Sterilize Your Conscience

[Webers.Home]

.
• Gen 3:22 . . And Jehovah God said: The man has now become like one of
us, knowing good and evil.

Actually, the Serpent had predicted that very thing.

• Gen 3:5 . . God knows that when you eat [from the tree in the midst of the
garden] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good
and evil.

The "knowing" spoken of here is an intuitive kind of knowing rather than an
instructed knowing. In other words: prior to tasting the forbidden fruit,
neither Adam nor his wife had a conscience; which is at least part of the
reason why the pre-fruit days in the Garden are called the era of innocence.

Now, the problem is; this newly acquired conscience of theirs wasn't from
God, it was obtained from the Serpent who, we're told, has the power of
death and the ability to tamper with the human mind and body in ways not
easily detected. (Heb 2:14, Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2)

As such, humanity's sense of right and wrong is unreliable. Due to its satanic
nature rather than divine, the human moral compass easily deviates from
true north by means of emotional, social, cultural, and ethnical influences.
We rationalize a lot too.

Although humans are stuck with their unholy moral compass, it's possible to
at least sterilize it. According to Heb 9:1-14, Christ's blood does this for us; and
we never need to get our conscience sterilized ever again, i.e. the one time is
good for all time.

NOTE: Sterilization was part of the once-a-year Yom Kippur ritual; but as
good as the sterilization was, it was only effective for that one event. The
people had to undergo sterilization all over again the following year.
_

 

[reneweddaybyday]

The "knowing" spoken of here is an intuitive kind of knowing rather than an
instructed knowing. In other words: prior to tasting the forbidden fruit,
neither Adam nor his wife had a conscience; which is at least part of the
reason why the pre-fruit days in the Garden are called the era of innocence.

How do we know that Adam and Eve did not have a conscience?

Perhaps Adam and Eve had a conscience, but their conscience did not know evil.

Now, the problem is; this newly acquired conscience of theirs wasn't from
God, it was obtained from the Serpent who, we're told, has the power of
death and the ability to tamper with the human mind and body in ways not
easily detected. (Heb 2:14, Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2)

And here again, it may be that it was not a "newly acquired conscience" but rather the conscience which was already in existence was exposed to a newly acquired knowledge of evil.

As such, humanity's sense of right and wrong is unreliable. Due to its satanic
nature rather than divine, the human moral compass easily deviates from
true north by means of emotional, social, cultural, and ethnical influences.
We rationalize a lot too.

Yes, this is true. I believe the conscience gives warning, but we turn from our conscience and do that which our conscience tells us should not be done (or don't do what our conscience tells us should be done).

Although humans are stuck with their unholy moral compass, it's possible to
at least sterilize it. According to Heb 9:1-14, Christ's blood does this for us; and
we never need to get our conscience sterilized ever again, i.e. the one time is
good for all time.

NOTE: Sterilization was part of the once-a-year Yom Kippur ritual; but as
good as the sterilization was, it was only effective for that one event. The
people had to undergo sterilization all over again the following year.

I love this section in Hebrews and I also read through 10 ...

Hebrews 10:

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

21 And having an high priest over the house of God;

22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water


So, so thankful for all God has done for us and continues to do for and in us ...

 

[Webers.Home]

.

Perhaps Adam and Eve had a conscience, but their conscience did not know
evil.

A conscience that knows only good is quite useless as a moral compass.

• Heb 5:13-14 . . Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not
acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the
mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good
from evil.
_

 

[Corban]

.
• Gen 3:22 . . And Jehovah God said: The man has now become like one of
us, knowing good and evil.

Actually, the Serpent had predicted that very thing.

• Gen 3:5 . . God knows that when you eat [from the tree in the midst of the
garden] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good
and evil.

The "knowing" spoken of here is an intuitive kind of knowing rather than an
instructed knowing. In other words: prior to tasting the forbidden fruit,
neither Adam nor his wife had a conscience; which is at least part of the
reason why the pre-fruit days in the Garden are called the era of innocence.

Now, the problem is; this newly acquired conscience of theirs wasn't from
God, it was obtained from the Serpent who, we're told, has the power of
death and the ability to tamper with the human mind and body in ways not
easily detected. (Heb 2:14, Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2)

As such, humanity's sense of right and wrong is unreliable. Due to its satanic
nature rather than divine, the human moral compass easily deviates from
true north by means of emotional, social, cultural, and ethnical influences.
We rationalize a lot too.

