Sinora,
Re: "how many of them would observe other things....ie, how tall you were, how angry you were, what you were wearing etc and what would they answer first ?"
Think of any scene such as the Grand Canyon which I already offered as an example. Show 50 people the Grand Canyon and ask them to describe it for you. How many are going to tell you it was a huge mountain? How many will tell you it looked like a flower? How many will describe it as a broad highway? How many will describe it as a very deep canyon, several miles across, with a large river, dwarfed by the shear size of the canyon, running through the bottom?
It doesn't matter so much if one person tells you it was 1,000-feet deep and another says it was a mile deep. The point is that they both perceived it as being deep, broad, large, a canyon, with a river at the bottom, etc., etc.
You can attempt to evade the obvious but evading the obvious doesn't make for a compelling argument. When you stop at a gas station and ask for directions, would there be any point at all if there wasn't a very significant level of consistency between one person's perceptions and those of another?
Your suggestion that two people might describe Heaven in dramatically different ways attempts to ignore the fact that we can all describe things we've seen and experienced and those descriptions are consistent enough to provide insight as to what was observed.
---
Re: "If a man dies after living a life which for the most part was one of selfishness and greed his 'next stop' would perhaps be quite different to a man who has led a life of love and gratefulness."
You do understand, I would hope, that this is nothing but blind assertion and based purely upon your imagination and the concepts some hold of "justice". Nothing about it complies with reality.
Does the CEO of a large corporation who cheats his employees, get into his new Rolls Royce the next morning and perceive it as a 1972 Ford Pinto? No, he's in the lap of luxury no matter what he does to arrive there. And while some people would be so tormented by their conscience that they couldn't enjoy the luxury, it's mostly those who show little evidence of a conscience who seem to revel in such luxury the most.
You might wish that people would always reap what they sew, but reality offers little to support such an imagined outcome and much to refute it.
---
Re: "A person will gravitate to a plane of existence that reflects his real self."
Once again, pure blind assertion and a dramatic deviation from what reality continues to demonstrate.
---
Re: "Once there as here, there may be opportunities for a spiritual growth, which if taken up would mean a kind of movement through a natural evolution."
Which is not only more blind assertion but offers nothing to answer my question. Why do proclaimed mediums so rarely ask the most burning questions and why are the answers they give so often contrary to the answers provided by other proclaimed mediums?
---
Re: "No-one can force anyone to learn if they chose not to, the choice is ours."
Very astute.
And what all of man's history continually teaches us is that beliefs of faith are rarely, if ever, consistent with reality while adherence to objectivity provides us with repeatable, demonstrable, testable truths. That's why science adheres to standards of objectivity and rejects subjectivity. And with science holding by far, the best track-record for the discovery of the nature of reality of any methodology ever devised by man, it's difficult to imagine why anyone would wish to put a belief which has offered a sum-total of zero in the way of confirmed realities in its tens of thousands of years, up against it.
It seems I ask the same questions over and over and those who participate in presenting counter-points continually walk a wide berth around them; when has there ever been any confirmed instance of subjective belief and objective assessment being at odds, and the eventual confirmed conclusion was reached with the subjective belief turning out to be right and the objective assessment being wrong?
If you could present only one, you'd still be pitting every discovery of science against only one truth attained via subjectivity. But I can't think of even one and I'd not be surprised if others here can't think of even one either.
And yet still, people insist on refusing to learn from near absolute consistency throughout man's recorded and demonstrated history, and instead flock to subjective beliefs and emotionally driven conclusions to the exclusion of objective assessment...
... except, when a potentially disastrous outcome is imminent. In most cases, when someone's wealth, health or loved-ones are on the line, they're all too happy to comply with objective assessments and discard subjectivity.
Doctors prescribe to the findings of medical science -- objective findings. To whom do you go when severely ill or injured?
Traffic lights are based on purely objective observations and principles. Do you drive through red lights without checking for objective evidence indicating that no cross-traffic is nearing the intersection? Would you even if you knew there wasn't a police officer watching?
Your car, your computer, your cell phone, the clock on the wall, your wrist watch, television, microwave, refrigerator, light bulbs, door-knob; even the buttons on your shirt are all based on the purely objective. And when it comes time for you to make assessments concerning these things you make them objectively. And yet, when it comes to serving emotional desires where the objective leads to displeasing conclusions, people turn away from the objective, embrace the subjective, and tell me that I'm close-minded in not doing the same.
