In preparation for studying Yhvh’s word a structure should be set down as a ground work and foundation for how the learning and research will take place, and the logic a person should grow in leading the simple to understanding.  As a person who once was not loyal in heart to Yhvh or even wanted in my heart to serve, perhaps it might be good to start with the ego battle which was my experience, and after explore the logic and stability of truth concepts.  

As a person my ego battle began after having been baptized during a time of personal weakness.  Questions of the existence of God, and the base desire not to be a slave or be required to bend my wants desires, and drives, to someone else formed in my mind.  In essence a mental shout of “Why should I follow you? I want to do what I want to do!”.  

My answer to the question of God is probably very different from others, as it is most cerebral and less evidence based.  Looking at it from a mathematical and physics perspective, there are several unexplained natural laws, or at least the explanations in my mind which sound like horse manure.  Why does the ocean stay at the shoreline?  How is gravity created?  The 2 questions are both related.  The physics explanation for the shoreline is the gravity holds it in place and the moon is responsible for the tides.  At first thought this does not seem flawed, until gravity itself is examined.  Gravity is said to be caused by mass,but not electricity, radiation, light, or any other known measurable identified property in physics, I disagree.  This opinion having been arrived at after having reviewed the experiment process attempting to prove mass to gravity connections, in that it needs a completely 0 or near zero atmosphere free of micro static, micro magnetism, air movement, low light, micro vibrations, radiation, and un-visable waves, a near impossible thing to achieve.   The common explanation comes from Theoretical physics, and states gravity is cause by space-time curvature, ripples, bend, or suctions, possibly cause by uneven distributions in mass, in a nutshell density. As a logic system it is flawed.  It happens, yes, but the explanation of why it happens is horse manure, mostly because of how chaotic asteroid belts and meteor clusters are, the general chaos of matter in space, and the amount of different energy types needing necessary nullification for the experiment processes.   Some of those previous things perhaps have visible and measurable negative gravity. Fluid dynamics of oceans are even more improbable as scientific gravity explanations.  The relatively large amount of underwater eruptions, and in some cases extremely low elevation of land should have cause mass disaster worldwide in low elevation areas, especially lowland plains marshes and swamp areas.  A tectonic shift of inches and feet in the worlds ocean should shift shoreline sea levels, and change coastlines in many areas, or cause disasters far greater than experienced because of water displacement and wave action.  Oddly this is not the case.  This is my personal opinion and is where science and theoretical physics failed.  This probably had more impact on me having grown up in Florida, a place where a lot of land is within a few feet of sea level, and having had experience in land surveying, measuring elevations, and wondering why the entire state was not flooded with surface level saltwater.  This part of the struggle in my mind lasted perhaps a year, at which point the decision was made to table it.  After years of partial thinking on this subject there are many many “scientific coincidences” which cause a fantastic mind bending balancing act about how they are caused.  Almost every single science and physics principle known to man somehow feeds into the reasons why the oceans do not spill over into the land.  This cannot be a coincidence, it is more complicated than the theoretical physics of space-time or/to mass calculations.  If you would like to get into a study which is simply beyond all human limits to comprehend, study why the shores stay bound where they do.

KJV Job 38:8 to 11  Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?  When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,  And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,   And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

The issue of Ego clash did not take very long, just a few weeks.  In the realm of your mind if you imagine God, and yourself as equal thinking entities, this process could take a lifetime.  Which is at the start what I struggled with.  Even if the mind is supremely critical of God especially on subjects of good vs evil, fairness vs unfairness, beauty vs grotesque,  servitude vs freedom.  My case was one of the latter, not wanting to be enslaved.  The breaking of the ego struggle in my case was one of first identifying the probable limits and intelligence of God.  Even if I did not understand the goal and purpose God, or his intelligence, if God did create everything, then he was smarter than me, if he only inspired just the word he’s still smarter than me.  If he created everything he had more might.  My issue being one of feeling enslaved was broken by a simple thought.  If as a person I do not want to serve God I do not have to, but this will lead to my personal destruction.  If I choose to serve in freewill, then I am a freeman as a friend instead of a slave, because if eternal life is a possibility then doing someone else a few favors is a small price to pay to get it, especially when what is asked is to live a socially peaceful life.

On the other subject of good vs evil, fairness vs unfairness, beauty vs grotesqueness, at this point God makes the rules so why contest them. He can smush us like less than bugs on a whim, so why should we take the chance of angering him?  The only reasonable thing to do is to ask him why he does the things he does, or search for the answers he has already given.  There are answers to all of those questions in the bible if God is indeed the God of the bible.

