The word 'thesis' is used for all kinds of affirmative statements and positions. Hegelian 'logic" is perfectly useful in the appropriate setting and in fact is ubiquitous. It is not possible for good and evil to reach a consensus position. They have nothing in common. When 'good" moves toward 'evil" the proper term for that is "sin" or "treason", not "consensus".
Just because some goofy liberal decides he can trick dreamy-eyed Christians into sin by using the word "consensus" doesn't make the WORD bad, it just makes the Christian naive. By focusing on the word or the process, as if it holds some black power, you are playing the devil's game along with him.
The MORAL key is not in the diagram of the process (the typical reaction of the dilettante) but in the CONTENT OF THE THESIS AND ITS RESULTANT SYNTHESIS.
Also, 'consensus" and "compromise" are two different things.
I wish I had the time to critique all the semi-literate, semi-biblical pseudo-thought on this thread, but I have syntheses to forge.
"I wish I had the time to critique all the semi-literate, semi-biblical pseudo-thought on this thread, but I have syntheses to forge."
You mean like...
Phase I:
There is a God(Thesis) + There is no God(your anti-thesis) = Conclusion: we're not sure there is a God(Synthesis)
Phase II:
We're not sure there is a God(Thesis) + There is no God(anti-thesis) = Conclusion: we're almost sure there is no God(Synthesis).
Phase III:
We're almost sure there is no God(Thesis) + There is no God(anti-thesis) = Conclusion: we agree there is no God, but some skeptics still remain.
The modern/occult version:
Creationism/ID(Thesis) + Evolutionism(anti-Thesis) = Synthesis.
I see, I get it now.
Beware the enemy of Christianity!