The Dialectic In Scripture and In the Present World

[texian]

The Dialectic In Scripture and In the Present World

The dialectic is often an argument against an absolute fact or truth -or sometimes against an absolute moral position. And the dialectic is used within dialogue between people. But all dialogue is not dialectic. Here is one definition of the dialectic: "The process especially associated with Hegel of arriving at the truth by stating a thesis, developing a contradictory antithesis, and combining and resolving them into a coherent synthesis."

Following the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831), the dialectic is dialogue to consensus, so that the consensus resulting from the conflict between two opposing positions is considered to be the truth.

But with this beginning idea of what the dialectic is, it is still not easy to understand it.

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." Genesis 3" 1-7

The serpent got Eve to dialogue with him, which was her mistake. Eve said to the devil that God told them they must not eat of one particular tree in the Garden, though they were allowed to eat of the other trees. God as the patriarchal authority had told Adam he must not eat of this tree, or he would die. The same rule applied to Eve. By use of the dialectic within dialogue, Satan "fixed" Eve's obedience to the
patriarchal authority of God. Satan used the dialectic to oppose, and for Eve, to overthrow "it is written," which is the absolute truth from God.

"14 And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered.
15 But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.
16 And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven.
17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.
18 If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.
19 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.
20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
21 When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:
22 But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.
23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.
24 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.
25 And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished.
26 Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.
27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked." Luke 11: 14-27

In Luke 11: 14-27 the account begins with Christ casting out a devil. The "thesis" here is Jesus Christ as fully God in man's flesh able to cast out demons and much more. He can, for example, walk on water, raise the dead and can do anything he wants to do. But a dialogue begins from those who witnessed this casting out of a devil.

"He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils. And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven." These statements sound like they came from the Pharisees. The text does not say this, but the main opposition to Christ and his actions and doctrines came from the Pharisees as the leaders of physical Israel at the time.

But Christ answers them and in this process teaches and preaches doctrines as part of his Gospel. If he, as God, casts out devils, then this means the kingdom of God had come to the people around him. This was part of their visitation, part of the changing and re-creation of physical Israel - which the Pharisees and most of physical Israel strongly rejected. And since they strongly rejected these changes Christ brought, they resorted to the dialectic.

Christ's mentioning of the overcoming of the strong man, who is Satan, and freeing his captives refers to Isaiah 61: 1, "to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound." Isaiah 42: 7 says much the same thing. Luke 4: 18 quotes Isaiah 61: 1 and 42: 7 in saying "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to
preach to the poor...to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, and to set at liberty them which are brused."

The Gospel of Christ is the good news that Christ as fully God has come to deliver us from the clutches of the strong man and to open our spiritual eyes to his truth. As such the Gospel cannot be reduced to his death and resurrection to save us from our sins. Paul in I Corinthians 15: 3-8 briefly states that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose from the dead, and was seen by many witnesses. But here Paul is just going over Christ's death and resurrection, not the whole Gospel of Christ. The question should be, what is not part of the Gospel of Christ in the New Testament? To teach that there is an essential "Gospel" which must be believed to be saved, but that there are doctrines in the New Testament which are not essential for salvation is to contradict II Thessalonians 2: 10-12, and this is a deadly false doctrine. See Luke 13: 25-27, "know ye not whence ye are," or where you have positioned yourself in your doctrines.

In talking to those around him who opposed his doctrines and actions, Christ was teaching about that which is spiritual, that is, his coming to proclaim freedom from bondage to Satan and to the false doctrines of physical Israel. But in Luke 11: 27 a woman in the group nearby offered a kind of "resolution" or "synthesis" to the conflict between Christ's demonstration of spiritual power, his doctrines and the opposing dialectic of the followers of the Pharisees. She said "Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked," pulling the dialogue to that which is physical and out of the area of the spiritual.

In John 8: 32-42 Christ again engages in dialogue with the Pharisees.

"32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word."

Here Christ is teaching new doctrines to physical Israel. He told them that physical Israel as servants of God do not have everlasting life under his New Covenant, but Sons of God, like Christ, have everlasting life. Those of physical Israel had to become sons of God to have everlasting life. Christ also taught that the Son, meaning himself, could make those of physical Israel free of bondage to the strong man.

