quote: What if TWI's interpretation of the written Word [the Bible] or supposed "direct revelation from God" conflicts with one's conscience?
Like Ananias in Acts 9, or Peter in Acts 10? No problem.
Neither case was a moral dilemma. In neither incident did God direct them to do anything that was morally wrong. Ananias was apprehensive about going to minister to a man that was a well-known persecutor of Christians:
Acts 9:10-16 NASB
10 Now there was a disciple at (N)Damascus named (O)Ananias; and the Lord said to him in (P)a vision, "Ananias." And he said, "Here I am, Lord."
11And the Lord said to him, "Get up and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from (Q)Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying,
12and he has seen [a]in a vision a man named Ananias come in and (R)lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight."
13But Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, (S)how much harm he did to (T)Your saints at Jerusalem;
14and here he (U)has authority from the chief priests to bind all who (V)call on Your name."
15But the Lord said to him, "Go, for (W)he is a chosen [b]instrument of Mine, to bear My name before (X)the Gentiles and (Y)kings and the sons of Israel;
16for (Z)I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake."
Peter was hung up on the Israelite's dietary restrictions that separated Jews from things that would defile them [like the Gentiles]. It appears the whole purpose of God's vision to Peter was to show him God was lifting specific dietary restrictions - symbolic of maintaining a separation of Jews [clean animals] from Gentiles [unclean animals]. Peter's misgivings were over the ceremonial law – not the moral law. In fact – what God was communicating to Peter was more in line with the intent of the moral law – to love God and neighbor – even if your neighbor is a Gentile.
Acts 10:9-17 NASB
9On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, (N)Peter went up on (O)the housetop about (P)the [e]sixth hour to pray.
10But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he (Q)fell into a trance;
11and he saw (R)the sky opened up, and an [f]object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,
12and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and [g]crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.
13A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!"
14But Peter said, "By no means, (S)Lord, for (T)I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean."
15Again a voice came to him a second time, "(U)What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."
16This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.
17Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what (V)the vision which he had seen might be, behold, (W)the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon's house, appeared at the gate;
18and calling out, they were asking whether Simon, who was also called Peter, was staying there.
19While Peter was reflecting on (X)the vision, (Y)the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are looking for you.
20"But get up, go downstairs and (Z)accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself."
Just wanted to thank all of you for giving me something deep to think about today!
I have come to the conclusion that one of the greatest things God gave us was free will... even greater than any Law or commandment, He gave us the ability to think and choose freely how we want to be. This right is incredibly huge.
It must hurt His heart terribly to have that right squelched or to have His children taught that only one way of loving Him is right. To teach people to turn off that ability that even natural man has to choose right or wrong and simply be led blindly has got to earn people (as my husband says) "a special place in hell."
Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of [these] little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
T-bone: “Which hits me as the conscience being more of a law-observer – than a lawgiver.”
Yes. The conscience bears witness to but is not the source of law written in hearts by nature.
There is no consistency between one man’s conscience and another’s.
1Cr 10:29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another [man's] conscience?
Conscience bears witness to godly behavior.
2Cr 1:12 For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.
Conscience can be defiled by ungodly behavior and have dead works.
Tts 1:15 Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Hbr 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Finally, Paul instructs people to consider conscience with regard to decision making and motives:
1Cr 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you [to a feast], and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
________________________________________
1Cr 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth [is] the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
This is an example of something not being a problem from God’s perspective, but from mans’.
The law is God’s will which is perfect, and conscience is composed of man’s will, reasoning, thought processes and decisions, and may or may not reflect God’s will. Conscience is variable. Even so, God still thinks it’s important.
If conscience were perfect in the sense of law giver, then it would always reflect God’s will, and it couldn’t be weak or defiled. On that basis, the tree of knowledge of good and evil can be ruled out the source of conscience because of:
Gen. 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and
evil;
What would make more sense, is the tree of knowledge of good and evil was the source of the law written in hearts by nature, if it weren’t for this:
Hebrews 8:10: For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
V11: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
V 12: For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Sigh.
And finally. The Bible instructs us to trust God. It never instructs us to trust our conscience or use it for guidance. If conscience were perfect and unerring, we would not need God or the Bible. Or the new birth.
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.
Yikes! I've just finished reading a book on the Nephilim...and yes the tribulation period will indeed be a scary time!!!!!!
...Well, that's it in a nutshell. As I've said before, I'm not a researcher and haven't listed any references. These are just my thoughts and, as such, could be shot full of holes. I have presented them in the hope of furthering this thread and continuing this most incredible discussion.
Great post, Listener!!!!!!!!!!! In my opinion, the mind is the best researching tool we have! Nothing wrong with thinking out loud either. Many times I throw my thoughts into the mix with the express desire that folks will check out my thinking process - expose a faulty bit of reasoning or misuse of Scripture. I'm concerned about doing my best thinking and really don't try to win people over to my way of thinking. I'm not selling any books or recruiting followers.
Thanks for the kind words, Mr. T. This topic has, for some reason, really captured my minds attention.
Between reading posts, bible reading and rumaging through thoughts, I haven't stopped thinking about this stuff. There must be something here that I have need to understand moreso than the myriad of other topics I've read here on GS. I'm not completely sure what "that something" is. Just gonna keep plugging away...gotta find that puzzle piece, doncha know!
