emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
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?
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?
Last edited: