The Value Of Thoughts And Prayers

Leaders often seem reported to state that thoughts and prayers are with the victims of tragedy. Perspective calling for assistance beyond thought and prayer seems increasingly reported. Although  tragedy repair and prevention does seem to require more than thought, it seems insufficiently recognized to require acceptance of God as priority relationship and priority decision-maker. Lack of such acceptance seems most logically suggested to source tragedy, and such acceptance seems logically suggested to optimally repair and prevent tragedy.

Thought and prayer seem, most logically therefore, the steps that acknowledge God's management and avail self of God's apparently substantiatable omniscient guidance via which optimal contribution to tragedy repair and prevention seems made.

Church And State

Responds to: "Republicans' tax plan would let clergy endorse candidates from the pulpit" (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/11/02/republicans-tax-plan-would-let-clergy-endorse-candidates-pulpit/825598001)

To me, the Bible seems to suggest that God's administrative design for the human experience accepts God as sole administrator, and all humans as the administrated. "The state" and most, if not all, other instances of human administration seem, at best, examples of God's merciful amount of (a) continued existence beyond the point of rejecting God as priority relationship and priority decision-maker, and (b) human opportunity to test human administration via experience. Suggestion that God calls for human administration seems soundly refuted by 1 Samuel 8.

"Separation of church and state" seems a tactical response to abuse apparently predicted by God in 1 Samuel 8 and reportedly suffered throughout human administrative history. This concept's apparent separation from God's administration seems itself a problem. However, change in any direction other than closer to individual, voluntary reinstatement of God as priority relationship and priority decision-maker seems reasonably-suggested to only exacerbate the problem by increasing the weight and impact of unqualified influence upon individual decision-making by claiming the authority of God.

Social Conflict Among Believers In God

Opinion regarding: Why can’t Christians get along, 500 years after the Reformation? (THE ATLANTIC) https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/luther-reformation-500-ecumenical-dialogue/543876

Reports of social conflict among believers in God seem considered by some to discredit believers' claim that belief in God eliminates social conflict.

To me, the criticism might be reasonable, but might warrant being levied at possible error in implementing the life approach rather than at the life approach itself.

To explain, the Bible's wealth of various anecdotes and guidelines seem to reflect many (if not most, or even all) social issues and circumstances, and address

both desirable and undesirable behaviors. An important issue apparently present in the attempt to use these writings to ascertain individual optimal path forward seems to be determination of which depictions and guidelines are to be adopted.

Some seem to reject the Bible as a guide to optimal human experience due to its apparent suggestions that God calls for human-to-human harm, such as slavery and misogyny. To me, this rejection might also seem reasonable except that it, too, seems likely misplaced, based upon my analysis of the Bible.

To me, the Bible seems more likely best considered a collection of perspectives regarding the proposed God/human relationship rather than a how-to-behave handbook. Further, per my assessment, some of these perspectives' value might not be delineation of optimal path forward, but rather, documentation of the path's having been travelled and the perceived result. When viewed thusly, per my experience, every life issue seems clearly and very simply resolved in a fashion that cooperative analysis (with apparent advocates of other lifeviews) seems to reveal as more thorough and consistent with my awareness of science's findings than any other lifeview.

This Biblical view seems to resolve the issue of social conflict among believers in God by highlighting the apparent extents to which human belief in God seems accompanied by acceptance of God as priority relationship and priority decision-maker, perhaps a fundamental, yet underemphasized (and perhaps therefore, under-implemented) Bible principle.

To me, this assessment seems reasonably reached because logic seems to suggest that acceptance of this principle would result in acceptance of the sovereinty of other individuals' God/human relationship. This acceptance seems to logically preclude social conflict since social conflict seems comprised of disagreement with another individual's path forward, and sovereign God/human relationship seems to render, by definitions, (a) the individual's path forward to be the exclusive purview of God and the individual, (b) the impact of another's path forward on one's quality of life to be the exclusive responsibility and purview of God, and (c) one's optimal response to perceived impact of another's path forward upon one's quality of life to be known solely by God and, due to human capability limitations, to be optimally ultumately entrusted to God to manifest.

This social construct seems to loically preclude social conflict and guarantee optimal outcomes. In practice, departure from that social structure seems to stem from human perception of humanly-envisioned benefit that may at times seem less forthcoming via human estimation of God's current path than via human action, and in which humanly-perceived comparative cost-benefit ratio seems to favor human action over waiting for less-humanly-perceived benefit suggested to be forthcoming via God's management.

Per personal experience, the stress resulting from forfeiture of humanly-perceived resolution in favor of non-humanly-perceived management by God might seem daunting. In other circumstance, God's management might seem (even humanly) the obvious and easier path forward.

The proposed value of this interpretation of the Bible's writings seems to be that it seems to demonstrate that the cause of social issues in general, and among believers in God, is not that God-managed human experience is ineffective, but that God-managed human experience seems to have been abandoned in order to avoid misperceived stress from a misperceived loss of net benefit.

Workplace Sexual Harassment And Other Social Injustice

10:04:15 AM <@ SIDPMod> Morning, all. ☺ I read a perspective that seems to propose reasons for the (apparently suggested) ineffectiveness of workplace sexual harassment claims.

The (apparently-proposed) reasons seem common to every intentional instance of social injustice: consideration of administrator quality of life as more valuable than that of those being administrated.

10:14:07 AM <@ SIDPMod> To me, the Bible seems to offer highest-value insight regarding this issue.

10:29:52 AM <@ SIDPMod> The Bible seems to emphasize via principle and example the subjectivity to perceptual error, including perception of comparative ethics-relevant value, that seems science-acknowledged as being intrinsic to humans, and the extent to which such non-omniscience seems to render humans unqualified for personal much less aggregate decision-making without omniscient God's guidance.

10:33:51 AM <@ SIDPMod> The Bible seems to suggest that the optimal decision-making structure seeks God's guidance regarding personal decisions and leaves God to manage the decisions of others, including the extent to which others' decisions seem to impact personal quality of life.

11:04:11 AM <@ SIDPMod> The Bible seems to also suggest that human dissatisfaction with the human (and apparently, quite likely short-sighted) perception of God's circumstance management seems incorrectly accepted by some as sufficient basis upon which to replace God with some other point of reference as priority decision-maker.

11:10:16 AM <@ SIDPMod> 1 Samuel 8 seems to offer a crystal-clear example of God directly addressing the potential for such perception and subsequent decision-making and explaining what the result would (apparently inevitably) be.

11:14:00 AM <@ SIDPMod> After thousands-to-millions of years of human existence and innovation, reports of intentional social injustice throughout human history seem to suggest that the apparently-suggested warning from God seems not to have been proven wrong.

Potential Danger Of The Attempt To Replace God With AI

6:33:24 PM <@ SIDPMod> To me, the premise: "How to root out hidden biases in AI" seems illogical since it seems to rely upon using a flawed guage to gauge the gauge's flaws.

6:34:56 PM <@ SIDPMod> For example, the excerpt "I believe the great use for machine learning and AI will be in conjunction with really knowledgeable people who know history and sociology and psychology to figure out who should be treated similarly to whom" seems to overlook the limitations of human perception. If any humans could "figure out who should be treated similarly to whom", social conflict seems unlikely to exist.

6:47:26 PM <@ SIDPMod> Technology seems to have been developed to help humans determine the factors relevant to decision-making. If, with the factors currently humanly and technologically perceived, we still haven't rooted out the biases in human intelligence that seem suggested as the tool for rooting out biases in artificial intelligence that exist via human intelligence.

6:56:22 PM <@ SIDPMod> Goals that are suggested to have been technologically achieved, such as locomotion and computation might be presented on AI's behalf to propose AI's ability to be eventually fool-proofed.

7:11:03 PM <@ SIDPMod> Without suggesting that goal to be irrefutably unreachable, achievement seems illogical due to apparently limited human understanding of what optimal future circumstance consists of, and perhaps as a result, what decision-relevant factors are, and apparently much less so, the relevant state of those factors.

7:12:34 PM <@ SIDPMod> Re: "How do you know when you have the right model, and when it’s capturing what really happened in society?" to me, therefore, an even more important question might be "How do you know when your model is capturing what really should happen in society?"

Returning To God's Economic Design

It seems that humans might have become dissatisfied with and abandoned God's economic design only to have their own ideas lead them right back to the very design they abandoned. Leaders seem to suggest that the labor-based economic strategy is being voided by the technological labor force strategy and may require replacement by a less humanly administrated economic strategy, which seems closer to God's apparent design of economics administrated by God at the level of the individual.

My interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 and other information that I've encountered seems reasonably interpreted as suggesting that (a) God's economic system design for the human experience seems to be individual, discretionary access to resources, and that (b) economic systems other than that are human innovation intended to replace rejected guidance from God with regard to real-time, individual decision-making.

Apparently, similarly to humanly-developed systems in general, humanly-developed economic systems seem subject to dysfunction due to the apparent impact of human fallibility upon system design and operation. The above article seems to acknowledge the extent to which technological advancement seems to reveal the limitations of marketplace economics as an approach to resource distribution. The emergent conclusion seems to suggest returning some portion of resource allocation to comparative general access. That suggested return, however, seems to seek continued administrated rather than individual allocation as a behavior-shaping tool. My thought seems to be the extent to which human behavior-shaping attempt seems most logically inferior to God-administrated behavior-shaping due to the non-omniscience and omniscience of the administrators, respectively. For example, the video speaker seems to suggest behavior-shaping by allocating resources based upon education-completion choices.

Prima facie, this might seem a positive behavior-shaping strategy, but it seems to overlook the extent to which valued societal contributions seem reported to have been made by following a path forward other than traditional education. Limited human perception seems most logically suggested to be incapable of distinguishing that path from the perhaps stereo-typically depicted ne'er-do-well, perhaps especially in light of the apparently reported perceived ne'er-do-well that subsequently made a valued contribution... the "late-bloomer".

I respect the apparently-God given choice to hang one's hat on human rather than God's administration, but mentioning the perceived and apparently unsurmountable flaws of that life-approach seems appropriate.

