authorityresearch.com

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." Proverb. 3: 5-6

The Institution for Authority Research

About, Issues, Articles, Booklet, Schedule, Material, Scheduling, Audios, Radio, Sources, Textus Receptus, Class, Warnings, Thanks! P.S.

deangotcher@gmail.com.

Introduction
Part 1

(Part Two, Part Three—I have also divided Part 2 and Part 3 into 31 and 36 sections respectively for easier bite size reading.)

   I was amazed (actually horrified) at how many students told me they already knew what I was going to teach in my class, when I taught in the University (an upper 400 level class—American Institutions: abdicating their foundation, i.e., how dialectic 'reasoning' has 'changed' America). From our short conversation I knew they did not know. They did not take the class (already knowing the subject) so they did not come to know (having already made up their mind they already knew). I hope you do not do the same here.
   The following is about the process (the dialectic process) that is being used to 'change' you without you even knowing it. It explains the process of seduction, deception, and manipulation that is being used on you in order to make you a part of a so called "new" world order—the praxis of replacing the preaching and teaching of facts and truth, and discussion, (in order to clarify any misunderstanding, at the parent's, teacher's, bosses', God's discretion), engendering faith in and obedience to the father/Father and respect toward his "top-down" authority system, i.e., engendering individualism, under God, with the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (the children/people sharing their "feelings," i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., their opinion of the 'moment' with one another to a consensus, i.e., to a "feeling" of "oneness"), engendering a sense of "equality," i.e., the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6 (dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification'; "self" loves pleasure, i.e., the pleasure of the 'moment' and therefore when we 'justify' the pleasure of the 'moment' we 'justify' our "self" and when we 'justify' our "self" we 'justify' the pleasure of the 'moment,' making our love of pleasure 'just,' i.e., "good," i.e., "right" in our own eyes, thereby making our "self" God, i.e., "righteous" in our own eyes; dialectic 'reasoning' in a group setting, i.e., the act or praxis of "self-other" 'justification' makes all children/mankind god, collectively, with god 'discovering' himself as he 'liberates' himself from individualism, i.e., from isolationism, with everyone in consensus, i.e., god coming "out of the closet," i.e., 'liberating' himself out from under the father's/Father's authority so he can be of the world only, i.e., sin with impunity in a world of unrighteousness and abomination—after all one of Sigmund Freud's mythological hero's was Orpheus, a man who made love to young boys, Narcissus being the other, loving his self—reflected in nature), negating Hebrews 12:5-11 (the father's/Father's authority), thus negating Romans 7:14-25 (the guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for sinning) so that children/mankind can be "of and for human nature," i.e., "of and for self" only, i.e., can sin with impunity (at least in their thoughts and actions of the 'moment'), with the facilitator of 'change' (the psychotherapist), i.e., the 'liberator' of children/mankind from the father's/Father's authority in control, seducing, deceiving, and manipulation all children/mankind for the "common-ist/social-ist good" of all children/mankind, i.e., for themselves.
   You are persuaded (and persuade others) through the preaching and teaching of facts and truth, using discussion (at your discretion) to clear up any misunderstandings. You are manipulated (and manipulate others) through the dialoguing of opinions, with the situation or the environment of the 'moment' (along with those manipulating it) influencing your "feelings" of the 'moment'—from which you make your decision. Discussion is concern about doing right and not wrong, dialogue about augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain. Discussing "personal-social issues" is, in essence, dialogue, i.e., concern about your and others "feelings."
   It is not that feelings are not important (they are important), but when they become the standard for right and wrong (pleasure being right and pain, which includes chastisement, i.e., correction, reproof, rebuke—bringing children/men under conviction for doing wrong, i.e., for sinning—being wrong) truth is sacrificed on the alter of children's/men's opinions, i.e., children/men living for and 'justifying' the pleasures of the 'moment' over and therefore against doing the father's/Father's will, with children/men seeking the approval (affirmation) of children/men only, instead. "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Galatians 1:10 When you establish right and wrong, i.e., "truth" upon your "feelings" (opinion) of the 'moment,' you become a servant of, i.e., a slave to those who make a living seducing, deceiving, and manipulating men for their own pleasure, i.e., for their own gain.
  As the "great" facilitator of 'change,' i.e., psychotherapist, i.e., manipulator Carl Rogers stated it: "We know how to change the opinions of an individual in a selected direction, without his ever becoming aware of the stimuli which changed his opinion." "We know how to influence the ... behavior of individuals by setting up conditions which provide satisfaction for needs of which they are unconscious, but which we have been able to determine." "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors [our potential ability to influence or control the behavior of groups] will follow." "We can choose to use our growing knowledge to enslave people in ways never dreamed of before, depersonalizing them, controlling them by means so carefully selected that they will perhaps never be aware of their loss of personhood." "'Now that we know how positive reinforcement works [dialoguing opinions to a consensus, i.e., dialoguing our feelings (our carnal desires of the 'moment') to a feeling of oneness ('discovering' through dialogue the common carnal desires that we can all agree on, thereby affirming ourselves, and working together, as one, in fulfilling them, we establish our carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., ourselves over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., his/His restraints)], and why negative doesn't' [the father's/Father's authority to 1) give us commands and rules which go counter to and therefore restrain our carnal desires of the 'moment,' 2) reward us or bless us when we do what is right and obey, 3) chasten us when we do wrong and disobey, and 4) cast out those who disrespect i.e. who question and/or challenge his/His authority, i.e., who reject his/His restraints]... 'we can be more deliberate and hence more successful in our cultural design. We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled [the manipulated] though they are following a code much more scrupulously [more government regulations and oversight (sight based management)] than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do. That's the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement―there's no restrain and no revolt. By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior―the motives, the desires, the wishes. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) Emphasis in original. God has warned us of such praxis.
   "Liberate" the child/man from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth, chastening for doing wrong or disobeying, and casting out for disrespecting, i.e., questioning and challenging his authority and the child/man is "free" to be himself, of the world only (chart). "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16 What is "positive" to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., to the psychotherapist, i.e., to the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., to "the children of disobedience," i.e., to the manipulator of children/men is "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., "all that is of the world." What is "negative" is the father/Father and his/His authority—to restrain.
   Rogers wrote: "In psychology, Freud and his followers have presented convincing arguments that the id, man's basic and unconscious nature, is primarily made up of instincts which would, if permitted expression, result in incest, murder, and other crimes." "The whole problem of therapy, as seen by this group [which includes Rogers himself], is how to hold these untamed forces in check in a wholesome and constructive manner, rather than in the costly fashion of the neurotic [the child/man/society being "neurotic," i.e., doing the father's/Father's will while wanting to do his/its will, i.e., be himself/itself instead]." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) Abraham Maslow explained Roger's "wholesome and constructive manner" in his Journals: "So it looks as if nudism is the first step toward ultimate free-animality-humanness. It's the easiest to take. Must encourage it. Yet nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian & Jewish foundations. Must move in the direction of the Reichian orgasm. I certainly enjoy nudism as at Esalen & have no trouble with it. And I certainly think sex is wonderful, even sacred. And I approve in principle of the advancement of knowledge & experimentation with anything." "This movement can be dignified and Apollonian ... I must put as much of this as is possible & usable in my education book, & more & more in succeeding writings." "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students [those who humble and deny themselves, doing the fathers'/Father's will instead] that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards."(Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)
   By simply asking "the group" to be "positive" (to dialogue their opinions—to share with one another their desire for pleasure and their dissatisfaction with the father's/Father's authority, i.e., his/His restraints which "repress" them, i.e., his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth which "alienate" them from one another—which everyone in the group can readily identify with and unite upon to a "feeling" of "oneness," i.e., to a consensus) and not be "negative" (insisting upon presenting and defending, i.e., initiating and sustaining the father's/Father's position, i.e., authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., preaching the father's/Father's commands and rules to be obeyed without question and teaching his/His facts and truth to be accepted as is, i.e., by faith, sustaining his/His right-wrong way of thinking, i.e., his/His "prejudiced," "judgmental," "parochial" traditions, which not only prevents, i.e., blocks or inhibits them from being themselves but also prevents others from being at-one-with them as well, dividing the children/mankind from one another, causing conflict and tension in the world) the psychotherapist (the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the manipulator) has won the day, negating (respect for) the father's/Father's authority, 'liberating' the children (now "children of disobedience") from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying the father/Father and questioning and challenging and his/His authority, i.e., for sinning, doing what they want to do, when and where they want to do it instead, guaranteeing his desired outcome not only in the outcome of the meeting (effecting how policy is established, i.e., upon "the group's" "feelings" of the 'moment,' resulting in consensus instead of upon established commands, rules, facts, and truth of the "past"—requiring majority vote, leaving the guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying the father/Father, i.e., "private convictions," local control in place), but also in the participants own feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in their relationship with themselves, others, the world, and their father—questioning and challenging the father's/Father's authority—replacing the "old" world order, with its respect for the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, with the children learning to humble, deny, control, and discipline themselves, doing the father's/Father's will, with a "new" world order based upon the children's "feelings" (desires) of the 'moment' (the bases of the so called "super-ego"), esteeming themselves, with the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the "group psychotherapist," i.e., the seducer, deceiver, and manipulator in control of them instead. All the seducer, deceiver, and manipulator of children/mankind, i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the group psychotherapist has to do is ask them to be "positive" (for their opinion) and not "negative" (for what is right/not wrong and what is wrong/not right, i.e., for their father's/Father's position which they accept as their own) and he owns them and their inheritance (without them even knowing it). Faith in the father/Father must come before (lead to) obedience, otherwise, if obedience comes first (or does not follow), there is no true "love of the father/Father" in the child, only "repression" (within) and "alienation" (without) since the child can not have (get) "his way."
  
By simply 'justifying' his "self," i.e., being "positive" the child/man establishes his "self" ("self interest," i.e., "What can I get out of this situation for my 'self'") over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority (restraint). Without even knowing it, the child/man, by 'liberating' his "self" from the father's/Father's "top-down" authority (becoming "positive"), 'liberates' his resentment, i.e., his hatred toward the father's/Father's "top-down" authority ("restraint," i.e., "negativity"), especially when he does it with group approval (affirmation), i.e., 'changes' his paradigm, i.e., 'changes' his way of thinking and acting as well as his way of relating with others (rejecting negativity , i.e., "turning on" those who continue to hold onto the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the father's/Father's authority in the group setting, pressuring them to 'change,' i.e., concede to the group—"feelings"—thus initiating and sustaining group unanimity). The key element being, the group must be established upon opinion, i.e., "feelings" rather than upon any one person's position—which would sustain the father's/Father's "top-down" authority (the one) over and therefore against the group (the many). By being 'changed' in the group setting, the individual makes the group his source of identity rather than the one, i.e., the father/Father. "It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately." "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs [basing values and belief upon his "feelings" of the 'moment' (the bases of socialism) rather than upon the father's/Fathers commands, rules, facts and truth (the basis of individualism, under God)] by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "... the group to which an individual belongs is the ground for his perceptions, his feelings, and his actions" (Kurt Lewin, Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics) "Kurt Lewin emphasized that the child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group." (Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education) "One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)
   What seems to work in the beginning, everyone working together to satisfy the collective "self interest" of the group, breaks down as differences, i.e., effort of work-lack thereof, morality-immortality, and competence-incompetence between individuals becomes manifest, resulting in those working "with and for the group," i.e., as a "team player," who also take pride in and are competent in their work (doing it right and not wrong) developing resentment toward those who do not want to work or "mess" the job up, resulting in the facilitator of 'change' living off of the workers as he restores "relationships" between the workers and non-workers through the use of "group psychotherapy," i.e., "team building," i.e., "relationship building," i.e., dialogue meetings. Replace the dialogue meeting with the discussion meeting, with one (not the many), i.e., confirmation (not consensus), i.e., doing right and not wrong (not the "feelings" of the 'moment'), i.e., the conscience (not the super-ego) making the final decision and the dialectic process (the beast) is "dead in the water."
