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.