What are your thoughts re Hegelian dialectic?

[PetrChelcicky]

Well, in this topic I am at the side of Bootstrap. Either Max explains what he means with Hegelian dialectics in church groups, or the whole debate is rubbish. Perhaps Max has his private joke here, but he should not make use of my time and energy for such a private joke.

[justme]

i haven't even figured out what a Hegelian dialectic is.

[ohio jones]

i haven't even figured out what a Hegelian dialectic is.

For the short version, follow the link in the OP (reposted above by Ken) and read the third and fourth paragraphs.

[justme]

i haven't even figured out what a Hegelian dialectic is.

For the short version, follow the link in the OP (reposted above by Ken) and read the third and fourth paragraphs.

i did. before i posted. still doesn't make a whole lot of sense. the best as i can figure out, is, an attempt to create change by manufacturing the chaos so you can "properly fix" it.

[MaxPC]

i haven't even figured out what a Hegelian dialectic is.

For the short version, follow the link in the OP ... read the third and fourth paragraphs.

Precisely.

[Bootstrap]

i haven't even figured out what a Hegelian dialectic is.

For the short version, follow the link in the OP (reposted above by Ken) and read the third and fourth paragraphs.

i did. before i posted. still doesn't make a whole lot of sense. the best as i can figure out, is, an attempt to create change by manufacturing the chaos so you can "properly fix" it.

But I don't think that's what a Hegelian dialectic is. Or what people like Moore or Greear are doing. A "dialectic" is not a strategy for overturning the status quo, it is a process of hearing both sides and coming to a conclusion. The words "dialectic" and "dialogue" are related.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/

“Dialectics” is a term used to describe a method of philosophical argument that involves some sort of contradictory process between opposing sides. In what is perhaps the most classic version of “dialectics”, the ancient Greek philosopher, Plato (see entry on Plato), for instance, presented his philosophical argument as a back-and-forth dialogue or debate, generally between the character of Socrates, on one side, and some person or group of people to whom Socrates was talking (his interlocutors), on the other.

Hegel's dialectic describes the way he believes we come to truth. You start with an understanding, someone challenges that understanding, how do you learn from both points of view to come up with a better understanding than either? Hegel's answer to that question is more complicated than Plato's, we could go into it in depth, but he has a detailed view of the right way for a philosopher to approach a dialectic and he applies it to various areas in his writings. Hegel also believes this happens over time in history - society has a set of beliefs, they are challenged, a new set of beliefs forms. But Hegel does not present a tactic for revolution, and he is hardly a revolutionary figure. He describes how this happens in history.

Karl Marx, who was a revolutionary, used Hegel's view of how history happens as a basis for his tactics. Given the fact that this is how history happens, how can you manipulate it? But for that, you have to look to Marx.

The article in the OP badly misrepresents Hegel. It is not terribly clear about what it is saying about people like Moore and Greear and gives no evidence for its claims. It's worth noticing HOW the OP misrepresents Hegel - this is typical in conspiracy theories. Use the name of something people may have heard of but don't understand. Make it sound evil and mysterious. Say that's what these other people are doing to get you. Be vague about the details. They know almost nobody is going to take the time to read and understand Hegel, they know that the people they are trying to tear down are not using Hegel as a tactic, they are just trying to scare people to tear others down. I think it also misrepresents the people it is trying to tear down.

If you want to understand Moore or Greear, read Moore or Greear.

[MaxPC]

i haven't even figured out what a Hegelian dialectic is.

For the short version, follow the link in the OP ... read the third and fourth paragraphs.

Precisely.

Falco, Soloist, Josh, OJ and others are providing excellent fodder for parsing this concept. Thank you.

Those who continue to complain about a thread they do not understand; and try to disrupt a topic just because they do not understand it; should move to other threads, create their own, and stop trying to control the conversations and discussions between others. Mature adults contribute to the topic instead of trying to disrupt the topic. Mature adults know when to avoid discussions instead of trying to disrupt them.

[Josh]

Liberals are attempting to capture the SBC just like they have captured thousands of other American institutions. The proper thing to do when liberals show up is:

- Kick them out
- If you can’t, leave with as many people and resources as possible

The alternative is to end up kind the “Boy Scouts”, who are now a homosexuality-promotion organisation.

[MaxPC]

Liberals are attempting to capture the SBC just like they have captured thousands of other American institutions. The proper thing to do when liberals show up is:

- Kick them out
- If you can’t, leave with as many people and resources as possible

The alternative is to end up kind the “Boy Scouts”, who are now a homosexuality-promotion organisation.

Indeed, and this Hegelian dialectic approach is viewed as a deliberate tactic employed by the self-same liberal groups. Interestingly, I have seen pushback from conservatives using the same tactic to confound the liberal efforts.

Indeed the pendulum swings again as people realise that the efforts to control children and promote unBiblical concepts is wrong. Some are entering the fray by using the liberals’ tactics against them; some conservative groups pull out and form their own organisations free of federal dollars.

WWAC? What Would Anabaptists Choose when seeking to protect Biblical teaching within their fellowships?

[Josh]

The conservative Anabaptists chose to either:

- Remove liberal leaning people from their assemblies once they start to actually push for changes. This is how, for example, Amish groups formed.

- The conservatives all exit the assembly and form a new church. This is what happened in the 1950s.

- The conservatives accept the liberals. The church becomes a liberal church. This is what almost all Amish and Mennonite churches allowed to happen.

Considering the liberals “won” most congregations, it would seem they should go off and be happy in their shrinking and greying congregations. It’s almost a joke how many MC USA, UMC, PC(USA) congregations shrink and eventually close their doors.