Impact Grouping vs Membership Grouping
In writing the "unpacked" page about the Morality section of Theoconsequentialist Doctrine, I hit upon a new idea.  That's how creativity works.  You don't get inspiration at the start, the longer you go on the better it gets.  And new stuff is always half baked.

We know God through both direct personal experience and through the composite experience of others.  Which should we give credence in which situation?  How are the boundaries of groups identified?  

It seems natural to say "when it's just you, do what God tells you personally, but once others are impacted listen to the majority among those impacted."  But that begs the question.  You're still deciding who is impacted, or else you're letting people decide for themselves whether they are impacted, or you are defining a group and letting it decide, in which case who decides the grouping--your perception of God's definition, or the group's definition?  

The only way to operate is to let people group themselves and listen to groups.  I call this membership grouping.  Groups overlap in some places and not others.  Ultimately, every individual is nothing more than a group of one.  

A group of people who all consent to group membership can have a majority opinion and that is the word of God as percieved by that group as a whole.  If you impact that group, you should take into account what God has told that group.  

But God will tell different groups different things.  We are moving parts in a machine, pressing against each other, playing our roles.  Being used and manipulated.  Theoconsequentialists accept that.  When groups oppose each other, we can derive that it is God's will that they oppose each other.  We don't need to take a vote, the groups have.  The majority of those being considered is right.  

Regarding religion, there is no majority for a single major faith category.  Christianity, in the sum of all its denominations, wins a plurality.  Islam, in its sum, is second.  Together with lesser monotheisms, they make up a majority.  So monotheism generally wins.  God says, "I am."  

An impact standard is relevant only within a group which has a way of knowing, for those who are part of it, what God wills.  To the extent that different groups don't overlap, all is red of tooth and claw.  That is the will of God, for the time those conditions pertain.  But Theoconsequentialists believe God wants such lack of cohesion to be less common.  We percieve that most people have loyalty to something higher and greater, be it a nation, a faith, a tribe, or a business interest.  From this we can derive that it is the will of God that we are to group together by choice and express our will regarding how we are impacted by expressing it as a group.  And that while we are in a group, we should accede to the majority will even while expressing our minority will.  That is God using us as moving parts.