|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Universal Moral Law & Devolution since the Fall | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
NosyNed suggested that RickB make a new thread of this topic, so, knowing how much you all love to laugh at me, I thought I'd do it as a contribution to the general entertainment.
I'll just start by answering RickB's post from the old thread:
faith writes: And obeying the law is not Christianity. Christianity is knowing you are in trouble because you haven't obeyed the law and need a savior.
RickB, calling me a liar, writes: Sorry, but this statement is dripping with mendacity. Your attempt to paint Christianity as a (rather covenient) umbrella for all the world's faiths certainly doesn't square with your stated views on Islam. Nor does it provide for polytheistic, dharmic or Mesoamerican belief systems to name but a few. My point was that recognition of the universal moral law is universal. It's in the Hindu idea of karma. It's in the Tao. It's the most rudimentary universal religious idea to recognize that it's better to be in line with the moral law than against it, since "what goes around comes around" at a bare minimum. The Book of Proverbs, which is a compendium of proverbs from many cultures, and the Tao (as I recall, it's been a long time since I read it) both teach the way to live that is in harmony with the universe, as it were, and that health and longevity follow. Again, this is rudimentary. Religions incorporate it but it is not definitive of them. Christianity is not about obeying the law, it's about needing a savior from it. As I go on to say as a matter of fact:
faith interpreted by Rick B writes:
Christianity is knowing you are in trouble because you haven't obeyed [biblical] law and need [to be saved by Jesus Christ].
Using general terms doesn't dodge this bullet, Faith. Can't remember the last time I dodged any bullets around here. As usual I have no idea what the furor is about. Seems people are always getting offended no matter what a Christian says. I've been clear that I'm not talking about Biblical law alone. Biblical law is simply the codification of the universal moral law. All cultures have had their own recognition of this law. As for the Savior, yes, there is only one, and he's what Christianity is about, it's not about living according to the moral law for salvation.
RickB writes: Anyway...
faith writes: More like the inevitable degenerative trend can be put off longer by obedience by individuals. Do you have any evidence that demonstrates the manner in which spiritual obediance is able to repress gene mutation? Do you have a hypothetical chemical process of some kind? Nope. Love to think about it though. It's more the other way around though, thinking about how degenerative processes are brought about by the Fall and sin.
Is a given individual more likely to pass on a degenerative "fall-mutation" to a child she conceives prior to learning "obediance"? Have no idea how it works. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
My point was that recognition of the universal moral law is universal. Ah, but you weren't talking about a "universal moral law", you were talking specifically about the fall! I was talking about both and somehow you are confusing them. The Fall is the Biblical explanation for the degeneration I was talking about, yes, and the conept of the Fall is unique to Biblical Christianity, as even Judaism does not recognize it. But I WAS also talking about the universality of the moral law, which the Bible uniquely tells us we violated. There is no contradiction or confusion if you just keep the topics separated in your mind. Universally recognized moral law, specific unique Biblical revelations about that law and its workings in the human race. No problem.
Is the concept of original sin and the fall universal? No, and again, I didn't say it is. It's unique to Biblical Christianity. But again, the moral law is universal, though it varies somewhat from place to place and time to time. Of course I would claim that the Bible presents it correctly, but at the same time it is clear that humanity in general has always had a sense of a moral law and a conscience. The teachings of someone like Lao Tse -- I guess I should reread him -- are clearly focused on a law he believes is operative in the world in an objective sense.
I think you will find that it is not, yet it remains central to your "degeneration" hypothesis. But there is no need for this confusion. I believe the Bible has the perfect truth about all these things, and I have not said that all its revelations are universally recognized, far from it -- many of them are unique, and the fall is the explanation for the degeneration hypothesis as you put it. But an apprehension of a moral law that governs this universe, though it takes various forms, IS universal. Unfortunately I forgot about this thread and the original posts on the other one so I'm no longer sure of the context here, but if the thread continues maybe I'll catch up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Book of Proverbs, which is a compendium of proverbs from many cultures, and the Tao (as I recall, it's been a long time since I read it) both teach the way to live that is in harmony with the universe, as it were, and that health and longevity follow. This is a fair simplification of the Taoist view. The attempt to make this philosophy an example of 'moral law', though, is to squeeze too large a round peg into too small a square hole. The words 'moral' and 'law' imply specific Western religious concepts shaped by Judeo-Christian traditions. I just took a look at an online copy and have to say it's really not much like the Book of Proverbs at all. It is about "virtue" though, but lack of desire seems to be the highest virtue, not at all a Western concept.
