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.

Response To https://twitter.com/FeedAtheism/status/736997227579768832

Re: "Oh yeah, we’d also have to concede that sin exists and that its definition is, well, basically, just look in the mirror", to me, my study of the Bible seems to suggest that the term "sin" seems used to refer to multiple concepts, perhaps beginning with the decision to replace God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, and including thought and other behavior that seem to result, and the adverse outcomes that, in turn, seem to result.

Re: "If Christianity is true, then all of life—all of it—is nothing more than a staging ground upon which this drama of faith is to be played out, the drama that determines who will believe and who won’t", an apparently reasonable alternative depiction of the human experience seems to be that we are given an opportunity to experience a grandly enjoyable existence (nature still seems amazing despite the harm apparently suggested to have been humanly perpetrated upon it), but, apparent due to the limited and fallible nature of human perception (and apparently, as a result, human decision-making), the quality of that experience seems to depend wholly upon acceptance of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, not just belief in God.

Re: "Those who say “no” to the question, and who may well have had what seemed to them to be very good, legitimate, justifiable reasons to say “no,” are not transported into that realm", to me, the apparently-reported Jim Jones debacle seems possibly exceptional reason for serious examination of suggestion that one relinquish personal direction to any point of reference. To me, the Bible seems to suggest not only that God understands this, but that God warned about it (1 Samuel 8).

To me, the Bible seems to suggest that allowing humans to continue forward after choosing to replace God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, whether in a subsequent realm or in the current, seems to risk harm to that context, as history seems to substantiate. God, in protection of an unflawed context, might omnisciently choose to remove or bar such choosers from it, as Genesis 3:22-23 seems to illustrate.

To me, criticizing such proposed action by God seems ideologically inconsistent with accepting a humanly administrated judicial penal system that separates certain proposed societal offenders from the rest of society, apparently to protect the rest of society from the offenders. God's apparently-suggested omniscience seems to suggest God's related action as being the infinitely more appropriate of the two.

Re: "He looks upon them with disgust because their sins have not been cleansed in the blood of his son", to me, both the Old and New Testaments seem to suggest a different posture as God's toward those who choose to replace God as primary relationship. The Old Testament prophetic books, apparently referred to by some as the "Doom-and-gloom" books, seem to forecast tremendous adversity for those who choose to replace God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, yet seem to intermittently clarify that the intent is solely to incentivize their restoration of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, and that the forecast is "easily" reversible via their doing so.

Other relevant passages seem to demonstrate God being patient with humanity, perhaps now as well as then, perhaps so much so, that some seem to criticize God for allowing humanly-caused human problems to persist.

Re: "I’m going to make being alive in this Universe the hardest, cruelest, nastiest, most agonizing experience imaginable", to me, the Bible seems to portray a different picture in which Genesis 1 seems to go through a relatively large amount of conscious effort to convey that after every day of God's apparently-suggested creation, God remarked about how good it was, apparently after the 6th day, even upping the description to "very good". Afterward, God seems portrayed as inviting enjoyment of the creation, imposing solely one explicit restriction, and providing like companionship for human enjoyment. Apparently, all humans needed and still need to do is accept God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, and the human experience seems Biblically-suggested to continue problem-free forever.

However, the decision seems to have been made, perhaps both then and since, to replace God as primary relationship and sovereign authority, and the result seems to have been as disastrous as predicted. The Bible seems to explain why and how to reverse it, and science's findings seem to substantiate the Bible's apparent depiction.

The comment's presented article "The Terrible Reality that Would Exist if Christianity Were True" seems to further depict God as the cause of human experience problems, but perhaps the above offers a balancing perspective pertinent to the article's remainder.

Response To https://twitter.com/pinkheretic/status/734774011352096768

I seem to have found reason to wonder if Adam and Eve human ancestry is the most logical Biblical interpretation even though it might be the most common. Genesis 1-2 seem equally reasonably interpreted as crediting Adam and Eve with either human ancestry or Israeli ancestry. However, Genesis 4 seems to most logically weigh in favor of Adam and Eve's Israeli ancestry with God directly creating other humans that the Bible might not report. To clarify, if Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's only children and Cain killed Abel, multiple human creations by God seems to be the only way that seems to occur to me thus far for the other vengeful humans from which Cain seems to express the need to be protected in Genesis 4:14. Consequently, perhaps the Adam/Eve human ancestry issue is resolved.

Perhaps fortuitously, Genesis 4:14 seems to possibly also resolve the Noah "earth-wide flood" issue. To me, a reasonable flood theory seems to be that the phrase "the earth" as used in Genesis 6 might be intended to refer to the bounds of the generally-inhabited region, rather than the entire planet. To me, Genesis 4:14 seems to use the phrase in that way since it seems unlikely for Cain to fear being removed from planet Earth and being killed by anyone, unless Cain was afraid of being killed by extra-terrestrials while Cain was away from planet Earth. The more reasonable interpretation seems to be that Cain feared being deemed a murder-related social outcast, and possibly killed by others as such. Therefore, perhaps Noah's flood of "the earth" is suggested to have only taken place over a limited area, apparently rendering moot the apparent flood and animal procession issues of a planet-wide deluge.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/747522039746072576

To me, I seem to have demonstrated that logically sound reasoning, based upon science's findings, depicts the apparently Biblically-suggested attributes of infinite existence, consciousness, omniscience, omnipotence, and (I haven't yet presented) supreme benevolence for the role of source of all other existence simply using energy. The current point of the discussion does not even take into account the apparent final piece of the presentation's reasoning that seems to strongly suggest God as the point of reference at the beginning of the existential sequence of events that (a) actually has the attributes that the presented reasoning has (for analysis' sake) thus far attributed to energy and (b) effects the behavior of energy that seems to demonstrate the presented attributes.

To me, the rebuttal criticism (of a refusal to accept that the presentation assumes too much and pretends where it does not assume too much) seems similar to all but one submitted rebuttal in that it seems unaccompanied by supportive reasoning. The one exception that seems to come to mind seems clearly demonstrated via response reasoning to be flawed. To me, such unsupported criticism seems therefore ad hominem. Nonetheless, I respect the perspective.