Although humans are stuck with their unholy moral compass, it's possible to
at least sterilize it. According to Heb 9:1-14, Christ's blood does this for us; and
we never need to get our conscience sterilized ever again, i.e. the one time is
good for all time.

NOTE: Sterilization was part of the once-a-year Yom Kippur ritual; but as
good as the sterilization was, it was only effective for that one event. The
people had to undergo sterilization all over again the following year.
_

Quite a masterful posting. I would just change one thing. Instead of US sterilizing it, I would propose that Jesus did it for us - as the text in Hebrews 9:1-14 shows. What we CAN do from our side is be Baptized. 1st Peter 3:20-21 reads;

20 "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

On Golgotha Jesus shed His blood. He abides three days in death. The wages of sin is death. There is a conference in heaven. "Do We accept this blood or not". If the blood of Jesus is all-encompassing, He may be released from death. If not, He must forever stay in Hades. Jesus is raised. If one small sin had remained unaccounted for, He could not have been raised. So in Hebrews 9:1-14 we have the actions of Jesus, Who WHOLLY and SOLELY dealt with our sins, and thus our consciences. But on resurrection day, He acends to the Father, as verses 11-12 show, and is approved. He returns that night and the hindrance to His disciples receiving LIFE is no more. But by our Baptism, among other things, we embrace going into the death-waters which killed everything of offense to God. And the proof of this is resurrection - that of Jesus, and later, OURS.

 

[oyster67]

Although humans are stuck with their unholy moral compass, it's possible to
at least sterilize it. According to Heb 9:1-14, Christ's blood does this for us; and
we never need to get our conscience sterilized ever again, i.e. the one time is
good for all time.

Generally, having a sensitive conscience that is open to the Lords leading is considered to be a good thing. Having a seared conscience is a bad thing.

1 Timothy
4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
4:3 Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4:4 For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

 

[Webers.Home]

.

I would just change one thing. Instead of US sterilizing it, I would propose
that Jesus did it for us - as the text in Hebrews 9:1-14 shows.

Your "change" would be no change at all; it would be a reiteration seeing as
how the second paragraph up from the bottom of post No.1 had already
given the credit to Christ's blood; and by means of the very same scripture
that you referenced.
_

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Perhaps Adam and Eve had a conscience, but their conscience did not know
evil.

A conscience that knows only good is quite useless as a moral compass.

In 1 Tim 2:14 we are told that Eve was deceived. Eve being deceived does not equal Eve not having a conscience. Gen 3 clearly tells us Eve knew she was not to eat of the tree:

Genesis 3:2-3 And the woman said unto the serpent We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it ...



In your OP, you made the statement

"this newly acquired conscience of theirs wasn't from​

God, it was obtained from the Serpent"​

Where does Scripture tell us Adam and Eve did not have a conscience before the fall ... and after the fall they "acquired a conscience" from satan? And apparently, that conscience acquired from satan was then passed down to their descendants.

 

[Webers.Home]

.

In 1 Tim 2:14 we are told that Eve was deceived. Eve being deceived does
not equal Eve not having a conscience. Gen 3 clearly tells us Eve knew she
was not to eat of the tree:

Eve was aware of the consequence for eating the fruit (Gen 3:3) but it
wasn't till after Adam ate it that Eve realized it was wrong. In other words:
she knew that eating the fruit was risky, but she didn't know it was evil.

• Gen 3:22 . . And the LORD God said: Behold, the man is become as one of
us, to know good and evil

after the fall they "acquired a conscience" from satan? And apparently, that
conscience acquired from satan was then passed down to their descendants.

It's believed by a pretty large percentage of modern Christians that the so
called fallen nature is inherited from one's biological father. Oh? From
whence did Eve get it?

She was constructed with material taken from Adam's body prior to the
forbidden fruit incident. Since himself tasted the fruit after Eve was born;
then it was impossible for Adam to pass the so-called fallen nature to her by
means of procreation.

In the past, I was sure that the chemistry of the forbidden fruit had
something to do with the change that took place in the first couple's moral
perception; but now I seriously doubt it because Eve was the first to eat it,
and when she did, nothing happened. She remained shameless and went
about in the buff as usual; Eve's self awareness was unchanged, and her
feelings about the human body remained the same. It wasn't till Adam
tasted the fruit that she began to think that full frontal nudity is indecent; so
I'm pretty sure that the underlying cause is far more serious than the
chemistry of that fruit.

Ruling out Adam, and ruling out the fruit; we're left with two alternatives:
either God did it to them or the Serpent did it. My money is on the Serpent,
a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2)

He has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with the
human body and the human mind in ways not easily detected; e.g. Luke
13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.

