God is necessary for morality to survive | Polichickster v Dante

[emilynghiem]

Dear Dante PoliticalChic and Redbone:
A. the issue of sincerity seems to be a side debate going on.
I find there can be sincerity on one level while insincerity on another,
so I think that can be resolved by distinguishing the two levels
and showing both positions can be correct at the same time.

B. what about this way of framing the God's will issue

What if God's will means being supreme
then it is 100% effective.
That whatever happens effectively is God's will.
(or at least can be argued to be within God's will, including where disagreements
occur on what and why as part of the process or human experience
that is happening and thus is part of God's will that we learn from these things.
you don't have to agree that there is a God willing these things
to reach an agree that if they are indeed occurring that is EFFECTIVELY what is happening
regardless of reason, motivation or how we describe these using our own systems.).

So can use "effectiveness" to mean God's will?
Where anything that "fails" was obviously not God's will?

The areas, then where people disagree:
a. we don't always agree what happened:
did Bush steal the election from the Democrats
or did Obama steal the election from opponents
were Bush's actions as President more or less
unconstitutional than Obama's etc. etc.

But what we CAN agree on is, for whatever reason
or result comes from it, we CAN agree that it DID happen that
Bush as President took actions argued unconstitutional
by opponents and
Obama as President also took actions argued unconstitutional
by opponents
AND it is within "God's will" that this has the EFFECT
of people disagreeing and blaming the cause of conflict back and forth.

So we can agree that is EFFECTIVELY what happened
and this meets whatever is meant by God's will
(even if not God's ideal will, it did occur and thus
if God's will is supreme this is being allowed or caused to happen
or whatever)

b. Where we also may agree or disagree
is what we EFFECTIVELY learn or are motivated to do
with these actions occurring. and
c. what terms or standards to express our views,
from political to religious or secular/nontheistic.

So that is where the morality arguments come in,
is trying to justify what is right and wrong
and what needs to be fixed given that people
disagree over these outcomes and
aren't happy and are pushing for change.
c. we don't agree on the terms used and
b. don't agree yet on what EFFECTIVE things can be learned
from either outcomes we disagree or agree were ideal to have happened
(such as my proposal to focus on the difference between
retributive vs. restorative justice as an EFFECTIVE way
to distinguish what helps people to reach agreement on points, ideals or focus, regardless of viewpoint)

What I am asking is instead of arguing in terms of
"morality" or "sincerity" which can be confusing since
people have relative perceptions and ways of expression.

Can we agree to focus on what we AGREE
is most "effective" (and why or why not something is going to
fail to work for all people), so that if one person believes
morality or teaching God a certain way is the
most effective way to organize humanity on
the same page (to consolidate and save resources
by working collaboratively in harmonious teamwork
as opposed to wasting resources on unresolved conflict and division),
then THAT can be included as a factor for that person
in order to reach an agreement on what is going to be EFFECTIVE longterm.

And if someone else doesn't use the same standards or expression,
but has some other way of framing motivations as favorable or unfavorable,
then focusing on where we respectively AGREE
would also have to satisfy THAT system of deciding what action or
perspective to take in any given situation that is the most EFFECTIVE.

I would say, again, that regardless of one's views about God,
a common UNDERSTANDING of God is necessary in order
to COMMUNICATE, agree on and achieve what is sought as the most just, the most moral,
the most effective or [whatever fill in the blank] way of doing things in the long run
or the short term or both (whatever people AGREE on as the most EFFECTIVE focus given our diverse standards we want to meet).

We may still use different terms or methods for describing the best way
we prefer to approach things, but the common factor
is AGREEING that something meets the diverse standards of different
people EFFECTIVELY,
and is thus the most effective for at least THOSE people
since we don't waste time or resources in conflict.

Are you okay with any of that?
Are you okay with framing God's will in terms of effectiveness
or sustainability over the longrun?

 

[Redbone]

Very nice to see that you understood my main point . Dante failed to get even that. I also pointed out that Hitler was not wrapped in a " holy cloak of sincerity". His propaganda was a tool. Dante so impressed with Hitler's sincerity dared to attempt to legitimize it further by associating it with Gandhi's true sincerity and just cause. My pointing this out to Dante was returned by his condescending and diverting replies which were in essence his avoiding the truth. Instead of discussing that validity of that truth he chose to belittle it by assuming his Godlike status and giving his dismissal ploy.
Such tactics play well with lesser lights but fail to impress those not so dim.

