Word Fights, the Mind of the Natural Man, and Dragon Speak In the Present Darkness

N

northwye

New member
Word Fights, the Mind of the Natural Man, and Dragon Speak In the Present Darkness

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers," Romans 1: 28-29

Debate is from eris, number 2054, "a quarrel, wrangling, contention,debate, strife, variance."

Quarreling is an accurate English word for eris. Some kinds of
statements invite a quarrel more than other kinds of statements. And
quarreling is an indication of a reprobate mind in Romans 1:28-29. And
a quarrel can go on without people overtly insulting one another by
calling each other bad names and trying to insult one another.

Following Romans 1:28-29, those who like to quarrel and call one another bad names to discredit each other are in the spiritual condition of the natural man of I Corinthians 2:14, who does not receive the things of the Spirit.

In I Corinthians 1: 11, Paul says there were contentions among those
in this ekklesia. Romans 2: 8 says "..unto them that are contentious,
but do not obey the truth...indignation and wrath." I Corinthians 11:
16, says "If any man be contentious, we have no such custom." And look
at II Corinthians 12: 20. Here Paul says he fears that when he comes
back to his people at Corinth that he will find them in debates,
envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings,
tumults." The NIV has quarreling for the Greek word eris. This is one
of a few places where the NIV supports a doctrine that some other
recent versions diminish.

Paul uses another Greek word which also carries with it
contentiousness in I Timothy 6: 3-4,
logomachia, "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome
words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine
which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but
doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy,
strife, railings, evil surmisings."

This is a significant text, because what Paul is saying is that those
who get off into doctrines that were not taught by Christ and the
Apostles tend to get into logomachia, or strifes of words." Lets see
what Strong's says about logomachia.

Logomachia is number 3055 in Strong's and is said to mean
"disputations, strife of words." Logomachia might be translated as
"word fights."

Revelation 13: 11 says the second beast has two horns like a lamb, but speaks like a dragon. "And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon."

A lamb has two horns? How does the dragon speak? In Genesis 3 the "serpent" "was more subtle than any beast in the field," and he used the dialectic on Eve, saying in effect lets talk about you eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. "Lets have a dialog." "And come to a consensus."

Satan used Dragon Speak on Eve inGenesis3: 1-6 to fix her obedience to God: "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."

The big mistake that Eve made was to enter into a dialog with Satan. When Christ was tempted by Satan (Matthew 4: 4-10), he did not dialog with him, but answered "It is written," citing absolute truths from scripture. So Satan was defeated when he tried to work the dialectic on Jesus Christ.

Genesis 3:1-6 shows that Dragon Speak - which is the dialectic - depends upon a dialogue being established in a conversation.

God's way of communicating has always been the didactic, not the dialectic. When Satan tempted Christ in Matthew 4: 3-11, the dialectic didn't work on Jesus. It didn't move him one inch off his absolute truth. He answered the devil with the didactic, "It is written" (Matthew 4: 10).

Then in John 8 the Pharisees tried to use the dialectic on Jesus and that did not work too well either..

"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 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. 44. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not." John 8: 31-45

In John 8 the Pharisees used the dialectic - or Dragon Speak - to argue in opposition to the absolute Truth. Here the Absolute Truth was Christ standing before them. But their arguments did not change Christ's position. He said in John 8: 44 that the Pharisees were "... of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth."

So, two characteristics of the dialectic is that it depends on establishing a dialogue and argues in direct opposition to a position,which for Hegel is called the thesis. The opposition to the thesis is the anti-thesis. There are many specific tactics of the dialectic.

Marx and then Freud decided that there is no God and Marx began to say there is no absolute truth and no absolute morality. Everything is an opinion. Remember the "Hegelian dialectic?" Remember "dialectical materialism" in Marxism?

Marx said "In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for all time, nothing is absolute or sacred."

In "As I Please: The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell," he wrote about the denial of of objective reality. He saw the denial of objective reality by the Marxists in the Soviet Union, and that in Nazi Germany lying was so common that the Germans would not believe that anyone was telling the truth.

The Marxist dialectic can produce the type of society Orwell is talking about,which is characterized by its denial of objective reality.

In the Soviet Union the Marxist version of the Hegelian Dialectic was made into a propaganda weapon. Then, the German Frankfurt School mixed Marx with Freud and later with American social and personality psychology, while keeping the dialectic as the basis of Transformational Marxism.

