I have no problem with what you said – and I really appreciate your post! Because I have realize another dynamic that is at play when I analyze TWI doctrine. Part of the delivery system is the way they model "The Word." This is a big deal according to Jesus. The following passages show that even IF the teacher has "The Word", "the rightly-divided Word"…or for those Christians that speak English "The Bible" – and he does not practice what he preaches - [or for you TWI folks "walk the talk"] there is a big problem with that teacher – and I don't think they should be teaching!
Matthew 23:1-3 NASB
1(A)Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,
2 saying: "(B)The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.
Matthew 5:17-20 NASB
17"Do not think that I came to abolish the (V)Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18"For truly I say to you, (W)until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least (X)in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20"For I say to you that unless your (Y)righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
That is my whole point in post # 1 and 16. We don't have to get into the myriad of erroneous "textbook" doctrines of TWI. And really - even if PFAL was 100 % "rightly-divided Word" [or 100 % Bible truth for you English speaking Christians out there] the REAL harm comes in how it is applied [as Jesus pointed out]. VPW does not model the Bible in PFAL – he "teaches" from it. When you get to see him "backstage" [like Way Corps or Staff] you get to see him model "the Word" – as I related with the pajama party/porn video incident.
Your experience is valid – so is mine. From what you said I take it you had some leadership that modeled more of the true Christian lifestyle than my favorite leader at the time, VPW. His influence – the way he modeled Christian living – that is what dulled the conscience of those that revered him.
I had some very good leadership in the early days of my involvement with TWI; men and women who talked the walk and walked the talk. Unfortunately, as time went on, men and women of integrity became harder and harder to find, and the few that were there left in disgust at what TWI was turning into. But as I have said in other places, I always thought the point of the gift of holy spirit was to enable me to become more myself and to magnify the good things about my personality, not to become a VPW or anyone else clone, which I guess is the difference between respect for the Word (Bible) he taught and revering him personally. Thanks for your post. Your experience is valid also, just different than mine.
didn't eve clearly recall that God told her not to do something? She knew what God would allow and wouldn't.
so in her mind she would be saying "God said don't do this"
Yes, but she was still relying on an external source for the recognition of what constituted good and evil. And as dmiller pointed out, Eve didn't receive instruction from God, but God told Adam, and Adam told Eve. Thanks, dmiller.
Obviously, according to Genesis, Adam and Eve had no 'conscience', no internal indicator of good and evil. At the time they were created, they knew only good.
You presuppose this means there WAS no conscience.
Where they blew it was because they failed to rely on the external instructions that Adam had been given by God, and Eve had been given by Adam. They had no internal 'warning system that alerts even when a threat hasn't been fully articulated'. That was the 'convincing-sounding argument' that the serpent used to deceive Eve; that by tasting the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil man would become as God and know the difference between good and evil, thus probably acquiring the 'conscience' everyone keeps talking about.
So, they either were missing any internal warning system,
or did not HEED any internal warning system,
and fell victim to the "convincing-sounding argument" the serpent used,
and thought what they were doing was acceptable.
I agree.
And I think this is a GREAT example of how that process works-
which explains why it was so successful when vpw said to ignore the conscience.
When the serpent said “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil,” he spoke the truth(although he lied about you shall not surely die).
V22: And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us (elohim), to know good and evil:”
It seems reasonable God knew there was a possibility of disobedience. Therefore, by making it possible for Adam and Eve to have a conscience they would have an internal warning system to help them, otherwise they would be open to constant disobedience and not much holding them back. They needed to know the difference between right and wrong, as well as all mankind that would follow. This explains why He chose this particular tree.
If concience is something that is a characteristic of God, then that is a good thing. That sheds some (not much) light on why it was so tempting.
The original temptation was special knowledge that would give them special results. It wasn’t sexual at all. The text doesn’t tell us what the actual act of disobedience was, other than they partook, but whatever it was, it logically had to be something that would make sense to get the result of KNOWING. It had to be something they would think was logical.
And, I can understand it. We got into twi thinking we would get special knowledge. Nobody but twi had it. Once we had it, we would do special things, like stand between the devil and the rest of the world.
that by tasting the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil man would become as God and know the difference between good and evil, thus probably acquiring the 'conscience' everyone keeps talking about.
I guess this is what sent bells off in my head. The Amplified bible does say in Gen 3:22 . . "to know [how to distinguish between] good and evil and blessing and calamity; . . "
All other versions I looked at say only "to know good and evil"
twi taught that this meant that Adam and Eve knew the difference between good and evil (had a mental knowledge or understanding) but after the fall they had experiential knowledge. (but if twi said it, its questionable)
I guess following this logic the devil was implying that God has experiential knowledge of evil.
There are sins I have not committed that I know are wrong, your saying Adam and Eve didn't have this knowledge that you and I do?
T-Bone, some questions.....what, exactly are the biblical differentiations between heart, soul and mind? And how do we love with them? Is heart actually what we are calling the conscience? (this stuff is getting deeper by the minute! :mellow: ) This would seem to be a very pivotal issue here.
P.S. I've got the neighbor part nailed. :D
Listener, thanks for your input on this thread [and to everyone else for that matter – great posts everyone!] – and you have really brought up something interesting with this post. In going through some commentaries, biblical language references, and Christian counseling books I was struck by the relevance of your statement to our topic. I know I'm prone to going all over the map just to tell someone how to get across the street [ah, the beauty of verbosity ] but I think this is one of those things that the more details you look into – the more you see of the bigger picture and with sharper clarity to boot.
What I'm getting a sense of from everyone's posts and the following info I've garnered from a few books – is that the conscience is perhaps more than one little section of the brain – a very strict compartmentalized view of our psychological makeup. If I were to frame an analogy of the conscience from my studies thus far, I'd think along the lines of a computer operating system and the interactive dynamics of how it all works together. There's the basic hardware/software of the machine itself. These are things intrinsic to the system. Performance and productivity revolve around how I use it – by my data entry, correct commands, installing patches, etc. The reason I'm drawn to this computer analogy is because I'm not an IT person and don't have a clue how all of the hardware/software of a PC is integrated to do a number of tasks . My concept of the conscience leans more to something that may be intertwined with several intellectual functions – and would have innate properties [that cannot be deleted or changed] and "customization" or interactive features whereby I have an influence on whether or not it functions properly or to the extent available.
This post probably belongs more in the Doctrinal forum [like in the Spirit, Soul and Body thread] than here…Guess I'll leave it here because I started this thread with the intent of analyzing the practical consequence of TWI's doctrine – and specifically its impact on the believer's decision-making process.
Before going into details of our role with the two great commandments – I thought it would be appropriate to mention a dictionary definition of "conscience" that repeats the two views that came up on this thread - something innate or something that is learned. From The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology by Arthur Reber & Emily Reber, third edition 2001, page 147:
"Conscience. A reasonably coherent set of internalized moral principles that provides evaluations of right and wrong with regard to acts either performed or contemplated. Historically, theistic views aligned conscience with the voice of God and hence regarded it as innate. The contemporary view is that the prohibitions and obligations of conscience are learned; indeed, Freud's characterization of the superego was an attempt to provide an account of its origins, development and manner of functioning."