Deriving Human Values From Science

The perspective that human values can be derived from scientific observation seems based upon misleading and unsubstantiated terminology and assumption.

For example, one such case presented for the perspective seems to describe values as a type of fact related to the well-being of conscious creatures. To me, this seems consistent with the Bible's apparent suggestion that human values are indisputable assertions related to the well-being of conscious creatures that are given to humans by omniscient God.

However, the presented reasoning then seems to offer a human values example, then describe it as a factual claim: something that we could be right or wrong about. Google seems to first-define "fact" as "a thing that is indisputably correct" and Merriam-Webster seems to suggest "a piece of information presented as having objective reality", seeming to me to prevent misrepresentation (about the fostering of well-being of conscious creatures) from being appropriately categorized as a valid human value.

To me, the presenter seems to later clarify this seeming terminology misassociation of fact and opinion by asserting the (apparently by definition) indisputable propriety or impropriety of behavior. An appropriate summary seems to be that human values seem, by definition, perhaps most reasonably suggested to refer to behavioral outcome goals and guidelines such as justice that seem to apply indisputably and identically to well-being species-wide; personal values such as favorite foods seem to refer to facts pertaining to well-being that is potentially as unique as the individual to whom the dynamic applies; and misrepresentation of well-being dynamics might best be referred to simply as misrepresentation.

The next issue might seem somewhat of an aesthetically sticky sidebar. The presenter seems to suggest that corporal punishment is explicitly religious, apparently citing the Bible for reference. I respectfully propose that this suggestion seems unreasonably misleading, seeming likely, if not intended, to build negative sentiment toward belief in God and toward the Bible regarding corporal punishment. To me, the reference seems otherwise valueless, seeming to ignore the apparently perspective-balancing apparent likelihood of corporal punishment in societies pre-dating or otherwise not impacted by the Bible, the apparent findings of psychological science that seem to suggest an importance in child development of appropriate yielding of personal will to externality (which seems reasonably suggested to be achievable in some or all cases without corporal punishment), and the possibly genuine testimony of those who suggest being grateful for the capacity to yield personal will that they associate with having experienced corporal punishment during their child development (Note: This perspective does not support unnecesary punishment in any context).

The presenter addresses the issue of the objectivity of morality in light of the apparent lack of and differences in morality-related understanding. The issue seems simple: limited and fallible human perception seems reasonably suggested to be the cause of lack and variance in morality understanding. Level of understanding regarding the mechanics of optimal well-being seems reasonably expected to impact understanding of how to personally contribute to optimal well-being. Assuming that well-being dynamics are objective reality (as apparently established above) morality (the path that fosters well-being) seems most logically suggested to also be objective reality, whether applicable species-wide, applicable uniquely among individuals, or not perceived at a particular point in time.

The presenter next seems to address the logical basis upon which limited- perception attempt to enforce their understanding of what constitutes optimal well-being. The answer seems to me to lie within the apparently underlying issue of whether God exists as the infinitely-existent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent established and sovereign authority of and intended real-time decision-making guide regarding reality. If so, an individual seems most logically described as doing self and society a disservice by shifting personal guidance from God to another point of reference. If not, then there seems most logically to exist no objective morality, for there seems to exist no logical basis upon which any human among apparently-suggested equal humans can substantiate determining for another the definition of the apparently baseline concept "flourish" in a purposeless existence, and if any equal humans disagree, the definition seems incapable of being considered universal and therefore objective. The apparent logical preclusion of objective knowledge without an omniscient, sovereign authority seems reasonably suggested to be the reason that apparently fundamental social issues seem suggested to have persisted throughout the thousands to millions of years of apparently suggested human existence in an existential purpose context as apparently simple as fueling one's body with apparently logical resources and doing whatever else (appropriate) comes to mind with other apparently plentiful resources.

To me, perhaps in pursuit of circumvention of the apparently escapable logical link between universal acceptance of God as sovereign authority and optimal human experience, the presenter then seems to propose and question a number of principles over which so many lives seem suggested to have been lost, have suffered and still suffer both as a result of the implemented, proposed principles and the absence of the questioned principles, and as a result of the attempt to protect us from reemergence of the proposed principles and from the absence of the questioned principles:

(a) Moral expertise/talent/genius: this seems to essentially seems to equate to "I tell you what to do". Historical and current events seem suggested to report too much harm proliferated by both secular and religious humanly-established behavioral authority to embrace human moral leadership.

(b) Valuing every human perspective: seemingly too many examples of reported harm via suggested inappropriate disenfranchisement to embrace human management of others' right to form and hold perspective.

The presentation next seems to address a vision for balancing moral objectivity with appropriate lifestyle diversity. To me, the quality of the human experience's future seems logically tied to acceptance of God as priority relationship and decision-making guide. Without such acceptance, a human managed future seems logically likely to suffer from the same unresolved fundamental social issues because human limited and perspectives perception seems insufficient to identify the optimal related balance point, much less the path to achieving it.

Gaining insight into mind behavior and into that which seems to foster specific desired behavior doesn't seem to eliminate the individual choice to choose whether or not to adopt that behavior. Embracing involuntary/technologically administered compliance as the path toward shaping the human experience seems to forfeit any logical basis for criticizing God for requiring a specific range of behavior.

The presentation seems to address the value of moral standard in light of the big picture. Apparently, limited, fallible human perception seems possibly the insurmountable obstruction that prevents humans from perceiving the big picture and perceiving and achieving optimal human experience without accepting God as priority relationship and decision-making guide.

AI As Critical Issues Decision-Maker

Perception of and concern for apparently potential hazards of artificial intelligence critical issues decision-making seem to inspire the goal of ensuring development of AI decision-making that we can live with. However, this goal might be logically unachievable, because limited, fallible human perception seems to preclude identification of what we *should* live with.

Apparently, as a result, conflicting human perspective thereregarding as well as human conflict fight/flight response seem likely passed on to AI.

The God Discussion Today

Some seem to suggest that humanity doesn’t need God as real-time decision maker and top-level authority. However, tech leaders seem to increasingly acknowledge the need for greater-than-human decision-making and authority and try to fulfill the need with technology, AI possibly perceived as its central development. However, AI seems to me to yield the same issue some seem concerned about regarding the apparently-proposed God/human relationship: not being in charge, or in agreement with God.

To explain, some AI developers seem to acknowledge not knowing what their AI is “thinking” beyond some point. Although a perceived failsafe response to undesirable AI outcomes might attempt to destroy undesired AI implementations, advances in tech hardening, along with increased tech capability, responsibility and authority, and the apparent inability to reliably predict AI thinking, seem to potentially realize sci-fi-level loss of human control over tech.

If so, the Bible's apparent depiction of the human experience seems substantiated: humans reject God as highest-level decision-maker in order to pursue misperceived benefit outside of that which God knows to be optimal, that God allowed humans to try their way so that they could see for themselves that God is logically and irrevocably the sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent authority of all reality, and as such, is optimally accepted voluntarily by each individual as the individual's priority relationship and decision-maker.

Shifting Guidance From God

Perhaps representatively for society at large, the Bible seems to portray one society's key shifts in guidance from God to human perception, and the resulting social issues.

• Genesis 3: Eve chooses another's guidance over God's.
  Genesis 4-6 seems to portray the apparently resulting reduction in the lineage's quality of human experience, perhaps so much so that relief therefrom was desired, sensed via inspiration from God in Genesis 5:29, and effected in Genesis 6.
  • Substantiation: Adam and Eve
• Exodus 18: Moses, despite having experienced direct guidance from God, accepts another's guidance toward establishing community human administration when God seems to have intended Moses to teach the community about God as individuals' primary relationship and sovereign authority.
• Exodus 19: the community asks Moses to act as messenger between the community and God.
• 1 Samuel 8: community spokespersons request a human king as leader rather than God, despite a long list of abuses that God warns a human leader would impose. Abuse of power by human leaders seems historically a significant source of social issues.

Response To https://twitter.com/creationwrong/status/726865965040963585

Re: "just life", the issue seems to whether that aspect of life results in social issues, if so, whether that pattern can be interrupted, and if so, how it might be optimally interrupted. The SIDP presents the Bible's apparent answers "yes", "yes", and "solely by individuals accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, and presents science's findings that seem to substantiate those answers.

Re: God not charting courses, to me, science's findings seem most logically interpreted as suggesting the contrary. Apparently, every aspect of reality observed by science has a charted course, the complexity of intrinsic options of which seem to vary widely from the very simple to very complex. Humans do not seem reasonably suggested to be exceptions to that pattern, but their course complexity seems generally considered greatest of all humanly-observed aspects of reality, and apparently therefore, seems considered to offer the greatest level of choice. To the extent that God is considered the establisher of reality, God seems most logically suggested to be the charter of human course, at both general and individual levels. Human attempt to ignore God's sovereign authority and travel outside of the range of general and perhaps even individual courses seems demonstrably suggested to be the cause of all social issues.

Response To https://twitter.com/reasonandlogic/status/728263638801338368

To me, logic seems to suggest that, if given that a set of directives' transceiver is omnipotent God, and the receivers are fallible humans with the ability to choose to versus not to accept God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, and apparently as a result, make themselves more versus less available to perceive God's direction, as well as more versus less likely to implement it respectively, responsibility for social issues seems primarily attributed to humans rather than God.

I welcome your thoughts, including to the contrary.

Response To https://twitter.com/reasonandlogic/status/728242861913874432

Perhaps the various versions of The Bible are due to the versionists' potentially conflicting interpretation of the Bible's original writings.

Science seems to suggest that all human perception essentially interprets sensory data. Apparently, therefore, all sensory data, perhaps especially verbal communication in which words potentially have multiple meanings, seems reasonably suggested to be open to interpretation. Potentially differing interpretation of communication seems a generally-accepted result of human communication.

However, to me, all 66 books of the Bible seem intended to convey the message that the key to optimal human experience is individual acceptance of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority. The SIDP discusses science's findings that seem to substantiate that message.

I welcome your thoughts.

Happy Without God

To me, the issue seems to extend beyond one person's happiness to (a) the apparently-suggested unhappiness of many, past, present and potential future, (b) the extent to which God exists, and (c) the extent to which unhappiness is the result of individuals not accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority.