Stating facts without morality as a barrier.

True sincerity and just causes? A cause is just to those who believe in it. Hitler believed in the justness of his cause as much as Gandhi did, maybe even more so.

I will post the definition AGAIN

sin·cere
/sinˈsi(&#601r/
Adjective

1) Free from pretense or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings.
2) (of a person) Saying what they genuinely feel or believe; not dishonest or hypocritical.

Synonyms
candid - genuine - honest - frank - straightforward

If you all want to argue that Hitler's feelings weren't genuine, go for it.

-------

Dante even gave people credit at times:
Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion,[1] is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question.

Hi Dante and Redbone:
Yes and no.
From Hitler's perception, of course he was sincere.

From a larger perspective what I am arguing at least is there was self-deceit and denial involved in order to harness that viewpoint and energy AGAINST one group.
That is not sustainable over the big picture.

How Redbone stated it was that Gandhi based his motivations on what was serving all humanity equally to be free.

The way a Jewish-Buddhist peace and justice organizer stated it, from his experience bringing together people of all backgrounds to heal in their own ways at workshops he holds at Auschwitz and other sites, was that:
as long as a person or group holds onto an ideology divided in ANY way as "them vs. us"
then it will self-destruct at some point due to divisive energy, the delusion that we can separate ourselves from the whole of humanity will contradict itself and not last.
He even cited Occupy as divisive, even by the 1% and the 99% was not enough for unity.
And I fully agree and was glad to hear someone finally say this!

Dante as for proof of sincerity on one level but not the other, most of this is by experience.
You can look at political parties and religions: the people who divided themselves from some other person or group and start splitting their energy to work for themselves while against the other group/ideology are not as unified and consistent as those who can work ACROSS religious political or personal lines to COMBINE their energies and solve problems together. Mediation has been shown to save relationships and resources, while litigation has a history of abuse to destroy people and relations as well as consume or waste time and resources that could have gone into solving problems.

So Dante I would say you are right on a local level, that of course Hitler was sincere; and I might even point out he was more concentrated and effective in what he sought to do because of that vs. Gandhi who in being universal and open to consensual/nonviolence instead of coercive methods is going to take longer to achieve that and in the short term is not as immediately effective in the bigger goal as Hitler in his short term impact he had.

But on the larger level that Redbone and I are addressing,
Gandhi was more effective and sincere
and Hitler was self-defeating. Because his methods are not sustainable, in achieving
a long term effect only short term until his regime implodes, then he is not sincere
in terms of what is the best method of promoting what he wants and sustaining it longterm.
But Gandhi's are sincere to this end. So when we are sincere in our efforts to be effective
and to avoid failure over the longterm (not just short term political gain), eventually we learn to trust and work with the
all-inclusive noncoersive means of working with others toward justice
and not using divisive means for local or temporary political power
that is not sustainable and falls apart in the long run because of the division it is based on that cannot maintain cohesiveness
with part of the human energy involved used against itself.

Is this fair:
To say that for the local short term impact,
Hitler "could be viewed" as being equally or even more sincere
or even more effective in his goals and impact
because of his higher concentration of energy on a more limited goal or group

And for the global longer term goal of what it takes to bring justice and peace
and freedom for all humanity,
then Gandhi is more sincere or consistent or effective or whatever
because he was more inclusive and used noncoercive means
that ALL people can use and participate in freely and equally (unlike Hitler's political
methods) where this is also more sustainable.

Are you okay with that, to distinguish
the two levels of sincerity.

I understand we may not be able to establish
PROOF of the difference with the global context
that Hitler was not as sincere as Gandhi,
but are you okay with framing the difference
between the two perspectives this way?

proving it would be a different matter.
This is just to explain how you and Redbone and me
can both be right in what we are all saying, by
distinguishing these two levels of perception and focus.

I nice, well reasoned post that was quite informative. You are aware that Dante will not accept the premise that we all three could be right. I can accept it within the limitations that you presented it. However as noted previously I know that Hitler's propaganda and often called sincerity in his beliefs of Aryan supremacy was more to unite and feed the masses. The masses that he required to wage war. War that was revenge and a way for him to soothe his hatred. Of course one can only understand so much about such a murdering , hate-filled madman but having read a great deal about him I find his propaganda was a tool by which he gained power to soothe his hatred and fuel his ego.

