[
Replying to The Tanager in post #369]
If your whole point is that we process things subjectively, then we have no disagreement.
Tanager, I’m glad to see that we agree on the fact that all moral guidance and information are processed subjectively. However, I think it’s important to clarify that recognizing the subjective nature of moral processing doesn't reduce morality to relativism or undermine the existence of meaningful moral truths.
In the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), moral truths emerge through the co-creative relationship between human consciousness and GOD. While we process influences from culture, friends, or institutions subjectively, the key is that moral meaning and truth are shaped dynamically through our active engagement with divine will. This doesn’t imply that anything goes or that morality is arbitrary, but rather that the understanding of moral truth deepens and evolves as part of our relationship with GOD.
So, while we agree that we process things subjectively, the SGM shows that this process is vital to our ongoing moral development. It also emphasizes that, without filtering these influences through our subjective experience and interaction with GOD, we would miss the opportunity for growth and co-creation.
Does this distinction between subjective processing and evolving moral truth align with your understanding, or do you still see moral truths as requiring an objective, fixed source?
I don’t believe in moral absolutes. I believe in objectively true morals. And you seem to as well. You believe GOD has always believed child abuse was morally wrong, right?
I want to clarify something important: I do not hold the belief you ascribed to me regarding GOD and child abuse. As I’ve mentioned before, I either know something about a matter, or I do not know. In this case, until a clear definition of "child abuse" is provided, it would be remiss of me to give any answer or claim a position on the subject.
Without this definition, the conversation cannot move forward meaningfully. It’s essential that we define what we’re discussing before making assumptions about what GOD or I believe about it.
Once we’ve established a clear definition of "child abuse," we can explore the implications, but for now, let’s refrain from assigning beliefs or positions prematurely.
I notice that while you've continued to assert the existence of "objectively true morals," no concrete example has been provided despite my prior requests. Since it’s clear that you’re unable to offer one, I think we can set that aside until any change occurs.
What remains, then, is a broader question: if no objective moral example can be given, on what grounds should we trust that such morals exist in the way you describe? In the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), we avoid this issue entirely by recognizing that morality is co-created through our relationship with GOD. This allows for moral development without the need to appeal to unchanging external laws, which, in your case, haven’t been exampled to exist. Your claim that the commandments are such an example, fell by the wayside.
Instead of looking for fixed moral truths, I focus on the evolving, dynamic process between human consciousness and divine will. Morality isn't static; it's shaped and refined over time as we grow in relationship with GOD.
By continuing to claim objective morals without providing any example, it seems the claim itself becomes untenable. What is your basis for holding to these supposed "objectively true morals," given that no clear examples have been offered?
So, by ‘making things right’ I think of things like Zacchaeus (Luke 19) repenting of how he cheated people out of their money and then decided to pay back four times what he took. Moving forward, Zacchaeus probably treated people more lovingly and generously in the future. Other wrongs will have other responses.
How do we ensure it? I think we need God’s power and wisdom, which requires a relationship with God.
I appreciate your example of Zacchaeus repenting and making restitution as a way of addressing personal wrongs. However, my question goes beyond individual repentance and focuses on how subjective moral processes can effectively address systemic or historical injustices, like slavery, colonization, or genocide, which impact entire societies over generations.
While personal moral growth, as seen with Zacchaeus, is valuable, historical atrocities often have lasting consequences that affect communities and nations long after individual perpetrators or victims are gone. How do we apply the model of personal repentance to widespread, systemic issues that require not just individual moral growth but larger-scale social or institutional change?
In the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), moral growth happens through a co-creative relationship between humans and GOD, and this process extends beyond the individual. It involves collective action, societal transformation, and structural change. However, I'm curious to know how, in your framework, we move from personal moral development to addressing historical and systemic wrongs in a way that leads to lasting change.
How do you see the role of personal moral refinement scaling up to confront and correct these broader injustices?
Because if it’s not fixed, then why trust it at all? If it’s not fixed, then at one time God got it wrong about child abuse and was okay with it. If God got that wrong, then what else could God be wrong about? God is limited in knowledge, just like we are, and we have no clear guidance in life.
I think it’s important to clarify how the Subjective GOD Model (SGM) views GOD’s will, especially in contrast to institutionalized or established forms of Christianity. While I agree that many religious institutions (across denominations) have historically claimed to represent GOD’s will, what we often discover is that these claims reflect the will of the established religious organization rather than the true, divine will of GOD.
The SGM holds that any fixed aspect of GOD’s will cannot be directly discovered through institutional claims or in the objective world. Instead, GOD’s will is only truly discoverable through an individual’s subjective interaction with GOD. This interaction happens on a deeply personal level, where moral guidance and understanding come from the ongoing relationship between the individual and GOD.
The result of this relationship—the moral insights and guidance that emerge—can then be extended into the objective world, shaping one’s actions and contributions to society. But this does not make GOD’s will "objective" in the sense that it can be universally codified or institutionally enforced. Rather, it is a process of co-creation, where GOD’s will is shaped and expressed through the subjective experiences and moral growth of individuals.
This approach contrasts with how Cultural Christianity (and even some forms of Biblical Christianity) might claim to know and enforce GOD’s will through doctrines and institutional authority. In the SGM, no institution can lay claim to GOD’s will in this way—it must be discovered and realized through personal, subjective experience, which can then manifest in actions within the objective world.
How does this distinction between discovering GOD’s will through subjective interaction versus institutional claims align with your view of GOD’s will? Do you see a role for institutions in mediating or interpreting GOD’s will, or do you agree that it’s something more personal and individually discovered?
The ultimate responsibility can only be with one or the other. If it’s up to God, then we are not to blame for anything. If it’s up to us, then while God is involved and wants to guide us, we can ultimately reject that.
I see that you're framing the relationship between GOD and the individual in a way that separates them, which reflects a more objectified view of GOD—a view common in many traditional forms of Christianity. In this model, GOD is positioned as an external, objective authority whose will is fixed, and our role is to either align with it or reject it, which would place the blame solely on us if we fail.
However, the Subjective GOD Model (SGM) takes a different approach by emphasizing that the relationship with GOD is inherently personal and relational, transcending the limitations of seeing GOD as an external object or authority. In the SGM, it’s not about shifting blame or responsibility to one party or the other. Instead, it’s about recognizing that GOD and the individual are in partnership, where the interaction itself shapes moral understanding. This partnership doesn’t objectify GOD as something outside of ourselves, but rather integrates GOD into our subjective experience, creating a dynamic relationship where both sides are involved in moral growth.
By doing this, the SGM navigates around the limitations of seeing GOD as something separate from the self, which often leads to questions about blame or ultimate responsibility. Instead, it encourages an ongoing, co-creative process where both the individual and GOD actively participate in shaping morality. The focus shifts away from assigning blame and toward fostering a deeper, evolving relationship that promotes moral development through personal engagement with GOD’s guidance.
Do you see how this relational approach, where GOD and the individual are intertwined, might avoid the pitfalls of objectifying GOD or creating a situation where one party is solely responsible for moral outcomes?
Okay, but it does mean God is ‘external’ to us in the ways I’ve been talking, so please understand that when trying to understand what I’ve been saying. That still leaves room for God interacting with us.
I understand that you're framing GOD as "external" in certain ways, but the Subjective GOD Model (SGM) approaches this relationship differently. While there may indeed be aspects of GOD that we aren’t fully privy to or understand, this doesn’t require us to view our relationship with GOD as external, nor does it diminish the reality of the subjective experience we have with GOD.
In the SGM, our relationship with GOD is deeply personal and integrated into our human experience. Even if there are dimensions of GOD’s existence or actions that are beyond our awareness, the co-creative, subjective interaction we have with GOD remains central. This interaction doesn’t depend on seeing GOD as an external entity or authority; rather, it is something that takes place within our consciousness, influencing and being shaped by our moral and spiritual growth.