Communicating With God

Prayer
Responds to: https://twitter.com/reasonandlogic/status/728929435102134272

To me, the Bible seems to suggest that "prayer" is the human-to-God portion of the potential God/human dialogue. That dialogue seems an important aspect of accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, and seems to potentially include any topic of interest to the individual. I welcome your thoughts, including to the contrary.

Communication Audibly Or Via Thought
Responds to: https://twitter.com/Atheist_Khan/status/728925324180897792

To me, the Bible doesn't seem to suggest inability to communicate via sound waves. However, to me, thought-based communication with God seems less subject to fraudulent imitation.

Primary Relationship With God And Child Development

To me, science's findings seem to substantiate the suggestion that the key to optimal human experience is individual acceptance of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority. To me, the key to optimal human experience seems reasonably described as the most important life-skill, and life-skills seem generally considered to optimally be taught as early in child development as children can process them.

Response To https://twitter.com/Krisramak/status/737598195849519104

Perhaps well said. Material message misinterpretation seems possible even within the same language set, not to mention between language sets.

However, my experience seems to be that, after reading the Bible in its entirety, thinking through its various presentations (including some in different versions), and comparing my perspectives with others' via respectful, analytic discussion; a primary message seems to emerge: the key to optimal human experience is acceptance of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority. The extent to which science's findings seem to substantiate that message seems to warrant the suggestion that I correctly perceive the message despite my seeming to have read a foreign language translation.

Attributing Human Failings To God

To me, the Bible, science's findings and my experience with secular/religious debate seem to suggest that substituting (a) God as primary relationship and sovereign authority with (b) human administration of the God/human relationship (i.e., Exodus 18) has expectedly poor results (1 Samuel 8), and further obfuscates achievement of optimal human experience by attributing human failings to God.

Response To https://twitter.com/godsven3loquist/status/738147780753915906

Less religious or believe less in God? In either case, such a trend seems reasonable: those considering science the key to optimal human experience might seem more drawn to it. Those considering God as primary relationship and sovereign authority might be more drawn to other pursuits.

In addition, I seem to have been amazed that the presented perspective seems not to have occurred to many, if any. I seem to have heard my presentation likened somewhat to St. Augustine's apparent "prime mover" presentation, but I don't seem to recall anyone, including St. Augustine, having presented that apparently simple reasoning. Nonetheless, I seem to have made the presentation to the apparently science-minded and -pedigreed; some seem to agree outright, some seem to not perceive a reasoning flaw, but prefer to withhold opinion, and the remainder seems to offer unsubstantiated assertion, ad hominem, and obfuscation. To me this might indicate that the obvious might on occasion elude the intellectually pedigreed. On the other hand, perhaps demonstration of a presentation reasoning flaw might be just around the corner.

Toward that end, I welcome your thoughts.

Response To https://twitter.com/godsven3loquist/status/738426433568149504

To me, closer examination of the terms "faith", "trust", or "confidence", the preceding post's presented definitions thereof, and other Google result definitions seem to suggest that the terms seem potentially used interchangeably, but that examination of the definitions seems to yield two material distinctions: (a) perception of reliability (perhaps typically "confidence"), and (b) assumption of reliability solely based upon previous perception of reliability ("faith", "trust", or "confidence"). Thus far, to me, all usage of the terms "faith", "trust", and "confidence" seems to resolve to one or the other of those distinctions. To me, the object of those distinctions (whether "religion" or the sun rising) seems potentially irrelevant. This seems an important fundamental concept to the issue's analysis; perhaps we might attempt to determine if we can agree with regard to it.

Re: "Faith in a religious context has nothing to do with reasoned interpretation of scientific data", perhaps terminology might warrant clarification here, as well. To me, the term "religion" seems definable as the perceived relationship between humans and a higher-than-human authority, apparently including, but not necessarily limited to deity, and patterns that seem to govern the human experience. The claim of such existing higher-than-human authority might not currently be verifiable using the scientific process, but if science's apparent observations are proposed to reasonably reflect the proposed attributes of said higher-than-human authority, what reasoning might render such proposal categorically invalid?

Re: "... faith begins where evidence ends. It doesn't have to though; we must resist the urge to fill in the blanks", while that goal might sound scientifically noble, it also seems even more so unachievable, apparently based upon the apparent general consensuses that a large part of the human experience is reasoned behavior, that reasoned behavior requires a data-collection phase that attempts to identify issue-relevant data via human perception, and that human perception is limited and fallible.

Apparently based upon the above, at any point of the data-collection phase, due to limited and fallible human perception, the relevant state of issue-relevant data might exist in mutually-exclusive scopes of human perception. Apparently, as a result, in order for human experience to progress beyond data collection, assumption of the state of such data seems required. Apparently, in other words, humans seem reasonably suggested to have no alternative but to "fill in the blanks", or, in other words, exercise faith in an assumed state of issue-relevant data outside a current scope of human perception. To resist doing so seems to confine said human experience to data-collection.

Re: "...Saying faith is intrinsic...", per your examples and the above, perhaps "faith seems a necessary component of practical human experience" might help clarify my apparent point, since a relevant distinction between faith, rape and consensual reproduction seems to be that one can conduct an effective human experience without raping and without consensual reproduction, whereas, avoiding implementation of faith seems to preclude reasoned achievement of any kind beyond data collection, due to apparently limited and fallible human perception. I welcome your thoughts thereregarding.

Re: "The Bible has a provision of evidence?", to clarify, the suggestion was made with regard to apparently Biblical depiction of God/human relationship, in which God seems to me to be described as providing individuals with basis/evidence upon which to develop faith in God prior to the need to exercise it, and was offered in response to the comment that faith reinforces belief without evidence. The intended point seems to have been that, although faith seems comprise of belief without evidence, and seems mandatory to effective human experience, faith also seems optimally based upon sufficient evidence.

Re: "... how do you account for ..." apparently-suggested conflicts between the Bible and science's findings, (a) I seem of have found basis upon which to suggest the apparent scientific viability of many Biblical suggestions apparently proposed to be scientifically impossible. As a result, I seem somewhat satisfied with concluding that other such proposed conflicts might well be explained or reasonably considered metaphorical, and that even more urgent issues seem to warrant more immediate addressing, namely optimal strategy for achieving optimal human experience. Perhaps to demonstrate the relevance of the apparently aforementioned pattern to this decision, apparently perceived reliability of ("confidence in") a perceived reasonable sample of apparently challenged Biblical suggestion seems to me to warrant assumed reliability of ("faith in") other such Biblical suggestion.

(b) To me, the Bible's anecdotes seem reasonably suggested to propose insight in an apparently currently unverifiable combination of forms, including historical fact, fiction representing factual phenomena, and/or symbolic fiction presenting non-factual phenomena. To me, to put that premise into perspective, the Noah's flood account's primary message doesn't seem to be that of a greatly atypical deluge, but that, (a) as a result of the type of decision made in Genesis 3, the human experience had deteriorated to the point at which "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually", (b) that God seems described as having addressed it by eliminating that apparent demographic and "starting over", (c) that such human disposition seems to have continued to reemerge and recede since then, and that, (d) as a result, the appropriate principle to be learned from those presented developments is the value of accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority.

To me, if the principle is valid, regardless of whether the anecdote is historic, representative fiction based upon historic events, or symbolic fiction, the optimal response seems to be to learn and implement the principle. To me, as the SIDP presentation seems to demonstrate, science's findings seem to substantiate the principle as valid.

Response To https://twitter.com/Scheknul/status/739164738786099200

I seem to aspire to reasoned analysis of issues relevant to achieving optimal human experience. Thank you participating in that analysis.

To begin, to me, (a) the Bible seems to suggest that the key to achieving optimal human experience is voluntary, individual acceptance of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, and (b) science's findings seem to substantiate the Bible's apparent suggestion.

To me, the primary concept of that perspective seems to be the existence of God, whom the Bible seems to describe as the infinitely-existing source of all other existence. Science's Laws of Conservation and Mass/Energy Equivalence seem to imply the constant existence of the source of everything, and constant existence seems to imply infinite past existence. Might your agree?

Response To http://sidpblog.blogspot.com/p/sidpmain.html comment Dean Esmay June 5, 2016 at 9:59 AM

To me, determination of the historicity of Biblical anecdotes seems less urgent than appropriate understanding of their apparent message. To me, that message seems unsurpassed in value when compared to any message not directly exchanged between God and the individual. To me, I seem to have identified sufficient, apparently science-compatible viability of apparently-suggested Biblical conflict with science to reasonably conclude that the remainder of such suggested conflicts are either also identifiable, beyond at least the current scope of science's findings, or reasonably considered symbolic metaphor. To me, in any of those cases, the Bible's apparent primary message that acceptance of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority is the key to optimal human experience seems substantiated by science.

Response To https://twitter.com/holesinthefoam/status/739524759231156224

Might you intend reference to religion or to the apparently Biblically-suggested God/human relationship? To me, the God/human relationship does not seem Biblically-suggested to have changed since Genesis 1-2. That relationship seems to consist of voluntary, individual acceptance of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority.

To me, the extent to which humans have attempted to develop a human experience based upon some other construct, including the apparent attempt to administrate the God/human relationship, seems Biblically- and scientifically-suggested to be the cause of adversity in the human experience.

Response To https://twitter.com/Lily_Bell82/status/739786678190133248

To me, the Bible seems to suggest human attempt to (a) humanly administrate the human experience in order to avoid (b) accepting the boundaries apparently presented by God for the purpose of avoiding harm to human experience. Apparently, however, the limitations of human administrative capacity seem to have resulted in an even greater reduction of human experience potential in order to attempt to fit the human experience within the limitations of human administrative capacity. History seems reasonably interpreted as suggesting that the attempt has been unsuccessful.

The solution seems to be to implement the apparent key to optimal human experience, namely, accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority. The SIDP website presents science's findings that seem to substantiate that perspective at http://sidpblog.blogspot.com/p/sidpmain.html.