 

[Fishlore]

For people who believe in God, God is necessary for everything to survive. And, fortunately, for believers, God is not dead and will go on surviving quite nicely without any help from His followers.

I think what most people understand about the proposition is that it is necessary for people to believe in God for moral behavior among humans to survive. This is a very old idea in the Christian Church (no one else has suggested it) that dates back to the conversion of the barbarian tribes of Northern Europe to Christianity in the early Middle Ages. The writings of the missionaries (Columba, Patrick etc.) leading the effort took great pains to emphasize the social and cultural benefits of Christianity to both their converts and in their messages to the rest of the Church about their activities. Such a notion would have seemed strange indeed to the Mediterranean world in which Christianity first developed and in which the issue of religion and morality had been debated for centuries by folks as different as Moses and Aristotle. Here, as in our world today there were multiple definitions of "God" and "morality" and the relation between the two was recognized as complex.

 

[Katzndogz]

God isn't necessary. Religion is necessary. If you have noticed, there were quite successful civilizations in the past that had a far different concept of God and no concept of Jesus. They had religion with certain principles which are the same principles as Christianity. When the people stopped believing and practicing the religion is when that civilization fell apart.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Hell just froze over.

 

[yidnar]

God isn't necessary. Religion is necessary. If you have noticed, there were quite successful civilizations in the past that had a far different concept of God and no concept of Jesus. They had religion with certain principles which are the same principles as Christianity. When the people stopped believing and practicing the religion is when that civilization fell apart.

yep .

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

God isn't necessary. Religion is necessary. If you have noticed, there were quite successful civilizations in the past that had a far different concept of God and no concept of Jesus. They had religion with certain principles which are the same principles as Christianity. When the people stopped believing and practicing the religion is when that civilization fell apart.

Weird. Where the fuck do you get this shit?

 

[UKRider]

God isn't necessary. Religion is necessary. If you have noticed, there were quite successful civilizations in the past that had a far different concept of God and no concept of Jesus. They had religion with certain principles which are the same principles as Christianity. When the people stopped believing and practicing the religion is when that civilization fell apart.

Weird. Where the fuck do you get this shit?

"Necessary".

 

[Fishlore]

Morality is much like rights.

Both are man-made concepts.

The above is a rather daring claim as the Declaration of Independence is quite specific that human rights are endowed to all men by their Creator. "Creator" in the 18th century context of the document clearly means "God" as creator of the human species, not individual parents.

This cornerstone belief, and it is a religious belief not a scientific theory, is considerably more controversial today than it was in 1776. Interestingly enough, the Constitution makes no reference to divinely endowed rights, but speaks of the liberties accorded citizens and the powers granted to government, both by way of an explicit contract ratified by the vote of citizens.

Morality is established by custom (mos, moris in Latin) and moral behavior is simply that which is in accord with custom. The ancient Hebrews were unusual in ascribing moral behavior not to custom but to the observance of a legal code of divine origin instituted as the basis of a covenant of agreement between God and Abraham. The somewhat unusual notion of moral behavior as obedience to a divine law is the ultimate source of the notion of human rights provided by God. Both of these are interesting ideas but hardly typical of human societies, past or present, and both of these ideas raise a fundamental conflict between Judeo-Christian religion and the Constitution of the United States.

 

[emilynghiem]

I nice, well reasoned post that was quite informative. You are aware that Dante will not accept the premise that we all three could be right. I can accept it within the limitations that you presented it. However as noted previously I know that Hitler's propaganda and often called sincerity in his beliefs of Aryan supremacy was more to unite and feed the masses. The masses that he required to wage war. War that was revenge and a way for him to soothe his hatred. Of course one can only understand so much about such a murdering , hate-filled madman but having read a great deal about him I find his propaganda was a tool by which he gained power to soothe his hatred and fuel his ego.

Hi Redbone: Well maybe I mispegged Dante as a relativistic type liberal. I thought D was trying to be fair and point out + and - equally for Hitler as for Gandhi to be objective.
If D can only see how 1 view is right, and not the others, that sounds more absolutist, or legalistic if he is just nitpicking on the format of the discussion. Is this what you mean by worldly?

