...through a glass, darkly
- Reaction score
Precisely to all.I honestly don't see how ...?
I think we're talking a different order of thing here.
If God removes the option to believe or not believe ... where is our freedom to accept Him?
Whether we then obey God or not is another matter – that's the kind of question we are asked all the time – whether I can get away with a drink before I drive, eat this jam bun, smoke this cigarette, etc.
I'm not saying we've lost the option to be reckless, or wilful, or stupid.
And, no doubt, there would be those who would:
A – think that this irrefutable revelation was in fact an illuminati- or government-type conspiracy, or
B – think that this irrefutable revelation was simply a natural phenomena we as yet do not understand.
Re your blood-sugar analogy ... supposing the option was, the next jam bun and you'll drop dead on the spot?
... and I write this, with the full knowledge of someone, the single-parent father of two young children, who was told in hospital his next drink might likely kill him, and he discharged himself, and popped into the off-licence (liquor store) on the way home ... and not too much later, it did.
Or the clip I saw on TV of the woman who did so much crack cocaine she was having a heart-attack, called the ambulance, which arrived so promptly she locked herself in the bathroom to do the rest – they had to break the door down.
Where humans are concerned, go figure ...
Hence my thoughts: That to believe that there is any TRUE religion (that is, its claims being aligned with reality) it would help to have clearer and more verifiable evidence.
Everything else you said following more or less proved MY point: People know the information with some clarity, and it can be more fully verified, and we still make choices to the contrary. (contrary to what is healthy)
So clear verifiable evidence clearly DOES NOT remove your option to choose. You seem to think/assert having more evidence would remove our freedom to choose, but then every example you give supports the contrary claim (that is, my claim that it would be perfectly fine and even better to have more clear cut evidence and that it WOULD NOT, ipso facto, take away our right to choose).