   There is no accountability for doing wrong, i.e., for sinning in the group, only accountability to doing what is "good" for the group (for the sake of initiating and sustaining unity). When unity becomes the agenda over and therefore against doing right and not wrong, then affirmation by the group keeps the group together, i.e., keeps the individuals in it. When the group is proven wrong, the individual will remain within the group, continue in its course anyway, affirmation by the group remaining the individual's agenda. True fellowship is based upon the Word of God being preached and taught as is, with the leadership discussing amongst themselves what is right and what is wrong doctrine, according to the Word of God. By adding the consensus process (dialogue) to the decision making meeting, i.e., adding the building of buildings, parking lots, mowing yards, etc., in order to "build relationship" in order to "grow" the "church," dialogue takes over, 'changing' the focus from doctrine (preaching, teaching, and discussion) too initiating and sustaining unity (dialoguing opinions to a consensus) in order to pay the bills ("If you build it they will come" instead of "If I be lifted up," i.e., finding common ground through dialogue, i.e., compromising [setting aside] established positions [sound doctrine] in order to work together as a "team" instead of preaching and teaching and living according to the Word of God as is, only, letting the Lord "give the increase" 1 Corinthians 3:7—where unity [fellowship] is a byproduct, i.e., the result of preaching and teaching the Word of God as is instead of being the "purpose" in and of itself, with everyone "driven" by their carnal desire for "peace and affirmation," i.e., pleasure and group approval, i.e., the approval of men). "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." John 14:27 "Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." Psalms 1:27:1
   Capitalism (accountability to the one) rewards good work. Socialism (accountability to the many) rewards bad work. Just remember, the rich man, the capitalist was in Hades not because he was rich but because he had no compassion on Lazarus, the poor man. Individuals have compassion, and a guilty conscience for doing wrong, not groups. Group unity, whether formed from diversity, i.e., tolerant of deviancy or not only has individuals in it using it to actualize their own "self interest."
   Jesus Christ had a following, those doing or learning to do His Heavenly Father's will, individually, in spirit and truth "humbling themselves under the mighty hand of God." (1 Peter 5:6), fellowshipping with the Father and His son, Jesus Christ first and foremost, fellowshipping (having relationship) with one another as a byproduct, coming alongside one another, encouraging one another in their walk with the Lord—having "the love of the Father" in their hearts toward one another as well as toward the world, i.e., toward the lost, that they might be saved, i.e., that they might come to know "the love of the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ" toward them as well, requiring that all repent of their sins, turn from their wicked ways, i.e., deny themselves, pick up their cross, and follow the Lord, in obedience to His Heavenly Father, i.e., walking by faith in every word that proceeds from the mouth of God and not by sight, i.e., by their own "sense perception," i.e., according to what "seems" to be "right," i.e., according to their opinion (according to what those of world—being deceived, i.e., thinking that pleasure is the standard for "good," i.e., for "right," i.e., for life, taking pleasure in deceiving others, i.e., convincing them that pleasure is the standard for "good," i.e., for "right," i.e., for life as well, over and therefore against doing the father's/Father's will—only have to work with). "The words 'seem to' are significant; it is the perception which functions in guiding behavior." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25, 26 "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23
   As I mention again and again, while the earthly father is not perfect, he might be a downright tyrant, his office is—given to him by the Heavenly Father, to do His will (right and not wrong) in. While the Lord Jesus Christ came to divide the earthly father from the son he did not come to negate the father's/Father's authority system itself. He came to place the father and his son under His Heavenly Father's authority instead. Dialectic 'reasoning' (correlating capitalism, nationalism, and individualism, i.e., "repression" and "alienation" as well as "neurosis" with the child/mankind submitting himself to the father's/Father's authority) seeks to negate the Heavenly Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of man by negating the earthly father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the child, 'creating' a "new' world order of Globalism/Common-ism based upon the child's/man's common carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' only, instead. Georg Hegel wrote: The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [once he has learned, through dialectic 'reasoning, i.e., through self 'justification' to 'liberate' himself from the father/Father and his/His authority system of commands and rules to be obeyed, as given, and facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, so that he can be himself, carnal, of the world only, as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life]." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) Synthesis, in the dialectic process, is not the child/man submitting himself to the father/Father and his/His authority, i.e., becoming at-one with the father/Father by doing the father's/Father's will instead of his will, "embracing" his/His father's/Father's "top-down" authority, but rather the father "re-discovering" and "embracing" his child like nature (the "child within"), i.e., his love of pleasure and resentment toward (hate of) restraint—abdicating his "top-down," "do right and not wrong," i.e., "judgmental" authority as a father—finding common identity ("common ground") with the child, resulting in both become as-one according to "human nature" only, or the child, uniting with the children of the world, perceiving the father/Father as being irrational (out of touch with the children's "feelings"—the "Zeitgeist"—of the 'moment'), responding to the father/Father and his/His authority as being irrelevant (impractical) in a world of rapid 'change,' instead. By the father abdicating his office of authority, for the sake of "building relationship" with the children, Hegel's next statement (communism) becomes a reality. "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, ... the surplus is not the property of one of them ... all contracts regarding property or service and the like fall away ... the surplus, labour, and property are absolutely common to all, inherently and explicitly." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) Apart from the father's/Fathers' authority you can not see the dangers of communism (Marxism), until it controls you for its own end, because it lies within you, i.e., in your desire for pleasure, your desire for the approval of men, and your resentment toward restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority.
   If the consensus process is the children's feelings of the 'moment,' then, according to those possessed with dialectic 'reasoning,' no decision can be made without the consensus process, guaranteeing a world of 'change,' i.e., a world of children united upon liberté, égalité, fraternité only (class consciousness), united in 'liberating' itself from the father's/Father's authority system. Class consciousness is the result of children, isolated from (divided between) one another, thinking and acting according to their father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, finding common identity and purpose with all the children of the world through dialogue (in "age appropriate" classes which encourage dialogue between the children), united as one in their common desire for pleasure and their resentment toward restraint, i.e., uniting as one (in consensus) upon their common resentment toward the father's/Father's authority system.
   The nature of children—living for the 'moment'—does not understand (comprehend) inheritance (having to set aside pleasure, i.e., the child's carnal desires of the 'moment' in order to do right and not wrong in order to receive a reward in the future, i.e., in the "there-and-then"). As in the garden, the "children's" disrespect toward authority (blaming someone else for their "bad behavior," i.e., not repenting, 'justifying' themselves, i.e., becoming as God, i.e., "righteous" in their own eyes instead) resulted in their being cast out, i.e., loosing their inheritance (losing access to the tree of life), i.e., that which comes from the Father. Evaluating (aufheben) their situation from their own nature (missing out on the fruit of the tree, i.e., the pleasure of the 'moment'), using dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., the scientific method (which is used only on things which are observable to and definable by carnal man, i.e., things that are material, i.e., sensual, i.e., temporal, i.e., temporary, i.e., "here-and-now" only) to 'justify' to themselves that there was nothing wrong with the "forbidden" ("My property. Not yours") tree (that which they desired in the 'moment'—that it was good and pleasing like the other trees, and desirous to 'liberate' them, i.e., their imagination, i.e., their "Reasoning" ability from God's, i.e., from the Father's authority) and putting their theory (opinion—that they would not die) into practice, i.e., praxis (eating of the fruit of the tree, making pleasure the standard for "good," i.e., for "right," i.e., for life) they rejected the father's/Father's authority (making themselves "equal," i.e., over and therefore against God's authority) losing their inheritance (with God removing them from having access to the tree of life) living only for the 'moment,' i.e., "of and for their self," i.e., off their flesh and the things of the world until they died (receiving eternal death instead). Life is not in the flesh, i.e., the carnal desires of the 'moment,' yet those possessed with dialectic 'reasoning,' perceiving that pleasure is the "drive" of life and the augmentation of pleasure the "purpose" of life, make the soul of man subject to 1) his "feelings" (to his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., the affective domain), 2) his "awareness" (his consciousness) of the world (that which stimulates pleasure and pain, i.e., the cognitive domain), and 3) his mind and body (that which the affective and cognitive domains depend upon in order for him to respond to, i.e., relate with the world around him, i.e., the psychomotor domain) which ties his thoughts and actions to the world which stimulates pleasure and engenders pain, with dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self 'justification'" guiding him in making the "right" decision (in his mind). Life is in the spirit (the breath of God), which only God can separate from the soul, making man subject to the Father's will only, instead, i.e., subject to the First Commandment. The facilitator of 'change' is able to attain the children's inheritance (in this life only) by getting them to "think and act" in the 'moment' according to their carnal nature—bringing theory, i.e., their opinion closer to practice, i.e., praxis, i.e., social action—encouraging them to focus upon their hearts desire, i.e., pleasure, establishing themselves, i.e., their "self interest" over and therefore against the father/Father and his authority, 'liberating' their resentment (hatred) toward the father's/Father's restraints (turning them against the father/Father, i.e., negating the father/Father and his/His authority in their mind and actions), resulting in the facilitator of 'change' living off the children's inheritance (that which is of this life—the children never receiving their inheritance of eternal life because of their lack of faith in the Heavenly Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ), using it (the earthly father's inheritance to his children) and the children for himself, i.e., for his own pleasure and gain instead—why all nations which go socialist have their money removed from their control, with all reserves taken out of the country being filtered back in through the facilitators of 'change's' control (for socialist programs only) instead, making sure the socialist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' gets his salary, perks, healthcare, and retirement package as he is being approved (affirmed or praised) by those being seduced, deceived, and manipulated by him, worshiping him (as God) in the process. The socialist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' gains access to your property and business, i.e., your children's inheritance when he gains access to your legislators "feelings" in the consensus meeting. You sent him to re-present you but in the facilitated (bipartisan) meeting he serves the process of 'change,' i.e., his own "self interest" instead.
   "Building relationship upon 'self interest'" is a dangerous thing. When you 'discover' gold with your "best friend," his "self interest" can cost you your life.
   Not knowing the "value of a dollar," which comes via sweat, children in their ignorance, i.e., thinking it "grows on trees," turn it over to the facilitator of 'change,' becoming slaves (servants) of the facilitator of 'change' for the rest of their lives. Nations who reject the father's/Father's authority find themselves in debt to their carnal desires of the 'moment' and to those who control (seduce, deceive, and manipulate) them, i.e., who live off of them (their labor and voluntarism, as "human resource") to their death. It is the love of money, i.e., stored up pleasure, that leads to slavery, first to the things it buys, then to the acquisition of money itself, then to the one who "encourages" everyone to "live in/for the 'moment,'" seducing, deceiving, and manipulating them out of it (out of their inheritance) in the name of "love," i.e., "worldly peace" and "socialist harmony," buying and selling their soul as "human resource" in the marketplace of "change." The inheritance (promise) of the father/Father to the son is based upon the son's faith in and obedience toward the father/Father, restraining himself (in the 'moment') in order to do his/His father's will—that we might participate in his pleasure/"His Holiness." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:13-26; Revelation 21:5-8 While the earthly father is the same as the Heavenly father in "top-down" authority, they are different in that the earthly father restrains the son for his own pleasure in this life, while the Heavenly Father does it that he might participate in His Holiness, inheriting eternal life instead.
   Our culture, like the pharaoh of Egypt who "knew not Joseph" (Exodus 1:8; Acts 7:18), does not know its history, does not understand (can not wrap its head around the concept of limited government, i.e., thinking through their feelings of the 'moment' they can no longer think, i.e., know the truth—making the following paragraphs almost impossible to understand, i.e., incomprehensible at first reading for most people) that our elected officials are to be sent (as children) by their constituents (the father, under God, the source of the father's authority, giving us "unalienable rights") to re-present them (the father), spending their money (the father's money) at the capital (at the store) to buy their (the father's) goods, according to their (the father's) will (according to the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth), maintaining local (the father's) control i.e., sovereignty. If they (the children) spend it (the father's money) on their own self interests and/or on their friends self interest instead (which the consensus process does), they are no longer sent to the capital (to the store). The child (the elected official) can only re-present the father (the constituents who put him into office, i.e.., their position), i.e., re-present the father's position—along with his restraints—which the child accepts as his own (sent to re-present his constitutes position because they, the constituents agreed with his position—which is the same as theirs). The child can only "present" his own feelings (opinion) of the 'moment'—which includes his own "self interests" of the 'moment' and resentment toward the father's restraints—which are subject to the current situation and the seduction, deception, and manipulation of the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., subject to 'change,' what he has in common with all the children of the world who resent their father's restraints—in his thoughts and actions "representing" only the children of the world (his desire for pleasure and resentment toward restraint) over and therefore against the father's authority (true representative government based upon doing right and not wrong according to the father's will). The uniqueness of limited government, is that the 'justification' of government is by the governed, under God, with each individual being personally held accountable before God, the Heavenly Father, and His obedient Son (in all things commanded) for his thoughts and his actions, forming government of restraint, i.e., elected officials with restraints placed upon them not only by the governed, under God, but also by having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, under God as well. Though secular in practice the element of one right answer (the guilty conscience for doing wrong) instead of many (the super-ego which is influenced by the "feelings" of the 'moment') keeps those in government from making compromise the means to the end, which results in government controlling the people, in the name of the people, instead of the people controlling (limiting) the government in the name of freedom of the conscience, i.e., liberty.
    When the elected official (the child) comes to a consensus with other elected officials (other children), he can only present his own feelings (desires and resentments) of the 'moment,' circumventing the constituents voice (the father's will), i.e., negating true representative, majority vote, limited government (the father's authority, i.e., local control, i.e., sovereignty, the father's restraint, i.e., self restraint) in the process. The Constitution with its Bill of Rights was based upon the father's (the constituent's) restraints, not the children's (the elected officials) desires (impulses and urges of the 'moment'). "Self interest" negates the humbling, denying, controlling, disciplining of self, under the father's/Father's authority, 'liberating' elected officials from their constituents (under God's authority) restraints.
