The Bible and Science

[The Tanager]

My intent here is more about general approaches to supposed scientific contributions in the Bible, not specific cases (although examples may be helpful to make one's points, of course). I'd love to know what approach you take when looking at the Bible and science. Which of these do you agree with and why?:

1. The Bible makes direct scientific claims so, when they conflict, either the Bible or our current scientific understanding is wrong (or both are).

2. The Bible is a completely metaphorical text, not making direct claims about physical reality

3. The Bible, is mainly concerned with X (teaching what is necessary for salvation or instructing us for next practical step in life of trust in God or whatever), and uses the linguistic and phenomenological understandings of the day to get that message across

4. Something else

[The Tanager]

You raise an interesting point about truth, Tanager, and it seems that the distinction between truth and evidence is central to our conversation. From your responses, I get the sense that you view the Subjective GOD model as offering a framework that aligns with experience but perhaps doesn’t amount to truth in the way you’re defining it. This leaves me wondering what kind of evidence or criteria you consider sufficient when determining whether something aligns with truth.

It’s not “the way I’m defining it” but the actual definition of truth as traditionally used in discussion (before people muddied up the waters with redefinitions of key terms). Truth is something like “that which is in accordance with reality or facts”.

The criteria one should consider includes things like:

1. explanatory power - explains the observable data better, more fully
2. explanatory scope - explains a wider range of data that rival hypothesis
3. plausibility - how well the hypothesis is implied by a greater variety of accepted truths and that it’s negation is implied by fewer accepted truths than rivals
4. degree of ad hoc-ness - involve fewer new assumptions not already implied by existing knowledge
5. concordance with accepted beliefs - when joined with other accepted truths, the hypothesis will imply fewer falsehoods than rivals
6. comparative superiority - how well it exceeds its rivals in (1) through (5)

You mentioned that truth covers both rational arguments and experiencing reality, which I agree are important. However, truth often seems to be a fickle thing, especially when dealing with something as deeply personal and subjective as an individual’s relationship with GOD. The SG model accounts for these inner, personal experiences, which are central to how many people understand their connection with the divine.

I don’t see what the SG model accounts for that the Christian view I’m espousing doesn’t.

Does personal, subjective experience play a role in that determination, or does it fall short of what you consider "truth"?

I think you need to define what you mean more clearly. The earth isn’t spherical just because I have a subjective experience of believing it is spherical, but the earth’s actual shape will affect my subjective experience of things.

People do, experience GOD in personal, inward ways, such as through moral intuitions, spiritual insights, and a sense of divine presence. I’m interested in how the Objective GOD model makes sense of those experiences. How does it explain the personal, inner relationship with GOD that people describe, given that it focuses on GOD as an external, objective reality?

Thank you. Can you now offer the definitions you have in mind for these three terms? You can use Oxford Languages, Webster, your own words, whatever, so that I am sure to answer the exact concepts you have in mind.

I’m a bit unclear on your request for a specific example, as I’ve provided several throughout our discussion. For instance, I’ve mentioned the role of institutional authority in shaping doctrines and how that can lead to a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach that disconnects people from their personal, subjective experiences with GOD.

What do you mean by “one-size-fits-all” approach?

The councils involved in canonization were operating within a socio-political context where Christianity had already become intertwined with the structures of power. Given that, it seems unlikely that the process of choosing which texts to canonize would have been completely immune to the same influences that later shaped the use and interpretation of those texts.

We don’t have to talk about what was likely or unlikely; we have the actual data to look at. We have the means to look at what texts were being used by the early Christian communities and why and compare that to the texts chosen by the council. If you have looked at that and found evidence of corruption, then give the actual evidence.

For example, in the case of Galileo’s trial, it wasn’t just a handful of individuals acting independently; it was the Church as an institution, representing a principality, enforcing its doctrinal control, with the backing of its hierarchy and authority.

It was people within the institution that actually did stuff. The institution, devoid of actual individuals in power, can do nothing. That doesn’t mean I’m saying it’s fleeting individuals doing this. The majority (concerning the amount of power) of individuals did these things.

Based on your claim about the Judeo-Christian worldview, would you say that the Bible provides direct claims about the reliability and orderliness of the world, which later enabled the development of the scientific method? Or would you argue that the Bible provides metaphorical or theological insights into the nature of creation, which aligned with scientific principles much later?

I would say that the Bible uses linguistic and phenomenological understandings of the day to teach deeper truths, including the reliability and orderliness of the world (among others) that the later ‘scientific’ endeavor developed from.

In addition, I think it’s important to also consider pre-religious theism, where early humans—before formal religions like Judaism, Christianity, or Islam—were already thinking in ways that aligned with scientific discovery. Early human societies engaged in observation, experimentation, and discovery in practical ways, such as with tool-making, agriculture, and understanding natural patterns. These early discoveries were part of a natural human interaction with the world, and in some ways, can be seen as precursors to what we now call "the process of science."

Which the book of Genesis alludes to and, so, is covered under the Judeo-Christian worldview.

I’d also be interested in how you see this foundation influencing other cultures, like the Greeks or Islamic scholars during the Golden Age of Islamic science, who contributed significantly to the scientific method without relying on Christian doctrine. How do you think those cultures integrated similar ideas about the world’s reliability in a way that contributed to science, and do you think that idea was truly unique to the Judeo-Christian worldview?

I’ve already said how the Islamic scholars are borrowing the foundations from the Judeo-Christian worldview their movement reacted against. The Judeo-Christian worldview also accounts for the philosophical and scientific thought of other cultures through the belief that God hard-wired that into us, so that some societies even pursue such things even though they don’t make sense from their actual beliefs. I think atheists that believe in objective morality are an example of this, as well.

However, my core critique is specifically about how Cultural Christianity—as an institutional force—resisted scientific advancements that challenged its authority.

Okay. They were wrong. They went against the teachings of their supposed authority (the God and His revealed words). Their actions say nothing about the truth or falsity of the Christian worldview.

However, it’s worth acknowledging that all three Abrahamic traditions—not just Christianity—have, at times, developed institutional structures more concerned with protecting theological and political authority than fostering free scientific inquiry. This tension is something we’ve seen across history, whether in medieval Europe, the Islamic world, or even within Jewish theological traditions.

And the modern secular societies today do the same (although replace ‘philosophical’ for ‘theological’). And if your worldview ever became popular and it amassed power in society, individuals in that community would do the same. That says nothing for or against the truth of your view.

To bring this into a modern context, I’d also be interested in hearing your thoughts on how Abrahamic traditions would position themselves in relation to figures like Elon Musk, whose work in technology and science—whether it’s space exploration with SpaceX or advancing artificial intelligence and electric cars with Tesla—has had a profound impact on the world. Do you think Musk is using science responsibly, or do you see aspects of his work that might be viewed as an abuse of science according to Abrahamic principles?

I don’t know the ins and outs of his work, so I can’t speak to that. If you have specific issues/examples, share them and I can share my thoughts.

Given the traditional tension between religious authority and scientific advancements, where do you think the Abrahamic worldview stand on figures like Musk who push the boundaries of scientific and technological exploration?

I disagree that there is “the traditional tension between religious authority and scientific advancements”. There is historical tension between some Christian communities and science and historical cooperation between other Christian communities and science.

Pushing the boundaries can be done in good and bad ways. The Christian worldview is all for good boundary pushes and against what they see as bad ones.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #51]

It’s not “the way I’m defining it” but the actual definition of truth as traditionally used in discussion (before people muddied up the waters with redefinitions of key terms). Truth is something like “that which is in accordance with reality or facts”.

The criteria one should consider includes things like:

1. explanatory power - explains the observable data better, more fully
2. explanatory scope - explains a wider range of data that rival hypothesis
3. plausibility - how well the hypothesis is implied by a greater variety of accepted truths and that it’s negation is implied by fewer accepted truths than rivals
4. degree of ad hoc-ness - involve fewer new assumptions not already implied by existing knowledge
5. concordance with accepted beliefs - when joined with other accepted truths, the hypothesis will imply fewer falsehoods than rivals
6. comparative superiority - how well it exceeds its rivals in (1) through (5)

You’ve provided a helpful framework for evaluating truth with your criteria: explanatory power, scope, plausibility, degree of ad hoc-ness, concordance with accepted beliefs, and comparative superiority. I’d be interested in how you see your Objective GOD model (OGM) aligning with these criteria.

For example:

Explanatory power: How well does the OGM explain the observable data concerning human experiences with the divine? Does it explain the deeply personal and subjective experiences of people who feel they have a connection with GOD, or does it primarily focus on external, observable facts about morality and the universe?

Explanatory scope: Does the OGM provide explanations for a wider range of phenomena compared to other models, such as the Subjective GOD model? For instance, how does it account for personal spiritual experiences, moral intuitions, and the diversity of experienced theistic related phenomena across cultures?

Plausibility: You mentioned plausibility being based on how well a hypothesis aligns with other accepted truths. How well does the OGM align with what is currently accepted in science, philosophy, and theology? Does it require fewer new assumptions than its rivals?

Degree of ad hoc-ness: Does the OGM require many new assumptions to fit the data we observe, or does it build on already established principles? Are there significant leaps that need to be made to maintain coherence?

Concordance with accepted beliefs: How well does the OGM fit with other widely accepted beliefs about morality, existence, or metaphysics? Does it avoid implying contradictions with other well-established truths?

Comparative superiority: In comparison to other models, such as the Subjective GOD model or even naturalistic frameworks, where do you think the OGM stands in terms of superiority on these points?

I’m curious to hear your thoughts on how the OGM meets these criteria.

On that point, here are my thoughts - with examples - on how the SGM meets these criteria.

1. Explanatory Power
The Subjective GOD model provides significant explanatory power when it comes to understanding personal spiritual experiences, moral intuitions, and the ways individuals connect with the divine. It explains the wide variety of experiences people report when they describe feeling connected to GOD, seeing divine guidance in their lives, or experiencing moral convictions as influenced by their internal relationship with GOD.

For example:

It explains why individuals from various cultures and religious backgrounds report deep personal connections with a divine presence, regardless of their doctrinal differences.
The model also accounts for how people experience moral conviction or divine insight in a way that feels deeply personal and unique.

2. Explanatory Scope
The SGM covers a broad range of phenomena related to personal spirituality, religious experiences, and moral intuitions. It allows for diverse theistic experiences across cultures and religions, offering explanations for why different people report encountering GOD in different ways, or why they may experience moral truths differently based on their internal relationship with the divine.

For example:

The SGM explains how moral insights and spiritual encounters vary across individuals while still being meaningful and true within their personal experience.
It provides a way to understand the diversity of theistic experiences across different faiths, suggesting that personal encounters with GOD are shaped by the individual's context and subjective relationship with the divine.

3. Plausibility
The SGM aligns well with the widespread belief in personal spirituality and the modern understanding that spiritual experiences are often subjective. It builds on the common observation that people frequently describe their connection with GOD as something internal, personal, and unique to their lived experiences.

For example:

The SGM reflects the reality that people commonly report internal guidance from GOD, through various means, including NDEs, which aligns with contemporary psychological insights into moral intuition and mystical experiences.

It resonates with the way many individuals today view their relationship with GOD, focusing on internal, personal interactions rather than only external validation. The alignment between internal and external provides validation for the human personality since humans can only experience the world through their subjective experience of it.

4. Degree of Ad Hoc-ness
The SGM requires very few new assumptions, as it builds naturally on the understanding that people experience GOD , morality et al, through personal, internal interactions. The model fits easily into a framework where individual experiences of spirituality vary and are central to understanding one’s moral expression into life on earth.

For example:

It assumes that personal spiritual experiences are real and meaningful for the individual, which aligns with common understandings of theistic experience without requiring additional assumptions.
The SGM builds on established ideas that moral intuition and spiritual insight are grounded in personal experiences, making it a straightforward model for explaining how people relate to GOD.

5. Concordance with Accepted Beliefs
The SGM fits well with modern trends in spirituality that emphasize personal experience over institutional doctrine. It aligns with widely accepted beliefs in the importance of individual moral insight and the validity of personal religious experiences.

For example:

The model resonates with growing movements toward personalized spirituality and the idea that individuals can have a direct relationship with GOD without relying on external institutions or formalized doctrines.

It is consistent with the belief that moral truth can be discovered through one’s personal, internal experience with the divine, a concept that is gaining popularity in contemporary theistic thought.

6. Comparative Superiority
The SGM stands out in contexts where individual theistic experiences, personal spiritual growth, and moral intuition are central. It provides a flexible framework for understanding how people experience the divine in ways that are deeply personal and varied, while still being meaningful within their own lives.

For example:

The SGM excels in explaining mystical experiences, visions, or personal encounters with GOD that differ across individuals and cultures, offering a model that respects and incorporates those differences.

It provides a robust explanation for how people experience moral awakening or divine guidance, allowing for unique individual experiences that might not fit into a more universal framework.

Conclusion
The Subjective GOD model (SGM) excels in explaining how individuals personally experience the divine, making it especially powerful in contexts focused on personal spirituality, moral intuition, and divine encounters. It aligns with contemporary trends in spirituality, where personal experience takes precedence, and provides a broad explanatory framework for the diverse ways people experience and relate to GOD.

This framework offers significant plausibility in how it resonates with common beliefs about personal religious experiences, requiring few new assumptions while fitting comfortably with modern understandings of spiritual subjectivity. When evaluated using the criteria you provided, the SGM stands out as a highly effective model for explaining the internal, subjective experiences of faith and morality.


In light of current scientific knowledge
1. Explanatory Power
The SGM provides strong explanatory power when it comes to understanding subjective, internal experiences that align with scientific knowledge in psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science. Research on mystical experiences, moral intuition, and the human brain's response to religious experiences supports the idea that these phenomena are real for the individual, even though they occur internally.

For example:

Studies in neuroscience show that areas of the brain are activated during theistic experiences, suggesting that the subjective experiences explained by the SGM have a biological basis.
Moral intuitions have been studied extensively in psychology, showing that people often rely on internal, automatic moral judgments, which fits with the SGM’s explanation of moral experiences as being deeply personal.

The Subjective GOD model (SGM) provides significant explanatory power for personal theistic experiences, and this aligns with the scientific study of Near-Death Experiences (NDEs). NDE science demonstrates that individuals who undergo these profound experiences report feelings of divine connection and moral clarity, which the SGM explains as interactions with GOD at a personal level.


2. Explanatory Scope.
The SGM's wide explanatory scope, particularly regarding personal spiritual experiences, aligns well with scientific knowledge about the diversity of human experiences. Studies in anthropology and psychology show that people across different cultures report unique theistic experiences, which vary greatly but still share common features such as a sense of divine presence or moral guidance.

For example:

Cross-cultural psychology has documented how people from various religious backgrounds experience GOD or the divine in ways that are consistent with their cultural context. The SGM explains this as part of an individual’s subjective relationship with GOD.

Research on spirituality and well-being shows that individuals who feel connected to a higher power often experience improved mental health outcomes, reinforcing the SGM's explanatory scope in understanding the personal benefits of spirituality.

NDE science fits well within the SGM's explanatory scope, as studies show that people from different cultural and religious backgrounds report similar core experiences—such as encounters with divine beings, a sense of profound peace, and spiritual awakenings—despite their varying cultural interpretations. The SGM accounts for this by explaining how individuals experience GOD subjectively in a way that reflects their personal and cultural context.


3. Plausibility.
The SGM is plausible because it aligns with scientific studies on subjective experience, theistic belief, and moral psychology. While science doesn’t claim to prove the existence of a divine being, it does validate that the personal experience of the divine is real and meaningful to the individual, fitting within psychological and neuroscientific frameworks.

For example:

Neurotheology—the study of the neural basis of theistic experiences—shows that people’s experiences of GOD, while subjective, have a biological component that is consistent across individuals, making the SGM scientifically plausible.

Moral psychology demonstrates that individuals often feel a deep internal conviction about right and wrong, which the SGM attributes to personal interactions with GOD.

Research on NDEs supports the plausibility of the SGM by showing that such experiences have significant spiritual and moral impacts on individuals. NDE science validates that these subjective encounters are consistent and transformative, which aligns with the SGM's view of personal, divine interactions shaping one’s moral outlook and spirituality.



4. Degree of Ad Hoc-ness.
The SGM requires no new assumptions when aligned with current scientific knowledge. The model builds on well-established scientific principles that recognize the subjectivity of personal experiences and the complexity of human cognition. There’s no need to add extra assumptions to explain why people feel deeply connected to GOD, as these experiences can be understood within the existing scientific understanding of the brain and human consciousness.

For example:

The SGM fits within the framework of cognitive science and psychology, which already explain why people experience feelings of awe, transcendence, and moral clarity without needing to posit external metaphysical assumptions.
Behavioral neuroscience shows that human brains are wired to experience emotions and beliefs in ways that make the SGM intuitive and grounded in the science of subjective experience.

5. Concordance with Accepted Beliefs.
The SGM aligns well with current scientific beliefs that emphasize the importance of subjective experiences in shaping our perception of reality. In fields like psychology, cognitive science, and neuroscience, the role of internal experiences is well understood as a key part of how humans navigate and interpret the world. The SGM’s focus on internal, personal experiences fits smoothly with these established scientific perspectives.

For example:

Scientific studies on mystical experiences have shown that people across different belief systems report spiritual encounters in ways that are influenced by their personal and cultural contexts, which is consistent with the SGM’s understanding of personal, subjective connections to GOD.

Research in neuroplasticity shows that personal experiences can shape neural pathways over time, indicating that subjective theistic experiences may lead to lasting changes in how individuals think and behave.

The SGM does not require new or additional assumptions to explain NDEs, as scientific research has already demonstrated the psychological and neurological aspects of these experiences. NDE science shows that these experiences can be powerful and life-changing without needing to invoke new assumptions, fitting seamlessly into the SGM's framework of personal divine interactions.

6. Comparative Superiority.
The SGM stands out in comparison to other models in how well it aligns with current scientific understanding of subjective experiences. It integrates seamlessly with what is known about neural correlates of religious experience, moral intuition, and the diversity of spiritual phenomena.
The model excels in its ability to explain how people experience GOD on an individual level and how these experiences can lead to moral actions, which are observable and measurable.

