Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence? Part II

http://EvC Forum: Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence? -->EvC Forum: Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence?I would like to continue with this thread if possible. There were a few things that I feel were not resolved clearly at the end.For one, I totally have not understood the nature of purpledawn's questions. I am seeking further clarification on these points if possible.For two, I think that there were other issues related to the nature of God being determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence which I would like to discuss with Faith further.

Thank you.I'll edit this message later to address some of Faith's and purpledawn's thoughts more clearly.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-07-2005 10:38 PM

First of all, as I've said before, the Scriptures do indicate that all people know the word of God even if they do not acknowledge it (or know that Christ is the source).You quoted the following passage of Scripture as the proof text of your assertion: However, in quoting this text, you completely omitted what Paul says further on. Paul explains this in detail as follows: Let's review what is being said here.Paul says, "Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ."Then Paul asks, "Did they not hear?"To this Paul then asserts that they did hear the message through the word of Christ.And how does Paul say that they heard the message through the word of Christ?Paul quotes Psalm 19:4 as a proof text as follows, "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."In other words, the word of Christ has gone out into all the earth, the words of Christ to the ends of the world -- so there is no excuse for not believing in God just as Paul said before in Romans 1:20 Going back to the entire text of Psalm 19:1-4 (which also follows this exact same reasoning) one can reasonably say that Paul has concluded that: I've already addressed this passage before and all you said was that I've misunderstood it, or interpretted it improperly, or was perhaps spiritually deluded, or maybe even suffering from demonic possession (as you've alluded before to others who do not agree with you).Furthermore, the Scriptures do indicate that those that do not know Christ "by name" nonetheless still believe in him by their actions: You've never actually addressed this passage except to say that these people who are considered righteous will "earn" a less hot place in hell.~ yay ~Faith, all that I'm saying is that Christ knows them -- and that this is more important than us knowing Christ. No. Salvation would be given to anyone that the Spirit revealed would have believed if the message had been properly given to them. Consequently, when we see people expressing remorse for doing something that God calls "sin" -- even though they apparently don't know God -- many are compelled to think that these kinds of people would have been open to the message of salvation if it had been fairly presented to them.In particular, I beleive that Christ, who is by the Scriptures own admission omnipotent in his glorified state, could examine the hearts and minds of any person to see how they "would have acted" if the situation were different.I personally do not beleive this to be a vague statement which bears no resemblance to the various Judeo-Christian schools of thought. For example, the Scriptures themselves seem to disply a very similar message as follows in Hebrews 4:12-14: The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. As such, it seems to me that God could easily observe the multitude of different possibilities that lay before each individual human being and make it as if were something that actually happened and we could be held accountable for.Or, as the Scriptures again say in Romans 4:17: In this sense, it seems to me that God is capable of determining the faith that one would have had "as though they were" placed in the right cicumstances.Consequently, when we look around the world, we do see glimpses of the gospel message everywhere -- even in nature whenever animals engage in traits of self-sacrifice in order to continue their own species. I know what you mean Faith -- and I don't agree with it. But I've never said that you're wrong though -- I simply pointed out contradictions in your thinking and suggested that "I think" you are wrong in regards to some of your conclusions. This is to say, I've always held that what you're suggesting is one possible meaning of it, one that might actuially be true.But you seem to be incapable of even thinking that you could even possibly be wrong -- and quite comfortable in