Looking at the references to the two great commandments you'll notice they actually mention five different aspects of a person: heart, soul, mind, strength, and understanding:
Matthew 22:34-40 NASB
34(Z)But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced (AA)the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together.
35One of them, [a](AB)a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him,
36"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"
37And He said to him, " '(AC)YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'
38"This is the great and foremost commandment.
39"The second is like it, '(AD)YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.'
40"(AE)On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
Mark 12:28-34 NASB
28(Q)One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and (R)recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?"
29Jesus answered, "The foremost is, '(S)HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;
30(T)AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.'
31"The second is this, '(U)YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
32The scribe said to Him, "Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that (V)HE IS ONE, AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE BESIDES HIM;
33(W)AND TO LOVE HIM WITH ALL THE HEARTAND WITH ALL THE UNDERSTANDING AND WITH ALL THE STRENGTH, AND TO LOVE ONE'S NEIGHBOR AS HIMSELF, (X)is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."
34When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." (Y)After that, no one would venture to ask Him any more questions.
Towards a biblical definition of "psychological" terms used in the great commandments.The following list is by no means exhaustive or authoritative – but offers some technical details for those who want to do further study. I used The Word Study New Testament edited by Ralph Winter and Roberta Winter and The Word Study Concordance by George Wigram and Ralph Winter, The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, edited by Stephen Renn, The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible, 2001 by James Strong, fully revised and corrected by John Kohlenberger III and James Swanson, Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, 2006, editor William Mounce for identifying and defining the Greek words, and their equivalent in the Hebrew language when noted.
1. Heart. Greek word kardia, Strong's # 2588, 160 occurrences, and is a true dynamic equivalent for the Hebrew terms leb [Strong's # 3820] and lebab [Strong's # 3824]. Renn's Expository Dictionary says kardia refers to the center or seat of inner being and passions, location of one's deepest thoughts [Like 2:19, 51; I Corinthians 14:25], kardia also found in contexts where human heart is viewed in a negative light [Luke 1:51; Matt. 9:4; 12:34; 13:15; Mark 7:21; John 13:2; Acts 5:3]. In more general terms, the human heart is portrayed as the object of the knowledge of God, as the receptor of divine revelation [Matthew 13:19; Luke 16:15; Romans 2:15; Hebrews 8:10; 10:16]. II Corinthians 3:3; Luke 24:25; Ephesians 4:18; Hebrews 3:8, 12, 15;4:7 issue a solemn plea not to harden one's heart against the promptings of God's Spirit. For as Galatians 4:6 also declares, the human heart is the location [metaphorically speaking] of the indwelling Spirit of God in the life of the believer [cf. also Romans 10:8].
2. Soul. Greek word psyche, Strong's # 5590, 105 occurrences, an approximate dynamic equivalent for the Hebrew term nephesh [Strong's # 5315]. According to Renn, psyche has a "narrower semantic field than its Hebrew equivalent, and it is translated primarily as "soul," "life" in the large majority of these contexts. This Greek term indicates, as does the Hebrew, that the "soul" is not to be distinguished from the "body" in an absolute sense, for the Scriptures teach that humans are whole, integral beings. There is, however, evidence clearly suggesting that there is a duality within a person's constitution – humans have a physical body that will perish and decay as well as a "spirit" or "soul" that is immortal and subject to divine judgment for good or ill at the end of time…psyche also refers to the "soul" of a person, referring to his or her "life" – the animating life force, sustaining earthly existence…[Matthew 2:20; 16:25; Acts 20:10; Romans 16:4]…Psyche also indicates the "soul" as that unique, immortal essence of all human beings, equated in many ways to a person's "spirit," which has an eternal body that will not decay after physical death [cf. Matthew 10:28; Acts 2:27; 13:17; James 1:21; 5:20; I Peter 1:9; 2:25; Revelation 6:9; 20:4].
Related to the above sense is the meaning "soul" [in relation to people], indicating the inner spiritual, psychological, and emotional center of one's being. This is occasionally identified as the "heart" or "mind". The usage of psyche with this shade of meaning does not imply an eternal destiny, but rather an inner quality of life on earth. Such a perspective is illustrated in the following contexts, where psyche refers to promised rest for one's soul [Matthew 11:29]; and to people's "soul" as "heart" or "mind" [Acts 14:2; 15:24; Ephesians 6:6; Philippians 1:27; II Peter 2:8]. Elsewhere, psyche refers to one's "soul" in relation to one's "entire being", in an undifferentiated sense…[Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30 ff.; Luke 10:27]…In I Thessalonians 5:23 there is a rare reference to one's "soul" as distinct from "body" and "spirit". The context here, however would probably suggest an emphasis on the profound relationship between the human physical and spiritual constitution within the phenomenon of the "whole person", rather than indicating human beings merely as a composite of three separate parts. A similar reference is also made in Hebrews 4:12; 6:19]."
3. Mind. Greek word dianoia, Strong's # 1271, 13 occurrences. Renn's Expository Dictionary says it "means "mind," indicating that faculty as the seat of human reason, understanding, emotion, and will. In most of the contexts dianoia may also be translated "heart". The command to love God with all one's "mind" is linked to "heart" and "soul" as well. The clear implication is that one is to love God with one's whole being. It is the greatest command of all [cf. Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27]. Linked to this all-embracing command is the observation in Hebrews 8:10; 10:16 that God has placed his law within the hearts and minds of his people as part of the essence of the promised new covenant renewal, accomplished through the finished redemptive work of Christ. In these two texts, dianoia ["mind"] is used synonymously with kardia ["heart"]."
4. Strength. Greek word ischys, Strong's #2479, 11 occurrences. Renn and Mounce say it denotes strength, power and might. Mounce mentions Jesus calling on the faithful to love the Lord with all their "strength" [Mark 12:30, 33; Like 10:27] and ischys is also used of God's power at work in believers [Ephesians 1:19; 6;10] and at his second coming [iI Thessalonians 1:19], of human strength or ability given by God , and of angelic strength [iI Peter 2:11].
5. Understanding. Greek word synesis, Strong's # 4907, 7 occurrences. Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary says "…synesis refers to spiritual understanding, insight. It is the child Jesus' synesis that amazes the crowds when he answers questions in the temple [Luke 2:47]. Paul prays that God will give the Colossians spiritual wisdom and "understanding" [Colossians 1:9] so they will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord [Colossians 1:10]…Paul encourages Timothy to reflect on his teaching for in doing so, the Lord will give him insight into all this" [iI Timothy 2:7]. See also Mark 12:33 and I Corinthians 1:19."
I think the role of the conscience may touch upon all five aspects of one's psychological makeup. Intellectually, I gather from the ten commandments that murder is wrong. Emotionally I became outraged over the recent news of 32 people being murdered at Virginia Tech. I KNOW that's wrong! I also know my dad's horror stories from being a medic in WWII had a profound effect on shaping and re-enforcing the sanctity of life for me. I am a gentle person and somehow doing violence to another human being is completely foreign to me – going against my nature. Is that merely a viewpoint I've adopted – or more of a conviction gained by spiritual perception of people made in the likeness of God?
The five terms listed above speak of the ability to express my love to God and people...perhaps an unconscious process at times - maybe overt at other times. But factors are involved that influence my decision-making process to obey God...to compassionately reach out to help someone, or to refrain from doing harm to someone.
And that pretty much sums up the whole perspective of TWI. They wanted to facilitate us in understanding and accepting unquestionally VPW's interpretation of scripture rather that motivating us to really examine its validity and based on that examination question and make corrections as necessary.
They wanted to facilitate our ability to think and confrom to TWI philosophy rather than motivating us to see how that philosophy applied in our lives, whether it was beneficial in our lives, and how to make corrections so that aspects of that philosophy fit into our lives.
They facilitated a lock step mentality rather than motivating us to freely think, ponder and expand our understanding of how Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ had a plan for each person and thereby gaining an individual understanding of what is necessary in our own personal walk.
Their process for weeding out those candidates for PFAL who' Weren't commited" "lacked meekness" etc meant that they were preaching to those who already were, if not numb, at least semi numb and those who believed at some level that there was a set of rules that would "make it all better".
The less desparate for "the fix" all departed PFAL well before the 12th session. The rest of us hung on not realizing that another layer of numbness had been added as we faced a new list of "have to's" in lives already overrun by "have to's". As we trudged on striving to be free we took the intermediate class attended meetings attended TWIG some went Advanced class and Corps.
The result of all this is that when finally faced with CFS there were two groups of people--those of a perverted nature who "got off" on it and the rest of us who were so wrapped up in trying to see what "truths" were being expounded for our learning and understanding-that we failed to recognize CFS for what it was-porn. If we did see it as porn we immediately mentally reproved ourselves and were overcome with feelings of guilt and frustration for being unakle to grasp what Heavenly Father was trying to impart to us through CFS.
Since you mentioned image: I wonder if at least part of made after the image of God, had to do with the fact that man as originally created had no disobedience in him?
Linking conscience and logic together reminds me of similarly linking grace and truth together; too much grace without truth is licentiousness, and too much truth (or what is being sold as truth) without grace is legalism. In balance, it is good. The Love and Logic materials used as discipline guidelines in many schools is a modern-day version of that balance.
Is our conscience the still, small voice of God? If so, we had it all along, but let it be drowned out.
In light of all of these thoughts, a section of scripture (probably mentioned before) that has really helped me recently has been Romans 14 from "The Message." I never remember Romans 14 ever being taught before:
"Welcome with open arms fellow believers who don't see things the way you do. And don't jump all over them every time they do or say something you don't agree with - even when it seems that they are strong on opinions but weak in the faith department. Remember, they have their own history to deal with. Treat them gently.
For instance, a person who has been around for a while might well be convinced that he can eat anything on the table, while another, with a different background, might assume all Christians should be vegetarians and eat accordingly. But since both are guests at Christ's table, wouldn't it be terribly rude if they fell to criticizing what the other ate or didn't eat? God, after all, invited them both to the table. Do you have any business crossing people off the guest list or interfering with God's welcome? If there are corrections to be made or manners to be learned, God can handle that without your help.
Or, say, one person thinks that some days should be set aside as holy and another thinks that each day is pretty much like any other. There are good reasons either way. So, each person is free to follow the convictions of his own CONSIENCE.
What's important in all this is that if you keep a holy day, keep it for God's sake; if you eat meat, eat it to the glory of God and thank God for the prime rib; if you're a vegetarian, eat vegetables to the glory of God and thank God for broccoli. None of us are permitted to insist on our own way in these matters. It's God we are answerable to - all the way from life to death and everything in between - not each other. That's why Jesus lived and died and then lived again: so that he could be our Master across the entire range of life and death, and free us from the petty tyrannies of each other.
So where does that leave you when you criticize a brother? And where does that leave you when you condescend to a sister? I'd say it leaves you looking pretty silly - or worse. Eventually, we're all going to end up kneeling side by side in the place of judgement, facing God. Your critical and condescending ways aren't going to improve your position there one bit: 'As I live and breathe, God says, every knee will bow before me; every tongue will tell the honest truth that I and only I am God.'
So tend to your knitting. You've got your hands full just taking care of your own life before God.
Forget about deciding what's right for each other. Here's what you need to be concerned about: THAT YOU DON'T GET IN THE WAY OF SOMEONE ELSE, MAKING LIFE MORE DIFFICULT THAT IT ALREADY IS [emphasis added]. I'm convinced - Jesus convinced me! - that everything as it is in itself is holy. We, of course, by the way we treat it or talk about it, can contaminate it....
...Cultivate your own relationship with God, but don't impose it on others. You're fortunate if your behavior and your belief are coherent. But if you're not sure, if you notice that you are acting in ways inconsistent with what your believe - some days trying to impose your opinions on others, other days just trying to please them - then you know that you're out of line. IF THE WAY YOU LIVE IS INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE, THEN IT'S WRONG.
but Eve says in Gen 3:3 "God hath said" Indicating she had heard what God said, directly or indirectly. (of course she also misquotes him)
Perhaps I just don't see a difference between previously received external knowledge and a conscience.
The point I was trying to make was that Adam and Eve's original ability to discern between good and evil was based on an external commandment of God's, not on an internal, inbred warning system. It doesn't seem to me that they had some internal moral compass (or conscience) but had to depend on the direction of God. I'm not so sure either that they were that much different than believers nowadays (with the possible exception of Christ within that we have). We also have to depend om the written direction of God for much of our knowledge of good and evil.
The point I was trying to make was that Adam and Eve's original ability to discern between good and evil was based on an external commandment of God's, not on an internal, inbred warning system. It doesn't seem to me that they had some internal moral compass (or conscience) but had to depend on the direction of God. I'm not so sure either that they were that much different than believers nowadays (with the possible exception of Christ within that we have). We also have to depend om the written direction of God for much of our knowledge of good and evil.
But weren't they created in the image of God? They had His spirit within them at the time of the sin. Since it was built in to them at the point of their Genesis, wouldn't that be considered internal?
Before going into details of our role with the two great commandments – I thought it would be appropriate to mention a dictionary definition of "conscience" that repeats the two views that came up on this thread - something innate or something that is learned. From The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology by Arthur Reber & Emily Reber, third edition 2001, page 147:
"Conscience. A reasonably coherent set of internalized moral principles that provides evaluations of right and wrong with regard to acts either performed or contemplated. Historically, theistic views aligned conscience with the voice of God and hence regarded it as innate. The contemporary view is that the prohibitions and obligations of conscience are learned; indeed, Freud's characterization of the superego was an attempt to provide an account of its origins, development and manner of functioning."
It seems to me that by that definition a 'conscience' is not an internal or inborn or innate warning system but rather a set of moral principles that a person has, by the freedom of their will, internalized. It would seem to suggest the prohibitions and obligations of conscience are learned and come from an external source.
I find myself much in agreement with the posts that JavaJane and Free Soul made. If I have come across as jumping on someone who disagrees with me, you have my apologies.
