The Hegelian principle.

One of the most influential thinkers of 19 century Germany is considered the father of the social, political, and religious change.

To begin to even try to understand the thought of the Hegelian dialect we must give a simple example in order to ease the concept .

Imagine yourself the father of a family who lived in 1980 America.
As you get home from work the family gathers around the TV for some refreshments. You gather around your favorite show” Little House on the Prairie” You are not necessarily a practicing believer of the Christian faith, yet you hold to conservative thought. The idea of having a gay priest, pastor, or school teacher in you beautiful America is absolutely out of the question.
You know there are some gay people out there but they are hidden as they should be.
But here pops on the TV screen a program designed to implement fair and balanced views on things.
The TV show host has introduced two guests. One is a priest and the other is a practicing homosexual man. Each is supposed to represent an extreme or an apposite side of the spectrum . But as you see the gay man. admitting to leading an open homosexual lifestyle you are shocked that this would even be discussed on public television. You are about to turn off the TV but the socking nature of such an attempt keeps you from doing so. You want to know what such one has to say. As you hear the religious leader justifying and backing up from the Scriptures his beliefs against gay lifestyle you totally agree, but now you are eager to listen to the other side to see what kind of justification backs up such daring attempt. As you listen to all the false justification for practicing such lifestyle you do not buy any of them. You are now even more angry. Just about time the TV host ends the program with the promise to continue the discussion tomorrow night the same time.
You begin to discuss with your family the issue that suddenly have presented itself to your social climate warning and educating them about such abnormal behavior. As to tomorrow comes you carry your anger to your work environment and discuss the issue with your coworkers who are as upset as you are at such daring act. You all agree that these people are free to do with themselves what they wish but why even make an appearance on national TV and invade you living room with their propaganda.
Yet with all of you rage you just can not wait for that TV show to make its second appearance, but guess what !Since no one can be shocked twice over discovering the same fact, you are no longer shocked. You are now expecting that gay man to show up again and try to give his reasons of what he does.
You do not know this but you have actually evolved in your mind. Last night you were shocked but tonight you are not because in order for someone to be truly shocked he must be introduced to a body of knowledge for the first time. Last night you did not believe if someone would have told you that a homosexual made a public appearance on national TV but tonight you believe it. You are angry the same but you believe it none the less.
Something happened to you that you are not aware of. You have, without your knowledge moved one step away from your previous position. Your beliefs are the same but you yourself are not.

……to be continued

Thank you for this.

Joch

Correct me if I’m wrong. The illustrations here are of sinners who are definitely not one of us: the homosexual and the Muslim. The message is that when we cease being shocked over their brazen infiltration into our “space”, then we are showing evidence of being dulled and desensitized. Yet, in Jesus’ parables it is the reverse. The vile sinners become the ones who are honored in his eyes. The point is that the righteous dedicated ones have become dulled about their OWN sin – not the other guy’s sins.

Perhaps a more biblically oriented analogy would put the homosexual as our modern “Samaritan” and the Baptist as the Levite.
What do you think?

Diane

I think roadsign and I are a lot more alike then i would have other thought..

Let’s put this to the test: How about a parable for our modern church called “The Good Homosexual” (ie, the "Good Samaritan"). What do you think, brother? I’d say: if that creates a shockwave – then we can understand how Jesus’ parable came to the religiously righteous in his day. But why should that title shock us? Even a homosexual may be better at loving his neighbor than God’s own chosen ones today?

Yes?

Diane

Even a homosexual may be better at loving his neighbor than God’s own chosen ones today?

Hey I don't think you can use this parable and I kind of feel it is disrespect to a wonderful parable by Jesus. Jesus did not use a tax collector or prostitute in this parable. Why? By no means he wanted to encourage a life style of a sinner.
He used Samaritans who were socially oppressed people but not open sinners. The reason Jesus took a Samaritan here is he wanted to show the Jews that those people whom you consider socially inferior to you can have better love towards his neighbor.
As a token of respect for what Jesus said, we need to put an end to your comparison. I am kind of hurt to see a believer disrespecting a parable of my Lord.

Sree, The point I believe, is not the spiritual condition of the "Samaritan" but that in the eyes of the Jews Samaritans were viewed much like today's homosexual population is viewed by the church - or at least conservatism. The Samaritans were not merely poor oppressed people. They themselves ostracized the Jews - even Jesus! That's serious! Did the disciples not suggest that God call judgment down on them then and there?

To use a homosexual today (like the Samaritan) is SUPPOSED to raise our shackles (be convicting) - to hear such an example used as a point of comparison!

You aren't supposed to like it!

Diane

Not to try and steer this thread onto a side road or into a ditch, but I don't think the story of the good Samaritan was a parable at all. If it were, the characters in the story would have all been unfairly stereotyped, and Jesus might have been open to a charge of whatever in those days would be racism or bigotry.

Of course I have no proof, but I suspect the story Jesus told that day was a recounting of a real event, and I further believe that one or more of the audience were the individuals involved- the ones who pretended to ignore the injured man.

Able to cut to the quick, this Jesus!

Samaritans and Jews had a difference in the way of worship and practices. It was more of a social division, like the caste system that you see in many Asian countries. It is true that they hated each other because of their differences. But when they accepted Jesus and listen to him when he passed through Samaria (John6). The point I am trying to make is Jesus will never advertise or encourage a man living sinful life style like how many Churches and Christian organization are doing today.

Regarding Homosexuals and Church relationship, a Church can always invite such open sinners if the Church is willing to talk about Repentance. But today many Churches are weak them selves and if they start accepting people with such life style then it will only pollute them further.

For example if a person is weak and his resistance is low in body then how can he go and live in slums? He will be infected further, it is better for him to stay in safe place.

Jesus was spiritually strong and that is why he had food with Tax collectors, he knew that he can never be influenced by them. Also he would have talked about repentance to them while reclining with them and that is why Zacchaeus was able to repent when he saw Jesus.

They had a conterfeit temple(mount gerazim) and worshipped Jehovah when it was politically expedient to do so but at the same time worshipping other gods thus mixing or diluting with idolatry their "religion.

There is no proof that Samaritans were worshiping other Gods. Even if they did, even Israel did the same at one point. They were originally decedents of Jews who wanted to Worship God in the same mountain that Moses commanded them. They did not want to Worship God in temples. I don't think this mountain is Counterfeit. If so then Jesus would have told it when the Samaritan women asked about where to worship. Instead he talked about the new Covenant Worship where the place is not important but truth and Spirit are important.

My point is this, we cannot replace the Samaritan example with anyone who is living an open sinners life. Jesus never intended it.

Is it loving to not allow a person to finish their thoughts and see where their teaching on "The Hegelian principle" is leading 'to'?

Indeed…. I will step aside and let untobabes proceed further – lest we derail (or ditch) her entire thesis.

I just checked on the Hegelian dialect and found that it has three parts.

1) a thesis, giving rise to its reaction,
2) an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis,
3) and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis

It looks like I already put forth an “antithesis”. Is this where you were going, untobabes? I trust that you can resolve it somehow - on your way to your synthesis.

Blessings,
Diane