[
Replying to The Tanager in post #365]
You don’t think our individual moral opinions are affected by other people in our life (both friends and “enemies”)? You don’t think the cultures and societies and institutions we are parts of affect our moral thinking?
I agree that external influences—whether they come from friends, enemies, cultures, or institutions—do affect our moral thinking. However, what I don’t think is that such influences should be treated as necessarily objective. This is because the source of sentient information, including moral guidance, is processed subjectively, regardless of where that information claims to be objectively sourced.
In the Subjective GOD Model, while external forces can shape our moral opinions, the ultimate moral development happens through an internal, co-creative process between ourselves and the Creator. This means that although we're exposed to cultural, societal, and interpersonal influences, we don’t accept them as moral absolutes. Instead, we filter them through our own subjective experience and our relationship with GOD, shaping our moral understanding in a deeply personal and dynamic way.
I’m not sure if one is more primary than the other; I think there are both external and internal elements.
I understand that you see both external and internal elements as shaping morality, which seems to make sense to you. However, what I’m getting at is a deeper distinction regarding the nature of these apparently external influences.
While I agree that such external factors—such as religious teachings, societal norms, or claims from institutions—do play a role in shaping moral thought, I understand that these forces don’t have an independent or objective source. Instead, they arise from subjective processes, even when they claim to represent an external GOD or objective moral truth. This is why I question treating them as "objective," since all sentient information is processed subjectively, regardless of its source.
In the Subjective GOD Model, the internal co-creative process between the individual and the Creator is the primary accepted source of morality. External influences contribute to that process, but they are not authoritative in and of themselves. Instead, we filter and refine these external inputs through our personal relationship with GOD, allowing our morality to be shaped more from within than by external claims of objectivity.
Does that distinction between external inputs and their subjective processing align with your understanding, or do you see external forces as having their own independent source of objectivity?
I think reflection, confession, making things right, and changing (moving forward) is vital for sharpening one’s moral sense.
I completely agree that reflection, confession, making things right, and changing are vital for sharpening one's moral sense. However, I think it’s important to highlight that these actions—while essential—are objective expressions of subjective processes. The internal reflection and moral refinement that occur within an individual lead to external actions like making amends or changing behavior.
But my question is: how do these subjective processes, which manifest outwardly, correct or undo harm in the objective world? While these actions may demonstrate personal moral growth, is there a way they effectively address the real-world consequences of historical atrocities? How do we ensure that subjective moral refinement leads to tangible changes in the objective reality of injustice?
The other factors are things like social influences, personal experiences, personal desires. They can sharpen or dull our moral conscience. All together can improve or weaken our moral beliefs. Reasoning can be used as a tool to justify our desires. They all work together to different extents in a complex situation.
Your response leads me to a deeper question: Why do we often treat "GOD’s will" as something necessarily objective? In both your answer and the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), the shaping of moral understanding seems to involve subjective processes—personal experiences, reasoning, desires, and so on. If our interaction with GOD's will is filtered through these subjective experiences, why do we need to objectify GOD’s will as something fixed or external, rather than seeing it as a co-created process that evolves within us?
Does treating GOD’s will as subjective diminish its moral significance, or does it actually align better with the complex, individualized way we arrive at moral truths?
We are primarily responsible. We can overcome these outside influences. We have the responsibility to follow reason, to not dull our moral conscience, to not put our desires above all else, to be real with our personal experiences, but to place them under the scrutiny of others and reason.
I appreciate your emphasis on personal responsibility in refining our morality, and I agree that it’s crucial to engage with reason, our moral conscience, and our experiences thoughtfully. However, I’d like to address the role of GOD in this process.
In the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), the responsibility for moral development isn’t primarily on either GOD or the individual—rather, it’s an equal partnership. Both the individual and GOD are co-creators, actively shaping moral understanding together. This means that while we bear responsibility, GOD is equally involved in the co-creative process, guiding and refining our moral sense in a dynamic relationship. As such GOD bears the responsibility equally.