There is a text in the New Testament which, in the Greek, mentions the dialectic. This is I Timothy 6: 20-21.

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen"

The key part in Greek says "και αντιθεσεις της ψευδωνυμου γνωσεως,or "and anti-thesis of falsely called knowledge."

αντιθεσεις, or anti-thesis, is a technical term in the early Greek philosophy of the διαλεκτική, or dialectic, before the time of Christ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

"Dialectic (also dialectics and the dialectical method), from Ancient Greek διαλεκτική, is a method of argument.....The word dialectic originated in ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato in the Socratic dialogues."

"In classical philosophy, dialectic (Greek: διαλεκτική) is a form of reasoning based upon dialogue of arguments and counter-arguments, advocating propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses)."

"Aristotle said that it was the pre-Socratic philosopher Zeno of Elea who invented dialectic, of which the dialogues of Plato are the examples of the Socratic dialectical method."

The dialectic is a form of deception and the Marxist version of the Hegelian dialectic has been developed into a belief and attitude change procedure, which also infiltrated the major institutions,including the churches, in the 20th century.

In Marxism the dialectic is used to overthrow absolute Truth and absolute Morality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis...sis,_synthesis

"Hegel used the "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" idea only once, and he attributed the terminology to Immanuel Kant. The terminology was largely developed by Johann Gottlieb Fichte, also an advocate of the philosophy identified as German idealism. "

"Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) adopted and extended the triad, especially in Marx's The Poverty of Philosophy (1847). Here, in Chapter 2, Marx is obsessed by the word "thesis". It can be said to form an important part of the basis for the Marxist theory..."
 
Last edited:
N

northwye

New member
http://www.iep.utm.edu/adorno/

"The Institute for Social Research was established at the University of Frankfurt in 1923. The Institute, or the 'Frankfurt School', as it was later to become known, was an inter-disciplinary body comprising specialists in such fields as philosophy, economics, political science, legal theory, psychoanalysis, and the study of cultural phenomena such as music, film, and mass entertainment............Principally, the School began to question, and ultimately reject, the strict economic determinism to which orthodox Marxism was enthralled at the time. This coincided with a firm belief amongst the members of the School that social phenomena, such as culture, mass entertainment, education, and the family played a direct role in maintaining oppression....."

http://www.stopcp.com/TQMJudyMcLemore.pdf

The link above is to a several papers on the influence of Transformational Marxism on American education by Judy McLemore, published in 2002 by Dean Gotcher's Institution for Authority Research,
Herndon, KS 67739, www.authorityresearch.com

Since this was published by Dean Gotcher and Judy quotes I Timothy 4: 1-2,she must be a Christian.

"In the thirties, the Institute for Social Research/Frankfurt School immigrated to America from Germany. After World War II,aided by British Hegelians at the Tavistock Institute in
London, they brought Critical Theory Marxism
to bear on America and its institutions in
quest for her transformation."

"The Frankfurt School blended a revised Marxism, based on the work of the Young
Hegelians, with which the young Karl Marx himself was a member, and the work of Sigmund
Freud. Tavistock’s work was based on Georg Hegel’s dialectical process and a revised
Freudism. "

"The strategy of the Frankfurt School was the reorganization of the American people into
collectives or groups and putting the dialectical process into
action within these groups. The
entire plan was first laid out in 1951 in the how-to book,
Human Relations and Curriculum Change"

"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.
Speaking lies in hypocrisy;
having their conscience seared
with a hot iron... (Holy Bible, I Timothy, 4:1-2)

"The Hegelian dialectic considers things in their
“movements and changes, inter-relations
and interactions.”
Everything is in “continual
process
of becoming and ceasing to be, in
which nothing is permanent but everything changes and is eventually superseded."

"Humanistic psychologist
Carl Rogers, drawing on the work of Freud and the National
Training Laboratories, applied Hegel’s process
to group therapy with the goal of making
“congruent” the flesh and the spirit, eliminating even the very knowledge and awareness of
sin. Rogers’ work then was merged with the
work of the Frankfurt School which helped
create a safe therapeutic climate/environment for group brainwashing. Carl Rogers, William Coulson, and Abraham Maslow then applied
the process to education and called it
decision-making and/or values-clarification."

