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.
Yes – that is true – if God hadn't told them it was wrong – they wouldn't have known that! BUT – once they knew it was wrong – what kept them from disobeying God? When we use the term "guide" or refer to a guidance system like on an airplane – the mission-critical factor for any guide or guidance system is that they accurately identify real reference points – to stay on course. A compass shows which way is north. Global Positioning Systems show where something actually is in relation to other objects in a real world. Guidance systems do not invent reality – but are a means of negotiating within reality.
I believe the conscience was already in Adam and Eve – before the Fall. It served as a guidance system to keep them on course with God's flight plan. Knowing that a certain tree was forbidden was a reference point to indicate that is way off course. If the conscience were likened to a simple compass [automatically showing the way north – or what is right – obeying God in this application] – then any deviation from the direction it indicates is a case of user-error – nothing wrong with the compass. What was the primary purpose of man? Did it have anything to do with loving God, trusting God, obeying God, respecting the image of God in others? Would you consider those things reference points already set by the Creator? I think man was born to do those things! In my opinion, whatever it is inside of man – that is like a "reality-seeking scan device", an "internal program" that attempts to negotiate us through life – locks on to reference points that bear resemblance to an internal template – and we are drawn to them. I see the conscience as a guidance system in that it will have "positive" and "negative" functions - it will indicate the right direction and warn us when we're off course - and so holds a pivotal role when we contemplate doing something or evaluate what we've already done.
People are usually drawn to laws, policies, procedures, customs, traditions, etc. that are compatible with the nobler things of life: preserving life, protecting life, preserving/protecting ownership, respecting other people, promoting honesty, integrity and harmony, etc. It doesn't matter what one's religion is or even if they're an atheist – it's my opinion that these preferences are already built into humans – in the very fabric of our being.
I tend to lean towards the idea that the conscience is a part of God within us – a spark left over from the original way He created us in His own image.
Romans 2:10,11, 14, 15 (KJV)
But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
For there is no respect of persons with God.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law WRITTEN IN THEIR HEARTS, their CONSCIENCE ALSO BEARING WITNESS, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
I had a very long email conversation with some hardcore athiest and fundamentalist Christian folks a while back about morality and conscience... it was very enlightening... I will see if I can come up with some of the remarks from my old emails. It was brilliant!
I think that conscience is that thing in us that when we are born is just "clean", like a brand new chalk board. We write and erase things on that board our entire lives as we learn things and our "moral" values change. Everything and everyone in our lives effect us and therefore effect our conscience, even if they have not direct contact with us, (the decisions of world leaders for example do effect us even though we never come into direct contact with them).
When Adam and Eve were created, they were like babies. Their brand new conscience was like a babies would be today. It hadn't been written on yet, until God talked to them and gave them some "do's and don'ts".
So I guess I agree with others here that the conscience was something that Adam and Eve had before they ate of the tree. But I think that eating that fruit taught them what "wrong" was. They had never done "wrong" up until that point, so they had no way of truly comprehending what "wrong" was. It would be like offering someone a hamburger that had never even heard of one. They would have no way of knowing if it was right/wrong or good/bad. So when this other being offered them the tree and told them that it was good...well you know the story.
The adding of the knowledge of good and evil made them like gods and also set them apart from other animals. So it is possible that this conscience is what is in the image of God as other animals do not have one that I am aware of...do they?
Just thinking out loud...and I'm really tired today...so the thinking is a bit blah...
Many thanks to everyone for all the excellent input in this thread.
Here are some ideas I’ve put together so far, which have been inspired by the bible, postings here (especially T-Bone’s), and my own thoughts collected over the last 34 years of being born again, and my own readings. This subject has been a major curiosity to me for a very long time. No one has ever been willing to even discuss it. (I think because no one ever knew how to handle it) I think it is very important, and very available, to understand these kinds of foundational aspects of our spiritual life.
We’re not dealing with any spiritual taboos, or secrets here…at least the bible doesn’t refer to them as such. So, this inquiring mind wants to dig as deep as possible to uncover the answer. I think God gave us these amazing minds of ours’ for a specific reason….to find out about Him and His knowledge. Man caused the loss of spirit, and man had to recover it. Well, God made it stupid simple for us to regain our spirit nature, through His son’s life, death and resurrection. Now it’s up to us to take it from there and learn to live, as he wants us to.
OK, below I’ve listed what I’ve come up with so far. I’d appreciate any input or thoughts. I’m not claiming any particular insight, just trying to condense my thoughts into some reasonable structure for the sake of discussion. Have at it!
Heart – That part of the human mind intended to contain the spirit God. It’s where God’s spirit dwells when we’re born again. Without the spirit, that is, while still a natural man, it serves only as the conscience, containing rudimentary understanding of right and wrong, but not the spiritual understanding lost by Adam and Eve, or the ability to discern spiritual matters and their import.
Soul – The basic human life force, which is not spirit based. It is immortal and individual to the person.
Mind – It is the seat of human reason, understanding, emotion and will. It generates thoughts and ideas based upon 5-senses input. It contains the Heart.
Strength – The ability to put thought into action through the use of the body. Can refer to many mind-based attributes such as the will and the emotions, but is ultimately demonstrated only by the actions of the body.
Understanding – The ability of the mind to mingle input, from whatever source, with current knowledge, contained in the mind, and thusly, make judgments or decisions based upon the resulting thoughts.
Conscience would then seem to be that part of the mind, which governs moral judgments. Based upon the above definitions, it would seem the conscience would actually be that which the bible refers to as the Heart. I don’t think the conscience can learn or be taught, as the mind can learn and be taught. I think it is what it is from birth.
Before the new birth, OT revelation was given to people from God through their 5-senses. They saw, felt, heard, tasted or smelled input from God, which they received through these senses and then processed with their mind into action, or inaction.
After the new birth, man had the ability to receive input from God via the spirit created in his Heart. He could then perceive information from God, bypassing the 5-senses, via his spirit, and that information can then be processed by his mind, resulting in ensuing action or inaction.
It would seem to me that Heart is equivalent to conscience, if not equal to it. Without spirit, it acts as a rudimentary moral compass for the 5-senses man…the residual effect of once containing spirit. With spirit living in it, it becomes the mechanism whereby spirit communication from God is communicated to the mind of man. The conscience then becomes the vehicle for “voice” of God that we listen for.
Because of our free will, in either case, spirit filled or not, man is able to choose to ignore the conscience. Doing so will eventually dull the recognition of it, and consistently ignoring it will eventually cause the complete breakdown of that input (seared conscience) resulting in reliance upon our own 5-senses reasonings…wouldn’t that, pretty much, return us to a worse state than a 5-senses man starts with?
On the other hand, cultivating the conscience improves one’s recognition of its input. But, how does one cultivate it? By paying attention to it, listening for it, and acting upon it’s input. The only difference here, between natural man and spirit-filled man, is the content, and source, of the information. The input from the 5-senses man’s conscience is limited to pretty basic right and wrong. The spirit-filled man has the advantage of God’s input to greatly enhance this input.