   We did not kill the father (the King) in our Revolution, as the French did in theirs, nor did we keep him at the head of the Nation as in England, but we did keep him, at the head of the home—raising (training) up the next generation of citizens to know the difference between right and wrong, sending their elected officials (as children) to re-present them, with them (the children) refusing to spend the father's money on themselves, their friends, and their friends fathers (other nations), having a guilty conscience for doing wrong (for not presenting their father's position) instead, sustaining civil government, i.e., local control in the end. By the facilitator of 'change' coming between the father and his children, making the children the head of the home (via the consensus process), spending the father's (citizen's) money as they please, the children ("representatives"), without parental restraint (in consensus), have ended up spending the father into debt, replacing civil government with civil disobedience, leaving the facilitators of 'change' ("the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience") in place, living off that which is the father's, making the father and his children slaves to the process of 'change,' i.e., subject to their "feelings" (their desires and dissatisfactions) of the 'moment,' negating the father's authority, i.e., local control, i.e., sovereignty in the process.
   In an environment where doing things right and not wrong is the issue, believers (those who obey the Father) can take the floor, i.e., preach the truth, bringing others, through conviction, to the truth. In an environment demanding everyone be positive and not negate, the believer is silenced, i.e., is not allowed to preach the truth, i.e., is not allowed to bring others to conviction (having to set aside the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to "get along," i.e., in order to make everybody "feel good" about themselves and be "less offensive" to others). If he is allowed (given three minutes) to preach—Robert's Rules of Order gives you at least ten minuets to "persuade" others (preach and teach) that your position is right—his belief is treated as an opinion amongst opinions, making it "negative" (irrational and therefore irrelevant) since it hurts (is "insensitive" to) other peoples "feelings," causing division, i.e., "exposing" him as being the source of "controversy," as being "divisive," a "resister to 'change," as not being a "team player," i.e., a sociopath, needing counseling, i.e., "group psychotherapy." Instead of naming the person(s) causing "dissention," i.e., division, "marking" them by name, making what they are saying or doing wrong, sustaining doing right and not wrong as the issue (as the scriptures instruct), just mentioning that "there are those causing dissention amongst us," everyone knowing who they are, turns the issue into unity based upon sustaining a "'feeling' of 'oneness'" instead of upon what the Word of God says.
   After taking years of classes on European history and philosophy, reading and studying over 600 social-psychology books (in the light of the Word of God, which may, according to some, disqualify me as knowing anything), teaching in the University, and giving over 5,000 presentations over the past 20 years (from coast to coast, including radio and TV) on the subject of 'change,' i.e., on the dialectic process and its effect upon man—having even liberal professors state they could not refute a word I said—I do know my subject, i.e., the dialectic process, i.e., the process of 'change.' In a world taken captive to dialectic 'reasoning, i.e., to 'change,' truth, i.e., "doing right and not wrong" (doing the father's/Father's will) becomes irrational (unreasonable, i.e., impractical) and therefore irrelevant, especially when it gets in the way of everyone enjoying the pleasures of the 'moment,' lusting after the things of the world (even doing so in the name of the Lord).
   The following information explains how and why our education, workplace, government, and even the "church" has come to where it is today, foolish (although it perceives itself as being "wise") and immoral (although it perceives itself as being "OK"), tolerating and promoting unrighteousness and abomination as the way of life—with everyone using dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' and the consensus process—"justifying themselves before men." While everyone is preoccupied with the symptoms of the problems (the crisis' at hand) we are facing today, they are overlooking the source of the problems, i.e., their own heart, i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint—making their love of pleasure the 'drive' of life and its augmentation the 'purpose,' using dialectic 'reasoning,' "self 'justification'" to do so. "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15 "For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful." Psalms 36:2
   Discussion and dialogue are not the same. Discussion is based upon doing right and not wrong, with us presenting and defending an established position (our position), needing persuasion by facts and truth by the other person in order for us to change our position, i.e., in order to accept their position as being right and ours as being wrong, making us resistant to change. Dialogue is based upon our opinion, i.e., upon our "feelings" (our desires and dissatisfactions) of the 'moment,' making us subject to seduction, deception, and manipulation, i.e., making us readily adaptable to 'change.' When we dialogue our opinion with others, our "feelings" of the 'moment,' the environment which is stimulating them, and the facilitator of 'change' who is manipulating it, is in control. When we discuss our position with others, our position, i.e., the one giving us facts and truth, i.e., the one who gives us our position (the father/Father-child/Son relationship, with the father/Father in authority), is in control. In a world of 'change' dialogue ("feelings") supplants discussion (right and wrong). Discussing our or others "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., "individual-social" ("human" relationship) issues is in essence dialogue.
  
We discuss what we know, i.e., facts and truth. We dialogue what we are thinking, i.e., "feeling." We persuade and are persuadable in a discussion. We manipulate and are manipulatable in dialogue. The answers are in the questions i.e., in how they are asked. "How do (or did) you feel ..." and "What do (or did) you think ..." produces opinion ("feelings") based answers (responses). "What do you know about ... (or what is right)?" produces discussion (facts and truth, doing right and not wrong) based answers (responses). You loose all your unalienable (private, sovereignty) rights in dialogue. You retain them in a discussion. Do not be fooled. The moment someone asks you how you feel or what you think you are being moved from discussion (right and wrong, persuasion) to dialogue (feelings, manipulation). The big print (feelings) "giveth." The small print ("facts and truth" as defined by the facilitator of 'change') "taketh away." If you do not get to the "facts and truth" (expose the facilitators intent) your feelings can cost you all that you have.
   When we dialogue with ourselves and with others (our desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., our "feelings" of the 'moment') we make the problem something (or someone) in the environment that makes us "feel bad." Thus, if we could just 'change' it (or them) or make it (or them) leave or disappear—thus 'changing' the environment—we could "feel good" or "feel better" about ourselves, others, and the environment. In this way of thinking, people do not do things wrong or "badly" (Georg Hegel) but are thinking incorrectly ("negative")—are thinking about morality and competence, i.e., thinking (reasoning) from commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., concerned about doing things right and not wrong (didactic 'reasoning') first and foremost, instead of thinking about peoples "feelings" ("positive") i.e., their desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' in response to the current situation (inductive 'reasoning') first and foremost. With the focus being upon "feelings," i.e., ("positive") upon what people have done that is "right" ("good") instead of ("negative") what they have done wrong ("evil"), or, according to Hegel, "badly," i.e., being positive instead of negative, everyone can "feel good" about themselves, as well as "feel good" about what everyone else has done or is doing that makes them "feel good" about themselves as well, confirming their common identity, i.e., their desire for pleasure, including affirmation, thus making it possible to create "unity out of diversity," i.e., "community out of deviancy." "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory) The reason psychology, i.e., "self" 'justification' has taken over the world (including the "church") is that man can readily identify and 'justify' his carnal nature (his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment') in it, i.e., in its "I feel," "I think" language, means of communication.
   By changing communication in the classroom (or in any environment) from where teachers preach and teach commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is (by faith), and discusse any misunderstandings, at the teacher's discretion (all of which carry with it the father's authority and restraint) to where children are encouraged to dialogue their opinions of the 'moment' to a point of consensus, i.e., affirmation (which carries with it their resentment toward restraint), 'change' is initiated and sustained, making the children "equal" (in their mind) with the father, therefore establishing themselves, i.e., their "feelings" over his commands, rules, facts, and truth, turning the children against the father and his authority (doing right and not wrong), uniting the children on what they all have in common (love of pleasure and resentment toward restraint). The mature person corrects, reproves, rebukes himself, i.e., accepting the father's chastening when he does wrong, the immature person does not, exalting himself instead, blaming any failure upon other people or the situation—as our "leadership" does today (thinking and acting like children in adult bodies), even in the "church."
   In a discussion, the other person's position is wrong and ours is right, unless they (at our discretion) can convince or persuade us that our position is wrong and theirs is right. Thus if the wrong position is carried out, not only the wrong position but the person(s) doing it becomes the source of the problem. In dialogue our and others "feelings" are of issue, with us and them "feeling" good or bad as a result of each others method of communication. "Make me 'feel' good and I will listen to you." "Quite 'hurting' my 'feelings' and I will listen to you." "Quite telling me I am wrong and I will listen to you." When children learn how to come to the "truth" through dialogue in the classroom, i.e., 'justifying' their "feelings" of the 'moment,' with group affirmation, they can not handle (accept) their parent's attempts at discussing their education (what they are learning/doing in the classroom or are thinking about doing, knowing their parents would not approve of it, i.e., would consider it wrong) when they get home, ignoring them at first, turning on them ("rending them") if they persist.
   In a discussion we set aside our desire for approval from others in order to present our position, making doing right and not wrong the issue. In dialogue we set aside, compromise, deny, or reject our position in order to initiate and sustain the approval of others. In an environment of dialogue, anyone who persists in discussion—demanding that the issue and its outcome be based upon doing right and not wrong first and foremost, hurting peoples "feelings" (causing division) by telling them they are wrong—becomes an outsider and is rejected. In an environment of discussion, anyone who persists in dialogue—desiring that the issue and its outcome be based upon everyone's "feelings" (opinion) of the 'moment,' encouraging everyone to set aside the commands, rules, facts, or truth that is causing division (for the 'moment") in order to build relationships—becomes an outsider and is rejected. Merging the two, i.e., dialogue and discussion, i.e., discussing "feelings," i.e., discussing "individual and social issues," simply makes discussion, i.e., "doing right and not wrong," subject to dialogue, i.e., to "feelings," negating "wrong," referred to as "the negation of negation."
  
Whoever controls the environment (defines terms), controls the outcome. When discussion, i.e., the language of the father/Father controls the environment (defines terms, i.e., do right and not wrong), facts and truth, i.e., "top-down" authority, "unalienable rights, under God," freedom of the conscience is the outcome. When dialogue, i.e., the language of the facilitator of 'change' (and the children who follow him) controls the environment (defines terms, i.e., be positive and not negative), manipulates "feelings," i.e., the children's desires (love of pleasure) and resentment (hate of restraint), i.e., man's carnal nature, i.e., "liberté, égalité, fraternité," freedom from the conscience is the outcome. By simply bringing dialogue (the affective domain, i.e., "Pandora's box") into the classroom, making it part of the grading system, the parents authority is replaced with the child's nature, i.e., the child's desire for pleasure and dissatisfaction with parental restraint, resulting in conflict and tension in the home when the child returns, questioning and challenging the parents authority. This applies to every institution where policy is (decisions are) being made, including within the "church." "The affective domain [the child's/man's heart] is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box [a "box" full of evils, which once opened, i.e., once 'liberated' from the parent's/God's authority—restraint—can not be closed].'" "What we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives ['liberating' the children or rather "helping" the children 'liberate' themselves (the proletariat) from the father's/Father's authority (from the bourgeoisie)] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues." "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) The café houses of Europe were the seedbed for its Revolutions, so to the "group grade" classroom in the school (and the "youth group" in the "church") today. By "building relationship upon self interest," the father's authority, i.e., sovereignty, i.e., local control (private property and business) is negated.
   All teachers are certified based upon their knowledge of and use of "Bloom's Taxonomies," which are based upon the Marxist ideology ("Weltanschauung," ibid.) of Theodor Adorno and Erich Fromm. All schools (including colleges, universities, and trade schools, public and private) are accredited based upon their teachers and administration using them, i.e., applying them not only in the classroom but also inside and outside the school environment. All federal funds to "local" education are based upon their use of "Bloom's Taxonomies," which are the bases of Goals 2000, No Child Left Behind, All Children At Risk, Common Core, etc.,.
   The father's/Father's authority ("top-down" hierarchy), with the children doing right and not wrong, according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth is a political system. So is the children's "feelings" (impulses and urges) of the 'moment,' with the children responding to the world, i.e., to the situation of the 'moment' that is stimulating them (thus responding to the facilitator of 'change' who is manipulating the environment, i.e., seducing and deceiving the children, using them and their inheritance for their own pleasures and gain), according to their desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment.' They, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (requiring faith at first, with the children experiencing the truth of them later on as they obey and do them) and the children's "feelings" of the 'moment' (subject to sight, i.e., to sensuousness, requiring the children's sensuous needs and sense perception of the 'moment,' i.e., their sense experience, i.e., their "feelings" of the past and present to determine what is "right" for them, i.e., what "feelings good" to them, i .e., what makes "good sense" to them in the present and the imagined future) are political systems which are antithetical to (in conflict with) one another. Dialectic 'reasoning' seeks to resolve the conflict (antithesis) by making "feelings," i.e., the father's "feelings" (his desire for pleasure, including the pleasure which comes from having relationship with others, the world, and the children) and the children's "feelings" (their desire for pleasure, including the pleasure of having relationship with others, the world, and the father/Father) the foundation from which to create unity, negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e., his/His "top-down" hierarchy, i.e., his/His right and wrong and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying in the process.