T-bone: “Which hits me as the conscience being more of a law-observer – than a lawgiver.”
Yes. The conscience bears witness to but is not the source of law written in hearts by nature.
There is no consistency between one man’s conscience and another’s.
1Cr 10:29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another [man's] conscience?
Conscience bears witness to godly behavior.
2Cr 1:12 For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.
Conscience can be defiled by ungodly behavior and have dead works.
Tts 1:15 Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Hbr 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Finally, Paul instructs people to consider conscience with regard to decision making and motives:
1Cr 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you [to a feast], and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
________________________________________
1Cr 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth [is] the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
This is an example of something not being a problem from God’s perspective, but from mans’.
The law is God’s will which is perfect, and conscience is composed of man’s will, reasoning, thought processes and decisions, and may or may not reflect God’s will. Conscience is variable. Even so, God still thinks it’s important.
If conscience were perfect in the sense of law giver, then it would always reflect God’s will, and it couldn’t be weak or defiled. On that basis, the tree of knowledge of good and evil can be ruled out the source of conscience because of:
Gen. 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and
evil;
What would make more sense, is the tree of knowledge of good and evil was the source of the law written in hearts by nature, if it weren’t for this:
Hebrews 8:10: For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
V11: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
V 12: For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Sigh.
And finally. The Bible instructs us to trust God. It never instructs us to trust our conscience or use it for guidance. If conscience were perfect and unerring, we would not need God or the Bible. Or the new birth.
Great post, A. Spot. It seems to bear out what Eyes Open said about the conscience being a clean slate at birth that needs to be written on. When children are very young, the parents do most of the 'writing' i.e. don't play in the street, don't touch the stove when it's hot, don't play with matches, etc., etc., etc.. When they grow older, parents lead them into more moral types of choices; don't steal, don't lie, etc., etc.. The children internalize these points of reference into their conscience and use them as a 'moral' compass, but the points of reference come from without; they are not innate or inborn.
T-Bone; no sin and broken fellowship are not synonymous. Sin is sin and results in broken fellowship with God. Once again, in my life TWI's handling of the topics of sin, broken fellowship and how to obtain forgiveness for sins and restored fellowship with God were a great relief to me. I grew up in a very religious, legalistic, cold family and church. My family had very harsh rules and the church had very harsh ideas on what constituted SIN and every little deviation was considered SIN. It was a great relief to have their version of SIN reduced to sin being just a mistake for which an apology was necessary to God and sometimes to another person (when appropriate) and beyond that an attitude of learning from your mistakes was appropriate but condemnation was just more sin and resulted in just more broken fellowship with God. But it was a relief to me to learn that when I did make a mistake (and those occasions were and are more frequent than I like to admit) all I needed to do was apologise to God, learn from my mistake, and keep moving. Some of the scenarios you have described sound like people trying to rationalize their mistakes or split hairs i.e. I'm not stealing, I'm just 'borrowing indefinetly'; or keeping this money I found on the ground rather than turning it into lost and found isn't really stealing, it's just being thankful for a blessing from God, ETC., etc..
So...humans have reasoning abilities beyond that of other animals. Humans know right from wrong again apart from other animals. But humans also have instincts like other animals. Although many humans do not use those instincts because they live in cities where life is more regulated and "sterile" and away from nature. I believe in the Druidic and Wiccan idea that man is more "balanced" when they live closer to nature. I believe that all this concrete, metal and blacktop somehow dampens mans natural instincts.
Anyway...what if the conscience is merely a more highly evolved part of our instinct? We as humans can change the parameters of our conscience to a large extent where our animal cousins can only change their fight or flight responses as they learn to trust or fear. Their instincts are governed by base emotions, like fear and base stimuli, like pain. Humans have many other more subtle things that help change the outlines of our conscience and instincts. This is why while in TWI many supressed their natural "instinct" to fight or run, where an animal would not have any such inhibition when faced with such adversity.
I think our conscience helps govern our abitity to discern right from wrong, but like Another Spot said it is not the source of the law, just the regulator.
I believe in the Druidic and Wiccan idea that man is more "balanced" when they live closer to nature. I believe that all this concrete, metal and blacktop somehow dampens mans natural instincts.
Now you done and gone it. "They" are going to start calling us Druids..
Actually it is a good point. But I've found that point of balance in the middle of "hell" sometimes.
Eyesopen: This is why while in TWI many supressed their natural "instinct" to fight or run, where an animal would not have any such inhibition when faced with such adversity.
I love that sentence! lol. Makes me think of times people came down hard on me. Growling or perhaps hissing would have been pretty satisfying!
Now you done and gone it. "They" are going to start calling us Druids..
Uh Oh! Does that mean that I have to go find a brown robe at the thrift shop??
Actually it is a good point. But I've found that point of balance in the middle of "hell" sometimes.
Me too...kinda uncomfortable...in a balanced sort of way...
Eyesopen: This is why while in TWI many supressed their natural "instinct" to fight or run, where an animal would not have any such inhibition when faced with such adversity.
I love that sentence! lol. Makes me think of times people came down hard on me. Growling or perhaps hissing would have been pretty satisfying!
I think that maybe a little clawing and biting would have been nice upon occasion as well.