"The individual must submit to the group, and obey the ‘organization.’
Consequently, a
specific target of the thought reform is
the individualism of the intellectuals...
...the intellectuals must give up their individualism and place themselves without
reservation at the service of the Party and the state."

"The military Psychological Warfare Division, made up of the Office of Strategic
Services which controlled most intelligence activities and the Office of War Information which was its propaganda counterpart, employed numerous European-born Marxists. These
included Hans Speier (“one of the world’s leading experts in propaganda techniques”); Paul
Lazarsfeld; political scientist John Herz; Frankfurt School members Max Horkheimer, Kurt Lewin (the “founder of group dynamics” and the “Three-step” brainwashing
process), Franz Neumann, Leo Lowenthal, Herbert Marcuse, and Otto Kirchheimer. George Rohrlich; psychoanalysts Karl Deutsch; Louise Holborn; Nathan Leites; Richard
Krautheimer; economist Walter Levy (chief of the petroleum section
of the OSS); Giorgio Tagliacozzo; Gerhard Tintner; John Herma; Hajo Holborn; Felix Gilbert; and “many others.”
 
Last edited:
N

northwye

New member
In Revelation 13: 11 what is the second beast, and who is the Dragon?

Commentary By the Geneva Study Bible:

"And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; 16 and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon."

"The second part of the vision, concerning the ecclesiastical dominion, which in Rome succeeded that which was politic, and is in the power of the corporation of false prophets and of the forgers of false doctrine. Therefore the same beast, and the body or corporation is called a false prophet by John; (Revelation 16:13,19:20). The form of this beast is first described in this verse, then his acts in the verses following: and the whole speech is concluded in the last verse. This beast is by his breed, a son of the earth (as they say) obscurely born, and little by little creeping up out of his abject estate.
(16) That is, in show he resembled the Lamb (for what is more mild or more humble then to be the servant of the servants of God?} but indeed he played the part of the dragon, and of the wolf; (Matthew 7:15). For even Satan changes himself into an angel of light; (2 Corinthians 11:14) and what should his honest disciples and servants do?"

But for the view of Christians soon after the Reformation on Revelation 13:11, that the second beast is the Roman Catholic Church, see John Gill.

"And I beheld another beast,.... The same with the first, only in another form; the same for being and person, but under a different consideration; the same antichrist, but appearing in another light and view: the first beast is the pope of Rome, at the head of the ten kingdoms, of which the Roman empire consisted; this other beast is the same pope of Rome, with his clergy, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, &c. before he is described as a temporal monarch, now as a spiritual lord; there he is represented in his secular character, as having the seat, power, and authority of the dragon, of Rome Pagan, engaging the attention and wonder of the whole world, and striking terror into them, and as making war with the saints, and ruling over all nations and tongues; here in his ecclesiastic character, pretending great humility and holiness, showing signs and lying wonders, obliging to idolatry, and exercising tyranny and cruelty on all that will not profess his religion: that this is the same beast with the first in substance, though not in show, appears from his exercising the same power, causing all to worship the first beast, or himself as a temporal lord, by which he is supported in his spiritual dignity;"

Gill also says of the second beast that "...he is described in this form, and is represented as rising up out of the earth, out of the earthly part of the church, or out of the apostasy which the visible church was sunk into..."

For Gill,the second beast rises out of the apostasy which the visible church has sunk to. If Gill's view that the second beast rises from the apostasy of the Church is combined with the Geneva Study Bible'e interpretation that the vision and metaphor in Revelation 13: 11 is about the power of the corporation of false prophets and of the forgers of false doctrine, this is an interpretation that fits Revelation 13: 11-18 and other relevant texts in Revelation.

The second beast in Revelation 13: 11 is a counterfeit of the real ministers of the Gospel of Christ,the Lamb of God. The False Prophets are the counterfeits, as wolves in sheep's clothing. Thy pretend to be the ministers of the Lamb, but are minions of the Dragon.

The False Prophets are deceptive in that they try to give the appearance of being the ministers of the Lamb,but they speak like the Dragon. This does not necessarily mean that speaking like a Dragon refers only to use of the dialectic type of dialogue or argument. But the False Prophets speak lies like the Dragon. "When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father ot it." John 8:44

"And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet." Revelation 16:13

Revelation 19:20:; "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."