(The death spoken of in Heb 2:14 is likely spiritual death rather than
biological death. Well, our conscience isn't biological, it's psychological, i.e.
spiritual.)

The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield his power the moment
that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it
takes effect. As soon as Adam tasted the fruit, he and his wife both
immediately set to work with the fig leaves.

FAQ: Why wasn't Eve effected by the Serpent's power of death when she
tasted the forbidden fruit?

A: It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come into
the world, it would come via a male's actions just as life and righteousness
would later be offered to the world via a male's actions. (Rom 5:12-21)

FAQ: When does the Serpent do his corrupting work on people. . . in the
womb or out of the womb?

A: Adam and Eve demonstrate that it can be done on adults, but I'm
guessing that for most of us it's in the womb. (Ps 51:5 & 58:3)
_

 

[Scribe]

Sterilized? I suppose it is not too far off, but not really the English word that fits.

Greek - kathariei used only for Heb 9 but other forms of the word are used in other passages.

Purged, or cleansed like ceremonial. (KJV scholars were very smart about these language rules)
Declared clean for service to God. Purified in a religious sense.

to cleanse, render pure, purify, . to cleanse from sin, purify by an expiatory offering, make expiation for, Heb. 9:22, 23; 1 Jn. 1:7; to cleanse from sin, free from the influence of error and sin, Acts 15:9; 2 Cor. 7:1; to pronounce ceremonially clean, Acts 10:15; 11:9

 

[Scribe]

.


Eve was aware of the consequence for eating the fruit (Gen 3:3) but it
wasn't till after Adam ate it that Eve realized it was wrong. In other words:
she knew that eating the fruit was risky, but she didn't know it was evil.

• Gen 3:22 . . And the LORD God said: Behold, the man is become as one of
us, to know good and evil




It's believed by a pretty large percentage of modern Christians that the so
called fallen nature is inherited from one's biological father. Oh? From
whence did Eve get it?

She was constructed with material taken from Adam's body prior to the
forbidden fruit incident. Since himself tasted the fruit after Eve was born;
then it was impossible for Adam to pass the so-called fallen nature to her by
means of procreation.

In the past, I was sure that the chemistry of the forbidden fruit had
something to do with the change that took place in the first couple's moral
perception; but now I seriously doubt it because Eve was the first to eat it,
and when she did, nothing happened. She remained shameless and went
about in the buff as usual; Eve's self awareness was unchanged, and her
feelings about the human body remained the same. It wasn't till Adam
tasted the fruit that she began to think that full frontal nudity is indecent; so
I'm pretty sure that the underlying cause is far more serious than the
chemistry of that fruit.

Ruling out Adam, and ruling out the fruit; we're left with two alternatives:
either God did it to them or the Serpent did it. My money is on the Serpent,
a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2)

He has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with the
human body and the human mind in ways not easily detected; e.g. Luke
13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.

(The death spoken of in Heb 2:14 is likely spiritual death rather than
biological death. Well, our conscience isn't biological, it's psychological, i.e.
spiritual.)

The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield his power the moment
that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it
takes effect. As soon as Adam tasted the fruit, he and his wife both
immediately set to work with the fig leaves.

FAQ: Why wasn't Eve effected by the Serpent's power of death when she
tasted the forbidden fruit?

A: It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come into
the world, it would come via a male's actions just as life and righteousness
would later be offered to the world via a male's actions. (Rom 5:12-21)

FAQ: When does the Serpent do his corrupting work on people. . . in the
womb or out of the womb?

A: Adam and Eve demonstrate that it can be done on adults, but I'm
guessing that for most of us it's in the womb. (Ps 51:5 & 58:3)
_

Too much vain imaginings about how a sentence upon a guilty criminal is executed. You're trying to comprehend it at the natural level rather than as a Judgment declared by a Holy God. It is not to be explained with DNA it is a judicial sentence.

 

[Corban]

.


Your "change" would be no change at all; it would be a reiteration seeing as
how the second paragraph up from the bottom of post No.1 had already
given the credit to Christ's blood; and by means of the very same scripture
that you referenced.
_

And so it is. My apologies. I think I read it, then read every other posting to see if somebody mentioned it, and then returned to your posting and answered it without re-reading. Very remiss of me.

 

[posthuman]

• Gen 3:22 . . And Jehovah God said: The man has now become like one of
us, knowing good and evil.