Response To https://twitter.com/illastr8/status/739840468301807616

Perhaps more precisely, to me, the Bible seems reasonably interpreted as suggesting that God's plan includes offering humans the privilege of experiencing existence in harmony with God and the rest of reality as a voluntary choice, rather than as a "programmed", choiceless response apparently like that of rocks and trees. Offering that privilege seems to also risk the apparently wrong choice of rejecting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, and the apparent harm to reality that seems to result.

Response To https://twitter.com/RealMostHigh/status/740248469491699712

To me, the Bible seems to suggest that God, as individuals' primary relationship and sovereign authority, is capable of managing the human experience of individuals that have experienced deficient parenting. Apparently however, to me, the current topic seems to be "what's wrong with teenage pregnancy", and to me, that question seems to address the general pattern that God seems to have established for human parenting. To me, that pattern seems summarized by Proverbs 22:6, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it".

Relationship With God

Worshipping God
Some seem to depict God as overly concerned with being worshipped. However, this suggestion seems inconsistent with the following:

• Genesis 1-2 seems to depict the apparently problem-free human experience prior to introduction of problems in Genesis 3, apparently including God's instructions to humanity: numerous entitlements in Genesis 1, and 1 prohibition in Genesis 2. Worship of God seems unmentioned. To me, respect for God's sovereign authority seems implied, rather than stated, via (a) God setting side the seventh day of the week as special, apparently commemorating God's preceding six-day creation week, and (b) God specifying a restriction upon human behavior in Genesis 2.
• Exodus 20:1-17 seems to comprise the "ten commandments" and seems to contain no mention of worshipping God, however, again calling for respect for God's sovereign authority in its initial verses.
• 2 Samuel 7:1-7 seems to describe King David conveying (to the prophet Nathan) David's idea to build a temple for God's "presence", apparently to replace the simple tent apparently in use for that purpose at the time. God subsequently seems described as rewarding David for David's apparently good intention toward God, but also seems described as clarifying that, during all of Israel's experience with God since the Exodus from Egypt, that God had never asked for such (2 Samuel 7:5-7).
• Deuteronomy 6:5 seems reasonably considered to constitute the first of the two keys to achieving optimal human experience: loving God with all of one's heart, soul, and might. Jesus seems described by Mark 12:30 as using the terms "mind" and "strength" in addition to "heart" and "soul" when referring to that concept.

To me, these passages seem to depict the God/human relationship as being based upon loving God as primary relationship and sovereign authority.

Response To https://twitter.com/Atheist_Bot/status/741298579625652225

To me, Bible and science's findings seem to suggest that, due to the limitations and fallibility of human perception, the only way to identify optimal human experience is to accept God as primary relationship and sovereign authority and to trust that the outcome constitutes optimal human experience. Human determination alone seems demonstrably responsible for the apparently adverse condition of the human experience.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/741933387355553792

To me, the Bible doesn't seem primarily intended to be the sovereign morality authority, but apparently rather, a depiction of the God/human relationship via depiction of the God/Israel relationship. To me, the Bible seems to suggest that identification of individuals' optimal behavior is designed by God to be communicated by God to individuals.

Response To https://twitter.com/thetruthatheism/status/742296625226207232

To me, Genesis 1-2 seem to comprise the Bible's description of God's initial, problem-free, human experience context and no mention of slavery or subjugation of women seems to exist therein. Additionally, the Bible's message seems to be to love God above all as primary relationship and sovereign authority, and to love others as self. To me, advocating slavery seems inconsistent with the above, but consistent with apparently dysfunctional social perspective perhaps introduced in Genesis 3 and evidenced in Genesis 4. To me, the above, in combination with Exodus 18, seems to provide reasonable basis upon which to suggest that faulty guidelines might be the product of human perspective rather than God's.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/742494060624138244

Perhaps the comment exemplifies an important issue. To me, simple, reversed parties in the comment's wording seemed reasonably interpreted as reflecting perspective that some might consider extremist. However, the comment's writer seems to suggest having intended a less extreme message. How difficult might it be, therefore, (a) for God to have established a problem-free human experience, (b) for God to have given humans sufficient self-determination to choose to accept God as primary relationship and sovereign authority and thereby maintain problem-free experience, (c) for humans to have instead used self-determination to replace God with self, and to modify the problem-free human experience into what it seems reported to have historically been, and (d) for the Bible to be misinterpreted as suggesting that God was in favor of that? If someone had interpreted your post as calling for an extreme act, debate seems capable of continuing ad infinitum regarding that the wording clearly portrays any non-atheist as a societal problem. Subsequent proposed clarification seems to suggest other intended thought. Couldn't God's message really be to love God with all your heart, mind, soul, strength and might, and your neighbor as yourself? That credo seems suggested in both Old and New Testaments, and in the New Testament described as the summary of all proposed, divine inspiration.

Response To https://twitter.com/Nmahadea/status/745244732884926464

To me, God's omniscience and human limited and fallible perception seems to keep humans from irrefutably knowing God's "thoughts", but two reasons might be that (a) humans can see for themselves that guidance from God that was rejected by humans was correct, and (b) humans might have opportunity to voluntarily restore God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, apparently thereby resolving the problems so that God doesn't have to override the human privilege of the apparently highest (but nonetheless limited) level of self-determination on Earth, or worse, eliminate human life.

Response To https://twitter.com/thekillerheals/status/745345195009507328

Might you have considered that challenges to God's authority harm reality? Would God be inappropriate for giving humans sufficient opportunity to use human self-determination to withdraw such challenges and restore God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, and should they fail to withdraw/restore within their omnisciently, and supremely benevolently-granted opportunity, would God be inappropriate to act to protect reality from harm?

Response To https://twitter.com/jablomih/status/745626564394631168

At this point in the presented reasoning, two claims seem to be (a) the infinitely-existent source of all else apparently proposed by the Bible seems substantiated by science, and (b) Biblical assertion apparently previously criticized as patently false seem substantiated by science's findings. Both seem demonstrated at this point in the presentation as being substantiated. The remainder of the presentation seems focused upon the apparent Biblical assertion that acceptance of the infinitely-existing source of all else as primary relationship and sovereign authority seems to be the key to optimal human experience. Might you be interested in reviewing that substantiation?

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/745931460524318720

An important distinction seems to exist between (a) "free choice", defined as ability to select from among multiple options, and (b) choice that is free of potential negative consequence. To me, so far, the human experience's context seems generally considered to offer the former, but not the latter. Apparently as a result of the human level of free choice or self-determination, human behavior seems to have potentially adverse consequences, apparently in contrast with aspects of the human experience that seem to only have ability that does no harm. The purpose of the human level of self-determination seems reasonably suggested to be enjoyment of that advanced experience. However, to the extent that human behavior can have negative consequences, humans seem reasonably suggested to make behavioral choices that result in optimal human experience. To the extent that human perception is incapable of reliably identifying optimal behavior, humans seem to have the responsibility to consult the proposed omniscient manager of reality (within the context of primary relationship and sovereign authority) for behavioral guidance. To the extent that humans do not consult said manager of reality within that context, humans seem reasonably expected to harm reality. To the extent to which a human (or other point of reference) harms reality, said manager of reality seems reasonably responsible to protect reality from that harmful human or other point of reference, perhaps via reason, coercion or elimination, at said manager's Biblically-proposed omniscient discretion. To me, this depiction seems more consistent with the Bible's apparent depiction than "It's not a free choice but extortion of compliance via menaces; accept or fry".

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/746381060250927104

Although the Bible might be reasonably described as extrapolation to the extent that human cognition of abstract concepts is considered interpolation/extrapolation and the extent to which Biblical content presents abstract concepts. However, to me, the difference between (a) the Bible's apparent main message and (b) real-time right-of-way determination seems to be that the Bible's apparent main message seems to constitute a static concept that once discovered does not change, but real-time right-of-way determination seems to address factors whose relevance, values and ability to be humanly-identified seems in potentially constant flux. To me, it seems to also so happen that science seems to substantiate the apparently suggested value of Bible's apparent main message, as well as the apparent illogic of human real-time right-of-way determination outside of the Bible's apparently suggested context of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/746383797881573376

To me, our relevant comments seem reasonably interpreted as suggesting that I view free will as a capability with a continuum of levels perhaps appropriately defined as ability to choose from a set of options, and that you view free will as a binary capability. I respectfully hypothesize that, to me, free will as a binary capability seems to constitute omnipotence, which might be reasonably defined as ability limited by nothing other than "logic", if not ability limited by nothing. God's omnipotence seems based upon God being the source of everything, and, apparently therefore, being retentive of God's level of control over everything. To me, logic seems to suggest that no point of reference other than God can be omnipotent because no point of reference other than God is source of everything. Limited free will/self-determination seems to be the logical potential for points of reference other than God. Humans seem suggested to have the highest level of free will/self-determination of all humanly-observed existence. The Bible,science and history seems reasonably interpreted as suggesting that humans might not have done well by the amount of free will/self-determination humans do have, due to the extent to which humans have been unwilling to accept the apparent reality of God as optimal primary relationship and sovereign authority.

Response To https://twitter.com/GoldenTalon/status/749742529143185408

The effective distinction between government and populace seems slight. History seems to show revolution typically becoming that which it overthrows. Science's findings seem to show that intrinsic human limitation and fallibility render social issues beyond human resolution, and the existence of social issues after apparently-suggested 600,000 to multiple millions of years of human existence seems to evidence it. All evidence seems to show that humans are unqualified for that level of administration of the human experience, and that humans are more likely designed to optimally exist with God as primary relationship and sovereign authority.

Re: "Humans realise that gods are human inventions", science's findings (Conservation laws and Mass/Energy equivalence) and reason seems to suggest otherwise. I'd be pleased to elaborate.

Response To https://twitter.com/ProAntiTheist/status/751858782481682433

To me, that seems similar to saying that an auto manufacturer that uses unduplicatable processes to provide the optimal, unequaled car experience and warns against using third-party processors is disreputable. In addition, Genesis 1-2 seems to describe God's initial establishment of the human experience and God's instructions to humans regarding it. Exodus 20 seems to contain the apparently so-called "Ten Commandments". To me, in neither does God seem to mention much less demand worship.

