The Dialectic Mind of Our Age of Deception

[texian]

The Dialectic Mind of Our Age of Deception

On http://www.crossroad...tic-gotcher.htm
Dean Gotcher says "God cannot speak into the pre-flood, Tower of
Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, dialectic mind..."

The dialectic mind is one which does not receive the truth of God's
word in scripture. It is a mind which will try to discredit, disprove
and reject the absolute truth of God. It often does so in a deceptive
way. "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field the
Lord God had made." Genesis 3: 1

Love of the truth is not in the dialectic mind. "And with all
deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they
received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that
they should believe a lie:
12. That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but
had pleasure in unrighteousness." II Thessalonians 2: 10-12

Since the dialectic mind wants to overthrow the truth, that which is
of faith, and the mind which believes God, the dialectic mind does not
love Christ, who himself is the Truth. " I am the way, the truth, and
the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14: 6

"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 dialectic mind does not receive the word of God which is inspired
by the Holy Spirit. In fact, the dialectic mind tries to find subtle
ways of showing that a position or doctrine that comes from faith in
the word is wrong. So the dialectic mind is the natural mind which
sees the truth of God as "foolishness."

Christ does not speak into the dialectic mind of carnal man. The
dialectic mind does not receive the Spirit, nor does Christ put his
mind into man's dialectic mind. "Let this mind be in you, which was
also in Christ Jesus." Philippians 2: 5

"To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this
mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of
glory." Colossians 1 27

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ
Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 8:
1

The dialectic mind walks after the flesh, not after the Spirit. It is
mired in the flesh by the dialectic; it cannot have the mind of Christ
in it. The dialectic mind starts from man's reasoning and goes farther
away from God into the process of debate. In using subtle ways of
debating against the truth of scripture, the dialectic mind moves far
away from God.

When the majority of people, including those in the Christian churches,
develop the dialectic mind, they become conformed to it, and go into a kind of hive mind
as described by Mack White of Austin, Texas.
When a great many, even a majority, in the churches have the
dialectic mind, then the "church" itself has a dialectic mind.
Gotcher cites Jeremiah 2: 13, ""For my people have committed two
evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed
them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water."

"Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and
that ye receive not of her plagues." Revelation 18: 4

"Her" refers back to Revelation 17: 1-11, the beast which is false
religion, Mystery Babylon the Great. In Revelation 17: 11 this beast
is physical Israel in apostasy and also the Christian church after it
has been leavened (Luke 13: 21), and the falling away has happened.
"And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of
the seven, and goeth into perdition." The church beast was in number
seven, the rest of God (Hebrews 4: 1-11), but rebelled against God,
rejecting his truth, and went into number eight, a mingling of that
which is of God with that which is of man, of man's values and of
man's reasoning.

The habitual use of the dialectic creates the dialectic mind of our
age of deception.

On http://www.crossroad...tic-gotcher.htm
Gotcher teaches that "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) Paul had it correct when
he said "Let God be true, but every man a liar." (Romans 3:4) The
dialectic paradigm rejects the word of God as the final authority. It
turns to fables and the opinions of men. You do not dialogue truth,
you teach truth, you dialogue compromise. [p.10]

The key to dialectic thinking is the right to question, mock, and
ridicule the traditional, didactic, patriarch authority paradigm. The
facilitator's agenda is to create and sustain such an environment. The
very right to question the role of traditional authority has an effect
on all participating in such surroundings. All but the strongest in
faith are drawn by "the feeling of group belongingness" to trust and
follow the facilitator. All who surrender to the "group feel" will
harass those who question the facilitator's "authority." Persecution
is being harassed for holding to a position. The experience can be
quite heated. [p.128]

The facilitator must gain and maintain control of the meeting to
create and sustain the environment of transition (dark circled area
below.) If the facilitator can not keep control of the meeting he must
close it or traditional/ didactic leadership will limit or remove the
transitional condition. "

Dean Gotcher has another online article on the dialectic at:
http://www.professio...ak/diaprax1.htm

Here he says that "This work is about this New Age way of thinking,
the dialectic, and its environment of deceit and manipulation, called
praxis. This way of thinking is currently being used in education,
business, and politics around the world."
"This "new" way of thinking is taking control of America, as well as
the rest of the world, through its use in education, business,
politics, and religion."
"In the spring issue of Education Record (1994), Bill Clinton stated:
"For life-long learning to become a reality, a whole new ethic will
have to grip the American imagination."
This new ethic is based upon the dialectic way of thinking,
experienced in praxis. This new ethic is even being used to unite the
Church, changing the Church's focus and convincing it that if it is to
help save the world in the 21st century, it will have to overcome the
obstacle of Christ's second coming - God's judgment upon man's quest
for cosmic oneness and sin. Erik Fromm and other socio-psychologists
with this same new ethical mindset see Satan, not Christ, as the
deliverer of mankind, saving man by giving him an opportunity to be
equal with the creator (equality of opportunity) and allowing him to
free himself by questioning the "authoritarian"—"That's the way it
is," "Do what I say," "Because I said so," Creator who promotes a
lower order, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it"—way of
thinking. They see Lucifer as the one who gave Adam and Eve the right
"to be their own person" and the right "to discover their full
potential." I kid you not when I tell you this is the final agenda for
the "reculturing of America."