   "The bridge is safe to cross." is not the same as "I think the bridge is safe to cross." One is a fact or truth, the other is an opinion. If the bridge fails while you are crossing it, the first person is at fault (can be held accountable), the second person is not (can not be held accountable)—it was your fault (you are accountable) for trusting in his opinion, i.e., treating his opinion as a fact or truth, putting his "theory into practice." You can not blame the devil, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' for anything (the Lord holds him accountable). You are the one who listened to him and did what he suggested, putting aside "negative," i.e., the father's/Father's authority (warning), thinking "positive," i.e., according to your carnal nature, doing what you wanted to do in the 'moment,' removing the "negative," including the innocent and the righteous, making all things you desire (imagine) possible. "Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." Genesis 11:6
  In dialogue the issues is not that the square block can not fit in the round hole (can not agree, as in a discussion), as crazy as it may sound, it is that the square block and all the other shapes and the frame from which the round hole and all the other holes are cut of are made of the same material, i.e., wood, plastic, etc., thus making them the same, 'creating' unity out of diversity. Focusing upon what we have in common ("feelings"), not upon what makes us different (our position, or rather our parent's or God's position), 'shifts' our paradigm (our way of feeling, thinking, behaving, and relating) from doing right and not wrong to our (and others) "feelings" of the 'moment.' In dialectic 'reasoning' (dialogue) you can get an A in class for coming up with two plus two being five because the grade is not based upon facts, i.e., upon whether the answer is right or wrong, but upon "feelings," i.e., upon "the group" coming to a consensus, i.e., to a "feeling" of "oneness," with its willingness to 'compromise' (to set aside "for the 'moment'") any "established" answer for the sake of (in the process of) "building relationship" (initiating and sustaining common ground/identity) while coming up with an answer, even if the answer is wrong, the "feeling" (opinion) of "the group" taking precedence, putting its opinion (theory) into practice (social or group action—praxis), reinforcing its "common-ist identity."
   If I have twenty student's in my classroom, who's fathers have differing positions on what is right and what is wrong, all I can do is teach students facts and truth that do not question or challenge their father's authority—preventing 'change'—(or get fired). By maintain the "old" method of education, i.e., "top-down" authority in the classroom—preventing the "dialectic method" from being used in the classroom—the "old" world order is maintained, preventing 'change.' "The dialectical method was overthrown―the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness; What is Orthodox Marxism?) But if I am able to, as a facilitator of 'change,' get (encourage) "my student's" to dialogue (share) with one another their opinion, i.e., their desire (for pleasure) and dissatisfaction (with restraint)—which their fathers will not do—I can unite them as one upon "feelings" (under my "authority"), 'liberating' them from their father's authority (position)—which divides.
   Divide and conquer means by focusing upon the children's' "feelings" of the 'moment' (the affective domain), i.e., allowing them to dialogue their opinions, i.e., their desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' I can turn them against their father's authority, i.e., cause division in the home. With the home in disarray, i.e., the children in rebellion against their parents and the parents at their wits end, I can then, by getting the family into group psychotherapy, i.e., the consensus process, i.e., the soviet system, i.e., into dialogue take control over the father's children, his wife, his property and business, etc., i.e., conquer the father, making all that is his (including himself) subject to me, the facilitator of 'change' and the process of 'change.' "Objectives [the 'changing' of the student from loyalty to parental or "top-down" authority, correlated to Nationalism, i.e., the "old" world order to loyalty to "the group," i.e., to self and the world or "equality," correlated to socialism-globalism-environmentalism, i.e., the "new" world order] can best be attained where the individual is separated from earlier environmental conditions and when he is in association with a group of peers who are changing in much the same direction and who thus tend to reinforce each other." "To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in may ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed, many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)
   All I have to do is come between the father's children and the father, i.e., circumvent the father's authority, i.e., allow (encourage) the children to freely dialogue their opinions, i.e., their "feelings," i.e., their desires of the 'moment' and their dissatisfaction with the father's restraints (without fear of reprimand—negating the guilty conscience in the children for doing wrong) and I have won the day—"win-win," i.e., I "win" control over them as they "win" control over their lives (so they think). This applies not only to children in the classroom (public, private, or home school) or in the "youth group" or "cell group" (in the church), it applies to every person in every meeting, in every institution in the city, township, county, state, and nation, as well as in all the nations of the world dealing with personal-social issues (crisis) which are at hand. "Self-actualizing people [people making decisions based upon their and others "feelings" of the 'moment' in the "light" of the situation they find themselves in] have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture [the father's/Father's authority]. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost." "... to identify with more and more of the world, moving toward the ultimate of mysticism, a fusion with the world, or peak experience, cosmic consciousness, etc." "The person at the peak experience is godlike." (Abraham Maslow, The Further Reaches of Human Nature)
   Everyone would clearly see the problem if is it was not for their "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e. their love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e., their love of "self," i.e., their heart's desires, i.e., their "self interest," i.e., their desire for the approval of "the group," i.e., affirmation (all being the same, i.e., "feelings" based) getting in the way. This directly applies to the pre-school, grade school, high school, college/university, workplace, and (unfortunately, in some cases) even the home-school classroom as well as all other areas of our life today, including politics and the "church." Education, from the home on, establishes how policy is made, either being established upon "human nature," i.e., the child's love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e., the child's "self interest," i.e., 1 John 2: 15-18 or the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will, i.e., Hebrews 12:5-11.
  When we make pleasure, i.e., "the good life," i.e., our heart's desires more important than doing right and not wrong, i.e., than doing the father's/Father's will we become blind to where pleasure, i.e., "the good life," i.e., our heart is leading us—down the pathway of unrighteousness and abomination, i.e., to a world without Godly restraint, i.e., a world of destruction and death, without mercy and grace. Our love of pleasure negates our love of God. Our fear of losing out on the pleasures of the 'moment' negates our fear of judgment and the wrath of God upon us for our deceitful and wicked ways, i.e., for our love of pleasure and hate of restraint. The love of the child is different than the love of the Father. The love of the child is from below, i.e., "of and for" himself and the world, i.e., loving pleasure, hating restraint (missing out on pleasure). The love of the Father is from above, i.e., doing right and not wrong. Children can not understand the Father's love since it is made manifest in the Father's chastening of them, teaching them right from wrong, instilling a guilty conscience in them when they do or are thinking about doing wrong. Dialectic 'reasoning,' "self 'justification,'" i.e., the child 'justifying' his love of pleasure and hate of restraint over and therefore against doing right and not wrong according to the Father's will negates the Father's authority in the child's thoughts and actions, negating the guilty conscience in the child for doing wrong, making the child at-one-with (in consensus with) himself and the world in the process.
   Our current generation can be summed up thus, "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:18 Through their use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "Reasoning" from their "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., using the 'logic' of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., 'justifying' themselves—their love of pleasure—over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority—doing right and not wrong—they not only negate the father's/Father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, but in their relationship with others and the world as well, negating, not only in themselves but in those they associate with, the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, i.e., Romans 7:14-25, turning themselves (collectively, i.e., in consensus) into "children of disobedience," subjects (servants) of the master facilitator of 'change,' i.e., "the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience." If you lose sight of (turn away from) the Father in dealing with the problems (crisis) of the day, all you have is yourself and the world, i.e., the source of the problems, deceiving yourself, believing you can 'create' peace upon your carnal nature. Our Heavenly Father instructs us differently: "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them." Colossians 3:5-7 "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." "Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." Ephesians 2:2, 3; 5:6 "And through covetousness [your carnal desires, i.e., your "self interest"] shall they with feigned words [generalizations, "double speak," plastic words, Gr, i.e., saying one thing meaning another, i.e., through deceitfulness] make merchandise ["human resource"] of you [so they can buy and sell your soul as natural resource for their own pleasure and gain];" 2 Peter 2:3
   The consensus process, i.e., group approval or affirmation is love of pleasure on steroids. It is not only that people are afraid of loosing out on the pleasures of the 'moment' they desire, i.e., their heart's desire (if they disagree with, i.e., do not go along with "the group," in a group decision setting) but that they are also fearful of loosing out on the pleasure of group approval itself (affirmation), i.e., fearful of what will happen to them if they refuse to 'compromise,' i.e., refuse to set aside their "ridged" position—which is required in order for them to initiate and/or sustain relationship with, i.e., within "the group"—thereby inhibiting or blocking consensus, i.e., a "feeling" of "oneness," i.e., belongingness, i.e., social-ist harmony, that is at the heart of the problem. A meeting coming to a decision based upon majority vote allows you to be respected as an individual, holding to your position, i.e., holding to your "private convictions," even when you emphatically disagree with the decision being made, openly declaring it and those supporting it to be wrong, allowing you to have "freedom of the conscience" in the process. A "group meeting" based upon (striving for) consensus, on the other hand, does not. It creates "freedom from the conscience" instead."Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [maintain their individuality, i.e. hold onto their position, i.e., their private convictions] in the face of apparent group unanimity." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) Only by individuals, in a group setting, finding common ground ("building relationship") upon their common desires of the 'moment' ("self interest") can the guilty conscience for doing wrong be circumvented, allowing them to do unconscionable things, 'justifying' themselves (their deceitful and wicked thoughts and actions) in the social action (praxis) of creating peace and affirmation, i.e., "worldly peace and socialist harmony."
   All you have to do is have people come to a consensus, i.e., to a group agreement on a few issues they can all easily and willingly agree on and before long they will begin to seek group affirmation no matter the issue, willingly setting aside differences, i.e., their private convictions (their parent's or God's standards), in order to come to a consensus, no longer being able to stand alone—called habitualization, democratization, conscientization, etc. "We must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "In order to effect rapid change, . . . [one] must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved. It is necessary, in other words, artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children—to insulate the children in order that they can more easily be indoctrinated with new ideas." "If one wishes to mold children in order to achieve some future goal, one must begin to view them as superior. One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant." ". . . any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy regardless of its intent." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society) This is the foundation upon which contemporary education (from the 50's on) is based. See the article Benjamin Bloom and his Taxonomies compared to Karl Marx.
   Just think what children, attempting to hold to their position, i.e., their parent's and/or God's standards, are going through in the "group grade" classroom. If, in this process, adults are going through the pain of cognitive dissonance, where they are caught between their desire to hold to their position (doing right and not wrong) and their desire for the approval of "the group" (their "feelings" of the 'moment'), what do you think children, going through the same process, i.e., the affective domain, consensus, "group grade," socialist/soviet classroom are going through. Who would do this to their children? If their children go in the direction of "group approval" they will produce conflict in the home, questioning and challenging their parent's position, disrespecting, defying, striking out against, disregarding their authority. If their children hold to their position, they will experience continued conflict in the classroom. This includes the college classroom and the workplace meeting, as well as the college and workplace environment itself. The children's choice is either to obey their parents and experience rejection by "the group" or go with "the group" and either have a guilty conscience for disobeying their parents, remaining in a state of internal conflict and tension, or question and challenge their parent's authority (or kill the parent), 'liberating' themselves from their parent's authority as well as negating their having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying their parents (authority itself), making them "children of disobedience."
   
Over the years I found that it was believers (those doing the Father's will, i.e., "fellowshipping with the Father, and with his son Jesus Christ" first and foremost) who, while not being able to necessarily repeat what I covered in my meetings, understood what I was saying. It was "Christians" (those doing their will, fellowshipping with one another first and foremost, thinking they are doing God's will in the act of fellowshipping, i.e., "building relationship" with one another first and foremost) who did not. "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."1 John 1:3 The emphasis in 1 John 1:3 is upon other believers fellowshipping with the believer (you) who knows and fellowships with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ first and foremost, as he (you) fellowships with those who know and fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ first and foremost, the emphasis being upon each believer knowing and fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ first and foremost, others fellowshipping with them (you) because of their (your) relationship with, i.e., knowing and fellowshipping with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ, the emphasis being upon everyone knowing and fellowshipping with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ first and foremost, not fellowshipping with one another first and foremost. Without the knowing and fellowshipping with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ first and foremost there is no true fellowship, i.e., assembling of believers. The fellowship or assembly is the result of (byproduct) of those who know and fellowship with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ first and foremost, gathering together "in his name," coming alongside one another (not between one another and the Father and his Son Jesus Christ), instructing, encouraging, correcting, reproving (if need be), etc., one another according to the Word (preaching and teaching the Word of God as is, i.e., without compromise, i.e., weighing the Word with the Word, not making it subject to man's opinion), as the Lord leads, worshiping the Lord, praising him for his goodness, giving thanks to him for his mercy and grace.