Even in "normal" society we humans often supress our natural instinct to just slap the holy SH!T out of someone who is desperately asking for it. At least most of us do... :unsure:
quote: Neither case was a moral dilemma. In neither incident did God direct them to do anything that was morally wrong. Ananias was apprehensive about going to minister to a man that was a well-known persecutor of Christians:
As I said in another post, the conscience is just a part of the mind that responds to the regulation or violation of our habits, whether moral or not. God had to work with Gideon as well.
Bolshevik: That's a great question!!! Wish I had an answer!!!! I enjoy your posts a lot.
Yep, Listener, I keep thinking about it too. T-bone’s comments about morality have my attention today. I was also considering the phrase, “law written in their hearts.” What does that mean, exactly? I still don’t know, but according to Thayer’s Lexicon, “law” here refers to the moral aspects of the law, which makes sense owing to the fact Gentiles had no access to Mosaic law.
In any case, below is text from Wikipedia:
"Morality (from Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behaviour") refers to the concept of human ethics which pertains to matters of right and wrong — also referred to as "good and evil" — used within three contexts: individual conscience; systems of principles and judgments — sometimes called moral values —shared within a cultural, religious, secular or philosophical community; and codes of behavior or conduct morality.
Personal morality defines and distinguishes among right and wrong intentions, motivations or actions, as these have been learned, engendered, or otherwise developed within each individual.
Conscience refers to the impulse toward morally 'right'. For example, if a person was concerned about what is morally right, then s/he would most likely not rob a bank. The actual definition of right behavior varies according to belief system. Religious belief systems usually include the idea of divine will and divine judgment and usually correspond to a strict moral code of conduct".
Would our "sin nature" be affecting our conscience at all?
Just throwing that out there. I haven't made any sense on this thread anyway.
Actually you have made quite a bit of sense here on this thread and many others. In fact everyone here is making a lot of sense, I am really loving the communication in this particular thread. So everyone keep "throwing things out there".
Speaking of which...it seems that most here are in agreement that the conscience is some sort of regulator for what most call 'morals". The morals being those things that we through outside sources consisting of people, books, school, film etc., decide are good or bad, right or wrong. In other words morals=personal laws to live by. Those morals are everchanging as we grow and learn and the world around us also grows and changes. If we cross or break one of those personal laws our conscience lets us know. It becomes our choice if we will listen or not. It also seems that we all agree that the conscience can be trained to be silent, or we can train ourselves to ignore it. And some people can write laws upon their conscience that make no sense to most of the worlds population or are contrary to that same population. Then there are those that can carterize their conscience so they feel nothing at all. (I have always wondered if these would be the children of the debil? Just a thought)
So now on to this question of our sin nature affecting our conscience...hmmm...I think that maybe the sin nature is the little debil that sits on one shoulder while the little angel is your learned conscience that sits on the other shoulder.
Certainly the conscience is a popular topic among theologians, philosophers and psychologists. While this current discussion has been interesting [Bolshevik, Another Spot and Eyes Open – I do want to think about that stuff – interesting!] – I'd like to re-visit the incident that was my inspiration for this thread [the pajama party / porn video with VPW as master of ceremonies. Latecomers to this thread who have just jumped into the middle of things can review post # 1 and 16 for the details – although I do recommend reading everyone's posts – great input by all! My thanks to all contributors!!!!]. I gather from most of the folks on this thread that the conscience is of primary importance – not only a concern over its proper maintenance but the impact it has on decision-making.
If I take the sordid details out of the scene – and merely analyze the dynamics of what happened – I find a big issue is involved. Well…from my Christian viewpoint it's a big problem, anyway. Matter of fact – I think we could take a lot of the details away [who was in charge of the meeting, what was done, how many people were involved] and reduce the whole incident down to something simple: Person A did something to offend Person B. The Bible does address situations where even if the actions by one Christian are not sinful in and of themselves - the negative impact those actions have on another Christian are still considered to be sinful on the part of the offending party - according to the Bible.
Romans 14 NASB
1Now (A)accept the one who is (B)weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.
2(C)One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is (D)weak eats vegetables only.
3The one who eats is not to (E)regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to (F)judge the one who eats, for God has (G)accepted him.
4(H)Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5(I)One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike Each person must be (J)fully convinced in his own mind.
6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he (K)gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.
7For not one of us (L)lives for himself, and not one dies for himself;
8for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore (M)whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.
9For to this end (N)Christ died and lived again, that He might be (O)Lord both of the dead and of the living.
10But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you (P)regard your brother with contempt? For (Q)we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
11For it is written,
"(R)AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, (S)EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME,
AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD."
12So then (T)each one of us will give an account of himself to God.
13Therefore let us not (U)judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--(V)not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.
14I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that (W)nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who (X)thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer (Y)walking according to love (Z)Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.
16Therefore (AA)do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil;
17for the kingdom of God (AB)is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and (AC)peace and (AD)joy in the Holy Spirit.
18For he who in this way (AE)serves Christ is (AF)acceptable to God and approved by men.
19So then [a]we (AG)pursue the things which make for peace and the (AH)building up of one another.
20(AI)Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food (AJ)All things indeed are clean, but (AK)they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.
21(AL)It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.
22The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who (AM)does not condemn himself in what he approves.