Further, in 2 Samuel 7, King David proposes building a more elaborate temple for God's "presence" in the community. God seems to bless David for caring enough about God to propose such a project, and seems to approve the project. However, God seems to also make clear that God had not demanded it. Those apparent depictions of God seem to demonstrate God to be supremely benevolent toward humans and calling for humans to love God with all heart, soul, mind and strength, rather than needily demanding worship.

To me, the Ten Commandments seem reasonably considered to depict (a) the top ten differences between the Hebrews' likely religious experience as slaves in Egypt for possibly 200-300 years and (b) life with God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, rather than (c) God's top ten rules for the human experience. God's apparent guidelines for the human experience seem Biblically-suggested by the both Old and New Testaments to be comprised of two directives: love God with all heart, soul, mind and strength, and love others as yourself.

God's Social Issues Management

Some seem to suggest that the existence of social issues demonstrates that God either does not care about the human experience's well-being, or is incapable of managing the human experience, and, therefore, is not the omniscient, omnipotent and supremely benevolent creator that the Bible and science's observations seem to suggest.

Preventing And Eliminating Social Issues
God seems Biblically-described as both willing and able to prevent and/or eliminate evil, but also interested in privileging humans with a certain amount of self-determination. Science's findings seem to substantiate the Bible's apparent suggestion that social issues result from the misuse of self-determination to replace God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, and from the resulting behavior that might conflict with God's human experience design, and thereby cause harm.

The Bible seems to suggest that God has balanced (a) opportunity to voluntarily accept God as primary relationship and sovereign authority and (b) the elimination of social issues. However, some seem to criticize God regardless of strategy:

• When God warns regarding behavior that will cause human suffering, God seems to be criticized as being too restrictive.

• When God allows humans to experience firsthand the harm that results from behavior that rejects God's guidance, God seems to be criticized for being too lenient, uncaring about human suffering, or non-existent.

• When God exemplifies the benefit of accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority via a human [Abraham] with apparently strong relationship with and guidance by God (or perhaps with and by good, even prior to knowing God well), and his descendants [Israel], God seems to be accused of favoritism.

• When God directs avoidance of those who reject God as primary relationship and sovereign authority in order to avoid behavior that causes social issues, God seems to be accused of advocating elitism and prejudice.

• When God eliminates those who reject God's guidance and cause social issues, even when "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and ... every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually", God seems to be criticized as being too punitive, and/or vindictive.

If God is criticized regardless of approach regarding humanly-caused problems, perhaps such criticism might not be based upon any valid shortcoming on God's part and might indicate insufficient value of the apparent privilege of human self-determination and/or insufficient recognition of human self-determination's responsibilities.

The Flood
To me, the Bible seems to suggest that:

• God had given humans a problem-free human experience, apparently, including the privilege of a range of self-determination that, although apparently limited, seems to have been and still be the most advanced of all Earth-based forms of existence.
• Humans misused that self-determination to effect replacement of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority with "the serpent" in Genesis 3, and with self in Genesis 4, and to ignore God's apparent instructions.
• Rather than eliminate those that misused their self-determination power to replace God as primary relationship and sovereign authority and harm the human experience and perhaps reality beyond the human experience, God seems described in both Genesis 3 and Genesis 4 as exhibiting patience and understanding by allowing erring humans further opportunity to restore God as primary relationship and sovereign authority.
• Apparently, after a number of generations apparently listed in Genesis 5, Genesis 6 seems to suggest that, except for one person, Noah, the outcome of God's patience and understanding toward replacement of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority was "that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually".

To me, apparently due to the apparent human suffering caused by human malevolence, God seems criticized as either malevolently in accord with such suffering, unconcerned about the suffering, incapable of eliminating malevolence, or non-existent. Might you intend to suggest that God should have left the Genesis 6:5 level of malevolence in place?

Response to: https://twitter.com/DAVE24_7/status/709395319457316865
1) What might you mean by "making the Universe Mysterious"?

2) To me, making creatures capable of living on all planets seems as unnecessary as making creatures capable of eating everything on earth. The Bible seems to suggest that God created humanity to live on Earth, with all the resources it needs for excellent human experience. Secular perspective seems to agree.

Although I haven't given any previous thought to why other humanly-observed planets exist and don't claim to know why, one reasonable possibility might be to achieve goals other than directly supporting life forms, such as maintaining orbital balances.

3) To me, the Bible seems to suggest that God administrates God/human relationships individually, and that individual humans (a) have chosen a point of reference other than God to be primary relationship and sovereign authority, (b) have ignored God's administration of the human experience, and (c) have taught others to do likewise. The apparently adverse outcomes of those behaviors seem to have been warned about by God, and experienced by humanity.

To me, the Bible's existence seems to result from extent to which (a) humanity has sought solutions for these adverse outcomes, (b) the solution is for individuals to accept God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, (c) one of God's measures for helping humanity understand the solution has been to allow an individual who implemented the solution (Abraham) to start a culture based upon the solution (Israel), and apparently to have their God/human relationship experience recorded for future reference.

To me, the Bible seems to suggest that as individuals accept God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, quality of human experience improves. However the improvement seems to result from humans ceasing to ignore God's individual human experience management, rather than from God only beginning to manage individual human experience .

4) To me, the Bible seems to suggest that, when God promises or warns, pronouncement is certain, rather than misleading. However, the nature of "heaven" and "hell" seems unclearly depicted in the Bible, and therefore, I offer little if any insight thereregarding.

To me, the primary incentive for accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority seems to be to achieve optimal human experience. The issue of afterlife experience seems at most Biblically-suggested to be the sole purview of God, and based upon the apparently same key to optimal human experience: individuals' quality of God/human relationship.

5) To me, the Bible seems to suggest that the issue of accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority might not be about ego, but rather about the apparently quality of individuals' impact upon reality. The SIDP home page essay (http://sidpblog.blogspot.com/p/sidpmain.html) explains further.

To me, science seems to suggest that God's management of the rest of the (at least humanly-observed) universe seems to be in fine order.

6) To me, The Bible seems to suggest that God allows a certain measure of "free will" with regard to accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, including with regard to differences in relationship with God. Genesis 4 seems to suggest, that if accepted, no such differences would result in conflict. Numbers 12 seems to clearly illustrate God getting directly involved in such difference in related perspective. These two examples, of probably many Biblical examples of the apparent answer to your concern, seem to illustrate the apparent value of the Bible, apparently posted as concern #3.

7) To me, Genesis 1 seems to suggest that God created sufficient resources for every aspect of the human experience. I seem to have heard recently that, currently, enough food exists to feed 2.5x Earth's current population. Lack of resource seems most logically-suggested to result from attempt to rely on human administration of the human experience, rather than on God as primary relationship and sovereign authority.

Ethics/Moral Standard
Response to: https://twitter.com/AtheistParticle/status/730105614991396865

To me, the issue seems to be how one determines what is right without a higher-than-human authority. There seems to exist no reasoned basis upon which to construct an ethics/moral standard aside from a higher-than-human authority. http://sidpblog.blogspot.com/p/sidpmain.html, "No Authoritative Basis For Ethical Standard" explains further. I welcome your thoughts, including to the contrary.

Response to: https://twitter.com/AveriTheAtheist/status/730174695820103681
I don't claim to know why God is not described as immediately killing Pharaoh upon Pharaoh's refusal, rather than effecting the apparently Biblically-suggested series of events. However, to me, Exodus 1 seems to suggest Pharaoh taking a similar approach to God's blessing upon the Hebrews, and Exodus 14 seems to suggest that Pharaoh was eventually killed.

Attributing Social Issues Management
The Bible seems to suggest that God established a problem-free human experience and that humans deteriorate human experience quality when they attempt to enhance it by replacing God as primary relationship and sovereign authority. This trend seems Biblically-suggested to exist among those who seem to suggest behaving on God's behalf (Numbers 12).

God As Primary Relationship And Sovereign Authority

Responds to https://twitter.com/Polemic_Pigeon/status/729655592365658113
Re: "the Bible implores morality, but threatens non-compliance with the concept of 'Hell'", what might your perspective be regarding that?

Being "Saved" By Evangelistic Effort
To me, the Bible seems to suggest that the issue to which the term "save" refers is the extent to which God is not individuals' primary relationship and sovereign authority. To me, the Bible seems to also suggest that, at most, humans present that information, including the apparent potential to accept God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, but that God is the sovereign administrator of the God/human relationship.

Absence Of "Sin" Versus Absence Of "Free Will"
To me, the Bible seems to use the term "sin" to refer to (a) accepting a point of reference other than God as primary relationship or sovereign authority, (b) undesirable behavior that causes undesirable outcomes and results from such acceptance, and (c) the undesirable outcomes that result from such behavior.

Sin seems logically-suggested to be facilitated by free will, but absence of sin seems Biblically-suggested to result from the ubiquitous, voluntary choices of individuals to accept and maintain God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, rather than from God repossessing the range of free will that God seems Biblically-suggested to have granted humans.

Response to: https://twitter.com/theuntruegod/status/730376762710970368
To me, the Bible seems to suggest the key to optimal human experience is individuals' accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority. The extent to which human presentation of God detracts from that seems to constitute getting in humans' way of achieving optimal human experience.

Substantiation: Adam and Eve

The Biblical story of Adam, Eve, the serpent, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil might not be irrefutably provable as historical fact, but science's observations seem to offer sufficient basis to suggest that it could have occurred.

• Adam's Creation By God
  As source of all other existence, God seems most logically suggested to have created Adam.
• Eve's Creation From Adam's Rib
  In light of the apparent suggestion that science's limited capability has transplanted biological parts from one object to another, produced fully-formed sheep from sheep cells, changed biological cells from one type to another, and accelerated certain natural processes, the omniscient, omnipotent source of existence seems reasonably suggested to be capable of creating Eve from Adam's rib.