For example:

In the field of neuroscience, the SGM aligns with studies showing that religious experiences activate specific brain regions associated with emotion and self-reflection. This scientific understanding supports the model’s explanation of internal divine connections.

In psychology, the SGM matches research on how people’s personal beliefs and experiences shape their moral decisions, aligning with the idea that moral intuition is derived from subjective interactions with GOD.

The SGM aligns well with current scientific understanding of NDEs, which shows that individuals consistently report personal spiritual encounters, moral insights, and a heightened sense of meaning following these experiences. This concords with the SGM's focus on internal spiritual experiences as valid and transformative, matching what is observed in NDE research.

Conclusion
The Subjective GOD model (SGM) aligns well with current scientific knowledge in fields like psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science as well as NDE science. It provides a framework for understanding personal spiritual experiences, moral intuitions, and the diversity of religious phenomena in a way that is consistent with how the human brain processes subjective experiences.

The SGM fits smoothly with established scientific principles, requires few new assumptions, and explains how internal, personal connections to GOD manifest in the real world through moral action and behavioral change.

The SGM excels in explaining personal spirituality and moral intuition, while remaining aligned with what science tells us about the complexity and significance of subjective experiences.

I the rest of your post I will reply to later.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #51]

I don’t see what the SG model accounts for that the Christian view I’m espousing doesn’t.

The SGM accounts for Cultural Christianity, the OGM, and the personal, subjective experiences that are central to how many individuals understand their connection with the divine. The SGM can also explain how people within Cultural Christianity experience GOD subjectively, whereas Cultural Christianity and the OGM often focus primarily on the presumption of external, objective aspects of GOD’s nature.

For instance:

Cultural Christianity typically emphasizes adherence to external practices and doctrines, yet the SGM incorporates these practices and explains the personal, internal relationships individuals form with GOD within that cultural framework.


In contrast, it’s difficult for Cultural Christianity and the OGM to account for the deeply personal and subjective experiences that the SGM explains. This suggests that while the SGM can encompass the OGM and Cultural Christianity, these other models don’t necessarily account for the SGM’s broader understanding of personal, subjective spirituality.

I think you need to define what you mean more clearly. The earth isn’t spherical just because I have a subjective experience of believing it is spherical, but the earth’s actual shape will affect my subjective experience of things.

The analogy you’ve used regarding the Earth’s shape seems more relevant to objective, empirically measurable facts rather than to morality, which isn’t as straightforward. The Objective GOD model (OGM) claims that morality is objective, but no concrete examples of how this plays out have been provided.

While the shape of the Earth is a fact we can observe and verify through physical evidence, morality involves value judgments and ethical principles that are often debated and understood differently across cultures and contexts. The SGM accounts for this by explaining how individuals’ subjective experiences influence their moral understanding, which can be deeply personal and contextual.

Without concrete examples of how objective morality operates beyond human interpretation or subjective experience, it’s difficult to make a parallel between the Earth’s shape and morality in the way you’re suggesting. The SGM emphasizes that subjective moral intuitions are central to how individuals experience and understand morality, and that these experiences are valid even if they aren’t objectively measurable in the same way physical facts are.

I no longer ask you to provide concrete examples of how objective morality operates in the OGM, beyond subjective interpretation, because you have consistently shown that you are unable to do so.

Thank you. Can you now offer the definitions you have in mind for these three terms? You can use Oxford Languages, Webster, your own words, whatever, so that I am sure to answer the exact concepts you have in mind.

Thank you for asking for clarification. The three terms I mentioned—moral intuitions, spiritual insights, and a sense of divine presence—are all inherently subjective in nature.

Moral Intuitions: The subjective sense of right and wrong that individuals instinctively feel, which doesn’t always rely on external validation and can be still be rationally explained.

Spiritual Insights: These are subjective realizations/personal revelations about spiritual matters that come from within, offering a deeper connection to the divine.

A Sense of Divine Presence: This describes the subjective experience of feeling connected to GOD, re an internal and personal sensation of being consistently in the presence of the divine.

All three experiences share this subjective quality, and they are deeply personal in nature, shaping how individuals experience and understand GOD.

Given that the Objective GOD model focuses on GOD as an external, objective reality, how does it account for these subjective, inward experiences that people describe in their relationship with GOD?

We don’t have to talk about what was likely or unlikely; we have the actual data to look at. We have the means to look at what texts were being used by the early Christian communities and why and compare that to the texts chosen by the council. If you have looked at that and found evidence of corruption, then give the actual evidence.

I understand your point about examining the actual data rather than relying on likelihoods. However, the "actual data" we have is itself part of the question. The process of canonization occurred in a context where Christianity had already become intertwined with socio-political power structures, which naturally raises concerns about whether the selection of texts was purely theological or influenced by these broader dynamics.

While you argue that corruption came after the canonization, I’m questioning whether the very selection of texts might have been influenced by those same socio-political forces. We can see evidence of corruption in the history of Cultural Christianity, where institutional power was used to control interpretation and practice. The fact that the canonization process itself wasn’t immune to these power structures suggests that the formation of the canon may not have been as pure as it’s sometimes portrayed.

As for the claim that early Christian communities were already using the texts that were later canonized, I’m not denying that certain texts were popular. However, the popularity of specific texts doesn’t necessarily mean they were chosen free from external influences. What is apparent is that a popular form was adopted and later canonized, but that doesn’t equate to the form being untainted by the same socio-political pressures that eventually led to the institutionalized version of Christianity we see in Cultural Christianity.

In light of this, the evidence of corruption may not be as easily confined to a post-canonization period. The very process of canonization itself deserves a closer look to see how much it may have been shaped by power dynamics that were already at play.

It was people within the institution that actually did stuff. The institution, devoid of actual individuals in power, can do nothing. That doesn’t mean I’m saying it’s fleeting individuals doing this. The majority (concerning the amount of power) of individuals did these things.

I agree that it was people within the institution who acted, but my point is about the institutional structures and power dynamics that enabled those actions. While individuals may have carried out decisions like Galileo’s trial, they were doing so within the framework of an institutional system that was designed to maintain doctrinal control. The Church, as an institution, acted as more than just a group of individuals; it functioned as a principality—a systemic force with its own established hierarchies, rules, and authority, which shaped and directed the actions of those individuals.

This is what I mean when I refer to the Church as a principality—not just individual decisions but a wider system of power that operates through the hierarchy and maintains authority over doctrine and truth. Individuals were certainly involved, but their actions were backed by the institution, which held the power to enforce these decisions on a large scale.

In the case of Galileo, it wasn’t just fleeting individuals, but rather a systemic effort by the institution of the Church to enforce its control over scientific understanding and protect its theological positions. The actions were carried out by individuals, yes, but they were acting as part of a larger institutional force—what I referred to as a principality—to preserve authority over interpretation and knowledge.

Would you agree that institutions often have a power and influence that extends beyond the sum of the individuals within them?

I would say that the Bible uses linguistic and phenomenological understandings of the day to teach deeper truths, including the reliability and orderliness of the world (among others) that the later ‘scientific’ endeavor developed from.

I understand that you see the Bible as using linguistic and phenomenological understandings to teach deeper truths about the orderliness of the world, which you argue laid the groundwork for the scientific method. However, this brings up an interesting contrast that I think we should explore.

On one hand, there’s a claim that the Judeo-Christian worldview contributed to the development of science by encouraging a view of the world as orderly and reliable—open to empirical investigation. On the other hand, we see that Cultural Christianity has often resisted significant shifts in thinking, especially when those shifts challenge established doctrinal positions.

For example, despite significant scientific research into Near-Death Experiences (NDEs), which shows consistent patterns in subjective spiritual encounters across different individuals and cultures, Cultural Christianity tends to dismiss or avoid integrating these findings. This seems to reflect a static approach that is more focused on preserving traditional interpretations than embracing new ways of understanding how people experience GOD and the divine.

This raises the question: how do we reconcile the idea that Christianity (as you describe it) supports dynamic changes in thinking, with the reality that Cultural Christianity often appears resistant to new scientific insights, like the science of NDEs? Shouldn’t a worldview that contributed to the development of science also be more willing to engage with and incorporate new scientific discoveries, especially when they relate to spiritual experiences?

In addition, I think it’s important to also consider pre-religious theism, where early humans—before formal religions like Judaism, Christianity, or Islam—were already thinking in ways that aligned with scientific discovery. Early human societies engaged in observation, experimentation, and discovery in practical ways, such as with tool-making, agriculture, and understanding natural patterns. These early discoveries were part of a natural human interaction with the world, and in some ways, can be seen as precursors to what we now call "the process of science."

Which the book of Genesis alludes to and, so, is covered under the Judeo-Christian worldview.

While I understand that the book of Genesis alludes to early human interactions with the world, like the development of agriculture and tool-making, these allusions don’t necessarily cover everything about how early humans engaged in observation, experimentation, and discovery in the same way that we associate with scientific thinking today.

It’s important to recognize that many early pre-religious theistic societies were practicing what we might now call proto-scientific methods—they observed natural patterns, experimented with different techniques, and developed practical knowledge through experience. These discoveries were part of a natural human process that didn’t require religious frameworks like those found in Judaism or Christianity. They were human responses to their environments, often driven by necessity and curiosity, and laid the groundwork for what we now call the scientific process.

While the book of Genesis might allude to these kinds of discoveries, that doesn’t necessarily mean it prefigured or influenced all of these human developments. In fact, to take everything in Genesis literally as an explanation for early human thinking is problematic, especially given the symbolic and metaphorical nature of many of its stories. It seems more likely that early humans were engaging with their world in practical, empirical ways long before these religious texts were written.

So, while the Judeo-Christian worldview can claim some connection to the orderliness of the world, we should also recognize that pre-religious human societies were already aligning their thinking with what we now see as the scientific method, without the need for religious doctrine or direct biblical allusion.

Would you agree that early humans were already laying the groundwork for scientific discovery independently of later religious narratives?

I’ve already said how the Islamic scholars are borrowing the foundations from the Judeo-Christian worldview their movement reacted against. The Judeo-Christian worldview also accounts for the philosophical and scientific thought of other cultures through the belief that God hard-wired that into us, so that some societies even pursue such things even though they don’t make sense from their actual beliefs. I think atheists that believe in objective morality are an example of this, as well.

It’s important to recognize that Abraham wasn’t at the beginning of human evolution or GOD’s interaction with humanity; he was rather "somewhere in the middle" of a much longer and ongoing process. GOD had been interacting with humanity long before Abraham, as Jesus himself noted when he said, "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58). What makes Abraham significant is that his response to his subjective experience with GOD brought GOD’s presence into the spotlight of collective human consciousness.

But this doesn’t mean that the relationship between GOD and humanity started with Abraham. Instead, Abraham represents a turning point in an already ongoing relationship—a moment where GOD's existence became more consciously recognized and influential in human history. What’s remarkable is that Abraham’s response helped catalyze a shift in how humans understood their relationship with the divine, but the groundwork for discovery, inquiry, and understanding was already laid by pre-Abrahamic societies.

The dynamic relationship between GOD and humanity has continued to evolve. It is reflected in the great leaps in scientific discovery, which have come about not because of adherence to fixed words in a book but through the free-flowing advancement of this relationship. GOD has been present throughout human history, encouraging humans to explore, question, and understand the world.

This is why we see that major scientific progress—whether in the Greek philosophical tradition, the Golden Age of Islamic science, or the discoveries of modern scientists—has come not from static religious doctrine but from the dynamic relationship between humans and the world around them, a relationship that has its roots in the ongoing interaction between GOD and human curiosity.

In this sense, Abraham plays a crucial role, but he is a figure in the middle of human evolution and discovery, not the beginning. His response to GOD was significant because it helped bring GOD’s interaction with humanity into sharper focus, but the drive for knowledge and understanding was present in human nature long before, and continues to this day through the free-flowing relationship between GOD and humanity.

Would you agree that Abraham represents a pivotal moment rather than the beginning of the GOD-human relationship, and that this relationship has been a major driving force in scientific discovery, beyond religious doctrine?

Okay. They were wrong. They went against the teachings of their supposed authority (the God and His revealed words). Their actions say nothing about the truth or falsity of the Christian worldview.

I appreciate your acknowledgment that Cultural Christianity was wrong in its resistance to scientific advancements. However, if individuals or institutions choose to continue carrying the Christian mantle, it’s important that they go beyond simply recognizing those mistakes. At the very least, it should involve a public apology for those wrongs and a commitment to accept the burden of association with them.

Those who identify with Christianity inherit both the virtues and the failures of its historical legacy. If the Christian worldview has been applied in ways that have hindered progress or caused harm, it becomes a moral mission for those who carry the Christian identity to ensure that these wrongs are publicly acknowledged and apologized for. It shouldn’t be a quiet, internal recognition but a proactive and vocal effort to make the world aware of the apology, accompanied by a commitment to reconcile with the past.

This is about taking responsibility for the ways in which Cultural Christianity has resisted science, knowledge, and progress—and making a point to be public about those wrongs. It’s not just about acknowledging history but about actively correcting course and ensuring that the Christian worldview can evolve to embrace truth and discovery moving forward.

While I don’t personally identify as Christian, I understand it’s important to support those who do take on this mission of ensuring that the world hears and understands this apology. Would you agree that it’s necessary for those who still carry the Christian mantle to make a public, genuine apology for the historical wrongs done in the name of Christianity, particularly in resisting scientific progress?

And the modern secular societies today do the same (although replace ‘philosophical’ for ‘theological’). And if your worldview ever became popular and it amassed power in society, individuals in that community would do the same. That says nothing for or against the truth of your view.

You’re right to point out that modern secular societies have also built institutional structures more concerned with maintaining philosophical or political authority than with fostering true inquiry. Every worldview—whether religious or secular—faces the risk of falling into the same traps when it accumulates power. However, the difference lies in how a worldview responds to these challenges.

What I find crucial—and where we can learn from the process of science itself—is the importance of acknowledging mistakes, apologizing for them, and finding a way to course-correct. This is the basic scientific principle of trial and error: acknowledging when a hypothesis or approach doesn’t work, learning from it, and finding a better path forward. The key is not just to recognize the pitfalls but to actively seek to avoid them and correct the course when necessary.

While secular societies may have their own apologies to make, and there is certainly a need for course corrections, the reality is that many institutions are hesitant to do so—whether they are secular or religious. However, just because others fail to act doesn’t mean that no one should. Someone has to take that first step. Cultural Christianity has a rich history of both great contributions and great resistance, and those who carry its mantle should be among the first to publicly acknowledge and apologize for past wrongs. In doing so, they can set an example for others—secular or religious—on how to respond to power and authority responsibly.

We know the pitfalls of accumulating power without accountability. By acknowledging those pitfalls and apologizing for past failures, we pave a way forward that addresses the problem instead of perpetuating it. This isn’t just a Christian issue, but one that applies to all human institutions that seek to control knowledge or stifle inquiry.

However, as I see it, the likelihood of secular societies apologizing for their own missteps is perhaps even less than that of Cultural Christianity. Still, someone needs to do something in the meantime, because while institutions delay, GOD continues to engage with the world in a dynamic, free-flowing relationship. GOD waits for no one, and humanity is always in motion, whether we choose to acknowledge our wrongs or not.

Would you agree that acknowledging these pitfalls and making public apologies for past missteps is a necessary step forward, whether in religious or secular institutions?

I don’t know the ins and outs of his work, so I can’t speak to that. If you have specific issues/examples, share them and I can share my thoughts.

Fair enough—since you’re unfamiliar with the specifics of Elon Musk’s work, let’s focus on one of his most publicized ventures: his vision of colonizing Mars through SpaceX. Musk has amassed incredible wealth, and one of his most ambitious goals is to place humans on Mars, creating a multi-planetary existence for humanity. His vision includes addressing potential existential threats to humanity on Earth, such as climate change or global conflict, by having a backup planet for human civilization.

Do you think this kind of investment—focusing on space colonization and technological advancement—aligns with the principles of Cultural Christianity? Specifically, do you think the Abrahamic traditions would see this vision as a responsible use of science to safeguard humanity’s future, or could it be seen as a misuse of resources that should instead be directed toward addressing the pressing ethical, social, and environmental issues we face here on Earth?

I’d be interested in how Abrahamic traditions might view this pursuit, particularly in terms of whether it reflects a faithful stewardship of the Earth and its resources or if it represents an abuse of science when there are so many immediate needs still unresolved on this planet.

I disagree that there is “the traditional tension between religious authority and scientific advancements”. There is historical tension between some Christian communities and science and historical cooperation between other Christian communities and science.

Pushing the boundaries can be done in good and bad ways. The Christian worldview is all for good boundary pushes and against what they see as bad ones.

It seems we’re defining terms a bit differently. Where you refer to the Christian worldview, I’m speaking of what I call Cultural Christianity—the broad, institutionalized form of Christianity that has influenced much of Western and Eastern culture and has historically shaped how society engages with science, politics, and ethics.

You’ve pointed out that there’s a distinction between certain Christian communities that resisted scientific advancements and others that supported them, and I agree. However, when I mention the traditional tension between religious authority and science, I’m specifically referring to the influence of Cultural Christianity—the institutionalized version of the faith that has often sought to maintain doctrinal control and authority over knowledge, and in doing so, has sometimes resisted scientific advancements.

If your expression “Christian worldview” is something other than my expression “Cultural Christianity”, I’d appreciate it if you could clarify the difference. Specifically, what do you mean when you refer to the Christian worldview, and how does it differ from the institutionalized form of Cultural Christianity that has historically shaped the way Christianity interacts with society?

Additionally, if the Christian worldview you refer to is not aligned with or does not support Cultural Christianity, why do you refer to it as “Christian”? If there is such a significant distinction between the two, how do you define Christianity in a way that sets it apart from Cultural Christianity? And, in light of that distinction, why do you continue to call yourself a “Christian” if the worldview you hold diverges from the practices or institutional structures of Cultural Christianity?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #52]

I still don’t have a handle on exactly what the difference between an OGM and SGM is. Is it just about the way GOD interacts with humans? If so, then both models would explain everything (explanatory scope) you mentioned, as far as I can tell, although in different ways.

So, I would first be interested if you think the OGM misses explaining any specific example you mentioned. I don’t think it does.

