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.