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

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #60]

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

Prioritizing criteria is essential because certain aspects, such as personal spiritual growth (which the SGM emphasizes), may be more relevant in some contexts than universal principles (as in OGM). While all criteria are valuable, they don’t always carry equal weight depending on what’s being evaluated. Dismissing the need for prioritization misses the nuance of how different models serve different purposes. Can you explain why you think all criteria should always be weighted equally?

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

The difference lies in the source of moral authority. In the SGM, moral boundaries are discerned through personal spiritual growth, reflection, and communal interaction, rather than being prescribed by an external objective standard. The SGM allows for an evolving moral understanding, whereas the OGM often relies on fixed moral truths from external sources. Can you clarify why you believe the OGM’s approach results in clearer moral boundaries?

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

I appreciate that you acknowledge the misunderstanding. Now that we’re on the same page, how do you view the dynamic growth in the SGM, where personal experiences with GOD evolve over time, as opposed to the more static criteria in the OGM? I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on how growth in one’s relationship with GOD can occur within the OGM framework.

"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."

I appreciate that we both need to provide more context. However, my question was about your claim regarding "widely tested statements." Could you explain where these statements come from in the OGM and how they are tested? Once that’s clarified, I’m happy to discuss how personal experience in the SGM can also be validated.

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

Thanks for the clarification. I’m specifically referring to the kind of self-doubt that can arise from constantly seeking external validation, which I think the OGM might inadvertently encourage. Humility is important, but it’s not the same as doubting one’s relationship with GOD. Do you think the OGM risks fostering this kind of self-doubt due to its emphasis on external authority?

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

I appreciate the examples you gave, but my point was that the Kingdom of GOD, as Jesus taught, involves much more than external actions. It requires a deeper internal transformation of individuals and society. How do you think the OGM addresses this internal moral and spiritual evolution as part of building the Kingdom, beyond just external acts of charity?

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

While I understand that various Christian communities may have acknowledged past wrongs, my concern is about the broader Christian institution as a whole. Without collective or systemic acknowledgment, how can we be sure that these historical issues won’t resurface and overshadow the good things being done? Even if there isn’t a single spokesperson, isn’t there still a need for collective responsibility to address and prevent recurring issues?

"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?"

While it’s true that some Christians are actively engaging, my concern is about how we ensure the permanence of these contributions if the deeper systemic and spiritual dimensions of the Kingdom aren’t addressed. Even if some are fully engaged, can we say that the Kingdom of GOD is being fully realized if large portions of the community are still waiting for divine intervention rather than engaging in the present? How do we measure progress in that case?

Regarding the SGM, while it acknowledges that individuals are at different stages of their journey, it emphasizes active engagement in the co-creative process with GOD. Could you clarify how the OGM handles the potential for passivity in light of waiting for divine intervention?

"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 that the OGM emphasizes rejecting the bad and fighting for the good, but my concern is about how institutional authority within the OGM may still enable harmful practices to continue under the guise of moral truth. While the OGM may reject harmful practices in theory, its structural reliance on external authority can sometimes lead to compromise in practice. How does the OGM ensure that harmful practices don’t persist within the institutional framework itself, particularly when history shows that such institutions have allowed harm to continue?

Regarding the SGM, while it acknowledges that people are on a growth path, it emphasizes internal moral development and personal accountability as a way to continually confront and resolve harmful behaviors. Could you clarify how the OGM’s institutional focus avoids perpetuating harm, given its reliance on external authority?

"I’d say the same about the OGM."

While you mention that the OGM might have a similar approach to free will, my focus was on how the SGM uses free will to foster a collaborative relationship with GOD, leading to moral clarity and unity. Could you clarify how the OGM specifically fosters unity and moral clarity through free will? How does it ensure that free will doesn’t just result in disagreement or division but leads to a deeper, more unified spiritual relationship with GOD?

"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."

The SGM doesn’t support extreme contradictions like child sacrifice because it emphasizes spiritual growth and moral clarity through an ongoing relationship with GOD. While the SGM allows for individuality in understanding, it’s not a free-for-all where anything is acceptable. The alignment with GOD’s will and moral discernment ensures that harmful practices are not justified.

Additionally, you haven’t addressed how institutional influences within the OGM lead to varied interpretations despite claims of objective truth. How does the OGM ensure that institutional authority doesn’t result in contradictory moral applications or interpretations?

"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."

I agree that free will allows for disagreement, but my point was that in the SGM, free will can be harnessed for spiritual growth and collaboration, fostering unity rather than conflict. It’s not simply a matter of free will leading to disagreement, but rather how free will is aligned with GOD’s will to foster moral clarity and mutual understanding. How does the OGM ensure that free will leads to unity and moral clarity rather than just potential disagreement?

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

I appreciate that we seem to agree on the distinction between moral truths remaining constant and the human understanding of these truths evolving. However, my point is that the SGM emphasizes this dynamic growth in a more integrated way, where individual and societal understanding of moral truths evolves through personal spiritual experience. Could you clarify how the OGM handles this evolution of understanding while maintaining its focus on objective moral truths?

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

I understand that your dilemma focused on one part of the distinction, but my concern is that by framing it as an either-or choice, it overlooks the dynamic nature of moral understanding. The SGM emphasizes the evolution of moral understanding, allowing individuals to grow in their recognition of moral truths. How does the OGM account for this growth while maintaining a focus on static moral truths?

"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."