I don’t see what the SG model accounts for that the Christian view I’m espousing doesn’t.

The SGM accounts for Cultural Christianity, the OGM, and the personal, subjective experiences that are central to how many individuals understand their connection with the divine. The SGM can also explain how people within Cultural Christianity experience GOD subjectively, whereas Cultural Christianity and the OGM often focus primarily on the presumption of external, objective aspects of GOD’s nature.

The OGM accounts for Cultural Christianity, the existence of belief in the SGM, personal, subjective experiences that are central to how individuals understand their connection with the divine where, logically, some are true (i.e., in accordance with reality) and some are false in the beliefs that arise from them. The OGM does not focus primarily on the external, objective aspects of God’s nature, but equally treats and accounts for both the objective and subjective features of God and His relationship with the world.

Cultural Christianity typically emphasizes adherence to external practices and doctrines, yet the SGM incorporates these practices and explains the personal, internal relationships individuals form with GOD within that cultural framework.


In contrast, it’s difficult for Cultural Christianity and the OGM to account for the deeply personal and subjective experiences that the SGM explains. This suggests that while the SGM can encompass the OGM and Cultural Christianity, these other models don’t necessarily account for the SGM’s broader understanding of personal, subjective spirituality.

Why do you think it’s difficult for the OGM to account for the experiences of cultural Christians and other subjective experiences? It’s explained in a different way, but it still accounts for them. So, maybe, the real difference comes down to our disagreement on how well our models explain specific details (which gets into the other criteria). This would require an issue by issue look, so it might be more helpful for you to choose a top issue you think the SGM explains more truly than the OGM for us to explore. Then we could move to a second issue, a third issue, etc.

One thing we’ve focused on is moral intuitions. You were kind enough to define that, so let’s look at that. The OGM also accounts for the subjective sense of right and wrong. God hard-wired that into us at creation. OGM also accounts for how all humans seem to have this and have the same initial intuitions (as evidenced by the large agreement of moral principles…not necessarily actions, as beliefs about other facts will factor into actions as well). The OGM also accounts for how that can be dulled by our choices and experiences (both mental and external). Do you think the SGM better accounts for that? If so, why?

The analogy you’ve used regarding the Earth’s shape seems more relevant to objective, empirically measurable facts rather than to morality, which isn’t as straightforward. The Objective GOD model (OGM) claims that morality is objective, but no concrete examples of how this plays out have been provided.

While the shape of the Earth is a fact we can observe and verify through physical evidence, morality involves value judgments and ethical principles that are often debated and understood differently across cultures and contexts. The SGM accounts for this by explaining how individuals’ subjective experiences influence their moral understanding, which can be deeply personal and contextual.

I’ve provided examples to see it play out. I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of ‘objective’ in the context of this discussion that is confusing you on this point. Here you seem to:

(1) equate ‘objective’ with ‘physical’, which it isn’t. There can be non-physical objective things, so the lack of physical evidence is irrelevant.

(2) equate different moral understandings to different moral truths, which are also two different concepts. Just like we can have wrong physical understandings (even based on other mathematical and scientific facts), we could have wrong moral understandings

(3) believe that the OGM doesn’t assert that individuals have subjective experiences that influence their moral understandings, which are deeply personal and contextual, when the OGM believes this is true. This seems to be part of a continued confusion between the ontological questions (is morality objective or subjective) and epistemological ones (how humans come to their moral opinions).

I understand your point about examining the actual data rather than relying on likelihoods. However, the "actual data" we have is itself part of the question. The process of canonization occurred in a context where Christianity had already become intertwined with socio-political power structures, which naturally raises concerns about whether the selection of texts was purely theological or influenced by these broader dynamics.

No, we have data of the texts being used from before Christianity became intertwined with the political power and the texts eventually selected were the ones in use then. But you are certainly correct that this deserves a closer look to see which of our views is really more accurate. Not sure this is the first issue we should discuss, but I’ll let you choose whichever you feel points towards the SGM over the OGM.

Would you agree that institutions often have a power and influence that extends beyond the sum of the individuals within them?

I agree with the effect that institutions have had. I agree that institutions make it harder for individuals to work against them and will influence individuals in their choices in ways that influence from other individuals may not. I just don’t see that as being beyond the sum of the individuals controlling those institutions. This might just be a semantical difference between us.

On one hand, there’s a claim that the Judeo-Christian worldview contributed to the development of science by encouraging a view of the world as orderly and reliable—open to empirical investigation. On the other hand, we see that Cultural Christianity has often resisted significant shifts in thinking, especially when those shifts challenge established doctrinal positions.

Well, in theory, the shifts could be wrong and the doctrinal positions were correct. There’s no guarantee that humans are always progressing in their correctness. One shouldn’t change beliefs simply because lots of people around them are. Sometimes staying the course is the most rational. But, I agree that Cultural Christianity often resists shifts they shouldn’t because of power plays.

This raises the question: how do we reconcile the idea that Christianity (as you describe it) supports dynamic changes in thinking, with the reality that Cultural Christianity often appears resistant to new scientific insights, like the science of NDEs? Shouldn’t a worldview that contributed to the development of science also be more willing to engage with and incorporate new scientific discoveries, especially when they relate to spiritual experiences?

First, there is a difference between those espousing Christianity and those espousing Cultural Christianity, right? I thought you were using that distinction, so all of my comments have been based on that.

Second, everyone should be open-minded and incorporate new knowledge. The rub comes in which new things are actually backed by sound reasoning and which ones are not.

While I understand that the book of Genesis alludes to early human interactions with the world, like the development of agriculture and tool-making, these allusions don’t necessarily cover everything about how early humans engaged in observation, experimentation, and discovery in the same way that we associate with scientific thinking today.

Of course not.

It’s important to recognize that many early pre-religious theistic societies were practicing what we might now call proto-scientific methods—they observed natural patterns, experimented with different techniques, and developed practical knowledge through experience. These discoveries were part of a natural human process that didn’t require religious frameworks like those found in Judaism or Christianity. They were human responses to their environments, often driven by necessity and curiosity, and laid the groundwork for what we now call the scientific process.

I’m not saying the fully formed religious frameworks needed to be present. I’m saying that the pertinent beliefs that come within a Judeo-Christian worldview account for this, while other worldviews can’t ground those same beliefs like the Judeo-Christian worldview can. Naturalism can account for adapting to one’s environment, trying some stuff out when one is safe, etc., but it can’t account for how the world is intelligible in the deeper scientific and mathematical ways it is, for instance.

In fact, to take everything in Genesis literally as an explanation for early human thinking is problematic, especially given the symbolic and metaphorical nature of many of its stories.

You are preaching to the choir here.

Those who identify with Christianity inherit both the virtues and the failures of its historical legacy. If the Christian worldview has been applied in ways that have hindered progress or caused harm, it becomes a moral mission for those who carry the Christian identity to ensure that these wrongs are publicly acknowledged and apologized for. It shouldn’t be a quiet, internal recognition but a proactive and vocal effort to make the world aware of the apology, accompanied by a commitment to reconcile with the past.

Christian leaders have done such things all the time. I hear countless apologists, theologians, pastors, etc. do this. Most communities are not like Catholicism, where there is one head person that one should expect that from. I’m not Catholic, so I don’t know if the popes have ever made such comments.

Still, someone needs to do something in the meantime, because while institutions delay, GOD continues to engage with the world in a dynamic, free-flowing relationship. GOD waits for no one, and humanity is always in motion, whether we choose to acknowledge our wrongs or not.

Amen.

Do you think this kind of investment—focusing on space colonization and technological advancement—aligns with the principles of Cultural Christianity? Specifically, do you think the Abrahamic traditions would see this vision as a responsible use of science to safeguard humanity’s future, or could it be seen as a misuse of resources that should instead be directed toward addressing the pressing ethical, social, and environmental issues we face here on Earth?

I’ve got two thoughts. One, if everyone was living in the image of God, I think all ethical, social, and environmental issues could be fought for while also using science to think about exploring other planets.

Two, that’s not the world we live in, so choices must be made. Choices that are difficult and above my areas of expertise. I would need much more information and, even then, I would need much prayer, to come to a hard and fast thought on what the exact priorities would be. But, my initial thoughts, are that those around us that are hurting take priority, even if that means waiting on some of the other stuff that would be beneficial for our race.

It seems we’re defining terms a bit differently. Where you refer to the Christian worldview, I’m speaking of what I call Cultural Christianity—the broad, institutionalized form of Christianity that has influenced much of Western and Eastern culture and has historically shaped how society engages with science, politics, and ethics.

You’ve pointed out that there’s a distinction between certain Christian communities that resisted scientific advancements and others that supported them, and I agree. However, when I mention the traditional tension between religious authority and science, I’m specifically referring to the influence of Cultural Christianity—the institutionalized version of the faith that has often sought to maintain doctrinal control and authority over knowledge, and in doing so, has sometimes resisted scientific advancements.

If your expression “Christian worldview” is something other than my expression “Cultural Christianity”, I’d appreciate it if you could clarify the difference. Specifically, what do you mean when you refer to the Christian worldview, and how does it differ from the institutionalized form of Cultural Christianity that has historically shaped the way Christianity interacts with society?

Additionally, if the Christian worldview you refer to is not aligned with or does not support Cultural Christianity, why do you refer to it as “Christian”? If there is such a significant distinction between the two, how do you define Christianity in a way that sets it apart from Cultural Christianity? And, in light of that distinction, why do you continue to call yourself a “Christian” if the worldview you hold diverges from the practices or institutional structures of Cultural Christianity?

I think the difference is in certain beliefs, but both groups form institutions/communities and engage the culture. I think cultural Christians have a worldview that borrows much from the Biblical Judeo-Christian worldview, but mix in some other beliefs (e.g., striving after political power) and give up some beliefs (usually to fit in with the culture around them). Does your “Cultural Christianity” cover both types? If so, I think it’s beneficial to distinguish the two as they are very different, both theologically, as well as social powers.

So, to try to answer your questions above: A Christian worldview is just that, a worldview, while Cultural Christianity is a social group, as is what I’ve called Christianity, but maybe I should call it Biblical Christianity. I think both broad designations have interacted with society and shaped society in two different ways. I refer to Biblical Christianity as Christian because it is actually more in line with being a “Christ-follower” from which we get the term.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #54]

I still don’t have a handle on exactly what the difference between an OGM and SGM is. Is it just about the way GOD interacts with humans? If so, then both models would explain everything (explanatory scope) you mentioned, as far as I can tell, although in different ways.

So, I would first be interested if you think the OGM misses explaining any specific example you mentioned. I don’t think it does.

If both models have similar explanatory scope, what makes the OGM a more accurate or reliable framework than the SGM, especially when it comes to capturing the deeply personal and subjective aspects of human spirituality? Why should we prefer the OGM if it often imposes an external, objective framework on experiences that are inherently personal and subjective?

Further, you’ve emphasized that the OGM posits an external, objective morality, but you haven’t shown how that objective morality operates beyond human interpretation. In practice, morality is often mediated through subjective experiences, even within communities that claim to follow objective standards. If the OGM is supposed to be superior because it accounts for objective morality, I think there needs to be more clarity on how that operates without falling into subjective interpretation.

Until there's a clear demonstration that the OGM has greater explanatory depth and accuracy, especially in accounting for the personal, subjective aspects of spirituality, I don't see why the SGM shouldn't be considered a more comprehensive model.

The OGM accounts for Cultural Christianity, the existence of belief in the SGM, personal, subjective experiences that are central to how individuals understand their connection with the divine where, logically, some are true (i.e., in accordance with reality) and some are false in the beliefs that arise from them. The OGM does not focus primarily on the external, objective aspects of GOD’s nature, but equally treats and accounts for both the objective and subjective features of GOD and His relationship with the world.

How does the OGM maintain a balance between objective truth and subjective experience without falling into the trap of imposing external validation on what are deeply personal and unique encounters with the divine? In what ways does the OGM account for the diversity and richness of subjective spiritual experiences without subordinating them to objective standards?

Room for Growth and Understanding:

Another important consideration is how each model allows for the evolution of understanding in human-divine relationships. The SGM is inherently dynamic, embracing the idea that spiritual understanding is a constantly evolving process, shaped by individual experiences that reflect the fluid and relational nature of GOD. The OGM, with its emphasis on objective truth, is more static, where new insights or experiences are evaluated only against established criteria.

How does the OGM allow for growth and change in our understanding of GOD if it is so focused on aligning experiences with pre-existing belief in what it sees as objective truths? The SGM encourages an open and evolving relationship with the divine, where personal experiences are part of an ongoing journey rather than being immediately assessed against an unchanging standard.

Cultural Christianity typically emphasizes adherence to external practices and doctrines, yet the SGM incorporates these practices and explains the personal, internal relationships individuals form with GOD within that cultural framework.


In contrast, it’s difficult for Cultural Christianity and the OGM to account for the deeply personal and subjective experiences that the SGM explains. This suggests that while the SGM can encompass the OGM and Cultural Christianity, these other models don’t necessarily account for the SGM’s broader understanding of personal, subjective spirituality.
Why do you think it’s difficult for the OGM to account for the experiences of cultural Christians and other subjective experiences? It’s explained in a different way, but it still accounts for them. So, maybe, the real difference comes down to our disagreement on how well our models explain specific details (which gets into the other criteria). This would require an issue by issue look, so it might be more helpful for you to choose a top issue you think the SGM explains more truly than the OGM for us to explore. Then we could move to a second issue, a third issue, etc.

One thing we’ve focused on is moral intuitions. You were kind enough to define that, so let’s look at that. The OGM also accounts for the subjective sense of right and wrong. GOD hard-wired that into us at creation. OGM also accounts for how all humans seem to have this and have the same initial intuitions (as evidenced by the large agreement of moral principles…not necessarily actions, as beliefs about other facts will factor into actions as well). The OGM also accounts for how that can be dulled by our choices and experiences (both mental and external). Do you think the SGM better accounts for that? If so, why?

I understand your observation that both the SGM and OGM can explain themselves and account for each other, but I think it’s important to emphasize that the explanations they offer are fundamentally different in nature. While both models address the same broad categories of belief and experience, the way they arrive at their explanations—and what those explanations require from individuals—sets them apart.

1. Nature of Divine Relationship:
SGM: Emphasizes a personal, internal relationship with GOD. The focus is on subjective experiences and a living interaction with GOD, where spiritual growth is dynamic and shaped by individual experiences with the divine.
OGM: Focuses on an external, objective relationship with GOD. It’s based on adhering to external sources like scriptures and doctrines to understand GOD’s nature and will. Spiritual growth comes through aligning with these objective standards.

2. Role of Sacred Texts:
SGM: Sacred texts are seen as optional tools for spiritual growth, not definitive sources of truth. GOD’s presence is experienced through personal encounters, and the text is one way, but not the only way, to connect with the divine.
OGM: Sacred texts are often the primary source of divine truth. Individuals are expected to align with the teachings of these texts, which are seen as the definitive word of GOD.

3. Institutional Participation:
SGM: Does not require regular participation in religious institutions or specific denominations. The relationship with GOD is personal and direct, without the need for external validation through church attendance or membership.
OGM: Typically requires participation in religious institutions. Churches, denominations, and formal practices are seen as essential to properly understanding and practicing faith.

4. Spiritual Authority and Growth:
SGM: Authority is found within the individual, as personal experiences with GOD are seen as valid. Spiritual growth is shaped by the direct relationship with the divine, rather than external doctrines.
OGM: Authority comes from external sources—scripture, tradition, and institutional teachings. Spiritual growth is about aligning oneself with these external truths and standards.

5. Moral Intuitions and Guidance:
SGM: Moral intuitions are subjective and shaped by personal experiences with GOD. Morality evolves as part of one’s unique spiritual journey, and there’s an acknowledgment of diversity in moral experiences.
OGM: Moral intuitions are considered objectively hard-wired by GOD, with a focus on conforming to universal moral truths. There is less tolerance for subjective variations, as morality is seen as fixed and objective.

6. Role in Building the Kingdom of GOD:
SGM: Emphasizes active participation in building the Kingdom of GOD in the present. Individuals are co-creators with GOD, responsible for transforming the world based on their personal understanding of GOD’s guidance.
OGM: Often involves a waiting posture, with the Kingdom of GOD seen as something that will be established through divine intervention in the future. There is a focus on adherence to objective standards in preparation for this future event.

7. Flexibility and Inclusivity:
SGM: Provides a flexible and inclusive spiritual framework. People can relate to GOD in diverse ways, and there is an openness to evolving spiritual understanding based on personal experience.
OGM: Emphasizes a fixed and rigid framework, where truth is objective, and conformity to specific doctrines and practices is expected. Spiritual experience must align with these predefined truths.

Fundamental Differences in Explanation:
While both the SGM and OGM can offer explanations for their own frameworks and account for each other’s practices, these explanations are fundamentally different in their sources of truth, validation methods, and expectations for spiritual practice.

SGM on OGM: The SGM would explain the OGM’s external practices (like adherence to scripture and institutional participation) as one way that people try to relate to GOD, but it would also view these practices as potentially limiting the more direct, personal experience of the divine. The SGM suggests that external texts and institutions can be helpful, but they are not necessary for cultivating a deep, personal relationship with GOD.

OGM on SGM: From the OGM’s perspective, the SGM’s emphasis on subjective experience might be seen as too flexible or unreliable. The OGM would argue that spiritual experiences need to be validated against objective truths found in scripture or doctrine, and without this external framework, subjective experiences might lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations of GOD’s nature and will.

Why They Differ in Practice:
SGM: Practices arise from a belief in the personal, subjective relationship with GOD, where individuals are free to experience GOD in diverse ways without needing to conform to specific texts or institutional structures. Spiritual growth is seen as an internal, evolving process, guided by direct experiences with the divine.
OGM: Practices are rooted in the belief that GOD’s nature is objective and fixed, and therefore must be understood through external sources like scripture and religious institutions. Spiritual growth is about conforming to these objective truths and aligning personal experience with established doctrines.

Hard-Wiring in OGM vs. SGM:
OGM: In the Objective GOD Model, moral intuitions are hard-wired into the objective form of the person, meaning the body or external nature they occupy. These moral principles are fixed at creation, and deviations happen when external influences or personal choices dull them. In this view, the person is defined largely by their external form and how well they align with these pre-programmed, universal moral intuitions. Moral intuitions are treated as static and universal across humanity.