But weren't they created in the image of God? They had His spirit within them at the time of the sin. Since it was built in to them at the point of their Genesis, wouldn't that be considered internal?
Just a question.
Thanks!
What we were taught in TWI (which may or may not be what you want to hear) is that the spirit within that they had gave them the ability to communicate with God without God having to come into concretion, and that is what they lost by committing the original sin. They were still relying on what God had told them, which to me implies an external source.
BTW, thanks for your post, JavaJane, it had a number of very good points in it. We certainly each have plenty of things to work on our own lives, and do not need to judge or condescend to anyone who doesn't agree with us.
Linking conscience and logic together reminds me of similarly linking grace and truth together; too much grace without truth is licentiousness, and too much truth (or what is being sold as truth) without grace is legalism. In balance, it is good. The Love and Logic materials used as discipline guidelines in many schools is a modern-day version of that balance.
(snip)
That's how I'm seeing it.
I might say it, though, as "Too much grace without discipline is licentiousness,
and too much discipline without grace is legalism.
LikeanEagle – Cry of the Soul is a great book – our soul/emotions reconnecting to God.
Hammeroni – that's some good prose!
NottaWayfer – I agree – we all enabled those monsters!
Belle – thanks for your great input on emotions and the great commandments! When Jesus said everything hangs on love – in my opinion – that's the only way any of us can truly follow the commands of the Bible.
Doojable – "What a dose of spiritual valium!" – great line!!!!!!!!!
Jeaniam – I think the only thing the Psychology dictionary describes is the function of the conscience. Reasons for whether it is innate or learned are not given in the definition. The fact that they are internalized only acknowledges that they are within the person. How they got in there is another matter.
Bolshevik – I'm think it worked that way – Adam and Eve intellectually KNEW right from wrong before they sinned – they knew what God said about the one tree. But after they sinned they knew it experientially. Before they sinned, the conscience was exercised to refrain from eating of the fruit of a certain tree - they knew it was wrong to do. After they sinned, their conscience was struck with shame and guilt – they knew what they did was wrong.
Java Jane – Thanks for sharing Romans 14 from The Message. I like reading that version sometimes just for the thought provoking aspect of the paraphrase. By the way, welcome to GSC…and that's a really big cup of coffee you have there…now put the cup down…step away from the cup .
Free Soul – great post, linking conscience and logic and the balance of grace and truth.
Word Wolf – As usual, thanks for all your input, bro…I'm still thinking about your post # 19: "An "American Indian" once explained what a conscience is. "It is a three-pointed thing in here. (*gestures to his stomach*) When I do wrong, it turns, and the points hurt me. But if I KEEP doing wrong, then the points wear down, and they don't hurt so much anymore."
…It would be interesting to study how other cultures describe the function of the conscience.
Temple Lady – I liked your points in post # 87 – especially: "…They facilitated a lock step mentality rather than motivating us to freely think, ponder and expand our understanding of how Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ had a plan for each person and thereby gaining an individual understanding of what is necessary in our own personal walk…" - great post! That goes along with one of my ideas running in the background when I drafted post # 86 that you referred to is that it's easier to divert than stop a moving object. In some martial arts tactics when an opponent charges you – rather than mustering up brute force to stop them you merely pull them past you, around you or in some way divert their oncoming force. I think the tempter's voice works this way – a personalized invite that beckons us to something we already have a weakness for. The ploy is not to stop us dead in our tracks but to steer us off course.
Another Spot – thanks! I'm still having nightmares [just kidding – but your idea is scary] over your statement in post # 71: "Here's a weird thought: what would the world be like if no one had a conscience?"
I still say that if, as the religious pov says, the conscience is a built in hot line to God that everybody is born with that always knows right from wrong, then Christ's sacrifice was unnecessary, which is obviously wrong. Conscience is a function of the mind triggered by regulation or violation of our habit patterns. We CALL it conscience when those habit patterns involve a moral issue, but the conscience functions also on non moral issues.
For example: every time I have ever moved from one house or apt to another a major comfort zone is violated. Namely, showering. Anybody here NEVER take a shower? Possibly some of you only take baths. But now in the new place I have to relearn how to adjust the hot and cold spiguts and if I'm in a hurry, it's not pleasant. There's nothing moral about showering, it's just something people do, yet that part of your mind responds to a violation of your habit pattern until it becomes the habit pattern. Remember in the Christian ettiquette book how Dorothy said to practice until the correct way becomes the habit instead of the incorrect way?
Before Genesis 3 Adam and Eve only knew good, not evil, as my wife pointed out. But they still had their minds, their habit patterns. That's what they responded to. God made their minds to simply have the capacity to adjust to the newly acquired moral issues that came with their fall and subsequent banishment from paradise. Before the fall in Gen. 3 humans and animals were to eat plants, not other animals. It must have initially bothered their consciences to now have to eat animals to survive (because the ground was cursed), yet they made the adjustment. I'm guessing animals ate other animals first and Adam saw this and concluded that he could do it, too. The point is, the conscience is not a rigid my way or the highway brick wall. It is flexible...adjustable...thank God.
The idea that there is a built in right from wrong indicator that everybody has access to is just a "convincing sounding argument" that some people use to control other people. It can happen in religion, psychology, and any other belief system with a premise.
I believe a conscience is something inherent in man, it was part of the image of God man was created in and is a gift of God.
T-Bone, as for a world of people with no conscience, I imagine the days of the Nephilim would count, before Noah's flood, or, in modern days, it would be literally a world of Ted Bundies and Jeffrey Dahmers running around. I read somewhere that the estimates are 20% of people are psychopaths - ie, without conscience. You don't have to take it as far as my previous two examples, but after working in the law for 20 years - I routinely see lawyers without conscience. First, you kind of wonder what's wrong with them, then you realize they have no empathy or concern for anyone, but have a charming public facade. But its not just lawyers.
I call people like that "defects." Not in a mean way, but in the sense that there is something truly missing, a defect in the mind so to speak. Most people pick up on them pretty quickly. They can also be the nicest people.
I imagine in the tribulation we will see them run unchecked, since there will be no Holy Spirit restraining evil anymore.
I still say that if, as the religious pov says, the conscience is a built in hot line to God that everybody is born with that always knows right from wrong, then Christ's sacrifice was unnecessary, which is obviously wrong. Conscience is a function of the mind triggered by regulation or violation of our habit patterns. We CALL it conscience when those habit patterns involve a moral issue, but the conscience functions also on non moral issues.
And I say that to say to disregard the conscience categorically is a foolish thing and makes no more
sense than to feel physical pain and to disregard that..
(And don't tell me some people weren't told to disregard THAT at twi- that's the kind of nonsense that
someone, somewhere, was espousing. "You're confessing negatives, that you're not healed...")
(snip)
The idea that there is a built in right from wrong indicator that everybody has access to is just a "convincing sounding argument" that some people use to control other people. It can happen in religion, psychology, and any other belief system with a premise.