 

[Nomad]

Gotcher teaches that "The dialectic is man thinking through his
feelings. This is the reason God flooded the world and will judge the
world again.

No. . . God judged the antediluvian world because of sin, not because they were "thinking through their feelings." Mr. Gotcher may be a philosopher, but he certainly is not a theologian. He really should stick to what he knows.

Gen 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

 

[texian]

Many people are no longer able to follow a line of thought. They focus
on particulars, tangents and "rabbit trails" rather than on the main ideas
that are presented.

Even if they are "spoon fed" a line of thought, they still may not be
able to follow it. In spoon feeding a baby, the mother may pick up bits of food
the baby has spit out and put it back in its mouth. The person who cannot
understand a line of thought may "spit some it out."

Responding to a line of thought by use of the dialectic
may be partly a result - in our dialectic culture - of the person not having the attention
span to follow it or the willingness to take the time to understand it.
However, the dialectic is also used quite often when the line of thought opposed is
understood, in order to try to change the
attitude and belief of the person who brought up that line of thought,and/or
that of others in a group.

To learn to identify the use of the dialectic in discourse, you need verbatim records of conversations illustrating its use. When one person presents an opinion, idea or piece of information, this is the "thesis." Another person may want to change that other person's position. This is then the second person's "antithesis" to the "thesis," an "anti-thesis." Or the antithesis is brought up in an effort to change a group's position by using the person who presented the thesis as an example.

Usually, with the dialectic, the "facilitator" who tries to change an opinion, perception, idea or bit of information will not immediately challenge the thesis head on. The facilitator may even begin by appearing to agree with the thesis, or will claim he agrees with it in part. Then, the facilitator side steps a head on challenge of the thesis based on fact, and challenges the thesis from the side. Sometimes this is where using one particular point, not the main point, of the thesis comes it. The facilitator will focus on one point and make it the focus of attention, in part, changing the thesis to that one point. Or, the facilitator will bring up a point that appears to be somewhat irrelevant to the thesis. Or, the facilitator will misrepresent the thesis slightly or in big way. There are other methods of using the dialectic.

Dean Gotcher emphasizes the role of acceptance by the group which the person who brings up a thesis belongs to. The dialectic works better when the person targeted wants to be accepted by the group. He may be willing to compromise his position in order to gain group acceptance. The facilitator works to crate group coherence and agreement on the issue at hand. This use of group acceptance can work also with an Internet forum, where there tends to be some agreement on positions, but there are factions also in the group, which may be in the minority. The user of the dialectic, the facilitator in the Internet forum situation, may try to appeal to the majority view against the minority view. This assumes the target person, part of the minority, or a minority of one in some cases, wants acceptance by the group, or at least wants some in the group to accept his views.

Gotcher talks a lot about the contemporary origins of the dialectic. He especially spends time in talking about the following guys in history:

Georg Friedrich Hegel (1770 – 1831)
Karl Marx (1818 – 1883)
Abraham Maslow
Carl Rogers
Irvin Yalom
Theodor Adorno
Erick Fromm
Norman O. Brown
Herbart Marcuse

Adorno and Marcuse were core members of the Frankfurt School. Fromm was similar to them
in ideology. Theodor W. Adorno, who was the senior author of the highly influential book, The Authoritian Personality (1950), posed as a social psychologist, and taught that fascism is caused by
Christianity and the strong family. The Frankfurt School, which included Wilhelm Reich on its fringes, represented what is called cultural Marxism. They set out to overthrow the major institutions of the West, especially Christianity and the family, by non-violent means, rather than by the violent means of classical Marxism. The dialectic is one important procedure in overthrowing the foundational institutions of the West.

But - the dialectic is not limited to cultural Marxism, because its use spread to the institutions of society, including the Christian church, And in the churches, the dialectic is not limited to the Rick Warren type of mega-churches, which emphasize church growth more than adherence to the Gospel.

Cultural Marxism, via the Frankfurt School, began to be spread from the major universities, especially from the University of California at Berkeley in the early fifties. Those in personality and social psychology became familiar with the Adorno book and the huge number of attitude studies that grew from it. A few years later, the cultural Marxism movement, plus Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers self psychology, spread to higher education and soon to the public school. This is where Dean Gotcher encountered the dialectic since he was in education.