SGM: In the Subjective GOD Model, the person is the hard-wire—the moral intuitions are part of the inner being or the subjective self, not merely something imposed on their external form. Moral intuitions develop and evolve through the person's ongoing, personal relationship with GOD. Rather than being pre-set, these intuitions grow and adapt based on the person’s lived experiences, reflection, and spiritual growth. The person's inner being is the source of moral insight, which changes as they deepen their connection with GOD.

Why SGM Accounts Better:
The SGM better explains moral growth by recognizing that the person is the inner being, the source of evolving moral intuitions. Unlike the OGM, which ties moral intuition to an objective form, the SGM allows for moral intuitions to adapt and grow in response to personal, spiritual experiences, reflecting the true nature of the subjective self.

Conclusion:
While both the SGM and OGM explain themselves and can account for each other’s views, their explanations are fundamentally different in terms of how they approach truth, how they validate spiritual experience, and why they practice what they do. The SGM emphasizes a personal, evolving relationship with GOD, while the OGM relies on objective standards mediated by external authorities. These differences shape not only what is practiced but also why those practices are followed.

I’ve provided examples to see it play out. I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of ‘objective’ in the context of this discussion that is confusing you on this point. Here you seem to:

(1) equate ‘objective’ with ‘physical’, which it isn’t. There can be non-physical objective things, so the lack of physical evidence is irrelevant.

The problem you’re identifying shows that within Cultural Christianity, which is influenced by the OGM, the claim that objective moral truths exist and are universally valid doesn’t always align with what happens in practice. This creates a situation where the moral "math" doesn’t seem to add up—“2 + 2” doesn’t equal “4” in the sense that moral ideals and real-world outcomes don’t always match.

GOD’s Formlessness Aligns with the SGM:
Your point simply underlines GOD having no form actually supports the Subjective GOD Model (SGM) more than the Objective GOD Model (OGM). If GOD is truly formless, then:

GOD cannot be fully represented through external, objective means like religious texts, laws, or institutions.
The relationship with GOD is more likely to be subjective, experienced personally by individuals through their inner consciousness.
Moral truths and spiritual guidance from GOD would be subjective and dynamic, evolving as individuals deepen their relationship with a formless, non-physical GOD.

In contrast, the OGM’s focus on objective, external representations (such as fixed moral laws or religious institutions) seems at odds with the idea of a formless, transcendent GOD. The SGM is better suited to capture the essence of a GOD who transcends form, as it emphasizes a personal, evolving relationship with GOD that is based on subjective spiritual experience, rather than rigid, objective structures.

(2) equate different moral understandings to different moral truths, which are also two different concepts. Just like we can have wrong physical understandings (even based on other mathematical and scientific facts), we could have wrong moral understandings

The history of Cultural Christianity shows us that wrong moral understandings are not just a theoretical possibility—they have occurred repeatedly, often with devastating consequences. While the OGM claims that moral truths are objective and universal, the process of interpreting those truths has proven to be highly fallible, leading to moral misapplications throughout history.

The SGM, by focusing on the subjective, evolving relationship between the individual and God, offers a model that better accounts for the flexibility needed in moral understanding. It recognizes that moral truths are experienced personally and contextually, and that moral understanding grows over time as part of an ongoing spiritual journey.

(3) believe that the OGM doesn’t assert that individuals have subjective experiences that influence their moral understandings, which are deeply personal and contextual, when the OGM believes this is true. This seems to be part of a continued confusion between the ontological questions (is morality objective or subjective) and epistemological ones (how humans come to their moral opinions).

If we cannot include the epistemological aspect in our discussion—how humans come to know and understand moral truths—then it seems like we are missing the most critical part of the conversation. Without addressing how subjective experiences influence moral understanding, it’s hard to see how we can continue to explore the differences between the OGM and the SGM in a meaningful way.

No, we have data of the texts being used from before Christianity became intertwined with the political power and the texts eventually selected were the ones in use then. But you are certainly correct that this deserves a closer look to see which of our views is really more accurate. Not sure this is the first issue we should discuss, but I’ll let you choose whichever you feel points towards the SGM over the OGM.

The evidence suggests that Cultural Christianity and its moral teachings did not develop in isolation. Instead, the OGM’s morality shifted and adapted as Christianity became more institutionalized and politically intertwined. If there’s a claim that the OGM’s morality is timeless and unaffected by these shifts, it requires substantial evidence to support that position, given the clear historical record of moral evolution within Christian institutions.

Therefore, the idea that OGM’s morality is objective and static seems incompatible with the historical evidence of how morality shifted within Cultural Christianity. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on how we might address this tension between the historical evolution of moral teachings and the claim that OGM’s morality was fixed from the start.

I agree with the effect that institutions have had. I agree that institutions make it harder for individuals to work against them and will influence individuals in their choices in ways that influence from other individuals may not. I just don’t see that as being beyond the sum of the individuals controlling those institutions. This might just be a semantical difference between us.

Well, in theory, the shifts could be wrong and the doctrinal positions were correct. There’s no guarantee that humans are always progressing in their correctness. One shouldn’t change beliefs simply because lots of people around them are. Sometimes staying the course is the most rational. But, I agree that Cultural Christianity often resists shifts they shouldn’t because of power plays.

I agree that not all shifts in thinking are progressive or beneficial, and that sometimes holding onto long-standing positions is the right course of action. However, we need to critically assess whether Cultural Christianity’s resistance to scientific shifts was driven by legitimate theological concerns or by the desire to maintain institutional authority.

The Subjective God Model (SGM) provides a more open framework for incorporating new insights—whether moral, spiritual, or scientific—by emphasizing the ongoing, personal relationship with God, which evolves over time. This allows for a more dynamic engagement with truth as it’s revealed in new ways, rather than a rigid adherence to doctrinal positions that may be more about protecting institutional power than discovering deeper spiritual truths.

Would you agree that Cultural Christianity’s resistance to certain shifts in thinking has often been about institutional power, or do you think the OGM can account for this resistance in a more constructive way?

First, there is a difference between those espousing Christianity and those espousing Cultural Christianity, right? I thought you were using that distinction, so all of my comments have been based on that.

Second, everyone should be open-minded and incorporate new knowledge. The rub comes in which new things are actually backed by sound reasoning and which ones are not.

The question of whether new ideas are backed by sound reasoning is crucial, and I understand that the SGM offers a better framework for incorporating new knowledge—whether scientific or spiritual—because it allows for ongoing personal growth and flexibility. It recognizes that spiritual understanding evolves and isn’t constrained by institutional resistance to new ideas, which has often been a hallmark of Cultural Christianity.

Would you agree that the SGM’s openness to new insights and its focus on personal spiritual growth makes it a more suitable model for navigating new knowledge and spiritual experiences, or do you see the OGM offering a better path in this regard?

I’m not saying the fully formed religious frameworks needed to be present. I’m saying that the pertinent beliefs that come within a Judeo-Christian worldview account for this, while other worldviews can’t ground those same beliefs like the Judeo-Christian worldview can. Naturalism can account for adapting to one’s environment, trying some stuff out when one is safe, etc., but it can’t account for how the world is intelligible in the deeper scientific and mathematical ways it is, for instance.

While the Judeo-Christian worldview certainly contributed to the development of scientific inquiry, it’s not clear why the Objective God Model provides a superior explanation for the intelligibility of the world compared to other models like naturalism or the SGM. Each of these worldviews offers plausible accounts for the orderliness and knowability of the universe, and it would be helpful to understand how you believe the OGM goes beyond these alternatives.

Could you explain how the OGM provides a more robust account of the intelligibility of the world, particularly when other worldviews, like naturalism, also offer reasonable explanations for the same?

You are preaching to the choir here.

If you agree that Genesis and other parts of scripture are symbolic or metaphorical, then it seems that epistemology—how we come to know and interpret these truths—should play a central role in our discussion. The SGM offers a model that allows for personal growth and spiritual development, emphasizing the importance of interpretation and how individuals understand spiritual truths over time.

Could you clarify why the ontological focus is still so important to you, particularly if you acknowledge the need for interpretation and flexibility when it comes to scripture and moral understanding? And why continue to hold onto the mantle of Cultural Christianity, which often emphasizes rigid, institutional interpretations, when your position seems to suggest a more nuanced view of scripture?

I’ve shared my thoughts on how I approach the Bible and science, leaning toward the “other” category, with an emphasis on the flexibility of the Subjective God Model (SGM) and how it allows for both personal interpretation and scientific inquiry.

However, I realize that I’m not entirely clear on where you stand. Of the four approaches you originally presented—whether the Bible makes direct scientific claims, is completely metaphorical, uses phenomenological language, or some other view—I’d be interested to know which one you personally align with, and how that informs your views on science and spiritual truth.

Could you clarify which approach you follow, and how you see it relating to the broader discussion we’ve been having?

I think the difference is in certain beliefs, but both groups form institutions/communities and engage the culture. I think cultural Christians have a worldview that borrows much from the Biblical Judeo-Christian worldview, but mix in some other beliefs (e.g., striving after political power) and give up some beliefs (usually to fit in with the culture around them). Does your “Cultural Christianity” cover both types? If so, I think it’s beneficial to distinguish the two as they are very different, both theologically, as well as social powers.

So, to try to answer your questions above: A Christian worldview is just that, a worldview, while Cultural Christianity is a social group, as is what I’ve called Christianity, but maybe I should call it Biblical Christianity. I think both broad designations have interacted with society and shaped society in two different ways. I refer to Biblical Christianity as Christian because it is actually more in line with being a “Christ-follower” from which we get the term.

I wanted to share this with you because I think it’s an important part of the conversation about how we apologize for the wrongs committed in the name of Christianity and how we choose to engage with the legacy of the faith. For me, the most genuine way to do that has been to no longer call myself a Christian, as I understand that any form of the label still ties me to the history that I feel needs to be addressed more profoundly.

Even identifying as a Biblical Christian still means engaging with GOD through the framework of the OGM, where external, objective truths govern the relationship. The Subjective God Model offers a different path, where personal spiritual growth and moral understanding are not confined by external authorities but can evolve with the individual’s direct experience of GOD.

Would you agree that being "Biblical" still relies on the OGM framework, or do you see a way in which Biblical Christianity escapes that model and allows for a more flexible, personal relationship with GOD?

[The Tanager]

If both models have similar explanatory scope, what makes the OGM a more accurate or reliable framework than the SGM,

Comparing the other criteria.

How does the OGM maintain a balance between objective truth and subjective experience without falling into the trap of imposing external validation on what are deeply personal and unique encounters with the divine? In what ways does the OGM account for the diversity and richness of subjective spiritual experiences without subordinating them to objective standards?

If I had an encounter that I thought was with GOD, but thought GOD was telling me to abuse a child, you think I’d have gotten that wrong since you believe GOD has always felt abusing a child was wrong, right? Wouldn’t that be imposing external validation on my subjective experience?

Another important consideration is how each model allows for the evolution of understanding in human-divine relationships. The SGM is inherently dynamic, embracing the idea that spiritual understanding is a constantly evolving process, shaped by individual experiences that reflect the fluid and relational nature of GOD. The OGM, with its emphasis on objective truth, is more static, where new insights or experiences are evaluated only against established criteria.

How does the OGM allow for growth and change in our understanding of GOD if it is so focused on aligning experiences with pre-existing belief in what it sees as objective truths?

Do you view good science as more static, where new insights or experiences are evaluated against established criteria? Do you think good science, which emphasizes objective truth, doesn’t allow for growth and change in our understanding of reality?

I understand your observation that both the SGM and OGM can explain themselves and account for each other, but I think it’s important to emphasize that the explanations they offer are fundamentally different in nature.

I agree. I would like to provide how I would describe the OGM in the categories you listed, where some are nuanced phrasings and others are corrections of misunderstandings.

1. Nature of Divine Relationship:
SGM: Emphasizes a personal, internal relationship with GOD. The focus is on subjective experiences and a living interaction with GOD, where spiritual growth is dynamic and shaped by individual experiences with the divine.
OGM: Focuses on an external, objective relationship with GOD. It’s based on adhering to external sources like scriptures and doctrines to understand GOD’s nature and will. Spiritual growth comes through aligning with these objective standards.

OGM also emphasizes a personal, internal relationship with God. The focus is on subjective experiences and a discerning, living interaction with God, where spiritual growth is dynamic and shaped by individual experiences with the divine, that requires us to look beyond our limited subjective experiences and the limited knowledge that can come from them, by also adhering to other authoritative sources such as science, other people’s experiences of the divine (which is what scripture purports to note), philosophy, etc.

2. Role of Sacred Texts:
SGM: Sacred texts are seen as optional tools for spiritual growth, not definitive sources of truth. GOD’s presence is experienced through personal encounters, and the text is one way, but not the only way, to connect with the divine.
OGM: Sacred texts are often the primary source of divine truth. Individuals are expected to align with the teachings of these texts, which are seen as the definitive word of GOD.

OGM asserts that God’s presence is experienced primarily through personal encounters, which include the reading of texts, but this isn’t the only way to connect with the divine. It is a helpful tool in checking one’s tendency towards wish fulfillment, where we are an echo chamber, making the divine in our image.

3. Institutional Participation:
SGM: Does not require regular participation in religious institutions or specific denominations. The relationship with GOD is personal and direct, without the need for external validation through church attendance or membership.
OGM: Typically requires participation in religious institutions. Churches, denominations, and formal practices are seen as essential to properly understanding and practicing faith.

While the relationship with God is personal and direct, God is about creating a loving community where we not only love God but love one another in ways that can help each individual become more than what they could become on their own.

4. Spiritual Authority and Growth:
SGM: Authority is found within the individual, as personal experiences with GOD are seen as valid. Spiritual growth is shaped by the direct relationship with the divine, rather than external doctrines.
OGM: Authority comes from external sources—scripture, tradition, and institutional teachings. Spiritual growth is about aligning oneself with these external truths and standards.

Authority is found in God. Just like in all areas of reality, truth is objective and, therefore, can be written in books, passed down, taught to others. The spiritual growth happens as we have subjective experiences with God as well as the whole of reality around us.

5. Moral Intuitions and Guidance:
SGM: Moral intuitions are subjective and shaped by personal experiences with GOD. Morality evolves as part of one’s unique spiritual journey, and there’s an acknowledgment of diversity in moral experiences.
OGM: Moral intuitions are considered objectively hard-wired by GOD, with a focus on conforming to universal moral truths. There is less tolerance for subjective variations, as morality is seen as fixed and objective.

You believe children should not be abused, ever, right? How is that not a universal moral truth that GOD wishes all humans would conform to? Why should we be happy that there are some people who are different from us on that specific point, that they actually abused a child and didn’t and still don’t see a problem with it?

Yes, God realizes we aren’t perfect and has patience with us and tries to walk us through the evolution of our moral opinions through subjective experiences, but God still hates it when we abuse a child.

6. Role in Building the Kingdom of GOD:
SGM: Emphasizes active participation in building the Kingdom of GOD in the present. Individuals are co-creators with GOD, responsible for transforming the world based on their personal understanding of GOD’s guidance.
OGM: Often involves a waiting posture, with the Kingdom of GOD seen as something that will be established through divine intervention in the future. There is a focus on adherence to objective standards in preparation for this future event.

No, the OGM model does not involve a waiting posture, with the Kingdom as something established through divine intervention in the future. Jesus’ sermon on the mount directly contradicts this. All of the gospels and the rest of the NT directly contradicts this. On the OGM model active participation is absolutely emphasized, calling us to build the Kingdom in the present, as co-creators with God, responsible for transforming the world based on a correct, personal understanding by God’s guidance that is, like all truth, the same for everyone. That doesn’t mean the way it plays out is identical, but we can’t just do the science we want to be true or the math we feel is true. Objectivity is paramount to actually engaging with and changing reality.

7. Flexibility and Inclusivity:
SGM: Provides a flexible and inclusive spiritual framework. People can relate to GOD in diverse ways, and there is an openness to evolving spiritual understanding based on personal experience.
OGM: Emphasizes a fixed and rigid framework, where truth is objective, and conformity to specific doctrines and practices is expected. Spiritual experience must align with these predefined truths.

The OGM also provides for flexibility and inclusivity of people, but not of truth itself. That’s the only way reality can be met and changed.

Why SGM Accounts Better:
The SGM better explains moral growth by recognizing that the person is the inner being, the source of evolving moral intuitions. Unlike the OGM, which ties moral intuition to an objective form, the SGM allows for moral intuitions to adapt and grow in response to personal, spiritual experiences, reflecting the true nature of the subjective self.

No, you still think GOD (which is in some sense more than just us) is the source, don’t you? GOD knows we shouldn’t abuse children. This has always been true; it just hasn’t always been accepted and practiced by every individual, right? Or do you think it used to be actually good for some humans to abuse a child?

The problem you’re identifying shows that within Cultural Christianity, which is influenced by the OGM, the claim that objective moral truths exist and are universally valid doesn’t always align with what happens in practice. This creates a situation where the moral "math" doesn’t seem to add up—“2 + 2” doesn’t equal “4” in the sense that moral ideals and real-world outcomes don’t always match.

I don’t understand what you are saying here. Please give a specific example where the moral math doesn’t add up.

GOD’s Formlessness Aligns with the SGM:
Your point simply underlines GOD having no form actually supports the Subjective GOD Model (SGM) more than the Objective GOD Model (OGM). If GOD is truly formless, then:

GOD cannot be fully represented through external, objective means like religious texts, laws, or institutions.
The relationship with GOD is more likely to be subjective, experienced personally by individuals through their inner consciousness.
Moral truths and spiritual guidance from GOD would be subjective and dynamic, evolving as individuals deepen their relationship with a formless, non-physical GOD.

In contrast, the OGM’s focus on objective, external representations (such as fixed moral laws or religious institutions) seems at odds with the idea of a formless, transcendent GOD. The SGM is better suited to capture the essence of a GOD who transcends form, as it emphasizes a personal, evolving relationship with GOD that is based on subjective spiritual experience, rather than rigid, objective structures.

