I don’t have to prove anything in this regard because I am not the one claiming that “salvation” is only through Jesus. If you, or anyone else claim so, please show me how the tribals are saved. If they are guaranteed to be saved due to ignorance, then the implication would be that the guarantee to salvation is ignorance (of your adopted dogma). If you say they are not saved because they do not know Jesus, then they are punished when they are at no fault. This is a moral problem that the believers in this chosen dogma need to resolve, and reconcile. All I am doing is asking just that - and pointing out what I think is a contradiction that this supposed “absolute truth” is incapable of addressing, and thus failing the test of universal applicability. I am asking how you satisfy your own conscience when such a question is posed.
Do so. Show me how. Instead, torrents of idiotic, veiled or explicit insults are doled out - completely oblivious to how seriously such behaviour damages their cause - or how happy it makes me to see that I have been vindicated by their vileness.
OK - commercial - so one last post tonight.
I think the answer is we don’t necessarily know nor does He intend for us to know all rather to simply trust that He is a good and loving and just God.
Another hint I take from the Bible is this - several references to first-fruits [true believers] from the church age and possibly prior but only an implied reference of second or several soul-harvests after that. Also God said he loved us so much that He does not want even one to perish so ultimately that means if He wills it then it will be so.
Not trying to start another monster debate rather simply noting we can read it all [HisWord] but we can not understand it all nor know it all. His ways are not our ways.
LOL, well since you can’t PROVE that they have the opportunity to be saved or not it is apparent you have no clue to the whole issue.
You want the answer - start with Romans JCB.
There is no moral problem here - only the strawmen you set up. Romans makes it clear that none will be without excuse. Romans also makes it clear that God imputes grace according to his will and his knowledge of the person’s heart.
You cannot prove that these people had adequate ‘faith’ or not based upon the revelation of God. Nor can you prove conclusively just what form that Grace that God provides takes.
Perhaps if you spent time understanding the real truth - you wouldn’t spend so much time trying to find the smallest speck to prove yourself.
BTW, I am not impressed when you play a victim card - it is a sign of a weak character.
...torrents of idiotic, veiled or explicit insults are doled out - completely oblivious to how seriously such behaviour damages their cause - or how happy it makes me to see that I have been vindicated by their vileness.
Wait a second. Not so fast. You can't have it both ways. By referring to a moral problem you are assuming a whole host of things that are self-vitiating. If you are going to presuppose that something in a naturalistic, impersonal, self-caused universe isn't functioning as it 'ought' to function then you owe an account such a notion, because on your terms there isn't any foundation for the existence of morality or moral incumbency in the first place. How can you account in Darwinian terms for assuming that something is not acting as it ought to act? You can't. The concept is an oxymoron, because you can't use it without smuggling in teleology, which is anathema to Darwinistic history.
You inconsistently assume that there is some absolute standard of moral obligation, moral decency and fairness when it is impossible for you on your terms to justify such a standard rationally. Moral disagreements make no sense without presupposing an absolute standard. Please explain exactly how the neuronal electrochemical reactions of your Darwinian brain are prescriptive of "good and evil", "right and wrong", "vile and pure".
Your moral prescriptions and complaints are completely baseless, contradictory and incoherent if such values, as you will sometimes insist, are merely conventional, like driving on the right side of the road instead of the left.
Cordially