I understand your point about focusing on specific elements one at a time, but I was asking for a more comprehensive view of why you believe the OGM is more reliable or accurate overall compared to the SGM. While breaking down elements can help, a broader justification would provide clarity on why the OGM is superior as a whole. Could you offer an overarching argument as to why the OGM should be considered more reliable or accurate as a framework, rather than focusing on just individual aspects?

[The Tanager]

I understand your point about focusing on specific elements one at a time, but I was asking for a more comprehensive view of why you believe the OGM is more reliable or accurate overall compared to the SGM. While breaking down elements can help, a broader justification would provide clarity on why the OGM is superior as a whole. Could you offer an overarching argument as to why the OGM should be considered more reliable or accurate as a framework, rather than focusing on just individual aspects?

No, for two reasons.

First, it’s still not exactly clear what SGM and OGM really are in your thinking. You’ve said a lot of stuff that is confusing at times. If you could give a one sentence definition for each, that might help. I’ve been trying to piece it together, but your critiques of OGM often seem off-target of what I actually think occurs and what you say about SGM, I would say is true of OGM. The main difference is that SGM seems to be suspicious of individuals grouping together to make statements and communities.

Second, offering a comprehensive view means sharing all the individual, specific points in favor. Doing it all at once is overwhelming and will lead to confusion. Perhaps I’m just misunderstanding what you are asking for. If you have an overarching argument that you could put in bullet points for SGM, perhaps that would clear things up for me and I’d be able to share a similar overarching argument.

Prioritizing criteria is essential because certain aspects, such as personal spiritual growth (which the SGM emphasizes), may be more relevant in some contexts than universal principles (as in OGM). While all criteria are valuable, they don’t always carry equal weight depending on what’s being evaluated. Dismissing the need for prioritization misses the nuance of how different models serve different purposes. Can you explain why you think all criteria should always be weighted equally?

Personal spiritual growth and universal principles aren’t criteria, but part of the data being analyzed by the criteria. The criteria are things like explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, ad-hocness, concordance with other beliefs, and then comparing the alternatives against each other in relation to those criteria. The OGM explains both personal spiritual growth as well as universal principles.

The difference lies in the source of moral authority. In the SGM, moral boundaries are discerned through personal spiritual growth, reflection, and communal interaction, rather than being prescribed by an external objective standard. The SGM allows for an evolving moral understanding, whereas the OGM often relies on fixed moral truths from external sources. Can you clarify why you believe the OGM’s approach results in clearer moral boundaries?

I’m still confused about your view here. I know you keep saying the above, but then you say other things that seem to suggest something else.

In the other thread you stated that GOD encourages us to learn, through experience, why abusive behavior is wrong and harmful. In other words, GOD recognizes a moral boundary, right? Otherwise GOD wouldn’t judge it to be wrong and harmful or encourage us to learn this truth. This is what OGM means by there being fixed moral truths.

And if humans have to learn this belief, that means it comes from an external source. This isn’t about how humans come to believe this truth from an external source, but the existence of this truth external to humans.

On top of this, in my OGM, I believe humans discern these moral boundaries, moral truths through personal spiritual growth, reflection, and communal interaction (which laws in texts are an example of).

I appreciate that you acknowledge the misunderstanding. Now that we’re on the same page, how do you view the dynamic growth in the SGM, where personal experiences with GOD evolve over time, as opposed to the more static criteria in the OGM? I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on how growth in one’s relationship with GOD can occur within the OGM framework.

What specific “static criteria” are you referring to? I also think people’s relationship with God evolves over time.

I appreciate that we both need to provide more context. However, my question was about your claim regarding "widely tested statements." Could you explain where these statements come from in the OGM and how they are tested? Once that’s clarified, I’m happy to discuss how personal experience in the SGM can also be validated.

I mean that having other people as a sounding board, of sharing a different perspective or different points you never considered, critiques, etc. provides a richer engagement with an issue than we can have on our own. When our personal, subjective experiences are the authoritative voice, then our scope offers too many blind spots.

Thanks for the clarification. I’m specifically referring to the kind of self-doubt that can arise from constantly seeking external validation, which I think the OGM might inadvertently encourage. Humility is important, but it’s not the same as doubting one’s relationship with GOD. Do you think the OGM risks fostering this kind of self-doubt due to its emphasis on external authority?

Seeking external validation of truth is a good thing. We seek it in science. We seek it in math. Why not spiritual truth as well? Seeking external validation from others is not a good thing because truth takes the back seat. My Christian OGM does not foster the second and the self-doubt that can arise from that second approach.

The approaches that encourage this second type are the ones that prize “toleration” above all else, where all worldviews are seen as true, for fear of not being liked/accepted by everyone else. I’m not saying that is your view, but those that have that view do share the same kind of SGM approach you seem to be talking about.

I appreciate the examples you gave, but my point was that the Kingdom of GOD, as Jesus taught, involves much more than external actions. It requires a deeper internal transformation of individuals and society. How do you think the OGM addresses this internal moral and spiritual evolution as part of building the Kingdom, beyond just external acts of charity?

Christianity, as an OGM, is all about a deeper internal transformation, as the way to transform society, where both aspects (personal transformation and external actions) are the building of the Kingdom.

While I understand that various Christian communities may have acknowledged past wrongs, my concern is about the broader Christian institution as a whole. Without collective or systemic acknowledgment, how can we be sure that these historical issues won’t resurface and overshadow the good things being done? Even if there isn’t a single spokesperson, isn’t there still a need for collective responsibility to address and prevent recurring issues?