As for Hitler, since Germany was completely devastated after the war, with mobs running wild in the streets and people living in fear, I can totally understand how he was a hero to many. I agree with D he was sincere in his nationalistic love of country. I even saw b&w video footage of the Christians running the concentration camps singing hymns as a choir during a break. Peter Loth shows that as part of his outreach on forgiveness to heal after the Holocaust, where Loth was badly tortured and also abused after leaving the camps.

I agree with D's idea it does not serve humanity to demonize Hitler as larger than life, since any of us can be just like the everyday people running those camps, "sincerely" believing they were doing God's work. They were human like the rest of us.
That is another tragedy behind the Holocaust, that we don't see this. It makes me weep.

 

[emilynghiem]

Morality is much like rights.

Both are man-made concepts.

The above is a rather daring claim as the Declaration of Independence is quite specific that human rights are endowed to all men by their Creator. "Creator" in the 18th century context of the document clearly means "God" as creator of the human species, not individual parents.

This cornerstone belief, and it is a religious belief not a scientific theory, is considerably more controversial today than it was in 1776. Interestingly enough, the Constitution makes no reference to divinely endowed rights, but speaks of the liberties accorded citizens and the powers granted to government, both by way of an explicit contract ratified by the vote of citizens.

Morality is established by custom (mos, moris in Latin) and moral behavior is simply that which is in accord with custom. The ancient Hebrews were unusual in ascribing moral behavior not to custom but to the observance of a legal code of divine origin instituted as the basis of a covenant of agreement between God and Abraham. The somewhat unusual notion of moral behavior as obedience to a divine law is the ultimate source of the notion of human rights provided by God. Both of these are interesting ideas but hardly typical of human societies, past or present, and both of these ideas raise a fundamental conflict between Judeo-Christian religion and the Constitution of the United States.

Thanks FL.
In addition to "local" morals that are relative,
there are also "universal morals" and ethics, that apply to all people of all views
and backgrounds. Such as not preaching one thing, and doing another, and especially not condemning others for what you are doing yourself. That is pretty universal.
I haven't found ONE person who DIDN'T complain about "somebody else doing this"!

The Golden Rule of Reciprocity is also found in every religion.
It is just expressed differenty, but the basic concept is just common
sense as human nature is consistent no matter what culture or creed we are.

 

[rdean]

Whose God?

 

[emilynghiem]

God isn't necessary. Religion is necessary. If you have noticed, there were quite successful civilizations in the past that had a far different concept of God and no concept of Jesus. They had religion with certain principles which are the same principles as Christianity. When the people stopped believing and practicing the religion is when that civilization fell apart.

Yes and no, KND.
1. if you mean "literal" God/Jesus/Religions as external rituals or terms, I agree with
you that the religions serve a social purpose of cultural cohesion and organization,
and these don't necessarily need a LITERAL "God" or "Jesus" figure in them per se.

2. but given the meanings behind God/Jesus/Religions this statement misses the point.

The purpose of religions WAS to define the relationship between the individual and the collective level, whether greater creation, spirituality, humanity, whatever you call these by whatever terms. God can mean Wisdom (as in Buddhism that claims no God), or Creation as in Pagan and earth-based cultures, or Universal Truth or Nature to nontheists.

For Jesus to make sense to me as being Divine Word of God in heaven before manifesting on earth, Jesus means "Justice" so all laws and religions are trying to govern human relations in some just peaceful orderly way.

So in this context, what you state does not make sense at all,
given the whole PURPOSE of religions was to create language for understanding God and our "relations"
to whatever aspect of this God that was focused on, whether abstract or personified, and just because religions don't use the same name or concepts for God/Jesus doesn't mean they aren't embedded in other forms.

 

[emilynghiem]

Whose God?

The one universal God that all the other religions and depictions of God
are attempting to point to but only capture one aspect since God is infinite.

The Elephant in the Room, that everyone is describing as a
brush if you touch the tail, a tree if you touch the leg,
a hose if you touch the trunk.

In abstract terms, whatever is the source of all life, love, goodness, "morality"/human nature, truth, wisdom, creation, laws of science/nature the universe, etc.

THAT thing which is represented or misrepresented in every religion
or people's ways of talking about any of these things in different contexts.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Dante: PC msg me to say she does not care for restricting debates to one person.
It seems funny to me that she does not want to get specific, while
you appear the opposite? Where you don't want to make any generalizations?

