether moral refinement is seen as a partnership or an interpretive process sheds light on the active role humans play in moral progress and how each model addresses evolving challenges.
I’m looking forward to your thoughts on this distinction and any examples that might illustrate OGM’s perspective.
As long as they are not illogical, irrational, or false, yes.
This raises some important questions about how these criteria are applied in practice:
Evaluating Subjective Experiences:
How does OGM determine whether a subjective spiritual experience meets these criteria?
For instance, if two individuals have spiritual experiences that appear to conflict (e.g., differing understandings of divined will), how does OGM assess their compatibility or truth?
Non-Exclusive Spiritual Truths:
If OGM acknowledges the possibility of non-exclusive spiritual truths, how does it navigate situations where these truths appear to diverge significantly?
Does OGM allow for truths that are contextually valid for individuals, even if they don’t align with universal or institutional interpretations?
Mechanisms for Resolution:
Are there specific processes or safeguards within OGM to reconcile diverse spiritual truths when they seem contradictory or incompatible?
For example, if one person’s subjective experience emphasizes relational spirituality while another’s focuses on institutional authority, how does OGM integrate or prioritize these perspectives?
Broader Implications:
This flexibility could be a strength of OGM if it allows for personal spiritual truths to coexist with institutional frameworks. However, understanding the criteria and mechanisms for assessing these truths is key to seeing how OGM avoids relativism while accommodating diversity.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on how these criteria are applied in specific cases or contexts.
Because the objective analysis is about truth claims, not spiritual journeys. The truth claims are parts of the spiritual journeys. I’ve never said the spiritual journey itself is correct or incorrect. To do so is a category error.
You have ignored three more questions from my last post. Please answer them:
(4) What are SGM’s discernment criteria? If someone believed that GOD was telling them to commit some form of abuse, how could they discern they were mistaken?
(5) If the traditional Christian view is correct, would that change how individuals engage with God?
(6) Okay, so GOD is okay with abortion for some people, but not okay with abortion for other people? Does this also extend to abuse? GOD is okay with some people abusing others, but not okay with other people abusing others?
I’ll respond to your clarification and then address your three questions directly.
Balancing Subjective Accounts and Objective Standards
Your point about separating truth claims from spiritual journeys is important. I’d like to explore how OGM evaluates truth claims that arise from subjective spiritual experiences. For example:
If two individuals have conflicting truth claims about divined guidance—one believing GOD condones a specific moral action and the other believing GOD opposes it—how does OGM’s framework reconcile these conflicts without oversimplifying the complex contexts of each person’s journey?
The tension arises when subjective experiences lead to truth claims that diverge or challenge institutional standards. While it may be a category error to call a spiritual journey “incorrect,” the truth claims embedded within those journeys still demand careful evaluation to avoid reducing nuanced spiritual experiences to binary judgments.
I see you’ve brought up both abuse and abortion as examples of morally challenging issues. I think these issues are fundamentally different in nature, and aligning them may oversimplify the unique ethical considerations each requires.
Abuse involves direct harm to another person and a clear violation of principles like compassion, dignity, and non-harm. As such, it is universally misaligned with divined values and moral reasoning.
Abortion, on the other hand, often involves competing moral considerations, such as bodily autonomy, the well-being of the pregnant individual, and the potential life of the fetus. These complexities make it a more context-dependent issue, requiring careful discernment rather than categorical judgment.
Given this distinction, how does OGM’s framework address complex, context-dependent moral issues like abortion in contrast to universally condemnable actions like abuse? Does OGM have mechanisms to distinguish between these types of issues in its discernment process?
Let me directly address your three questions to ensure the discussion moves forward constructively.
(4) What are SGM’s discernment criteria? If someone believed that GOD was telling them to commit some form of abuse, how could they discern they were mistaken?
SGM provides multiple safeguards for discerning whether a perceived divine message aligns with divined values:
Core Principles of Non-Harm:
Abuse, by its nature, violates fundamental principles like compassion, respect for human dignity, and non-harm.