Having a physical form is not the same thing as having reality outside of us. How does that support SGM over OGM? The OGM doesn’t believe God can be fully represented through texts, laws, institutions, thoughts. The OGM asserts that we do have a subjective, personal relationship with God that is dynamic and evolving. God is transcendent and intimate.

The history of Cultural Christianity shows us that wrong moral understandings are not just a theoretical possibility—they have occurred repeatedly, often with devastating consequences. While the OGM claims that moral truths are objective and universal, the process of interpreting those truths has proven to be highly fallible, leading to moral misapplications throughout history.

The SGM, by focusing on the subjective, evolving relationship between the individual and God, offers a model that better accounts for the flexibility needed in moral understanding. It recognizes that moral truths are experienced personally and contextually, and that moral understanding grows over time as part of an ongoing spiritual journey.

The OGM recognizes the exact same thing. I don’t see why you think it doesn’t. The SGM model also shows that wrong moral understandings occur often with devastating consequences as well.

If we cannot include the epistemological aspect in our discussion—how humans come to know and understand moral truths—then it seems like we are missing the most critical part of the conversation. Without addressing how subjective experiences influence moral understanding, it’s hard to see how we can continue to explore the differences between the OGM and the SGM in a meaningful way.

Who’s saying to not include the epistemological issues? I’m just saying keep them (ontological and epistemological issues) straight and include both of them. The OGM agrees that our subjective experiences influence human moral understanding; it just says it doesn’t change moral truth.

The evidence suggests that Cultural Christianity and its moral teachings did not develop in isolation. Instead, the OGM’s morality shifted and adapted as Christianity became more institutionalized and politically intertwined. If there’s a claim that the OGM’s morality is timeless and unaffected by these shifts, it requires substantial evidence to support that position, given the clear historical record of moral evolution within Christian institutions.

…

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on how we might address this tension between the historical evolution of moral teachings and the claim that OGM’s morality was fixed from the start.

I have never claimed that Christians throughout history haven’t changed their moral opinions. They have changed their interpretations and applications. The OGM doesn’t say moral opinions don’t change.

Would you agree that Cultural Christianity’s resistance to certain shifts in thinking has often been about institutional power, or do you think the OGM can account for this resistance in a more constructive way?

I think Cultural Christianity’s resistance is very often due to desires to maintain power. The medieval Catholic church resisted scientific shifts because they felt it was a rival authority that would take its place. Modern cultural Christianity resists a shift back to a Biblical way of thinking due to their desire to maintain the social acceptance (power) they have.

But this isn’t because they adhere to the OGM. The OGM model doesn’t require people to resist valid shifts in thinking and actually calls people to constantly be checking themselves, their beliefs, and their desires.

The question of whether new ideas are backed by sound reasoning is crucial, and I understand that the SGM offers a better framework for incorporating new knowledge—whether scientific or spiritual—because it allows for ongoing personal growth and flexibility. It recognizes that spiritual understanding evolves and isn’t constrained by institutional resistance to new ideas, which has often been a hallmark of Cultural Christianity.

Would you agree that the SGM’s openness to new insights and its focus on personal spiritual growth makes it a more suitable model for navigating new knowledge and spiritual experiences, or do you see the OGM offering a better path in this regard?

I think there are two extremes here: (1) subjective experiences alone and (2) external experiences alone with no subjectivity. The OGM is a middle ground that believes in both subjective and objective elements. I think the model that accounts for both elements is more suitable since reality, including spiritual reality and understanding, requires both. I think the OGM does that.

While the Judeo-Christian worldview certainly contributed to the development of scientific inquiry, it’s not clear why the Objective God Model provides a superior explanation for the intelligibility of the world compared to other models like naturalism or the SGM. Each of these worldviews offers plausible accounts for the orderliness and knowability of the universe, and it would be helpful to understand how you believe the OGM goes beyond these alternatives.

I’m not saying the SGM doesn’t account for this; I’d have to know it more clearly to make a claim there. But Naturalism doesn’t account for the intelligibility of the universe in deep scientific and mathematical ways. Evolution is about survival of the fittest. False thoughts about reality may actually be more helpful to survive in certain situations than others.

Could you clarify why the ontological focus is still so important to you, particularly if you acknowledge the need for interpretation and flexibility when it comes to scripture and moral understanding? And why continue to hold onto the mantle of Cultural Christianity, which often emphasizes rigid, institutional interpretations, when your position seems to suggest a more nuanced view of scripture?

Because reality is what it is. There are objective truths. Those truths make sense on some foundations, but not others. Ontology is very important in getting those truths correct, so that we aren’t prisoners to our very limited personal experiences and personal desires that, as you agree, need to get better than they are.

I don’t hold to the mantle of Cultural Christianity, but Biblical Christianity. If by Cultural Christianity, you simply mean how I want Christian communities to exist, I hold onto them because I think that is where the most truth lies, especially about who God is and how we can have a relationship with God so that we live in the wisdom of His ways.

However, I realize that I’m not entirely clear on where you stand. Of the four approaches you originally presented—whether the Bible makes direct scientific claims, is completely metaphorical, uses phenomenological language, or some other view—I’d be interested to know which one you personally align with, and how that informs your views on science and spiritual truth.

Could you clarify which approach you follow, and how you see it relating to the broader discussion we’ve been having?

3. The Bible, is mainly concerned with X (teaching what is necessary for salvation or instructing us for next practical step in life of trust in God or whatever), and uses the linguistic and phenomenological understandings of the day to get that message across

Since it isn’t a scientific textbook, I am free to follow the science where it leads. Although it also means that I realize the limited abilities of our scientific knowledge that many lovers of science ignore, acting like our scientific understanding never corrects itself.

I also believe that we should remain humble in our spiritual understandings, stay open-minded, continue to check ourselves, stay skeptical, keep learning, etc.

I wanted to share this with you because I think it’s an important part of the conversation about how we apologize for the wrongs committed in the name of Christianity and how we choose to engage with the legacy of the faith. For me, the most genuine way to do that has been to no longer call myself a Christian, as I understand that any form of the label still ties me to the history that I feel needs to be addressed more profoundly.

I’ve had that thought before as well. I’ve wanted to call myself a follower of the Way, as Christians were originally called. But the more I thought about it, the more I thought that misunderstood the term ‘Christian’. A Christian is a Christ follower. I’m a Christ follower. But so were many of those who didn’t always act like it. Yes, they got some things wrong. Some things really wrong. But being a Christ-follower isn’t about getting it all right, it’s about trying to live in a community with others, where we all get some things wrong, but we try to move together towards a better kingdom for all. For that reason, I want to make sure I still call myself a Christian because I’m attaching myself to a Person and His life and what He did, that even those I disagree with on many issues also attach themselves to.

Would you agree that being "Biblical" still relies on the OGM framework, or do you see a way in which Biblical Christianity escapes that model and allows for a more flexible, personal relationship with GOD?

I think it relies on the OGM framework and is right to do so. I think that model is very flexible and calls for the most intimate personal relationship with God that there is.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #56]

If both models have similar explanatory scope, what makes the OGM a more accurate or reliable framework than the SGM,

Comparing the other criteria.

(I agree that comparing critical data is part of the process. However, one liner replies offer nothing I can work with.)

Whether OGM is a more reliable or accurate framework depends heavily on the criteria used. If we prioritize objectivity and universality, OGM may seem preferable. However, if we emphasize the personal, subjective dimensions of human experience—especially in spirituality—then SGM could be seen as more comprehensive.

The challenge for OGM is to demonstrate that its claim to objectivity can account for or transcend subjective interpretations. Until it does so convincingly, SGM retains strong merit for addressing aspects of morality and spirituality that OGM might overlook or oversimplify.

If I had an encounter that I thought was with GOD, but thought GOD was telling me to abuse a child, you think I’d have gotten that wrong since you believe GOD has always felt abusing a child was wrong, right? Wouldn’t that be imposing external validation on my subjective experience?

In comparing the Objective GOD Model (OGM) and the Subjective GOD Model (SGM), both models face challenges when it comes to the relationship between divine moral authority, institutional influence, and the individual's moral responsibility, particularly concerning issues like child abuse.

In the OGM, while moral principles are presented as objective and universal (such as the belief that child abuse is always wrong), the practical application of these principles is mediated through human institutions like churches and governments. These institutions can distort or misrepresent GOD’s moral truths, leading individuals to ignore their internal moral resistance. This demonstrates that even in a model claiming objective morality, the external influence of institutions can lead to harmful justifications of immoral behavior.

On the other hand, the SGM emphasizes the individual’s personal and subjective relationship with GOD as the source of moral guidance. While subjective, the SGM still maintains clear moral boundaries—those with genuine spiritual connections do not engage in harmful acts like child abuse. Additionally, the rarity of claims where individuals justify such harmful behavior on divine grounds supports the idea that internal spiritual discernment can provide a strong moral framework, even without the imposition of external standards. In SGM, individuals are also expected to justify their moral decisions rationally within their community, further ensuring accountability.

Ultimately, SGM provides a more flexible model that respects personal spiritual experience while still maintaining ethical clarity. It offers a stronger internal check against institutional corruption or misinterpretation of GOD’s will, particularly in cases like child abuse, where the authentic spiritual connection of individuals serves as a safeguard against harmful behavior.

Do you view good science as more static, where new insights or experiences are evaluated against established criteria? Do you think good science, which emphasizes objective truth, doesn’t allow for growth and change in our understanding of reality?

Tanager, while I understand the analogy you're drawing between the Objective GOD Model (OGM) and science, there are a few issues with this comparison, and it doesn’t directly address the questions I posed.

First, you’ve previously stated that not everything real is physical, including objective morality. However, science, particularly physical science, primarily deals with empirical, measurable realities. So the comparison between a non-physical concept like objective morality and physical science is on shaky ground. Science relies on empirical evidence, whereas the OGM deals with metaphysical truths, which require a different approach entirely.

Additionally, you didn’t specify what kind of science you’re referring to. The methods in Cosmology—which focus on physical evidence in the universe—are quite different from those in Psychology, which often deals with human behavior and subjective interpretation. Spiritual understanding and our relationship with GOD are more aligned with relational and interpretive processes, making a comparison to physical sciences less appropriate.

Moreover, my original question was about how the OGM allows for growth and change in our understanding of GOD, given that it is so focused on aligning new experiences with pre-existing objective truths. The analogy to science doesn't address this, especially in terms of the evolution of spiritual understanding. How does the OGM, which emphasizes static objective criteria, allow for the kind of dynamic growth in our understanding of GOD that is central to the Subjective GOD Model (SGM)?

In short, I don't feel my original question was answered, as the comparison to science shifts the focus away from the spiritual and relational dynamics that are key to understanding growth in the human-divine relationship.

OGM also emphasizes a personal, internal relationship with God. The focus is on subjective experiences and a discerning, living interaction with God, where spiritual growth is dynamic and shaped by individual experiences with the divine, that requires us to look beyond our limited subjective experiences and the limited knowledge that can come from them, by also adhering to other authoritative sources such as science, other people’s experiences of the divine (which is what scripture purports to note), philosophy, etc.

I appreciate your insights into the OGM and how it incorporates both personal experiences and external sources like scripture, science, and philosophy. However, I think it's important to clarify a key distinction between the SGM and OGM regarding how we understand and use subjective and objective experiences in our spiritual growth.

In the SGM, the focus isn’t on viewing subjective experiences as limited. Instead, the model emphasizes that our growing personality and relationship with GOD are dynamic and evolving. Subjective experiences are central to this process, and external sources are not excluded but are integrated into one’s personal understanding of the divine. Importantly, objective experiences are seen as a way for GOD to confirm one’s subjective experiences through external, objective means. These objective syncronicities are acknowledged as significant but are not prioritized above the subjective process itself.

This is a crucial distinction. In the SGM, objective experiences or external sources, such as scriptures or the experiences of others, can provide valuable confirmation of one’s internal spiritual experiences, but they are not seen as the primary means of discerning truth. The priority is always on how these objective experiences are integrated into one’s subjective reality, enhancing and deepening the individual’s personal relationship with GOD.

In contrast, the OGM appears to treat subjective experiences as limited and encourages a greater reliance on external, objective standards to validate one’s understanding of GOD. This reliance can sometimes lead to self-doubt, as it implies that subjective experiences alone may not be fully reliable or sufficient without external confirmation or alignment with pre-existing objective truths.

The SGM, however, nurtures genuine trust in the individual’s subjective experiences, seeing them as central to spiritual growth. External sources and objective confirmations are certainly valuable but are integrated into the personal spiritual process, rather than used to override or doubt it. This allows for a more holistic and confident approach to spirituality, where subjective experiences are seen as part of an unlimited connection with GOD, and objective confirmations simply serve to strengthen that personal relationship without dictating or diminishing it.

OGM asserts that God’s presence is experienced primarily through personal encounters, which include the reading of texts, but this isn’t the only way to connect with the divine. It is a helpful tool in checking one’s tendency towards wish fulfillment, where we are an echo chamber, making the divine in our image.

I understand your point about using the interpretation of sacred texts to guard against wish fulfillment, but this brings up an important distinction between the OGM and the SGM in how they handle spiritual experiences that challenge or fall outside traditional teachings.

For example, many Near Death Experience (NDE) reports are not based on wishful thinking at all. Often, those who have had NDEs report experiences that they hadn’t anticipated or even imagined, and these accounts don’t necessarily align with any pre-existing religious or personal expectations.

Yet, in traditions like that of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the interpretation of sacred texts is used to claim that people who have NDEs are either being deceived by lying demons or had a hallucination, because their interpretation of sacred texts does not support the idea of NDEs as genuine spiritual encounters. In this approach, the interpretation of sacred texts takes precedence over the personal, subjective experiences of those who have had these profound encounters.

In contrast, the SGM does not dismiss or pre-judge reports based on a rigid interpretation of sacred texts. Instead, it promotes a more inclusive approach, accepting all reports—whether from interpretations of sacred texts or from individuals who have had personal, subjective spiritual experiences like NDEs. In the SGM, no report is automatically discounted or rejected. Every experience, whether it aligns with traditional interpretations of sacred texts or not, is considered worthy of examination and integrated into the broader understanding of spiritual truth.

This example illustrates a key distinction: the SGM encourages an open examination of both personal spiritual experiences and interpretations of sacred texts. It allows for the integration of insights from diverse sources, while maintaining that subjective experiences—such as NDEs—are not automatically dismissed based on external interpretations. This creates a more dynamic and flexible approach to spiritual growth, where both personal encounters and interpretations of sacred texts are part of the process of understanding GOD.

In contrast, the OGM often prioritizes the interpretation of sacred texts as the primary source of truth, and experiences that do not align with this interpretation are more likely to be dismissed or explained away. While the OGM sees the interpretation of sacred texts as a safeguard against wish fulfillment, the SGM respects subjective experiences as valuable in themselves and incorporates them into one’s personal relationship with GOD without needing to prioritize one source of insight over another.

While the relationship with God is personal and direct, God is about creating a loving community where we not only love God but love one another in ways that can help each individual become more than what they could become on their own.

I understand the value you place on community, I think it's important to consider how different types of community function in the OGM versus the SGM.

In the OGM, religious denominations and institutions often act like exclusive clubs with specific rules, doctrines, and practices that members are expected to follow. These groups foster a sense of belonging but also tend to emphasize boundaries—distinctions between their own practices and beliefs and those of other communities, even when the differences are relatively minor. This creates a situation where many communities exist in silos, each reinforcing their own interpretation of faith, but often at the cost of engaging meaningfully with other types of communities.

When we step back and look at the overall community, including all these different types of communities, it becomes clear that the OGM tends to support the non-integration of the overall spiritual community. Instead of encouraging unity or the blending of insights from various traditions, the OGM emphasizes adherence to specific objective standards and institutional practices, reinforcing division rather than fostering collaboration and mutual understanding. In effect, the OGM may unintentionally contribute to a fragmented religious landscape, where groups remain isolated from one another, protecting their own traditions at the expense of broader spiritual unity.

In contrast, the SGM fosters a more inclusive and integrative approach. It recognizes that individuals may find value in various types of communities but does not insist that any one institutional group holds the definitive key to spiritual truth. The SGM encourages individuals to participate in different communities, integrating insights from a wide range of experiences and traditions, without being restricted by denominational boundaries. This allows for a dynamic and interconnected spiritual ecosystem, where individuals can connect with the overall community without feeling the need to adhere to a single "club" or tradition.

Ultimately, the SGM promotes a broader sense of community integration, where various types of spiritual groups can coexist, exchange insights, and contribute to each other’s growth. The OGM, by prioritizing institutional adherence, tends to reinforce separation between communities, making it harder to achieve the kind of holistic unity that spiritual growth could benefit from on a larger scale.

Authority is found in God. Just like in all areas of reality, truth is objective and, therefore, can be written in books, passed down, taught to others. The spiritual growth happens as we have subjective experiences with God as well as the whole of reality around us.

I understand your point about authority being found in GOD and how truth can be passed down or taught through external sources like scripture and tradition. However, I think this highlights a key difference between the SGM and OGM, particularly when it comes to how authority is interpreted and how spiritual growth is realized through subjective experience.

Let me offer an example to clarify this distinction. Say I come across Luke 14:33, which is an objective saying from an external source—the Bible. I feel a strong internal conviction that this passage is speaking to me personally, and I should take it seriously. However, someone who supports the OGM might attempt to talk me out of it, suggesting that my subjective interpretation could be misguided or not aligned with the traditional interpretation or broader teachings.

In this situation, I choose to trust my internal conviction—believing that this is a message directly from GOD to me, personal to my spiritual journey. As I follow through, I discover that what I lost in adhering to this passage was replaced over time with things of greater value, and I learned many valuable lessons in the interim. This experience strengthens my understanding of my subjective reality in relation to the objective world. In hindsight, I realize that if I had listened to the external voice of the OGM-influenced personality, I would not have come to the place of deeper understanding that I now have.

In this way, I used an objective saying from a sacred external source (Luke 14:33) to guide my subjective experience, allowing me to witness the fruits of that text in real time, through real events. These outcomes I subjectively accept as a signature of my personal relationship with GOD. Through this process, my spiritual growth was not dictated by external interpretations, but by my direct and personal engagement with the divine, validating the text through my own experiences.