Given this, what evidence do we have that a real, objective GOD has ever interacted with humanity in a way that makes an external source of morality necessary? If morality is co-created between GOD and the individual, then it emerges from this equal interaction, rather than needing to be extracted from an objective, external source.
Could it be that focusing on this equal co-creative process, rather than relying on belief in an external, objective GOD, still allows us to achieve meaningful moral growth?
It’s not my model, but logic that I think doesn’t allow for a third alternative from (1) God is external/other in some sense and (2) God is a synonym for us. Honestly, if this isn’t cleared up, then discussing the implications will lead to more confusion.
It seems there might be a misunderstanding regarding how I view the relationship between GOD and us. In the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), I'm not saying that GOD must equal "us" in every sense, nor am I suggesting that GOD is something completely separate from us. Rather, I believe that GOD is fully integrated into our human experience, meaning GOD is not external in that context. However, that doesn’t mean GOD is limited to just being us.
GOD can have other "doings" or actions that are separate from what GOD is doing in relation to us, but these separations don't imply that GOD is fundamentally other or separate from us. In our experience, we and GOD are co-creators, intertwined in a dynamic process, but this doesn't mean GOD cannot exist or act in other ways outside of our direct experience. Nor does this imply that we should treat GOD as an external Objective entity.
I’d like to add another point to clarify the relationship between us and GOD in the Subjective GOD Model (SGM). Since everything—including our experiences and GOD’s "doings"—takes place within GOD, it’s important to remember that things within GOD are not objective in the same way we might normally think of objectivity. If something is within GOD, then it’s not truly "objective" any more than GOD is objective to those things.
This means that our experience of co-creating with GOD is inherently subjective, not because it lacks reality, but because it happens within the framework of GOD’s being. In this model, there’s no need to treat GOD as an external, objective entity separate from us, because everything we experience and everything GOD does in relation to us exists within the same subjective reality.
So, rather than forcing us to accept an objective, external GOD, this understanding allows for a more integrated view where we and GOD are not separate, yet not fully synonymous either—everything occurs within GOD’s subjective reality.
Does this help resolve the concern about objectivity and clarify the way I’m framing the relationship between us and GOD?
I think this is the ontological/epistemological confusion again. What exists and what exists that is aware of that existence are two different things. I believe God is the ontological source of the physical world existing. I also believe that we can epistemologically separate God from the physical world to where I can talk about the physical world as something independent of consciousness.
I see the distinction you’re making between ontology and epistemology, and I agree that we can talk about the physical world as if it exists independently of consciousness from an epistemological standpoint. However, my point was more about the meaning and purpose of the universe in relation to conscious awareness.
In the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), the existence of the universe is not enough on its own—it’s the interaction between consciousness (both human and divine) and the universe that imbues it with meaning and purpose. While we can talk about the physical world existing independently in an epistemological sense, I’m arguing that without consciousness (whether GOD’s or ours), this existence would be devoid of any intrinsic meaning.
In this sense, the ontological source of the physical world is GOD, but it’s the co-creative relationship between GOD and conscious beings that brings the universe into meaningful existence. So, while we can theoretically separate GOD from the physical world in epistemological terms, the SGM sees them as deeply interconnected when it comes to purpose and meaning.
Does this clarify the difference in how I’m approaching the relationship between existence, consciousness, and meaning?
Yes, consciousness is logically required to recognize X exists and to interact with X (those are epistemological things), but consciousness isn’t logically required for X to exist (that’s ontological). In other words, this basic tenet of materialism (that the world exists and God doesn’t) is logically possible.
Now, I don’t think that the reality we observe makes the most sense on materialism; I think too many things point to the necessary existence of God, but that’s a different question. This isn’t a conflation of materialism and theism.
I see that you're approaching this from an ontological perspective, and I understand that in your view, consciousness isn't required for something to exist, only to recognize or interact with it. However, I think there may be a disconnect between the focus of our arguments. While you're emphasizing ontology—whether something exists independently of consciousness—my argument has been more about the epistemological and experiential dimensions of reality.