There is not one Christian institution as a whole, so I don’t know what you asking for here.

While it’s true that some Christians are actively engaging, my concern is about how we ensure the permanence of these contributions if the deeper systemic and spiritual dimensions of the Kingdom aren’t addressed.

We have no power to ensure continued contributions, we can only try to influence one’s self and others to do so.

Even if some are fully engaged, can we say that the Kingdom of GOD is being fully realized if large portions of the community are still waiting for divine intervention rather than engaging in the present? How do we measure progress in that case?

I don’t know what you mean by “being fully realized”. It can only be fully realized when the whole community is there. But it being in the process of being fully realized logically requires that we aren’t there yet, which means that there has to be portions of the community not experiencing it yet (whether they are just waiting for divine intervention or are the ones hurting, ignored, forgotten, etc.).

Regarding the SGM, while it acknowledges that individuals are at different stages of their journey, it emphasizes active engagement in the co-creative process with GOD. Could you clarify how the OGM handles the potential for passivity in light of waiting for divine intervention?

It acknowledge that individuals are at different stages of their journey, while emphasizing all to engage in the co-creative process with God at ever deepening levels.

While the OGM may reject harmful practices in theory, its structural reliance on external authority can sometimes lead to compromise in practice.

And the SGM reliance on self can sometimes lead to uninformed, biased, selfish compromises in practice.

Regarding the SGM, while it acknowledges that people are on a growth path, it emphasizes internal moral development and personal accountability as a way to continually confront and resolve harmful behaviors.

The OGM also emphasis internal moral development and personal accountability, but with a more widely tested database.

While you mention that the OGM might have a similar approach to free will, my focus was on how the SGM uses free will to foster a collaborative relationship with GOD, leading to moral clarity and unity. Could you clarify how the OGM specifically fosters unity and moral clarity through free will? How does it ensure that free will doesn’t just result in disagreement or division but leads to a deeper, more unified spiritual relationship with GOD?

How can SGM ensure free will doesn’t result in disagreement or division? Neither can.

Additionally, you haven’t addressed how institutional influences within the OGM lead to varied interpretations despite claims of objective truth. How does the OGM ensure that institutional authority doesn’t result in contradictory moral applications or interpretations?

It can’t. Any system with free will, including any SGM, logically cannot.

I agree that free will allows for disagreement, but my point was that in the SGM, free will can be harnessed for spiritual growth and collaboration, fostering unity rather than conflict.

Free will can also be harnessed for spiritual regression, division, and conflict, whether in a SGM or OGM.

I understand that your dilemma focused on one part of the distinction, but my concern is that by framing it as an either-or choice, it overlooks the dynamic nature of moral understanding.

Saying moral truth is either (1) unchanging or (2) has changed is completely separate from the dynamic or static nature of moral understanding. As two separate issues, believing one doesn’t cause one to overlook the other.

The SGM emphasizes the evolution of moral understanding, allowing individuals to grow in their recognition of moral truths. How does the OGM account for this growth while maintaining a focus on static moral truths?

Very easily. There are static moral truths that humans evolve in their understanding of. Nothing contradictory there in the slightest.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #62]

Thank you for your latest responses. I’ll address some key points where I believe SGM’s approach may still be misunderstood or overlooked.

1. Defining the Unique Core of SGM and OGM:
You’ve asked for a simplified definition, so here’s a concise distinction:

SGM (Subjective GOD Model): Prioritizes individual discernment and personal engagement with GOD as the primary means of moral and spiritual growth. Truth emerges through a co-creative relationship between GOD and each person’s subjective experience, rather than through external standards.

OGM (Objective GOD Model): Emphasizes external validation and fixed moral standards, often relying on institutions or communal authorities to interpret and enforce moral truths. In OGM, individuals derive moral guidance from these established, objective standards rather than from a personal co-creative relationship.

SGM’s Focus on Subjective Experience: SGM does not dismiss objective truths outright but instead incorporates them as part of the personal journey. This model understands that spiritual growth stems directly from individual engagement and moral reflection, without needing external validation to define or affirm moral boundaries. The difference lies in where each model places authority: within the individual in SGM, versus an external source in OGM.

2. The Role of Institutional Authority and Historical Reliability:
You emphasize the “widely tested database” of OGM, which assumes that communal authority acts as a safeguard. However, SGM directly critiques this reliance on external authority, especially given historical examples where institutions have allowed harm under the guise of moral or religious authority. This isn’t a hypothetical risk; it’s documented across various religious histories.

In SGM, personal discernment safeguards against institutional failure: By emphasizing individual growth and subjective engagement, SGM advocates for a personal understanding of moral truths that cannot be easily corrupted by institutional power dynamics. It argues that, when unchecked, institutional authority can create “echo chambers,” reinforcing harmful interpretations. Instead, SGM promotes personal accountability and communal interaction that encourages internal moral reflection without relying solely on institutional validation.

3. Free Will and Spiritual Growth in SGM vs. OGM:
SGM doesn’t suggest that free will inherently leads to moral clarity, nor does it ignore the possibility of misuse. Instead, it emphasizes that free will, when aligned with a personal relationship with GOD, fosters growth. In SGM, free will is a tool for evolving in alignment with divine will, rather than solely adhering to predetermined standards.

SGM’s Co-Creative Process: In SGM, free will is not about blind autonomy; it’s a co-creative journey where individuals actively shape their understanding of moral truths through subjective experiences. This is distinct from OGM’s approach, where free will is expressed within the boundaries of external, pre-defined moral standards. SGM argues that individual engagement with GOD’s will can encourage deeper moral unity, as each person grows in alignment with divine principles rather than through institutional mediation.