But the Pharisees as leaders of physical Israel strongly rejected Christ's doctrines and asserted in opposition to these new doctrines that they were Abraham's seed, meaning his physical seed, and were in bondage to no one. In their zeal to defend their position over physical Israel and the doctrine that they are the chosen people because of having the physical DNA from Abraham, they used a more nasty form of the dialectic in saying "We be not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God."

The dialectic is used to assert and defend doctrines with which one has a relationship, and to oppose any truths of "it is written" which do not agree with the doctrines one holds and love.

When a relationship comes into conflict with an absolute truth, the dialectic may begin. It could also be absolute morality that a relationship comes into conflict with. The relationship is often with one's theology, his church, and one's own denomination, his or her own congregation, the minister, and friends within that congregation.

The dialectic as an argument then tries to compromise that absolute truth in some way - in order to preserve the relationship.

 

[shturt678]

Great! ... just my opinion ... not taking away from your position, just a moreover type two-bits worth ... i go more with Jesus' syllogistic approach, e.g., Jesus refined Aristotle's development of deductive logic 4th B.C. which am sure u are familiar with ... especially Jesus' logic or reasoning from the general to the specific or particular ending in one solution for me, especially dealing with the diverse interpretations of precious Scriptures ... where most end in diverse interpretations, each thinking they have the genuine interpretation ... using Jesus' way narrows the field down considerably ... i like to use Lk.11:17, 18, as an example as simple for simple ol' people like myself .... major premise: "only complete victory allows plundering at will," ... Minor premise, "Jesus plunders Satan at will," Conclusion: Jesus achieved complete victory. thank u again, enjoyed your post and passage referenced.

 

[texian]

Christ in Luke 11: 14-27 and John 8: 32-42 uses the didactic, which is preaching and
teaching the absolute facts of the word of God. In Acts 6: 8 Stephen is said to be full of faith and power, and was able to do miracles. Stephen's message in Acts 7 is only teaching and preaching the
absolute facts. This is why his teaching was so powerful that his opponents could not defeat him by use
of the dialectic. They had to kill him. There is a little on the dialectic they tried to use against Stephen in Acts 6: 11. They, the Pharisees of various synagogues "...suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God." However, the message Stephen gave in Acts 7: 2-56 is all of him teaching and preaching, with no record of dialectic arguments against him from the Pharisees.

But the dialectic is widely used by the world, and in the 20th century was developed as an effective attitude and
belief changing procedure.

Although the United States has been more and more under the influence
of Transformational Marxism since the sixties and seventies, very few
people know this. This is because Transformational Marxism has not
advertised itself to the public as being a form of Marxism. We live in
an age of deception, and "the whole world lieth in wickedness." I John
5: 19

The German Frankfurt School of Transformational Marxists left Germany
when Hitler took over and in the United States many of their leaders,
such as Theodor W. Adorno and Herbert Marcuse, became influential
professors in American universities. Adorno was at the University of
California at Berkeley, and Marcuse was first at Brandeis University.
Abrahan H. Maslow, an American psychologist, was also at Brandeis.
Carl R. Rogers, an American clinical psychologist, became a major
change agent allied with the Transformational Marxists. Rogers was at the University
of Chicago and then at the University of Wisconsin.

Dean Gotcher has studied other transformational agents, such as Eric
Fromm, Normon O. Brown, Irvin Yalom, and especially Benjamin S. Bloom
(1913-1999). Bloom wrote and supervised Bloom's Educational Goal
Taxonomies, which every certified teacher in the public schools and
even in Christian schools must learn. Bloom brought Transformational
Marxism into American public school education, starting as early as
1956 with the publication of "Taxonomy of Educational Obectives: the
Classification of Educational Goals; Handbook I: Cognitive Domain."

In their "long march through the institutions," the Transformational
Marxists were especially interested in changing institutional
Christianity from a patriarchal system where God is in control to a
dialectic system in which man "leans to his own understanding." Just
as the Transformational Marxists knew that traditional or violent
revolutionary Marxism would not work for the United States and Western
Europe, they probably also realized that they could not initially
destroy Christianity. So they changed Christianity in more subtle
ways, in part by changing the society in which the institutionalized
church operated. And the institutional 501C(3) IRS incorporated
churches were willing to be influenced by the world (and by the flesh,
which Marxism and psychology affirm and exalt).