In the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), the key issue isn't just about whether something exists (the ontological question), but how existence is experienced, understood, and given meaning through consciousness. My focus is on the co-creative process between consciousness (both human and divine) and the world. In this view, existence without consciousness might be possible, but it lacks significance, purpose, or meaning without the subjective engagement of conscious beings.
So while I appreciate the ontological point you're making, I think the relevance of my argument sits more in the epistemological and experiential domains—how we interact with and co-create meaning within the framework of existence. Perhaps this is where our views diverge, with your focus on ontology and mine on the role of consciousness in shaping meaningful reality.
Would you agree that our differing focuses—yours on ontology and mine on consciousness and experience—might be the source of this misunderstanding?
Absolutely. It’s just got to be clear or we’ll talk past each other.
Thank you for agreeing that there’s room to consider "construct" in a broader sense. However, I noticed that your response seemed to focus primarily on the second part of my point. To clarify, my broader focus was on the idea that both divine creation and human perception could be seen as constructs, not in a sense that implies falsehood, but as processes that shape reality.
In the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), reality itself can be viewed as a construct of consciousness, where both GOD and humans are co-creators. This doesn’t diminish the reality we experience but emphasizes that it is actively shaped through this relationship. So, when I talk about constructs, I’m referring to the way reality is formed and understood through this co-creative process, not as something inherently flawed or false.
Does this broader view of "construct" align with your thinking, or do you still see a need to treat constructs as potentially flawed or misleading in this context?
Okay. Then you might be right by definition. When you say Cultural Christianity embraces the teachings without deeper engagement or commitment, what does this “deeper engagement or commitment” refer to? If you don’t engage, you are passive.
I do agree that people within spheres of power (such as Cultural Christianity) are often pushed to protect the status quo, to not question their actions, to justify rather than admit wrongs, etc. I think Biblical Christianity challenges us to constantly check ourselves and actions, to confess, to make things right, to seek justice, to better the world, etc.
I see the distinction you’re drawing between Cultural Christianity and what you’re calling “Biblical Christianity,” but I think it would be helpful if you could define what you mean by "Biblical Christianity." How do you differentiate it from Cultural Christianity in a practical sense?
For instance, when you mention that Biblical Christianity challenges us to constantly check ourselves, seek justice, and make things right—how is this different from what people within Cultural Christianity might claim to do? From the outside, it often seems like many who identify with Cultural Christianity also claim to follow Biblical principles, but without the deeper engagement or action.
If we can define this distinction more clearly, it might help us better understand where the two diverge, and how one leads to a more active moral engagement while the other might contribute to passivity. How would you explain the difference between the two?
So, I agree that reality is generated by consciousness, originally with God’s consciousness and, subsequently, with the relationship between God’s consciousness and our own. If you want my thoughts on more specifics, could you offer specific examples/categories you would like my thoughts on?
I appreciate that we agree on the co-creative process between GOD’s consciousness and human consciousness, though I recognize that our models differ. In the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), the relationship is a subjective interaction where both GOD and the individual actively shape reality from within. In contrast, it seems that your Objective GOD Model (OGM) treats GOD’s consciousness as external, and moral truths as fixed and independent of the individual.
Given this distinction, I think it would be helpful to explore how these positions play out in specific areas:
Moral development: In your OGM, you see moral truths as fixed and objective, existing independently of human interaction with GOD. In the SGM, morality is co-created through the ongoing relationship between the individual and GOD, which allows moral truths to evolve as part of this process. How do you reconcile human free will with these fixed moral truths in your model?
Historical impact: How do you see the role of GOD’s consciousness in shaping major historical events? In the SGM, historical outcomes are a result of the co-creative relationship between human free will and divine interaction. Does your OGM suggest that GOD has more direct influence over historical events, or do you see them as primarily shaped by human agency?