   Without even knowing it they ("Christians") had already become victims of the process of 'change,' with their intellect, i.e., "reasoning" (taken captive to their "feelings," i.e., to their "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment,' and their desire for the approval of others, i.e., to all that is of the world), i.e., with "self" 'justification' and their desire for the approval of men (their desire to have or "build relationship" with others, which gives or has the potential of giving them pleasure, including the pleasure which comes from being approved by others, i.e., approving their "self interest"), i.e., with dialectic 'reasoning' getting in the way of their hearing the truth—that they were created to do right and not wrong according to the Heavenly Father's will, i.e., to know and fellowship with the Father (and his Son, Jesus Christ) first and foremost. "And he [Jesus] said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself [reject his carnal desires, i.e., his "self interest" of the 'moment'], and take up his cross daily [endure the rejection of men, i.e., "the group"], and follow me [in obedience to my Heavenly Father]." Luke 9:23 Bracketed information added. "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9, 7:21, 12:50
   I am in a dilemma. While sharing the Word of God—which expose the way of the world, i.e., the process of 'change'—chases the "Christian" and the world away, who I want to reach, leaving only the believer, sharing the process itself without the Word of God keeps the world and the "Christian" interested in reading, gaining more knowledge on how the process works—leaving everyone without a solution, which can only be found in the Word of God. I, being a believer, i.e., fellowshipping with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ first and foremost, can only resolve the dilemma by choosing the Word of God, exposing the process, encouraging the believer in his walk, leaving the world and the "Christian," i.e., at least those who refuse to know the truth, in their ignorance, i.e., in denial of the truth—that they are responsible for the killing of the innocent and the righteous (being silent as other do it, not reproving, correcting, rebuking them makes them just as guilty) because they desired the approval (affirmation) of men (in this life), experiencing the wrath of God for their deceitful and wicked ways (after death).
   The difference between believers (those doing the Father's will) and "Christians" (those doing their will, thinking they are doing God's will) is that believers do Luke 9:23 and "Christians" do not. Believers (doing the Father's will) are able to stand alone (are able to be a witness, i.e., a martyr) in the face of "group unanimity," while "Christians" (seeking "group approval," i.e., the approval of men, i.e., affirmation, i.e., willing to 'compromise,' i.e., set aside the Word of God or reinterpret it in order to "actualize" their "self interest," i.e., their "lust" for pleasure and their desire for the approval/praise of men, i.e., the pride of life) are not. "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." Galatians 5:24 "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." " Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is." Jeremiah 17:5, 7 "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." Psalms 118:8 "Every one that is proud in heart [who seeks the approval of men] is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5
   They did not kill "Christians" in the soviet union (there was a state "church"), they killed believers, i.e., those who refused to 'compromise,' i.e., those who refused to become at-one-with the world (who, being in the world, refused to be "of and for" it). Believers (doing their Heavenly Father's will) can stand alone with the truth (because their truth comes from above, i.e., from the Word, confirmed by the Spirit, making it and themselves unadaptable to 'change') while "Christians" can not (because their "truth" comes from below, i.e., from themselves, i.e., from their opinion, confirmed by "the group," making 'truth' and themselves adaptable to 'change,' i.e., subject to the situation of the 'moment,' i.e., their "feelings" [Reasoning] of the 'moment' and the world that stimulates it and the facilitator of 'change' who is manipulating it, "guiding" them in making their decisions). When you make the word of God subject to your opinion, you can make it fit anywhere, without offending man, i.e., without bringing him under conviction. There is no conviction, contrition, or repentance in an opinion, only how you "feel" about (interpret) the Word in the 'moment,' making it (the Word) subject to your flesh and the world which stimulates your flesh and your thoughts (reasoning). When someone asks you for your opinion, they are asking you to share from that which is of your flesh and the world, i.e., from your carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., that which is not "from the mouth of God."
  
By the facilitator of 'change' creating an environment of dialogue, i.e., an environment which emphasizes being "positive" and not "negative," the believer is "exposed" as a "resistor of 'change,'" i.e., as not being a "team player," needing "counseling" (therapy), i.e., needing their "brain washed" of the father's/Father's authority since they continue to hold to the Word of God, i.e., preach it as is, weighing (evaluating) their thoughts and actions (and everyone else's thoughts and actions) from it. Refusing to compromise the Word of God (or set it aside for the 'moment') for the sake of building unity, i.e., refusing to "build relationship with others based upon self interest," i.e., upon opinions, i.e., upon "feelings," basing relationship with others based upon their "fellowshipping with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ" first and foremost instead, the believer makes all that is of the world guilty of sin, subject to the wrath of God, i.e., "feel bad."
   By converting the believer—through the praxis of dialogue, i.e., through "group psychotherapy," i.e., through the consensus process—"helping" him become at-one-with the world, i.e., 'redeeming' him (and the world) from the father's/Father's "top-down" authority system, 'reconciling' him to the world—to the child's/man's opinion instead—those of the world, i.e., facilitator's of 'change,' i.e., "children of disobedience" are able to 'redeem' themselves (and the world) from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for sinning. This pattern or so called "scientific method," i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self 'justification,' i.e., the consensus process is being applied to all areas of life today, from before conception to after the grave.
   The consensus process (bipartisanship) has become the law of the land, i.e., has become how the law of the land is made, with no decision being made without first being filtered through the consensus process, filtering out the father's/Father's authority system in setting policy, 'liberating' the child/man, i.e., all that is of the world from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for sinning, 'justifying' the child's/man's adulterous and abominable thoughts and actions (theory and practice), making "human nature," i.e., the child's/man's carnal nature (void of the father's/Father's restraints) the foundation from which to build ('create') a "new" world order upon only, instead. Citizens do no vote for representatives to compromise their position, i.e., to set aside doing right and not wrong in order to advance socialism, i.e., to advance compromise, unless they are liberals, i.e., for the consensus process, getting their way, getting the citizens elected representative to negate doing right and not wrong, i.e., negate the citizens position as they participate in the consensus process. Doing right and not wrong is always compromised, i.e., set aside, i.e., negated in the consensus process.
   The next breath you take is a gift from God. The only reason you are taking it is to be a witness. "And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death." Revelation 12:11 They overcame the power, i.e., the seduction, deception, and manipulation of the facilitator of 'change' by what the Lord has done, and by speaking of what He has done and is doing in them; and they loved not their natural love of (desire/"lust" for) pleasure (felt and perceived or imagined) and their natural love of (desire/"lust" for) the approval of men (pride of life)—which makes them seducible, deceivable, and manipulatable by the facilitator of 'change'—to their death. It is not that the believer is to fight against the world by his strength (force), it is that he is to die to himself, letting the Lord work through him—by His Word (which has to be preached) and His Spirit (who guides and directs and brings under conviction)—to bring the world to Him (via conviction, repentance, redemption, and reconciliation) instead.
   Explaining the truth to a world (and "church") taken captive to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., to "self" 'justification' is like a parent trying to reason with their rebellious child, i.e., trying to explain to him (or her) why he can not do what he wants to do, when his heart is set upon it—the parent's reason (reasoning from doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will) being unreasonable (irrational) to the child, i.e., "You don't understand," "You're not being fair," etc., i.e., "You're not reasoning from my 'feelings' of the 'moment.'" People can not think clearly when their "feelings," i.e., their desires of the 'moment,' i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint is in the way. It is why you get that "deer in the headlight" stare from "Christians" when you try to warn them of where their love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e., "Reasoning," i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., opinion is taking them. Today, with the 'drive' of life being pleasure and it's 'purpose' the augmentation of it, fear of doing wrong, i.e., fear of being rejected by God ("What is going to happen to me after I die?") is replaced with fear of missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., fear of not receiving the approval of and/or being rejected by men ("What is going to happen to me in this life, i.e., right now if I do not get their approval, i.e., approve them?"). All of education, the workplace, government, and the "church" is caught up in this process, so do not dismiss the following as just some "to hard to understand" information. It is the very essence of what you are facing today at home, in the workplace, in the classroom, at the town hall meeting, at "church," etc, and even in yourself. The only reason it is "to hard to understand" is because it is "to close to home" to see.
   "Feelings," i.e., our desires of the 'moment' blind us to the truth. How much of education, the workplace, government, and even the "church" is based upon, i.e., rooted in "feelings," i.e., in the affective domain, today? Educators and students, employers and employees, legislators, judges, leaders and the citizens they serve are all being graded, i.e., "judged" today according to how they make other people "feel." For example, professors today are being "graded" by the students, according to how the professor made the student "feel," with the professor's salary, promotion, or job depending upon the students evaluation of them. Your employment, pay, promotion, etc., depends upon your "relationship building," i.e., "team playing," i.e., socialist (seduction, deception, manipulation) skills today. That is the "quality" of TQM (Total Quality Management) and TQL (Total Quality Leadership). It is the Reasoning behind OBE (Outcome Based Education), No-Child-Left-Behind (still under parental authority, i.e., All Children At Risk, still under parental authority), or Common Core (Common-ist education) in education, STW (School to Work) for your legislators (passing laws making both children and adults, the classroom and the workplace, subject to socialist praxis, i.e., globalism), CDBG (Community Development Block Grant—Agenda 21, making all "communities" subject to globalist, environmentalist laws), Church Growth, Emergent Church, Contemplative Church (making the Word of God subject to man's carnal feelings of the 'moment,' i.e., subject to his carnal interpretations), etc., not only in the neighborhoods, towns, cities, townships, counties, states, and across the nation but around the world as well, all being built upon the consensus process, i.e., the process of 'change.'
  God gave us "feelings" so that we would be aware of the world and others around us, responding to it and them according to our physical, mental, and relationship needs, thanking Him for supplying our daily needs while limiting our response to it (and them) according to His Word, with us doing His will in all things commanded. He has also giving us His spirit that we would praising Him not only for His works (for providing us our daily bread) but also for His mercy and grace (revealing His love for us, i.e., saving us from our sins so we can know Him and serve Him by His leading), worshiping Him in spirit and in truth. "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him." John 4:23 He did not give us "feelings" that we would live for (worship) them (our "self"), making them (our "self") the foundation from which to know right from wrong with, instead of His Word. "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23
   Our "Reasoning" is based upon "feelings," i.e., upon our "feelings" of the 'moment and the situation that is stimulating them, thus making us subject to (deceivable by) whoever is manipulating the situation. God's reasoning is based upon doing right and not wrong, that is, according to His Word, giving us the choice of either agreeing and obeying, i.e., doing right or disagreeing and disobeying , i.e., doing wrong, leaving us with a guilty conscience when we think about doing, are doing, or have done wrong. We deceive (blind) ourselves when we try to merge the two, making right subject to our "feelings," i.e., to our "felt needs" of the 'moment,' and wrong, anything or anyone who is "hurting our feelings," i.e., not satisfying our "felt needs" of the 'moment,' searing (negating) the guilty conscience when we are thinking about doing, are doing, or have done wrong in the process. Since wrong (as defined by God's Word) no longer exists (in our thoughts) it no longer is relevant (to our actions). When we make God and His Word subject to our "feelings"—making God's Word an opinion—we make our "self" god—observing and defining ourselves, others, the world, and God's Word in the "light" of our "feelings" of the 'moment,' which are being stimulated by the world, i.e., by the situation we find ourselves in, which is being manipulated by the facilitator of 'change,' making any part of God's Word, which we do not agree with, irrational, and therefore anyone who is preaching and teaching it, chastening or casting out any one who is disobeying, questioning, or challenging it, unreasonable and therefore, our (or anyone else's) disobedience (against it), irrelevant. God's change is changing ('redeeming') us from sensuousness to righteousness (by faith, 'reconciling' us to Himself). Man's 'change' is making sensuousness (his carnal nature) "righteousness" ('redeeming' himself from God, by dialectic 'reasoning, i.e., "self" 'justification,' 'reconciling' himself to himself and the world).
   According to dialectic 'reasoning' preaching will not build the tower of Babble (world unity). Telling man what he must and must not do will only divide him between faith (doing the father's/Father's will) and sight (doing his will), dividing him not only within himself, but from others and the world, i.e., all that is of sight, as well. It is only through dialogue "common cause," i.e., man's desire to be at-one-with himself and the world can be 'discovered,' 'liberating' man from the father's/Father's "Because I said so," "Thou shalt not," "It is written," allowing him to "building relationship upon self interest," i.e., to become at-one-with himself, others, and the world only, and thereby, putting it into practice (praxis) working on a common project (tower) together, 'create' a new world order based upon himself, i.e., upon "human nature," i.e., upon that which is "of and for" nature (of sight) only instead. The Word of God says: "... the kingdom of God is preached, ..." "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: ..." Luke 17:20, 21 "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child [by faith] shall in no wise enter therein." Luke 16:16; 17:20, 21;18:17 Bracketed informational added. "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17
   It is out of the conflict between the father's/Father's preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed, as given and his/His teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith and the child's natural (carnal) desire for pleasure and dissatisfaction with restraint, that the child attempts to 'liberate' himself from the father's authority by trying to get the father into dialogue—with his "Why?" in response to the father's/Father's commands and rules. Only by the father abdicating his preaching (and discussion at his discretion), i.e., going into dialogue with the child instead, can the child and the father become one (based upon the child's nature of approaching pleasure and avoiding pain), i.e., become at-one-with themselves, one another, and the world (that which is of sight) only instead.