One more thing, I don’t think the conscience itself can learn or be taught. The learning is done in the mind, where reasoning is located. I think of the conscience as more of a basic, residual, warning system for the natural man. I don’t think God would have been so thoughtless as to strip man of all sense of right and wrong.
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.
I tend to lean towards the idea that the conscience is a part of God within us – a spark left over from the original way He created us in His own image.
Romans 2:10,11, 14, 15 (KJV)
But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
For there is no respect of persons with God.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law WRITTEN IN THEIR HEARTS, their CONSCIENCE ALSO BEARING WITNESS, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
I had a very long email conversation with some hardcore athiest and fundamentalist Christian folks a while back about morality and conscience... it was very enlightening... I will see if I can come up with some of the remarks from my old emails. It was brilliant!
Can't wait to read it JJ.
I'm wondering if "right" and "wrong" are not absolute terms. Eve could not have known she shouldn't eat the fruit if someone hadn't told not to prior. (hypothetically) If nobody(including God) had told her not to do it, and she did it, would it have been sin?
Perhaps the conscience has more to do with our desire to do what's right, and we learn what's right from external sources (i.e. God, the Word, experience etc.)?
Perhaps the conscience has more to do with our desire to do what's right, and we learn what's right from external sources (i.e. God, the Word, experience etc.)?
Maybe that is why God places such an emphasis on "intent" in the Bible.
I'm wondering if "right" and "wrong" are not absolute terms. Eve could not have known she shouldn't eat the fruit if someone hadn't told not to prior. (hypothetically) If nobody(including God) had told her not to do it, and she did it, would it have been sin?
Perhaps the conscience has more to do with our desire to do what's right, and we learn what's right from external sources (i.e. God, the Word, experience etc.)?
Yes, in reference to your earlier post, I believe studying the Bible and receiving revelation would effect how your conscience works, since I don't agree with the person who said a person's conscience is what it is from birth and cannot be taught or learn. 1 Tim. 4:2- Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron. This is a negative example of having one's conscience changed in a negative direction, but if it can be changed for the worse, I would assume it can also be changed for the better, as in iron sharpeneth iron.
In reference to your question in this post, I would assume that the answer is no, it would not have been sin. Romans 5:13- For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Also Romans 7:7-11-- What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. So, is it your conclusion that the 'conscience' is in and of itself neither moral nor immoral, but rather amoral depending upon what each person puts into it? Which would seem to me to bring us back to the conclusion that one's 'conscience' is simply their habit patterns and can be changed for the better by learning the Bible and direct revelation. Hebrews 5:14- But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercise to discen both good and evil.
Maybe that is why God places such an emphasis on "intent" in the Bible.
Yes, in reference to your earlier post, I believe studying the Bible and receiving revelation would effect how your conscience works, since I don't agree with the person who said a person's conscience is what it is from birth and cannot be taught or learn. 1 Tim. 4:2- Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron. This is a negative example of having one's conscience changed in a negative direction, but if it can be changed for the worse, I would assume it can also be changed for the better, as in iron sharpeneth iron.
The searing analogy, I believe, refers to a procedure whereby an open wound is sealed by applying a red hot metal instrument to the wound, thereby melting the flesh and effectively closing the wound, preventing further blood loss or contamination. In the example from 1 Tim 4:2 the conscience is "seared with a the hot iron" thereby sealing it off, preventing it's interaction with the rest of the person's mind. Therefore person would no longer be "bothered" by their conscience. I don't think this refers to the conscience itself changing.
You know I’ve been doing a lot of reading on the subject of conscience. I learned that theologians, sociologists, philosophers, and psychologists have been debating it for centuries.
That being said, the central issue is what is it (Biblically, not a dictionary), and it’d be nice to know how did we get it, and when. Unless we can answer that question definitively, we can’t really define the impact of twi (or anything else) on conscience, never mind relate it to other parts of the mind with any authority.
Beyond that, well I am not sure I still agree with my own posts…
The only thing I am sure about right now, is conscience Biblically is affected by decisions/actions ie, references to a pure conscience because of actions (guilt free) and seared conscience because of actions (beyond guilt) (Jeaniam, that was sharp!).
T-bone, I am not so sure Romans 1 is saying the witness within is conscience. After reading the chapter a gazillion times, the issue seems to be the witness of the power and righteousness of God (God’s qualities) within and without. I don’t see how the internal witness of God’s power and righteousness equals conscience, since conscience relates to right from wrong, not God’s qualities….and context is recognizing God vs idolatry. I’m not saying you’re not right, I just don’t see yet how you got from one to the other.
Yes, in reference to your earlier post, I believe studying the Bible and receiving revelation would effect how your conscience works, since I don't agree with the person who said a person's conscience is what it is from birth and cannot be taught or learn. 1 Tim. 4:2- Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron. This is a negative example of having one's conscience changed in a negative direction, but if it can be changed for the worse, I would assume it can also be changed for the better, as in iron sharpeneth iron.
In reference to your question in this post, I would assume that the answer is no, it would not have been sin. Romans 5:13- For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Also Romans 7:7-11-- What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. So, is it your conclusion that the 'conscience' is in and of itself neither moral nor immoral, but rather amoral depending upon what each person puts into it? Which would seem to me to bring us back to the conclusion that one's 'conscience' is simply their habit patterns and can be changed for the better by learning the Bible and direct revelation. Hebrews 5:14- But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercise to discen both good and evil.
Maybe. Good point, Eyes.
While in twi there were things that I "knew" were right that I now "know" are wrong. While in twi if I thought of going against a twi doctrine I would have a bad feeling. But now those inner feelings are completely opposite of what they were before for the same actions.
Sometimes doing the wrong things feel wrong, sometimes doing the right things feel wrong. Sometimes, who the heck knows what the right thing to do is? I don't know that I can always turn to my conscience and say "Hey, got any clear readings? Yes? No? Maybe? Ask again later?"
So that just leads me to believe something about the conscience or something around the conscience changes. If the conscience is a single entity in itself.
Excerpts from emails from various points of view regarding the conscience and morality:
(warning – lengthy post)
Agnostic: My general thought/feeling is that there are some good values taught by the Bible. BUT… and it’s a big but… I have a massive problem with the more extremist factions that act as if good values begin and end with Christianity, as if prior to Moses everyone ran around killing and wife-swapping and so on. Simple logic dictates that societies would not have existed in the form they did at that time had there been mass chaos and absolutely no morals or ethics. It’s good business to be honest and not kill your neighbor or steal stuff from your boss, and business was thriving by all archeaoligical accounts. …It just really gets me when people imply that if you’re not Christian, you’re some sort of unpredictable chaotic neutral potential evil.
Christian Minister: Okay, so then where does our conscience (that which tells us right from wrong or even suggests that there is a right and wrong) come from?... Seems to imply some sort of Maker of humans, doesn’t it? How can science explain the source of a conscience? How does science explain things like love, beauty, awe and wonder, creativity, the desire to be in a relationship with others, etc?