23But (AN)he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.
I Corinthians 10:23-33 NASB
23(AL)All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable All things are lawful, but not all things (AM)edify.
24Let no one (AN)seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.
25(AO)Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience' sake;
26(AP)FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS.
27If (AQ)one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, (AR)eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience' sake.
28But (AS)if anyone says to you, "This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake;
29I mean not your own conscience, but the other man's; for (AT)why is my freedom judged by another's conscience?
30If I partake with thankfulness, (AU)why am I slandered concerning that for which I (AV)give thanks?
31Whether, then, you eat or drink or (AW)whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
32(AX)Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to (AY)the church of God;
33just as I also (AZ)please all men in all things, (BA)not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, (BB)so that they may be saved.
Matthew 18:6, 7 NASB
6but (D)whoever (E)causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
7"Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For (F)it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!
Hmmm. In light of the previous posts, it seems to me that we may be confusing the conscience with, or lumping it together with, the mind. I think the conscience is the place in our mind where the basic, rudimentary, realization of right and wrong comes from. Learning the application of the concepts of right and wrong through childhood, for instance, is an activity taking place in the mind, a learned behaviour based on external input, not in the conscience. Learned behaviour will naturally vary with the culture, environment, parents, religious affiliation, etc. But the fundamental concepts of right and wrong are universal, being based in the conscience.
The conscience would be the source whereby a person instinctively senses the moral implications of a given action or thought. Through a persons lifetime, the mind can be taught to support or deny these implications of right and wrong, but they would still persist, though possibly silenced. If the mind is taught to totally suppress the conscience's input, the conscience could be refered to as being "seared", or cauterized. Along with this cauterization the applications of right and wrong, learned throughout one's life, could also be crushed...rendering a completely amoral mind.
But, with only the suppresion of the conscience, a mind could become reliant upon only that which it was taught as right and wrong. This would account for behaviours exhibited in TWI where a person was commanded to perform an action, for instance, believed to be morally wrong, but which the person willingly carried out due to being taught that such action was correct. This confusing behaviour...morally wrong, yet the right thing to do...could, then, be the result of the conscience being surpressed...and in the extreme, actually seared.
I think this suppresion happens gradually, over an extended period of time, and conversely, could be healed gradually, over a period of time (barring a miracle such as Paul's being blinded). Gradually comming to the realization of the wrongs done at the hands of TWI leadership might be an example of this healing conscience. Couple this with input from the Word and, not only the conscience could become whole again, but the mind would re-learn the application of right and wrong thinking....the end goal being a fully renewed mind.
Hmmmm......still trying to fit the pieces together in this puzzle called life. :)
You can take a person out of twi, but it’s kinda hard to take twi out of the person…not only that, twi isn’t “user friendly.” (Some of my weird thoughts for today).
Well, I wrote this post before I saw the latest. Very possible, Listener. I know I am not ready yet to decide what exactly conscience is. Still gathering information. I am still looking at it Biblically, but also from other points of view.
T-bone: Nice. I was reading Thayer’s this morning. It had some real interesting things to say about the change in emphasis from the letter of the law to the moral emphasis in NT. Unfortunately, I can’t copy and paste it. In any case, the basis of the moral emphasis is love God, love your neighbor. So it all kinda ties together. And, until just now I hadn’t thought about the sin part!
You know, if it was just a matter of identifying doctrinal error to “get over it,” while a massive project, it wouldn’t be SO difficult. It isn’t just that. That is what is so intriguing about this thread. I personally want to define for myself just what happened to me, as clearly as possible. I have realized some things during the course of this thread, but I still feel like my understanding is just dancing around the edge of it so far.
One thing I realized a few minutes ago: It wasn’t so much that the doctrines were such a big problem (if they were, I wouldn’t have paid much attention to twi at all). It was more the context and application of the doctrines that were so destructive. Take the law of believing for example. Had it not been used like a baseball bat, it wouldn’t have been so bad. Be indifferent to terrible tragedy, because believing was at fault. How about especially good to the household? Well that’s in the Bible. Fine. The problem was in the application. Twi was the household. Be indifferent to all others. Thus, twi redefined right from wrong in a manner that would violate the ethics of most people, Christian or not. All over the world, to be exact.
So, our ethics changed, our morals changed, our beliefs regarding right from wrong changed, we suppressed our emotions, it changed who we were in some very fundamental ways. I know it affected my conscience, I’m just not sure how exactly. At a bare minimum, it was certainly sedated. I think of sedated as asleep. Turns out it’s a synonym for numb. That fits too.
Hmmmm….sin. The leadership sinned ie T-bone’s post. They taught us to do the same, see paragraphs above. Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm. We did it. That by itself is a big deal.
But, with only the suppresion of the conscience, a mind could become reliant upon only that which it was taught as right and wrong. This would account for behaviours exhibited in TWI where a person was commanded to perform an action, for instance, believed to be morally wrong, but which the person willingly carried out due to being taught that such action was correct. This confusing behaviour...morally wrong, yet the right thing to do...could, then, be the result of the conscience being surpressed...and in the extreme, actually seared.