So, while you maintain that GOD is external in certain respects, in the SGM, our experience of GOD is internal, and the fact that we may not fully know everything about GOD doesn’t change the reality of this internal, subjective relationship. We don’t need to externalize GOD to account for what we don’t know. The subjective relationship itself is what drives our moral development, and it is a process where both the individual and GOD are active participants.
Does this distinction help clarify how the SGM views the relationship with GOD, especially in terms of avoiding the externalization you're suggesting?
I agree.
Yes, I agree with this.
I’m glad we’re in agreement on this broader view of "constructs." It’s encouraging to see that we both recognize that divine creation and human perception can be seen as constructs that shape reality, but not in a way that implies falsehood or illusion. Instead, they are essential processes in the co-creative relationship between GOD and humanity.
In the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), this co-creation underscores the idea that reality itself—both physical and moral—is actively formed through the interaction between human consciousness and divine will. The fact that we experience reality as a construct doesn’t undermine its significance; rather, it emphasizes how dynamic and evolving our shared experience with GOD is.
With this mutual understanding, it seems we’re on the same page in seeing constructs as part of a meaningful, collaborative process, not as something flawed or misleading. It opens up more possibilities for discussing how this co-creative relationship impacts the way we experience the world and understand moral truths.
I’m curious to know, now that we share this view, how you see the role of individual subjective experience in shaping the reality we collectively experience. Do you think personal experiences and divine interaction allow for varying "constructs" of reality across individuals, or do you see these constructs as leading to a more unified, shared understanding over time?
Cultural Christianity mixes Christian teachings with non-Christian ones pulled from the culture. Dawkins mixes the Christian moral teachings with naturalism, for instance. The medieval Catholic church mixed theism with non-Christian morality at times.
Biblical Christianity realizes our tendency to mix our culture, our subjective desires in with the teachings and seeks to combat that to where the mix doesn’t occur, not through our efforts, but relying on God.
I appreciate your point that Biblical Christianity seeks to avoid the mixing of cultural and personal influences with Christian teachings by relying on GOD rather than on human effort. However, I can’t help but notice that in many cases, Biblical Christianity often treats the Bible itself as an ultimate authority, which could be seen as part of the very mixing it is trying to combat.
The Bible, after all, is a collection of texts written and compiled over centuries, influenced by the specific cultural contexts and subjective desires of the time. While I understand that the Bible is seen as divinely inspired, we cannot overlook the fact that human involvement in its creation may have introduced cultural and personal elements that are difficult to separate from its divine message.
With this in mind, wouldn’t it make sense to disregard any biblical authority that doesn’t come directly from the words of Jesus himself? Jesus' teachings seem to be the clearest expression of GOD’s will in the New Testament, so perhaps focusing solely on his words would offer a way to avoid the mixing of external cultural influences with the divine message. This approach might help to ensure that we’re not relying on parts of the Bible that may be more influenced by human cultures and subjective interpretations than by GOD’s will.
In the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), we emphasize that the individual’s personal relationship with GOD is key to discovering and refining moral truths, and this co-creative process allows for divine guidance to emerge without the filter of cultural or historical biases. From this perspective, one could argue that relying strictly on the words of Jesus, as opposed to the entirety of scripture, could help Biblical Christians avoid mixing/being confused with Cultural Christianity and those human cultural influences with GOD’s will.
What are your thoughts on this approach? Do you see value in focusing primarily on Jesus’ teachings as a way of minimizing the influence of cultural and subjective desires in understanding GOD’s will, or do you see the entire Bible as essential to this process?
I don’t think your SGM shows morality being co-created. You don’t think GOD once thought child abuse was okay, right? If so, then you don’t think morality is being co-created; you think human moral opinions are co-created.