4. Evolving Moral Understanding in SGM:
You’ve mentioned that moral truths in OGM remain static while individual understanding evolves. SGM agrees that our understanding of moral truths can evolve but emphasizes that this process is deeply personal and internal. SGM does not claim that moral truths change in nature but that human beings grow into a fuller understanding of these truths through personal spiritual engagement.

Dynamic vs. Static Criteria: SGM views moral evolution as an active process shaped by individuals’ subjective encounters with GOD. It differs from OGM’s focus on adhering to fixed moral standards since SGM encourages a personal journey that considers internal moral clarity as fundamental. This allows for a fuller integration of spiritual growth that adapts to each individual’s evolving relationship with GOD.

5. Clarifying Criteria for Evaluation:
Lastly, prioritizing criteria is essential when comparing models. SGM’s emphasis on subjective experience, co-creation, and individual discernment may be more relevant when evaluating personal spiritual growth. In contrast, OGM’s emphasis on communal standards may hold more relevance when looking at broad-scale conformity. But both models serve different purposes, and criteria should reflect these nuances rather than treating all criteria as equal or universal.

Contextual Relevance of Criteria: SGM posits that the weight of criteria like personal growth and subjective discernment varies depending on the purpose of the model. By dismissing the need to prioritize, the evaluation may lose sight of what each model specifically aims to address. Could you clarify why you believe these criteria should be universally applied without adjusting for context?

Closing Note:
I hope these clarifications help address some of the distinctions I see between SGM and OGM. If you’re open to a more focused discussion on any of these specific points, I’m happy to continue exploring this further.

[The Tanager]

SGM (Subjective GOD Model): Prioritizes individual discernment and personal engagement with GOD as the primary means of moral and spiritual growth. Truth emerges through a co-creative relationship between GOD and each person’s subjective experience, rather than through external standards.

OGM (Objective GOD Model): Emphasizes external validation and fixed moral standards, often relying on institutions or communal authorities to interpret and enforce moral truths. In OGM, individuals derive moral guidance from these established, objective standards rather than from a personal co-creative relationship.

SGM’s Focus on Subjective Experience: SGM does not dismiss objective truths outright but instead incorporates them as part of the personal journey. This model understands that spiritual growth stems directly from individual engagement and moral reflection, without needing external validation to define or affirm moral boundaries. The difference lies in where each model places authority: within the individual in SGM, versus an external source in OGM.

Okay, then I reject both models for the middle ground of individual relationships within an objective reality.

You emphasize the “widely tested database” of OGM, which assumes that communal authority acts as a safeguard. However, SGM directly critiques this reliance on external authority, especially given historical examples where institutions have allowed harm under the guise of moral or religious authority. This isn’t a hypothetical risk; it’s documented across various religious histories.

In SGM, personal discernment safeguards against institutional failure: By emphasizing individual growth and subjective engagement, SGM advocates for a personal understanding of moral truths that cannot be easily corrupted by institutional power dynamics. It argues that, when unchecked, institutional authority can create “echo chambers,” reinforcing harmful interpretations. Instead, SGM promotes personal accountability and communal interaction that encourages internal moral reflection without relying solely on institutional validation.

What safeguards against personal failure? That’s not a hypothetical risk, either. This is documented in every single human (except Jesus, in my opinion) that has ever lived.

SGM doesn’t suggest that free will inherently leads to moral clarity, nor does it ignore the possibility of misuse. Instead, it emphasizes that free will, when aligned with a personal relationship with GOD, fosters growth. In SGM, free will is a tool for evolving in alignment with divine will, rather than solely adhering to predetermined standards.

I agree free will fosters spiritual growth when aligned with a personal relationship with God. How is “evolving in alignment with divine will” not the same thing as “adhering to predetermined standards”? The divine will doesn’t change with regard to abuse, right? That is a predetermined standard that we evolve to adhere to.

Lastly, prioritizing criteria is essential when comparing models. SGM’s emphasis on subjective experience, co-creation, and individual discernment may be more relevant when evaluating personal spiritual growth. In contrast, OGM’s emphasis on communal standards may hold more relevance when looking at broad-scale conformity. But both models serve different purposes, and criteria should reflect these nuances rather than treating all criteria as equal or universal.

Contextual Relevance of Criteria: SGM posits that the weight of criteria like personal growth and subjective discernment varies depending on the purpose of the model. By dismissing the need to prioritize, the evaluation may lose sight of what each model specifically aims to address. Could you clarify why you believe these criteria should be universally applied without adjusting for context?

Criteria to judge one model against another must be something outside of any individual model, otherwise it just begs the question being discussed.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #64]

Okay, then I reject both models for the middle ground of individual relationships within an objective reality.

Rejecting Both Models for a “Middle Ground”
Your statement could risk an equivocation fallacy, merging elements of both SGM and OGM without clearly addressing their fundamental differences—specifically, the distinct roles of personal versus external authority.

Could you provide more specifics on how your "middle ground" model safeguards against individual and institutional failures? Also, what would you call this model, and how does it distinguish itself from the frameworks already discussed?

What safeguards against personal failure? That’s not a hypothetical risk, either. This is documented in every single human (except Jesus, in my opinion) that has ever lived.