I think this suppresion happens gradually, over an extended period of time, and conversely, could be healed gradually, over a period of time (barring a miracle such as Paul's being blinded). Gradually comming to the realization of the wrongs done at the hands of TWI leadership might be an example of this healing conscience. Couple this with input from the Word and, not only the conscience could become whole again, but the mind would re-learn the application of right and wrong thinking....the end goal being a fully renewed mind.
Hmmmm......still trying to fit the pieces together in this puzzle called life. :)
This makes a lot of sense to me... Thank you, Listener!
One thing I realized a few minutes ago: It wasn’t so much that the doctrines were such a big problem (if they were, I wouldn’t have paid much attention to twi at all). It was more the context and application of the doctrines that were so destructive. Take the law of believing for example. Had it not been used like a baseball bat, it wouldn’t have been so bad. Be indifferent to terrible tragedy, because believing was at fault. How about especially good to the household? Well that’s in the Bible. Fine. The problem was in the application. Twi was the household. Be indifferent to all others. Thus, twi redefined right from wrong in a manner that would violate the ethics of most people, Christian or not. All over the world, to be exact.
So, our ethics changed, our morals changed, our beliefs regarding right from wrong changed, we suppressed our emotions, it changed who we were in some very fundamental ways. I know it affected my conscience, I’m just not sure how exactly. At a bare minimum, it was certainly sedated. I think of sedated as asleep. Turns out it’s a synonym for numb. That fits too.
Hmmmm….sin. The leadership sinned ie T-bone’s post. They taught us to do the same, see paragraphs above. Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm. We did it. That by itself is a big deal.
Yes I'm still not sure what exactly a conscience is, don't even know if that matters. I enjoy everyone's posts in this thread also.
Another thing that confounds me about conscience is intuition or "gut feelings". Things that don't have to do with morals. Like when I'm taking a test at school, have a "gut feeling" about an answer to a question, don't know why, but it turns out to be right. Just stuff like that. when you've got a problem and you're like "maybe I should try this", and it leads you to more answers.
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
johniam
quote: What if TWI's interpretation of the written Word [the Bible] or supposed "direct revelation from God" conflicts with one's conscience?
Like Ananias in Acts 9, or Peter in Acts 10? No problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
or Moses.
Hey! They're supposed to obey without question! Immediately!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Neither case was a moral dilemma. In neither incident did God direct them to do anything that was morally wrong. Ananias was apprehensive about going to minister to a man that was a well-known persecutor of Christians:
Acts 9:10-16 NASB
10 Now there was a disciple at (N)Damascus named (O)Ananias; and the Lord said to him in (P)a vision, "Ananias." And he said, "Here I am, Lord."
11And the Lord said to him, "Get up and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from (Q)Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying,
12and he has seen [a]in a vision a man named Ananias come in and (R)lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight."
13But Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, (S)how much harm he did to (T)Your saints at Jerusalem;
14and here he (U)has authority from the chief priests to bind all who (V)call on Your name."
15But the Lord said to him, "Go, for (W)he is a chosen [b]instrument of Mine, to bear My name before (X)the Gentiles and (Y)kings and the sons of Israel;
16for (Z)I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake."
Peter was hung up on the Israelite's dietary restrictions that separated Jews from things that would defile them [like the Gentiles]. It appears the whole purpose of God's vision to Peter was to show him God was lifting specific dietary restrictions - symbolic of maintaining a separation of Jews [clean animals] from Gentiles [unclean animals]. Peter's misgivings were over the ceremonial law – not the moral law. In fact – what God was communicating to Peter was more in line with the intent of the moral law – to love God and neighbor – even if your neighbor is a Gentile.
Acts 10:9-17 NASB
9On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, (N)Peter went up on (O)the housetop about (P)the [e]sixth hour to pray.
10But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he (Q)fell into a trance;
11and he saw (R)the sky opened up, and an [f]object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,
12and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and [g]crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.
13A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!"
14But Peter said, "By no means, (S)Lord, for (T)I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean."
15Again a voice came to him a second time, "(U)What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."
16This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.
17Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what (V)the vision which he had seen might be, behold, (W)the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon's house, appeared at the gate;
18and calling out, they were asking whether Simon, who was also called Peter, was staying there.
19While Peter was reflecting on (X)the vision, (Y)the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are looking for you.
20"But get up, go downstairs and (Z)accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself."
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
Have to go to work soon, so this will be short:
Just wanted to thank all of you for giving me something deep to think about today!
I have come to the conclusion that one of the greatest things God gave us was free will... even greater than any Law or commandment, He gave us the ability to think and choose freely how we want to be. This right is incredibly huge.
It must hurt His heart terribly to have that right squelched or to have His children taught that only one way of loving Him is right. To teach people to turn off that ability that even natural man has to choose right or wrong and simply be led blindly has got to earn people (as my husband says) "a special place in hell."
Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of [these] little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
There's a happy thought!
Keep thinking!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
T-bone: “Which hits me as the conscience being more of a law-observer – than a lawgiver.”
Yes. The conscience bears witness to but is not the source of law written in hearts by nature.
There is no consistency between one man’s conscience and another’s.
1Cr 10:29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another [man's] conscience?
Conscience bears witness to godly behavior.
2Cr 1:12 For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.
Conscience can be defiled by ungodly behavior and have dead works.