Athiest: It appears what is being referred to is the existence of a soul. I’m sure we’ve all heard of dopamine, serotonin, adrenaline, melatonin, etc… Those are all chemicals that are present in our brains and bodies, and we know (again, thanks to science) that these chemicals are linked to emotions. Not only do we know of the link, we can even manipulate brain chemistry through medication and see a direct and predictable effect on emotions. And conversely, we can stimulate emotional responses and see corresponding and predictable changes in the brain.
…so what does this have to do with a conscience or a soul? All of the things you have implied are evidence of some higher, external force acting on humans are emotions, which science tells us are controlled and created by chemicals internal to the human body. Evolution also explains several of your questions. …all of these things are traits that (most) people possess. They are also traits that are necessary for the human race to survive. Natural selection does an excellent job of explaining these things, despite what the Kansas School Board would have you believe.
JavaJane: I agree with the agnostic’s viewpoint and strangely can quote something from the Bible to back it up:
Romans 2:10a But there will be glory and honor and peace from God for all who do good…
Romans 2:11 For God does not show favoritism.
Romans 2:14 Even when the Gentiles who do not have God’s written law, instinctively follow what the law says, they show that in their hearts they know right from wrong.
Romans 2:15 They demonstrate that God’s law is written within them, for their own consciences either accuse them or tell them they are doing what is right.
Unitarian: I have four worthless comments that will add absolutely nothing to this fascinating dialogue and discussion:
1. I don’t believe in God but I am very interested in Her.
2. Sometimes I think we’re alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we’re not. In either case the idea is quite staggering.
3. The greatest tragedy in mankind’s entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.
4. The god that the atheists deny never existed.
Undeclared: Well, I certainly believe in “God” – but I also believe that “God” is the ultimate scientist – Creator of the Universe!
Agnostic: Do I believe in a god? (notice I didn’t ask if there is a god, just if I believe in one.) I go back and forth on this one. If there is something out there, I’m damn sure that it’s absolutely horrified at what the American Christian church – and most others, probably – has been up to. I can’t think of anyone who should be more ....ed off than the Christians about the president using God as a reason for anything. I generally think that religions are beautiful things that should be preserved, and the whole “because God told me to” just irks me. It’s like using a Greek bust for a boat anchor.
And as for atheists, I don’t know that I really pit myself in that group, mainly because so many of them are so obnoxious… as are fundamentalist Christians. What good does it do you to coerce/nag/guilt people into joining? Doesn’t it just weaken your church? I should clarify that I do NOT think that this is because of the religion – JavaJanes’s quotes made that clear – there is such a sense of self-righteousness or pride or correctness that is carried around by many Christians, and I’d have to say that if there’s one thing that keeps me absolutely sure that I’m disinterested, it’s that attitude.
Christian: It once occurred to me that man was the only animal capable of good and evil. If I ever set out to “prove” that there was (or WHY there was) a God, I think this is where I would start. Animals take on characteristics that we say are good or bad, but in the end an animal can only follow its instinct. A well-trained dog may not dig through the trash when you are gone, but it’s not out of any moral obligation. (This may be a foundation of most people’s ethics too, but I digress.)
I think the mystery of God and goodness and the devil and evil is in the choice we have. Why are we the only species that has the ability to act beyond our instinct? Why can a man chose to starve to death before he steals bread? Why are we different? Good deeds would cease to be good if they were either instinctual or automatic. It’s only in the ability to choose one action over another that our lives have any moral weight at all. It’s hard to argue that the ability to override animal emotion was a survival mechanism evolved over time. It would argue that adherence to biological instinct would prove to be a much more resilient trait. I think we are what we are because God, taking the chance we might turn out absolutely horrible, gave us the chance to be good, and I think that’s where our link to God lies. It’s not in the faith you profess (cause who really cares? God?) It’s in what you do with your life. …Ghandi once said “To me God is Truth and Love. God is Ethics and Morality. God is Fearlessness. God is the essence of life and light and yet He is above and beyond all these. God is conscience. He is even the atheism of the atheist. For in His boundlessness, God permits the atheist to live. He is the searcher of hearts. He is a personal God to those who need His personal presence. He is embodied to those who need His touch.
Atheist: I try to avoid associating intelligence or lack thereof with religious devotion (or lack thereof), but you do make an interesting point. I’ve always had the same belief that most people never examine why they believe in their given religion. And, hopefully I’m not offending anyone, but I’ve always found it to be extremely bizarre behavior to believe so strongly in something and be totally devoted to it and let it make your life choices for you, without ever honestly considering any other option, or for that matter, without CONSTANTLY considering other options. That’s how humanity has achieved so much – not by continuing to do the same thing over and over again just because that’s how it’s “always” been done.
Some people believe choice is an illusion; that we’re all just passively playing out our little parts in the inevitable result of the grand scheme of things, whatever that is. I generally don’t buy that. I think we do have free will.
Agnostic: Many people have this idea that someone that does not believe in God would be miserable, without morals, directionless, would have not hope and not dreams for the future and no joy in their lives. The truth of the matter is quite opposite. For me, there was a sudden realization that I am accountable not to some invisible spirit who may or may not be paying attention and may or may not care, but to myself. That the good that I do can be attributed to me, and for the bad I must hold myself responsible. I did not suddenly think “there are no consequences for my actions” as people seem to think atheists believe, rather I thought, “there are massive consequences for my actions.” …a true atheist realizes that no one is going to save us except us. There is no God to clean up my mess or help me make a decision or find me a job. There is no safety net.
I said before I don’t tend to call myself an atheist because so many of them are so obnoxious. There are pretty much two groups: People who are trying to get a rise out of other who haven’t really thought about I, and use it because it sounds good and they don’t like church. These people tell everyone they can they are atheists and try to disprove others beliefs often with a good chunk of “I’m smarter than you” thrown in. And secondly, people like me.
JavaJane: Funny, how similar my arguments are for not wanting to tell most people I am a Christian.
Christian Minister: Yep. Any group of people has some resemblance to these two classifications.
Unitarian: Story goes that while on a trip to England in the 1940s, around WWII time, Ghandi was supposedly asked by a Brit, "What do you think of Western Civilization?" Ghandi is said to have replied something like, "Western Civilization? What a good idea. You should try it sometime." I'm afraid I feel much the same way about Christianity. Maybe we should try it sometime.
The basic, simple, yet profound gospel/good word espoused by Jesus as I understand it - love your neighbor at any given moment (who's next to you right now?)... and to practice Love (God as a noun and a verb) by being loving is pretty much expressed in action, by will and choice.
SORRY FOR THE LENGTH, I just couldn't stop after I re-read the emails!
While in twi there were things that I "knew" were right that I now "know" are wrong. While in twi if I thought of going against a twi doctrine I would have a bad feeling. But now those inner feelings are completely opposite of what they were before for the same actions.
Sometimes doing the wrong things feel wrong, sometimes doing the right things feel wrong. Sometimes, who the heck knows what the right thing to do is? I don't know that I can always turn to my conscience and say "Hey, got any clear readings? Yes? No? Maybe? Ask again later?"
So that just leads me to believe something about the conscience or something around the conscience changes. If the conscience is a single entity in itself.