And the OTHER idea-that a conscience is simply a noise, a distraction, something to be disregarded
and IGNORED is a dangerous doctrine, designed to leave one open for any
"convincing-sounding argument"- like how God wants you to ignore your conscience completely,
and obey the leader when HE says one thing and your conscience says something other
(rather than evaluating both positions logically.)
This idea that the only 2 possible positions are
1) trust your conscience 100% and ignore logic
and
2) ignore your conscience and trust only logic
is a False Dilemma.
The truth of the matter is that the conscience is a warning indicator, to point out dangers and pitfalls.
Can the conscience mis-identify? Sure. That's why you add THINKING to the system.
Not adding thinking is just plain silly.
DISMISSING the conscience and only going by logic- and, to be honest, external arguments-
is to deny one warning system that alerts even when a threat hasn't been fully articulated.
Without it, you're prey to any convincing-sounding argument.
Bolshevik – I'm think it worked that way – Adam and Eve intellectually KNEW right from wrong before they sinned – they knew what God said about the one tree. But after they sinned they knew it experientially. Before they sinned, the conscience was exercised to refrain from eating of the fruit of a certain tree - they knew it was wrong to do. After they sinned, their conscience was struck with shame and guilt – they knew what they did was wrong.
They knew it was wrong to do, but only because God told them it was wrong to do; their 'conscience' (in the way I think you mean it) had nothing to do with it. If God had never told them not to eat of that tree, they would never have known it was wrong; they obviously had no innate knowledge that it was wrong or why did God have to tell them? They would have just known because their 'conscience' would have told them. That's why I think the doctrine of 'let your conscience be your guide' is a very dangerous doctrine. Let the written Bible be your guide, along with the added benefit that we as born-again believers have the ability to receive direct revelation from God if necessary.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
49
25
15
Popular Days
May 7
29
May 5
22
May 4
19
May 3
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Jeaniam 16 posts
T-Bone 49 posts
Bolshevik 25 posts
another spot 15 posts
Popular Days
May 7 2007
29 posts
May 5 2007
22 posts
May 4 2007
19 posts
May 3 2007
18 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
You're misrepresenting, or, perhaps not understanding, the full scope of Wierwille's deception. Wierwille claimed to have taken his voluminous library to the dump and, instead, used the
Bolshevik
I think it was Himmler, kept a small book on his person, probably Mein Kampf. But he had to remind himself why he was doing what he was doing. (I'm searching for a source). I thought is was notewo
WordWolf
Hello. Your phrasing is somewhat awkward-unclear- here, so I will do my best to address what I THINK are your concerns. "I'M trying to figure out the profit here...the way internationals doctrin
Jeaniam
I had some very good leadership in the early days of my involvement with TWI; men and women who talked the walk and walked the talk. Unfortunately, as time went on, men and women of integrity became harder and harder to find, and the few that were there left in disgust at what TWI was turning into. But as I have said in other places, I always thought the point of the gift of holy spirit was to enable me to become more myself and to magnify the good things about my personality, not to become a VPW or anyone else clone, which I guess is the difference between respect for the Word (Bible) he taught and revering him personally. Thanks for your post. Your experience is valid also, just different than mine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
No --- God told Adam that. (Gen. 2:16, 17).
As is common between husbands and wives (even these days) ---
Adam must've done a POOR job in the communication department!
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
Yes, but she was still relying on an external source for the recognition of what constituted good and evil. And as dmiller pointed out, Eve didn't receive instruction from God, but God told Adam, and Adam told Eve. Thanks, dmiller.
Edited by JeaniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
The first record of God speaking to Eve ----
is Genesis 3:16. Hmmmm Another 3:16!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You presuppose this means there WAS no conscience.
So, they either were missing any internal warning system,
or did not HEED any internal warning system,
and fell victim to the "convincing-sounding argument" the serpent used,
and thought what they were doing was acceptable.
I agree.
And I think this is a GREAT example of how that process works-
which explains why it was so successful when vpw said to ignore the conscience.
Bravo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
An interesting point to me…
When the serpent said “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil,” he spoke the truth(although he lied about you shall not surely die).
V22: And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us (elohim), to know good and evil:”
It seems reasonable God knew there was a possibility of disobedience. Therefore, by making it possible for Adam and Eve to have a conscience they would have an internal warning system to help them, otherwise they would be open to constant disobedience and not much holding them back. They needed to know the difference between right and wrong, as well as all mankind that would follow. This explains why He chose this particular tree.
If concience is something that is a characteristic of God, then that is a good thing. That sheds some (not much) light on why it was so tempting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
“You shall be as gods, knowing ….
The original temptation was special knowledge that would give them special results. It wasn’t sexual at all. The text doesn’t tell us what the actual act of disobedience was, other than they partook, but whatever it was, it logically had to be something that would make sense to get the result of KNOWING. It had to be something they would think was logical.
And, I can understand it. We got into twi thinking we would get special knowledge. Nobody but twi had it. Once we had it, we would do special things, like stand between the devil and the rest of the world.
Creepy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
your right, God told Adam
but Eve says in Gen 3:3 "God hath said" Indicating she had heard what God said, directly or indirectly. (of course she also misquotes him)
Perhaps I just don't see a difference between previously received external knowledge and a conscience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I guess this is what sent bells off in my head. The Amplified bible does say in Gen 3:22 . . "to know [how to distinguish between] good and evil and blessing and calamity; . . "
All other versions I looked at say only "to know good and evil"
twi taught that this meant that Adam and Eve knew the difference between good and evil (had a mental knowledge or understanding) but after the fall they had experiential knowledge. (but if twi said it, its questionable)
I guess following this logic the devil was implying that God has experiential knowledge of evil.
There are sins I have not committed that I know are wrong, your saying Adam and Eve didn't have this knowledge that you and I do?
[edited for grammer]
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Listener, thanks for your input on this thread [and to everyone else for that matter – great posts everyone!] – and you have really brought up something interesting with this post. In going through some commentaries, biblical language references, and Christian counseling books I was struck by the relevance of your statement to our topic. I know I'm prone to going all over the map just to tell someone how to get across the street
[ah, the beauty of verbosity 
] but I think this is one of those things that the more details you look into – the more you see of the bigger picture and with sharper clarity to boot.
What I'm getting a sense of from everyone's posts and the following info I've garnered from a few books – is that the conscience is perhaps more than one little section of the brain – a very strict compartmentalized view of our psychological makeup. If I were to frame an analogy of the conscience from my studies thus far, I'd think along the lines of a computer operating system and the interactive dynamics of how it all works together. There's the basic hardware/software of the machine itself. These are things intrinsic to the system. Performance and productivity revolve around how I use it – by my data entry, correct commands, installing patches, etc. The reason I'm drawn to this computer analogy is because I'm not an IT person and don't have a clue how all of the hardware/software of a PC is integrated to do a number of tasks
. My concept of the conscience leans more to something that may be intertwined with several intellectual functions – and would have innate properties [that cannot be deleted or changed] and "customization" or interactive features whereby I have an influence on whether or not it functions properly or to the extent available.