Critique on Personal Safeguards Against Failure
Your response here may involve a false equivalence, suggesting that individual and institutional failures carry similar impact, despite SGM’s assertion that institutional corruption can lead to widespread harm. The SGM focuses on internal discernment to prevent institutional echo chambers, while OGM often relies on external standards that can amplify biases institutionally.

Could you specify which OGM safeguards you believe effectively prevent institutional harm on a broader scale? This would help clarify how OGM addresses the systemic challenges often associated with its communal authority structure.

I agree free will fosters spiritual growth when aligned with a personal relationship with God. How is “evolving in alignment with divine will” not the same thing as “adhering to predetermined standards”? The divine will doesn’t change with regard to abuse, right? That is a predetermined standard that we evolve to adhere to.

Predetermined Standards and Divine Will
Your question about “evolving in alignment with divine will” versus “adhering to predetermined standards” seems to overlook the SGM’s emphasis on dynamic engagement with moral truths. SGM does not negate the presence of fixed moral benchmarks (such as non-abuse) but argues for individualized, co-creative learning with GOD, acknowledging that temporal suffering may play a part in personal and collective evolution rather than merely justifying suffering as divine decree.

This distinction suggests a possible category error, as it conflates SGM’s focus on an evolving personal moral understanding with OGM’s adherence to externally defined standards. SGM’s approach allows for growth in one’s relationship with GOD, while OGM tends toward fixed interpretations of divine will.

Criteria to judge one model against another must be something outside of any individual model, otherwise it just begs the question being discussed.

On Contextual Relevance of Criteria
SGM does not advocate for subjective criteria but rather suggests that criteria should reflect the model’s purpose: personal growth within SGM and communal conformity within OGM. SGM’s stance on flexible prioritization responds to these specific aims rather than endorsing a lack of standards.

Your response may lean toward a straw man fallacy by suggesting SGM lacks objective standards, whereas it simply advocates weighting criteria based on the context and intent of the model. Could you clarify your approach to weighing personal versus communal criteria, and why you believe they should be universally applied across differing models?

[The Tanager]

Your statement could risk an equivocation fallacy, merging elements of both SGM and OGM without clearly addressing their fundamental differences—specifically, the distinct roles of personal versus external authority.

Could you provide more specifics on how your "middle ground" model safeguards against individual and institutional failures? Also, what would you call this model, and how does it distinguish itself from the frameworks already discussed?

I think individual discernment and personal engagement with God that takes into account the other historical engagements with God that have evidence of truth behind them is the best approach. That goes beyond SGM, but, unlike your definition of OGM, doesn’t ignore the personal co-creative relationship.

In this view, God is the authority over both individuals and institutions. God is the safeguard against individual and institutional failures. Both individuals and institutions, as far as they turn to God’s wisdom, will avoid those failures. God can provide revelations to safeguard both the individual and the institution, such as written text, institutions, etc.

Yes, people can reject God and corrupt texts, institutions, etc. But I think we can objectively compare such texts, institutions, etc. Obviously, I think this comparison leads to Jesus’ views and the historical traditions that best capture those views being the objectively more rational one.

Your response here may involve a false equivalence, suggesting that individual and institutional failures carry similar impact, despite SGM’s assertion that institutional corruption can lead to widespread harm.

I’m not saying the impact is the same. When we get in groups, we can do much more damage. When our groups become social institutions, they can do even more damage.

Your question about “evolving in alignment with divine will” versus “adhering to predetermined standards” seems to overlook the SGM’s emphasis on dynamic engagement with moral truths. SGM does not negate the presence of fixed moral benchmarks (such as non-abuse) but argues for individualized, co-creative learning with GOD, acknowledging that temporal suffering may play a part in personal and collective evolution rather than merely justifying suffering as divine decree.

This distinction suggests a possible category error, as it conflates SGM’s focus on an evolving personal moral understanding with OGM’s adherence to externally defined standards. SGM’s approach allows for growth in one’s relationship with GOD, while OGM tends toward fixed interpretations of divine will.

I completely agree. You seem to be overlooking that I, as a Christian, believe in this individualized, co-creative learning process with God. You seem to be overlooking that I believe God uses temporal suffering to help us evolve in our thinking and actions. You seem to be overlooking that I don’t merely justify suffering as divine decree.

The “fixed interpretations of divine will” to me are the presence of what you call “fixed moral benchmarks”. It is a fixed interpretation of divine will that we ought not to abuse people. I believe that. Even if you think the Bible says otherwise, that is a secondary issue, because if the Bible says otherwise, then I will reject the Bible and still believe that we ought not to abuse people.

My view allows for people who do not believe that and for people who do not perfectly practice that (which is probably everyone, myself included) to grow towards the fixed interpretation, towards God’s moral benchmark.

I see absolutely no difference. You may see a difference, but you have to do more than just say my worldview is doing X, while you are doing Y. Specific examples could help.

SGM does not advocate for subjective criteria but rather suggests that criteria should reflect the model’s purpose: personal growth within SGM and communal conformity within OGM. SGM’s stance on flexible prioritization responds to these specific aims rather than endorsing a lack of standards.

Saying there is one criteria for A and another criteria for B is the definition of being a subjective criteria. An objective criteria is the same for both.

Your response may lean toward a straw man fallacy by suggesting SGM lacks objective standards, whereas it simply advocates weighting criteria based on the context and intent of the model.

I have not suggested that SGM lacks objective standards. I’ve said the criteria you’ve mentioned is different for SGM then it is for OGM and, therefore, is the very definition of being subjective criteria.

Could you clarify your approach to weighing personal versus communal criteria, and why you believe they should be universally applied across differing models?