Well, to repeat, that is why I think the doctrine of 'let your conscience be your guide' is a dangerous doctrine. Let the written Word (Bible) be your guide with the addition of direct revelation from God. Neither God nor his Word changes, so they are a far more solid foundation for your feet, then your 'conscience' which, as you observed, changes as circumstances change.
Well, to repeat, that is why I think the doctrine of 'let your conscience be your guide' is a dangerous doctrine. Let the written Word (Bible) be your guide with the addition of direct revelation from God. Neither God nor his Word changes, so they are a far more solid foundation for your feet, then your 'conscience' which, as you observed, changes as circumstances change.
Jeaniam,
sorry if it's taking me 47 posts to get what your saying. I'm sure you're tired of repeating yourself.
I don't know about the "let your conscience be your guide" doctrine.
I just know twi has confused and angered the fudge out of me.
...T-bone, I am not so sure Romans 1 is saying the witness within is conscience. After reading the chapter a gazillion times, the issue seems to be the witness of the power and righteousness of God (God's qualities) within and without. I don't see how the internal witness of God's power and righteousness equals conscience, since conscience relates to right from wrong, not God's qualities….and context is recognizing God vs idolatry. I'm not saying you're not right, I just don't see yet how you got from one to the other.
I think Romans 1:18-2:29 is really about God's anger against wicked people who rebel against the truth, against righteousness, against God's standards. Romans 1 & 2 reads more like a court case with references to a law and the citing of specific infractions. Which hits me as the conscience being more of a law-observer – than a lawgiver. The Online Etymology Dictionary says "conscience" comes from the Latin - conscientia "knowledge within oneself, a moral sense."
It seems to me that in Romans 1 & 2 Paul builds his case around an assumption that there resides in man a moral awareness of a preset standard and paints a picture of depravity with morally-loaded terms of all those who ignore…openly defy God's known standards – whether written in the law or in the heart.
Romans 1:18-32 NASB
18For (AJ)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (AK)suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19because (AL)that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20For (AM)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (AN)being understood through what has been made,so that they are without excuse.
21For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (AO)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
23and (AQ)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures.
24Therefore (AR)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (AS)dishonored among them.
25For they exchanged the truth of God for a (AT)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (AU)who is blessed forever. Amen.
26For this reason (AV)God gave them over to (AW)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (AX)men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, (AY)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are (AZ)gossips,
30slanderers, (BA)haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, (BB)disobedient to parents,
32andalthough they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of (BD)death, they not only do the same, but also (BE)give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Romans 2:1-16 NASB
1Therefore you have (A)no excuse, (B)everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which (C)you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
2And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.
3But do you suppose this, (D)O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?
4Or do you think lightly of (E)the riches of His (F)kindness and (G)tolerance and (H)patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?
5But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart (I)you are storing up wrath for yourself (J)in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6(K)who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
7to those who by (L)perseverance in doing good seek for (M)glory and honor and (N)immortality, (O)eternal life;
8but to those who are (P)selfishly ambitious and (Q)do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9There will be (R)tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew (S)first and also of the Greek,
10but (T)glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew (U)first and also to the Greek.
12For all who have sinned (W)without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
13for it is (X)not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do (Y)instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show (Z)the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16on the day when, (AA)according to my gospel, (AB)God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
In Romans 2:14 "instinctively" is the Greek word physis, Strong's # 5449, 14 occurrences. Renn's Expository Dictionary of Bible Wordssays "In the first instance [Romans 1:26 "natural"], physis conveys the idea of "nature" meaning that which is created by God." In The Believer's Commentary by William MacDonald a comment on Romans 2:14 reads as follows:
"2:14…Now Paul explains that although the law was not given to the Gentiles, yet they have an innate knowledge of right and wrong. They know instinctively that it is wrong to lie, steal, commit adultery, and murder. The only commandment they would not know intuitively is the one concerning the Sabbath; that one is more ceremonial than moral."
You know I’ve been doing a lot of reading on the subject of conscience. I learned that theologians, sociologists, philosophers, and psychologists have been debating it for centuries.
That being said, the central issue is what is it (Biblically, not a dictionary), and it’d be nice to know how did we get it, and when. Unless we can answer that question definitively, we can’t really define the impact of twi (or anything else) on conscience, never mind relate it to other parts of the mind with any authority.
Beyond that, well I am not sure I still agree with my own posts…
The only thing I am sure about right now, is conscience Biblically is affected by decisions/actions ie, references to a pure conscience because of actions (guilt free) and seared conscience because of actions (beyond guilt) (Jeaniam, that was sharp!).
T-bone, I am not so sure Romans 1 is saying the witness within is conscience. After reading the chapter a gazillion times, the issue seems to be the witness of the power and righteousness of God (God’s qualities) within and without. I don’t see how the internal witness of God’s power and righteousness equals conscience, since conscience relates to right from wrong, not God’s qualities….and context is recognizing God vs idolatry. I’m not saying you’re not right, I just don’t see yet how you got from one to the other.
According to Young's Concordance the word for conscience (which is only translated conscience in the whole N.T.) is the word 'suneideesis', which appears to be related to the word suneisis, and is defined in Young's as a 'knowing with oneself'. Bullinger defines it as 'a knowing with oneself, consciousness; the being one's own witness; the testimony to one's own conduct borne by consciousness, especially the consciousness man has of himself in his relation to God, manifesting itself in the form of a self testimony. Consequently it is the effect and result of faith, for a man's conscience will never condemn that which he believes to be right, and vice versa: hence the only conscience worth having is that which springs from "a faith unfeigned", see 1 Timothy 1:5'. Tyndale doesn't say anything worthy of note that the others haven't already said. The word 'deesis' which appears to be one of the root words of 'suneideesis' is translated prayer or supplication. I don't know if that last bit helps to clarify things or not.
sorry if it's taking me 47 posts to get what your saying. I'm sure you're tired of repeating yourself.
I don't know about the "let your conscience be your guide" doctrine.
I just know twi has confused and angered the fudge out of me.
I don't know if TWI taught the doctrine of 'let your conscience be your guide or if I heard it somewhere else. I know that at the end TWI confused and angered the fudge out of a lot of us. Thanks for your response.
so natural man, no spirit within or upon, or Bible in hand, knows the difference between right and wrong. (My understanding of "the law" here in Romans being an "outline" for good and evil.) (?)
So, if without Christ, we know the difference between right and wrong. With Christ, i dunno. . .
quote: So, if without Christ, we know the difference between right and wrong. With Christ, i dunno. . .
Right and wrong are selective in the human mind. Some things really are not right or wrong, but strictly within the human mind, right and wrong are selective, not automatically bound to God. There's no getting around it; if mankind had a connection to God without Christ, then his death and resurrection were not necessary.
quote: So, if without Christ, we know the difference between right and wrong. With Christ, i dunno. . .
Right and wrong are selective in the human mind. Some things really are not right or wrong, but strictly within the human mind, right and wrong are selective, not automatically bound to God. There's no getting around it; if mankind had a connection to God without Christ, then his death and resurrection were not necessary.