comdemning others in the process of asserting your own views. That's not true. And I've already explained why this wasn't true. By my standards Christ is the Savior and our knowledge of him when lovingly moved by the Spirit is a guarantee to salvation.Others, however, know what the truth is but do not realize where the truth comes from. As they grope about in the darkness, they can easilly get discouraged by their inability to find the source of their truth. They can become led astray by seducing spirits because they have no sure word of the Scriptures to compare the truth of God's record. I've never denied that the Scriptures are the most sure word of God's revelation to man. Does this sound unfair to you?I tend to think that when a Christian is authentically called by God, they are called in such a way that their refusal to comply is damnable in the eyes of God.In other words, we Christians are going to be judged more strictly than those who do not know God.Consequently, there are passages of Scripture which seem to indicate this exact thing -- that those who know better will be judged more strictly: That's total bs Faith.A believer in Christ knows who their redeemer is. We know where we are going after our death. We know that God loves us. We are able to share this love to others and pull them from the darkness.An atheist knows there is material. They don't know, however, where they are going after they're death -- many seem to think that we cease to exist. They know what love is just like us, but they don't know where the love comes from. They are able to share love to others (and maybe even pull them from the darkness) but they can never be truly sure if their actions are anything more than a purely naturalistic process.This is surely a recipe for falling away from God don't you think? Well...I'll let jar defend himself. He seems to be doing a good job of this on his own in my opinion. That doesn't mean that I think jar is a genius just because he agrees with me -- although I do deeply respect the effort that he's gone to explain his position and can identify with many points he's made. I don't consider myself particularly smart anayway (and I'm certainly not a genius by any stretch), and I'm sure there's many areas where we disagree in some theological circles. Or, maybe you're starting to realize that I've been pointing to an extremely valid alternative to your theological views. I've never said that either Faith. I've always maintained that God judges in proportion that which is revealed to each individual. I kind of agree with jar when he says that Christians have a higher bar for entry into heaven than others do.Just as a baby could not be held accountable for their actions until they came to an age where they could understand instructions given to them, people who have never heard the fullness of the word of God as carefully described in the Christian Scriptures could not be fairly held accountable until such a time as the fullness of the revelation were carefully and lovingly explained to them by Christians. Because we've been called by God to do so. Because it's the truth.It's the same point as it's always been, to lead people to repentance in Christ -- because people are not saved without hearing the gospel. While I maintain that the word of Christ can be perceived in many areas of nature and religions outside the Christian Scriptures, we as Christians have the fullness of truth -- so there is no excuse for us to not preach Christ's word.In other words, just as at the most basic theistic level there is enough evidence in nature to prove God exists, at the most basic Christian level there is enough evidence in Scriptures to prove that Christ is God -- and the Spirit leads us to preach this truth to all who are willing to listen. What are you not understanding here?Just because one can be saved without knowledge of Christ directly from the Christian Scriptures, this doesn't mean that ALL PEOPLE who have not heard the Christian Scriptures are going to heaven.I'm not talking about universal salvation Faith. I do believe that many people who do not believe in Christ (by your definition) will still sadly be going to hell. My point is that Christ is capable of saving those that do not know he is the savior even though they acknowledge him by their actions. By leading them to Christ. How else do you think it does it? Yes and no.To quote Spider-Man's uncle, "With great power comes great responsibility." I've already aluded to the fact that the Scriptures say that we Christians will be judged more strictly than others. In this sense, we are to always be one guard and watching out for things.I think that the true knowledge of God