What I’ve said is that “personal” criteria and “communal” criteria aren’t criteria at all. They are data from the different methods that need to be analyzed by actual criteria such as explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, and more. Those are the actual criteria that have to be universally applied to be of any worth at all.

Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges by saying apples are more like apples and oranges are more like oranges. Of course they are. But if one wants to actually compare apples and oranges, one must apply the exact same criteria to do so. This is logically necessary.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #66]

1. Defining the Middle Ground Model and Its Safeguards

Thank you for clarifying your middle-ground model as one that incorporates both individual discernment and historical, objective truths. However, as it stands, it seems to merge elements from both SGM and OGM without fully distinguishing how it mitigates the inherent risks each faces (e.g., SGM’s challenge with individual biases and OGM’s potential for institutional stagnation or bias).

Could you define this model more explicitly and describe how it avoids the pitfalls of both SGM’s personal flexibility and OGM’s reliance on fixed standards? Also, as this model seems to rely on external sources, such as Jesus’ teachings, for validation, could you elaborate on what specific safeguards it employs to address risks of individual and institutional failures? This would bring clarity to how this approach stands apart from both SGM and OGM as a distinct framework.

2. Addressing False Equivalence in Individual vs. Institutional Failures

While you acknowledge that institutional groups can cause more harm when unchecked, SGM argues that institutional corruption is particularly pervasive because fixed standards can lead to systemic harm. By prioritizing personal discernment and adaptability, SGM avoids the institutional echo chambers that can arise from rigid standards.

Could you clarify what specific methods your model uses to prevent institutional harm on a broader scale, especially considering that communal standards might carry and amplify inherent biases? This would help clarify how institutional checks are applied in your model without simply relying on individual discernment alone.

3. Distinguishing Dynamic Engagement from Fixed Standards

You mentioned that you support individualized, co-creative learning, which SGM also emphasizes. However, SGM posits that moral understanding grows through a dynamic process of engagement with GOD, where fixed moral benchmarks (e.g., non-abuse) serve as foundational principles rather than rigid standards. This approach allows individuals to expand their understanding without defaulting to predefined moral “rules.”

Could you clarify how your model navigates the balance between co-creative learning and adherence to predetermined standards, especially in cases where evolving understanding might necessitate re-evaluating established norms? Specific examples of where this approach diverges from fixed standards would clarify how dynamic engagement functions in your view.

4. On Subjective vs. Objective Criteria

SGM does not advocate for purely subjective criteria but rather prioritizes context-based criteria that reflect the model’s unique aims. In SGM, personal growth and internal alignment are emphasized, while OGM often upholds communal standards. This is why SGM suggests flexible criteria, tailored to the intent of each model, rather than subjective standards without structure.

Could you elaborate on why you feel these criteria should be universally applied across differing models? Each model’s context-driven focus means that universal criteria might overlook the distinctive purposes each is meant to fulfill (personal growth in SGM and communal conformity in OGM). A clearer rationale for universal criteria might help in comparing models with different intents.

5. Criteria for Weighing Personal vs. Communal Aims

I agree that criteria like explanatory power and plausibility are fundamental for assessing models. However, SGM posits that criteria should also reflect each model’s purpose. For instance, personal growth in SGM may be best measured through criteria aligned with internal, spiritual development, while communal goals in OGM might prioritize social cohesion.

Could you clarify how your model applies criteria to balance personal and communal aims, and why you believe these criteria should be universally applied? By tailoring criteria to each model’s goals, we ensure a fair assessment rather than imposing one model’s standards on another.
________________________________

These distinctions invite a more focused engagement with the differences between SGM and OGM and clarify how each model addresses inherent risks. This approach could help ensure our discussion stays aligned with each model’s unique purpose.

[The Tanager]

Thank you for clarifying your middle-ground model as one that incorporates both individual discernment and historical, objective truths. However, as it stands, it seems to merge elements from both SGM and OGM without fully distinguishing how it mitigates the inherent risks each faces (e.g., SGM’s challenge with individual biases and OGM’s potential for institutional stagnation or bias).

Could you define this model more explicitly and describe how it avoids the pitfalls of both SGM’s personal flexibility and OGM’s reliance on fixed standards? Also, as this model seems to rely on external sources, such as Jesus’ teachings, for validation, could you elaborate on what specific safeguards it employs to address risks of individual and institutional failures? This would bring clarity to how this approach stands apart from both SGM and OGM as a distinct framework.

Individual biases are fought against via God’s personal interactions with the individual, as well as the community witness. Institutional biases are fought against via God’s personal interactions with the individuals in the institution, as well as the individual’s call for justice when the institution ignores it. Jesus’ teachings play a key role in both of these.

While you acknowledge that institutional groups can cause more harm when unchecked, SGM argues that institutional corruption is particularly pervasive because fixed standards can lead to systemic harm. By prioritizing personal discernment and adaptability, SGM avoids the institutional echo chambers that can arise from rigid standards.

Could you clarify what specific methods your model uses to prevent institutional harm on a broader scale, especially considering that communal standards might carry and amplify inherent biases? This would help clarify how institutional checks are applied in your model without simply relying on individual discernment alone.

Bad fixed standards lead to systemic harm, not just any fixed standards.Biblical texts consistently call into question institutional abuses and biases, and relying on God’s wisdom.

While personal discernment and adaptability can check against institutional echo chambers, it actually is more apt to keep individuals in their own personal echo chambers, rather than testing their views against the wider community witness.