"And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?" Revelation 13: 4

The dragon,representing Satan,appears eight times in Revelation 12.

"And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Revelation 12: 16-17

But Satan the dragon is called the serpent in Revelation 12: 15, ":And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood."

Revelation 12:15 is about the flood of lies by the many False Prophets inspired by the Serpent-Dragon.

The second beast in Revelation 13:11 is said to speak as a dragon .In Revelation 12: 17 the Dragon goes to make war with the remnant.. A dragon in Revelation13: 11 and the dragon in Revelation 12: 15 refers to the same fallen angel, Satan. There are not multiple dragons in Revelation 13: 11 and only one dragon in Revelation 12:17..

And in the metaphoric vision of John there is not one False Prophet. The False Prophet represents the many false prophets of Matthew 24: 11.

The second beast as False Prophet is not limited to the false prophets of the Roman Catholic Church, but includes those of the Church as a whole and especially of the Church after the Falling Away of II Thessalonains- 2: 3-4.
 
N

northwye

New member
In Revelation 13: 11 what is the second beast, and who is the Dragon?

Commentary By the Geneva Study Bible:

"And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; 16 and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon."

"The second part of the vision, concerning the ecclesiastical dominion, which in Rome succeeded that which was politic, and is in the power of the corporation of false prophets and of the forgers of false doctrine. Therefore the same beast, and the body or corporation is called a false prophet by John; (Revelation 16:13,19:20). The form of this beast is first described in this verse, then his acts in the verses following: and the whole speech is concluded in the last verse. This beast is by his breed, a son of the earth (as they say) obscurely born, and little by little creeping up out of his abject estate.
(16) That is, in show he resembled the Lamb (for what is more mild or more humble then to be the servant of the servants of God?} but indeed he played the part of the dragon, and of the wolf; (Matthew 7:15). For even Satan changes himself into an angel of light; (2 Corinthians 11:14) and what should his honest disciples and servants do?"

But for the view of Christians soon after the Reformation on Revelation 13:11, that the second beast is the Roman Catholic Church, see John Gill.

"And I beheld another beast,.... The same with the first, only in another form; the same for being and person, but under a different consideration; the same antichrist, but appearing in another light and view: the first beast is the pope of Rome, at the head of the ten kingdoms, of which the Roman empire consisted; this other beast is the same pope of Rome, with his clergy, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, &c. before he is described as a temporal monarch, now as a spiritual lord; there he is represented in his secular character, as having the seat, power, and authority of the dragon, of Rome Pagan, engaging the attention and wonder of the whole world, and striking terror into them, and as making war with the saints, and ruling over all nations and tongues; here in his ecclesiastic character, pretending great humility and holiness, showing signs and lying wonders, obliging to idolatry, and exercising tyranny and cruelty on all that will not profess his religion: that this is the same beast with the first in substance, though not in show, appears from his exercising the same power, causing all to worship the first beast, or himself as a temporal lord, by which he is supported in his spiritual dignity;"

Gill also says of the second beast that "...he is described in this form, and is represented as rising up out of the earth, out of the earthly part of the church, or out of the apostasy which the visible church was sunk into..."

For Gill,the second beast rises out of the apostasy which the visible church has sunk to. If Gill's view that the second beast rises from the apostasy of the Church is combined with the Geneva Study Bible'e interpretation that the vision and metaphor in Revelation 13: 11 is about the power of the corporation of false prophets and of the forgers of false doctrine, this is an interpretation that fits Revelation 13: 11-18 and other relevant texts in Revelation.

The second beast in Revelation 13: 11 is a counterfeit of the real ministers of the Goepel of Christ,the Lamb of God. The False Prophets are the counterfeits, as wolves in sheep's clothing. Thy petgend to be the ministers of the Lamb, but are minions of the Dragon.

The False Prophets are deceptive in that they try to give the appearance of being the ministers of the Lamb,but they speak like the Dragon. This does not necessarily mean that speaking like a Dragon refers only to use of the dialectic type of dialogue or argument. But the False Prophets speak lies like the Dragon. "When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it." John 8:44

"And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet." Revelation 16:13

Revelation 19:20:; "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."

"And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?" Revelation 13: 4

The dragon,representing Satan,appears eight times in Revelation 12.