   While the woman in the garden (with Adam abdicating his authority to her and therefore to her seducer, with the rest of the world following) used dialectic 'reasoning' ("Reasoning") to 'justify' her eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, i.e., based good and evil upon her carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' (sensuousness), i.e., responded to the situation of the 'moment' according to her "feelings" of the 'moment' and the world which stimulated them, i.e., walked by the flesh and sight, i.e., did as she willed in the 'moment,' i.e., defied God's (the Father's) authority, in the temptations in the wilderness, Jesus Christ, using the Word of God to determine right from wrong from, walking by the Spirit and by faith, did as His Heavenly Father's commanded.
   "Reasoning" (evaluating ourselves, others, the world, and God) from our "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e. from sight is antithetical to reasoning (evaluating ourselves, others, the world, and God himself) from God's Word, i.e., according to faith. One makes us subject to the world and eternal death, the other to the Lord and eternal life, with both effecting how we feel, think, and act, and relate with ourselves, others, the world, and God and His authority, resulting in us either "justifying" and "esteeming" ourselves or "humbling," "denying," "disciplining," and "controlling" our selves. You can not have it both ways, although you can deceive your "self" into believing that you can, i.e., worship God, your "self," and the world at the same time, in essence worshiping your "self" as god. Worshiping your "feelings" of the 'moment' (worshiping the worship experience) as you worship God is in essence worshiping your "feelings" of the 'moment.' It is what the first of the Ten Commands addresses. As they say, "What part of 'Thou shalt not' or 'Though shalt' do you not understand?"
   While philosophy is man thinking about how the world "is," subject to the Father's will, and how it "ought" to be, subject to his will instead, the Lord knows how the heart of man "is," subject to his desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' and the world which stimulates them, and how it must be, subject to His Heavenly Father's will instead. When truth becomes subject to our "feelings," i.e., to our carnal desires of the 'moment,' we become blind to the truth that can only come from God, that comes from above, that can only be known through faith in Him and His Word, as a child has faith in his father.
   While our "feelings" of the 'moment' make us subject to the world, the Word's (commands, rules, facts, and truth) of the Father make us subject to Him. Our "feelings," i.e., desires of the 'moment,' i.e. our love of pleasure and hate of restraint, and our ability to 'justify' our "self," i.e., to 'justify' our carnal desires of the 'moment' blinds us to the truth that our heart is deceitful and wicked, deceitful in that we think we are good when we get what we want, i.e., are enjoying the pleasures of the "moment," and that we are not wicked when we circumvent, strike out against, or remove, i.e., hate that which gets in our way of having pleasure, blinding us to the truth that God's judgment, i.e., the wrath of God is upon us for our willed disobedience, i.e., for our deceitful and wicked, unrighteous and abominable ways.
   While God's love is based upon doing right and not wrong (righteousness), our love is based upon augmenting pleasure and attenuation pain (sensuousness). It is not that God is for pain and against pleasure, it is that doing right and not wrong, according to His will, must come first before pleasure or despite pain (which includes missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment'). Dialectic 'reasoning' 'justifies' our carnal nature, i.e., our love of pleasure and hate of restraint, thus it 'liberates' us—in our feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in our relationship with our "self," others, and the world—from the Father and His authority.
   Dialectic 'reasoning' deludes us into believing that we can merge (synthesize) the two, i.e., the father/Father and the children/man, i.e., doing right and not wrong and our carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., truth and our "feelings" of the 'moment,' making the Word of God subject to our opinion, i.e., making righteousness, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the Father's and the Son's will (both in agreement) subject to our carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., subject to sensuousness (pleasure), negating the father/Father and his authority, i.e., righteousness (doing the Heavenly Father's will) in the process, making "sin" anyone who engenders pain, i.e., anyone who "hurts" our (or others) "feelings," i.e., anyone who reproves, corrects, and/or rebukes (chastens) us (and others) for doing wrong, for sinning, i.e., anyone who gets in the way of pleasure, leaving us in our sins—what the apostate mega, contemporary, emergent, contemplative, etc., "church" is doing today.
   The "church" has more to do with the demise of America than any other institution, the "minister" more to do with the demise of the "church" than any other man. Woe be to the "minister," who, like a pimp, puts the bride of Christ on the street corner, prostituting her to the world for his own gain. I would not want to be in the same room (or universe) when the Lord God (the groom) gets ahold of him, judging him for attempting to molest his wife, persecuting her because she refused to participate in his wicked deeds (praxis). Of course the Lord's true bride will not listen to and follow him, dusting her feet, as she departs from him and those who follow him, denying herself, enduring rejection, persecution, and death (at his hands), following the Lord Jesus Christ, fellowshipping with the Father instead. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:" John 10:27 "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." 1 Timothy 2:19 The brides gown is spotless (pure white) because it has been washed in the blood of the lamb and has no wrinkles because it has not been sat on, i.e., the bride has not rested, i.e., become a part of (a friend with) the world, looking for her groom, i.e., anticipating his arrival at any moment, instead. "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4
   Dialectic 'reasoning' is man using Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., "self" 'justification' in order to negate Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, in order to negate Romans 7:14-25, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong. It is the children, i.e., love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e., unrighteousness and abomination, i.e., the so called "new" world order establishing itself (themselves, i.e., "self") over and therefore against the father/Father and his/His authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong, i.e., righteousness, i.e., the "old world order." It is the "children of disobedience" negating the family, oppressing the parents and the children who obey them. The idea being: "Let no crisis pass that can be used to negate the father's/Father's authority in solving it."
   It is not that God is against pleasure. It is that when pleasure becomes more important than setting it aside in order to do the Father's will (like a child who will not set a toy aside, which his parents gave him, in order to do what they command in the 'moment,' or plays with something he is told is not his to play with) it becomes "lust," manifesting the law of the flesh, i.e., "the law of sin," i.e., "human nature." This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;" 2 Timothy 3:1-4
   In essence, what we get pleasure from—doing the Father's will or doing our own will—reveals whether our love is of the Father (love of the truth) or it is for the things of the World (love of unrighteousness, i.e., love of our carnal nature, i.e., "human nature"). "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:16 The Lord, when faced with doing His Heavenly Father's will or following after His nature desire to live, denied His will, i.e., denied His "self," doing His Heavenly Father's will instead. "He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." Matthew 26:4 The prayer that the Lord gave us to pray, commonly referred to as "The Lord's Prayer" starts with "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." Matthew 6:9, 10 His kingdom is not based upon our "feelings," i.e., our love of pleasures and hate of restraint, but upon doing His Heavenly Father's will. "Jesus answered [Pilate], My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." John 18:36 "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16
   Man's "Reasoning," i.e., dialectic 'reasoning' is man's effort to 'justify' his love of the pleasures of this world, i.e., to 'justify' himself, blinding him to the truth that God created him to reason from His Words. "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4
   The two can not coincide. Love of the Father requires the humbling and denying of "self," i.e., our willingly setting aside our love of the pleasures which are stimulated by the world in order to do the Father's will, while love of "self," i.e., our love of the pleasures which are stimulated by the world requires our negating the Father and His authority, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong in the process. We either set aside our carnal desires in order to do the father's will—the "old" world order—or we set aside the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to satisfy our carnal desires of the 'moment'—the "new" world order. Without the father's authority in the child's life, all he has is his love of the world, i.e., his love of (and for) the pleasures of the 'moment' and his hate of restraint (and the restrainer), leading to death. Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., making the child's love of self, others, and the things of the world the standard for "right" and anything or anyone who "gets in the way" "wrong," 'liberates' the child from the father's authority, engendering rebellion, anarchy, and revolution, i.e., engendering death. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25, 26
  The role of the facilitator of 'change' is to come between the father and his children, getting the children to focus upon their "feelings," i.e., to focus upon their desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., to focus upon themselves (collectively), 'liberating' themselves from the father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong in the process. This is the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of those possessed with dialectic 'reasoning,' who "justify themselves before men."
   By 'discovering' a persons opinion, i.e., their "self interest" of the 'moment'—through the use of dialogue (including confessionals, polls, surveys, etc.,)—the facilitator of 'change' can more easily seduce those under his influence, offering to "help" them satisfy their desires or "felt needs" of the 'moment,' i.e., their "sensuous needs." He can then more easily deceive them into believing that he has their "best interest" in mind when he has his own "self interest" in mind instead. By preaching to them (incorporating their "self interest" of the 'moment' into a common cause, thus offering a way for them to achieve their "self interest" by working with "the group" which has the same "self interest," with him in control) on the one hand, while on the other hand dialoguing with them (acquiring their desires of the 'moment' for more information from which to preach from, making truth subject to their "sense perception" of the 'moment, i.e., that he has their "best interest" in mind), he is able to manipulate them, i.e., get them (as "human resource") to support him and his deceitful and wicked ways. It is how the globalists and the leaders of the apostate "church" (uniting as one, i.e., in consensus) do business today, "buying and selling souls." When you make God's Word subject to your "feeling" of the 'moment,' i.e., subject to "self interest," anyone preaching and teaching God's Word "as is" becomes an "extremist."
    Have we arrived at the time where God does not want people to hear the truth because, "Reasoning" from their "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., 'justifying' their "self," i.e., 'esteeming' their "self'"enamored in that which can satisfy their "self interest" of the 'moment'—using dialectic 'reasoning' to determine right from wrong, i.e., refusing to hear the truth that their heart is deceitful and wicked and that God is going to judge them for their "self" willed disobedience, i.e., for their sins, i.e., refusing to repent and turn from their wicked ways, i.e., refusing to believe in His Son for their salvation, i.e., refusing to receive 'redemption' from judgment and death (damnation) through the Son's obedience to His Heavenly Father in all things commanded, including dying on the cross for their sins, i.e., refusing to be 'reconciled' to His Heavenly Father through His resurrection, i.e., refusing to accept His righteousness which is imputing to those of faith in Him alone, i.e., refusing to "cast down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" (2 Corinthians 10:5), using "human reasoning" to 'justify' "human nature" (themselves) instead, they deserve what is coming their way? "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth [in the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ], but had pleasure in unrighteousness [in themselves]." 2 Timothy 2:11, 12
   The "lie" of dialectic 'reasoning is, because pleasure "feels good" it must be the standard for "good," making pleasure the 'drive' of life and therefore its augmentation the 'purpose,' resulting in man deceiving himself, becoming delusional, believing that he is or can become "good" (the so called "blank-tablet theory") by doing "good works," with "good works" including the removal (negation) of all that gets in the way of pleasure manifesting his hate of restraint, i.e., his wickedness, i.e., his believing in the lie that he can kill the innocent and the righteous, i.e., remove those who get in the way of pleasure, and not be held accountable for his thoughts and actions. Refusing to believe in the truth (in denial) that his heart is deceitful and wicked and that the wrath of God is upon him for his unrighteous thoughts and unrighteous actions he embraces the lie (the great deception) that he can overcome the duality of right and wrong (the conflict, tension, or antithesis of life) by worshiping at the altar of pleasure and affirmation (the alter of his "self interest," i.e., "beauty" and "the approval of men," i.e., "peace," 'justifying his "lusts" and "pride," according to the flesh, i.e., according to that which all men have in common, i.e., the "law of sin")—negating the altar of righteousness (doing the Father's will, i.e., that which causes division between man and man, i.e., between the redeemed and the lost, i.e., between those who live by faith, doing the Father's will, i.e., between doing right and not wrong according to the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, and those who live by sight, doing their will, thinking and acting according to their heart's desire, i.e., basing right and wrong upon their carnal nature of approaching (loving) pleasure and avoiding pain (hating restraint)—what those who are "of and for" the world, i.e., philosophers, sociologists and psychiatrists, i.e., psychotherapists, etc., i.e., facilitators of 'change' can only recognize, advocate, and do, some even doing so, as wolves in sheepskin, in the name of Jesus). Pleasure is an anesthetic, desensitizing us to the pain which we cause others in our effort to initiate or sustain it, making us hateful toward them when they get in its way or indifferent to their suffering when their efforts to inhibit or block us from having it are neutralized—with their right and wrong being perceived as being irrational their pain and suffering (including the pain and suffering which comes with rejection by those they love and their lose of control over that which is theirs) becomes irrelevant. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 "Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked." Exodus 23:7 "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." Matthew 12:36 "[E]very one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12
   Since man is not righteous, i.e., good in and of himself, his "good" works, i.e., his love of pleasure and hate of restraint (unrighteousness) can not engender righteousness, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the Father's will, they can only engender unrighteousness, i.e., doing his will instead, rejecting the father's/Father's definition of "right and wrong." (Georg Hegel) Instead, righteousness, the work of the Lord in us, engenders good works (doing right and not wrong, according to the Father's will). Martin Luther wrote "[Aristotle believed that] 'By doing good we become good.' The Christian conscience curses this statement as bilge water of hell and says, 'By believing in a Christ who is good, I, even I, am made good: his goodness is mine also, for it is a gift from him and is not my work.'" (Luther's Works: Vol. 44, The Christian in Society: I, p.300) "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:8-10
    There are two kinds of knowing (knowledge). There is knowing because somebody told you, i.e., "My parents say," "My teacher says," "God says," i.e., "It is written," which has to be preached and taught, which has to be accepted by faith (which leads to deductive, didactic reasoning, i.e., reasoning from the facts and truth you have been taught, which then leads to knowing by experience in the present or in the future) and knowing which comes through your own "sense experience," i.e., "I feel therefore I know," knowledge which can be shared with others through dialogue (which leads to inductive, dialectic 'reasoning', i.e., 'reasoning' from your experiences of the past and your feelings of the 'moment' and the future, experienced through imagination—attaining your hearts desire of the 'moment,' removing the barriers which get in the way). By making knowledge subject to "sense experience," i.e., to the affective domain, i.e., to the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' which can be shared via. dialogue, knowledge by faith, which has to be preached and taught, and discussed at the parent's, teacher's, or God's discretion, is negated, negating the father's/Father's authority (respect for authority) in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in his relationship with himself, others, the world, and anyone who is in authority. If experience does not having meaning to the child, i.e., if the child can not gain carnal pleasure from it in the present or the future, it has not value. The famous psychotherapist (transformational Marxist) Carl Rogers wrote: "Experience is, for me, the highest authority." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) [Rogers included Marx and others in the quote, which I left out in order to make his agenda clear, only because "Traditional Marxist's" accepted Marx's statement without questioning (experiencing) him, i.e., therefore they, when they got into any position of authority, did not experience questioning authority, making themselves authoritarians instead of making themselves and all who followed them subject to "sense experience" only, i.e.., "Don't just study Marx, be Marx," resulting in them doing the same thing as believers do, accepting God's Word by faith, demanding others do the same, not questioning authority, i.e., not making authority subject to "sense experiences," i.e., 'subject' to the "feelings" (carnal desires) of "the people."] In this way, whatever we can not "sense experience" of God, i.e., that nature of God which is not common to man becomes irrational and therefore irrelevant. If man has "faith," it is only in that which he sees in nature which he does not yet have full knowledge of, i.e., which he can not yet fully explain, only being able to observe and define it to his "best ability," according to his "sense experience" i.e., his "sense perception" of the 'moment,' i.e., according to his opinion, called it a "theory." The problem comes when he puts his theory (knowledge) into practice, requiring all do the same. Treating theory (opinion) as a fact (knowing) and putting it into practice (praxis), as note above, leads to destruction and death.