You mentioned that you support individualized, co-creative learning, which SGM also emphasizes. However, SGM posits that moral understanding grows through a dynamic process of engagement with GOD, where fixed moral benchmarks (e.g., non-abuse) serve as foundational principles rather than rigid standards. This approach allows individuals to expand their understanding without defaulting to predefined moral “rules.”

Could you clarify how your model navigates the balance between co-creative learning and adherence to predetermined standards, especially in cases where evolving understanding might necessitate re-evaluating established norms? Specific examples of where this approach diverges from fixed standards would clarify how dynamic engagement functions in your view.

I don’t understand this. Why are “foundational principles” different from “moral ‘rules’”?

You also seem to be assuming that the fixed standards are wrong and therefore need to be reevaluated for humans to evolve progressively. What is morally true has always been morally true. It’s not a constant move upwards through history. It’s a story of getting away from truth and trying to find our way back to what has always been established.

SGM does not advocate for purely subjective criteria but rather prioritizes context-based criteria that reflect the model’s unique aims. In SGM, personal growth and internal alignment are emphasized, while OGM often upholds communal standards. This is why SGM suggests flexible criteria, tailored to the intent of each model, rather than subjective standards without structure.

Could you elaborate on why you feel these criteria should be universally applied across differing models? Each model’s context-driven focus means that universal criteria might overlook the distinctive purposes each is meant to fulfill (personal growth in SGM and communal conformity in OGM). A clearer rationale for universal criteria might help in comparing models with different intents.

These are NOT criteria you are talking about. You are talking about features of the models. Criteria judges the features. Until you realize this (or actually show why I’m wrong instead of just re-asserting they are criteria), we can’t move forward.

I agree that criteria like explanatory power and plausibility are fundamental for assessing models. However, SGM posits that criteria should also reflect each model’s purpose. For instance, personal growth in SGM may be best measured through criteria aligned with internal, spiritual development, while communal goals in OGM might prioritize social cohesion.

Could you clarify how your model applies criteria to balance personal and communal aims, and why you believe these criteria should be universally applied? By tailoring criteria to each model’s goals, we ensure a fair assessment rather than imposing one model’s standards on another.

No, we should not be imposing any model’s features on another as the standards. The standards must come from outside the model to be of any objective use. Which model provides personal growth or accounts for personal growth best is measured through actual criteria and can be measured, along with every other piece of data.

No, personal growth can be measured in both models and compared to each other. Then the criteria compares those measurements. You seem to be thinking SGM is the only model to account for, or hold up, personal growth. It’s not. If you are going to define OGM in a way that it can’t speak to actual personal growth, then my model isn’t an OGM.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #68]

Thank you for your response. I’d like to follow up with a few specific clarifications based on the Subjective GOD Model (SGM) principles, which might help refine the distinctions between our models.

1. Defining Middle-Ground Model Safeguards against Bias
You mentioned that individual and institutional biases are countered by God’s interactions with individuals and the witness of the community, with a reliance on teachings like those of Jesus. However, in SGM, internal discernment through a co-creative process with GOD is central to preventing biases, rather than external or institutional standards.

Clarification Requested: Could you elaborate on how your model uniquely safeguards against institutional bias without relying heavily on fixed external teachings? This would help clarify how your approach avoids institutional stagnation or echo chambers.

2. Preventing Institutional Harm without Rigid Standards
You suggested that “bad” fixed standards lead to harm, while personal discernment risks creating echo chambers. However, SGM maintains that adaptable, personal discernment—rooted in an evolving relationship with GOD—mitigates both individual and institutional biases.

Clarification Requested: Could you specify methods within your model that counter institutional biases without reinforcing a rigid framework? This would clarify how your model avoids systemic biases that can arise from institutional standards.

3. Balancing Co-Creative Learning with Fixed Moral Standards
In your response, you questioned the distinction between foundational principles and moral rules, suggesting that moral truths are unchanging. SGM views foundational principles as flexible guides that individuals can re-evaluate as they deepen their engagement with GOD.

Clarification Requested: Could you clarify how your model navigates between co-creative learning and adherence to predetermined standards, especially when evolving understanding might require re-evaluating norms? Specific examples could help illustrate how your model balances these elements.

4. Objective vs. Context-Based Criteria
You argued that the features I mentioned are not criteria. However, SGM suggests that criteria should align with each model’s unique goals, with flexible, context-driven criteria rather than universal standards.

Clarification Requested: Could you elaborate on why universal criteria would apply equally across models with different aims? This would clarify how your model supports fair comparisons without imposing external standards that might overlook each model’s purpose.

5. Criteria for Balancing Personal and Communal Aims
You mentioned that criteria should come from outside the model and can measure personal growth in both SGM and OGM. SGM, however, emphasizes criteria tailored to its goals of personal growth and alignment with divine values.

Clarification Requested: Could you clarify how your model applies criteria to balance personal and communal aims without imposing one model’s standards on another? This would help illuminate how universal criteria can fairly assess models with distinct purposes.

______________________________

1. Defining Middle-Ground Model Safeguards against Bias


Relevant SGM Points:

Point 2: Subjective Moral Authority and Internal Moral Framework – SGM emphasizes that moral authority resides within individuals, who discern through a personal relationship with GOD rather than through external institutions or fixed standards. This process inherently guards against institutional bias by placing responsibility for discernment on the individual rather than on an institution.