What type of God should a person choose to be friends with? The answer should be obvious, perhaps not.  If all of the options for god are on the table, then there are multitudes of other gods which might be “The God” or “one of the gods”. The God should be trustable, true, very mighty,  knowledgeable, and one capable of being friendly.  There are some gods which at this point are obviously false, most of those are those in stories about the specific god fighting a set of mythic creatures, this pairs down the list dramatically removing a great number of gods due to the lack of evidence found in nature.  There are of course a number of myths where there was only 1 of the creature fought, and those cannot be discounted because the evidence has not been found yet.  Then there are gods involved in myths which are evidently false, most of these include continents based on the backs of large animals and such, or on the backs of another god, or some other part of the creation story or myth that has no compatible observable evidence with our modern evidence. At this point entire civilizations of beliefs have been culled.  Then there are gods who were said to have lived in a particular place, that since then has been frequently visited, and no god has been found.  A quick Google search can show several lists and books with a total of gods well over 3000 at the start, not counting the millions of Hindu gods, which after the end of filtering for both truthfulness, trust, and consistency dramatically shortens the list.  What good is a god who is not truthful, trustable, and consistent? It would be no good to do favors for a god who was a liar, untrustable, and inconsistent.  When all things are said and done,  the God of the bible stays on the list, at least in terms of social reliability, if not the only one left on the list, even if we personally may think his teachings are harsh or punitive.  

As a writer I must admit to having never completed those science studies, in the future I will if it is in God’s will.  The extent of my personal knowledge on this subject is several weeks researching various cultural religions on every continent, and finding the myths did not match with recorded real evidence, and months and years fact checking science.  Admittedly while the creation written in the bible seems fantastic, it yields the same result as the earth we live on.  

Why the God of the bible? The historical locations in his books all match the real world.  There have been scientific evidences found because of writings in the bible, things like the female sex of an ant colony, the roundness of the earth, the world wide flood, even the flesh rotting bacteria used under the law to judge a woman as an adulteress.  Evidence based science confirms the bible.  Hypothetical and theoretical science often conflict,but having said that, those hypo-theoreicals while attached to facts often enough attempt to extrapolate facts with little to no measurable proof, or create ideology based on guesstimates.  Neither are acceptable as hard fact or science.  It was my constant confirmation of history, natural evidence, and actual fulfillment of prophecy during the time I am alive, which has proven to me the God of the bible is real.  

In the end, it is a choice, as is anything else, if you go to school, if you choose to drive, career choice, music type, or what experiments chosen in college, or which archaeological digs to explore, or textbook to use, or political leader to follow.  This choice just happens to be important.

In my discussion with others, what is often, not really the first to be discussed, but features a prominant role in decision making on what view to hold, is “i don’t wanna do that, I like my sin”, and the person then leans in deeper to an argument/view than is wise.  I will give a example, the atheistic evolutionist.  We live in essentially infinite space, height, weight, depth, time.  Is vast, uncomprehendably so.  Massive in fact, infinite as far as we can measure. The evolutionist view attempts to say, that all alleles, dna proteins,change and create different life form groups.  This change is called a coefficient in science.  Change coefficients are used to calculate all sorts and forms of scientific physics equations.  The problem for the atheistic evolutionist is this.  Multiplying evolution’s coefficient, by time, height, width, and depth, of the universe, yields a massive infinite number. This number represents all life.  Now the core of the problem is this question.  If there is any chance of a god being created, any chance at all, then Atheism is defunct, a failure of a belief system. Simply because any very small chance of a god, leaves us with very very large, but still exceedingly smaller than all life infinite number.  So because of the science and math disagreeing, we can identify a large logic problem.  Does this prove the God of the bible? No necessarily, it takes a much longer logic proofing to do so.  Does it prove existence of gods?  Yes.  So rather than over complicate our mental self justification, it is better to simply admit “I do no want to.” than lie to ourselves.  

Is honesty a christian and jewish, a God of the good book value?  Yes. Am I trying to convince you of it’s value? Yes. Part of the reason is my faith. Another part is for mental stability, societal stability, business relationship trust, scientific acceptability, and bias removal.  As a personal needs, honesty, truth, those facts, and sound logic have value of their own.  These are the building blocks of trust.  As a personal view, I prefer to interact with others who can understand their own wants, desires, and admit if they prefer to sin or not.

Mental problems, such has I have experienced in the past cause a person to have a difficult time understanding and fighting it mentally without prior habit training.  If a person is used to searching for facts, rejecting intellectual flaws, and does not use flawed logic, they will more easily notice their own warped perception, and habitually attempt to correct it.  This leads to an easier acceptance of the need for medicine, counseling, and noticing when situations, foods, or activities improve mental health.  As often as not the insanity can be perceived as fun, and a person not previously habitually honest may give up and play, because the like it.

Societal honesty for stability reasons is much easier to understand the need of, voting needs and honest counts, politicians need to do as they tell you, and be the person they tell us the are, the married need to keep true about fidelity, friends and family need to be able to trust the things we say so their own emotions are legitimate.  Humans do not react well when important relationship emotions are either falsified and found out, or based on fake information.  We expect to be able to trust our loved ones, and with continued breaking of trust love dies.  Thus honest truth is valuable for society.