The Transformational Marxists were also interested in diminishing the
family and its influence upon society in America. This nation was
founded on principles derived from the Christian theology of Scotland
in the writings of John Knox and Samuel Rutherford, and secularized
by John Locke. Jefferson's Declaration of Independence owed much to
Locke. Our Constitution of limited government with its supposed
checks and balances left the American family intact in its influence
upon Christianity and society. The Transformational
Marxists had to diminish the family and its influences to bring in
their New World Order.

Their goal was to de-Christianize the United States, and to severely
weaken the American family. And they not only helped to bring in the
counterculture of the sixties and seventies, but under educational
psychologist Benjamin Bloom's educational goal taxonomies took over
our public school system, and replaced absolute truths and absolute
morality with the dialectic, and with feelings, opinions, and group
consensus. True Christianity and the Marxist dialectic cannot exist
together; one must overthrow the other, and Dean Gotcher has been
doing all he can to alert us to this fact. God preserves a Remnant,
even as the big herd is in the falling away of II Thessalonians 2:
3-4, due in part to the dialectic of transformational Marxism.

What is left of American Christianity after psychologized
transformational Marxism and the theology of John Darby, C.I. Scofield and company is that which is described by Paul in II
Timothy 3: 5 and II Timothy 3: 7, the Christians in apostasy have
"...a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof...ever
learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

 

[shturt678]

Thank you so much for your feedback especially regarding one of my favorite chapters in Luke, chapter 11 ... i thought that Luke was penning just a narrative, definitely not a didactic genres ... I'll take anther eye-ball at it, especially in the light of your "preaching and teaching facts" ... Great! i have my homework this morning.

 

[texian]

The "Long March" Through the American Institutions"

Theodore W. Adorno posed as a personality-social psychologist and was the senior author of a very influential book, The Authoritarian Personality, published in 1950 when he was on the faculty of the University of California at Berkeley. Adorno was one of the leaders of the Frankfurt School of Marxists who were driven out of Germany to the U.S. by the Nazi movement in the thirties. In his book, The Authoritarian Personality, Adorno claimed that fascism was caused by Christianity and the family, both with their
patriarchal structure. Using the dialectic in a broader way, Adorno opposed fascism to what he then called "democracy," which was really the stealth Marxism mixed with Freud of the Frankfurt School, and now blended with aspects of American personality-social psychology.

Adorno and his crew of Transformational Marxists acting as
personality-social psychologists developed two main
paper and pencil attitude scale measures, the F Scale and the E Scale. The F Scale was supposed to measure how authoritarian one's beliefs were, while the E Scale claimed
to measure Ethnocentricism, or rejection of others, such as Blacks or Jews. The F Scale was used more by other psychologists, and dealt more with Adorno's claim that Christianity and the family structure cause fascism, or the authoritarian personality.

Adorno's work was one of the foundations of what later came to be known as political correctness, Cultural Marxism or Transformational Marxism. This was all initially developed in some of our major universities.

No one involved in any of the core movements of the counterculture - the drug and hippie movements - or of its allied movements like the New Left, feminism, the New Age Occult movement, self psychology, the sex lib, and the homosexual and lesbian movements ever realized that this "great rebellion" was not an accident of history. It was part of what Antonio Gramsci, the "non-violent" Marxist from Italy called "the long march through the institutions." The Long March sought to diminish and eventually destroy the influence of Biblical Christianity and the Father-Led Family on American and Western society. The March of Transformational Marxism also invaded the Christian seminaries and the denomination hierarchical structures of the churches.

There were academic intellectual movements outside of the counterculture which helped prepare educated people for the change, the shift in mental paradigms - which had its largest impact on the Baby Boomer generation, though there were a few people born before 1946 in the counterculture. The Baby Boomers and their children became feminized by Political Correctness or Transformational Marxism.

And the Marxist dialectic of attitude and belief change, first developed in small face to face groups by the shrinks, especially in California, changed the mental paradigm of an entire generation - from the men being position oriented to being more like women, who tend to be relationship oriented.