"And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Revelation 12: 16-17

But Satan the dragon is called the serpent in Revelation 12: 15, "And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood."

Revelation 12:15 is about the flood of lies by the many False Prophets inspired by the Serpent-Dragon.

The second beast in Revelation 13:11 is said to speak as a dragon .In Revelation 12: 17 the Dragon goes to make war with the remnant.. A dragon in Revelation 13: 11 and the dragon in Revelation 12: 15 refers to the same fallen angel, Satan. There are not multiple dragons in Revelation 13: 11 and only one dragon in Revelation 12:17..

And in the metaphoric vision of John there is not one False Prophet. The False Prophet represents the many false prophets of Matthew 24: 11.

The second beast as False Prophet is not limited to the false prophets of the Roman Catholic Church, but includes those of the Church as a whole and especially of the Church after the Falling Away of II Thessalonains- 2: 3-4.
 
N

northwye

New member
More from http://www.stopcp.com/TQMJudyMcLemore.pdf.

"THE COLLECTIVE:

"As long as intellectuals retain
their individualism they will be
independent in thought and behavior. Individualism is therefore a central target of attack. The new
way of life is the collective life. The methods of
thought reform utilize group pressure. To the group the individual bares
his thoughts in self-criticism and
confessions. He must tell all
without any reservations. He
must not have any secrets.
Inasmuch as the ‘group’ is always directed by capable manipulators and the acme of
group life or collective life is the Party or state, the
replacement of individualism by
collectivism means in the last analysis the total surrender of the individual to the
Party or state."

The requirement that individuals be completely under the control of the
Party or the State is part of all totalitarian regimes, whether Marxist or Fascist.

This is where the Group Dynamics movement in experimental social psychology and the Encounter Group Movement relates to Transformational Marxism. The Group Dynamics movement found ways of manipulating groups and individuals in the groups, which was then applied in the Encounter Group movement.

The term "facilitator" is right out of the Encounter Group Movement of the sixties and seventies. Carl Rogers was one of the leaders of the Encounter Group movement,and with other facilitators under him,they ran encounter groups using the nuns of the
Sacred Heart of Mary in Southern California.

And we can say that the Dragon, or Serpent,is the first facilitator.

In an interview called "The Story of a Repentant Psychologist" long after the
encounter groups were run on the Nuns in 1966 and 1967, one of Carl Rogers' facilitators 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."

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 group which is more ready for transformation. Such a 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.

“The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by
accepting belongingness to the group.” Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne
Human Relations in Curriculum Change

The type of group that Kurt Lewin, the flounder of Group Dynamics, is
talking about is a collective, unlike the cohesive family under the father
figure.

"And on the basis of this individual growth of each in our conditions a new
type of mighty socialist collective will in the long run be formed, where
“I” and “we” will merge into one inseparable whole. Such a collective can
only develop on the basis of profound ideological solidarity and an equally
profound emotional rapprochement, mutual understanding."
Nadezhda K. Krupskaya a, Letter to A. M. Gorky

The dialectic was further developed in the Encounter Group Movement by facilitators as a method for changing attitudes and beliefs, which became part of the new collectivist movement in America.

Some forms of the dialectic were popularized and used by the media, in education, by government and in the churches to some extent, especially in the mega church movement. Rick Warren used the dialectic in small groups.

Rick Warren said that "Small groups are the most effective way of closing the back door of your church."

But beyond Rick Warren's use of the Encounter Group attitude changing procedure, forms of the dialectic as a method of making an argument became popularly used in Christian dialog. Remember that we can see a dialogue as being necessary to set up the dialectic change procedure in Genesis 3: 1-6. In Chapter 8 of John the Pharisees were making arguments opposing the doctrines of Christ,who was there with them. They were using a form of the dialectic to argue against Christ's absolute truth.This is a second characteristic of the dialectic, making that which is absolute truth - the word of God - into the thesis and directly opposing it by an anti thesis.

"The dialectic is man thinking through his feelings. This is the reason God flooded the world and will judge the world again. "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man." (Luke 17:26)........."God cannot speak into the pre-flood, Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, dialectic mind." Quotes from Dean Gotcher

The presence now of the dialectic mind is an indication that the prophecy of Luke 17: 26 is starting to be fulfilled. The presence of the dialectic mind is a part of the spiritual darkness which is coming on at this time in history.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top