In article ,
says...

So then we have the problem to determine what is "right in the sight
of God". First, which God? Jahve? Allah? Thor? Saturn? Some other
god? Second, how do you determine this? Revelations are only for the
individual to whom the revelation appears. Holy scriptures are corrupt
and contain serious errors. So how do you determine this?

There's only one way: YOU have to seek inspiration from heaven for
yourself. As the passage in Amos says:

"Surely the Lord God will doe nothing, but he reuealeth his secret vnto
his servants the Prophets." -- Amos 3:7

But it's up to YOU to find out if that prophet speaks the truth.
..........
Prophets are called by God to speak His word to everyone. It's up to
the rest of us to determine through personal revelation whether that
prophet is a true prophet.

You are arguing for "personal validation" he everyone determines for
themselves whether a claim is right or wrong, and nobody else can
validate that decision for them. But...


and humans having been "created" separately from the animals. MOdern
Christians try to escape this embarassing fact by claiming that the Bible
should be interpreted "symbolically", which opens up a multitude of
versious "interpretations" of the Bible.

Most not inspired by God :-)

How do YOU know? Didn't you just say that everyone should validate for
themself whether it's right or wrong? And now you start to make that
decision for others....

Here you claim that most other people has been wrong in determining
whether their prophet is a "true prophet". HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? You
cannot determine that solely by your personal revelation, can you?

Suppose YOU are wrong? How do you find that out?


Well, what evidence do you have that YOUR quotes are correct?

Prophets and reports of NDEs.

Anecdotal evidence that is. Nothing more. Right?

It's more than anecdotal to me :-)

Yep, there we go again. Personal validation. That method has a big big
disadvantage: if you are wrong, there is no way for you to find that out.


It's a sanity check on global models. It certainly demonstrates that
the earlier climate models were totally insane. Present corrected
models are closer to sanity but still may have some mental aberrations.

Are you going to act to get the authors of these models locked up in
asylyms? That would be a sensible thing to do, wouldn't it? After all,
you claim that their creations are "totally insane", and if that is true,
they themselves are most likely also "totally insane". So why don't you
do anything about this?



We call this "personal bias".

Most people don't apply "critical thinking" to their religious beliefs.
Or rather, they may apply it when they're young but don't after they
choose their path.

Most religious people just believe what their parents taught them. Others
use religion as a rebellion agains their parents.