This example illustrates how the SGM integrates external sources without allowing them to override personal, subjective convictions. In the SGM, spiritual authority remains within the individual, and growth occurs through personal experiences that connect the objective and subjective realms in a way that deepens the individual's relationship with GOD. In contrast, the OGM would likely prioritize the external interpretation over the subjective experience, potentially limiting the individual's ability to discover these personal spiritual insights.

You believe children should not be abused, ever, right? How is that not a universal moral truth that GOD wishes all humans would conform to? Why should we be happy that there are some people who are different from us on that specific point, that they actually abused a child and didn’t and still don’t see a problem with it?

Yes, God realizes we aren’t perfect and has patience with us and tries to walk us through the evolution of our moral opinions through subjective experiences, but God still hates it when we abuse a child.

I completely agree that child abuse is morally wrong and that GOD would rather we didn’t harm children. However, I think it's important to explore another key distinction between the SGM and OGM, particularly when it comes to how moral intuitions are developed and internalized.

In the Objective GOD Model (OGM), moral guidance often comes from external, objective rules or standards that individuals are expected to follow. While this can prevent harmful behaviors like child abuse, there’s also a risk that these rules lead to suppression of tendencies rather than a genuine understanding of why such behaviors are wrong. If we rely solely on objective rules of behavior to guide us, individuals may follow them out of obligation or fear of consequences, but they might not actually come to a deep, internal understanding of why these actions should be avoided in the first place.

In contrast, the Subjective GOD Model (SGM) focuses on personal spiritual growth through a direct relationship with GOD. Rather than just conforming to external rules, individuals in the SGM come to understand the moral reasons behind actions like the wrongness of child abuse through their own subjective experiences. This leads to a deeper, more authentic understanding of morality because the individual isn’t just suppressing tendencies due to external rules but is actively learning why these behaviors are harmful and should be avoided.

In the SGM, moral growth happens as part of a spiritual journey where individuals evolve in their understanding through personal encounters with GOD. This process helps individuals develop a genuine internal conviction about why certain actions, like child abuse, are wrong. The OGM, by focusing on external conformity to objective truths, might prevent harmful actions, but it can also lead to a situation where people are simply following rules without deeply understanding the moral principles behind them.

To clarify: Yes, GOD would rather we didn’t harm children, but in the SGM, individuals come to this realization through their personal growth and internalization of moral truths, which leads to a more meaningful change in behavior. The SGM doesn’t celebrate or condone harmful actions, but it emphasizes that moral understanding is something people come to over time through their relationship with GOD. This allows individuals to not only avoid harmful behaviors but to understand deeply why they are wrong, beyond simply following external rules.

In short, while the OGM focuses on conforming to universal moral standards, the SGM prioritizes genuine understanding through personal spiritual growth, allowing individuals to internalize why certain behaviors are harmful rather than merely suppressing tendencies through external rules. This approach leads to a more authentic and lasting transformation in one’s moral outlook.

No, the OGM model does not involve a waiting posture, with the Kingdom as something established through divine intervention in the future. Jesus’ sermon on the mount directly contradicts this. All of the gospels and the rest of the NT directly contradicts this. On the OGM model active participation is absolutely emphasized, calling us to build the Kingdom in the present, as co-creators with God, responsible for transforming the world based on a correct, personal understanding by God’s guidance that is, like all truth, the same for everyone. That doesn’t mean the way it plays out is identical, but we can’t just do the science we want to be true or the math we feel is true. Objectivity is paramount to actually engaging with and changing reality.

Your response provides an interesting example of how the OGM uses scripture in what can be seen as contradictory ways. On one hand, you emphasize the need for active participation in building the Kingdom of GOD, which aligns with what Jesus teaches in his Sermon on the Mount and other parts of the gospels. However, it’s important to recognize that Cultural Christianity, which heavily influences Christian-based practice, places a central hope in the return of Jesus as the main event that will establish the Kingdom of GOD in the future. This belief can lead to a type of disempowerment, where many adherents wait passively for divine intervention rather than engaging with the present moment to build the Kingdom.

This creates a tension between what you're arguing—that Jesus commands us to actively build the Kingdom now—and the broader cultural Christian belief that we are waiting for Jesus to return and bring the Kingdom. This tension reveals how scripture can be used in contradictory ways within the OGM framework, depending on the tradition or interpretation.

Moreover, while you argue that objectivity is paramount to engaging and changing reality—by following what Jesus commands in terms of building the Kingdom—the process is still inherently subjective for all involved. Each person’s experience of following those commands and participating in Kingdom-building is shaped by their personal understanding and relationship with GOD, which cannot be entirely objective. This is where the Subjective GOD Model (SGM) finds alignment with Jesus' teaching that "the Kingdom of GOD is within the individual."

The SGM emphasizes that one’s ability to build the Kingdom in the world comes from within. You can only build into the world what is already inside you—your understanding, your relationship with GOD, and your personal moral and spiritual growth. The SGM accepts that while we may be co-creators in building the Kingdom of GOD, the real transformation comes through our subjective relationship with GOD and how we internalize and live out those teachings.

Therefore, while the OGM may stress that objective standards guide our actions in building the Kingdom, the reality is that each person’s engagement with those standards is deeply subjective. The SGM embraces this truth, acknowledging that the work of building the Kingdom flows from what is within the individual, and that genuine transformation in the world comes from inner spiritual growth.

Considering the sheer number of people who identify as Christians, it’s striking to think about how much objective change could be effected if they were not led to believe that heavenly entities will intervene on their behalf. If this large collective actively engaged in building the Kingdom now, rather than waiting for a future event, we might already see significant transformation in the world. This reliance on divine intervention can inadvertently hold people back from taking action in the present to create the change they’re hoping for.

In summary, while both the OGM and SGM agree that we are called to actively participate in building the Kingdom of GOD, the SGM aligns more closely with the idea that the Kingdom begins within the individual, and that what we bring into the world is a reflection of our inner spiritual reality. The OGM’s focus on external objective standards can overlook this crucial aspect of how the Kingdom is built from within.

The OGM also provides for flexibility and inclusivity of people, but not of truth itself. That’s the only way reality can be met and changed.

I understand your point that the OGM allows for flexibility and inclusivity of people, but you emphasize that truth itself is inflexible within that model. However, I think this raises an important question: what actual truth has been definitively established through the OGM?

It seems that there’s an assumption that the truth derived from the OGM is clear and universally agreed upon, yet throughout history, we’ve seen varied interpretations of what is considered “objective truth,” even within religious communities adhering to the OGM. If truth in the OGM is truly inflexible and objective, we would expect more consistency in its application. Instead, we see considerable diversity in how different communities and denominations understand and apply this so-called “objective” truth.

In contrast, the SGM recognizes that truth is understood and experienced differently by individuals, depending on their unique relationship with GOD. It provides a flexible and inclusive framework that allows people to evolve in their understanding of spiritual truths through their personal experiences. This doesn’t mean that there are no shared moral truths, but that the way these truths are internalized and lived out can vary significantly based on one’s spiritual journey.

In summary, while the OGM may claim that truth is inflexible, it’s worth questioning what truth has been definitively established and how consistently it has been applied. The SGM offers a model where spiritual understanding can evolve and remain flexible, while still honoring each person’s unique path to truth.

No, you still think GOD (which is in some sense more than just us) is the source, don’t you? GOD knows we shouldn’t abuse children. This has always been true; it just hasn’t always been accepted and practiced by every individual, right? Or do you think it used to be actually good for some humans to abuse a child?

I understand the concerns you're raising, and understand your response misrepresents the core of my argument, which leads to a straw man fallacy and potentially a false dilemma.

Firstly, I’m not suggesting that child abuse was ever morally acceptable, as implied by your question, "Or do you think it used to be actually good for some humans to abuse a child?" This misrepresents my position. My argument isn’t that moral truths, such as the wrongness of child abuse, change over time. Rather, in the SGM, moral growth occurs as individuals come to internalize and recognize these truths through their personal spiritual journey and relationship with GOD.

Additionally, the SGM also acknowledges that at some point in human evolution, what we now define as "child abuse" may have once been considered socially acceptable in certain societies or tribes. As human understanding evolved, people began to observe the harmful effects of such practices on individuals and the community, leading to a gradual realization that these actions were unhealthy and immoral. Over time, through both spiritual and social development, humanity came to understand the wrongness of such behavior. This doesn’t mean that child abuse was ever morally good, but that moral awareness evolves as society and individuals reflect on the consequences of certain actions.

Your response also creates a false dilemma by presenting only two options:

Either moral truth is objective and unchanging (child abuse has always been wrong), or
You suggest that it was once morally acceptable to abuse children.
This is a false choice, as my actual position acknowledges that moral truths like the wrongness of child abuse are objective, but individuals and societies come to understand these truths over time through evolving subjective experiences and social reflection. There’s no contradiction between the idea that child abuse has always been morally wrong and the recognition that societies, at different stages, come to realize and internalize these truths.

The Subjective GOD Model (SGM) accounts better for this process of moral growth because it recognizes that individuals and societies, through their personal spiritual experiences and collective observations, come to understand why certain actions are harmful and wrong. It’s not that the moral truth itself changes, but that people’s recognition and internalization of it evolve as they develop their relationship with GOD and their moral intuitions. The SGM embraces the idea that moral growth is part of an evolving spiritual journey, rather than immediate conformity to an external objective standard.

In summary, the SGM does not claim that abuse was ever morally right. Instead, it explains how individuals and societies gradually come to understand moral truths as they evolve. Practices that may have once been socially acceptable are eventually recognized as harmful through spiritual and social growth. The SGM allows for moral intuitions to evolve, shaped by personal and collective experiences, whereas the OGM emphasizes conformity to external truths without fully accounting for the internal and societal growth that leads to true moral understanding.

[The Tanager]

(I agree that comparing critical data is part of the process. However, one liner replies offer nothing I can work with.)

I realize you are against one-line replies, but if you ask me questions that are rightly answered by one line replies, I’m going to give them. I’m not going to drone on when that isn’t needed.

Whether OGM is a more reliable or accurate framework depends heavily on the criteria used. If we prioritize objectivity and universality, OGM may seem preferable. However, if we emphasize the personal, subjective dimensions of human experience—especially in spirituality—then SGM could be seen as more comprehensive.

I gave the criteria: explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, etc. If we used either of these criteria you mentioned, we’d be begging the question. Of course the objective model is more objective. Of course the subjective model is more subjective.

In the OGM, while moral principles are presented as objective and universal (such as the belief that child abuse is always wrong), the practical application of these principles is mediated through human institutions like churches and governments. These institutions can distort or misrepresent GOD’s moral truths, leading individuals to ignore their internal moral resistance. This demonstrates that even in a model claiming objective morality, the external influence of institutions can lead to harmful justifications of immoral behavior.

Free will leads to this, not the OGM model itself.

On the other hand, the SGM emphasizes the individual’s personal and subjective relationship with GOD as the source of moral guidance. While subjective, the SGM still maintains clear moral boundaries—those with genuine spiritual connections do not engage in harmful acts like child abuse. Additionally, the rarity of claims where individuals justify such harmful behavior on divine grounds supports the idea that internal spiritual discernment can provide a strong moral framework, even without the imposition of external standards. In SGM, individuals are also expected to justify their moral decisions rationally within their community, further ensuring accountability.

First, communities that held to SGM would be just as prone to immoral acts as OGM communities, except for ones where predestination is true.

Second, how does the SGM lead to individuals justifying their decisions rationally? It’s all about what the individual feels GOD is telling them unless there are clear moral boundaries, i.e., objective moral truths.

Ultimately, SGM provides a more flexible model that respects personal spiritual experience while still maintaining ethical clarity. It offers a stronger internal check against institutional corruption or misinterpretation of GOD’s will, particularly in cases like child abuse, where the authentic spiritual connection of individuals serves as a safeguard against harmful behavior.

A morality based on the individual’s claimed relationship with GOD absolutely does not provide a better check against corruption and misinterpretation. The OGM model holds our subjective experiences up against the wider community’s dealings with the same God and, therefore, is a better check than one individual doing what they want/feel God is guiding them to do.

Tanager, while I understand the analogy you're drawing between the Objective GOD Model (OGM) and science, there are a few issues with this comparison, and it doesn’t directly address the questions I posed.

First, you’ve previously stated that not everything real is physical, including objective morality. However, science, particularly physical science, primarily deals with empirical, measurable realities. So the comparison between a non-physical concept like objective morality and physical science is on shaky ground. Science relies on empirical evidence, whereas the OGM deals with metaphysical truths, which require a different approach entirely.

Additionally, you didn’t specify what kind of science you’re referring to. The methods in Cosmology—which focus on physical evidence in the universe—are quite different from those in Psychology, which often deals with human behavior and subjective interpretation. Spiritual understanding and our relationship with GOD are more aligned with relational and interpretive processes, making a comparison to physical sciences less appropriate.

Analogies are things that make specific points. For those specific points to work, the things compared in the analogy don’t have to be identical in every regard, but only in the important bits. That science is physical and morality non-physical and involve different kinds of investigation has nothing to do with the point I was making.

That point was a critique of your principle that emphasizing objective truth doesn’t allow for growth and change in our understanding of reality. That was your critique of OGM. That principle is patently false unless you think science also doesn’t allow for growth and change.

How does the OGM, which emphasizes static objective criteria, allow for the kind of dynamic growth in our understanding of GOD that is central to the Subjective GOD Model (SGM)?

Could you give a very specific example of the kind of dynamic growth you are talking about?

In the SGM, the focus isn’t on viewing subjective experiences as limited. Instead, the model emphasizes that our growing personality and relationship with GOD are dynamic and evolving.

If they are dynamic and growing, that means they were limited; otherwise no growth is needed.

These objective syncronicities are acknowledged as significant but are not prioritized above the subjective process itself.

This is a crucial distinction. In the SGM, objective experiences or external sources, such as scriptures or the experiences of others, can provide valuable confirmation of one’s internal spiritual experiences, but they are not seen as the primary means of discerning truth. The priority is always on how these objective experiences are integrated into one’s subjective reality, enhancing and deepening the individual’s personal relationship with GOD.

I think that is its problem. It puts widely tested statements, tested by all of society, below less widely tested statements, tested by an individual. God can be present in both.

In contrast, the OGM appears to treat subjective experiences as limited and encourages a greater reliance on external, objective standards to validate one’s understanding of GOD. This reliance can sometimes lead to self-doubt, as it implies that subjective experiences alone may not be fully reliable or sufficient without external confirmation or alignment with pre-existing objective truths.

Yes! We should have self-doubt. We aren’t fully reliable. We are limited in knowledge and experiences. We need humility.

In contrast, the SGM does not dismiss or pre-judge reports based on a rigid interpretation of sacred texts. Instead, it promotes a more inclusive approach, accepting all reports—whether from interpretations of sacred texts or from individuals who have had personal, subjective spiritual experiences like NDEs. In the SGM, no report is automatically discounted or rejected. Every experience, whether it aligns with traditional interpretations of sacred texts or not, is considered worthy of examination and integrated into the broader understanding of spiritual truth.

This example illustrates a key distinction: the SGM encourages an open examination of both personal spiritual experiences and interpretations of sacred texts. It allows for the integration of insights from diverse sources, while maintaining that subjective experiences—such as NDEs—are not automatically dismissed based on external interpretations. This creates a more dynamic and flexible approach to spiritual growth, where both personal encounters and interpretations of sacred texts are part of the process of understanding GOD.

This is no different than my OGM. One should remain open-minded, constantly challenging their own thoughts, looking at new info, etc. But one must seek truth, which requires rejecting things.

In the OGM, religious denominations and institutions often act like exclusive clubs with specific rules, doctrines, and practices that members are expected to follow. These groups foster a sense of belonging but also tend to emphasize boundaries—distinctions between their own practices and beliefs and those of other communities, even when the differences are relatively minor. This creates a situation where many communities exist in silos, each reinforcing their own interpretation of faith, but often at the cost of engaging meaningfully with other types of communities.

They don’t need to be exclusive echo chambers, They should be exclusive in the sense of aligning oneself with truth and rules, doctrines, and practices are instances of wisdom placed there to help us.

When we step back and look at the overall community, including all these different types of communities, it becomes clear that the OGM tends to support the non-integration of the overall spiritual community. Instead of encouraging unity or the blending of insights from various traditions, the OGM emphasizes adherence to specific objective standards and institutional practices, reinforcing division rather than fostering collaboration and mutual understanding. In effect, the OGM may unintentionally contribute to a fragmented religious landscape, where groups remain isolated from one another, protecting their own traditions at the expense of broader spiritual unity.

The nature of truth requires exclusion. Christianity does it and so does your view, unless your view has no truth claims. You reinterpret all traditions to fit into a sort of Perennial philosophy that is its own worldview. Every worldview does this by logical necessity.

In the Objective GOD Model (OGM), moral guidance often comes from external, objective rules or standards that individuals are expected to follow. While this can prevent harmful behaviors like child abuse, there’s also a risk that these rules lead to suppression of tendencies rather than a genuine understanding of why such behaviors are wrong. If we rely solely on objective rules of behavior to guide us, individuals may follow them out of obligation or fear of consequences, but they might not actually come to a deep, internal understanding of why these actions should be avoided in the first place.

You keep saying what could come from OGM, if things go wrong, but only talk about the ideals of SGM, when things go right. Both models can be corrupted.

To clarify: Yes, GOD would rather we didn’t harm children, but in the SGM, individuals come to this realization through their personal growth and internalization of moral truths, which leads to a more meaningful change in behavior. The SGM doesn’t celebrate or condone harmful actions, but it emphasizes that moral understanding is something people come to over time through their relationship with GOD. This allows individuals to not only avoid harmful behaviors but to understand deeply why they are wrong, beyond simply following external rules.

This is true of my OGM, too.

Your response provides an interesting example of how the OGM uses scripture in what can be seen as contradictory ways. On one hand, you emphasize the need for active participation in building the Kingdom of GOD, which aligns with what Jesus teaches in his Sermon on the Mount and other parts of the gospels. However, it’s important to recognize that Cultural Christianity, which heavily influences Christian-based practice, places a central hope in the return of Jesus as the main event that will establish the Kingdom of GOD in the future. This belief can lead to a type of disempowerment, where many adherents wait passively for divine intervention rather than engaging with the present moment to build the Kingdom….This tension reveals how scripture can be used in contradictory ways within the OGM framework, depending on the tradition or interpretation.

