What are your thoughts re Hegelian dialectic?

[Falco Underhill]

That's OK, I'm trying to figure out why a thread that uses the phrase "Hegelian Dialectic" has nothing at all to do with the Hegelian Dialectic. I started a different thread to discuss it there, because when I mention it here people don't seem to want to discuss it:

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=3874

As far as I can tell, the phrase is being used for its mouth-feel in this thread, not for its actual meaning.

So then go to another thread more to your liking and stop trying to derail this one.

A serious discussion requires someone with the maturity to move beyond hatred and polemics. Every conversation with you starts and ends that way. No thank you.

[Bootstrap]

A serious discussion requires someone with the maturity to move beyond hatred and polemics. Every conversation with you starts and ends that way. No thank you.

Funny, that's exactly what I think about the OP, I'm just pointing it out. I want to stop giving free reign to hatred and polemics.

If there's anything beyond hatred and polemics, you can find that in definitions, discussion of concepts, actually reading and responding to what people say. If there's anything beyond hatred and polemics, it's not about how "we are the good people" and "they are the bad people who are out to get us". If there's anything at all to these accusations, then we can quote them and discuss them.

If there's anything here about the Jesus and the Kingdom of God, it really should be about how we live out our lives here in service to God and to others.

Is there any enthusiasm for moving on to that kind of thing?

So then go to another thread more to your liking and stop trying to derail this one.

I really do want to derail the goon squad tactics. They are unbecoming of Christians. They are a terrible witness. They make us look ignorant and bigoted. They do not look like Jesus.

[Falco Underhill]

I really do want to derail the goon squad tactics.

You made Beth Moore the central topic here so you could derail the whole conversation. Whatever. This thread topic is not about Beth Moore. At least try to stay on topic.

[Josh]

I made a casual reference that people like Beth Moore rely on a Hegelian dialectic to guide their sense of morality, and yes, Moore definitely does approach everything through the lens of an oppressor-oppressed dynamic.

The complete derail was Bootstrap claiming Beth Moore is some paragon of morality and virtue because she spoke against Trump. Needless to say, that’s not how I identify someone as a sincere Christ follower.

[Bootstrap]

I really do want to derail the goon squad tactics.

You made Beth Moore the central topic here so you could derail the whole conversation. Whatever. This thread topic is not about Beth Moore. At least try to stay on topic.

Can any two people agree on what the topic is, perhaps write a short, simple, clear statement of what we are discussing in plain, understandable English? Something we can actually discuss like Christians who value truth and fellowship and being Christlike?

[Falco Underhill]

I really do want to derail the goon squad tactics.

You made Beth Moore the central topic here so you could derail the whole conversation. Whatever. This thread topic is not about Beth Moore. At least try to stay on topic.

Can any two people agree on what the topic is, perhaps write a short, simple, clear statement of what we are discussing in plain, understandable English? Something we can actually discuss like Christians who value truth and fellowship and being Christlike?

The question of this thread necessarily assumes some kind of agreement on that. An argument about what it is would unfairly disrupt it - exactly your intent, so far as I can tell.

[Bootstrap]

... and yes, Moore definitely does approach everything through the lens of an oppressor-oppressed dynamic.

Nope, here's her blog:

https://blog.lproof.org/

[Ken]

I really do want to derail the goon squad tactics.

You made Beth Moore the central topic here so you could derail the whole conversation. Whatever. This thread topic is not about Beth Moore. At least try to stay on topic.

Beth Moore was one of the central subjects of the original article that spawned this thread. Scroll up to the beginning of this tread and click through to the article by Josh Buice and you will find that he spends paragraphs obsessing about Beth Moore. For example, Buice writes:

Were professors who promote men like James Cone and ideas like CRT/I hired by pure accident? Was the Beth Moore moment of the SBC culturally produced or was it purposeful? Was the MLK50 event really designed to create unity among different ethnicities within the SBC?

and...

People are being manipulated by ideas and techniques within the SBC and unless the ideas are exposed and immediate correction of course is taken, this agenda will continue to move the SBC in a progressive direction. Follow the dialectical method (thesis, anthesis, synthesis) and remember, Beth Moore is the target they want you to aim for in this moment. She serves as a distraction and necessary chaos in order to continue moving the agenda forward. Remember, this social justice movement is not about women preachers or Beth Moore just as Black Lives Matter was never about black lives. It’s about their progressive politics and attack on the nuclear family. The same can be said of the cultural controversies and figures within the SBC social justice agenda. There is something more beneath the surface. Some are pawns and others are kings, but make no mistake about it—we have not arrived at this point by mistake.

He sees Beth Moore as pawn of larger, more powerful hidden actors, and not as an independent entity acting on her own. But nevertheless, the point remains. If you don't want to talk about Beth Moore then perhaps don't follow a thread of which the topic of discussion is an article that is at least in part about.... Beth Moore.