Personal responsibility: In the OGM, where GOD’s will and moral truths are objective, how do you balance the individual’s responsibility to act in line with these truths? In the SGM, both GOD and the individual share responsibility in shaping reality, meaning personal responsibility is deeply intertwined with divine co-creation.
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on these categories, especially how the Objective GOD Model informs your understanding of morality, history, and personal responsibility. Feel free to suggest any other areas you'd like to discuss as well.
But I’m still confused because you think GOD has always thought child abuse is wrong, right? That has always been the moral ideal that GOD has been trying to move humans to, right?
If I understand that correctly, then we’ve got two things that you are conflating into one or ignoring one while focusing on the other. We’ve got (1) GOD’s moral ideal which has not evolved or been co-created and (2) human moral opinions that have evolved and been co-created through our relationship with GOD.
When I speak of human morality being objective, I am speaking of (1). When I speak of human moral opinions/beliefs/thoughts, I’m speaking of (2).
I think another crucial aspect to consider, particularly from the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), is that human consciousness is viewed as a "child" of GOD. This means that the way human forms function—and how new personality is created through the human experience—must also be seen in relation to GOD’s creative role. If we define "child abuse" broadly, holding human agents accountable for their actions, we cannot simply exempt GOD from being considered responsible in some way, as GOD created the environment where such actions are made possible.
However, the SGM navigates this complexity by assuming that, as beings experiencing the human journey, we had a prior state of being before we became human. In this state, we likely had full awareness of what the human experience would entail, including the challenges posed by free will and the temporary moral frameworks that would arise. Even knowing we would forget this prior state during our human life, we agreed to take part in the experience, understanding that the moral concepts we develop—including those around child abuse—would emerge as part of that journey.
Additionally, the temporary nature of this human experience is crucial. Many reports from Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) involving people who have suffered from child abuse suggest that, in the afterlife, the perspective on these acts is transformed. Victims of abuse have reported that, in their NDEs, they came to understand that their abusers were still loved and forgiven, even by those who had suffered. These experiences highlight the forgivable nature of even the most morally egregious acts within the broader, spiritual context.
This doesn’t mean that child abuse is without consequence or that it isn't considered wrong in our human framework, but it reflects the idea that, in the grander, divine perspective, the human experience is a temporary state of moral evolution. The co-creative process between us and GOD allows for forgiveness and growth, even for those who commit actions we now deem deeply harmful.
With all that said, I think it’s important to clarify how we are defining "child abuse" in this context. If we are going to engage in a meaningful discussion about its moral implications, we need to establish a clear definition that doesn’t exclude any entity—whether human or divine. How do you define child abuse, and do you see this definition applying universally, even to GOD’s role in creating the environment in which such actions are possible?
I didn’t start out at the beginning of this thread, or maybe I’ve just missed the details here, but I don’t know exactly what Musk has said about his beliefs here. Does he, morally, just wait for divine intervention? I didn’t peg him as that kind of cultural Christian. I do think Christians who just wait around are not acting Christianly (i.e., like Christ) and, often, are just trying to maintain their power and comfort.
Thanks for your thoughts, Tanager. To clarify, my definition of Cultural Christianity (CC) aligns with how I view Elon Musk’s identification with it. Musk agrees with the values Jesus taught and acknowledges their wisdom, but this doesn’t necessarily translate into deep spiritual engagement or a moral commitment to living out those values in the fullest sense. Instead, his approach reflects what I see as a key aspect of Cultural Christianity: adopting the values Jesus taught without fully committing to challenging injustices or engaging in deeper moral responsibility.
Historically, Cultural Christianity has been intertwined with wealth and power, allowing people to align with Christian teachings while turning a blind eye to social injustices and maintaining the status quo. This can result in a kind of moral passivity, where agreeing with Christian ideals provides a moral framework, but without the personal or systemic challenges that deeper engagement would require.