Yes, they are distinct worldviews. I’m not a Cultural Christian. Yes, scripture can be misinterpreted. In SGM, misinterpretation can happen as well.

Considering the sheer number of people who identify as Christians, it’s striking to think about how much objective change could be effected if they were not led to believe that heavenly entities will intervene on their behalf. If this large collective actively engaged in building the Kingdom now, rather than waiting for a future event, we might already see significant transformation in the world. This reliance on divine intervention can inadvertently hold people back from taking action in the present to create the change they’re hoping for.

The world was completely overhauled by Christians engaged in building the Kingdom now and it continues to be. Hospitals, taking care of the poor in India, all of that stuff is because of Christians leading the way. Society is so much different than it was in ancient Greece and Rome because Christianity changed it. Yes, some Christians have gone wrong, but not all.

In summary, while both the OGM and SGM agree that we are called to actively participate in building the Kingdom of GOD, the SGM aligns more closely with the idea that the Kingdom begins within the individual, and that what we bring into the world is a reflection of our inner spiritual reality. The OGM’s focus on external objective standards can overlook this crucial aspect of how the Kingdom is built from within.

No. This summary only compares the worst-case-scenario of OGM with the best case SGM. You keep treating OGM as the opposite extreme to SGM and it’s not. It’s the middle ground between the two views you keep comparing.

However, I think this raises an important question: what actual truth has been definitively established through the OGM?

No truth has been established through either model; you haven’t been addressing or asking those questions and neither have I.

It seems that there’s an assumption that the truth derived from the OGM is clear and universally agreed upon, yet throughout history, we’ve seen varied interpretations of what is considered “objective truth,” even within religious communities adhering to the OGM. If truth in the OGM is truly inflexible and objective, we would expect more consistency in its application. Instead, we see considerable diversity in how different communities and denominations understand and apply this so-called “objective” truth.

I have not and do not assume such a thing. I don’t even believe it’s true. The OGM doesn’t say everyone agrees. And we should only expect more consistency if free will didn’t exist. With free will comes disagreement.

Your response also creates a false dilemma by presenting only two options:

Either moral truth is objective and unchanging (child abuse has always been wrong), or
You suggest that it was once morally acceptable to abuse children.
This is a false choice, as my actual position acknowledges that moral truths like the wrongness of child abuse are objective, but individuals and societies come to understand these truths over time through evolving subjective experiences and social reflection.

Those are the only two logical options. Either X is unchanging or it has changed. Those are logically exhaustive. Your supposed third option is actually the answer to a completely different question. That’s not showing I’ve given a false dilemma, but that you’ve conflated two questions into one.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #58]

I realize you are against one-line replies, but if you ask me questions that are rightly answered by one line replies, I’m going to give them. I’m not going to drone on when that isn’t needed.

I want to clarify a few things regarding your response, as I believe there may have been a misunderstanding of my request for more detailed answers.

Fallacy of Misrepresentation:
When I asked for more detail, I was not asking for unnecessary elaboration or for you to "drone on." I was requesting enough depth and substance in your responses so that I can engage with your points meaningfully. One-liner replies don't provide enough context or reasoning for me to respond effectively, which limits our ability to have a productive conversation.

Misframing My Request:
It seems you might be framing my request for more detail as a request for excessive verbosity. This creates a straw man of my actual position. I’m not asking for lengthy responses just for the sake of length. I'm looking for a thoughtful engagement with the issues, where key points are explained and supported with reasoning. Brevity is fine when appropriate, but not at the expense of clarity or depth, especially in complex discussions.

Quality vs. Quantity:
My goal is to better understand your position and engage with it. If you're able to succinctly explain your reasoning in a way that provides sufficient context, great. But if a one-liner reply doesn’t provide enough clarity or insight into your position, it becomes difficult for me to work with. I’m seeking a balance between brevity and the substance required to move the conversation forward.

Mutual Respect for Styles:
I hope this can be viewed as a constructive request rather than a criticism. I’m not asking for unnecessary detail, but I do need more than what’s been provided so far to continue the discussion productively. Just as I aim to respect your communication style, I hope you can acknowledge that my requests are aimed at fostering a more thoughtful and comprehensive dialogue.

I look forward to your response and hope we can continue this discussion with the depth it deserves.

I gave the criteria: explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, etc. If we used either of these criteria you mentioned, we’d be begging the question. Of course the objective model is more objective. Of course the subjective model is more subjective.

I appreciate you bringing up explanatory power, scope, and plausibility as criteria. These are indeed important, but your response seems to oversimplify my point about objectivity and subjectivity, so let me clarify a few things.

Criteria Clarification:
When I mentioned objectivity and universality, it wasn’t simply to state the obvious that the OGM is more “objective” or that the SGM is more “subjective.” Rather, my point was to highlight that depending on which criteria are prioritized, we could come to different conclusions about the reliability or accuracy of each model. If we focus on criteria like personal spiritual growth, dynamic understanding of morality, and internal coherence, the SGM might be seen as stronger, just as the OGM might seem stronger when prioritizing universality or external validation.

Begging the Question:
I don’t believe we’d be begging the question if we explore the criteria carefully. The goal isn’t just to say “the OGM is more objective” or “the SGM is more subjective.” The deeper issue is how well these models explain human experiences and moral intuitions. For example, while the OGM might provide a more universal framework, the SGM might offer a more nuanced understanding of individual spiritual growth and moral discernment, which could be just as important depending on what we’re trying to explain.

Explanatory Power and Plausibility:
In terms of explanatory power, we need to ask: Which model better accounts for both individual and collective spiritual experiences? The SGM allows for flexibility and personal moral growth, which might offer better explanatory power when addressing subjective moral dilemmas or spiritual crises. The OGM, by contrast, might excel in explaining universal moral principles, but could fall short in addressing the nuances of personal spiritual journeys. Both models have their strengths depending on the context.

Balancing Objectivity and Subjectivity:
It’s not about one model being “more objective” or “more subjective,” but about which criteria are most relevant for assessing spiritual truths. Objectivity is crucial, but it doesn’t necessarily exclude subjective experience, nor does subjectivity inherently negate objectivity. The SGM incorporates subjective experiences in a way that might offer deeper personal insight, while the OGM leans on external standards for broader coherence.

In short, it’s not enough to say that the OGM is “more objective” or that the SGM is “more subjective.” The question is: Which criteria do we prioritize, and why? What is the model’s purpose? Depending on the focus, either model can have strengths in different areas.

I look forward to your thoughts on this distinction.

Free will leads to this, not the OGM model itself.

I think there’s an important distinction in how we understand free will, especially in relation to prior existence. In the SGM, free will is not limited to choices in this life—it’s also tied to a prior agreement we made before entering into human experience. This means we chose to take on the challenges and opportunities of life as part of a broader spiritual journey. Without this context, free will might seem more limited, as it would only operate within the constraints of this life, without any participation in the decision to enter it.
Read more detail on this perspective re Cultural Christians thread at the end of Post #371

In the SGM, free will is deeply connected to co-creating with GOD, and this broader view of free will emphasizes personal spiritual growth. Moral understanding evolves through individual experiences rather than solely through institutional teachings. External sources, like scripture or institutions, help guide us, but they don’t override the personal discernment that shapes our spiritual journey.

In contrast, the OGM tends to emphasize free will within the framework of human life, often mediated by institutions. This can sometimes limit personal moral discernment, as institutional interpretations may take precedence over individual spiritual growth.

I’m curious how you see free will in the OGM. Do you think it operates only within this life, or do you consider the possibility of a prior agreement? How does that impact our understanding of responsibility and participation in shaping reality?

First, communities that held to SGM would be just as prone to immoral acts as OGM communities, except for ones where predestination is true.

Second, how does the SGM lead to individuals justifying their decisions rationally? It’s all about what the individual feels GOD is telling them unless there are clear moral boundaries, i.e., objective moral truths.

Regarding Communities and Immorality:
You haven’t provided reasoning for why SGM communities would be equally prone to immoral acts as OGM communities. The SGM’s focus on personal spiritual growth and community accountability offers a different framework that can reduce the risk of blindly following potentially corrupt institutional interpretations. Could you clarify your reasoning here?"

Regarding Rational Justification in SGM:
As for rational justification, the SGM doesn’t rely solely on personal feelings; it encourages reflection, reason, and community interaction to ensure moral decisions are justified. Why do you think clear moral boundaries can’t exist in the SGM when it emphasizes personal discernment and rational integration of subjective experiences?"

A morality based on the individual’s claimed relationship with GOD absolutely does not provide a better check against corruption and misinterpretation. The OGM model holds our subjective experiences up against the wider community’s dealings with the same God and, therefore, is a better check than one individual doing what they want/feel God is guiding them to do.

I understand your perspective, history and current events demonstrate that institutionalized moral systems, including those within Cultural/Biblical Christianity, are not immune to corruption or misinterpretation. Institutions themselves have often been the source of such failures. In contrast, the SGM—based on personal spiritual accountability, balanced by rational justification and community interaction—offers a more dynamic approach that safeguards against such issues. It relies on genuine internal discernment and evolving personal understanding, rather than rigid external authority. Given the depth with which I’ve explained how SGM maintains ethical clarity, why do you believe institutional checks offer better safeguards, despite the historical and current evidence of institutional failures—and then project those same failures onto the SGM?

Analogies are things that make specific points. For those specific points to work, the things compared in the analogy don’t have to be identical in every regard, but only in the important bits. That science is physical and morality non-physical and involve different kinds of investigation has nothing to do with the point I was making.

That point was a critique of your principle that emphasizing objective truth doesn’t allow for growth and change in our understanding of reality. That was your critique of OGM. That principle is patently false unless you think science also doesn’t allow for growth and change.

I understand that analogies don’t need to be identical in every regard, but the differences between science and objective morality are crucial to the point I was making. Science deals with empirical evidence and measurable realities, while the OGM addresses metaphysical truths, which require a different method of investigation. This difference goes beyond mere detail—it affects the validity of the comparison itself.

Moreover, my critique wasn’t that objective truth inherently prevents growth, but that the OGM’s emphasis on external, objective standards can limit personal, dynamic spiritual growth. Spiritual understanding, as emphasized in the SGM, evolves through personal experience and internal reflection, which doesn't always align with empirical or objective frameworks.

Additionally, you didn’t address my point about different types of sciences (Cosmology vs. Psychology) having distinct approaches. Spiritual understanding is more aligned with interpretive processes like psychology, making a direct comparison to the physical sciences less appropriate.

Could you give a very specific example of the kind of dynamic growth you are talking about?

Sure, dynamic growth would be understanding GOD through evolving personal experiences, not just fixed doctrines. Can you expand on how the OGM allows for this kind of growth?

If they are dynamic and growing, that means they were limited; otherwise no growth is needed.

It seems like you’re misrepresenting my point, which leads to a straw man fallacy. I wasn’t suggesting that subjective experiences are unlimited in the sense of starting from perfection. My point was that the SGM emphasizes dynamic growth in our relationship with GOD, rather than being confined by static, external criteria. Growth is about evolving through personal experiences, not overcoming some initial limitation as you’ve framed it.

I think that is its problem. It puts widely tested statements, tested by all of society, below less widely tested statements, tested by an individual. God can be present in both.

Tanager, you mention “widely tested statements,” but you haven’t provided support for where these statements come from or how they are tested. If we assume they exist, they likely come from institutions, which—as I’ve detailed—can be prone to distortion or misinterpretation. The SGM works precisely because it integrates external sources into a personal, evolving spiritual journey, allowing individuals to discern truth through their direct relationship with GOD, rather than just through institutional teachings.

Additionally, you’ve identified this as a problem for the SGM, but why don’t you see the same potential issue with these "widely tested statements" in the OGM? Given the influence of institutions and their potential for misinterpretation, why doesn’t this present the same problem within the OGM?

Yes! We should have self-doubt. We aren’t fully reliable. We are limited in knowledge and experiences. We need humility.

I see you’re agreeing that the OGM encourages self-doubt, and I think that’s worth examining further. In the SGM, self-doubt is seen as a barrier to spiritual growth because it causes individuals to question their direct relationship with GOD, potentially leading to hesitation or fear in trusting their own spiritual experiences.

While humility is important, it’s different from self-doubt. Humility in the SGM means recognizing our limitations while still confidently engaging in a dynamic, evolving relationship with GOD. It doesn’t require constant authorization from external sources claiming to represent truth and GOD. In contrast, self-doubt can undermine this confidence and lead to an overreliance on these external sources for validation.

The OGM’s emphasis on external confirmation seems to reinforce self-doubt by suggesting that subjective experiences may not be fully reliable without this external authorization. How do you reconcile this tension between encouraging humility and the risk of undermining personal spiritual confidence through self-doubt in the OGM?

This is no different than my OGM. One should remain open-minded, constantly challenging their own thoughts, looking at new info, etc. But one must seek truth, which requires rejecting things.

I see where you're coming from, but there’s a significant difference between the two models. While the OGM may encourage open-mindedness and self-reflection, it often requires that personal experiences be evaluated and validated through external sources or institutions that claim to represent truth and GOD. In contrast, the SGM doesn’t demand that reports or experiences pass through institutional approval for legitimacy.

In the SGM, subjective experiences—such as NDEs—are given direct consideration and are integrated into a broader understanding of spiritual truth, without needing authorization from institutional gatekeepers. This creates a more flexible and dynamic approach to spiritual growth, where personal encounters with GOD and insights from sacred texts are equally valued in shaping one’s understanding.

The key difference lies in the OGM's reliance on institutional filters, while the SGM emphasizes individual discernment without automatically dismissing experiences that don’t align with traditional interpretations.

They don’t need to be exclusive echo chambers, They should be exclusive in the sense of aligning oneself with truth and rules, doctrines, and practices are instances of wisdom placed there to help us.

While I understand the intent behind institutions offering wisdom and guidance, they don’t truly help if they fail to integrate diverse perspectives and experiences. In practice, many religious institutions purposefully frown upon unendorsed individual subjective communion with GOD, preferring to enforce their own doctrines and interpretations. This exclusivity limits spiritual growth by discouraging personal experiences that don’t align with their established views.

The SGM, by contrast, promotes a more inclusive approach that values individual subjective experiences alongside collective wisdom. It doesn’t require institutional approval to validate someone’s personal relationship with GOD, which fosters a more dynamic and integrated spiritual journey, free from the constraints imposed by rigid institutional boundaries.

The nature of truth requires exclusion. Christianity does it and so does your view, unless your view has no truth claims. You reinterpret all traditions to fit into a sort of Perennial philosophy that is its own worldview. Every worldview does this by logical necessity.

I think it's important to reconsider the idea that the nature of truth requires exclusion. In the SGM, insights are understood as possible truths, not as definitive or "proven" truths. The model doesn’t assert universal truth claims in the way that objective standards do. Instead, it remains open to evolving understandings, shaped by personal experiences and new insights.

While the OGM emphasizes strict adherence to specific doctrines, often leading to exclusion and division, the SGM focuses on the integration of diverse perspectives. This doesn’t mean reinterpreting all traditions into one worldview, but acknowledging the potential validity of multiple insights, allowing for ongoing spiritual exploration rather than rigid boundaries around what is considered "truth."

Exclusion isn’t inherently necessary when we approach spiritual truth as something dynamic and evolving. The SGM fosters collaboration and mutual understanding by allowing insights from different traditions and experiences to coexist and contribute to a broader, unified spiritual landscape, without having to draw hard lines around what’s accepted or rejected.

You keep saying what could come from OGM, if things go wrong, but only talk about the ideals of SGM, when things go right. Both models can be corrupted.

Tanager, the distinction here is that with the OGM, it’s not just a matter of what could go wrong, but what has gone wrong—and consistently so throughout history. The reliance on external authorities and institutions in the OGM has often led to corruption, distortion, and the misuse of moral authority. These are not theoretical risks but documented realities.

In contrast, while you suggest that the SGM could also be corruptible, you haven’t provided any significant critique of the specific aspects of the SGM that I’ve detailed. What you’re doing here seems to be a false equivalence—implying that because one model is corruptible, the other must be equally so. However, history shows that the OGM’s institutional framework has been a consistent source of problems, while the SGM’s emphasis on personal discernment and internal spiritual growth offers built-in safeguards against the same kinds of institutional corruption.

If you believe the SGM is equally prone to corruption, could you offer specific examples or critiques of how this might occur?

This is true of my OGM, too.

While you claim this is true of the OGM, history and even current events suggest otherwise. The OGM’s emphasis on external rules and institutional authority often leads to people following moral guidelines out of obligation or fear of consequences, without necessarily internalizing the deeper reasons behind them. This has resulted in individuals conforming to external standards while harmful behaviors, sometimes justified by those same institutions, persist.

The SGM, by contrast, emphasizes personal moral growth and internalization of truths through an ongoing relationship with GOD. This approach leads individuals to understand why certain actions are wrong on a deeper, personal level, rather than just following prescribed rules. Can you provide evidence of how the OGM has historically fostered meaningful internal moral transformation, rather than simply adherence to external rules?

Yes, they are distinct worldviews. I’m not a Cultural Christian. Yes, scripture can be misinterpreted. In SGM, misinterpretation can happen as well.

I understand that you differentiate yourself from Cultural Christianity, but my point wasn’t about individual identification—it was about how scripture is used in contradictory ways within the OGM framework as a whole. Cultural Christianity is a significant influence on Christian practice, and the passive reliance on divine intervention is widespread in that tradition. This creates a tension within the OGM, where different interpretations of scripture lead to very different approaches to building the Kingdom of GOD.

Your response seems to engage in false equivalence again by suggesting that misinterpretation can happen equally in the SGM. The key difference is that in the SGM, the emphasis is on personal discernment and direct relationship with GOD, without reliance on institutional interpretations. Misinterpretations in the OGM often stem from the influence of institutions or traditions that claim authority over scripture. This is a critical distinction, as the SGM encourages individual spiritual growth, rather than passive adherence to external interpretations.

Could you clarify how the OGM addresses this tension between differing interpretations, especially when institutions or traditions hold significant sway over how scripture is understood?