Actually, the Serpent had predicted that very thing.

• Gen 3:5 . . God knows that when you eat [from the tree in the midst of the
garden] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good
and evil.

so you believe the Father of Lies?

you believe that committing willful sin makes you like God?

interesting.

 

[posthuman]

Now, the problem is; this newly acquired conscience of theirs wasn't from
God, it was obtained from the Serpent who, we're told, has the power of
death and the ability to tamper with the human mind and body in ways not
easily detected. (Heb 2:14, Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2)

As such, humanity's sense of right and wrong is unreliable. Due to its satanic
nature rather than divine, the human moral compass easily deviates from
true north by means of emotional, social, cultural, and ethnical influences.
We rationalize a lot too.

this is horrendously bad logic.

God created the tree. the tree is not Satan's creation. if Adam had zero knowledge of morality before he ate from the tree and the only way he has any idea what 'ethical behaviour' means is because he got it from the tree, then it is not 'Satanic in origin' it is from the tree, and the tree was not created nor planted by Satan, but God. your whole premise is that human awareness of moral choice is a product of eating the tree, not part of how they were originally created. your whole premise is that God gave Adam no way of knowing whether it was good to obey God or not. your whole premise is that understanding that obedience to God is good and disobedience is evil never existed until after-the-fact and that it is an effect of the fruit of the tree itself.
the tree God made.



but you're wrong anyway, from first principles.

God says this of Adam, not when he confesses to eating the fruit, but only after he renames Woman to Eve.
He does not say this about Eve.

Satan is a liar. the liar. Satan was lying to Woman.
eating the fruit does not give a person an awareness of the concept of & difference between good and evil.
having an awareness of the basic premise of existence of moral principle does not make one like God.
God did not unjustly condemn someone who had no possible way of knowing that he was doing something wrong.

 

[posthuman]

.

A conscience that knows only good is quite useless as a moral compass.

• Heb 5:13-14 . . Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not
acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the
mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good
from evil.
_

having only experienced goodness from God does not mean someone has no concept of evil.
you have never received evil from the hand of God - how then do you understand righteousness?

it is the lie of Satan that you are proposing here: that we cannot comprehend morality until we deliberately choose sin.

 

[posthuman]

it is the lie of Satan that you are proposing here: that we cannot comprehend morality until we deliberately choose sin.

Satan, lying, proposed to Woman that God created her incomplete & won't let her have wisdom or understanding. Satan, lying, told her that she didn't really have 'life' and that the only way she could know the truth is by deliberately choosing evil. Satan, lying, told her she will become like God if she follows a certain diet.

she saw that the fruit was "good" and "desirable" -- how can she do this with no knowledge of "good vs. 'not-good'" ??
answer, she can't. she clearly already has knowledge of good vs. evil

obvious conclusion: the interpretation of Genesis 3 being presented here is garbage.

 

[posthuman]

Eve was aware of the consequence for eating the fruit (Gen 3:3) but it
wasn't till after Adam ate it that Eve realized it was wrong. In other words:
she knew that eating the fruit was risky, but she didn't know it was evil.

but your premise is that she doesn't even have a clue that death is "bad"
that she doesn't even have any such word as 'risky' in her vocabulary because she has no concept of 'right' or 'wrong' whatsoever.

it's nonsense.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Eve was aware of the consequence for eating the fruit (Gen 3:3) but it
wasn't till after Adam ate it that Eve realized it was wrong. In other words:
she knew that eating the fruit was risky, but she didn't know it was evil.

Eve knew before she ate the fruit that God had said not to eat it.

And your claim that "it wasn't till after Adam ate it that Eve realized it was wrong" ... where is that in Scripture?

It's believed by a pretty large percentage of modern Christians that the so
called fallen nature is inherited from one's biological father.

Check out Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth

All descendants of Adam are begotten in the likeness, after the image of their parents.

In the past, I was sure that the chemistry of the forbidden fruit had
something to do with the change that took place in the first couple's moral
perception; but now I seriously doubt it because Eve was the first to eat it,
and when she did, nothing happened.

How do you know nothing happened? If nothing happened, then God lied when He told Adam that in the day ye eat thereof dying you shall die.

She remained shameless and went
about in the buff as usual; Eve's self awareness was unchanged, and her
feelings about the human body remained the same. It wasn't till Adam
tasted the fruit that she began to think that full frontal nudity is indecent; so
I'm pretty sure that the underlying cause is far more serious than the
chemistry of that fruit.