is perhaps the most potentially dangerous and volatile power ever brought forth by him. When placed in the wrong hands, the knowledge of God can result in the most terrible calamities ever imagined.I know that others will laugh at me, but I do believe that there will be a literal anti-chirst walking the face of the earth some day. In this regard, I think he will probably claim to be a Christian of some sort -- and will highly abuse his God-given authority. Like the adversary, Balaam, and Judas Iscariot, he will probably be one who is very close to God but will rebel against him and do the utmost damage that one can think of in the name of God.All these above points are exanples of disadvantages.I'll adress some of the advantages below. First of all, there are plenty of special advantages to being a Christian.Here's a few that are mentioned in the Scriptures: More importantly, we are permanently indwelled by the Holy Spirit as Christians -- so long as we are alive. This is much different from others who are simply buffetted around between the motions of the Holy Spirit and the spirit of the adversary, the flesh and the world. While God can certainly work through someone who does not know him, it is no guarantee that salvation is inherrited by this. God could measure their lives at the end of human history and still save them based on their willingness to be moved by the Spirit, but non-believers are not necessarilly atracted to the motions of the Spirit.I suppose I look at it this way. When certain materials are shocked, they become magnetized and will align themselves to local manetic fields quite easilly. Similarly, when a Christian is baptized they easilly align themselves to the motion of the Holy Spirit.Now, in the case of a non-beleiver, let's say they were not "born again" in Christ. They've never been "magnetizied" by the Holy Spirit so that they can easilly align themselves to God's will. As such, this doesn't mean that they can't align themselves to the pull of the Holy Spirit. If God uses a powerful enough "magnet", they will still be pulled along by God -- they could even be fortunate enough to "aware" to the magnetic field even though they are not attacted to it. But, having said this, they will tend to resist the more natural attraction that God normally employs. In you opinion I will add. Because he is real and he wants to talk to us. He is deeply interested in what we think -- and how we feel.I also think that God cannot see evil when in heaven, so he became both true God and true Man in order to come down and experience everything we do so that he could save us. In other words, Christ came down so that he could sympathize with us and make an appeal for us before the father in heaven. His human nature was able to perceive the "sin" that God "in heaven" was incapable of looking upon -- even though his Godly soul was unable to be overcome by death. Christ was, in effect, tempted in every way, just as we are - and yet was without sin. In dying, he took on our sins on his "human" body and then "sacrificed" himself by experiencing a torturous death so that his "Godly" soul could then overcome death. Because many people do not grasp it Faith. Whether because their senses are dimmed, or because they are simply blind to God's presense, it's too subliminal for some to grasp anymore. So God came in person to make this clear. Do you understand what I'm saying now? In other words, Christ came down so that he could sympathize with us and make an appeal for us before the father in heaven. His human nature was able to perceive the "sin" that God "in heaven" was incapable of looking upon -- even though his Godly soul was unable to be overcome by death. Christ was, in effect, tempted in every way, just as we are - and yet was without sin. In dying, he took on our sins on his "human" body and then "sacrificed" himself by experiencing a torturous death so that his "Godly" soul could then overcome death.The Scriptures further emphasize this as follows: No. You're focussing on the passages that imply (in your interpretation) that anyone who doesn't believe in Christ are sufficiently damned. You're the one claiming that God only listens to you and Christians that think like you. Who has the issues with their ego Faith? No. I say that you might be right. But that I think you are wrong.You say that no one but you (and people who agree with you) are right -- period.Don't try to claim that there is no difference between my views and yours Faith. In regards to how we each claim we are "right", there's a big difference between how we approach our individual faith perspectives.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-10-2005 05:08 PM