The world was completely overhauled by Christians engaged in building the Kingdom now and it continues to be. Hospitals, taking care of the poor in India, all of that stuff is because of Christians leading the way. Society is so much different than it was in ancient Greece and Rome because Christianity changed it. Yes, some Christians have gone wrong, but not all.

While the good things Christianity has done—like hospitals and caring for the poor—are important contributions, I have to ask: are these the sum total of what the Kingdom of GOD represents? The Kingdom, as taught by Jesus, involves a much broader and deeper transformation, encompassing not just charitable acts but justice, love, unity, and the internal moral and spiritual evolution of individuals and society.

Moreover, without acknowledgment by the broader Christian institution of its historical wrongs, how can we be sure that these good things won’t simply phase out or be overshadowed by recurring issues of the past? True, lasting transformation requires not just continuing good works, but also reckoning with history to ensure that the positive change is systemic and permanent.

If many Christians remain focused on waiting for divine intervention, and if the deeper spiritual and systemic dimensions of the Kingdom are not addressed, can we truly say that the Kingdom of GOD is being realized in its fullness? How do we measure the permanence of these contributions if a large part of the Christian community is still waiting rather than actively engaging?

No. This summary only compares the worst-case-scenario of OGM with the best case SGM. You keep treating OGM as the opposite extreme to SGM and it’s not. It’s the middle ground between the two views you keep comparing.

I disagree that the OGM represents a "middle ground." If you’re suggesting that the OGM balances both the good and the harm that has come from its institutional framework, that’s not a true middle ground—it's a compromise, where both extremes coexist without resolving the underlying issues. The OGM’s focus on external, institutional authority can allow harmful practices to continue while still claiming to represent moral truths.

In contrast, the SGM offers a genuine middle ground by integrating both personal spiritual growth and external insights, without relying solely on rigid external standards or institutional authority. It balances individual discernment with accountability, allowing for dynamic moral growth rooted in personal experiences, while still considering the collective wisdom of others.

If you believe the OGM represents middle ground, could you clarify what specific aspects of it offer that balance, given the historical and current evidence of its extremes? The SGM has already demonstrated a more nuanced and integrated approach, which I’ve outlined in detail.

No truth has been established through either model; you haven’t been addressing or asking those questions and neither have I.

Tanager, I agree that neither model has definitively established absolute truth in a metaphysical sense, and I’ve acknowledged as much before. However, what has been established through the OGM is the historical record of atrocities, lack of reasonable accountability, and the sense of entitlement and privilege that often accompanies support for Cultural/Biblical Christianity, which operates within the OGM framework.

These are not speculative, but well-documented facts that need to be recognized. While both models may seek truth, the OGM’s institutional history raises important questions about how effectively it serves as a moral guide when these issues remain unresolved. The SGM, by contrast, avoids this reliance on institutional authority, focusing more on personal accountability and moral growth, which helps address some of these concerns.

I have not and do not assume such a thing. I don’t even believe it’s true. The OGM doesn’t say everyone agrees. And we should only expect more consistency if free will didn’t exist. With free will comes disagreement.

I understand your point about free will leading to disagreement, but I think your response overlooks the broader framework I’ve outlined within the SGM. Free will isn’t simply a force for disagreement—it can be harnessed through humility, trust in the Subjective GOD, and personal spiritual growth. In the SGM, free will is used not just to assert individual interpretations, but to engage in a deeper, more collaborative relationship with GOD, leading to moral clarity and unity rather than division.

So, while disagreement can happen with free will, it doesn’t necessarily have to. The SGM emphasizes the importance of using free will to align with spiritual growth, humility, and mutual understanding, which helps foster consistency in moral application without suppressing individuality. This stands in contrast to the OGM, where institutional influences often lead to varied interpretations despite claims of objective truth.

It’s a fallacy to suggest that free will inherently causes disagreement. It can, but it’s not the only or even the best way to use it. In the SGM, free will is a tool for aligning personal experience with spiritual truths, allowing for greater harmony in understanding.

Those are the only two logical options. Either X is unchanging or it has changed. Those are logically exhaustive. Your supposed third option is actually the answer to a completely different question. That’s not showing I’ve given a false dilemma, but that you’ve conflated two questions into one.

I haven’t agreed that child abuse is an objective moral truth. What I’ve acknowledged is that through observing its harmful effects in the objective world, we have subjectively come to understand its implications and the need to address it. This understanding emerged from collective experiences and social reflection, rather than from an unchanging moral truth.

Your response presents a false dilemma by framing the issue as if the only two options are: (1) moral truth is objective and unchanging, or (2) it was once morally acceptable to abuse children. My position is that, while the harm caused by child abuse has always existed, our understanding of that harm evolved over time through observation and reflection. It’s not that the morality itself changed, but that our awareness of it developed through lived experiences.

Additionally, I didn’t conflate two different questions as you suggested. The moral truth (whether objective or not) and the process by which individuals and societies come to understand and internalize that truth are distinct but interconnected. My point is that, even if moral truths remain constant, the human recognition and application of those truths evolve over time. The issue isn’t whether the truth itself changes, but how we come to understand and act upon it.

This distinction is key, and it’s why your response presents a false dilemma—by ignoring the dynamic process of moral understanding and focusing solely on the static nature of moral truth.

_____________
After reviewing our discussion, it seems that there are a few key aspects of my previous post that weren’t directly addressed:

Comparison of Accuracy and Reliability:
My original question was about why the OGM should be considered more accurate or reliable than the SGM, given that both models have similar explanatory scope. While you’ve engaged with specific elements of each model, you haven’t provided an overarching argument that explains why the OGM is inherently more accurate or reliable as a framework.

Justification for OGM's Superiority:
Though you’ve defended aspects of the OGM, you didn’t offer a detailed justification for why the OGM would be superior overall. For example, we haven’t seen a clear explanation of how the OGM handles subjective spiritual experiences or moral dilemmas better than the SGM. Instead, the focus has been on particular aspects, but not on the larger claim of OGM’s reliability over SGM.

Addressing Institutional Issues:
One major point I raised was the historical evidence of institutional corruption and doctrinal rigidity within the OGM framework, which can undermine its claim to reliability. While you’ve acknowledged that misinterpretation can happen, there was no substantial argument as to why the OGM should still be seen as more reliable or accurate despite these issues. How does the OGM address these problems, and why should it be trusted more than the SGM, which avoids reliance on institutional authority?

In summary, while you’ve defended specific elements of the OGM, the broader question of its reliability and accuracy in comparison to the SGM remains unanswered. I’d be interested to hear a more direct response that focuses on why the OGM should be considered more reliable or accurate overall, particularly given the historical and current challenges faced by the institutional structures that support it.

[The Tanager]

I hope this can be viewed as a constructive request rather than a criticism. I’m not asking for unnecessary detail, but I do need more than what’s been provided so far to continue the discussion productively. Just as I aim to respect your communication style, I hope you can acknowledge that my requests are aimed at fostering a more thoughtful and comprehensive dialogue.

I look forward to your response and hope we can continue this discussion with the depth it deserves.

Please don’t think I’m upset over this; I’m really not. But I do want you to know that, on this point, you are coming across as condescending. You blamed your refusal to respond on me not going in depth enough when you asked a question I felt was perfectly answered with that one line. You didn’t ask for clarification. You didn’t ask a follow up question. You simply implied I was inadequate or worse. That’s not fostering a more thoughtful and comprehensive dialogue. I don’t play games. I don’t give one-liners to frustrate you or evade or anything like that. If I give you one line it’s because I think that is the best way to respond substantively to that question in the moment.

Rather, my point was to highlight that depending on which criteria are prioritized, we could come to different conclusions about the reliability or accuracy of each model.

Why would we prioritize some over others? We need all of them.

I’m curious how you see free will in the OGM. Do you think it operates only within this life, or do you consider the possibility of a prior agreement? How does that impact our understanding of responsibility and participation in shaping reality?

I don’t believe we pre-existed, but the concept of free will I believe in would be the same even if we did. So, I don’t think this distinction impacts our responsibility or participation in any meaningful way.

You haven’t provided reasoning for why SGM communities would be equally prone to immoral acts as OGM communities. The SGM’s focus on personal spiritual growth and community accountability offers a different framework that can reduce the risk of blindly following potentially corrupt institutional interpretations. Could you clarify your reasoning here?

And the SGM model risks blindly following potentially corrupt personal desires which would lead to immoral acts. The SGM model isn’t a safeguard against corruption. Without the check from the community, it would be less safeguarded than the OGM.

As for rational justification, the SGM doesn’t rely solely on personal feelings; it encourages reflection, reason, and community interaction to ensure moral decisions are justified. Why do you think clear moral boundaries can’t exist in the SGM when it emphasizes personal discernment and rational integration of subjective experiences?

On this front it sounds exactly like my OGM, so I don’t know why you think there is a difference in this regard.

I understand that analogies don’t need to be identical in every regard, but the differences between science and objective morality are crucial to the point I was making.

Okay, but my point was that growth and change can occur within a field that has objective truths. Do you agree?

As to your points, I agree that OGM can be misused to limit spiritual growth. But so can SGM. I also agree that different sciences have distinct approaches.

Sure, dynamic growth would be understanding GOD through evolving personal experiences, not just fixed doctrines. Can you expand on how the OGM allows for this kind of growth?

I have understood God to be more loving and want me to be more intentional in seeking the good of those around me. This is due in large part to personal experiences of walking by homeless people on the way to work, wanting to offer to buy them lunch, chickening out, finally getting up the nerve to do it, having great conversations with them, and so on. But I never would have gone that far if I didn’t first believe the doctrine of loving my neighbor. The experiences and doctrines go hand and hand.

It seems like you’re misrepresenting my point, which leads to a straw man fallacy. I wasn’t suggesting that subjective experiences are unlimited in the sense of starting from perfection. My point was that the SGM emphasizes dynamic growth in our relationship with GOD, rather than being confined by static, external criteria. Growth is about evolving through personal experiences, not overcoming some initial limitation as you’ve framed it.

I wasn’t thinking of it the way you think I framed it, but I also realize I was misunderstanding you.

Tanager, you mention “widely tested statements,” but you haven’t provided support for where these statements come from or how they are tested.

And you haven’t provided support for how personal experience should be tested and why it brings truth either. We haven’t asked each other for that, so neither of us have gone there.

Additionally, you’ve identified this as a problem for the SGM, but why don’t you see the same potential issue with these "widely tested statements" in the OGM? Given the influence of institutions and their potential for misinterpretation, why doesn’t this present the same problem within the OGM?

I have agreed the OGM has this potential misunderstanding. My point, however, was that the more different people we have looking at the issue, the more tested that issue is by a greater body of thought. Therefore, the communities that become the institutions, are a check against our individual thoughts that are subject to potential dangers like wish fulfillment, self-centeredness, etc.

While humility is important, it’s different from self-doubt.

Then we used it with two different meanings. If “self-doubt” is definitionally negative, then I agree self-doubt isn’t a good thing.

While the OGM may encourage open-mindedness and self-reflection, it often requires that personal experiences be evaluated and validated through external sources or institutions that claim to represent truth and GOD.

Yes. To not do this is to be close-minded. To not allow the wider community’s investigations to affect your own is close-minded. I’m not advocating for automatically dismissing other experiences. You probably aren’t advocating for not considering the traditional interpretations. Therefore, this seems like a semantic issue.

The SGM, by contrast, promotes a more inclusive approach that values individual subjective experiences alongside collective wisdom. It doesn’t require institutional approval to validate someone’s personal relationship with GOD, which fosters a more dynamic and integrated spiritual journey, free from the constraints imposed by rigid institutional boundaries.

I’m not advocating rigid constraints that go beyond the constraints of truth. I’m not advocating for institutional approval of individuals. The rules, doctrines, institutions are there as communal helps, not rigid boundaries.

I think it's important to reconsider the idea that the nature of truth requires exclusion. In the SGM, insights are understood as possible truths, not as definitive or "proven" truths. The model doesn’t assert universal truth claims in the way that objective standards do. Instead, it remains open to evolving understandings, shaped by personal experiences and new insights.

I don’t think that is logically possible. You believe GOD is taking us somewhere, right? That somewhere is the definitive truth. Everything leading up to that is false in some way. All worldviews believe in that definitive truth. You can say you accept all worldviews in their beliefs, but you simply don’t. Those are temporary falsehoods that you think play a part in our journey, but we are still moving towards definitive truth in your view.

Tanager, the distinction here is that with the OGM, it’s not just a matter of what could go wrong, but what has gone wrong—and consistently so throughout history. The reliance on external authorities and institutions in the OGM has often led to corruption, distortion, and the misuse of moral authority. These are not theoretical risks but documented realities.

In contrast, while you suggest that the SGM could also be corruptible, you haven’t provided any significant critique of the specific aspects of the SGM that I’ve detailed. What you’re doing here seems to be a false equivalence—implying that because one model is corruptible, the other must be equally so. However, history shows that the OGM’s institutional framework has been a consistent source of problems, while the SGM’s emphasis on personal discernment and internal spiritual growth offers built-in safeguards against the same kinds of institutional corruption.

If you believe the SGM is equally prone to corruption, could you offer specific examples or critiques of how this might occur?

All things that institutions have done wrong began as subjective personal experiences and beliefs. SGMs turn into institutions of varying sizes. This isn’t implying that one model is corrupt if the other is, it’s just what the reality is. If SGMs had a built in safeguard against institutional corruption, then we would never get corrupt institutions because everyone experiences reality subjectively.

Can you provide evidence of how the OGM has historically fostered meaningful internal moral transformation, rather than simply adherence to external rules?

If this isn’t true, then you’d be claiming that every single Christian that ever lived, that none of them have had any meaningful moral transformation. Do you really need examples of the opposite? The culture we live in bears the imprint of Christianity and Christians. It is vastly different than ancient Roman and Greek culture. Without it we wouldn’t have anywhere near the charitable organizations that we do, hospitals, recovery efforts after hurricanes, etc. Christianity has been the driving force behind these things, ontologically and historically.

Could you clarify how the OGM addresses this tension between differing interpretations, especially when institutions or traditions hold significant sway over how scripture is understood?

It addresses it by saying some interpretations are better than others. The analysis depends on objective criteria, objective facts, good philosophy, not institutions of power (i.e., appeals to authority).

SGM has widely different interpretations at the subjective, personal level. Beliefs that cannot both be true, logically. Yet you keep talking about how the SGM is diverse about truth and you don’t want to say people are wrong. That’s logically impossible.

While the good things Christianity has done—like hospitals and caring for the poor—are important contributions, I have to ask: are these the sum total of what the Kingdom of GOD represents? The Kingdom, as taught by Jesus, involves a much broader and deeper transformation, encompassing not just charitable acts but justice, love, unity, and the internal moral and spiritual evolution of individuals and society.

Of course. I gave some basic examples of justice, love, unity.

Moreover, without acknowledgment by the broader Christian institution of its historical wrongs, how can we be sure that these good things won’t simply phase out or be overshadowed by recurring issues of the past?

Which Christians of all kinds of persuasions and communities have already done. There isn’t one spokesperson or spokes institution for Biblical Christians.

If many Christians remain focused on waiting for divine intervention, and if the deeper spiritual and systemic dimensions of the Kingdom are not addressed, can we truly say that the Kingdom of GOD is being realized in its fullness? How do we measure the permanence of these contributions if a large part of the Christian community is still waiting rather than actively engaging?

Yes, many Christians are missing this, but tons of them are not.

Can we say the SGM model does this when it asserts that everyone is still on the path with most of them still stuck in their thinking and we aren’t anywhere near there yet?

I disagree that the OGM represents a "middle ground." If you’re suggesting that the OGM balances both the good and the harm that has come from its institutional framework, that’s not a true middle ground—it's a compromise, where both extremes coexist without resolving the underlying issues. The OGM’s focus on external, institutional authority can allow harmful practices to continue while still claiming to represent moral truths.

And the SGM model directly says that people are still continuing harmful practices, but at least they are growing, right?

While the OGM I am talking about doesn’t balance the good and bad. It says reject the bad, change the bad, fight for the good. It’s not compromise.

I understand your point about free will leading to disagreement, but I think your response overlooks the broader framework I’ve outlined within the SGM. Free will isn’t simply a force for disagreement—it can be harnessed through humility, trust in the Subjective GOD, and personal spiritual growth. In the SGM, free will is used not just to assert individual interpretations, but to engage in a deeper, more collaborative relationship with GOD, leading to moral clarity and unity rather than division.

I’d say the same about the OGM.

So, while disagreement can happen with free will, it doesn’t necessarily have to. The SGM emphasizes the importance of using free will to align with spiritual growth, humility, and mutual understanding, which helps foster consistency in moral application without suppressing individuality. This stands in contrast to the OGM, where institutional influences often lead to varied interpretations despite claims of objective truth.

The SGM leads to more varied interpretations, including completely contradictory claims. It can lead to child sacrifice being okay (in one subjective tradition) and not okay (in others). I’ll take objective truth over incoherent unity.

It’s a fallacy to suggest that free will inherently causes disagreement.

I didn’t say and I don’t think that free will necessarily leads to disagreement. I meant that with free will, disagreement is possible and, if it occurs, isn’t much of a surprise.

Additionally, I didn’t conflate two different questions as you suggested. The moral truth (whether objective or not) and the process by which individuals and societies come to understand and internalize that truth are distinct but interconnected. My point is that, even if moral truths remain constant, the human recognition and application of those truths evolve over time. The issue isn’t whether the truth itself changes, but how we come to understand and act upon it.

Which is the exact thing I’ve been saying all along.

This distinction is key, and it’s why your response presents a false dilemma—by ignoring the dynamic process of moral understanding and focusing solely on the static nature of moral truth.

The dilemma I offered was only about one part of that distinction. Within that one part there is an either-or choice.

My original question was about why the OGM should be considered more accurate or reliable than the SGM, given that both models have similar explanatory scope. While you’ve engaged with specific elements of each model, you haven’t provided an overarching argument that explains why the OGM is inherently more accurate or reliable as a framework.

I already addressed this. We have covered way too much here and an accurate comparison would need to take one element at a time. I asked for you to choose the first thing to focus on, whatever you think is the strongest in favor of SGM. That offer still stands.