 

[BibleScribe]

Texian,

I think you're on an unfruitful tangent.



BibleScribe

 

[aspen]

The dialectic mind is the result of the Fall. Eating of the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was our first act of dualism. After we made our first wrong choice we were cursed with not being able to make good choices. We are told not to judge by Jesus because we are unable to make good choices apart from God. Only God can truly make good choices. We were created to make choices only between good things and to love - not to judge.

Eating of the tree did not endow us with a magical ability to know good and evil - that was the lie. It was a fools bet! We never needed to know evil if we were living in a world without evil. An analogy might look like telling a kid that he could be like an adult if he broke one of his toys because then he would know the difference between a broken toy and a toy that wasn't broken. Of course, now the only way he can truly know how to tell the difference is to break every toy he has - just to make sure.

 

[Nomad]

After we made our first wrong choice we were cursed with not being able to make good choices.

Wrong choice? No, Adam didn't make a "wrong choice." Adam sinned. We were not cursed "with not being able to make good choices." We were cursed with a corrupt nature and as a result, a proclivity toward sinfulness.

Rom 5:19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

This is a far cry from simply making bad choices.

We are told not to judge by Jesus because we are unable to make good choices apart from God.

I'll just refer you to my blog post on this.

https://abidingtruth...2/26/judge-not/

Eating of the tree did not endow us with a magical ability to know good and evil - that was the lie.

No, the lie was, "You will not surely die." Gaining a knowledge of good and evil by eating from the forbidden tree was the truth.

Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--"

There was nothing "magical" about this new ability. It was gained through the experience of committing an actual sin. That's the whole point of having a tree and forbidden fruit. It had nothing to do with the tree or its fruit in and of themselves. They simply provided the means for Adam to disobey a direct command.

 

[Vengle]

It was the sowing of the subtle seed of self-reliance rather than continuing to live by every word that comes forth from out of His (the Father's) mouth.

 

[aspen]

Wrong choice? No, Adam didn't make a "wrong choice." Adam sinned. We were not cursed "with not being able to make good choices." We were cursed with a corrupt nature and as a result, a proclivity toward sinfulness.

Water failing from the sky? No, it is not 'water failing from the sky'. It is called Rain!

You call it sin, Augustine called it choosing the lesser good - I called it making a wrong choice - it is all the same thing. Adam and Eve misused God's creation in the Garden and past the skill on to their children. Now we have a habit of misusing God's creation whenever we rely on ourselves or act selfishly - we sin, thereby once more, eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and separating ourselves from God.

Rom 5:19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

This is a far cry from simply making bad choices.

I am not sure why you are sounding so indignant.......Calvin accepted Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin - you call yourself a Calvinist, why are you rejecting Augustine?

I'll just refer you to my blog post on this.

https://abidingtruth...2/26/judge-not/

Sorry, I couldn't navigate your site.

No, the lie was, "You will not surely die." Gaining a knowledge of good and evil by eating from the forbidden tree was the truth.

The serpent tricked them into misusing God's creation. It didn't teach them anything, nor did they become like gods. Learning to tell the difference between good and evil in a perfect world is about as necessary as learning how to pollute a National park.

Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--"

Humans learned how to misuse God's creation. Unfortunately, we were unable to deal with the guilt and shame of disobeying God without hiding or trying to separate our selves from Him. We were also cursed with relying on our own judgment to determine Good and Evil, which resulted in only being able to choose between lesser good choices, rather than choosing between good choices in the Garden (naming the animals, for example). Our primitive, dualistic minds were doomed for eternity to misfire irrelevant judgments about everything in God's creation. We needed redemption, before we could experience eternal life.

There was nothing "magical" about this new ability. It was gained through the experience of committing an actual sin. That's the whole point of having a tree and forbidden fruit. It had nothing to do with the tree or its fruit in and of themselves. They simply provided the means for Adam to disobey a direct command.

Why would God want A&E to have the option to disobey Him? Only an abusive parent would tempt their child with misusing what they have given them, when the stakes was spiritual and physical death. If A&E had come to God and relied on Him to remedy their transgression on the spot, instead of relying on themselves by hiding and covering up their mistake, God would have taught them about forgiveness, immediately. And the tree of Life would have remained open to them.

Unfortunately, A&E refused to confess their sin - instead of allowing God to heal the rift in their relationship with Him, they choose to carry their shame and guilt and fear and isolation with them. They ask God for a covering of their shame - God made them clothing (Ego) out of animal skins to hide them from themselves, each other and God. So there begins the history of humanity in isolation from God. Thankfully, Christ came to restore our relationship with God, by loving us, thereby allowing us to love ourselves, each other and God, once more.