I'm not really interested in what the clergy or other religions said though. I'm more interested in your own opinion so let me rephrase the question:How exactly did YOU get to know God then if he didn't reveal himself in some way to YOU?

Are you saying that you don't believe in God anymore?

Many do -- and there are not only many different steps by which one could arrive to this state, there are many different paths to the same destination. If people talk to this being in the same way that we talk to each other, then he is known by them even if you don't believe that they know him. In other words, they believe that God revealed himself to them in some way. Well...you could have told me that before. The way you spoke before made it sound as if you did believe.For example, here's one of your previous posts on this matter (note how you never once said that you didn't believe): I think I even asked you what this "reality" was and you never clarified it to my knowledge. When someone makes statements like, "Now I understand the reality of the Christian Bible..." after saying, "I read each lesson and the Bible was for God to show me the truth of the Bible and the path he wanted me to take..." one does not usually conclude that God told them to not believe in him anymore.If you're looking to jerk me around, then take it elsewhere please. I'm trying to get to the heart of the matter and people being honest with me from the beginning helps to make the conversation go much more easilly. That fact that people believe that God has contacted them in some way (or has revealed himself to them in some way) demonstrates in their mind that God was determined to allow evidence of his existence.Again, if you want to get into a debate about the validity of this evidence, then you're missing the point. Everyone who believes in some kind of divinity also believes that their divinity has revealed themselves to them in some way.The whole point of my discussion was related to what you had reiterated that crashfrog had mentioned before: You're not getting this are you?Faith in God (or gods) has nothing to do with scientifically substantiating his existence. Within a Judeo-Christian context, the adversary himself and all the fallen host can scientifically substantiate God's existence -- yet they don't have faith in God at all. Many people know in their heart that God exists -- but they feel that he is cruel and deliberately choose not to place their faith in him. Many of the Israelites saw God and still chose not to place their faith in him -- many rebelled and were found dead in the wilderness (with only Joshua and Caleb making it through that generation).The claim that "If God's existence was scientifically substantiated, it would eliminate the need for faith" is a major logical fallacy in my opinion. It's akin to a very complex question (also called the "fallacy of interrogation" or a "fallacy of presupposition").According to the The Atheism Web (Logic & Fallacies News Wire » Internet Infidels ) this is the interrogative form of "Begging the Question".One example is the classic loaded question: The question presupposes a definite answer to another question which has not even been asked. This trick is often used by lawyers in cross-examination, when they ask questions like: Similarly, politicians often ask loaded questions such as: or Another form of this fallacy is to ask for an explanation of something which is untrue or not yet established.If you go to the Nizkor Project ( Page not found - Nizkor ) you will also find more information on the description of "begging the question". In other words, it's called circular reasoning, or reasoning in a circle, a.k.a. petitio principii.Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle. Now, going back to the statement, "If God's existence was scientifically substantiated, it would eliminate the need for faith."No. It wouldn't.First of all, some are assuming that God hides so as to generate faith in him. However, if God is hiding it could very well have nothing to do with trying to generate faith.It might have more to do with our inability to see him for whatever reason. It might have even more to do with God not being able to look upon sin -- and if it is true that God can't see us, then it's almost certainly true that we defintely can't see him either. It might even be more true to say that humanity simply cannot grasp the fullness of the eternal -- and that we can only perceive bits and pieces of God's nature.In all these cases, God not allowing "scientific evidence" of his existence has nothing to with him trying to generate faith. More appropirately, it seems more reasonable that God is trying to pierce our own blindness in order to authenticate his own existence (and generate faith).But...let's take another look at the statement, "If God's existence was scientifically substantiated, it would eliminate the need for faith."Second of all, this statement assumes that God cannot be scientifically substantiated in the first place. Consequently, it may very well be possible to do this. In fact, it might have already been done to some extent. If science is allowed to make an inferrence based on the data available, then concluding that God exists is certainly within the realm of possibility for many people (and many hace made this claim). Futhermore, there may come a day when science can actually pierce the veil into the heavenly realms and find God decisively.I could go on with this, but let's take a look at one last set of statements you made:Part I: First of all, I've already addressed this before. Many feel there is proof -- so the issue of firm belief being applied to something which supposedly cannot be prooven seems to be effectively undermined by the fact that they are claiming to have directly experienced something which they no longer feel they need proof for.But let's take a look at the next part of your statement.Part II: Do you see how you are begging the question here?This is a complex statment which assumes so many things before it could be considered valid.First of all, you assume that God requires belief without proof. But, in saying this, you are also effectively assuming there is no proof for God's existence.You also assume that God requiring belief without proof automatically means that he cannot allow tangible proof or evidence of his existence.As an alternative to this point of view, God may actually require belief with or without proof.Or, as another alternative, he might actually require belief only when one is supplied with proof -- and hold people accountable to believe in proportion to the proof which is revealed to them.I can continue with this disection of your assumptions if you wish. And to many people he is very evident.If you're still waiting for him to light the candle for you, maybe you haven't seen that all you have to do is light the candle yourself.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-11-2005 03:58 PM

I know. I was hoping for a direct link since I didn't want to search through over 700 posts to find your thoughts on the matter. No problem purpledawn. And my apologies too if I've offended you in any way trying to respond to your posts. I do tend to aggressively engage other ideas too much sometimes. I guess I really don't understand what you're trying to express.Note: Just out of curiousity did anyone else here not understand what purpledawn was getting at? I'm not a genius, but I don't think I'm a dummy either. I really did feel that I had addressed many of his points -- but maybe we are talking past each other here after all.