• The Serpent
  The serpent seems reasonably suggested to have existed despite apparent lack of contemporary observation, based upon the apparent suggestions (a) that certain contemporary animals exhibit intelligent behavior, communication, and even human-like speech, (b) that animal types have become extinct, have changed form dramatically, and/or have lost certain capabilities, and (c) that human form and capability evolved from that of one-celled organisms.
• The Tree Of The Knowledge of Good And Evil
  The Bible seems typically interpreted as suggesting that fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:9, 17 and Genesis 3) bestowed prohibited knowledge of good and evil information, a possible misinterpretation of the tree's name made not only by readers, but by Adam and Eve.
  Genesis 2:25 seems intended to contrast Genesis 3: 7, 10 to demonstrate (a) the fruit's effect, (b) limited sensory perception's apparent vulnerability to misinterpretation, (c) its apparent resulting unreliability as a decision-making guide, and (d) its apparent need for God as primary relationship and sovereign authority.
  Genesis 3 seems to suggest that Adam and Eve ate the fruit and sensed uneasiness about being unclothed, despite Genesis 2:25's apparently portraying previous ease thereregarding. Perhaps the fruit contained substance that induced anxiety that they associated with their possibly dominant sensory perception at the time, the visual of each others' bodies, and assumed that their first piece of new, prohibited knowledge was the impropriety of nudity. This theory seems consistent with the apparent lack of logical basis for associating nudity, the body's natural state, with impropriety.
  Consequently, perhaps the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was so named because its fruit would induce, and therefore, introduce perception of evil to thus-far, problem-free human experience. This seems reasonable since (a) no mention of perceiving evil seems to exist before Genesis 3, and (b) Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, and 31 seem intended to specify how good everything was, the final verse stating "very good".

Extremism In Religion

Responds to https://twitter.com/thinkerboy2/status/728251102286651396

Re: "Why so much extremism in religion", to me, the Bible seems to suggest that every social issue results from the extent to which God is not individuals' primary relationship and sovereign authority. The book of Amos (apparently written by a prophet via God's inspiration) seems to strongly denounce wars initiated by Israel. This seems to suggest the potential for violent behavior billed as undertaken on God's behalf to be based upon their human initiative, rather than God's direction.

Re: "Solution", I respectfully did not read the link's article because, to me, one of the Bible's primary messages seems to be that any solution other than God as individuals' primary relationship and sovereign authority results in social issues. The SIDP discusses science's findings that seem to substantiate that message.

I welcome your thoughts, including to the contrary.

Response To https://twitter.com/ZachsMind/status/737130327085223936

Re: "the bible says questioning is blasphemy", to me, that statement might warrant clarification. The Bible seems to suggest that acceptance of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority is one of the primary premises of the human experience. One reason seems to be appropriate respect for God's Biblically-suggested sovereign authority. Another reason seems to be that the limitations and fallibility of human perception seem to yield undesirable decisions that result in undesirable behavior that results in undesirable outcomes. Faith in and acceptance of God's omniscient guidance seems to implement God's guidance and avoid the undesirable outcomes. Doubt of and rejection of God's guidance seems to propel toward undesirable outcomes.

That said, to me, the Bible seems to depict God as providing sufficient evidence upon which to base subsequent faith in God. Moses' apparently-suggested pre-Exodus discussion with God in Exodus 3-4, and Gideon's discussion with God in Judges 6:36-40 seem to offer reasonable example thereof.

To summarize, therefore, although faith in God seems Biblically-suggested to be critical to the human experience, God also seems Biblically-suggested to use God's omniscient and supremely benevolent discretion to offer sufficient opportunity to address concern related to accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority.

Response To https://twitter.com/Krisramak/status/737598131383062530

Replacing God with self seems to require acknowledgement of the Bible's apparent suggestion of human responsibility for social issues. Perhaps, that acknowledgement could be viewed in the light of the following:

• the apparent simplicity of the human experience's apparent needs (food, safety, activity, companionship, reproduction), and the apparent plentitude of these resources.
• History's apparent report that human self has not eliminated social issues from the human experience within the millions of years of its apparently-suggested existence.
• Science apparent findings seem to substantiate the Bible's explanation of why human intellect hasn't eliminated social issues, and why it might be incapable of doing so.

Then, perhaps humans might consider accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, rather than (a) administration by human self or (b) administration of one's God/human relationship by others. To me, the Bible seems to suggest that allowing others to administrate one's God/human relationship does not equate to accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority (Exodus 18), and that resulting quality of human experience seems predicted expected to be poor, and perhaps even poorer (1 Samuel 8), since one then seems to add the confusing misdirection of attributing human failings onto God, apparently resulting in reliance upon and rejected reliance upon the wrong parties.

Response To https://twitter.com/PoisonedAtheist/status/737831114568572928

To me, the Bible does not seem to suggest that God punished Adam and Eve because they simply "bit an apple".

• To me, the Bible seems to suggest that they primarily and needlessly punished themselves and humanity to come by doing something that they were warned by God would harm them, and that they mistakenly thought would help them. The SIDP essay at http://sidpblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/biblical-science-adam-and-eve.html presents more detail.
• In addition to the harm that Adam and Eve seem Biblically-suggested to have brought upon themselves and humanity, God seems suggested to have punished them, not for simply "biting an apple", but for doing what God directed they should not do.
  My take on this seems to be that God, as establisher of the human experience, knows what is best for the human experience, and should not be disobeyed. Perhaps, due to the apparent experience-learning nature of human intellect, if readily-observable adverse experience was not associated their deed, they, and generations to come, might not recognize the possibly more direct, subtle, and yet possibly more severe consequences of perceiving anxiety/evil in addition to good and associate those consequences with their deed, and might conclude that it's OK to disregard God.
  To me, much of human innovation seems focused upon overcoming those consequences without accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority. Despite human innovation's possibly perceived successes, human innovation seems to have failed over the apparently-suggested millions of years of human existence to eliminate adversity from the human experience because such adversity seems to stem from not accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority in spite of the apparent limitations and fallibility of human perception. Without such acceptance of God, there seems to exist no authoritative standard for right and wrong, both in principle and in real-time practice. Apparently, as a result, conflicting human perspective (including with regard to God/human relationship) seems to have no resolution but intuitively decision to yield or to attempt to force the other to yield.

Re: "... who created your God where did he come from what's his origin ...", to me, both the Bible and science seem to suggest infinite past existence, rather than creation, of the source of everything else, apparently Biblically referred to as "God".

Response To https://twitter.com/Clergy211/status/738068345715466241

I seem to understand and respect the "progressive agenda" as being appropriate change. However, my self-directed review of the Bible and of sociology seems to lead me to the conclusion that the focus that might optimally lead to optimally human experience might be neither progressive nor conservative, neither "change" nor "no change", but rather, that which, to me, the Bible and science seem to suggest has always been the simple key to optimal human experience: voluntary, individual acceptance of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority. To me, with both the "change" and "no change" focuses, an issue seems unsettled: "what should change, and what should not change?", questions whose answers seem only known by God, apparently due to God's apparently-suggested omniscience and supreme benevolence, and human apparently-suggested limited and fallible perception. To me, focus on accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority seems to (a) put us precisely where the Bible seems to suggest we ought to have been since Genesis 3:6, (b) effect the resolve that God seems Biblically-suggested to have planned since then, and, (c) provide the mechanism to perceive the answers the questions apparently left unanswered by apparent progressive and conservative goals.

"Discussion" seems to be this project's middle name. Toward that end, I welcome your thoughts.

Response To https://twitter.com/Clergy211/status/738141452190916608

Re: Plato's Cave, to me the Bible seems to suggest that God's omniscient jurisdiction over each unique God/human relationship is the "human experience system piece" that appropriately manages the "Plato's Cave" human experience pattern. To me, the Bible seems reasonably interpreted as suggesting knowing both the experience of the shackled and the free, and that both might considered each other "disadvantaged" for different reasons.

To me, this might apply to theist/non-theist interaction such that theists who associate benefit with the God/relationship might wish to facilitate that benefit for others, and non-theists who might associate harm with the God/human relationship might wish to eliminate that harm for themselves, if not also for others.

To me, God seems reasonably considered the ultimate and optimal manager of God's apparent relationship with both believers and non-believers. If I can help dispel possible misconceptions and/or offer other hopefully insightful perspective regarding God's existence, the God/human relationship, and the Bible, to me, such seems the most valuable achievement possible in an adverse human experience context since, God seems most logically suggested to be the key to such adversity's resolution. To me, although multiple humanitarian approaches seem warranted, social issues seem comprised of two problems: (a) symptoms such as health, social and environmental issues; and (b) the cause of such issues. The apparent extent to which human administration attempts to manage those problems seems demonstrably suggested to be the extent to which both problems seem to exist. The apparent extent to which the cause of such issues is non-acceptance of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, the solution seems logically suggested to be acceptance of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority. Nonetheless, the path thereto seems Biblically-suggested to be totally between God and the individual. Again, my proposed role seems to be to offer hopefully insightful perspective to those who might remotely be interested.

Response To https://twitter.com/AtheistEngineer/status/738466125265129472

I seem to respect the perspective. I seem neither aware of scientific data substantiating or refuting the existence of Jesus or Jesus' apparently Biblically-suggested role, and seem to welcome suggestion thereof. The SIDP seems to focus upon the Bible's apparent primary message which seems substantiatable by science's findings and logical reasoning based thereupon: the key to optimal human experience is voluntary, individual acceptance of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority. My reasoning seems to be that God is capable of providing to the individual, within the context of the individual accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, with optimal insight regarding that individual's optimal relationship with God.

Response To http://sidpblog.blogspot.com/p/sidpmain.html comment: Dean Esmay June 5, 2016 at 9:48 AM

To me, Google seems to suggest that "Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice". My perspective seems to be that the Bible seems to constitute the most useful guide to the human experience that I have encountered. To me, discussion with apparent advocates of other texts seems to confirm this perspective. However, to me, the Bible seems to suggest that God is the sole authority regarding every aspect of reality, including, at the level of individuals, every aspect of the God/human relationship. To me, the Bible seems at least primarily intended to offer a reasonable primer regarding the God/human relationship via depiction of the God/Israel relationship. To me, Genesis 22:18 seems reasonably interpreted as supportive of that perspective.

To me, the modern/traditional, progressive/conservative issue does not seem to constitute the primary issue, which to me seems Biblically-suggested to simply be "God as primary relationship and sovereign authority" as the key to optimal human experience.