Christianity is not about obeying the law, it's about needing a savior from it. This rhetorical flourish does not accurately reflect Christian practice. In their daily lives Christians feel an obligation to obey moral laws just like anyone else. Having a savior doesn't free them from an obligation to be moral; it just offers them overdraft protection for the times they come up short. I didn't mean to imply that by being saved from the law we no longer are obliged to obey it. Of course we are. It's just that we can't be saved by obeying it, salvation is a gift of God. We are in violation of the law by nature far beyond a mere overdraft, which implies that we might occasionally be in tune with it, but scripture teaches that even our righteousness is a violation of the law. But let's not get too far off in this direction since the thread is supposed to be about how life has degenerated since the Fall.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I believe the Bible has the perfect truth about all these things. Doesn't go into much detail about genetic mutation though, does it? Some things are inferred. If we know that the Fall brought death into the world this should be food for thought. There are further hints in the Bible about how that played out in the first 1500 years too, the gradually decreasing lifespans of the righteous patriarchs in Genesis 5 for instance, and of course the Flood, from which God saved only righteous Noah. Put that together with the fossil record and other scientific facts, and reasonable educated inferences are quite possible.
..and the fall is the explanation for the degeneration hypothesis Okay, so this being the case can you tell me what "universal moral law" a Cheetah would follow to avoid "sin" and therefore "degeneration"? Well, the Bible says that all creation was "cursed for our sake" and that the creation "groans in anticipation" of the end of the curse, when Jesus returns. The poor cheetah was cursed for our sake with the same malady we suffer on account of our sins, though the cheetah can't sin. The inference to draw from this is not entirely clear though, perhaps that God had pity on us since if we were under the curse of death we couldn't survive at all in a world of immortal beasts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Hi Faith- Well, looks like we’ll have to wait for another thread to cover all the points from that last one. I'm pondering starting another one.
So, focusing on this thread, we should first agree on what it is about. The opening post is too long and scattered to be a topic we should all stay on, so I propose the following: Discussion point: Is there divinely ordained genetic degredation over the past 6,000 years, and is this divine retribution from the Christian God for failing to follow a universal law? My answer to RickB above may clarify my thinking on this. I'd say the genetic degradation is an inference from the Fall, but that it's more the inevitable working out of a law of cause and effect than it is a straightforward divine retribution. That is, "the wages of sin is death" -- the more sin, the more death, and sin accumulates in the human race, and we do inherit it from our ancestors. We all inherit the original sin from Adam, and original sin is the inclination to sin, and individual sins accumulate since then. God's role has been more sustainer and protector in all this. And by the way there is no such thing as a "Christian God." God is God. The Bible reveals many things about the true God. He's the God of all things, ruler of everything, including you.
There appear to me to be a number of reasons why this view disagrees with Christianity. For one thing, according to Christianity and the Bible, following the law isn’t what’s important. At first it sounded like Faith was saying it was. Of course it's important, it's the law that runs the universe, it's part of God's own nature, but because of disobedience we haven't the moral will to follow it and so fall farther into debt to it with every effort. This is why we need a Savior, which is what Christianity is about. But you can't understand the need for a Savior unless you understand the inexorable demands of the moral law upon us all and our complete inability to obey it in the right spirit since the Fall.
Faith wrote: I would expect that there would still be people of extraordinary good health living here and there. If you want the spiritual explanation, it's all a matter of sin. Read the Book of Proverbs. Good health and long life are a matter of living according to God's Law. And later . I've been clear that I'm not talking about Biblical law alone. Biblical law is simply the codification of the universal moral law. All cultures have had their own recognition of this law. These appear to support the idea that the genetic degredation is due to failing to follow a universal law of niceness, like not murdering, stealing, lying, etc. Basically just commandments 5 through 10 of the 10 commandments. That's a start.
But of course that’s not what the Bible or Christianity say is important. I’ve read the whole Bible, and others probably have too. I think Faith will agree with me that commandments 5 through 10 aren’t the main point (that’s why they are 5-10, and not #1). Even Jesus says that, in Mt 22. The Bible, over and over, stresses that other religions are NOT acceptable, no matter how nice one is. I didn't say any of this was "acceptable" as religion. There is no way we can earn our way to God's favor, and that is what all religions do. All attempts to obey the moral law fail as far as salvation goes. I've tried to be clear about this but perhaps haven't spelled it out consistently enough. I'm not talking about salvation when I'm talking about the moral law and health and longevity and genetic deterioration. I'm talking about practical rules for minimizing the effect of the Fall in this life only, on this planet only.