This post probably belongs more in the Doctrinal forum [like in the Spirit, Soul and Body thread] than here…Guess I'll leave it here because I started this thread with the intent of analyzing the practical consequence of TWI's doctrine – and specifically its impact on the believer's decision-making process.
Before going into details of our role with the two great commandments – I thought it would be appropriate to mention a dictionary definition of "conscience" that repeats the two views that came up on this thread - something innate or something that is learned. From The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology by Arthur Reber & Emily Reber, third edition 2001, page 147:
"Conscience. A reasonably coherent set of internalized moral principles that provides evaluations of right and wrong with regard to acts either performed or contemplated. Historically, theistic views aligned conscience with the voice of God and hence regarded it as innate. The contemporary view is that the prohibitions and obligations of conscience are learned; indeed, Freud's characterization of the superego was an attempt to provide an account of its origins, development and manner of functioning."
Looking at the references to the two great commandments you'll notice they actually mention five different aspects of a person: heart, soul, mind, strength, and understanding:
Matthew 22:34-40 NASB
34(Z)But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced (AA)the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together.
35One of them, [a](AB)a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him,
36"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"
37And He said to him, " '(AC)YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'
38"This is the great and foremost commandment.
39"The second is like it, '(AD)YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.'
40"(AE)On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
Mark 12:28-34 NASB
28(Q)One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and (R)recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?"
29Jesus answered, "The foremost is, '(S)HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;
30(T)AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.'
31"The second is this, '(U)YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
32The scribe said to Him, "Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that (V)HE IS ONE, AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE BESIDES HIM;
33(W)AND TO LOVE HIM WITH ALL THE HEART AND WITH ALL THE UNDERSTANDING AND WITH ALL THE STRENGTH, AND TO LOVE ONE'S NEIGHBOR AS HIMSELF, (X)is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."
34When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." (Y)After that, no one would venture to ask Him any more questions.
Towards a biblical definition of "psychological" terms used in the great commandments. The following list is by no means exhaustive or authoritative – but offers some technical details for those who want to do further study. I used The Word Study New Testament edited by Ralph Winter and Roberta Winter and The Word Study Concordance by George Wigram and Ralph Winter, The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, edited by Stephen Renn, The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible, 2001 by James Strong, fully revised and corrected by John Kohlenberger III and James Swanson, Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, 2006, editor William Mounce for identifying and defining the Greek words, and their equivalent in the Hebrew language when noted.
1. Heart. Greek word kardia, Strong's # 2588, 160 occurrences, and is a true dynamic equivalent for the Hebrew terms leb [Strong's # 3820] and lebab [Strong's # 3824]. Renn's Expository Dictionary says kardia refers to the center or seat of inner being and passions, location of one's deepest thoughts [Like 2:19, 51; I Corinthians 14:25], kardia also found in contexts where human heart is viewed in a negative light [Luke 1:51; Matt. 9:4; 12:34; 13:15; Mark 7:21; John 13:2; Acts 5:3]. In more general terms, the human heart is portrayed as the object of the knowledge of God, as the receptor of divine revelation [Matthew 13:19; Luke 16:15; Romans 2:15; Hebrews 8:10; 10:16]. II Corinthians 3:3; Luke 24:25; Ephesians 4:18; Hebrews 3:8, 12, 15;4:7 issue a solemn plea not to harden one's heart against the promptings of God's Spirit. For as Galatians 4:6 also declares, the human heart is the location [metaphorically speaking] of the indwelling Spirit of God in the life of the believer [cf. also Romans 10:8].
2. Soul. Greek word psyche, Strong's # 5590, 105 occurrences, an approximate dynamic equivalent for the Hebrew term nephesh [Strong's # 5315]. According to Renn, psyche has a "narrower semantic field than its Hebrew equivalent, and it is translated primarily as "soul," "life" in the large majority of these contexts. This Greek term indicates, as does the Hebrew, that the "soul" is not to be distinguished from the "body" in an absolute sense, for the Scriptures teach that humans are whole, integral beings. There is, however, evidence clearly suggesting that there is a duality within a person's constitution – humans have a physical body that will perish and decay as well as a "spirit" or "soul" that is immortal and subject to divine judgment for good or ill at the end of time…psyche also refers to the "soul" of a person, referring to his or her "life" – the animating life force, sustaining earthly existence…[Matthew 2:20; 16:25; Acts 20:10; Romans 16:4]…Psyche also indicates the "soul" as that unique, immortal essence of all human beings, equated in many ways to a person's "spirit," which has an eternal body that will not decay after physical death [cf. Matthew 10:28; Acts 2:27; 13:17; James 1:21; 5:20; I Peter 1:9; 2:25; Revelation 6:9; 20:4].
Related to the above sense is the meaning "soul" [in relation to people], indicating the inner spiritual, psychological, and emotional center of one's being. This is occasionally identified as the "heart" or "mind". The usage of psyche with this shade of meaning does not imply an eternal destiny, but rather an inner quality of life on earth. Such a perspective is illustrated in the following contexts, where psyche refers to promised rest for one's soul [Matthew 11:29]; and to people's "soul" as "heart" or "mind" [Acts 14:2; 15:24; Ephesians 6:6; Philippians 1:27; II Peter 2:8]. Elsewhere, psyche refers to one's "soul" in relation to one's "entire being", in an undifferentiated sense…[Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30 ff.; Luke 10:27]…In I Thessalonians 5:23 there is a rare reference to one's "soul" as distinct from "body" and "spirit". The context here, however would probably suggest an emphasis on the profound relationship between the human physical and spiritual constitution within the phenomenon of the "whole person", rather than indicating human beings merely as a composite of three separate parts. A similar reference is also made in Hebrews 4:12; 6:19]."
3. Mind. Greek word dianoia, Strong's # 1271, 13 occurrences. Renn's Expository Dictionary says it "means "mind," indicating that faculty as the seat of human reason, understanding, emotion, and will. In most of the contexts dianoia may also be translated "heart". The command to love God with all one's "mind" is linked to "heart" and "soul" as well. The clear implication is that one is to love God with one's whole being. It is the greatest command of all [cf. Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27]. Linked to this all-embracing command is the observation in Hebrews 8:10; 10:16 that God has placed his law within the hearts and minds of his people as part of the essence of the promised new covenant renewal, accomplished through the finished redemptive work of Christ. In these two texts, dianoia ["mind"] is used synonymously with kardia ["heart"]."
4. Strength. Greek word ischys, Strong's #2479, 11 occurrences. Renn and Mounce say it denotes strength, power and might. Mounce mentions Jesus calling on the faithful to love the Lord with all their "strength" [Mark 12:30, 33; Like 10:27] and ischys is also used of God's power at work in believers [Ephesians 1:19; 6;10] and at his second coming [iI Thessalonians 1:19], of human strength or ability given by God , and of angelic strength [iI Peter 2:11].
5. Understanding. Greek word synesis, Strong's # 4907, 7 occurrences. Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary says "…synesis refers to spiritual understanding, insight. It is the child Jesus' synesis that amazes the crowds when he answers questions in the temple [Luke 2:47]. Paul prays that God will give the Colossians spiritual wisdom and "understanding" [Colossians 1:9] so they will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord [Colossians 1:10]…Paul encourages Timothy to reflect on his teaching for in doing so, the Lord will give him insight into all this" [iI Timothy 2:7]. See also Mark 12:33 and I Corinthians 1:19."