Tts 1:15 Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Hbr 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Finally, Paul instructs people to consider conscience with regard to decision making and motives:
1Cr 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you [to a feast], and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
________________________________________
1Cr 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth [is] the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
This is an example of something not being a problem from God’s perspective, but from mans’.
The law is God’s will which is perfect, and conscience is composed of man’s will, reasoning, thought processes and decisions, and may or may not reflect God’s will. Conscience is variable. Even so, God still thinks it’s important.
If conscience were perfect in the sense of law giver, then it would always reflect God’s will, and it couldn’t be weak or defiled. On that basis, the tree of knowledge of good and evil can be ruled out the source of conscience because of:
Gen. 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and
evil;
What would make more sense, is the tree of knowledge of good and evil was the source of the law written in hearts by nature, if it weren’t for this:
Hebrews 8:10: For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
V11: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
V 12: For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Sigh.
And finally. The Bible instructs us to trust God. It never instructs us to trust our conscience or use it for guidance. If conscience were perfect and unerring, we would not need God or the Bible. Or the new birth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yikes! I've just finished reading a book on the Nephilim...and yes the tribulation period will indeed be a scary time!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Great post, Listener!!!!!!!!!!! In my opinion, the mind is the best researching tool we have! Nothing wrong with thinking out loud either. Many times I throw my thoughts into the mix with the express desire that folks will check out my thinking process - expose a faulty bit of reasoning or misuse of Scripture. I'm concerned about doing my best thinking and really don't try to win people over to my way of thinking. I'm not selling any books or recruiting followers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Listener
Thanks for the kind words, Mr. T. This topic has, for some reason, really captured my minds attention.
Between reading posts, bible reading and rumaging through thoughts, I haven't stopped thinking about this stuff. There must be something here that I have need to understand moreso than the myriad of other topics I've read here on GS. I'm not completely sure what "that something" is. Just gonna keep plugging away...gotta find that puzzle piece, doncha know!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yeah, Listener - GSC can be addicting...Ah the power of thinking out loud with other folks...a lot better than that ol' TWI group-think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
Great post, A. Spot. It seems to bear out what Eyes Open said about the conscience being a clean slate at birth that needs to be written on. When children are very young, the parents do most of the 'writing' i.e. don't play in the street, don't touch the stove when it's hot, don't play with matches, etc., etc., etc.. When they grow older, parents lead them into more moral types of choices; don't steal, don't lie, etc., etc.. The children internalize these points of reference into their conscience and use them as a 'moral' compass, but the points of reference come from without; they are not innate or inborn.
T-Bone; no sin and broken fellowship are not synonymous. Sin is sin and results in broken fellowship with God. Once again, in my life TWI's handling of the topics of sin, broken fellowship and how to obtain forgiveness for sins and restored fellowship with God were a great relief to me. I grew up in a very religious, legalistic, cold family and church. My family had very harsh rules and the church had very harsh ideas on what constituted SIN and every little deviation was considered SIN. It was a great relief to have their version of SIN reduced to sin being just a mistake for which an apology was necessary to God and sometimes to another person (when appropriate) and beyond that an attitude of learning from your mistakes was appropriate but condemnation was just more sin and resulted in just more broken fellowship with God. But it was a relief to me to learn that when I did make a mistake (and those occasions were and are more frequent than I like to admit) all I needed to do was apologise to God, learn from my mistake, and keep moving. Some of the scenarios you have described sound like people trying to rationalize their mistakes or split hairs i.e. I'm not stealing, I'm just 'borrowing indefinetly'; or keeping this money I found on the ground rather than turning it into lost and found isn't really stealing, it's just being thankful for a blessing from God, ETC., etc..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
So...humans have reasoning abilities beyond that of other animals. Humans know right from wrong again apart from other animals. But humans also have instincts like other animals. Although many humans do not use those instincts because they live in cities where life is more regulated and "sterile" and away from nature. I believe in the Druidic and Wiccan idea that man is more "balanced" when they live closer to nature. I believe that all this concrete, metal and blacktop somehow dampens mans natural instincts.
Anyway...what if the conscience is merely a more highly evolved part of our instinct? We as humans can change the parameters of our conscience to a large extent where our animal cousins can only change their fight or flight responses as they learn to trust or fear. Their instincts are governed by base emotions, like fear and base stimuli, like pain. Humans have many other more subtle things that help change the outlines of our conscience and instincts. This is why while in TWI many supressed their natural "instinct" to fight or run, where an animal would not have any such inhibition when faced with such adversity.
I think our conscience helps govern our abitity to discern right from wrong, but like Another Spot said it is not the source of the law, just the regulator.
Just thinking...
Edited 'cause I can't spell...
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Now you done and gone it. "They" are going to start calling us Druids..
Actually it is a good point. But I've found that point of balance in the middle of "hell" sometimes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Eyesopen: This is why while in TWI many supressed their natural "instinct" to fight or run, where an animal would not have any such inhibition when faced with such adversity.
I love that sentence! lol. Makes me think of times people came down hard on me. Growling or perhaps hissing would have been pretty satisfying!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Uh Oh! Does that mean that I have to go find a brown robe at the thrift shop??
Me too...kinda uncomfortable...in a balanced sort of way...
I think that maybe a little clawing and biting would have been nice upon occasion as well.