And you might be correct General. I've always been open to this possibility, although I personally don't think it's restricted only to the Israelites based on my reading of the Scriptures. I'm willing to concede that possibility too. However, the passage in Romans 1:20 is not restricted only to the Israelites -- it has a universal theme to it.Likewise, a strict reading of the Romans passage where Paul quotes Psalm 19:4 does seem to have a universal application to it: he's saying that the Israelites have no excuse for not hearing because "the message is heard through the word of Christ" because "their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."If this is applying only to the Israelites of the 1st Century, then poetic words seem to be stretched to their limits by implying that the Israelites' message has emcompassed the entire world well before the beginning of the 2nd Century. Many parts of the world today have never heard the Gospel as preached strictly through Christian missionary activity, yet Paul seems to be asserting that the word of Christ has already been heard around the world before the end of the 1st Century -- which I find odd.Again, I admit that I could be reading this wrong. Some might conclude that Paul is talking only about the land of the Israelites as being the "entire world". But I don't think I am wrong about this part -- especially since Paul seems to be well aware of lands well outside the region of Asia Minor.

Hmmm...well...I think someone had mentioned before about seeing the Virgin Mary in windows and toast and other strange things. I don't personally accept these kinds of experiences as evidence of God. It don't even think they're apparitions of any sort -- just odd optical illusions which might bring about a stronger faith in those that "already" believe.However, when Egyptian TV broadcasts live television footage of what many believe was the Virgin Mary appearing atop a Coptic church -- then I stop and take notice.http://www.apparitions.org/pictures/zeitun.gifThe church where the appearances had happened had been constructed in Zeitun to commemorate the area where Mary and Joseph had fled from Herod. From April of 1968 and for about 2 years after, visitors to the site had seen the glowing apparition of a woman above the church at night.The images were apparently captured by Egyptian TV cameras. Egyptian President Abdul Nasser, an avowed Marxist, had personally witnessed the "miracle" as well. The apparition was said to last from just a few minutes to as long as nine hours -- and she was seen accompanied by doves of light as well.The local police, who initially thought the apparitions were an elaborate hoax, searched a 15-mile radius surrounding the site to uncover any type of device that could be used to project such images. They were completely unsuccessful.Muslims who also saw the apparitions chanted from the Koran, "Mary, God has chosen thee. And purified thee; He has chosen thee. Above all women."All in all, we have Christians of many denomintations, Muslims of all kinds, and even atheists of various persuasions and influence, claiming to have seen something which they all testify to bearing a striking appearance of the Virgin Mother.You can find more details here:http://members.aol.com/bjw1106/marian7.htmhttp://www.zeitun-eg.org/arbnews.htmThere is some video footage circulating around. Some of it is just testimonials by people who saw (with just pictures placed in). However, there are other videos circulating about which are actually motion pictures from the News footage at the time -- it shows glowing doves and other things moving about this floating, glowing woman hovering above the church -- with everyone sitting there watching it rather wide eyed.And if you're looking to research this further, you can check this out:Aquinas and More - Not FoundEdit: And by the way, the whole point of this thread was to assume that God exists in the first place and try to determine if he would withold evidence in order to generate faith. I was never trying to "prove" God exists -- and I've said that over and over again.In other words, I was only trying to show that God "witholding" evidence of his existence would never "generate" faith in him. It is a logical falacy to assume that God would work this way -- and I've demonstrated it clearly many times.Clearly, when someone says that God "witholds" evidence of his existence, it only proves that the person saying this doesn't believe there is sufficient evidence of God's existence in the first place.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-12-2005 08:08 PMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-16-2005 01:59 AM