 

[Nomad]

You call it sin, Augustine called it choosing the lesser good. . .

We both know that you're probably parroting some internet hack here. I would be shocked if Augustine called sin "choosing the lesser good." Be that as it may, quote and citation please.

. . .I called it making a wrong choice - it is all the same thing.

No, it's not the same thing. Sin is rebellion against the revealed will of God. Choosing greasy french fries over steamed vegetables is a bad choice. The former communicates the serious nature of Adam's action in the Garden. The latter describes bad judgement which only serves to trivialize the fall of Humanity through Adam"s sin. Sin is not simply a bad choice or the lesser good, it's rebellion on a cosmic scale, (see Romans 8:20-22). I'm sorry that you can't see this.

 

[aspen]

We both know that you're probably parroting some internet hack here. I would be shocked if Augustine called sin "choosing the lesser good." Be that as it may, quote and citation please.

Thanks for your confidence. No need to be shocked - this is Augustine 101; if his writings are too difficult for you try CS Lewis 'The Problem of Pain'.

No, it's not the same thing. Sin is rebellion against the revealed will of God. Choosing greasy french fries over steamed vegetables is a bad choice. The former communicates the serious nature of Adam's action in the Garden. The latter describes bad judgement which only serves to trivialize the fall of Humanity through Adam"s sin. Sin is not simply a bad choice or the lesser good, it's rebellion on a cosmic scale, (see Romans 8:20-22). I'm sorry that you can't see this.

There is nothing trivial about it. Even you analogy can be a life or death decision for a heart patient. I am sorry you cannot seen dualism for what it really is - a consequence of the Fall.

 

[Nomad]

. . .this is Augustine 101. . .

Then it shouldn't be to difficult for you to provide a quote and citation. I look forward to seeing it.

 

[aspen]

Augustine on Evil
Is God the author of evil or its helpless victim? St. Augustine's answer has been the most intellectually
credible and emotionally satisfying
solution to this vexing problem.
By: Gregory Koukl

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124

First hit on Google.

Last time I do your research for you.

 

[Nomad]

Augustine on Evil
Is God the author of evil or its helpless victim? St. Augustine's answer has been the most intellectually
credible and emotionally satisfying
solution to this vexing problem.
By: Gregory Koukl

http://www.str.org/s...Article&id=5124

First hit on Google.

Last time I do your research for you.

First, let's get something straight here. You didn't do "research" for me. You did it for yourself. It's not my responsibility to substantiate your assertions. That's your job, not mine.

Now, I have news for you. No Calvinist slavishly follows Augustine or any other writer for that matter. Sola Scriptura is our guiding principle. A good example is in the fact that we can agree with Augustine's soteriology, but not his ecclesiology, which is very "Roman Catholic." I also disagree with Augustine's very platonic "hierarchy," which is what Mr. Koukl is referring to in his article. It's not Biblical and I'm under no obligation to accept such nonsense.

So in the future, if you want to go toe to toe with me on some issue, use Scripture, not the writing of men with whom I may or may not agree. No where does Scripture communicate anything even close to the idea that sin is the choice of the lesser good. Augustine is wrong.

 

[aspen]

First, let's get something straight here. You didn't do "research" for me. You did it for yourself. It's not my responsibility to substantiate your assertions. That's your job, not mine.

Now, I have news for you. No Calvinist slavishly follows Augustine or any other writer for that matter. Sola Scriptura is our guiding principle. A good example is in the fact that we can agree with Augustine's soteriology, but not his ecclesiology, which is very "Roman Catholic." I also disagree with Augustine's very platonic "hierarchy," which is what Mr. Koukl is referring to in his article. It's not Biblical and I'm under no obligation to accept such nonsense.

So in the future, if you want to go toe to toe with me on some issue, use Scripture, not the writing of men with whom I may or may not agree. No where does Scripture communicate anything even close to the idea that sin is the choice of the lesser good. Augustine is wrong.

I accept your apology.

 

[Nomad]

I accept your apology.

I didn't apologize for anything, nor should I. I did nothing wrong by requesting that you document your assertion regarding Augustine. It's your irresponsibility that kept this whole thing going. Had you provided documentation for your assertion in the first place, this particular go-around would have died many posts ago. I would have told you what I just told you in my last post and that would have been the end of it. The guilt here is all on you.

 

[aspen]

I didn't apologize for anything, nor should I. I did nothing wrong by requesting that you document your assertion regarding Augustine. It's your irresponsibility that kept this whole thing going. Had you provided documentation for your assertion in the first place, this particular go-around would have died many posts ago. I would have told you what I just told you in my last post and that would have been the end of it. The guilt here is all on you.

Go in peace.