The OT goes into incredible detail about that, and repeatedly gives examples where being the right religion is more important than family (such as the order to publically kill any family member, “even the wife you love”, if they so much as suggest going to a different church, or the time a mother is rebelled against because of her religion, or many other examples). Much of Jeremiah is a rant against other religions. The NT takes this even farther, saying that not only is religion the most important thing, but now trying to keep the law is a threat to your salvation (Gal). Paul goes on and on about how trying to keep the law is a ticket to eternal torture. Any reading of the Bible that doesn’t completely ignore it makes it clear that people like Gandhi (a Hindu) and Anne Frank (a Jew) are screaming in eternal agony right now. The Bible is given as a revelation of the truth which we have lost because of the Fall which blinded us. It reveals the nature of things, the nature of God, rather than that it decrees anything. It isn't "other religions" it's simply blind human nature's failure to recognize the truth since the Fall, having been seduced by Satan and no longer knowing the true God. Human nature can't come up with true religion, it's beyond us, this is why we need revelation from God himself. The disposition of particular individuals who do not know Christ is best left to God. Those who outright reject Christ are something other than those who never learned of him. God is merciful; it will all make perfect sense in the end.
Later on, Faith clarifies here position, which does seem to fit more with the Bible:
As for the Savior, yes, there is only one, and he's what Christianity is about, it's not about living according to the moral law for salvation. Christianity is not about obeying the law, it's about needing a savior from it. It seems that most cultures do have something like a universal moral law (UML), which condemns murder, torture, stealing, lying, and such. That would be a good topic for a thread on Evolutionary Psychology. It also seems that the Bible mandates something very different, where acceptance of Jesus and only Jesus is what is important, and that someone who is very, very good at obeying the UML has no hope of avoiding torture unless they are Christian, and a Christian is saved from torture no matter how bad they are (Jeffrey Dahlmer accepted Christ before being executed). So, back to my original response to this idea - according to the Bible, and to every major denomination today, it’s being Christian that is most important to God. Well, we are in danger of eternal suffering because of our defiance of the moral law, and God provided the remedy. There is no other. He revealed it all at a particular time and place, but it's a mistake to get hung up on that fact. "Being Christian" kind of misrepresents it. Those who have accepted the remedy are called Christian, but don't get hung up on terminology. The disease is universal and the remedy is offered to all.
Yes, I know that plenty of verses can support the idea that following the UML is important as long as you are Christian FIRST. Please rethink the context here. This wasn't to be a thread about Christianity but about the Biblical revelation of the Fall and the implications of that for our physical degeneration which I believe would show in the genome if we would only study it with that in view. This isn't about how to have eternal life, which comes only through embracing the Savior God sent for that purpose, it's only about our physical life in this physical realm. While it helps to get these things sorted out, let's not turn this thread into a thread about salvation.
Thus, if Faith’s idea that God’s unhappiness with you results in genetic degradation, then expecting a high mutation rate among those of the wrong denomination or Hindu, Muslim or maybe worst of all, those accepting Unitarians, makes sense. But this is specifically what I was trying to counter by pointing out that all cultures have intuited the moral law and sought to found principles of living on it. There is nothing whatever that is inherently Christian about it. I would expect there to be no obvious difference between Christians and others in this respect, except perhaps what has come from God's blessing our circumstances with medical knowledge and that sort of thing. But as far as our human bodies go we're no less subject to disease and death than anyone else on the planet. I would expect Lao Tse, and any who follow his principles of humility and avoiding desire and conflict, to live a long healthy life. Certainly those principles would keep him from sins against the Ten Commandments.