We've pretty much argued the other points to death now, so we'll simply agree to disagree on them.However, you last point caught my attention enough to respond: I think whenever someone realizes they've done something wrong (according to the Scripture's definition of wrong), and they have a sincere desire to correct the problem, then Christ is active in their heart on a spiritual level. Yes, these are perfect Scriptural examples. Tha's because you're looking at the surface of things. If Christ has not been clearly presented to them in a kind and loving manner, then how can they be expected to call upon Christ when they realize that they've done something wrong?I think when people realize that they've done something wrong and they seek to atone for it, their spirit is groaning for Christ on a subliminal level -- even though they are deluded for following other paths which do not point toward Christ in any sense of the word. Many people from other faiths express repentance, contrition, or sacrifice for thier "sins". Their problem is not necessarilly because they are unwilling to heed Christ's gospel (although it may be the case if the gosple were actually presented). More often than not, however, it's simply because they do not have a clear and untainted recourse to the gospel. My concern stems from the fact that you continue to repeatedly state that this WILL happen in all situations -- which in many people's opinions is a rather cruel perception of God. If you are wrong about this, and you have turned others away from Christ because of an error in your doctrine, then God may very possibly hold you accountable for their falling away from Christ -- not them.I, on the other hand, do not make the central focus of my discussing Christ's action for salvation one of damnation. Sure, I warn that it could happen. I also warn that if one rejects Christ when he is fairly presented then there is no excuse for one to reject him -- and even then I'm cautious because I don't know what other Christians may have done to them in the past to make them reject Christ in the first place. Have I ever not preached the gospel Faith? Have I ever said that salvation comes by anyone else except Christ Jesus?My assurance is more to counter your assertions so that others do not perceive God as an unfair judge who cares nothing for others who do not believe in his son. This isn't simply a matter of theodicy. After having read the Scriptures a fair amount I honestly believe that your position is inaccurate (in this sense anyway).When the atheist weeps over the loss of their child, God hears them.When the muslim boy weeps over the loss of his father in a military operation, God hears them.When the pagan woman weeps over their inability to conceive a child, God hears them.All people are a part of God's plan, Christian or not. And I think that God judges in proportion to what has been revealed to each individual.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-16-2005 08:25 PM

Thank you.

I don't think there's really much more to be said here. So if a moderator feels that it is time to close this thread, that's fine with me.