Response To https://twitter.com/ithinkbsgill/status/741151248980774912

I don't seem to consider science the authority regarding the physical world. However, some seem to consider science their authority regarding reality, or perhaps more precisely, a valuable tool for distinguishing between hypotheses regarding reality that they might wish to accept or reject. To that extent, perhaps demonstrating that science's findings seem to substantiate the Bible's apparent message (that accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority is the key to optimal human experience) might help those who value science as an ideological filter reconsider accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority.

Response To https://twitter.com/Sarsinister/status/743063039885332481

Perhaps my read of the Bible might help clarify. To me the Bible seems to suggest that omniscient, omnipotent and supremely benevolent God privileged humanity with the potential to experience the highest level of self-determination on Earth, regarding which humans optimally consulting God (as primary relationship and sovereign authority) with regard to the optimal use of that self-determination. Adversity in the human experience seems Biblically-suggested to have been introduced by human choice to replace God (as primary relationship and sovereign authority) with others and self. In addition, however, the Bible seems to also suggest that human attempt to administrate the God/human relationship might be of human design, whereas God's human experience design seems to be to for God to directly administrate God's relationship with each individual.

Response To https://twitter.com/Nmahadea/status/745093800419221506

To me, Genesis 6 seems to show both criticisms wrong. Genesis 1-2 seem to suggest that God created an enjoyable, problem-free human experience. Humans seem described as introducing problems by attempting to replace God as primary relationship and sovereign authority in Genesis 3, and escalating problems in Genesis 4 by ignoring God's guidance away from even greater evil behavior. The genealogy in Genesis 5 seems reasonably interpreted as suggesting that God allowed a sufficient expanse of time for humans to voluntarily solve the problem by restoring God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, but instead, humans seemed to continue to escalate evil to the intense level described in Genesis 6:5 before God seems described as intervening thereafter in Genesis 6. Apparently, therefore, criticism of God for not intervening seems unfounded since God seems to intervene, and criticism of God for intervening seems unfounded based upon the intensity of the problem of human evil behavior at that point and the amount of opportunity apparently granted by God for humans to voluntarily correct the problem.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/745523357827772416

To me, the phrase "potential agenda conflicts" seems a bit more meaningful to our discussion than "issues", so I'll respectfully use it in this response.

Such conflicts do not seem unique to the human experience. Throughout reality, components thereof seem generally accepted to potential conflict. The key difference among them seems to be their level of self-determination.

Reality below a certain level of self-determination seems generally accepted to have a set of programmed responses that seems to establish comparative right-of-way, and therefore immediately resolve conflicts. Equal, conflicting rights-of-way seems to have no resolution but impasse.

A greater level of self-determination seems to allow initial impasse to be overcome via intellectually-identified right-of-way guidelines, rather than via physically programmed right-of-way guidelines.

To me, logic seems to suggest that limited, fallible human perception might not always identify the optimal comparative right-of-way determination. However the apparently order-normative characteristic of reality seems to suggest that an optimal comparative right-of-way determination exists. The apparently Biblically proposed, omniscient authority over reality seems Biblically and reasonably suggested to be aware of that determination and supremely interested in conveying that information and interested in the effecting of that solution.

The sole impedance to optimal conflict resolution seems to be whether the humans involved will use their self-determination to choose to place faith in that omniscient authority and abide by that optimal determination. To the extent that one or more humans chooses a less-than-optimal option, agenda conflict (apparently not necessarily a problem) then, and perhaps only then, seems to transform into social harm.

To me, the Bible seems to suggest that acceptance of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority can even shape human thought so that even agenda conflict is intuitively avoided, and not perceived. Human self-determination remains exercised via the voluntary choice to accept God as primary relationship and sovereign authority while employing the advantage of God's omniscient and supremely benevolent guidance.

To me, some seem to suggest this God/human relationship dynamic to be demeaning to human intellect, but humans seem to employ that dynamic themselves in forms such as human government and GPS.

Response To https://twitter.com/mikejmartin/status/746651272489615360

I respect the perspective. However, might you have considered that, to the extent that the key to optimal human experience is voluntary, individual acceptance of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, as science's findings seem to indicate (to clarify, this does not refer to human administration of the proposed God/human relationship), not accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority seems to negatively affect the quality of the human experience as history seems to indicate?

Response To https://twitter.com/NewbornTight/status/740175413507330049

To me, the Bible seems to suggest that the human experience was designed to depend upon voluntary, individual acceptance of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority. To me, the quest to "know true things" seems to result from the apparent Genesis 3-like decision to attempt to navigate the human experience based upon (a) human perception of decision-critical circumstance factors rather than (b) God's direction, as primary relationship and sovereign authority, has directed.

To me, based upon my understanding of the human experience apparently established by God, other than God, the precise nature of that which occurs around the individual does not seem to be the individual's primary responsibility or concern. To me, the individual's primary concern seems optimally to be the thought and other behavior that God knows to be optimal for the individual. For example (which seems to be the purpose of Genesis 1-3's writing), whether or not the fruit of a tree seems "good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise" (Genesis 3:6), if "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die", optimal focus seems to be on that which God has said, rather than on the true nature of the fruit of the tree, and optimal behavior governs self accordingly.

To me, two benefits of this approach seem to be that (a) the limitation and fallibility of human perception seem reasonably expected to be precluded by God's apparently Biblically-suggested omniscience and supreme benevolence from leading toward adverse outcomes, and (b) entrusting God with sovereign administration of the human experience seems to free the individual to pursue the human experience's apparent human goals, apparently proposed in Genesis 1:28-31, Deuteronomy 6:5, and Leviticus 19:18.

Perhaps, therefore, the entire Bible might have been written to demonstrate the simple point that, if the latter half of Genesis 3:6 read "... to make one wise, she said 'Maybe, but God, my primary relationship and sovereign authority, said no, and therefore, I do as well.', then thought to herself, 'Now, where's that man o' mine?', and all individuals made relatively similar decisions, the human experience seems more likely historical and contemporary paradise than adversity-riddled, apparently even assuming limited and fallible human perception.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/741951969082941440

To me, the term "morality guide" seems defined as "a guide to distinguishing optimal behavior from other behavior". The purpose of seeking such distinction seems to be to allow individuals to identify and undertake optimal behavior, moment by moment. My point seems to have been that identification of behavior that would be optimal seems Biblically-suggested and substantiated by science's findings to be the ultimate purview of God, communicated to the individual by God within the context of the individual's voluntary acceptance of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority.

Responsibility For Quality Of Human Experience

Some seem to suggest that, since believers in God credit God for good fortune, they must also credit God for adversity. This suggestion seems to overlook the apparently Biblically-suggested nature of the human experience.

The Bible seems to suggest that the human experience context that God established ranged from good to very good, in God's apparently omniscient opinion (Genesis 1). Apparently, that context included the possibly highest-privilege-experience of voluntarily choosing to accept God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, rather than being involuntarily hard-wired to comply with God's apparent design of the human experience. Apparently, however, that apparent gift seems to have been bestowed at the expense of gifting the potential to choose another (and apparently therefore, unqualified) primary relationship and sovereign authority and, apparently as a result, an adverse-quality human experience.

Based upon this view and upon the apparent Biblical suggestion that God has offered humanity the further privileges of (a) firsthand recognition of the results of rejecting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority and (b) opportunity to (again) voluntarily restore God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, humans seem most logically-suggested to be the party responsible for the introduction of and continuation of adversity in the human experience.

Response To https://twitter.com/Isaacharrop75/status/737548108138061825

The posted comment seems to suggest a distinction between scientists and religious people. To me, the primary distinction might not be science versus religion, but rather, administration of the human experience via human intellect versus administration of the human experience via God as primary relationship and sovereign authority. To me, logic doesn't seem to suggest that being fascinated by the study of different aspects of reality precludes acceptance of God as reality's sovereign establisher and authority, as the SIDP website seems to demonstrate. However, (a) acceptance of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority and (b) acceptance of human intellect as primary relationship and sovereign authority do seem to be two, mutually-exclusive choices.

To me, having read the Bible in its entirety doesn't render me cognizant of everything important about the human experience. However, the Bible's apparent message that God as primary relationship and sovereign authority is the key to optimal human experience seems to lock so tightly with science's apparent findings and answer all the questions that I've encountered, that neither a reasoning flaw nor a stronger explanation seems to have been identified in more than 5 years of engaging in this discussion with those presenting contrasting viewpoints.

To me, insult, unsubstantiated refutation and issue deflection by holders of contrasting viewpoints does not seem to contribute much to issue analysis. Apparently, experienced debaters seem to suggest association of such behavior with likely indication of lack of substantiated refutation.

To me, much of the debate between Biblical thought and other religious and secular thought seems to center around apparently contrasting estimations of the past in order to determine the path going forward. To the extent that those estimations do not seem irrefutably resolvable, perhaps the issue focus might optimally be turned to analysis of proposed paths forward. To me, the Bible seems to demonstrably propose the most self-consistent and scientifically-consistent path forward, and the SIDP website seems to portray it. Substantiated suggestion of its reasoning flaws seems welcome. Submitting "God doesn't exist" as a reasoning flaw doesn't seem a valuable contribution in light of the apparent substantiation of God's apparent existence by science's findings. Refutation of God's existence would seem to need to substantiate refutation of science's apparently relevant findings.

Response To https://twitter.com/TriAtheist/status/741250037674430464

To me, the issue does not seem to be whether the Earth and human experiences were made perfect, but whether the human experience was to have its apparent potential to experience accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority via choice or via behavioral limitation. Trees, rocks and perhaps all other "Earth content" seem to have behavioral tendency that (perhaps at least generally) seems to work harmoniously with other aspects of reality (the predator experience might warrant additional clarification, but for now, the general point ...). Humans, however, seem to have the potential to perceive goals that conflict with God's apparent design of reality. Perhaps the goal was to allow humans the privilege of experiencing that level of "power" or capability. The simple design seems to be to accept God as primary relationship and sovereign authority with regard to the yielding of that "power", and all would be as good as Genesis 1 seems to suggest God considered it to be. The risk seems to have been the potential for limited-perception beings to replace God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, and to harmfully conflict with reality as a result of not accepting omniscient, supremely benevolent God's guidance away from such harmful conflict.