Don't know if I'm following. These verses in Romans were shown to me growing up when I asked about people "we didn't get to witness to." God still had a way for them.
I mean if,
15in that they show (Z)the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, . . .
they can get eternal life if haven't been witnessed too. ?
Well, to repeat, that is why I think the doctrine of 'let your conscience be your guide' is a dangerous doctrine. Let the written Word (Bible) be your guide with the addition of direct revelation from God. Neither God nor his Word changes, so they are a far more solid foundation for your feet, then your 'conscience' which, as you observed, changes as circumstances change.
What if TWI's interpretation of the written Word [the Bible] or supposed "direct revelation from God" conflicts with one's conscience? Yeah God and His truth does not change – but TWI sure had a knack for twisting the Scripture around to justify any obvious or covert agenda. It was moral-subjectivity – TWI promoted that big time! Sin no longer was sin – it was demoted to "broken fellowship" – softened to ease the blow to the conscience – with a little emphasis on how it hurt God Almighty – and no regard to what harm it brought to people – how convenient! And let's use some good and solid "biblical reasoning" – like VPW's classic: "all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king – oh yeah, look at David in the Old Testament. Man-oh-gawd – king of Israel – same thing." I think a dependence on the Bible with no regard for the conscience is by far a much more treacherous method. Paul stresses the importance of following the dictates of one's conscience in regards to matters not specifically addressed in Scripture - Romans 14:1-23.
In all honesty – what do you think a God-fearing Christian will do if they weigh a matter in their conscious and act accordingly? "Hmmm, the Bible says 'thou shalt not steal' – but it doesn't say anything about me borrowing something indefinitely." …I know that sounds funny – but I can remember TWIts oblivious to simple courtesies and honesty as they blithely handled incidental things: like finding a watch on the ground and gleefully saying "oh wow – look – God blessed me with a really nice watch" instead of turning it in to lost and found…Here's the great TWI sedative to the conscience in a nutshell: "Don't trust your brain, don't trust your heart, don't trust your conscience. Only trust "The Word" and direct revelation. Please turn off all intellectual processes during your flight…the captain will inform you when you're supposed to think…Our complimentary beverage is Drambui and our in-flight movie is Debbie does Rover."
Bolshevik: Romans 1:18 - 3:20 is addressed to Jews and gentiles. Note 3:22 - even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe, for there is no difference. Before Christ there was a difference (Jews and gentiles). In the verse you partially quoted the gentiles in the OT could be saved if their consciences allowed the law, or enough of it, to be written in their hearts, even if they never read or heard the law as written by Moses, but not today; you need to be born again, and if anyone hungers and thirsts God will make sure they get witnessed to against all odds.
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
T-Bone
Yes – that is true – if God hadn't told them it was wrong – they wouldn't have known that! BUT – once they knew it was wrong – what kept them from disobeying God? When we use the term "guide" or refer to a guidance system like on an airplane – the mission-critical factor for any guide or guidance system is that they accurately identify real reference points – to stay on course. A compass shows which way is north. Global Positioning Systems show where something actually is in relation to other objects in a real world. Guidance systems do not invent reality – but are a means of negotiating within reality.
I believe the conscience was already in Adam and Eve – before the Fall. It served as a guidance system to keep them on course with God's flight plan. Knowing that a certain tree was forbidden was a reference point to indicate that is way off course. If the conscience were likened to a simple compass [automatically showing the way north – or what is right – obeying God in this application] – then any deviation from the direction it indicates is a case of user-error – nothing wrong with the compass. What was the primary purpose of man? Did it have anything to do with loving God, trusting God, obeying God, respecting the image of God in others? Would you consider those things reference points already set by the Creator? I think man was born to do those things! In my opinion, whatever it is inside of man – that is like a "reality-seeking scan device", an "internal program" that attempts to negotiate us through life – locks on to reference points that bear resemblance to an internal template – and we are drawn to them. I see the conscience as a guidance system in that it will have "positive" and "negative" functions - it will indicate the right direction and warn us when we're off course - and so holds a pivotal role when we contemplate doing something or evaluate what we've already done.
People are usually drawn to laws, policies, procedures, customs, traditions, etc. that are compatible with the nobler things of life: preserving life, protecting life, preserving/protecting ownership, respecting other people, promoting honesty, integrity and harmony, etc. It doesn't matter what one's religion is or even if they're an atheist – it's my opinion that these preferences are already built into humans – in the very fabric of our being.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
I tend to lean towards the idea that the conscience is a part of God within us – a spark left over from the original way He created us in His own image.
Romans 2:10,11, 14, 15 (KJV)
But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
For there is no respect of persons with God.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law WRITTEN IN THEIR HEARTS, their CONSCIENCE ALSO BEARING WITNESS, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
I had a very long email conversation with some hardcore athiest and fundamentalist Christian folks a while back about morality and conscience... it was very enlightening... I will see if I can come up with some of the remarks from my old emails. It was brilliant!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I think that conscience is that thing in us that when we are born is just "clean", like a brand new chalk board. We write and erase things on that board our entire lives as we learn things and our "moral" values change. Everything and everyone in our lives effect us and therefore effect our conscience, even if they have not direct contact with us, (the decisions of world leaders for example do effect us even though we never come into direct contact with them).
When Adam and Eve were created, they were like babies. Their brand new conscience was like a babies would be today. It hadn't been written on yet, until God talked to them and gave them some "do's and don'ts".
So I guess I agree with others here that the conscience was something that Adam and Eve had before they ate of the tree. But I think that eating that fruit taught them what "wrong" was. They had never done "wrong" up until that point, so they had no way of truly comprehending what "wrong" was. It would be like offering someone a hamburger that had never even heard of one. They would have no way of knowing if it was right/wrong or good/bad. So when this other being offered them the tree and told them that it was good...well you know the story.
The adding of the knowledge of good and evil made them like gods and also set them apart from other animals. So it is possible that this conscience is what is in the image of God as other animals do not have one that I am aware of...do they?
Just thinking out loud...and I'm really tired today...so the thinking is a bit blah...
Great thread by the way!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Listener
Many thanks to everyone for all the excellent input in this thread.
Here are some ideas I’ve put together so far, which have been inspired by the bible, postings here (especially T-Bone’s), and my own thoughts collected over the last 34 years of being born again, and my own readings. This subject has been a major curiosity to me for a very long time. No one has ever been willing to even discuss it. (I think because no one ever knew how to handle it) I think it is very important, and very available, to understand these kinds of foundational aspects of our spiritual life.
We’re not dealing with any spiritual taboos, or secrets here…at least the bible doesn’t refer to them as such. So, this inquiring mind wants to dig as deep as possible to uncover the answer. I think God gave us these amazing minds of ours’ for a specific reason….to find out about Him and His knowledge. Man caused the loss of spirit, and man had to recover it. Well, God made it stupid simple for us to regain our spirit nature, through His son’s life, death and resurrection. Now it’s up to us to take it from there and learn to live, as he wants us to.
OK, below I’ve listed what I’ve come up with so far. I’d appreciate any input or thoughts. I’m not claiming any particular insight, just trying to condense my thoughts into some reasonable structure for the sake of discussion. Have at it!