When Musk identifies as a Cultural Christian, the question is whether his actions—particularly his use of wealth and influence—are any different from what Cultural Christians have historically done: adopting the values Jesus taught without fully engaging in the difficult work of confronting societal injustices. In this sense, Musk’s version of Cultural Christianity fits my critique of how it often fosters a kind of passivity, despite agreement with the teachings.
Do you see Musk’s identification as a Cultural Christian reflecting this same historical pattern of aligning with the values Jesus taught while maintaining power, or do you think his approach challenges this tendency?
I do think there is a rebirth of Cultural Christianity in this sense. Even Richard Dawkins has called himself a Cultural Christian recently. I think the focus is usually on the moral elements involved. The period of New Atheism was very anti-theistic, but that tide has shifted. This form of Christianity is more adaptable to modern values, although I see that as a potential issue because human moral thought is often like a pendulum, while I think the middle path is usually the better one.
I think you’ve raised an interesting point about the rebirth of Cultural Christianity, especially with figures like Elon Musk and even Richard Dawkins identifying with it to some extent. You’re right that the focus seems to be on the moral elements of Jesus' teachings, and I agree that this shift away from the more anti-theistic stance of New Atheism is significant.
However, you mentioned that Cultural Christianity is more adaptable to modern values, but you also see this as potentially problematic because human moral thought can swing like a pendulum. You suggest that the "middle path" is usually the better one.
Could you clarify what you mean by the middle path? Do you see it as a more passive or a proactive path when it comes to engaging with the world and challenging injustices? And how does that middle path compare with both Cultural Christianity and more traditional, organized forms of Christianity?
This is a good example of the middle ground. I think the extreme that organized religion often goes toward (unquestioned authority, just believe and don’t doubt, protect the image of the “Church” or, for example, Ravi Zacharias at all costs) is anti-Jesus. I think the extreme that cultural Christianity goes toward, of keeping the results (like morality) while changing the foundation (really adopting secularism) can have problems, too, of eroding the actual foundation for any morality and becoming a prisoner to the whim of the powerful influencers in society and their personal desires.
I think there is a middle ground, where we have the foundations that lead to the morality that we are called by Jesus to live out, using any power we have to better the world, while holding our fellow Christian leaders and brothers accountable to Jesus’ call.
I see where you're coming from with the idea of finding a middle ground, but I’d like to introduce how this fits within the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), especially when considering concepts like Cultural Christianity and Elon Musk's identification with it.
In the SGM, even though many people, like Musk, might not fully recognize or acknowledge the role of GOD, their actions, beliefs, and participation in systems like Cultural Christianity are still part of the co-creative process between humanity and GOD. What Musk is doing with his wealth and influence—just like the broader historical impact of Cultural Christianity—reflects this ongoing dynamic between human consciousness and GOD's will. Whether or not people like Musk or even atheists explicitly recognize it, their actions are contributing to the building of objective reality through the subjective relationship between humanity and GOD.
This same principle applies to all forms of Christianity—whether Cultural or traditional, and even to those who choose to believe in an objective GOD. In the SGM, every aspect of human history, belief, and action, including Cultural Christianity’s sometimes passive nature and the belief in an objective GOD, is part of the unfolding process where subjective experiences shape our objective reality. From this perspective, all these elements, including the perceived extremes of both organized religion and Cultural Christianity, are part of the larger divine-human agenda of co-creating reality.
Given your Objective GOD Model (OGM), how do you view the idea that, whether recognized or not, people like Musk and Cultural Christians are still participating in a co-creative process that influences the objective moral and physical reality? Do you see that as aligning with your view of objective moral truths, or do you think the lack of recognition of GOD’s role diminishes the significance of their actions in some way?
) God just went along with human mores of the time. Plainly false because God forbids something, it is forbidden, and no mistake, even if some people backslide.
and the prophecy argument, Genesis -literalism and no contradictions arguments have been dead and gone for a long time, but the message isn't getting out, and atheists get sucked into the same old debates, time and again. 