I think the role of the conscience may touch upon all five aspects of one's psychological makeup. Intellectually, I gather from the ten commandments that murder is wrong. Emotionally I became outraged over the recent news of 32 people being murdered at Virginia Tech. I KNOW that's wrong! I also know my dad's horror stories from being a medic in WWII had a profound effect on shaping and re-enforcing the sanctity of life for me. I am a gentle person and somehow doing violence to another human being is completely foreign to me – going against my nature. Is that merely a viewpoint I've adopted – or more of a conviction gained by spiritual perception of people made in the likeness of God?
The five terms listed above speak of the ability to express my love to God and people...perhaps an unconscious process at times - maybe overt at other times. But factors are involved that influence my decision-making process to obey God...to compassionately reach out to help someone, or to refrain from doing harm to someone.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
And that pretty much sums up the whole perspective of TWI. They wanted to facilitate us in understanding and accepting unquestionally VPW's interpretation of scripture rather that motivating us to really examine its validity and based on that examination question and make corrections as necessary.
They wanted to facilitate our ability to think and confrom to TWI philosophy rather than motivating us to see how that philosophy applied in our lives, whether it was beneficial in our lives, and how to make corrections so that aspects of that philosophy fit into our lives.
They facilitated a lock step mentality rather than motivating us to freely think, ponder and expand our understanding of how Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ had a plan for each person and thereby gaining an individual understanding of what is necessary in our own personal walk.
Their process for weeding out those candidates for PFAL who' Weren't commited" "lacked meekness" etc meant that they were preaching to those who already were, if not numb, at least semi numb and those who believed at some level that there was a set of rules that would "make it all better".
The less desparate for "the fix" all departed PFAL well before the 12th session. The rest of us hung on not realizing that another layer of numbness had been added as we faced a new list of "have to's" in lives already overrun by "have to's". As we trudged on striving to be free we took the intermediate class attended meetings attended TWIG some went Advanced class and Corps.
The result of all this is that when finally faced with CFS there were two groups of people--those of a perverted nature who "got off" on it and the rest of us who were so wrapped up in trying to see what "truths" were being expounded for our learning and understanding-that we failed to recognize CFS for what it was-porn. If we did see it as porn we immediately mentally reproved ourselves and were overcome with feelings of guilt and frustration for being unakle to grasp what Heavenly Father was trying to impart to us through CFS.
And the numbness grew
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
T-bone: Excellent
Since you mentioned image: I wonder if at least part of made after the image of God, had to do with the fact that man as originally created had no disobedience in him?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Free Soul
This is an enlightening thread - thank you.
Linking conscience and logic together reminds me of similarly linking grace and truth together; too much grace without truth is licentiousness, and too much truth (or what is being sold as truth) without grace is legalism. In balance, it is good. The Love and Logic materials used as discipline guidelines in many schools is a modern-day version of that balance.
Is our conscience the still, small voice of God? If so, we had it all along, but let it be drowned out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
Wow! What a thread!
In light of all of these thoughts, a section of scripture (probably mentioned before) that has really helped me recently has been Romans 14 from "The Message." I never remember Romans 14 ever being taught before:
"Welcome with open arms fellow believers who don't see things the way you do. And don't jump all over them every time they do or say something you don't agree with - even when it seems that they are strong on opinions but weak in the faith department. Remember, they have their own history to deal with. Treat them gently.
For instance, a person who has been around for a while might well be convinced that he can eat anything on the table, while another, with a different background, might assume all Christians should be vegetarians and eat accordingly. But since both are guests at Christ's table, wouldn't it be terribly rude if they fell to criticizing what the other ate or didn't eat? God, after all, invited them both to the table. Do you have any business crossing people off the guest list or interfering with God's welcome? If there are corrections to be made or manners to be learned, God can handle that without your help.
Or, say, one person thinks that some days should be set aside as holy and another thinks that each day is pretty much like any other. There are good reasons either way. So, each person is free to follow the convictions of his own CONSIENCE.
What's important in all this is that if you keep a holy day, keep it for God's sake; if you eat meat, eat it to the glory of God and thank God for the prime rib; if you're a vegetarian, eat vegetables to the glory of God and thank God for broccoli. None of us are permitted to insist on our own way in these matters. It's God we are answerable to - all the way from life to death and everything in between - not each other. That's why Jesus lived and died and then lived again: so that he could be our Master across the entire range of life and death, and free us from the petty tyrannies of each other.
So where does that leave you when you criticize a brother? And where does that leave you when you condescend to a sister? I'd say it leaves you looking pretty silly - or worse. Eventually, we're all going to end up kneeling side by side in the place of judgement, facing God. Your critical and condescending ways aren't going to improve your position there one bit: 'As I live and breathe, God says, every knee will bow before me; every tongue will tell the honest truth that I and only I am God.'
So tend to your knitting. You've got your hands full just taking care of your own life before God.
Forget about deciding what's right for each other. Here's what you need to be concerned about: THAT YOU DON'T GET IN THE WAY OF SOMEONE ELSE, MAKING LIFE MORE DIFFICULT THAT IT ALREADY IS [emphasis added]. I'm convinced - Jesus convinced me! - that everything as it is in itself is holy. We, of course, by the way we treat it or talk about it, can contaminate it....
...Cultivate your own relationship with God, but don't impose it on others. You're fortunate if your behavior and your belief are coherent. But if you're not sure, if you notice that you are acting in ways inconsistent with what your believe - some days trying to impose your opinions on others, other days just trying to please them - then you know that you're out of line. IF THE WAY YOU LIVE IS INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE, THEN IT'S WRONG.
(Romans 14:1-14, 22-23)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
The point I was trying to make was that Adam and Eve's original ability to discern between good and evil was based on an external commandment of God's, not on an internal, inbred warning system. It doesn't seem to me that they had some internal moral compass (or conscience) but had to depend on the direction of God. I'm not so sure either that they were that much different than believers nowadays (with the possible exception of Christ within that we have). We also have to depend om the written direction of God for much of our knowledge of good and evil.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
But weren't they created in the image of God? They had His spirit within them at the time of the sin. Since it was built in to them at the point of their Genesis, wouldn't that be considered internal?
Just a question.
Thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
It seems to me that by that definition a 'conscience' is not an internal or inborn or innate warning system but rather a set of moral principles that a person has, by the freedom of their will, internalized. It would seem to suggest the prohibitions and obligations of conscience are learned and come from an external source.
I find myself much in agreement with the posts that JavaJane and Free Soul made. If I have come across as jumping on someone who disagrees with me, you have my apologies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
What we were taught in TWI (which may or may not be what you want to hear) is that the spirit within that they had gave them the ability to communicate with God without God having to come into concretion, and that is what they lost by committing the original sin. They were still relying on what God had told them, which to me implies an external source.