Heart – That part of the human mind intended to contain the spirit God. It’s where God’s spirit dwells when we’re born again. Without the spirit, that is, while still a natural man, it serves only as the conscience, containing rudimentary understanding of right and wrong, but not the spiritual understanding lost by Adam and Eve, or the ability to discern spiritual matters and their import.
Soul – The basic human life force, which is not spirit based. It is immortal and individual to the person.
Mind – It is the seat of human reason, understanding, emotion and will. It generates thoughts and ideas based upon 5-senses input. It contains the Heart.
Strength – The ability to put thought into action through the use of the body. Can refer to many mind-based attributes such as the will and the emotions, but is ultimately demonstrated only by the actions of the body.
Understanding – The ability of the mind to mingle input, from whatever source, with current knowledge, contained in the mind, and thusly, make judgments or decisions based upon the resulting thoughts.
Conscience would then seem to be that part of the mind, which governs moral judgments. Based upon the above definitions, it would seem the conscience would actually be that which the bible refers to as the Heart. I don’t think the conscience can learn or be taught, as the mind can learn and be taught. I think it is what it is from birth.
Before the new birth, OT revelation was given to people from God through their 5-senses. They saw, felt, heard, tasted or smelled input from God, which they received through these senses and then processed with their mind into action, or inaction.
After the new birth, man had the ability to receive input from God via the spirit created in his Heart. He could then perceive information from God, bypassing the 5-senses, via his spirit, and that information can then be processed by his mind, resulting in ensuing action or inaction.
It would seem to me that Heart is equivalent to conscience, if not equal to it. Without spirit, it acts as a rudimentary moral compass for the 5-senses man…the residual effect of once containing spirit. With spirit living in it, it becomes the mechanism whereby spirit communication from God is communicated to the mind of man. The conscience then becomes the vehicle for “voice” of God that we listen for.
Because of our free will, in either case, spirit filled or not, man is able to choose to ignore the conscience. Doing so will eventually dull the recognition of it, and consistently ignoring it will eventually cause the complete breakdown of that input (seared conscience) resulting in reliance upon our own 5-senses reasonings…wouldn’t that, pretty much, return us to a worse state than a 5-senses man starts with?
On the other hand, cultivating the conscience improves one’s recognition of its input. But, how does one cultivate it? By paying attention to it, listening for it, and acting upon it’s input. The only difference here, between natural man and spirit-filled man, is the content, and source, of the information. The input from the 5-senses man’s conscience is limited to pretty basic right and wrong. The spirit-filled man has the advantage of God’s input to greatly enhance this input.
One more thing, I don’t think the conscience itself can learn or be taught. The learning is done in the mind, where reasoning is located. I think of the conscience as more of a basic, residual, warning system for the natural man. I don’t think God would have been so thoughtless as to strip man of all sense of right and wrong.
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Can't wait to read it JJ.
I'm wondering if "right" and "wrong" are not absolute terms. Eve could not have known she shouldn't eat the fruit if someone hadn't told not to prior. (hypothetically) If nobody(including God) had told her not to do it, and she did it, would it have been sin?
Perhaps the conscience has more to do with our desire to do what's right, and we learn what's right from external sources (i.e. God, the Word, experience etc.)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Maybe that is why God places such an emphasis on "intent" in the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
Yes, in reference to your earlier post, I believe studying the Bible and receiving revelation would effect how your conscience works, since I don't agree with the person who said a person's conscience is what it is from birth and cannot be taught or learn. 1 Tim. 4:2- Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron. This is a negative example of having one's conscience changed in a negative direction, but if it can be changed for the worse, I would assume it can also be changed for the better, as in iron sharpeneth iron.
In reference to your question in this post, I would assume that the answer is no, it would not have been sin. Romans 5:13- For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Also Romans 7:7-11-- What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. So, is it your conclusion that the 'conscience' is in and of itself neither moral nor immoral, but rather amoral depending upon what each person puts into it? Which would seem to me to bring us back to the conclusion that one's 'conscience' is simply their habit patterns and can be changed for the better by learning the Bible and direct revelation. Hebrews 5:14- But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercise to discen both good and evil.
Maybe. Good point, Eyes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Listener
The searing analogy, I believe, refers to a procedure whereby an open wound is sealed by applying a red hot metal instrument to the wound, thereby melting the flesh and effectively closing the wound, preventing further blood loss or contamination. In the example from 1 Tim 4:2 the conscience is "seared with a the hot iron" thereby sealing it off, preventing it's interaction with the rest of the person's mind. Therefore person would no longer be "bothered" by their conscience. I don't think this refers to the conscience itself changing.
edited to correct grammar.
Edited by ListenerLink to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
You know I’ve been doing a lot of reading on the subject of conscience. I learned that theologians, sociologists, philosophers, and psychologists have been debating it for centuries.
That being said, the central issue is what is it (Biblically, not a dictionary), and it’d be nice to know how did we get it, and when. Unless we can answer that question definitively, we can’t really define the impact of twi (or anything else) on conscience, never mind relate it to other parts of the mind with any authority.
Beyond that, well I am not sure I still agree with my own posts…
The only thing I am sure about right now, is conscience Biblically is affected by decisions/actions ie, references to a pure conscience because of actions (guilt free) and seared conscience because of actions (beyond guilt) (Jeaniam, that was sharp!).
T-bone, I am not so sure Romans 1 is saying the witness within is conscience. After reading the chapter a gazillion times, the issue seems to be the witness of the power and righteousness of God (God’s qualities) within and without. I don’t see how the internal witness of God’s power and righteousness equals conscience, since conscience relates to right from wrong, not God’s qualities….and context is recognizing God vs idolatry. I’m not saying you’re not right, I just don’t see yet how you got from one to the other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
While in twi there were things that I "knew" were right that I now "know" are wrong. While in twi if I thought of going against a twi doctrine I would have a bad feeling. But now those inner feelings are completely opposite of what they were before for the same actions.
Sometimes doing the wrong things feel wrong, sometimes doing the right things feel wrong. Sometimes, who the heck knows what the right thing to do is? I don't know that I can always turn to my conscience and say "Hey, got any clear readings? Yes? No? Maybe? Ask again later?"
So that just leads me to believe something about the conscience or something around the conscience changes. If the conscience is a single entity in itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
Ok, Mr. B... you asked for it
Excerpts from emails from various points of view regarding the conscience and morality:
(warning – lengthy post)
Agnostic: My general thought/feeling is that there are some good values taught by the Bible. BUT… and it’s a big but… I have a massive problem with the more extremist factions that act as if good values begin and end with Christianity, as if prior to Moses everyone ran around killing and wife-swapping and so on. Simple logic dictates that societies would not have existed in the form they did at that time had there been mass chaos and absolutely no morals or ethics. It’s good business to be honest and not kill your neighbor or steal stuff from your boss, and business was thriving by all archeaoligical accounts. …It just really gets me when people imply that if you’re not Christian, you’re some sort of unpredictable chaotic neutral potential evil.