   God warns us of the consequence of basing life upon the second kind of knowing, i.e., knowing only through "sense experience," using dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' it (our "feelings") as the only bases of knowing (knowledge), rejecting that knowing (knowledge) which comes from above: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6
   The child's "Reasoning" (ability to evaluate, i.e., aufheben) is subject to his "feelings" of the 'moment" and the world which stimulates them (which leaves him thinking, i.e., Reasoning as two "children" in the garden in Eden—Genesis 3:1-6). The child's Reasoning is subject to his love of pleasure (that which feels "good") and his hate of restraint (that which feels "bad" or "evil," i.e., that which prevents him from enjoying the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., from feeling "good"). The child's Reasoning is dialectic (inductive) 'reasoning,' made manifest through dialogue, i.e., the language of "Why?," and "I feel ...." and "I think ...." (of questioning and challenging authority, i.e., of opinions or theory), i.e., the language of philosophy, sociology and psychology, i.e., "group psychotherapy," anthropology, etc.
   The father's/Father's reasoning is subject to his/His word/Word, i.e., is subject to doing right and
not wrong, with the child/man thinking and acting according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth (Hebrews 12:5-11). The father's/Father's is didactic (deductive) reasoning, made manifest through the preaching and teaching of established commands, rules, facts, and truth (and discussion at his/His discretion) and threat of chastening for disobedience, i.e., "The fact or truth is ....." "It is written ...." "Because I said so." resulting in the child having a guilty conscience for doing wrong (for sinning), repenting and asking for forgiveness from the father/Father (Romans 7:14-25).
   While the earthly father is subject to pleasure, i.e., is unrighteous in and of himself (he may be, in defiance to God, a downright tyrant), his system of authority is the same as God's (being from God), making the child subject to doing right and not wrong, as God requires of him. By 'changing' communication from the preaching of commands and rules (to be accepted as given) and the teaching of facts and truth (to be accepted by faith), i.e., from the father's/Father's system of authority to the dialoguing of opinions, i.e., to how the child "feelings" in the 'moment,' i.e., to the system of the child (to the affective domain), the father and his authority (system) is automatically abdicated to the carnal nature, i.e., to the "feelings" of the child which are being stimulated by and responding according to the system of the world, according to the child's love of pleasure and hate of restraint.

   If you do not understand the father's/Father's authority system, as explained in Hebrews 12:5-11, and the guilty conscience for doing wrong (engendering "private conviction" and the need for repentance and forgiveness), as explained in Romans 7:14-25, and what happened in the garden in Eden, i.e. Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., the dialectic 'reasoning' process, i.e., "self" 'justification' being put into action (praxis), i.e., the woman's effort to negate Hebrews 12:5-11 and Romans 7:14-25 (with Adam following, i.e., abdicating his authority to it, i.e., to her), you can not understand what is happening around you and to you today. Philosophy, sociology and psychology, i.e., "group psychotherapy"— being used in education, the workplace, government, and even in the "church" (youth groups, cell groups, board meetings, retreats, etc.,) today—is based upon the child's/man's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' ("self interests" which are stimulated by the world or the immediate situation and anyone manipulating it) and his use of dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' them, thereby 'justifying' his carnal response to the father's/Father's restraints, i.e., authority.
   Following the money trail means: money (which is stored up pleasure, i.e., dopamine) with the father in charge of it, distributing it to those who are under his authority, with him giving it to those who respected his authority while he is alive, receiving it through inheritance after his death, can only be taken control of by those who are not under his authority and/or do not respect his authority, by getting his children—who already desire pleasures (his money) and resent his restraint—to question, challenge, and overthrow his authority, following after them, i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "the children of disobedience," thus abdicating their inheritance to them. By 'creating' an environment where the child is 'liberated' from the father's preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth—where the father distributes his money (blessings) to those who respect his authority and obey—to where the child can freely share (dialogue) his opinion, i.e., his desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' with others, without the fear of being reprimanded, the child's loyalty to the father and respect for his authority is replaced with loyalty to those who can satisfy his desires of the 'moment,' "bypassing," i.e., negating his father's authority system in his feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in his relationship with others in the process, in order to get what he wants, resulting in "the children of disobedience," i.e., facilitators of 'change' living off of his inheritance in the end. It is how socialism, globalism, and the consensus process works. "Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon transform public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests.... transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps." (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order)
   Anyone coming between you and your child, who can identify (get them to divulge, through dialogue) their "self interest" of the 'moment,' can seduce them into following after them, drawing them away from following after you (negating local control, i.e., your control over them). By deceiving them into believing that they have their "best interest" in mind (when they have their own "self interest" in mind instead), they can manipulate them, i.e., use them for their own pleasure and gain, turning them against you and your authority as a parent in the process (of "self-actualization"). It is how those who use dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., the process of 'change' get their way. It does not only work on your children, it works just as easily on your boss, your teacher, your legislator, your minister, your friends, your spouse, and even you. "Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature) "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, i.e., including the most basic scheme as true-good social conditions are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions stunt human nature,... This is to say, one could reinterpret Marx into a self-actualization-fostering Third- and Fourth-Force psychology-philosophy. And my impression is anyway that this is the direction in which they are going now." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)
   Philosophy is of ("of and for") the child. It is the child thinking (dialoguing with his "self") about how the world "is," "negative," i.e., subject to the father's/Father' authority, i.e., subject to the father's/Father's will, and how it "ought" to be, "positive," i.e., subject to his "feelings" or "self interest" of the 'moment, i.e., subject to his will, making the father's/Father's authority irrational (unreasonable) and therefore irrelevant in a world of 'change,' i.e. in a world subject to everyone's "feelings" of the 'moment.' The same is true for sociology and psychology, i.e., "group psychotherapy," anthropology, etc.,. Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., the "scientific" method, the child's objective (purpose, i.e., duty) in life is to negate the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., to negate doing right and not wrong according to the fathers/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., is to negate "negativity" (called "negation of negation") in his feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in his relationship with himself, with the other children of the world, and the world itself, 'liberating' not only himself but all the children of the world from the father's/Father's authority system so that he and they can become as they were before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth and threat of chastening (judgment) for disobedience or doing wrong came into their life, carnal, i.e., "of and for self," i.e., "positive," i.e., subject to the world of pleasure ("good") only. The word of God warns us of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., of "self" 'justification,' i.e., of "self-actualization," i.e., of making "human nature," i.e.., the child's love of pleasure and hate of restraint (sensuousness) the standard for good and the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will (righteousness), the standard for evil. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;" Isaiah 5:20 "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Luke 11:35 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions [antithesis] of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. " 1 Timothy 6:20, 21 True science, i.e., "the scientific method" is used on rocks, plants, and animals. So called science or "science falsely so called" is "the scientific method" being used on man, who is made in the image of God—thus making him only measurable by God—not in the image of rocks, plants, and animals—making him only measurable in the image of himself, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only.
   Taken captive to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., to "self" 'justification,' recognizing only the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains of man, philosophers, psychologist and sociologists, i.e., "group psychotherapists," anthropologists, etc., establish criteria of "normality" upon the carnal nature of man, making man in their image (having a "soul" which is temporary, which has peace in pleasure and resents restraint according to the laws of the flesh, i.e., that which is of the world), establishing laws making man subject to unrighteousness and abomination, oppressing man—made in the image of God (having a soul which is eternal, which has peace in doing right and not wrong according to the will of the Father, i.e., God the creator). Incapable of knowing true love, joy, and peace, which can only come from the Lord, i.e., from knowing the Lord and the Lord knowing them, they establish the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life upon the carnal pleasures of the flesh, i.e., upon the carnal nature of man, which is ever subject to, i.e., stimulated by and respondent to the world only, making man subject to the fleeting 'moment's of time, i.e., ever 'changing,' i.e., never content—"Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." 2 Timothy 3:7
   Rejecting the certainty of the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the certainty of right and wrong, they make uncertainty, i.e., the opinions of the child/man the law of the land, making the person who is certainty, i.e., who has a guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., the person with "private convictions," the barrier to peace and harmony, i.e., the one who is inhibiting or blocking man from achieving "worldly peace" and "socialist harmony." "We must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) By replacing "the pursuit of happiness" with "the right of pleasure" itself, life and liberty become subject to pleasure, making those who inhibit or block pleasure the enemy of the state, i.e., i.e., the enemy of "the community," i.e., the enemy of "We the people," preventing a "more perfect union" from becoming a reality—dialectic 'reasoning' was present at the framing of the Constitution (why Patrick Henry fought against the Constitution in its original writing, pressuring the introduction of the "Bill of Rights"—why dialectic 'reasoning' judges on the Supreme Court have worked so hard over the years redefining them, i.e., working to negate them, with the unborn child and the elderly having to trust in those who have no guilty conscience in taking the life of the innocent and righteousness; in order, as in "new" world order to 'create' a "better" life for themselves).
   In man's effort to remove the barriers to pleasure, i.e.., the barriers to the "good" life, i.e., which includes removing or negating Godly restraint—removing doing right and not wrong according to the Father's will—so that he can do wrong (disobey) without having a guilty conscience, i.e., so that he can sin with impunity (the ultimate goal of dialecticians), he makes manifest the wickedness of his heart, i.e., his hatred toward God and His authority, i.e., resenting His restraints (not only the pain which comes from chastening but also the pain which comes from missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment'). With man blinded by his "Reasoning" ability, i.e., his ability to 'justify' his "self," i.e., to 'justify' his love of pleasure and hate of restraint ('justifying' "human nature" via "human reasoning," i.e., via dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., via dialogue), he responds to God's threat of judgment upon him, i.e., God's authority, i.e., the system of authority itself as being "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant," rebelling (rioting) against it, promoting unrighteousness and abomination, i.e., "human nature" as the only way of life, instead.
