“And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made” II Chronicles 11: 15
As the drums of war beat relentlessly in Washington there has emerged a new wrinkle on the national scene. Lined up in favor of attacking Iraq are the President, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell. Lined up against attacking Iraq are Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, and Lawrence Eagleburger.
This rather unusual disagreement sets the stage for a practical lesson on the effectiveness of Hegel’s Dialectic. Notice that there is no debate as to whether attacking another sovereign Nation has overarching moral implications. The terms of the discussion are being couched in expediency.
The refutation of Christianity began as soon as Christ disappeared from his tomb and in spite of the universal blessing His death has brought to the millions God has selected as beneficiaries, it has continued in rebels ever since.
Often God’s own are unaware of the usurpation of His dominion and are willing participants in the dissipation of His Kingdom.
The most influential of God’s detractors are studious and intellectually brilliant. One of these was G. W. Frederich Hegel, a German philosopher in the early 19th Century, who was the father of a religion called pantheism which might be characterized as the toleration and worship of all gods.
Hegel believed that a process he called the Dialectic was the machine for progressive social change. Though few Americans know or even want to know the meaning of the term Dialectic, this process has had a pervasive influence on the Church, our Government, Business, and Society.
Karl Marx rejected Hegel’s pantheism but adopted the Dialectic which has become an intrinsic part of the societal change which precedes Communism.
Dean Gotcher says of this process, “One historian recently stated that, during this century (the twentieth), all governments that used this process combined have been responsible for the killing of more than 250,000,000 of their own citizens. Abortion , like the Holocaust, could not have become legal without the aid of dialectic reasoning. Wherever this process has gone, it has brought death and despair while promising life and prosperity.”
Those that would steal God’s throne invariably fight the absolute nature of His Laws. The religions they develop and the processes involved are usually designed to circumvent obedience. The Dialectic involves Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis. In layman’s terms this would be a position or opinion, a conflicting position or opinion and an agreement or compromise which must be reached between the two. The process makes it impossible to maintain absolutes.
The Dialectic is “feelings” oriented. One of the processes involves bringing together two opposing parties, providing a person to conciliate, sitting down and compromising to agreement. This process is often conducted with a preconceived outcome in the mind of the conciliator and a majority who agree with the preconceived outcome.
Karl Marx in his writing on the Jewish question quotes the German nihilist, Bruno Bauer, “There is no longer any religion when there is no longer any privileged religion. Take from religion its exclusive power and it will no longer exist.”
If a Pantheist and a Christian were to engage in the Dialectic process, the Christian would be forced to concede the exclusivity of his Religion in order to obtain agreement.
Marx has taken the process a step farther. It is his contention that the agreement brought about by the Dialectic results in a manifestation of god and god becomes man’s collective agreement working together on a cosmic cause. Marx has replaced the concept of God with society. This is called dialectic materialism.
As opposed to Christianity which supports individual responsible and makes room for the great diversity of God’s creation, the dialectic is group oriented and seeks sameness in society. In the educational field Outcome Based Education and School to Work fall into a dialectic pattern; in the business field it is Total Quality Management. All of these programs attempt to submerge God’s created diversity into mundane sameness.
In God’s Kingdom, His Laws set forth the rules by which society is to abide. God is autocratic. He is the King and His Laws, His wishes, and His commands are to be obeyed. Praxis which in the Dialectic is defined as questioning, conjecturing, or theorizing is not apparent in God’s Kingdom.
Americans have been conditioned to reject absolutes and accept change. In the political system we are treated to bipartisanship; in the church the Gospel is sacrificed in favor of church growth; in school we must have an open mind; and in society there must be give and take. An inquiring mind is considered an attribute. Theory and conjecture are prized in meritocratic circles. We conduct Bible studies where we listen to different opinions on the meaning of scripture and on which scriptures we will believe and which we will not. Denominational Churches have rejected the Divinity of Christ and accepted the homosexual lifestyle. Everywhere, it is now popular to support peace at the cost of righteousness.
We live in an evil Nation and vote for an evil Government. The few righteous individuals still active, serve at the pleasure of evil. Our schools fill our children with rebellion and teach them ungodliness. Sad to say, Christian Churches make The Creator the servant of His creation – preaching to itching ears about what God can do for them.
Those of us that would stand for the Faith need to reconsider our position. Do we really want righteousness? Are we convinced that life is governed by the absolutes of a Righteous God and that these absolutes should have dominion in all of society? Are we willing to refuse to compromise – to stand ALL ALONE for absolute right? Are we willing to become a soldier and fight in the war? Do we understand that in this evil world our stand may cost us our life?
“The endless fragmentation of religion in North America, for example, gives it even externally the form of a purely individual affair. It has been thrust among the multitude of private interests and ejected from the community as such” Karl Marx, 1844
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”