Christian Minister: Okay, so then where does our conscience (that which tells us right from wrong or even suggests that there is a right and wrong) come from?... Seems to imply some sort of Maker of humans, doesn’t it? How can science explain the source of a conscience? How does science explain things like love, beauty, awe and wonder, creativity, the desire to be in a relationship with others, etc?
Athiest: It appears what is being referred to is the existence of a soul. I’m sure we’ve all heard of dopamine, serotonin, adrenaline, melatonin, etc… Those are all chemicals that are present in our brains and bodies, and we know (again, thanks to science) that these chemicals are linked to emotions. Not only do we know of the link, we can even manipulate brain chemistry through medication and see a direct and predictable effect on emotions. And conversely, we can stimulate emotional responses and see corresponding and predictable changes in the brain.
…so what does this have to do with a conscience or a soul? All of the things you have implied are evidence of some higher, external force acting on humans are emotions, which science tells us are controlled and created by chemicals internal to the human body. Evolution also explains several of your questions. …all of these things are traits that (most) people possess. They are also traits that are necessary for the human race to survive. Natural selection does an excellent job of explaining these things, despite what the Kansas School Board would have you believe.
JavaJane: I agree with the agnostic’s viewpoint and strangely can quote something from the Bible to back it up:
Romans 2:10a But there will be glory and honor and peace from God for all who do good…
Romans 2:11 For God does not show favoritism.
Romans 2:14 Even when the Gentiles who do not have God’s written law, instinctively follow what the law says, they show that in their hearts they know right from wrong.
Romans 2:15 They demonstrate that God’s law is written within them, for their own consciences either accuse them or tell them they are doing what is right.
Unitarian: I have four worthless comments that will add absolutely nothing to this fascinating dialogue and discussion:
1. I don’t believe in God but I am very interested in Her.
2. Sometimes I think we’re alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we’re not. In either case the idea is quite staggering.
3. The greatest tragedy in mankind’s entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.
4. The god that the atheists deny never existed.
Undeclared: Well, I certainly believe in “God” – but I also believe that “God” is the ultimate scientist – Creator of the Universe!
Agnostic: Do I believe in a god? (notice I didn’t ask if there is a god, just if I believe in one.) I go back and forth on this one. If there is something out there, I’m damn sure that it’s absolutely horrified at what the American Christian church – and most others, probably – has been up to. I can’t think of anyone who should be more ....ed off than the Christians about the president using God as a reason for anything. I generally think that religions are beautiful things that should be preserved, and the whole “because God told me to” just irks me. It’s like using a Greek bust for a boat anchor.
And as for atheists, I don’t know that I really pit myself in that group, mainly because so many of them are so obnoxious… as are fundamentalist Christians. What good does it do you to coerce/nag/guilt people into joining? Doesn’t it just weaken your church? I should clarify that I do NOT think that this is because of the religion – JavaJanes’s quotes made that clear – there is such a sense of self-righteousness or pride or correctness that is carried around by many Christians, and I’d have to say that if there’s one thing that keeps me absolutely sure that I’m disinterested, it’s that attitude.
Christian: It once occurred to me that man was the only animal capable of good and evil. If I ever set out to “prove” that there was (or WHY there was) a God, I think this is where I would start. Animals take on characteristics that we say are good or bad, but in the end an animal can only follow its instinct. A well-trained dog may not dig through the trash when you are gone, but it’s not out of any moral obligation. (This may be a foundation of most people’s ethics too, but I digress.)
I think the mystery of God and goodness and the devil and evil is in the choice we have. Why are we the only species that has the ability to act beyond our instinct? Why can a man chose to starve to death before he steals bread? Why are we different? Good deeds would cease to be good if they were either instinctual or automatic. It’s only in the ability to choose one action over another that our lives have any moral weight at all. It’s hard to argue that the ability to override animal emotion was a survival mechanism evolved over time. It would argue that adherence to biological instinct would prove to be a much more resilient trait. I think we are what we are because God, taking the chance we might turn out absolutely horrible, gave us the chance to be good, and I think that’s where our link to God lies. It’s not in the faith you profess (cause who really cares? God?) It’s in what you do with your life. …Ghandi once said “To me God is Truth and Love. God is Ethics and Morality. God is Fearlessness. God is the essence of life and light and yet He is above and beyond all these. God is conscience. He is even the atheism of the atheist. For in His boundlessness, God permits the atheist to live. He is the searcher of hearts. He is a personal God to those who need His personal presence. He is embodied to those who need His touch.
Atheist: I try to avoid associating intelligence or lack thereof with religious devotion (or lack thereof), but you do make an interesting point. I’ve always had the same belief that most people never examine why they believe in their given religion. And, hopefully I’m not offending anyone, but I’ve always found it to be extremely bizarre behavior to believe so strongly in something and be totally devoted to it and let it make your life choices for you, without ever honestly considering any other option, or for that matter, without CONSTANTLY considering other options. That’s how humanity has achieved so much – not by continuing to do the same thing over and over again just because that’s how it’s “always” been done.
Some people believe choice is an illusion; that we’re all just passively playing out our little parts in the inevitable result of the grand scheme of things, whatever that is. I generally don’t buy that. I think we do have free will.
Agnostic: Many people have this idea that someone that does not believe in God would be miserable, without morals, directionless, would have not hope and not dreams for the future and no joy in their lives. The truth of the matter is quite opposite. For me, there was a sudden realization that I am accountable not to some invisible spirit who may or may not be paying attention and may or may not care, but to myself. That the good that I do can be attributed to me, and for the bad I must hold myself responsible. I did not suddenly think “there are no consequences for my actions” as people seem to think atheists believe, rather I thought, “there are massive consequences for my actions.” …a true atheist realizes that no one is going to save us except us. There is no God to clean up my mess or help me make a decision or find me a job. There is no safety net.
I said before I don’t tend to call myself an atheist because so many of them are so obnoxious. There are pretty much two groups: People who are trying to get a rise out of other who haven’t really thought about I, and use it because it sounds good and they don’t like church. These people tell everyone they can they are atheists and try to disprove others beliefs often with a good chunk of “I’m smarter than you” thrown in. And secondly, people like me.
JavaJane: Funny, how similar my arguments are for not wanting to tell most people I am a Christian.
Christian Minister: Yep. Any group of people has some resemblance to these two classifications.
Unitarian: Story goes that while on a trip to England in the 1940s, around WWII time, Ghandi was supposedly asked by a Brit, "What do you think of Western Civilization?" Ghandi is said to have replied something like, "Western Civilization? What a good idea. You should try it sometime." I'm afraid I feel much the same way about Christianity. Maybe we should try it sometime.
The basic, simple, yet profound gospel/good word espoused by Jesus as I understand it - love your neighbor at any given moment (who's next to you right now?)... and to practice Love (God as a noun and a verb) by being loving is pretty much expressed in action, by will and choice.
