Do you actually believe in the object in itself. To believe that objective verification is possible you have to believe that there is an objective point from which verification can occur. Since you blur the boundaries between subjective and objective , do not believe in a God who exists in Himself how can you even discuss the possibility. Objective verification requires the possibility of a witness that is a final authority, whose verdicts cannot be legitimately contradicted. So experimental science provides us with facts for instance, God Almighty an infinite, perfect and all knowing being is a credible witness and arbiter of our actions and characters, we can examine history in a way that arrives at a fair appraisal of what actually happened given all the strands of evidence available to us.
There is no such thing as "objective verification", because even that which is considered "objective" must be subjectively experienced. "God Almighty" is not a final, objective authority, because you - as a believer - must still subjectively acknowledge and experience "God Almighty" as your authority. "History" is also subjectively experienced: we each read what others have written about "history" and decide for ourselves if it agrees with our own subjective understanding of the world.
It seems to me that your version of verification depends on a subjective appraisal of whether or not something disturbs you or not. If it provokes discontentment or suffering then it cannot be right. On so many levels this is utterly ridiculous. No sports man gets to win a race by cruising along in training at a level that never causes him pain, no major beneficial reform does not cause major disturbance to societal norms and comfort, no surgeon can remove a cancer without cutting into the patient ... It simply means that Buddhism stands only as a label in your mind for your own chosen disposition to the world.
No sportsman would care to win a race if it does not bring him contentment or pleasure, or decrease his discontentment or sufferings. No reform would happen if no discontentment or suffering were experienced because of existing norms. No surgeon would remove cancer if the surgeon and patient experienced no concern or discontentment over the cancer.
Since it means different things to all Buddhists there is no Buddhism and to call someone a Buddhist is simply to say they live by the rule that whatever they consider right is right. It is a recipe for lawlessness and moral relativism.
Not so; there is Lawfulness in Buddhism. We see the true Law (Dhamma) as what is fixed in Reality itself - not in written texts. E.g. The Law of Kamma (or causality, cause & effect) is a Law that is plainly evident as part and parcel of Reality itself, therefore we work with it as a Law. The Law of Consequences (derived from the Law of Kamma) is another Law we see embedded in Reality, and thus we also work with it.
We see no value in "laws" such as "Honor Aten, your lord and god, and have no other gods before him", as such a law is likely written by mere human hands, and it is not plainly evident in the fabric of Reality itself.
NO we all believe in the one God and we share the same scriptures, the ten commandments for instance. Pentecostals, Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics can all subscribe to the Nicene Creed and refer to the same scriptures.
Yet you likely exclude Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Messianics, Ebionites, Nazarenes, Essenes, etc.
Absolute immanence in the case of a finite, imperfect and mortal actor is by no means an objective perspective. In practice we all have ambitions for the future and carry baggage from the past and live in a world of uncertainty where we clearly are not the final authority on what happens. I may have screamed my support for the England football team last night but they still lost to Croatia and God did not answer my prayers there. He knows best and I can trust Him for His decisions, my preference for an England victory does not take precedence over His plans and will ... Certainty is ultimately tied to trust since we are not in a position to predict the future or determine the present. Even a president of the USA must bow to circumstance. There is no earthly authority that we can legitimately place our trust in and that includes ourselves. Indeed you cannot be certain even about your own feelings which vary by circumstance and personal interaction. If you cannot determine these then how much less can you trust yourself as the final arbiter of what is and what shall be. I trust God and I trust the word he has revealed is a different kind of certainty to the man who rationalises himself into his own personal bubble and then considers all of his actions perfectly integrated cause they are never disturbed by truthes from the outside world. My trust will take me through suffering but it will not guard me from it. Your certainty will delude you into contentment when things are really not all right. It is a joke that is often made about Englishmen asked the question how are you today? They will always answer fine. They could lose a leg and still say I am fine. It is not true though - they lost a leg and are bleeding all over the carpet.
The difference being, you are operating on the conceptual level. Early Buddhism generally works on the phenomenological level - experience and manipulation of bare sensory input, where we
are the final authority.
To use a metaphor: your attention is focused on the images and players as seen on your television screen (a conceptual level of reality), whereas I am focused on the fundamental quantum particles that underlie what you see on your screen (a far deeper level of reality).