If a facilitator in a small group session can get the majority of the people in a small group to dialog about their opinions and feelings (which Carl Rogers taught were more important that knowing), then especially for young people influenced a little by the counterculture, the facilitator can move the group away from belief in absolute truths and absolute morality, which are positions, to a relationship centered mentality in which positions are sacrificed to maintain relationships (a feminine thing).

That change in paradigm thinking happened rapidly in the sixties, leading up to the 1973 Supreme Court decision making abortion legal. What could be more evil than a doctor deliberately killing an innocent unborn baby. The loss of absolute morality came very quickly. The old men of the Supreme Court were not Baby Boomers in 1973, but they had no absolute morals - however, they could not have gotten by with such a decision on abortion ten years earlier.

J.C. Gilchrist, was, in the fifties and sixties, doing group studies at his Group Behavior Lab on the University of Wisconsin campus and following the Group Dynamics movement which was started by Kurt Lewin, another "non-violent" Marxist. Gilchrist had no clue then that he was working as a change agent for political correctness or Transformational Marxism. J.C. Gilchrist was my major professor. Later, in the sixties, one of my professors, Carl Rogers, and other clinical and social psychologists developed the encounter group with its use of the dialectic as an attitude and belief change procedure.

The Group Dynamics movement in social psychology provided part of the intellectual framework for the encounter group movement of the sixties and seventies.

Group cohesiveness is an important concept in Group Dynamics. A small group has to be cohesive, that is, have common attitudes, beliefs, feelings and goals in order for the group to exert pressure upon targeted individuals to change their attitude positions and behavior. Kurt Lewin and his student, Leon Festinger, emphasized group cohesiveness as the tendency of individuals in a group to stick together. Festinger, and Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back, said cohesiveness was “the total field of forces which act on members to remain in the group." Group cohesiveness as a concept was used in the encounter group movement because only a cohesive group can exert an influence upon its individual members. The group facilitator worked to create cohesiveness and manipulated the group's attitudes and behavior by use of the dialectic, which he or she also used on targeted "deviant" individuals in the group. In general, the cohesive group was used by a facilitator to move individuals with absolute truths and absolute morality to compromise those absolutes in order to stay in their relationship to the cohesive group.

So, the social psychology of group cohesiveness was a necessary part of the encounter group process and of the development of the dialectic as an effective attitude change procedure.

 

[shturt678]

Me again, thank you for all that work, you care, I found most, sadly, do not ... my opinion ... I eyeballed Luke again and at Lk.1:1, "...here taken in hand to recount a narrative about the matters...." Where contextually and grammatically Luke uses this phrase to specify what the "many"A wrote; and if he thought about the extent of his own writing in this connection he thought of it only as resembling the ground that had been covered by those other writers ... leading me to believe is telling his readers that he is just writing another "narrative."

I do have to agree that the "Parables" can ALSO be construed to be didactic within Luke's narrative ... hey i got one out of two ... just my opinion.

 

[texian]

Back in the sixties when Carl Rogers, William Coulson and a number of
other facilitators ran encounter groups involving the nuns of the
Sacred Heart of Mary in Southern California, they did not tell the
nuns that the patriarchal authority of God must be overthrown, or that Roman Catholicism is false doctrine. Though Roman Catholicism teaches many false doctrines, it is based on a patriarchal system of authority. They lean too much to man in claiming that the capital C Church is equal to or superior to the Word of God in creating doctrine. So, much of their patriarchal authority is their hierarchical structure and the Pope, rather than God the Father.

Rogers and his crew of facilitators told the nuns they could be themselves, and express their full potential and become
"self-actualized." They could become "fully functioning" people. Above all, they could express their feelings which Rogerian theory put above cognitive clarity or knowing. Rogers and his gang of facilitators ran encounter groups using the Nuns, and processed them with the dialectic in groups which were relatively cohesive.

The result was that these allies of the Transformational Marxist Frankfurt School psychologists and psychiatrists destroyed the Immaculate Heart order. William Coulson in an interview sometimes called "The Story of a Repentant Psychologist" long after the encounter groups were run on the Nuns in 1966 and 1967 says "Within a year after
our first interventions, 300 of them were petitioning Rome to get out of their vows. They did not want to be under anyone's authority, except the authority of their imperial inner selves."The interviewer asks "How many years did it take to destroy this Immaculate Heart order?
COULSON: It took about a year and a half." "Of the 615, how many are left?" COULSON: There are the retired nuns, who are living in the mother house in
Hollywood; there is a small group of radical feminists, who run a center for feminist theology in a storefront in Hollywood."