Human free will is perfectly compatible with fixed moral truths just like getting math sums wrong is perfectly compatible with fixed mathematical truths.
Before we can continue this discussion regarding child abuse and its place within the Subjective GOD Model (SGM) or the Objective GOD Model (OGM), I want to remind you that we still haven’t properly defined child abuse in this context. Until we have a clear definition, any argument made based on assumptions about what child abuse entails will be difficult to fully examine and engage with meaningfully.
The concept of co-creating moral understanding in the SGM, as I’ve mentioned before, involves refining our understanding of moral truths through a relationship with GOD, but without a clear definition of the term in question, it’s impossible to discuss whether child abuse—or any other specific issue—fits into that model properly.
Once we establish a shared definition, we can more productively examine how these concepts play out in both the SGM and OGM.
Would you be willing to offer a clear definition of child abuse so we can proceed with this part of the conversation?
You seem to see such a tight relationship between GOD and us that I think it makes GOD responsible for great atrocities within history. The Holocaust would have to be a co-creation in your view because everything is a co-creation, right? If not, then I don’t think there is any difference between us on this point.
I understand your concern about the relationship between GOD and humanity, particularly when it comes to historical atrocities like the Holocaust. In the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), however, the situation is quite different from what you're suggesting.
The SGM holds that no external GOD intervenes in preventing such atrocities. If there were an external, objective GOD who could have intervened but chose not to, then that GOD could indeed be seen as responsible for allowing these events. However, in the SGM, GOD is subjective, experienced within individuals, and atrocities like the Holocaust are not co-creations with GOD. Rather, they are the result of human personalities acting outside of alignment with GOD’s will.
In the SGM, atrocities such as the Holocaust are driven by human free will and actions that are out of alignment with GOD’s moral guidance. These events are products of human decisions, not divine co-creations, because those involved are not acting from a subjective relationship with GOD. When humans act outside of this alignment, atrocities can occur, and they are manifestations of human agency devoid of divine influence.
On the other hand, even Biblical Christianity—which you may see as a more pure expression of faith compared to Cultural Christianity—is not free from historical issues. The Bible itself has been used to justify atrocities throughout history, including the Crusades, slavery, and colonialism. This raises significant questions about whether Biblical Christianity can truly serve as an untainted substitute for Cultural Christianity, since its teachings have often been interpreted in ways that align with the cultural and political agendas of the time.
While Cultural Christianity may be more obviously influenced by societal values, Biblical Christianity has also been intertwined with these forces throughout history. In the SGM, we focus on the individual’s relationship with GOD as a way to avoid relying on texts that have been subject to human interpretation and historical misuse. The co-creative process allows for moral refinement through personal engagement with GOD, rather than potentially problematic interpretations of scripture.
Given this history, do you think Biblical Christianity can fully avoid the mixing of cultural and personal influences, or is there a need for a more direct, subjective engagement with GOD to refine our moral understanding? And in the Objective GOD Model (OGM), how do you reconcile GOD’s role in historical events like the Holocaust, particularly when it comes to the issue of intervention or responsibility?
I think they are deeply intertwined. God hands over control to the individual. God then comes back in and influences those who will accept it, leading to co-creation.
What you’ve described in terms of GOD handing over control and re-engaging with individuals who are open to divine influence reflects a process that aligns closely with the Subjective GOD Model (SGM). However, the SGM goes further in suggesting that true reuniting with GOD—on a deep, personal level—cannot fully take place until the individual has exited the influence of external forces like Cultural or Biblical Christianity.
In the SGM, the problem is that these external influences often replace the direct, subjective relationship with GOD with an objectified concept of GOD. This externalized GOD is shaped by societal, cultural, and religious structures that can obscure the more personal, co-creative relationship that individuals are meant to have with the divine. For this reason, the SGM holds that reuniting with GOD in the fullest sense requires a process of exiting these external influences—something that takes time and varies for each individual.
