Happy Easter!

[emjay]

...
Yes if the truth and proof of God have been made to a particular soul, then disbelieving in God when God the light and manifest in his hiddenness and hidden in his apparentness,  is justification for hell.
...

I personally see that as perhaps the biggest problem with religion... that it should rest on what you believe, rather than how you act given that you believe. What possible motivation could there be for a god to test you on what you believe, when belief itself is largely not a matter of choice and variable... for instance in hypnosis a person can believe thing very easily because of heightened ssuggestibility, rather than how you act given that you believe? I have no problem with the notion that a god would reward those obedient to it and punish those who rebelled against it, given that they believed. But to reward for belief itself, and punish for lack of belief itself, misses the mark completely and is a pointless test. Say God was manifest to everyone... so belief or lack of was not an issue... then such a test would be like that god saying to everyone 'I'll tell you what, you can come to heaven if you can convince yourself to believe that the FSM is real, otherwise you'll go to hell'... a pointless test that misses the mark completely.

All he'd need to do was prove his existence to everyone, presenting whatever type of evidence that would convince that person... or better yet, be undeniable innate knowledge... like a sixth sense. Being a god with infinite power, it should be no harder for him to produce one type of evidence than another... even if meant parting a sea for everyone From that position the test of obedience makes perfect sense and anyone who chooses to rebel... on their head be it. But to measure rebellion on belief itself is for me one of the strongest arguments against religion that either suggests there is no god or at most that if he exists he's too dumb to be called an intelligent designer.