Dean Gotcher in 2012 wrote that "It is important that the therapist [the leadership of the church] attempt to screen out patients [members of the church] who will become marked deviants (i.e. members who are always turning to the scripture for answers rather than to their own feelings and thoughts and the feelings and thoughts (the opinions) of others for answers), deviants because of their interpersonal behavior [asking questions regarding the direction the church is going, questioning the leaderships course of action (praxis), their moving away from the authority of God's word and turning instead to the opinions of men to determine how the church is to "do business," i.e. "grow itself," i.e. "make customers"] in the group sessions [in the so called bible studies, which are actually the admiration of men's opinions or theories being put into practice or social action] and not because of a deviant life style or past history [how a persons unrighteous thoughts and actions, i.e. sins, are not pleasing to God and will be judged by Him, engendering conviction, contrition, and repentance before God (which the dialoguing of opinions, how people feel or what they think, does not engender)]."

Gotcher, as he himself admits, opens his "fire hydrant " stream of information and he is not easy to understand at first. But what he is saying above is that a dialectic church acts a lot like an encounter group run by a Transformational Marxist facilitator. The deviant in the cohesive church group, a group in which almost everyone is following the same man-made theology, is one who "always turns to the scripture for answers," rather than to the group which deals with opinions of the word of God and with how do you feel and what do you think. The "deviant," believer, whose authority is "it is written," and not man's theology and the opinions of the church group, is eventually "extruded" from the cohesive church group - unless he changes and conforms to the group. Needless to say, this cohesive church group that regards the believer as the deviant is based upon a broad way theology and not on a remnant of Israel view of "it is written." The broad way theology is found in Matthew 7: 13, "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat."

Gotcher writes in "Current Issues: 2012-12-21" that "When you read the Word of God you begin with God, i.e. with the Father, and then Adam and Eve, i.e. then the children. In this way, Thesis, the position, is established with the Father, according to His authority to give commands to His children and chasten them (judge and condemn them) when they disobey. Mercy and grace is therefore in the Father's will. In this way there can only be Thesis (the Father, Spirit) and Antithesis (the children, flesh), i.e. God being righteous in and of Himself, the children not (righteousness having therefore to be imputed to them according to their faith in God). "

"What the child has in common with all the children of the world is his "human nature," not his Father's commands. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' without 'reasoning' (the dialectic process), i.e. without the child 'discovering' (through the dialoging of his opinion with others of common interest) that which he has in common with the world, i.e. his "human nature," i.e. that he is by nature subject to how he "feels" and what he "thinks" (living by sight), and making that the foundation from which to determine what is right and what is wrong, he would forever remain subject to the Father's authority and therefore forever in a state of Antithesis, i.e. subject to his Father's preaching and teaching of what is right and what is wrong (living by faith, belief, and obedience, i.e. and having to accept chastening when he disobeys)."

"By the facilitator of 'change' "helping" the children recognize that that which they have in common ("human nature") is "good" they can come to the realization that their Father's commands and threat of chastening are 'irrational.' In the experience of consensus (in a "feeling" of "oneness"), i.e. finding commonality, i.e. community (communization) with the world, i.e. with man's carnal nature, the children (now "one" in and of themselves, i.e. in a "new" world order) are freed from a "guilty conscience." The Father and His authority is negated as they, from then on, are 'justified' in their perception (in their thoughts, i.e. in their opinion) of themselves as being "rational" and in their praxis (in their social actions) in treating the Father's authority as being "irrelevant" in a world of children, rapidly changing in a rapidly changing world, i.e. in a Heresiarchal world of 'change.'

With God there is only Thesis and Antithesis: Thesis = the Father, Antithesis = the child (the child, in obedience to his Father, not subject to his "human nature" and the world, receiving His blessing or a "child of disobedience," at-one-with the world in pleasure, living in the 'moment,' eventually receiving the Father's wrath) = Patriarchal Paradigm (there is no synthesis)."