hmmm...I missed this one before... No. Actually it's not. I see. So the prophets of old didn't speak out against their spiritual leaders when they believed that God revealed that something was wrong with them? I'll try to keep this short too. You want to talk about mischaracterizations Faith?What you've said above here is simply not true. I do believe that there is a literal hell. I also beleive that those who reject Christ will most likely go there. Yes, it most ceretainly is. I also don't think people should be throwing it around as haphazardly as they do. It's kind of like fishing with dynamite. Sure...you can go fishing in the pond -- once -- and then you have to find another pond to go fishing in. I never said God did that. I never said that God's judgments were wrong.However, technically speaking, heaving rocks onto a person until their bones were pulverized under the stresses of the impact is not a freindly way too go no matter how one dresses it up. Internal bleeding and simply laying there until you die of bloodloss, thirst & hunger, and/or vultures or other scavengers picking apart your body is not a pleasant way to go no matter what one says. But that's the thing Faith -- when I read your posts you almost seem to be enjoying the prospects of others going to hell. You don't seem to be expressing any sadness by the fact that many people (in your opinion) will be going there. Contrary to this expression of sorrow, you seem to be relying on this knowledge in order to justify your own position on the matter. No, I'm not. I'm showing that your above statement is somewhat in error. If indeed God knew how to "lead people to himself without our doing anything but telling the truth", then our "loving God" certainly would have done so in the case of the plagues of Egypt.I admit that for whatever reason God has allowed these destructive things to happen -- I fully acknowledge that God is sovereign in doing these things as well. What I'm objecting to is this idea that you seem to portraying here -- that God can accomplish things with mere words from us. In the case of the Egyptians (with Pharaoh in particular), the society was apparently well beyond any "reasonable words" -- and only an awesome display of God's power at work was going to change the tide.Even we as Christians fully admit that at the secong coming of Christ, this world will be going through terrible calamities like none ever seen before or after. Clearly "words" are not going to be enough to change anyone's mind beyond a certain point. No, but I believe that you are taking offense to the idea of a non-Christian being saved. It's kind of like the prodical son -- but in this case you seem to be like the older brother who refuses to rejoice over the younger brother who was saved.As far as the differences between the Christian and the non-Christian are concerned, I guess I think of the allegory of the Christian soldier presented in the Christian Scriptures.I'm sure you're somewhat familiar with this passage... To put it simply, in my opinion, the Christian is thoroughly furnished with the whole armor of God -- whereas the non-Christian is potentially ill-prepared for the spiritual battle (and perhaps desperately so in some cases).Having said that, the responsiblity for the battle is that of the Christian. God has not assigned the non-believers the responsibility of tackling the devil's schemes -- until they are armed and equiped for such conflict by hearing the word of God.Consequently, just as the leader of the army would not hold civilians accountable for losing a battle against another army, I don't think that God would hold non-believers accountable for losing a battle against the adversary and his minions.On the other hand, if the Christians themselves lose the battle -- and they were defintely properly equipped -- then God will most definitely hold them accountable for not pushing the adversary back.Does this mean that I think that all non-beleivers will be "saved"?No. It does not. Certainly, as with any war, many will be lost.This does however reinforce what I've been trying to explain all along -- that God judges in proportion to that which is revealed to each individual.This is not a foreign concept in Christianity either -- did not Jesus himself say, "Forgive them Father -- for they know not what they do" ? From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

You're refering to the passages which said that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart"? If so, you seem to be kind of selective in which passages you're noting to make your case.For example, what about the passages prior to those which said the opposite ... that "Pharaoh hardended his heart" ... or the non-specific passages which doesn't lay any blame on either Pharaoh or God and simply says that "Pharaoh's heart was hardened"?When something is said three different ways in the Scriptures, I don't assume that it's wrong or contradictory. It seems more logical to infer that three different perspectives are being reflected. I admit that I could be wrong -- but this is how I read it.In one sense, when the Spriptures talk about Pharaoh hardening his own heart, I'm fairly sure it captures the rebellious and proud side of the story from Pharaoh's own perspective -- that he was resisting God's will.When the same thing is told from a non-specific perspective (neither Pharaoh nor God's point of view), it seems as if the hardening is being described in terms of a natural consequences of pride in contrast to the inevitable future calamity. In other words, it seems to capture the denial that is common -- very common -- to many people who are facing certain death, such as cancer patients for example. Pharaoh himself perhaps may not be dying per se -- but his control over the kingdom of Egypt was coming to an end for sure.Finally, when the same thing is told from God's perspective, the causation seems to be directed according to God's larger plan -- in order to display that no matter what happens (even in the case of Pharaoh's rebellion) God is still in control. In other words, I personally don't take this to mean that God was "pulling the strings" of Pharaoh in order to force a destructive outcome and display his mighty will. Pharaoh knew what he was doing. In fact, he'd have to be totally stupid to not realize how much he was being humiliated.But, then again, it seems as though his entire faith system was being virtually obliterated before his eyes -- one little hebrew god totally knocking the stuffing out of possibly up to nine major Egyptian deities -- including his own "claim" to being a living deity (since Pharaoh was supposed to be some kind of god-man himself).I suppose, in rejecting the Lord, he simply had no hope left.Guess it sucks to be Pharaoh.

Ahh, I see. I guess we disagree then.