An individual claiming divined endorsement for abuse would find their belief fundamentally misaligned with these core principles.
Relational Spirituality:
SGM emphasizes a dynamic relationship with GOD, allowing individuals to seek clarity and correction through personal reflection and spiritual engagement.
GOD’s guidance is seen as inherently consistent with love and dignity, making any perception of abusive directives a misinterpretation.
Community Dialogue:
Claims of divined endorsement for abusive actions would be subject to collective discernment. Diverse perspectives help identify errors and align individual understanding with broader moral truths.
Ongoing Moral Refinement:
SGM recognizes the fallibility of human interpretation and encourages continual recalibration. Misaligned beliefs, like justifying abuse, are corrected through a process of spiritual growth and evolving understanding.
These criteria ensure that subjective experiences are evaluated critically, preventing harmful misinterpretations from being acted upon.
(5) If the traditional Christian view is correct, would that change how individuals engage with GOD?
If TCV is considered fixed within OGM, then:
SGM’s emphasis on relational spirituality might appear incompatible with TCV’s reliance on institutional authority.
SGM could still engage with TCV by reframing its practices to align relational spirituality with TCV’s fixations.
Evolving moral understanding could be seen as refining TCV's application of fixations, rather than redefining any claimed fixed truths.
If TCV is fixed within OGM, does OGM allow space for frameworks like SGM to contribute to the application and contextualization of fixed truths, or does it see evolving interpretations as inherently problematic?
Core Question for OGM:
If TCV is fixed within OGM, how does OGM address individuals who engage with GOD through frameworks like SGM that emphasize relational spirituality and evolving moral understanding?
Does OGM view SGM as inherently incompatible with TCV, or could relational spirituality exist within TCV’s framework without contradiction?
(6) Does GOD condone morally divergent actions, like abortion or abuse?
SGM does not claim that GOD condones harm or abuse. Instead:
Contextual Moral Reasoning:
Abortion: SGM approaches abortion as a context-dependent moral issue involving competing values, such as compassion, bodily autonomy, and the potential life of the fetus.
GOD’s guidance in these situations reflects alignment with overarching principles of dignity and compassion, rather than blanket approval or condemnation.
Abuse:
Abuse fundamentally violates principles of non-harm and human dignity. SGM would categorically reject the notion that GOD condones abuse for anyone, as it directly contradicts core divined values.
Discernment in Complex Scenarios:
SGM emphasizes that moral discernment requires contextual awareness and alignment with divined principles. While individual contexts may shape how guidance is applied, actions like abuse are universally incompatible with GOD’s will. There is no claiming "GOD ordered it" even in relation to the claim of Abraham re Isaac.
Abraham and Isaac as a Non-Normative Example
SGM provides a distinct interpretation of the story of Abraham and Isaac:
Contextual and Allegorical Understanding:
This story is not seen as a literal divined endorsement of child sacrifice but as a unique, non-normative account meant to teach broader spiritual lessons (e.g., faith, trust in GOD, and the actual rejection of human sacrifice).
Misalignment with Divined Principles:
In a relational spirituality framework, the act of intending harm—whether commanded or not—would be misaligned with divined principles like non-harm and dignity.
Personal and Historical Relevance:
SGM posits that such stories reflect the specific cultural and historical context of the time and should not be interpreted as prescriptive for moral action.
Returning the Question to OGM:
While I’ve addressed your questions, I’m curious how OGM navigates similar issues:
Reconciling Divergent Claims:
How does OGM resolve conflicting interpretations of divined will when individuals’ truth claims differ, especially on complex moral issues?
Addressing Complex Moral Contexts:
How does OGM distinguish between issues like abortion, which involve competing moral principles, and universally condemnable actions like abuse?
Ensuring Flexibility:
How does OGM ensure that its objective standards remain responsive to evolving moral contexts without compromising foundational truths?