In fact, along those lines, maybe Apo shows that Luther and Calvin had it wrong. After all, Apo and his family are clearly favored by God, and being in a remote village in Italy, I bet they are observant Catholics. So all that prayer to saints, veneration of the pope, and statues to Mary must be the one true faith, and the best way to ward off bad mutations. I would like to emphasize again that I am not talking about religion, I'm talking about living in accord with the moral law, and yes, the ten commandments, the last five or six if you prefer, would be a good standard for starters. That much is pretty universal. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Do you mean moral degeneration? No, I'm talking about physical degeneration. This came off the previous thread about the effect of the Fall in bringing about disease and death, and how I would expect that to play out in the gradual deterioration of the genome and our general health over time. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
God only barred Adam and Eve from the tree of life after they had sinned. Now that they were no longer perfect moral agents they could not be allowed to live forever. The fact that they had not eaten of the tree of life in all the time prior to their rebellion implies that they were not expecting to die. Seems to me I read somewhere the interpretation that they did eat from the tree of life quite freely, which was no problem as long as they remained in favor with God, but that they couldn't be allowed to eat of it any more after they had disobeyed, because then they would have become immortal evil beings, like Satan and his angels.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh, ok. But as a side note, do you beleive in gradual moral degeneration or would you say that people were rotten 2000 years ago and they are equally rotten today? Well, sin is accumulating over time, we inherit the propensity from our sinner ancestors, but despite this people seem to continue with a conscience and a moral sense, so I can't say that I SEE moral degeneration. I think the pre-Flood world must have been about as sinful as it's possible to get. But I do think the world atmosphere is more sinful overall in the last century or so. That is, there used to be cultural restraints against many kinds of sins, restraints that no longer exist at least in the West, but whether this is just part of the continuing trend since the Fall or a development peculiar to our time I couldn't say. It means the West is heading for some heavy judgment in the near future, but that's another subject. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
MJF writes: It is not explicitly mentioned that there was no death before the fall. It is explicitly mentioned that death entered the world through one man (the implication being Adam) yes by paul, taken out of context, i'm thinking 'death' is murder and he means cain killing abel rather than 'death' as in people dying It's not out of context, Adam's sin IS the context:
quote: The whole passage is about how death, condemnation, judgment, and all humanity's being made sinners came through one man's offense or transgression, "the transgression of Adam."
If death entered the world through Adam, then there logically was no death before Adam. only if you want the whole, "i'll kill you if you eat this fruit" thing meaningless, since how would adam and eve know what death was before the fall?
Otherwise how could death have entered the world through Adam? It would've already been there... the logic should be, eather paul was using the word death to mean something to do with the spirit or meaning murder or man is just by nature violent and from day one man was violent i think saying man was imortal or something is doing some fine logic bending but why should that be the answer? It's perfectly consistent with scripture which clearly says that death ENTERED the world with Adam. You are putting your own logic against what scripture actually says. It SAYS sin and death came through Adam, and you weren't there so you don't know what Adam knew or didn't know -- he had an inside track to the mind of God before he fell, and you don't, so you should believe what the scripture says and give up forcing it to mean what you want it to mean -- you, and Ramoss and jar and Ringo and whoever else is making such obviously false claims. Here's another verse saying it was through Adam that death came:
quote: Does it matter to any of you that this is standard traditional Christian theology through the ages? It's even one of the scripture lines Handel put in his
"Messiah" in the 18th century. Scroll down to 46. Chorus. But I guess you all don't mind putting yourselves above the sages of Christian history. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, this thread is supposed to be about how Biblical creationism derives the idea of genetic devolution from scripture, but I guess we're going to spend part of it arguing about all the other ways of interpreting scripture first.
Thanks to Faith for providing the Scripture quote. Verse 17 settles it as far as Paul's thoughts are concerned. 'Death' is a metaphor.
quote: Physical death is endured by Christians and non-Christians alike. No one is exempt. Um, it's ABOUT Christians and non-Christians alike. It's about the entire human race. No one is exempt. We all go back to Adam. It's explaining how death happened in the first place and continues to happen to all of us.
Paul is thus not talking about physical death. Um, how are you getting this "thus"? By interpreting it as only referring to Christians? Without the slightest justification.
Just as Christians are not promised they will live forever on this earth, neither would Adam have lived forever on this earth. You are getting all this out of the one word "reigned" in that one sentence? Taking it out of the context in which terms of origin such as "death entered" "came upon" and "were made sinners" should define it? I must admire the creative twistedness of the effort.
The contrast drawn between 'death' and 'life' in this passage is moral or spiritual. And your clue to this is... what? "...reigned?" What?
Paul is discussing the consequences of, and remedy for, human moral failure that began ('entered the world') with Adam's disobedience. Paul thus uses 'life' and 'death' here to describe metaphysical, not physical, realities. All that ingenuity just to reduce something gloriously transcendant to something dull, pedestrian, bo-o-o-o-o-rrrring.
death reigned = disobedience, condemnation, hopelessness, Sheol/Hell life will reign = obedience, justification, hope, Heaven So we have, basically, a fake "death" and a fake "life," both reduced to metaphors in keeping with the nonphysical terms "disobedience, condemnation, hopelessness" and so on, as if their mere association in one sentence requires this? What?