SORRY FOR THE LENGTH, I just couldn't stop after I re-read the emails!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Pretty cool stuff, JJ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Chimpanzees and Bonobos.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
keep it commin' JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
Well, to repeat, that is why I think the doctrine of 'let your conscience be your guide' is a dangerous doctrine. Let the written Word (Bible) be your guide with the addition of direct revelation from God. Neither God nor his Word changes, so they are a far more solid foundation for your feet, then your 'conscience' which, as you observed, changes as circumstances change.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Jeaniam,
sorry if it's taking me 47 posts to get what your saying. I'm sure you're tired of repeating yourself.
I don't know about the "let your conscience be your guide" doctrine.
I just know twi has confused and angered the fudge out of me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think Romans 1:18-2:29 is really about God's anger against wicked people who rebel against the truth, against righteousness, against God's standards. Romans 1 & 2 reads more like a court case with references to a law and the citing of specific infractions. Which hits me as the conscience being more of a law-observer – than a lawgiver. The Online Etymology Dictionary says "conscience" comes from the Latin - conscientia "knowledge within oneself, a moral sense."
It seems to me that in Romans 1 & 2 Paul builds his case around an assumption that there resides in man a moral awareness of a preset standard and paints a picture of depravity with morally-loaded terms of all those who ignore…openly defy God's known standards – whether written in the law or in the heart.
Romans 1:18-32 NASB
18For (AJ)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (AK)suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19because (AL)that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20For (AM)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (AN)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (AO)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22(AP)Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23and (AQ)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures.
24Therefore (AR)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (AS)dishonored among them.
25For they exchanged the truth of God for a (AT)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (AU)who is blessed forever. Amen.
26For this reason (AV)God gave them over to (AW)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (AX)men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, (AY)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are (AZ)gossips,
30slanderers, (BA)haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, (BB)disobedient to parents,
31without understanding, untrustworthy, (BC)unloving, unmerciful;
32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of (BD)death, they not only do the same, but also (BE)give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Romans 2:1-16 NASB
1Therefore you have (A)no excuse, (B)everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which (C)you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
2And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.
3But do you suppose this, (D)O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?
4Or do you think lightly of (E)the riches of His (F)kindness and (G)tolerance and (H)patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?
5But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart (I)you are storing up wrath for yourself (J)in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6(K)who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
7to those who by (L)perseverance in doing good seek for (M)glory and honor and (N)immortality, (O)eternal life;
8but to those who are (P)selfishly ambitious and (Q)do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9There will be (R)tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew (S)first and also of the Greek,
10but (T)glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew (U)first and also to the Greek.
11For (V)there is no partiality with God.
12For all who have sinned (W)without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
13for it is (X)not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do (Y)instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show (Z)the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16on the day when, (AA)according to my gospel, (AB)God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
In Romans 2:14 "instinctively" is the Greek word physis, Strong's # 5449, 14 occurrences. Renn's Expository Dictionary of Bible Words says "In the first instance [Romans 1:26 "natural"], physis conveys the idea of "nature" meaning that which is created by God." In The Believer's Commentary by William MacDonald a comment on Romans 2:14 reads as follows:
"2:14…Now Paul explains that although the law was not given to the Gentiles, yet they have an innate knowledge of right and wrong. They know instinctively that it is wrong to lie, steal, commit adultery, and murder. The only commandment they would not know intuitively is the one concerning the Sabbath; that one is more ceremonial than moral."
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
According to Young's Concordance the word for conscience (which is only translated conscience in the whole N.T.) is the word 'suneideesis', which appears to be related to the word suneisis, and is defined in Young's as a 'knowing with oneself'. Bullinger defines it as 'a knowing with oneself, consciousness; the being one's own witness; the testimony to one's own conduct borne by consciousness, especially the consciousness man has of himself in his relation to God, manifesting itself in the form of a self testimony. Consequently it is the effect and result of faith, for a man's conscience will never condemn that which he believes to be right, and vice versa: hence the only conscience worth having is that which springs from "a faith unfeigned", see 1 Timothy 1:5'. Tyndale doesn't say anything worthy of note that the others haven't already said. The word 'deesis' which appears to be one of the root words of 'suneideesis' is translated prayer or supplication. I don't know if that last bit helps to clarify things or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
I don't know if TWI taught the doctrine of 'let your conscience be your guide or if I heard it somewhere else. I know that at the end TWI confused and angered the fudge out of a lot of us. Thanks for your response.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
T-bone,
so natural man, no spirit within or upon, or Bible in hand, knows the difference between right and wrong. (My understanding of "the law" here in Romans being an "outline" for good and evil.) (?)
So, if without Christ, we know the difference between right and wrong. With Christ, i dunno. . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: So, if without Christ, we know the difference between right and wrong. With Christ, i dunno. . .
Right and wrong are selective in the human mind. Some things really are not right or wrong, but strictly within the human mind, right and wrong are selective, not automatically bound to God. There's no getting around it; if mankind had a connection to God without Christ, then his death and resurrection were not necessary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Don't know if I'm following. These verses in Romans were shown to me growing up when I asked about people "we didn't get to witness to." God still had a way for them.
I mean if,
15in that they show (Z)the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, . . .
they can get eternal life if haven't been witnessed too. ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
What if TWI's interpretation of the written Word [the Bible] or supposed "direct revelation from God" conflicts with one's conscience? Yeah God and His truth does not change – but TWI sure had a knack for twisting the Scripture around to justify any obvious or covert agenda. It was moral-subjectivity – TWI promoted that big time! Sin no longer was sin – it was demoted to "broken fellowship" – softened to ease the blow to the conscience – with a little emphasis on how it hurt God Almighty – and no regard to what harm it brought to people – how convenient! And let's use some good and solid "biblical reasoning" – like VPW's classic: "all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king – oh yeah, look at David in the Old Testament. Man-oh-gawd – king of Israel – same thing." I think a dependence on the Bible with no regard for the conscience is by far a much more treacherous method. Paul stresses the importance of following the dictates of one's conscience in regards to matters not specifically addressed in Scripture - Romans 14:1-23.
In all honesty – what do you think a God-fearing Christian will do if they weigh a matter in their conscious and act accordingly? "Hmmm, the Bible says 'thou shalt not steal' – but it doesn't say anything about me borrowing something indefinitely." …I know that sounds funny – but I can remember TWIts oblivious to simple courtesies and honesty as they blithely handled incidental things: like finding a watch on the ground and gleefully saying "oh wow – look – God blessed me with a really nice watch" instead of turning it in to lost and found…Here's the great TWI sedative to the conscience in a nutshell: "Don't trust your brain, don't trust your heart, don't trust your conscience. Only trust "The Word" and direct revelation. Please turn off all intellectual processes during your flight…the captain will inform you when you're supposed to think…Our complimentary beverage is Drambui and our in-flight movie is Debbie does Rover."
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Bolshevik: Romans 1:18 - 3:20 is addressed to Jews and gentiles. Note 3:22 - even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe, for there is no difference. Before Christ there was a difference (Jews and gentiles). In the verse you partially quoted the gentiles in the OT could be saved if their consciences allowed the law, or enough of it, to be written in their hearts, even if they never read or heard the law as written by Moses, but not today; you need to be born again, and if anyone hungers and thirsts God will make sure they get witnessed to against all odds.
Edited by johniamLink 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.