Yes. I am not stupid. My skepticism is my way of searching for the truth. I am content. If you are able to address satisfactorily the exceptions and anomalies raised by me throughout this thread and beyond regarding the nature of your deity, then yes, I will, by way of reason, have to accept the truth. FWIW, God addresses those in the Bible, which you reject. Hence, nobody will ever be able to satisfy your demands and give you what you would consider an *adequate* answer, and you will die, unsaved, reveling (or maybe more accurately wallowing) contentedly in your skepticism.
What exactly is the purpose of your grilling people about the salvation of *tribals*? How is that relevant to you? Do you not trust God to judge them justly? How is His dealing with them going to affect you anyway?
You are not a *tribal* who has never heard the gospel. You have heard it plainly and clearly many times over the years here on FR. What you are responsible for is what you do with the knowledge which has been granted you and with the amount of knowledge you have available, you have the greater accountability.
Distraction techniques with questions about the tribals is not going to fool God, nor change your outcome when you face Him. Every man gives account for HIMSELF, not others.
I take your second reply as an implicit admission of the fact that you inadequately answered the question, earlier. However, you're still obfuscating instead of providing a clear answer:
"What exactly is the purpose of your grilling people about the salvation of *tribals*? How is that relevant to you? Do you not trust God to judge them justly? How is His dealing with them going to affect you anyway?
You are not a *tribal* who has never heard the gospel. You have heard it plainly and clearly many times over the years here on FR. What you are responsible for is what you do with the knowledge which has been granted you and with the amount of knowledge you have available, you have the greater accountability."
See, I have clarified this earlier, repeatedly. All I need to do to prove your entire dogma as false is to provide a counter-example. This is how assumed theories are proven wrong. I am not speaking about myself here, but about an exception that fails the salvation test of your adopted dogma whilst being innocent.
Had you answered with a "yes" to the question whether the tribals are saved due to ignorance, then your entire scriptures, its dogma and its contents are not a pre-condition to salvation. Had you answered with a "no" then it makes your dogma inadequate to address the salvation modes necessary to make it applicable for all modes of human existence.
You are aware of this serious, serious problem, and hence, the obfuscation.
Saved or not?