Note as well that Paul avoids the present tense. He places death in the past, life in the future. For the present we are to understand that the two realms co-exist. He places the ORIGIN of death in the past, the ENTRANCE of death -- if you read the whole thing in context instead of making some special separate idea out of "reigned." He places true life in the future, eternal life, the life Adam lost at the Fall, places it in the future when it will be fully restored. {edit: All of us in this life, this earthly life, are not alive but dead, according to scripture -- "dead in trespasses and sins." When Paul asks rhetorically"who will deliver me from this body of death?" it's not just a metaphor. Regeneration in Christ means restoration to REAL life, true life, eternal life, spiritual life, along with the incorruptible body at the resurrection.} Everyone knows that for the present--Paul's and ours--physical death goes on. Every living thing endures physical death. One doesn't avoid it when one chooses 'life in Christ.' Physical death is an appointment all keep, whatever choices they make. No, the life that is to be restored is spiritual life, eternal life, and a new resurrected incorruptible body will be part of it, a body that first will pass through physical death. Paul does talk about the body being raised incorruptible in another part of scripture. If you read this out of context you will miss the meaning of that too.
So again--obviously--physical death is not under discussion here. There's no contrast for Paul to draw on that point. The only contrast to be drawn is metaphysical. Paul is discussing metaphysical, not physical, situations. Only if you completely ignore the context, ignore other passages of scripture that contradict it, and make it up out of whole cloth. And again, all that cognitive exertion to what end? Turning a prince into a frog or something like that. Bo-o-o-o-o-o-r-r-r-r-ing. No wonder you guys aren't interested in Christianity. You don't understand it. Because you refuse to believe it really means what it says. You drag it down to dull plodding earthbound death-ridden "reality." But scripture says those who won't believe consider it foolishness. Funny though how hard you have to work to turn it into something dull and trivial. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You interpret Paul out of context and impose your own prejudice on him, as I showed. I notice you don't bother to answer my charge of fakery, legerdemain with words.
There is nothing spiritual about a metaphorical "life" and "death." You are treating spirituality as unreal, as a mere mental state, word games, but Christianity is about Reality, and Spiritual Reality is Real. Real life, real death, and a life and a death even beyond the life and death we think is real. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Do you always take it as a putdown when someone suggests the presence of metaphor? Does a metaphor always mean a 'word game' to you--something unreal, unimportant, uninteresting, untrue? Not when it really is a metaphor; only when it's a reality that is being trivialized into a metaphor, and when the context of a statement is utterly ignored in order to turn it into a metaphor. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I read all of C.S. Lewis' books years ago.
As I recall, he was good at arguing against just the sort of thing you are doing here. Metaphors are fine when they are in fact metaphors, not when real life and real death are turned into metaphors. This is in fact the technique of the liberal Christians, to take the realities of scripture and make them into parables and metaphors and other purely cognitive, linguistic or psychological categories, or some sort of quasi-reality that is neither here nor there. So the resurrection becomes the "resurrection," and the ascension becomes the "ascension" and the virgin birth, though I haven't seen this one done this way, could become the "virgin birth" and in fact reality become "reality." Miracles become "miracles," an idea or a psycbological event, rather than real events in real space-time. In the same way you turn real physical (AND spiritual) life and death into mere cognitive constructs, so-to-speaks and as-it-weres. Metaphors have no tangible reality, they are cognitive constructs, and they may be very useful for instruction, for getting a point across, but they are ABOUT reality, they are not reality itself. Life and death in that passage quoted, on the other hand, are real. And by the way, the intellect is considered to be of the flesh, not the spirit, until regenerated. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I would expect Lao Tse, and any who follow his principles of humility and avoiding desire and conflict, to live a long healthy life. Certainly those principles would keep him from sins against the Ten Commandments. Again, you are being completely unscriptural. The Bible makes it very clear that commandment #1 is the most important. Lao Tse absolutely fails in commandments 1 through 4 (more important, according to Jesus). Yahweh has burned people for much less than that. The fact that he keeps the lesser commandments is not worth anything, as Paul goes on and on about in Galatians and elsewhere. You quote Paul as an authority elsewhere, but here you apparently don’t think Paul’s writings matter? We ALL fail in obeying the commandments, most especially the first four of them, and most especially those of us who KNOW the ten commandments, and it was Paul who taught that we sin the more, the more we are told not to, and the law was given to show that we can't obey it. Scripture also teaches that there is such a thing as a person who had no contact with God's revelation to the Hebrews who nevertheless followed his conscience and obeyed what light he had, and was counted righteous for that. Job is in fact an example of such. So is Noah and all the righteous patriarchs before and after him. Surely Lao Tse can be counted in that number; and Gautama Buddha and numerous unknown others. And beyond that, Jesus preached the gospel to the dead before his resurrection, among whom would have been that entire company including Lao Tse, and if he received the gospel of Christ he is now in heaven with Him. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What MJF said, Message 80.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024