 

[Katzndogz]

God isn't necessary. Religion is necessary. If you have noticed, there were quite successful civilizations in the past that had a far different concept of God and no concept of Jesus. They had religion with certain principles which are the same principles as Christianity. When the people stopped believing and practicing the religion is when that civilization fell apart.

Yes and no, KND.
1. if you mean "literal" God/Jesus/Religions as external rituals or terms, I agree with
you that the religions serve a social purpose of cultural cohesion and organization,
and these don't necessarily need a LITERAL "God" or "Jesus" figure in them per se.

2. but given the meanings behind God/Jesus/Religions this statement misses the point.

The purpose of religions WAS to define the relationship between the individual and the collective level, whether greater creation, spirituality, humanity, whatever you call these by whatever terms. God can mean Wisdom (as in Buddhism that claims no God), or Creation as in Pagan and earth-based cultures, or Universal Truth or Nature to nontheists.

For Jesus to make sense to me as being Divine Word of God in heaven before manifesting on earth, Jesus means "Justice" so all laws and religions are trying to govern human relations in some just peaceful orderly way.

So in this context, what you state does not make sense at all,
given the whole PURPOSE of religions was to create language for understanding God and our "relations"
to whatever aspect of this God that was focused on, whether abstract or personified, and just because religions don't use the same name or concepts for God/Jesus doesn't mean they aren't embedded in other forms.

The concept eludes you. Perhaps you are too invested in the idea of a Christian God, to recognize that there have been many "Gods" throughout human history and entire civilizations were quite successful and peaceful. When the people stopped believing in their Gods, individuals had no overarching morality and chose morality for themselves. Then the civilizations fell apart and were replaced by another civilization with strong religious beliefs and entirely different Gods.

What these civilizations all believed is that there was a divine order, that people should live according to that divine order. While there is some sort of silliness that other forms of morality can arise without religion, there really isn't. Not even a belief in the infallibility of the State can replace religion. People do not voluntarily adopt a moral code without religion. They merely become more sadistic and savage. Each one adopts the power of a God for themselves. It's moral if they say it's moral and there is no higher authority to tell them they are wrong.

If religion isn't the only thing that can enforce a moral code, it is certainly the most efficient method of enforcing a moral code. Nothing has been found to be more efficient.

 

[emilynghiem]

The concept eludes you. Perhaps you are too invested in the idea of a Christian God, to recognize that there have been many "Gods" throughout human history and entire civilizations were quite successful and peaceful. When the people stopped believing in their Gods, individuals had no overarching morality and chose morality for themselves. Then the civilizations fell apart and were replaced by another civilization with strong religious beliefs and entirely different Gods.

???? Quite the opposite KND we must be talking past each other.
What you say above **IS** what I am trying to say. That there are relative expressions
and concepts of this God. What I think eludes YOU is how can there be these relative gods or religions, and then I am ALSO saying they all point to the one universal God.

I think that is where you are mistaking this to mean "only the Christian God is true and the others are invalid" which I DON'T agree with at all and is NOT what I believe or am saying.
I am saying the universal God, by definition, must include or satisfy all the other depictions, expressions, perceptions or aspects that people or cultures use to represent their beliefs.

What these civilizations all believed is that there was a divine order, that people should live according to that divine order. While there is some sort of silliness that other forms of morality can arise without religion, there really isn't. Not even a belief in the infallibility of the State can replace religion. People do not voluntarily adopt a moral code without religion. They merely become more sadistic and savage. Each one adopts the power of a God for themselves. It's moral if they say it's moral and there is no higher authority to tell them they are wrong.

If religion isn't the only thing that can enforce a moral code, it is certainly the most efficient method of enforcing a moral code. Nothing has been found to be more efficient.

What is wrong with equating "divine order" with God so these are pointing to the same concept?

And if religion is the most effective, it is also the least effective at the same time.

I think you are losing me by switching contexts from meaning the "internal" religion or belief system driving people vs the "external" social structure and rituals provided by religion.

The "external" part of religion works short term, but over the long run it is the "internal" drive or "divine order" that keeps humanity moving along the learning curve to maturity.

What you call fallling into savagery IS the fault of "relying on religion" or external structure.
So that IS the weakness of it, is that it does not last if it is conditional motivation OUTSIDE.

What makes it sustain is the INTERNAL drive inside a person's conscience connecting us to the collective of humanity and common good we strive for whether consciously or not.