Even in "normal" society we humans often supress our natural instinct to just slap the holy SH!T out of someone who is desperately asking for it. At least most of us do... :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Neither case was a moral dilemma. In neither incident did God direct them to do anything that was morally wrong. Ananias was apprehensive about going to minister to a man that was a well-known persecutor of Christians:
As I said in another post, the conscience is just a part of the mind that responds to the regulation or violation of our habits, whether moral or not. God had to work with Gideon as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Would our "sin nature" be affecting our conscience at all?
Just throwing that out there. I haven't made any sense on this thread anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Bolshevik: That's a great question!!! Wish I had an answer!!!! I enjoy your posts a lot.
Yep, Listener, I keep thinking about it too. T-bone’s comments about morality have my attention today. I was also considering the phrase, “law written in their hearts.” What does that mean, exactly? I still don’t know, but according to Thayer’s Lexicon, “law” here refers to the moral aspects of the law, which makes sense owing to the fact Gentiles had no access to Mosaic law.
In any case, below is text from Wikipedia:
"Morality (from Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behaviour") refers to the concept of human ethics which pertains to matters of right and wrong — also referred to as "good and evil" — used within three contexts: individual conscience; systems of principles and judgments — sometimes called moral values —shared within a cultural, religious, secular or philosophical community; and codes of behavior or conduct morality.
Personal morality defines and distinguishes among right and wrong intentions, motivations or actions, as these have been learned, engendered, or otherwise developed within each individual.
Conscience refers to the impulse toward morally 'right'. For example, if a person was concerned about what is morally right, then s/he would most likely not rob a bank. The actual definition of right behavior varies according to belief system. Religious belief systems usually include the idea of divine will and divine judgment and usually correspond to a strict moral code of conduct".
Still pondering.
Edited by another spotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Actually you have made quite a bit of sense here on this thread and many others. In fact everyone here is making a lot of sense, I am really loving the communication in this particular thread. So everyone keep "throwing things out there".
Speaking of which...it seems that most here are in agreement that the conscience is some sort of regulator for what most call 'morals". The morals being those things that we through outside sources consisting of people, books, school, film etc., decide are good or bad, right or wrong. In other words morals=personal laws to live by. Those morals are everchanging as we grow and learn and the world around us also grows and changes. If we cross or break one of those personal laws our conscience lets us know. It becomes our choice if we will listen or not. It also seems that we all agree that the conscience can be trained to be silent, or we can train ourselves to ignore it. And some people can write laws upon their conscience that make no sense to most of the worlds population or are contrary to that same population. Then there are those that can carterize their conscience so they feel nothing at all. (I have always wondered if these would be the children of the debil? Just a thought)
So now on to this question of our sin nature affecting our conscience...hmmm...I think that maybe the sin nature is the little debil that sits on one shoulder while the little angel is your learned conscience that sits on the other shoulder.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Certainly the conscience is a popular topic among theologians, philosophers and psychologists. While this current discussion has been interesting [Bolshevik, Another Spot and Eyes Open – I do want to think about that stuff – interesting!] – I'd like to re-visit the incident that was my inspiration for this thread [the pajama party / porn video with VPW as master of ceremonies. Latecomers to this thread who have just jumped into the middle of things can review post # 1 and 16 for the details – although I do recommend reading everyone's posts – great input by all! My thanks to all contributors!!!!]. I gather from most of the folks on this thread that the conscience is of primary importance – not only a concern over its proper maintenance but the impact it has on decision-making.
If I take the sordid details out of the scene – and merely analyze the dynamics of what happened – I find a big issue is involved. Well…from my Christian viewpoint it's a big problem, anyway. Matter of fact – I think we could take a lot of the details away [who was in charge of the meeting, what was done, how many people were involved] and reduce the whole incident down to something simple: Person A did something to offend Person B. The Bible does address situations where even if the actions by one Christian are not sinful in and of themselves - the negative impact those actions have on another Christian are still considered to be sinful on the part of the offending party - according to the Bible.
Romans 14 NASB
1Now (A)accept the one who is (B)weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.
2(C)One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is (D)weak eats vegetables only.
3The one who eats is not to (E)regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to (F)judge the one who eats, for God has (G)accepted him.
4(H)Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5(I)One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike Each person must be (J)fully convinced in his own mind.
6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he (K)gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.
7For not one of us (L)lives for himself, and not one dies for himself;
8for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore (M)whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.
9For to this end (N)Christ died and lived again, that He might be (O)Lord both of the dead and of the living.
10But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you (P)regard your brother with contempt? For (Q)we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
11For it is written,
"(R)AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, (S)EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME,
AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD."
12So then (T)each one of us will give an account of himself to God.
13Therefore let us not (U)judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--(V)not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.
14I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that (W)nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who (X)thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer (Y)walking according to love (Z)Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.
16Therefore (AA)do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil;
17for the kingdom of God (AB)is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and (AC)peace and (AD)joy in the Holy Spirit.
18For he who in this way (AE)serves Christ is (AF)acceptable to God and approved by men.
19So then [a]we (AG)pursue the things which make for peace and the (AH)building up of one another.
20(AI)Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food (AJ)All things indeed are clean, but (AK)they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.
21(AL)It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.
22The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who (AM)does not condemn himself in what he approves.