This is where grace becomes essential. In the SGM, grace is not just forgiveness but also understanding—the recognition that every individual’s journey toward exiting these external influences and reuniting with GOD is unique. Some people may take longer than others to overcome the external constructs that define their perception of GOD, and that is why grace, in the form of understanding, is always extended.
This contrasts with the Objective GOD Model (OGM), which often presents GOD as an external figure, where the focus is more on aligning with objective truths handed down through religious institutions. In the SGM, the focus is on the subjective process of rediscovering GOD through personal experience, which requires breaking free from these external frameworks.
Given this, how do you view the role of grace in the OGM? Do you think that individuals can fully reunite with GOD while still under the influence of external cultural or religious structures, or do they, like in the SGM, need to exit these influences to have a more authentic relationship with GOD?
Call it something other than “child abuse” and talk about it, but also answer my question because I’ve brought that term in with a narrower definition and it’s that definition I want to hear your view on. You know what child abuse is. Sexual, mental, physical, whatever type you want to talk about. Did GOD ever think that was okay, for one human to abuse a human child?
I understand why specific types of harm, such as child abuse, might be important to address, but from the perspective of the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), categorizing abuse is beside the point. Whether we’re discussing child abuse, spouse abuse, or even atrocities like the Holocaust, the core issue remains the same: humans acting in ways that are out of alignment with GOD’s will, leading to profound harm and exploitation.
In the SGM, it’s not the type of abuse that matters, but the underlying moral failure—the human choice to act out of alignment with divine will. These actions, whether on a personal or systemic level, reflect a rejection of the co-creative, subjective relationship with GOD. What matters is that all forms of abuse and harm arise from this misalignment, whether the harm occurs on an individual level (like child abuse) or on a massive scale (like the Holocaust).
The SGM also holds that GOD’s will is not external, imposed, or disconnected from human experience. Instead, GOD’s will must be discovered and aligned with through personal, subjective experience. When individuals or societies fail to align with GOD’s will, that’s when harm, exploitation, and even large-scale atrocities can occur. In this sense, categorizing abuse risks missing the broader picture—that all these harmful actions stem from the same human moral failure.
When we categorize abuse too specifically, we might overlook the fundamental issue that transcends these distinctions: the misuse of human free will in a way that causes harm. The SGM encourages us to focus on realigning with GOD’s will to prevent such harm, rather than emphasizing categories of abuse.
Given this, how do you see the role of categorizing moral failures in your framework? Do you think focusing on specific categories helps address the core issue, or is it more effective to address the broader human divergence from GOD’s will, as the SGM suggests?
Forgiveness logically requires admission that the act was wrong, so saying child abuse is objectively wrong is a separate question from forgiveness and redemption. Yes, God can still bring about good things in spite of child abuse, but that doesn’t make the child abuse itself good.
I understand your perspective that forgiveness logically involves the admission of wrongdoing, but in the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), forgiveness functions quite differently. It’s not about waiting for the abuser to admit their wrongdoing before forgiveness can occur. Rather, forgiveness is about the individual’s own ability to heal and move on gracefully in their ongoing relationship with Subjective GOD.
Forgiveness in the SGM is an internal, personal process that helps free the individual from being beholden to external influences—whether that’s waiting for someone else to admit their fault or seeking external justice before finding closure. This approach is essential because holding on to pain or resentment from past harm can prevent someone from fully accessing the inner Kingdom and entwining with GOD. The process of forgiveness allows the individual to release the emotional and spiritual burden that comes from waiting for the abuser to make amends.
In this way, forgiveness is more about the victim’s journey towards healing, not about justifying or excusing the abusive act itself. It’s about reclaiming inner peace and freedom through the subjective relationship with GOD, even if the abuser never acknowledges their wrongdoing. The act of forgiveness allows the individual to realign with divine grace and continue their spiritual growth, unhindered by the weight of unresolved external conflicts.