With the world, Synthesis is man's only "hope" of 'redemption' from the Father and 'reconciliation' back to the world: Thesis = the child's nature is to be at-one-with the world in pleasure in the 'moment,' Antithesis = the Father represses the child's nature, Synthesis = Heresiarchal Paradigm, i.e. the child with other children ('discovering' that commonality, i.e. community can only be initiated and sustained in "human nature") unite as "one" (in consensus), negating the Father and His authority in their thoughts and actions (what theory and practice means). The 'drive' and 'purpose' of dialectic 'reasoning,' is to reunite all the children of the world, i.e. 'redeeming' them from the Father's authority, 'reconciling' them back to the world, as they were before the Father's first command and threat of chastening."

"Through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' man is able to 'justify' himself ('rationalize' his sinful nature as being "good" in and of itself). In dialoguing his opinions with others of like feelings and thoughts, he is able to emancipate his "ought," i.e. 'justify' his hearts desire over and against his Father's authority (negating his Father's "Not" and "Because I said so"). It is in his "ought" that the child finds that which he has in common with all the children of the world, his dissatisfaction with his Father's authority (inhibiting or blocking him from becoming at-one-with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment'). But, through his use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. 'justifying' his deceitful and wicked heart, i.e. 'justifying' his "ought" (making his Father's authority 'irrelevant'), he opens "Pandora's box"—he can thereon initiate and sustain a world only of abomination."

""And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:5

"Jesus came to instead 'redeem' us from His Heavenly Father's wrath, 'redeeming' upon us from His judgment upon our sins (taking our sins upon Himself instead) and in his chastening of us turning us away from becoming at-one-with "the children of disobedience," 'reconciling' us to His Heavenly Father. As the Apostle Paul asked the question: "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" (Romans 7:24), he answered "Jesus Christ."

In an essay called "BRAINWASHING,"Dean Gotcher says The facilitator circumvents the patriarchal paradigm by frustrating those who attempt to establish it, i.e. those attempting to "gain control" of the meeting in their concern of solve the problem. The facilitator achieve frustration by "recognizing" but no responding favorably to "knowing" questions and answers ("What do you know?" "I know.") while asking with interest "feeling" and "thinking" questions ("How do you feel?" "What do you think?") and then showing respect and enthusiasm for "I feel" and "I think" responses. This effectively moves the meeting onto a "shifting" foundation of opinions, and away from a solid foundation of facts. In this way facts or truths are treated with indifference as if they were opinions and opinions are treated with respect as if they were facts. The role of the facilitator is to re-focus the people in the group from simply solving the problem the "old fashioned way" to resolving it only through group cohesiveness."

 

[shturt678]

Again i enjoy your essays and also enjoy fellow-shipping with the strong cohesive group of non-Christians and Christians on this site, at Church and personally ... forget anything? ... i'm an ol' man and as i learn one new thing forget a 100 ... back to the chalk board with you sir.

Your work is sound, not that i'm any authority, but would like you to shorten so others in our cohesive group can come in and also fellowship .... you have good things to offer.

Would also like you to give some thought to approaching God's means of grace and mercy, not so much going from the English structure of thoughts BACKWARDS to the ancient Scriptures in their way of reasoning ... no correction intended sir .. but understand God's means of grace and mercy going FORWARD from the ancient Scriptures way of thinking to English ... now trying to think of a passage that would support other than IIPet.1:20, 21 ... one that i like not trying to be legalistic ... i know ...

Mk.12:29, etc. where the Gospel's reasoning (structure of thoughts) supplies the supreme motive and power for the keeping of the Great Commandment of the law in our strong Christian cohesive group, including you sir, praying that others become "born again" with us increasing the size of the group. thank you again for all your work.

 

[texian]

In trying to post this, I got an error message: "To be able to post links or images your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 30 posts. Please remove links from your message, then you will be able to submit your post."

Twice I searched the post and find no links or images. I will cut it down and see if it gets posted.

No, even after I cut it down, I got the same error message, "To be able to post links or images your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 30 posts. Please remove links from your message, then you will be able to submit your post. "

I cut it down to three paragraphs and tried to post it again, but the same error message came up again. Its apparently a false error message. Lets see if the error message appears again with just one paragraph:

No, the system will not post just one paragraph.

