LOL, failed James - try again, you are the one putting forth the statement with your pseudoscripture setting. Lets be clear here james - you want to make a scriptural claim in regards to your statement - be specific and not fake.
I have not claimed anywhere that the tribals (individual tribal children, as I originally stated on this thread) are "saved". This is a concept I don't believe in, so what construct would I be providing for the "saving" of these tribals? I can't type this any slower, Godzilla!
I'll have to type slower for you next time James, since it is apparent you can't read my posts very well.
Being very specific would do wonders.
I'll use my definition - since you are ill prepared to supply your own for tribals - I'm talking about an individual James.
I have supplied the definition long ago on this thread, and you know it, too. Why are you obfuscating here? You and I both know very well what I am talking about - people who haven't heard the Gospel.
They are not ignorant of God - general revelation speaks to that. But knowledge alone of God isn't what makes you 'saved' either.
Will a tribal child who is taught to believe in a particular feminine deity, for the sake of argument, innately recognise that deity to be false, at a later time? What is the basis for your answer to be FACTUALLY correct?
A path isn't a destination James - that is simple enough for even you to be able to understand. General revelation can only begin one down the path. But what use the scriptures??? Why should one wander around in the dark when they can throw the light switch on James?
I know that, hence my usage of the word, highlighted 'CAN'. This "general revelation" CAN save the tribal, yes?
No, I know there are other potential mechanisms, in some cases angels have appeared to these 'tribals' and directed them to seek out missionaries in another part of the country to bring the word.
A 7th Century Maya tribal didn't have that option. Neither did any of the other tribals in his land. How are they "saved," if any?
Angels could also provide the message directly James.
This, you believe. I don't even accept angels to be real, provable entities.
We don't always know because these 'tribals' in many instances are still remote and unknown, but we do know from encounters with others - even those in western society - that if they seek God with the limited knowledge they have, they will be met by God. Never the less you will likely dismiss this out of hand - but then that will just go to show that you are not interested in the truth.
The only reason I will find this amusing is because such a possibility makes the necessity of the scriptural contents - and faith in the contained dogma, unnecessary for "salvation". You started off by the implication of the punishment of "original sin" being this separation from the deity you've chosen to believe in. Now if this deity will approach and re-establish that communication with certain tribals to "save" them, why not every one else? For starters, that would eliminate the need of man-derived and man-sourced scriptures such as the Bible or the Quran, or any other such texts.
Thank you for making my point - Christianity is your threat because it is real - islam isn't because it is fake.
LOL, no. Irrationality is my threat. Islam is certainly a threat. Your claim is false, and a lie.
Are you going to be truthful and admit that there is a 'faith' in atheism as well.
I have always stated my stance: I don't believe in supernatural entities. See my previous comment on the impossibility for an entity outside time to order sequential events.
dodging the specifics once again (sigh)
I have supplied the definition long ago on this thread, and you know it, too. Why are you obfuscating here? You and I both know very well what I am talking about - people who haven't heard the Gospel.
I was very specific on several posts indicating that 'groups' which the context of your statement was made was invalid. The 'salvation' issue only applies to individuals.
I know that, hence my usage of the word, highlighted 'CAN'. This "general revelation" CAN save the tribal, yes?
Acceptance CAN lead them toward the SPECIFIC revelation of God's grace james - typing really slow now. The path does not equal the destination.
A 7th Century Maya tribal didn't have that option. Neither did any of the other tribals in his land. How are they "saved," if any?
IF the INDIVIDUAL Mayan sought after God via the knowledge provided by General revelation - God would have provide that individual the specific revelation necessary for them to make the final acceptance of God's grace and understanding. Do you have first hand knowledge otherwise?
Now if this deity will approach and re-establish that communication with certain tribals to "save" them, why not every one else?
Pssssst that has been done - look up Jesus in the bible james.
For starters, that would eliminate the need of man-derived and man-sourced scriptures such as the Bible or the Quran, or any other such texts.
I'm glad God isn't modeled after your thoughts and ways james. There is no justification on your part why NOT have a written scriptures. If God is postulated, then God can use man to write scriptures and preserve those same words. Secondly, as pointed out - read Romans again james, it provides additional insight to those 'tribals' as well.
LOL, no. Irrationality is my threat. Islam is certainly a threat. Your claim is false, and a lie.
Same problem, different name and justification. since I see no similar assaults against other religions of you and your co-atheists, you actions speak louder than your words james.
I don't believe in supernatural entities.
Ahhh, you BELIEVE - a function of faith involved here eh?
See my previous comment on the impossibility for an entity outside time to order sequential events.
See my other reply.