Business relations also need truth and honesty. Business operates on honest money transactions, and consumers learn not to buy from the dishonest, or as in the case of china, or Kabal as they call themselves, lack of truth leads to economy collapse.  It is simple to understand the need of truth in business, it is beneficial, binds together, and builds even bipartisan relationships in government.

On the science front it becomes a complete lie, if dishonest fact manipulation, inaccurate findings, misplaced logic, or bait and swapped evidentiary truth for rhetoric. This would not effect most of society day to day, the impact would be see in seasonal, by year, or decade, impacts to school teachings, lowered value to collegiate professors and their ability to develop new technology, new employees making decisions based on false knowledge, lack of new industry developments, and bad government decisions based on rhetorical fake science.  A current example of this is carbon capture technology, credits, and past community and government concerns over this.  It is a very good example of all of the current problems.  Extra CO2 causes greater plant growth, and creates a heating effect.  However, it is a supply issue and management issue combination not necessarily a production issue and is soon kept from being a failure of ecology if properly dealt with.  Plants can create or reduce heat based on age, color, or type, CO2 is absorbed because they live, and most of the plant structure is carbon.  We as humans already have all the tools we need to fix the problem.  The problem exists in management style, if we plant light green heat producing crops, the carbon causes a heat problem in the atmosphere and growth of plants, if we plant darker color plants, the heat is not generated in growth, the CO2 is captured in such a way that less heat is generated and the environment is cleaned of excess CO2.  These have been studied in depth in regenerative agriculture, it is not the only management style necessary, but it is however a starting point.  Current science rhetoric teaches CO2 is bad, and we need industrial solutions to a dieng earth problem.  If the rhetoric is because of big businessmen and scientists collaborating for a future chemical need in order to make something new and profit, fine just be honest about it.  Alternatively if it is true, then the industrial solution, while maybe useful for business, is false, and the fix is doing carbon to soil improvements.  These consist of changing our cattle management style, from a one pasture style, to migration pattern grazing, adding sheep, goats, and grazing birds, and using a smash roller when the grass is tall instead of cutting it.  Growing the tree alternative to ground crops, may help too, replacing some tomato crops for tomatillo, or leafy green ground crops for tree varieties, thus increasing shade, wood supply, and permanent or semi permanent ground covering undergrowth, rather than barren fields due to plowing, are large acreage management practices, lower tech easy to implement, and cost efficient compared to industrial solutions.  Adjusting laws, regulations, and teaching better industry standards to make this happen is the simplest way to solve the issue, and will lead us into a different industrial attitude when we can free ourselves of the laws and regulations because the next generation think it is right.  This has the benefit of not depending on decaying industrial structures.  The benefit is in the use of existing technology to produce a reproducible increasing size adjusting agriculture, industry just cannot challenge in terms of ability to handle the resource mismanagement we have at current.  All of the argument of now is based in scientific collection of data, formation of hypothesis, and those hypothesis getting fed into a system manipulating the collection to feed back into and change the original data and hypothesis to a better politically arguable form.  It is bad science, bad logic, false truth, and dishonest. It cannot be trusted.  The “science” should have stopped at, we have an overabundance of CO2 we need to fix.  A fast examination of what fossil fuels were made of tell us the simple answer is plants and animals, essentially agriculture.  So let us use Agriculture.

Bias removal is dependant on whether or not a person is capable of grounding themselves in fact first, rather than emotion, and if they choose to look into the past and examine the personal quality of knowledge in possession.  Without grounding in fact, self control, good logic,and pure intentions, bias removal is difficult.  With facts, self control, good logic, and pure intentions, this becomes easy, and if those qualities are consistent then bias removal is already complete.  Bias can do many things, create mob mentalities, fomit unnecessary arguments, cause a person to embrace a destructive view,and show yourself as a fool before others of knowledge.  The sorry thing is bias depends on trusting false information and bad emotions.  Both hard to fix without the will to change the core of ones being and the motivation to keep the change.  Confirmation bias for instance works on the ease of confirming previously flawed beliefs.  First knowledge, or anchoring bias is the human tendency to believe and repeat the first knowledge source, it is a learned behavior during infancy and continues in our subconscious minds as part of the human condition. These are not the only biases, but a few of the more concerning ones.  We as humans need to study our bias flaws to understand where, how, why, and when our minds trick us, and when our emotions are our undoing.  Then we can absorb facts and adjust our emotions, and logic while built on those.

Please, glean what you can, consider the need for truth, trust, honest relations, and sound logic.  Consider their value to yourself, outside of the realm of religion.

Then, consider Religion itself, the value it has had in you life, for the society.  Consider honestly admitting, both value, and your personal choices.  

Religion exists to teach a moral code for Eternals to live by.  More important it teaches the existence of God.  An existence mathematically unprovable to previous generations.