You have made a number of claims (e.g. reincarnation, there is a God, God has no wrath, no hell). And these things you know to be true because Spirit guided you (because you let it do so). Spirit guided you to these truths by way of your subjective experiences and feelings.

Now suppose a lunatic comes along with a different set of claims (e.g. people are really omniscient beings called "thetans", Jesus and Satan are brothers, and we can be guided by a power called the "Force"). The lunatic says that HE knows these to be true because that's where the Force guided him.

~~~

Question: How would an unbiased person distinguish between you and the lunatic?

Would you simply say that we should know the lunatic is wrong because he doesn't agree with you?

Spirit of course.

<<<<<YouRang>>>> the existence of which is implied by YOUR claim that your truth is objective -- not subjective.>

It's not my truth. It's the truth. The truth is subjective until you experience it for yourself. Then it is objective. The taste of a banana is subjective until you taste it. Now suppose somebody else didn't want to try the banana. Is there anyway you could make the taste of a banana objective for them?

Any good scientist will tell you that the best way to find proof is to search for it. Instead of trying to understand God through words and getting lost in subjective/objective arguments open yourself to spirit and allow spirit to bring you to the truth ... or not. Whatever you decide is fine with me. Nobody is going to send you to Dante's inferno ;)

<<<<<YouRang>>>> How would an unbiased person distinguish between you and the lunatic?>

<OhioChessFan> No.>

And how do you know that there IS a Spirit? And when the Spirit puts an idea in your head, how do you distinguish it from any other regular thought of your own making?

And around and around we go. :-)

<It's not my truth. It's the truth. The truth is subjective until you experience it for yourself. Then it is objective.>

Not quite the meaning of "objective", but I see no point in pursuing it...

< The taste of a banana is subjective until you taste it. Now suppose somebody else didn't want to try the banana. Is there anyway you could make the taste of a banana objective for them?>

That's why things like taste are subjective.

But to use your analogy: You have eaten the banana, and now you are telling us what it tastes like, and that this taste you describe is the uniquely true taste.

<I'll let you be the judge of who the lunatics are.>

Ecclesiastes 9:5 - For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten.

To continue: I don't think I'm accusing anyone of lying if I say Darwinian evolution is not true. Lying is a volitional act, whereas a person can believe in evolution without being a liar. In my opinion, he's wrong--and in his opinion, I'm wrong.

I can't be held responsible for any libels tossed around by whatever "Creation scientists" have done so. But boy, oh, boy, when it comes to hurling brickbats, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and Neal DeGrasse Tyson don't take a back seat to anybody.

I once interviewed a Creation Scientist who holds a Ph. D. in Paleontology from Harvard. He studied under Stephen Jay Gould and entered into a lifelong friendship with him, even though this man was a Young-Earth Christian and Gould one of the leading defenders of Darwinism.

Point is, these two could hardly have disagreed more, and yet they respected one another's integrity and remained friends.

The problem with that is it would also prove there is no eternal reward/heaven either. What proves too much proves nothing at all.>

In the state of death there is no conscience, pain, nothing whatsoever, but while alive the lightbulb of the promise of a reward for righteous behaviour and remorse is overwhelming. Hundreds of scriptures will gladly confirm.

Death first as a "numb, dead" state of being and second as a consequence of final verdict after remorseless wickedness need to be distinguished between.

Again I am slightly surprised at your inability that it is in effect the lack of respect towards promised reward that spurns the permanent and irreversible nature of the judgment.

My surprise is irrelevant; what lies at its foundation *is* mildly interesting.

There is no linear connection in casu wickedness and nature of punishment.

<I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't say that everyone who believes in evolution is a liar.>

Well, I agree completely with all of that. :-)

The prevailing view of science is that evolution offers the best natural explanation for life on earth. It doesn't answer all questions, and science doesn't presume that all questions will be answered definitively.

The problem that I've been attempting to address is that many Christians HAVE accused the majority of scientists (those who accept the prevailing view) of being liars. They think that scientists "know better", yet deliberately support the "lie of evolution" specifically because scientists want an excuse to reject the Bible.

Sure, there are some scientists who, for personal non-scientific reasons, would like to reject the Bible -- and this would constitute bias on their part. But such bias was not the motivation behind evolution, and it's not why evolution has become the prevailing view. As you say, scientists should not be regarded as liars just because they accept evolution -- and thus Christians are at fault for accusing them so.

<I can't be held responsible for any libels tossed around by whatever "Creation scientists" have done...>

I wouldn't ask you to be responsible for them, I would only ask you not to presume that they are only motivated by a holy pursuit of truth. There is money, influence -- and corruption -- involved.

Three pages back: <"The God who created the universe isn't capable of using proper judgment in punishing wrong doers. If He didn't punish forever, that would prove He has good judgment. If He only punished 20 years, that would be fine. But eternally? Oh no, that can't possibly be just. I realize it's His laws being broken, not mine, but my judgment is just as important and accurate as His.">

That's quite a halliburton you pulled there.

Hope you will see the picture as shown; it will only show herself a million times. Or was it twice. The punishment, the second chance, or the verdict?

???

Maybe I sound queer but you really managed this yourself and that I like; that I just shut up and waited what would happen.

Keep paying close attention to your "morning thoughts", they are quite revealing. ;)