BTW, thanks for your post, JavaJane, it had a number of very good points in it. We certainly each have plenty of things to work on our own lives, and do not need to judge or condescend to anyone who doesn't agree with us.
Edited by JeaniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That's how I'm seeing it.
I might say it, though, as "Too much grace without discipline is licentiousness,
and too much discipline without grace is legalism.
In balance, it is good."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
LikeanEagle – Cry of the Soul is a great book – our soul/emotions reconnecting to God.
Hammeroni – that's some good prose!
NottaWayfer – I agree – we all enabled those monsters!
Belle – thanks for your great input on emotions and the great commandments! When Jesus said everything hangs on love – in my opinion – that's the only way any of us can truly follow the commands of the Bible.
Doojable – "What a dose of spiritual valium!" – great line!!!!!!!!!
Jeaniam – I think the only thing the Psychology dictionary describes is the function of the conscience. Reasons for whether it is innate or learned are not given in the definition. The fact that they are internalized only acknowledges that they are within the person. How they got in there is another matter.
Bolshevik – I'm think it worked that way – Adam and Eve intellectually KNEW right from wrong before they sinned – they knew what God said about the one tree. But after they sinned they knew it experientially. Before they sinned, the conscience was exercised to refrain from eating of the fruit of a certain tree - they knew it was wrong to do. After they sinned, their conscience was struck with shame and guilt – they knew what they did was wrong.
Java Jane – Thanks for sharing Romans 14 from The Message. I like reading that version sometimes just for the thought provoking aspect of the paraphrase. By the way, welcome to GSC…and that's a really big cup of coffee you have there…now put the cup down…step away from the cup
.
Free Soul – great post, linking conscience and logic and the balance of grace and truth.
Word Wolf – As usual, thanks for all your input, bro…I'm still thinking about your post # 19: "An "American Indian" once explained what a conscience is. "It is a three-pointed thing in here. (*gestures to his stomach*) When I do wrong, it turns, and the points hurt me. But if I KEEP doing wrong, then the points wear down, and they don't hurt so much anymore."
…It would be interesting to study how other cultures describe the function of the conscience.
Temple Lady – I liked your points in post # 87 – especially: "…They facilitated a lock step mentality rather than motivating us to freely think, ponder and expand our understanding of how Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ had a plan for each person and thereby gaining an individual understanding of what is necessary in our own personal walk…" - great post! That goes along with one of my ideas running in the background when I drafted post # 86 that you referred to is that it's easier to divert than stop a moving object. In some martial arts tactics when an opponent charges you – rather than mustering up brute force to stop them you merely pull them past you, around you or in some way divert their oncoming force. I think the tempter's voice works this way – a personalized invite that beckons us to something we already have a weakness for. The ploy is not to stop us dead in our tracks but to steer us off course.
Another Spot – thanks! I'm still having nightmares [just kidding – but your idea is scary] over your statement in post # 71: "Here's a weird thought: what would the world be like if no one had a conscience?"
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I still say that if, as the religious pov says, the conscience is a built in hot line to God that everybody is born with that always knows right from wrong, then Christ's sacrifice was unnecessary, which is obviously wrong. Conscience is a function of the mind triggered by regulation or violation of our habit patterns. We CALL it conscience when those habit patterns involve a moral issue, but the conscience functions also on non moral issues.
For example: every time I have ever moved from one house or apt to another a major comfort zone is violated. Namely, showering. Anybody here NEVER take a shower? Possibly some of you only take baths. But now in the new place I have to relearn how to adjust the hot and cold spiguts and if I'm in a hurry, it's not pleasant. There's nothing moral about showering, it's just something people do, yet that part of your mind responds to a violation of your habit pattern until it becomes the habit pattern. Remember in the Christian ettiquette book how Dorothy said to practice until the correct way becomes the habit instead of the incorrect way?
Before Genesis 3 Adam and Eve only knew good, not evil, as my wife pointed out. But they still had their minds, their habit patterns. That's what they responded to. God made their minds to simply have the capacity to adjust to the newly acquired moral issues that came with their fall and subsequent banishment from paradise. Before the fall in Gen. 3 humans and animals were to eat plants, not other animals. It must have initially bothered their consciences to now have to eat animals to survive (because the ground was cursed), yet they made the adjustment. I'm guessing animals ate other animals first and Adam saw this and concluded that he could do it, too. The point is, the conscience is not a rigid my way or the highway brick wall. It is flexible...adjustable...thank God.
The idea that there is a built in right from wrong indicator that everybody has access to is just a "convincing sounding argument" that some people use to control other people. It can happen in religion, psychology, and any other belief system with a premise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I believe a conscience is something inherent in man, it was part of the image of God man was created in and is a gift of God.
T-Bone, as for a world of people with no conscience, I imagine the days of the Nephilim would count, before Noah's flood, or, in modern days, it would be literally a world of Ted Bundies and Jeffrey Dahmers running around. I read somewhere that the estimates are 20% of people are psychopaths - ie, without conscience. You don't have to take it as far as my previous two examples, but after working in the law for 20 years - I routinely see lawyers without conscience. First, you kind of wonder what's wrong with them, then you realize they have no empathy or concern for anyone, but have a charming public facade. But its not just lawyers.
I call people like that "defects." Not in a mean way, but in the sense that there is something truly missing, a defect in the mind so to speak. Most people pick up on them pretty quickly. They can also be the nicest people.
I imagine in the tribulation we will see them run unchecked, since there will be no Holy Spirit restraining evil anymore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
And I say that to say to disregard the conscience categorically is a foolish thing and makes no more
sense than to feel physical pain and to disregard that..
(And don't tell me some people weren't told to disregard THAT at twi- that's the kind of nonsense that
someone, somewhere, was espousing. "You're confessing negatives, that you're not healed...")
And the OTHER idea-that a conscience is simply a noise, a distraction, something to be disregarded
and IGNORED is a dangerous doctrine, designed to leave one open for any
"convincing-sounding argument"- like how God wants you to ignore your conscience completely,
and obey the leader when HE says one thing and your conscience says something other
(rather than evaluating both positions logically.)
This idea that the only 2 possible positions are
1) trust your conscience 100% and ignore logic
and
2) ignore your conscience and trust only logic
is a False Dilemma.
The truth of the matter is that the conscience is a warning indicator, to point out dangers and pitfalls.
Can the conscience mis-identify? Sure. That's why you add THINKING to the system.
Not adding thinking is just plain silly.
DISMISSING the conscience and only going by logic- and, to be honest, external arguments-
is to deny one warning system that alerts even when a threat hasn't been fully articulated.
Without it, you're prey to any convincing-sounding argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
They knew it was wrong to do, but only because God told them it was wrong to do; their 'conscience' (in the way I think you mean it) had nothing to do with it. If God had never told them not to eat of that tree, they would never have known it was wrong; they obviously had no innate knowledge that it was wrong or why did God have to tell them? They would have just known because their 'conscience' would have told them. That's why I think the doctrine of 'let your conscience be your guide' is a very dangerous doctrine. Let the written Bible be your guide, along with the added benefit that we as born-again believers have the ability to receive direct revelation from God if necessary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.