You mentioned that forgiveness and the objective wrongness of the act are separate, and I agree with that. The SGM doesn’t claim that an act like child abuse is anything other than deeply harmful. But forgiveness, in this context, is not about justifying the act but about freeing the individual to find closure and move forward spiritually, regardless of whether the abuser takes responsibility.
How do you see the role of forgiveness in terms of personal healing, especially if the abuser never admits fault? Do you think forgiveness is possible or meaningful without an admission of guilt, or do you see it as fundamentally tied to the abuser’s acknowledgment of wrongdoing?
I don’t know enough about Musk to judge his moral doings or lack thereof. I do know he donated a great amount of starlinks to the rescue efforts by Samaritan’s Purse in Western NC from hurricane Helene, but I can’t speak to what he does or doesn’t do. I’m sure (like all of us), he does some good things and could do more and does some bad things. I think without a vibrant relationship with Jesus, none of us can reach our full moral potential because we are missing out on omniscient wisdom.
I understand that you may not know all the details of Musk’s actions, but from the perspective of the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), it’s important to look at figures like Musk—especially those who hold significant influence—and consider how their external actions align with their internal values. SGM emphasizes the importance of correlating what we see externally with the internal moral frameworks and motivations driving those actions.
Musk, like many other influential figures, holds a position where his decisions and actions affect a vast number of people, so it becomes important to observe and reflect on the moral impact of his influence. SGM doesn’t advocate for being blind or neutral about these kinds of figures, especially when we have the eyes to see the connection between influence and moral responsibility. By looking at the external data—like his business decisions, philanthropy, and the power he wields—and correlating that with his internal values and how he aligns (or doesn’t) with spiritual principles, we can gain a clearer understanding of his role in the broader moral landscape.
While you mentioned that none of us can reach our full moral potential without a vibrant relationship with Jesus, I’d be interested to hear what you mean by a vibrant relationship with Jesus. How do you define that, and what does it look like in practice?
Additionally, the SGM would also say that it’s part of our responsibility to observe the moral impact of those with power and influence, and to understand how their inner alignment (or misalignment) with divine guidance manifests in the external world.
Do you think it’s important to reflect on the influence and actions of people like Musk, even if we don’t know the full details of their personal beliefs? How do you view the balance between external influence and internal spiritual alignment in shaping the moral responsibility of public figures?
Because God has decided to grant free will, I believe all people are participating in the co-creative process for good and bad. We all influence reality. We influence the moral landscape, but we don’t influence what is truly moral or not. Hopefully we move the moral landscape towards what is objectively moral, for our own good.
I see where you're coming from with your emphasis on free will as a key part of the co-creative process, and I appreciate that, in your view, all people—whether they recognize GOD’s role or not—are still participating in shaping the moral landscape for better or worse.
However, I think there’s a significant difference in how we understand free will, especially when we consider the idea of prior existence. In the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), free will isn’t just about the choices we make in this human life. It’s also tied to the prior agreement we made before entering into this human experience. From this perspective, we chose to be here, to experience humanity with its limitations, challenges, and opportunities for growth.
Without the context of this prior existence, the idea of free will becomes more illusory. If we had no role in choosing to be here, then it raises the question of how much free will we truly have. The act of coming into this world would be something we were thrust into, without any participation on our part in that decision, which would undermine the full meaning of free will.
In the SGM, free will is deeply connected to this prior agreement—our decision to experience human life, knowing that we would temporarily forget our divine origins. This prior choice sets the stage for the co-creative process with GOD, where our free will isn’t just about reacting to the world we find ourselves in, but about engaging in a journey that we previously agreed to undertake.
In contrast, your Objective GOD Model (OGM) seems to start with free will within the framework of human life, without the context of prior existence or an initial agreement. This creates a different understanding of our responsibility and participation in the co-creative process.
Do you see free will as something that operates only within the context of this current life, or do you consider the possibility that we exercised free will before entering into this human experience? How do you think this impacts the concept of responsibility and participation in shaping reality?