Point 9: GOD as an Integrated, Subjective Presence – SGM promotes an internal relationship with GOD rather than relying on objectified or institutionalized forms of divine authority. This subjective, direct experience acts as a safeguard against rigid external teachings that can lead to institutional stagnation.

2. Preventing Institutional Harm without Rigid Standards


Relevant SGM Points:

Point 6: Unity, Interconnectedness, and Inclusivity – SGM’s emphasis on empathy and adaptability allows individuals to respond to changing contexts rather than being confined to rigid standards. This adaptability is central to preventing institutional harm, as it resists institutional echo chambers and promotes inclusive, evolving moral understanding.

Point 1: Co-Creation with GOD and Evolving Moral Truths – In SGM, morality is dynamic and co-created with GOD, allowing individuals to refine their moral understanding in real-time. This flexibility mitigates both institutional and personal echo chambers by enabling constant moral growth rather than adherence to fixed standards.
3. Balancing Co-Creative Learning with Fixed Moral Standards
Tanager’s Critique: Tanager questioned the difference between “foundational principles” and “moral rules” and asserted that moral truths are unchanging.

Relevant SGM Points:

Point 1: Co-Creation with GOD and Evolving Moral Truths – SGM views morality as an evolving, co-creative process. Foundational principles, such as non-abuse, act as adaptable guidelines rather than rigid rules, allowing individuals to re-evaluate these norms in their evolving understanding with GOD.

Point 4: Forgiveness and Spiritual Healing – The emphasis on forgiveness and personal healing highlights SGM’s view that moral principles can be revisited and adapted based on new spiritual insights. This flexibility is key to co-creative learning, as it allows individuals to grow beyond predefined moral rules when necessary.

4. Objective vs. Context-Based Criteria



Relevant SGM Points:

Point 12: Free Will as Rooted in a Pre-Birth Agreement to Experience Humanity – SGM emphasizes that moral and spiritual growth is a personal journey, suggesting that criteria should be specific to each model’s purpose rather than universal. Each person’s journey with GOD involves unique goals and criteria that may not align with universal standards.

Point 2: Subjective Moral Authority and Internal Moral Framework – This point underscores that criteria are filtered through an individual’s relationship with GOD, supporting the use of context-driven rather than universal criteria to assess moral growth, which aligns with SGM’s personalized approach.

5. Criteria for Balancing Personal and Communal Aims



Relevant SGM Points:

Point 5: Responsibility, Agency, and Historical Accountability – SGM stresses individual accountability and transformation based on personal growth. Tailoring criteria to individual growth rather than imposing communal standards is essential to SGM, which places a high value on personal development within one’s unique spiritual journey.

Point 6: Unity, Interconnectedness, and Inclusivity – SGM promotes inclusivity and adaptability, aligning criteria with each individual’s goals rather than enforcing one-size-fits-all standards. This approach helps balance personal and communal aims by ensuring that criteria respect each person’s path to growth rather than applying external standards indiscriminately.

SOURCE. Comprehensive Summary of the Subjective GOD Model (SGM)


Note.
SGM aligns with the essence of Jesus’ teachings, especially when viewed through the principles of compassion, personal growth, direct relationship with GOD, and interpretive flexibility. Rather than being “at odds” with Jesus’ message, SGM offers a compatible framework that honors the core values Jesus taught, albeit with a modern emphasis on individual discernment and an evolving moral understanding.

[The Tanager]

Could you elaborate on how your model uniquely safeguards against institutional bias without relying heavily on fixed external teachings? This would help clarify how your approach avoids institutional stagnation or echo chambers.

First, why do we need to not rely on fixed eternal teachings? Second, I already mentioned this is also done through God’s personal interactions with individuals, like you seem to be saying with SGM.

You suggested that “bad” fixed standards lead to harm, while personal discernment risks creating echo chambers. However, SGM maintains that adaptable, personal discernment—rooted in an evolving relationship with GOD—mitigates both individual and institutional biases.

Yes, IF it’s actually rooted in a relationship with God and reliance on God’s wisdom, rather than rejecting that.

Could you clarify how your model navigates between co-creative learning and adherence to predetermined standards, especially when evolving understanding might require re-evaluating norms?

Why would true understanding require re-evaluating norms if the truth has already been discovered?

You argued that the features I mentioned are not criteria. However, SGM suggests that criteria should align with each model’s unique goals, with flexible, context-driven criteria rather than universal standards.

Clarification Requested: Could you elaborate on why universal criteria would apply equally across models with different aims?

The aim/goal we are talking about here is which model is truer/better; the models share that goal. The criteria must be towards that goal.

You mentioned that criteria should come from outside the model and can measure personal growth in both SGM and OGM. SGM, however, emphasizes criteria tailored to its goals of personal growth and alignment with divine values.

You are (unintentionally) equivocating. SGM emphasizes elements tailored to its goals, but not criteria. Criteria judges SGM and its elements against other models and their elements on which is truer/better.

SGM aligns with the essence of Jesus’ teachings, especially when viewed through the principles of compassion, personal growth, direct relationship with GOD, and interpretive flexibility. Rather than being “at odds” with Jesus’ message, SGM offers a compatible framework that honors the core values Jesus taught, albeit with a modern emphasis on individual discernment and an evolving moral understanding.

Jesus believed in and taught objective truths, including objective moral truths. Those include compassion, the need for personal growth, direct relationship with God, but not interpretive flexibility if you mean flexible as regards truth. To reject objective truths, a community responsible for passing those down, a community responsible for seeking the good of the world, things like that is to be at odds with Jesus’ message.