23But (AN)he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.
I Corinthians 10:23-33 NASB
23(AL)All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable All things are lawful, but not all things (AM)edify.
24Let no one (AN)seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.
25(AO)Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience' sake;
26(AP)FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS.
27If (AQ)one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, (AR)eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience' sake.
28But (AS)if anyone says to you, "This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake;
29I mean not your own conscience, but the other man's; for (AT)why is my freedom judged by another's conscience?
30If I partake with thankfulness, (AU)why am I slandered concerning that for which I (AV)give thanks?
31Whether, then, you eat or drink or (AW)whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
32(AX)Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to (AY)the church of God;
33just as I also (AZ)please all men in all things, (BA)not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, (BB)so that they may be saved.
Matthew 18:6, 7 NASB
6but (D)whoever (E)causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
7"Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For (F)it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Listener
Hmmm. In light of the previous posts, it seems to me that we may be confusing the conscience with, or lumping it together with, the mind. I think the conscience is the place in our mind where the basic, rudimentary, realization of right and wrong comes from. Learning the application of the concepts of right and wrong through childhood, for instance, is an activity taking place in the mind, a learned behaviour based on external input, not in the conscience. Learned behaviour will naturally vary with the culture, environment, parents, religious affiliation, etc. But the fundamental concepts of right and wrong are universal, being based in the conscience.
The conscience would be the source whereby a person instinctively senses the moral implications of a given action or thought. Through a persons lifetime, the mind can be taught to support or deny these implications of right and wrong, but they would still persist, though possibly silenced. If the mind is taught to totally suppress the conscience's input, the conscience could be refered to as being "seared", or cauterized. Along with this cauterization the applications of right and wrong, learned throughout one's life, could also be crushed...rendering a completely amoral mind.
But, with only the suppresion of the conscience, a mind could become reliant upon only that which it was taught as right and wrong. This would account for behaviours exhibited in TWI where a person was commanded to perform an action, for instance, believed to be morally wrong, but which the person willingly carried out due to being taught that such action was correct. This confusing behaviour...morally wrong, yet the right thing to do...could, then, be the result of the conscience being surpressed...and in the extreme, actually seared.
I think this suppresion happens gradually, over an extended period of time, and conversely, could be healed gradually, over a period of time (barring a miracle such as Paul's being blinded). Gradually comming to the realization of the wrongs done at the hands of TWI leadership might be an example of this healing conscience. Couple this with input from the Word and, not only the conscience could become whole again, but the mind would re-learn the application of right and wrong thinking....the end goal being a fully renewed mind.
Hmmmm......still trying to fit the pieces together in this puzzle called life. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
You can take a person out of twi, but it’s kinda hard to take twi out of the person…not only that, twi isn’t “user friendly.” (Some of my weird thoughts for today).
Well, I wrote this post before I saw the latest. Very possible, Listener. I know I am not ready yet to decide what exactly conscience is. Still gathering information. I am still looking at it Biblically, but also from other points of view.
T-bone: Nice. I was reading Thayer’s this morning. It had some real interesting things to say about the change in emphasis from the letter of the law to the moral emphasis in NT. Unfortunately, I can’t copy and paste it. In any case, the basis of the moral emphasis is love God, love your neighbor. So it all kinda ties together. And, until just now I hadn’t thought about the sin part!
You know, if it was just a matter of identifying doctrinal error to “get over it,” while a massive project, it wouldn’t be SO difficult. It isn’t just that. That is what is so intriguing about this thread. I personally want to define for myself just what happened to me, as clearly as possible. I have realized some things during the course of this thread, but I still feel like my understanding is just dancing around the edge of it so far.
One thing I realized a few minutes ago: It wasn’t so much that the doctrines were such a big problem (if they were, I wouldn’t have paid much attention to twi at all). It was more the context and application of the doctrines that were so destructive. Take the law of believing for example. Had it not been used like a baseball bat, it wouldn’t have been so bad. Be indifferent to terrible tragedy, because believing was at fault. How about especially good to the household? Well that’s in the Bible. Fine. The problem was in the application. Twi was the household. Be indifferent to all others. Thus, twi redefined right from wrong in a manner that would violate the ethics of most people, Christian or not. All over the world, to be exact.
So, our ethics changed, our morals changed, our beliefs regarding right from wrong changed, we suppressed our emotions, it changed who we were in some very fundamental ways. I know it affected my conscience, I’m just not sure how exactly. At a bare minimum, it was certainly sedated. I think of sedated as asleep. Turns out it’s a synonym for numb. That fits too.
Hmmmm….sin. The leadership sinned ie T-bone’s post. They taught us to do the same, see paragraphs above. Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm. We did it. That by itself is a big deal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Fascinating discussion!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
This makes a lot of sense to me... Thank you, Listener!
God, I LOVE this place!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Yes I'm still not sure what exactly a conscience is, don't even know if that matters. I enjoy everyone's posts in this thread also.
Another thing that confounds me about conscience is intuition or "gut feelings". Things that don't have to do with morals. Like when I'm taking a test at school, have a "gut feeling" about an answer to a question, don't know why, but it turns out to be right. Just stuff like that. when you've got a problem and you're like "maybe I should try this", and it leads you to more answers.
Sounds similar to the conscience.
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.