[Falco Underhill]

I really do want to derail the goon squad tactics.

You made Beth Moore the central topic here so you could derail the whole conversation. Whatever. This thread topic is not about Beth Moore. At least try to stay on topic.

Beth Moore was one of the central subjects of the original article that spawned this thread. Scroll up to the beginning of this tread and click through to the article by Josh Buice and you will find that he spends paragraphs obsessing about Beth Moore. For example, Buice writes:

Were professors who promote men like James Cone and ideas like CRT/I hired by pure accident? Was the Beth Moore moment of the SBC culturally produced or was it purposeful? Was the MLK50 event really designed to create unity among different ethnicities within the SBC?

and...

People are being manipulated by ideas and techniques within the SBC and unless the ideas are exposed and immediate correction of course is taken, this agenda will continue to move the SBC in a progressive direction. Follow the dialectical method (thesis, anthesis, synthesis) and remember, Beth Moore is the target they want you to aim for in this moment. She serves as a distraction and necessary chaos in order to continue moving the agenda forward. Remember, this social justice movement is not about women preachers or Beth Moore just as Black Lives Matter was never about black lives. It’s about their progressive politics and attack on the nuclear family. The same can be said of the cultural controversies and figures within the SBC social justice agenda. There is something more beneath the surface. Some are pawns and others are kings, but make no mistake about it—we have not arrived at this point by mistake.

He sees Beth Moore as pawn of larger, more powerful hidden actors, and not as an independent entity acting on her own. But nevertheless, the point remains. If you don't want to talk about Beth Moore then perhaps don't follow a thread of which the topic of discussion is an article that is at least in part about.... Beth Moore.

He talks about "the Beth Moore moment" and then says "she serves as a distraction" to help keep the real agenda from being discussed. (Just like in this thread) Hardly an argument in your favor.

[Ken]

You made Beth Moore the central topic here so you could derail the whole conversation. Whatever. This thread topic is not about Beth Moore. At least try to stay on topic.

Beth Moore was one of the central subjects of the original article that spawned this thread. Scroll up to the beginning of this tread and click through to the article by Josh Buice and you will find that he spends paragraphs obsessing about Beth Moore. For example, Buice writes:

Were professors who promote men like James Cone and ideas like CRT/I hired by pure accident? Was the Beth Moore moment of the SBC culturally produced or was it purposeful? Was the MLK50 event really designed to create unity among different ethnicities within the SBC?

and...

People are being manipulated by ideas and techniques within the SBC and unless the ideas are exposed and immediate correction of course is taken, this agenda will continue to move the SBC in a progressive direction. Follow the dialectical method (thesis, anthesis, synthesis) and remember, Beth Moore is the target they want you to aim for in this moment. She serves as a distraction and necessary chaos in order to continue moving the agenda forward. Remember, this social justice movement is not about women preachers or Beth Moore just as Black Lives Matter was never about black lives. It’s about their progressive politics and attack on the nuclear family. The same can be said of the cultural controversies and figures within the SBC social justice agenda. There is something more beneath the surface. Some are pawns and others are kings, but make no mistake about it—we have not arrived at this point by mistake.

He sees Beth Moore as pawn of larger, more powerful hidden actors, and not as an independent entity acting on her own. But nevertheless, the point remains. If you don't want to talk about Beth Moore then perhaps don't follow a thread of which the topic of discussion is an article that is at least in part about.... Beth Moore.

He talks about "the Beth Moore moment" and then says "she serves as a distraction" to help keep the real agenda from being discussed. (Just like in this thread) Hardly an argument in your favor.

No, Bootstrap (if I can speak for him) and I are disagreeing with the premise of the article itself. Namely Buice's contention that there is some nefarious master plan guided by some cabal of powerful manipulators following Hegelian principles to insert liberalism into the SBC, of which Beth Moore is simply a pawn. I don't particularly care about Beth Moore one way or the other, which is why I haven't been digging deep into her philosophy and writings as others have. But I don't think she is a pawn of larger nefarious forces. I think what she says and writes should be evaluated and judged on its own merits and not dismissed simply because one ultra-conservative writer has tried to tar and feather her with vaguely Marxist-sounding innuendo rather than honestly examining her work.

The whole article itself is nothing more than an attempt by the author to cast aspersions on his opponents within the SBC (of which Beth Moore and Russell Moore are the two most prominent) by painting them with vaguely Marxist-sounding language. Rather than to addressing the arguments and points they make in a honest manner. So it is entirely fair to say "wait a second, none of this Marxist-sounding Hegelian framing is appropriate. We should look at their actual arguments rather than use fallacious pretexts to dismiss them outright."

It would be just as illegitimate to do the opposite. To find some tenuous link between ultra-conservatives like Buice and authoritarian or fascist political philosophy. Which I probably could do if I tried. And then dismiss everything they say as being tainted by fascism without actually exploring their arguments and ideas honestly.