This is pure conjecture on your part. You have no way of knowing that she was not ashamed, that her self awareness was unchanged, etc., because Scripture does not tell us and Eve is not here to tell us.

The underlying cause of the changes which took place in Adam/Eve was their disobedience to God.

 

[Webers.Home]

.

Satan is a liar.

The Bible teaches that the Serpent is basically a dishonest person of
questionable integrity (John 8:44). However, the Serpent is not above using
the truth to his advantage.

A case in point is Eve, where the Serpent used the truth to successfully
persuade someone to disobey God. The Serpent employed the very same tactic
in his failed attempt to lead Jesus astray.

Niccolò Machiavelli-- author of "The Prince" --compiled a fascinating book of
nefarious political strategies (can be reviewed on YouTube) but it was no
doubt the Serpent who introduced those strategies long before Niccolò wrote
them down.

Numbers of Christians are convinced that because they are Christ's
followers, and supposedly know the truth, that the Serpent can't get to
them. But Peter warns everyone that unwary Christians are the Serpent's
meat. (1Pet 5:8).

Ironically, it is by means of the truth that the Serpent leads people away from
the truth.

• 2Cor 11:14 . . Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

Very clever.
_

 

[posthuman]

The Bible teaches that the Serpent is basically a dishonest person of
questionable integrity (John 8:44). However, the Serpent is not above using
the truth to his advantage.

A case in point is Eve, where the Serpent used the truth to successfully
persuade someone to disobey God. The Serpent employed the very same tactic
in his failed attempt to lead Jesus astray.

well that's circular reasoning. you're using assumptions about the example of the deception of Woman to *prove* that the deception of Woman is as you assume it is.

we should talk about the central issue i would disagree with you on here, which is twofold:

• i believe God calls Adam 'like one of Us' because of his display of faith by renaming of Woman to Eve.
  • you believe Adam & Woman both became like God by eating from the tree.
• i believe Adam & Woman were created with a level of intelligence sufficient to discern good from evil
  • you believe Adam & Woman were created with no perception whatsoever of morality or qualitative judgement and only gained the most rudimentary comprehension of ethics by eating the forbidden fruit.

perhaps the most significant argument i can give you is that your view makes God unjust to judge Adam or Woman for eating from the tree because they have no capability of discerning whether they should or not. let me give you an analogy to clarify this: i think you would agree that a person who dies in infancy is not condemned by God for unbelief. the rationale behind this is that the infant has not reached the 'age of accountability' which is defined as a level of maturity sufficient to discern good from evil ((c.f. Isaiah 7:16)), therefore God overlooks their sin, because by virtue of being too imbecilic to comprehend good vs evil it would be unjust to hold them to account for it.

now, your position makes Adam & Eve equivalent to that infant who can't discern good actions, things or thoughts from bad actions, things or thoughts. so if God can judge them for eating from the tree while they are too imbecilic to know better, then God, should He be impartial, which He is, likewise would condemn all babies who die before reaching an age of accountability on the basis of their covetousness & inherited sinful nature. in short your position has God damning all infants to hell, contradicts John 8:44, & can't explain 3:22. my position refutes the damnation of infants, explains Genesis 3:22 readily and agrees with John 8:44.

i realize full well that 99% of the present church teaches as you do on this subject. i'm comfortable with calling 99% of the present-day teaching of Genesis 3 wrong. i realize this is probably radically different from anything you've considered about it and that your thinking on the chapter is very much entrenched in tradition.

 

[posthuman]

Ironically, it is by means of the truth that the Serpent leads people away from
the truth.

*by perversion of the truth.

God never said that Adam & Woman would be like Him if they ate from the tree.
God never said Woman/Eve became like Him.

Satan said they would become like God by committing sin.
you say also that Woman became like God by committing sin, and that the source of her ethos was the fruit of the tree God created, which you attribute to Satan rather than the One who actually made the tree.

you are forced into agreement with Satan on this because of your key assumption that God's declaration in Genesis 3:22 is made on the basis of the transgression -- that's the crux of your error, in my view. God does not call Adam 'like one of Us' on the basis of Adam having sinned. sin doesn't make you like God. God calls Adam 'like one of Us' because Adam has just heard the judgement and the promise of the Seed & the Salvation & the crushing of the head of the seed of the Serpent, and Adam has the wisdom and understanding and faith to rename Woman to Eve. my position is that it is this that demonstrates Adam has a similitude to Christ, not his willful disobedience. faith & knowledge of the Father makes one like Christ, not wickedness. vain wickedness makes you like Satan.