 

[texian]

William Coulson's story of how Carl Rogers and a number of trained facilitators of encounter group procedures "destroyed" the Sacred Heart of Mary group in Southern California is an example of the power of the dialectic as developed within American social and clinical psychology by the mid sixties. When you have a group led by a trained facilitator of the dialectic where the group is deliberately led to avoid focusing upon facts as truth and absolute morality, and instead the group is led to focus more on feelings and opinions, then you have a "shifty" group. A "shifty" group is one in which more traditional reliance upon facts, or truths and on a fixed set of morals are given up and whatever satisfies man's feelings and opinions, which are derived from feelings, or emotions, take over.

God made man in the image of God, which means man was created to have three parts, body, mind and spirit (Genesis 1: 27). The humanism of Marx and of psychology knows only two parts of man, his body and his mind. Marxism, both in its classical form of Bolshevism - which went around killing those who would not accept it - and Transformational Marxism, not called Marxism, as well as psychology, coming out of Freud and psychoanalysis, and out of behaviorism, promotes only man's body and man's mind. So man under Marxism and psychology is spiritually dead. Christ said in Luke 9: 60, "Let the dead bury the dead." When a statement in scripture says something is not likely or not possible, then look for its metaphoric meaning. Christ was saying to let those who are spiritually dead, without a developed human spirit, bury the physically dead. In Matthew 15: 24 Christ said "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." The entire house of physical Israel was then spiritually dead; their human spirits had not been developed by the Holy Spirit. They were living in the flesh, that is, in their bodies and in their minds. The Pharisees bragged that they were the physical descendants of Abraham, but Christ said they did not follow Abraham spiritually.

A dialectic church acts a lot like an encounter group run by a Transformational Marxist facilitator. Rick Warren, for his Purpose Driven Church movement, has used small groups, like the more secular encounter groups under Carl Rogers and others. While many other churches do not use small groups under facilitators, the dialectic as used in dialogue is so widespread that many preachers and church people use it.

The deviant in the cohesive church group, a group in which almost everyone is following the same man-made theology, is one who always turns to the scripture for answers, and makes scripture his authority, rather than to the group which deals with opinions of the word of God and with how do you feel and what do you think. The "deviant," believer, whose authority is "it is written," and not man's theology and the opinions of the church group, is eventually "extruded" from the cohesive church group - unless he changes and conforms to the group. This cohesive church group that regards the believer as the deviant is based upon a broad way theology and not on a remnant of Israel view of "it is written." The broad way theology is found in Matthew 7: 13, "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat."

In scripture, for God, there is the Thesis and the Antithesis. God the Father and his authority over man is the Thesis. Man's flesh, his human nature, with his spirit not developed by the Holy Spirit, is the Antithesis.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." I Corinthians 2: 14.

The Antithesis can be man in the flesh as natural man making an argument against the doctrines of Christ in the New Testament, as seen in Luke 11: 15 and in John 8: 33,39

A facilitator - who can be a clinical psychologist running an encounter group, a leader of a large corporation, a politician holding an office, or a preacher in a church - by leading the group - face to face or not - away from facts and "it is written" to feelings and opinions by showing enthusiasm for feelings and man;s opinions of facts and discouraging statements about accurate knowing of facts or of "it is written." This moves the focus of the group away from a foundation of facts, accurate knowing and truths (or morality) to man's opinions.

Man's spirit is encouraged and developed by "it is written" and by a strong faith in the word of God given to us by the Holy Spirit, not by dialectic arguments against "it is written" and exalting opinions over facts.

So in a Christian seminary and in many churches more attention is paid to man made theologies and man's opinions of what scripture means than to scripture itself.

Through the use of the dialectic process man justifies his two part being, body and mind only, and negates his spirit. In dialoging about his opinions of facts or opinions of scripture, he affirms what Proverbs 3: 5 warns against. "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart: and lean not unto thine own understanding." Dialectic man leans to his own understanding. When this process is fully developed, man lives in a world of abomination.

 

[x141]

The dialetic is the process that is happening in us, desinged to bring us to a consensus (firstly by the image of that which is without). The first rest being unto death, and of a garden not enclosed.

To understand the process is to rule over it.

The two images are as two seeds that sow the ground of our mind. There must come a turning or a forsakening, or a chosen fast, of that which is without.

Reasoning is as the third of the stars cast down.