I seem grateful to God for the apparently superlative Earth-existence form, and for the potential for optimal human experience, and I hope to realize that optimal human experience potential by implementing the apparently simple plan of accepting God as primary relationship and sovereign authority.

The Bible

The Bible's Purpose
To me, the Bible's primary purpose doesn't seem to be to serve as a history or science text, although at least some of its challenged messages seem plausible as historical fact and consistent with science's findings. Rather, the Bible seems intended to convey an understanding of God, the God/human relationship, and the cause of and solution for social issues.

Teaching The Bible
To me, teaching the Bible's description of God and the God/human relationship seems primary. The ark seems part of the Bible kit of anecdotes, precepts, poetry and (apparently-suggested) prophecy intended to convey that primary point to people with sufficient life experience to recognize the information's apparent relevance. Those people might then allow God to direct them in conveying the primary message and the value of the Bible as a tool for conveying the primary message to children and the more life-experienced who are newly developing their God/human relationship.

The Bible's Trueness
Responds to: https://twitter.com/reasonandlogic/status/728974259524120576

I don't seem to claim to have irrefutable proof that all of the Bible's anecdotes are historical fact, and that all of the Bible's suggestions are consistent with contemporary science's findings. However, to me, both (a) the existence of God as described by the Bible, and (b) the Bible's apparent message that the key to optimal human experience is individual acceptance of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, seem consistent with science's findings.

The key issue seems to be whether figurative expression or limited, period, technical understanding of physical nature discredit a writing intended to demonstrate God as the key to optimal human experience.

To me, they do not seem to because the Bible's apparent focus does not seem to be primarily physical nature, but rather, the nature of the God/human relationship. The nature of that relationship, perhaps like that of many other relationship types, seems independent of whether, for example, the earth is a disc or sphere.

The Inerrant Word Of God
My perspective regarding the Bible's content might differ in some ways from popular Judeo, and/or Judeo-Christian thought. For example, the Bible as a total work seems reasonably suggested to be inspired by God because it seems to me to present the most useful guide to understanding the path from and to optimal human experience that I have encountered; and an apparently powerful tool for helping restore its apparently-suggested God/human relationship and the quality of human experience. Discussion with other texts' apparent advocates seems to confirm this suggestion.

To me, the Bible seems intended to depict various aspects of the God/human relationship via depiction of the apparently-suggested God/Israel relationship. As a result, the Bible as a literary work seems reasonably suggested to possibly include thought resulting from varied levels of inspiration. To me, however, those thoughts, when assembled into a "big picture", seem to effectively articulate the Bible's apparent message: the key to optimal experience is God as primary relationship and sovereign authority.

The Bible And Other Texts
With all appropriate respect to other texts and their enthusiasts, to me, the Bible seems the most useful guide to the human experience. It seems to explain the cause of and solution for all social issues via various literary tools including anecdote, guideline, poetry, and apparently, prophecy. The Bible's anecdotes seem to portray and therefore address both the positive and negative potential of the human experience, even among those who consider God to exist, perhaps to demonstrate how human experience quality deteriorates when humans attempt to replace God as primary relationship and sovereign authority. In addition, the Bible's apparent explanation for the cause of and solution for social issues seems consistent with science's findings.

To me, personal discussion with other texts' enthusiasts seems to confirm this perspective.

Biblical Suggestion Not Considered To Be Substantiated By Science
I don't seem to claim that the suggestion to which this comment responds (a) represents common occurrence, (b) is substantiated by science's findings to date, or (c) is historical fact. However, God's apparently science-substantiated role as the source of all other existence seems to provide sufficient window to logically propose the suggestion's viability.

To propose apparently relevant context, phenomena apparently facilitated by science's findings might be considered magic by an observer unfamiliar with the phenomena and its mechanics, and might be considered illogical by a recipient of report of the phenomena. The reporter's apparently likely lack of language with which to describe the phenomena and its mechanics might increase the likelihood of the report recipient's categorization. Video on a smart phone might serve as an example.

Abraham's Test
To me, Genesis 22 might be more accurately titled "Abraham's Test" than "Abraham's Sacrifice" since (a) God seems suggested to have halted Abraham from going through with God's apparently-suggested sacrifice, and (b) the point of this experience seems to have been God allowing Abraham to experience maintaining God as primary relationship and sovereign authority when reason to behave otherwise might have seemed preferable. This experience seems to have been another step toward Abraham's becoming the starting point for God's apparently-intended illustration, via the nation of Israel, of human experience with God as primary relationship and sovereign authority.

To me, the value of maintaining God as primary relationship and sovereign authority even when reason to behave otherwise seems preferable seems portrayed by Genesis 2-3, where Eve and Adam seem to have introduced adversity into the human experience by abandoning God as primary relationship and sovereign authority in pursuit of an apparently preferable option.

Ten Commandments: Relevance
To me, your post seems to suggest that only two of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17) have been incorporated into laws. Unsure of the range of territories to which the comment refers, this response addresses territories within the U.S.A.

To me, every verse of the Ten Commandments seems implemented to some extent in U.S.A. territory law, rather than only two commandments being incorporated..

Multiple perspectives seem to exist on how Exodus 20:2-17's apparently 16 verses are separated into 10 principles, so perhaps I might optimally attempt to parse the passage by verse, rather than by commandment.

A theory of mine regarding the Ten Commandments' purpose might be helpful. To me, the Ten Commandments don't seem originally intended to serve as the sovereign, real-time, decision-making authority, but rather, they seem likely intended to clarify key differences between (a) the social and religious culture of the Hebrews'/Israel's ex-enslavers, and (b) the human experience as God designed it.

Exodus 20:2-11 seems to address the sovereignty of God/human relationship. The U.S.A.'s constitution seems to contain a law barring governmental administration of the God/human relationship.

Exodus 20:12 seems to me to call for respect for parents. In general, U.S.A. law seems to allow parents to administrate this principle, and seems to acknowledge the general jurisdiction of parents over the decision-making of minors, while reserving for government the right to intervene when it deems necessary.

Exodus 20:13 seems to prohibit killing, and U.S.A. law seems to attempt to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate killing, and prohibit the inappropriate.

Exodus 20:14 seems to prohibit adultery, and seems suggested to exist as law within certain U.S.A. territories.

Exodus 20:15's prohibition on stealing seems relatively common in U.S.A. law.

Exodus 20:16's prohibition on bearing false witness seems commonly prohibited as perjury.

Exodus 20:17 seems to prohibit covetousness, or apparently in other words, wanting other people's resources rather than the appropriate acquisition of one's own. I don't seem to recall U.S.A. law prohibiting wanting other people's resources, however, intent seems to be legislatively considered an important factor in determining criminal guilt. In addition, government seems suggested to delve into addressing intent to prevent harm before it occurs. Perhaps guidelines for doing so might exist within U.S.A. law.

Slavery Guidelines
Response to: https://twitter.com/RobOpie/status/730093902007504896

To me, in light of (a) the Bible's apparent central guideline to love God with all of your, heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love others as your self, and (b) God having just liberated the Hebrews from slavery, passages related to slavery management seem most likely attributable to the human administrative body apparently suggested by Jethro in Exodus 18, rather than to God. That body seems reasonably suggested to have become acclimated to possibly centuries of enslavement, and might have considered their liberation an opportunity to fine-tune slavery, rather than eradicate it.

Distinguishing God's Guidelines From Humans'
Previously "Distinguishing God's Guidelines From Man's
Response to https://twitter.com/GrahamMundie/status/730542786848641025

To me, the Bible seems to suggest a central message regarding God and God's design for the human experience that, so far, might serve as an attribution plumbline: God and God's design for the human experience is all good until free-will behavior warrants otherwise (Genesis 1, Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18, Mark 12:28-33, Luke 10:25-37). That seems to rule out God acting inappropriately.

The account regarding Adam, Eve, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the serpent seems intended to demonstrate that God's supreme benevolence might not always be recognizable to limited human perception, but is the sole suggested benevolence that is optimally assumed to be.

Leviticus 11
Leviticus 11 seems suggested by some to substantiate suggestion that the Bible is invalid because of certain statements that seem to conflict with contemporary science.

Firstly, Leviticus 11:6 seems to read "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud". The criticism seems to suggest that rabbits don't chew their cud. However, although rabbits might not move food between internal chambers as cows seem to, rabbits seem suggested to eat and digest their food twice. That seems sufficient to reasonably warrant the relevant co-categorization.

Lastly, the King James Version seems to use the term "fowl" to describe a list that includes bats. However, contemporary science seems to suggest that bats are not members of the apparent bird classification.

This apparent conflict seems misleading, because the term "fowl" seems clearly, consistently and reasonably used within the text to refer to "winged life forms". Using "fowl" to refer to "winged life forms" seems appropriately acknowledged as differing from contemporary usage, but word usage changes seem generally accepted as commonplace throughout human history. The issue of the scope of such usage during the writers' time period seems non-germaine since the meaning seems clearly, consistently and reasonably used within its context. In addition, suggested conflict with scientific life form classification seems non-germaine since the passage's apparently clear contextual meaning seems clearly unrelated to any scientific classification.

In light of the above, Leviticus 11:13-23 doesn't seem reasonably considered to substantiate suggestion that the Bible is invalid.

Interpreting The Bible
Communication seems generally considered to be subject to interpretation, and therefore, misinterpretation. An apparently important feature of SIDP discussion seems to be scrutiny of the logical basis for interpretation choice.

Apparently, like other communication, the Bible might have one correct interpretation, and multiple reasonable but incorrect interpretations. To me, individuals seem responsible for requesting God's interpretation guidance, under the assumption that God is supremely interested in the individual gaining the understanding that God knows to be optimal for that individual.

For those that have not accepted God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, reading the Bible and allowing time to clearly understand one's questions about it might be helpful. The Bible seems to contain a large library of concepts presented through its various literary forms, and conclusions drawn from one passage might be modified by conclusions drawn from another.