I think you and I may keep talking past each other
if we don't distinguish better
when we mean internal or external components in religion
and if we don't specify what we mean by God.

You thought I mean the Christian God when I say that.
but I mean WHATEVER people are attributing to God such as
Wisdom or Truth
Love or Compassion
Creation or Life or Universe
Good will or Supreme Virtue
Universal laws or justice etc.

That is NOT just limited to the Christian God but
whatever aspects tangible or abstract
that people see in life or as the source of "divine order"
which is another manifestation of whatever God is.

Funny you assume I was limiting things to the Christian God,
when it seems you were the one imposing this limitation on me!
That's not my belief and not what I was saying, so this perception must be coming from you?

I hope we straighten this out KND
because I noticed in at least two other msgs
that things I said came across totally construed differently to you.

I'll keep trying to work this out, whenever it happens,
and maybe it won't keep happening. there was that msg
from you mixing up natural spiritual healing with fraudulent faith healing
when these are totally distinct where there is scientific reason why one fails and one works.
And the other message you reacted to was being against saving
African American history as Vet housing when both of these were already
combined in the national history of that district, so they were already mixed in together.

So whatever I am saying wrong to make you think
I mean something else, I'm sorry and will try to be more clear and careful from now on!

Thanks KND
I hope this helps to clarify.
To distinguish the different contexts or levels of "God" and "religion"
that mean different things to me than what you thought I was using them for!
This is WHY I'd rather spell out what people mean by God in terms of WISDOM
or GOD'S WILL or UNIVERSAL TRUTH so we don't get cross-wires on what we mean by
"God" since this is relative. It doesn't mean just the Christian God because not all people
see life and the universe in a personified way. "Divine order" is good enough if you want.

Yours truly,
Emily

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Dante: PC msg me to say she does not care for restricting debates to one person.
It seems funny to me that she does not want to get specific, while
you appear the opposite? Where you don't want to make any generalizations?

Dear Dante: Another small breakthrough or revelation.
In another msg I got it that PC means the "promise of retribution" as the
necessity of God for social morality. Aha this makes sense!

So this explains where we differ.
I'm all into the relative internal motivations that are both unique to individuals
AND universal collectively by our human nature that drive our conscience.
So I believe that is ALSO from the same God but working internally
not externally and with positive desire for satisfaction and love as the motivation
not judgment or punishment or retribution as the main force.

This view of God seems to focus on the need for external motivations or fear of punishment to keep people in line. I agree that is needed as a choice in life, and in the short term while people "learn by consequences" (which I see as natural cause and effect and not to punish anyone), but for the longrun that negative response is NOT enough to fix the actual social problems or their causes.
So I prefer to focus on the restorative justice (not retributive justice apporach) that is more sustainable and effective in developing lasting solutions, because it addresses both the causes and solutions to problems in order to restore working relations among people.

My boyfriend believes in an abstract God but not in intervention in man's experiences that are up to our free will, where he just understands rewarding responsible behavior and punishing abusive or criminal behavior but has NO interest in looking into the causes and trying to fix problems and help people correct themselves.
not just temporary stop gap defenses against abusive behavior.

I believe it is "God's will" or part of our universal design or order
that we do learn by trial and error to become spiritually and socially mature.
And at first we may rely on external deterrents, punishment or reward
but the point is really to learn to make these decisions by free will and reason
and quit relying on blind faith or some outside God or Government to punish or regulate.

This makes perfect sense that this is part of PC's thinking
because it shows in her msgs, she thinks it is God's business
and not for her to correct or resolve issues with people.
But just to post what is right or wrong with the world, and leave it to God.

And you can tell from my msgs I believe this universal order or morality
all people have is internal and can be relative to each person and
we can still connect along common values and principles and help
reinforce the good points while correcting any conflicts.
Totally take this internal approach to the same God that PC seems to focus on as
governing from outside?

Very interesting!
I can see why she believes such a God is necessary
if she does not have faith people can get their inner motivations
straight without this God imposing retribution from above
while I see the internal relations as the same God working within.
And I find the positive motivations are stronger influences and more
effective than the fear-based approach which becomes self-defeating at some point.

I can see a bit more clear where and why we differ.
Cool!

Since you also seem more intellectually focused and open to relative
perspectives, is there anything here in this msg you can respond to or
comment on that shows where YOU are coming from in all this?

Thanks, D!