   Caught between sensuousness (approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e., that which is of the world) and righteousness (doing right and not wrong according to the Father's will) the child finds "equilibrium" in receiving the pleasure of approval from those in one "camp" or "paradigm"—way of feeling, thinking, behaving, and relating with others—or the other. While approval can come from both systems, affirmation can only come from those affirming the flesh, i.e., from those affirming the carnal nature of man (since God is not "of and for" the flesh). When caught in between paradigms, disequilibrium, i.e., cognitive dissonance ("The lack of harmony between what one does and what one believes." "The pressure to change either one’s behavior or ones belief." Ernest R. Hilgard, Introduction to Psychology) ensues until approval from one paradigm or the other (approval from the father for doing right and not wrong according to his/His will, or affirmation from the children for approving their desire for pleasure and dissatisfaction with restraint) gains or regains control. As will be covered later, this is where "group dynamics," "force field analysis," and "unfreezing, moving, refreezing" (all part of the process of 'change') come into play 'changing' a persons paradigm from righteousness to sensuousness, creating a so called "new" world order with children of sensuousness 'liberating' themselves from the the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, negating doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will, making the child's nature, i.e., sensuousness, i.e., that which is of nature only, the only way of life.
   Discussion initiates and sustains one paradigm—with good being based upon the child doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will—dialogue the other—with "good" being based upon pleasure, i.e., 'liberating the child from the father's/Father's authority (restraints), i.e., from that which is not "of and for" the child's nature. By 'shifting' communication from doing right and not wrong (preaching and teaching) to the child's feelings and thoughts (opinion) of the 'moment' (dialogue), the child's paradigm is 'shifted' from righteousness to sensuousness. The moment you say "Your are wrong." in a dialogue, i.e., in the language of "I feel ___." or "I think ___." the system of communication becomes a discussion. To say "I think you are wrong." instead, only deceives everyone into believing it is a discussion (a position) when in truth it is a dialogue (an opinion).
   Since righteousness can not come from dialogue, i.e., from how the child is "feeling" in the 'moment,' stimulated by the world around him, i.e., drawn to pleasure and repulsed by restraint, by the child's ability to 'justify' himself (Genesis 3:1-6), i.e., to 'justify' his "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., with pleasure being good and pain (including the blocking or inhibiting of pleasure) being evil, the child is able to deceive himself, perceiving himself as being righteous (as God), in and of himself. When approved or affirmed by other children of the same feelings, thoughts, and actions ("self interest" or opinion), the child becomes blind to the deceitfulness and wickedness of his (and their) heart. Uniting (in consensus) with them instead in the praxis of negating righteousness, i.e., negating the father's/Father's authority system (Hebrews 12:5-11), not only from his own feelings, thoughts, and actions and in his relationship from other children, but from the face of the world itself, he no longer has a guilty conscience for doing wrong, according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, and therefore no longer perceives himself as needing to repent (Romans 7:14-25).
   Faith (love of the Father, i.e., righteousness, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the Father's will) comes with a price, rejection by "the children of disobedience." Sight (love of the world, i.e., sensuousness, i.e., approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e., love of pleasure and hate of restraint) comes with a price, rejection by the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. By making reasoning (subject to our "feeling" of the 'moment') equal with faith (authority), or rather making authority (faith or belief) subject to our "feelings" of the 'moment' (theory or opinion) we deceive ourselves, making our wicked thoughts (desires) right in our own eyes, 'justifying' our wicked actions ("theory and practice"). "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:15-17 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness [who make 'truth' subject to their "feelings"];" Romans 1:18 "Let no man deceive you with vain ["self interest"] words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." Ephesians 5:6 "And through covetousness ["self interest"] shall they with feigned words [generalizations, "double speak"] make merchandise ["human resource"] of you ;" 2 Peter 2:3 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6
   Instead of parents, i.e., fathers training their children up to do right and not wrong no matter the situation—with the children refusing to yield to the temptation of compromising their father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to apprehend pleasure and/or avoid pain—they are now concerned about their children having a "better life," i.e., living a life of pleasure, not only doing so for themselves (as a Capitalist) but for all others as well (as a Marxist). "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy [dialogue] the individual comes to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)
   The eyes are stronger than the ears. Faith comes by hearing (through preaching and teaching—and discussion at the discretion of the one in authority). Once perception (the dialoging of opinions) takes over, faith "withers away." "Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied."Proverbs 27:20

   Once people learn to 'Reason' from their "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., from their desires (love of pleasure) and dissatisfactions (hate of restraint), it is difficult, if not impossible, for them to hear the truth. It is why when you speak (preach) the truth in a world of 'change,' i.e., in a world where everyone is taken captive to their "feelings," i.e., their desires, i.e., their "self interests" of the 'moment,' you become the enemy, i.e., you become labeled as being "negative," divisive, hateful, intolerant, maladjusted, a lower order thinker, narrow minded, prejudiced, judgmental, unadaptable to 'change,' a resister to 'change,' not a "team player," "irrational," "unreasonable," "in denial," a "dinosaur," a "fundamentalist," an "isolationist," an "extremist" etc., and treated as "irrelevant." "For the preaching of the cross [denying your "self," enduring the rejection of "the group," and following after the Son who was obedient to His Heavenly Father in all things commanded, by faith doing the same] is to them that perish [to those who Reason dialectically, i.e., who 'justify' themselves before men] foolishness;" 1 Corinthians 1:18
   "There is no fear of God before their eyes" sums up our current generation—taken captive to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., to "self 'justification,'" "justifying themselves before men" in the consensus process. (Romans 3:18, Luke 16:15) Individualism, under God, i.e., man concerned about pleasing God, i.e., Protestantism is now replaced with man concerned about pleasing man, i.e., socialism. As Max Horkheimer (a Marxist) noted in his book, Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung [Reasoning and the Preservation of Self]: "Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism [individualism, under God, i.e., personal accountability before God, i.e., the "priesthood of all believers" before God]." The Marxist Norman O. Brown wrote: "Human consciousness can be liberated from the parental complex only be being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
   It is better to stand alone with the truth, i.e., to be rejected by "the group" for speaking the truth (denying your "self," i.e., denying your carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., your "self interest," picking up your cross, i.e., enduring the rejection of others, i.e., the rejection of "the group," and following after Jesus Christ, who is the only way, the truth, and the life, be saved, i.e., 'redeemed' from judgment and damnation—by the Son's obedience to His Heavenly Father in all things commanded and death on the cross "to be the propitiation for our sins"—be 'reconciled' to the Father—by the Son's resurrection, with His righteousness being imputed unto you according to your faith in Him, and be saved, receiving eternal life) than to belong to a crowd of liars (deniers—of the truth, i.e., in denial of the deceitfulness and wickedness of their heart and God's judgment upon them for their sins—and Why-ners—wanting their way, i.e., to do wrong, i.e., to sin with impunity), i.e., than to be approved ('justified,' i.e., "affirmed") by "the group" (for not speaking the truth, making it "feel good," and be damned, receiving eternal death). "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Mathew 10:28
   Fellowship is a byproduct of faith in the Father and the Son. If it is built upon "self interest," i.e., upon pleasure and the approval (affirmation) of men, it is of sight and only of the world, even when done in the name of the Lord. "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:22 , 23
   It is not that the believer gets up in the morning desiring to be rejected by men. It is that the believer—preaching and teaching the truth, that man might repent and be saved—exposes man's love of self and hate of restraint, resulting in the believer being rejected (persecuted and martyred, i.e., silenced) by men. "The world cannot hate you [those who are of the world] but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil." John 7:7 "If the world hate you [for speaking the truth], ye know that it hated me [the truth who you speak of] before it hated you." 1 John 15:18 "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved." Matthew 10:22
   God is perfect (righteous in and of Himself) and therefore loves perfection (righteousness) and hates imperfection (unrighteousness—God does not hate man, only his praxis of unrighteousness, judging him according to his praxis of "self 'justification,'" i.e., 'justifying' himself in his sins, i.e., refusing to repent). When God created man, hate was already there in the flesh (in unrighteousness—since man is not God, i.e., righteous in and of himself, needing God Himself in order to be righteous). When the facilitator of 'change' came into the garden to "help" man (via the woman) 'liberate' his love of the flesh, i.e., imperfection (unrighteousness, i.e., thinking and acting apart from God, i.e., aufheben, i.e., 'Reasoning' from his own nature, i.e., according to the flesh, i.e., according to the pleasure of the 'moment' or absence of it i.e., pleasure, equivalent to pain—only God is good, "there is no good in the flesh," with man becoming unrighteous because of his love of the flesh, i.e.,loving pleasure "more" than God), he 'liberated' man's hate of perfection (hate of righteousness) in the process, making man as a god, 'righteous' in and of himself, according to his own flesh, i.e., according to his carnal nature, i.e., thinking and acting according to his "self interest" only. Jesus came in the form of a man, in the flesh, sent from the Father, of the Spirit, and by his obedience to the Father overcame the works of the flesh, imputing His righteousness unto "whosoever believeth upon him," 'reconciling' him to the Father. It is why the Apostle Paul wrote: "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing," but only the "law of sin" and death, with his answer being "Jesus Christ our Lord." Apart from Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the love of the Father and Romans 7:14-25, i.e., having a guilty conscience for sinning, i.e., for disobeying the Father, and repenting, being redeemed by the Son and reconciled to the Father, all we have is "self 'justification,'" i.e., Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., the praxis of sin.
   We are either servants of our own "self," i.e., of our own "self interest," engendering "self preservation," doing our will or servants of our creator, i.e., God, humbling and denying our self, doing His will. "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Luke 16:13 Life is either "of and for" sensuousness, i.e., "of and for self," i.e., approaching pleasure and avoiding pain or righteousness, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will.
   According to those possessed with (blinded by) dialectic 'reasoning,' basing 'reality' upon the carnal nature of the child (approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e., "of and for" sensuousness), unless the father/Father abdicates his authority (no longer insisting upon children doing right and not wrong, i.e., being righteous), he must be negated (become perceived as being irrational and therefore become irrelevant in the feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in the relationship children have with one another and the world), if children (the next generation of citizens) are to become "healthy," physically, mentally, and socially [what the so called "Health Care Package" was all about]. According to those possessed with dialectic 'reasoning,' without an emphasis upon the social nature of the child, i.e., his desire for approval (affirmation of his carnal nature), the child, i.e., the child's carnal nature (under the father's/Father's authority system) remains "repressed" and "alienated," i.e., abnormal (neurotic). Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [under the parent's, teacher's, boss's, ... God's authority] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx) In other words, if you do not approve (affirm) the child's carnal (deceitful and wicked) nature as being "normal" (and good) you are "psychological"—a word used to 'judge' those in the soviet union who refuse to be "team players"—as being mentally and socially unfit. Pleasure and affirmation tastes sweet at first, as does arsenic, but leads to death.
   When you are silent in the midst of unrighteousness, not reproving, correcting, or rebuking unrighteous thoughts and actions (in yourself, in others, and even, and especially in the "church")—for the sake of approval and unity, i.e., in order to initiate and sustain relationship, i.e., out of "fear" of preventing the building of relationships or the loosing of them, i.e., out of the "fear" of being rejected (the word "witness," i.e., standing for the truth to the death means being rejected, i.e., martyred by "the group")—unrighteousness and abomination ("human nature") becomes the "norm," i.e., man's carnal nature ("self interest") becomes the law of the land, creating a world of "lawfulness without law" ("Gesetzmäßigkeit ohne Gesetz"), where the law of the flesh ("self interest") occupies man's thoughts and actions ("theory and practice") without Godly restraint, i.e., where man can do wrong without having a guilty conscience., i.e., can sin with impunity. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment). In your silence law based upon facts and truth, i.e., doing right and not wrong is replaced with law based upon men's opinions and theory, i.e., their (and your) "feelings (desires and dissatisfactions) of the 'moment,'" Your silence gives consent—since faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God, silence (not speaking the Word in the midst of "human reasoning," i.e., "self 'justification'") gives consent to "human nature," i.e., to the deceitfulness and wickedness of man's heart, i.e., to that which is antithetical to the Word of God, i.e., to the Father's authority.
   It is one thing to be working in the midst of the unbelievers, sharing (preaching and teaching) the truth when the opportunity arises, getting the work done (of course). It is another thing if you are required to set aside your position, i.e., to be "positive" (according to the flesh), i.e., not being allowed to speak (preach and teach) the truth, i.e., to be "negative" (according to the flesh) while working in the midst of unbelievers, for the sake of unity. One is freedom of the conscience. The other is freedom from the conscience. The role of the facilitator of 'change' is to engender the latter, 'creating' worldly peace and socialist harmony, i.e., 'creating' a "new" world order of people in denial of sin itself, i.e., embracing it as the way of life instead.
   While we are persuaded, i.e., brought under conviction to repent, i.e., to be changed into the image of Christ (turning from our carnal thoughts and actions to the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e., to doing right and not wrong according to His Father's will, with His righteousness being imputed to us) through the preaching and teaching of the truth, i.e., having faith in "every word which proceedeth from the mouth of God"), we are seduced, deceived, and manipulated by 1). our "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., by our love of pleasure and hate of restraint, 2). the situation that stimulates them, engendering our perception or opinion, and 3). the facilitator of 'change' who manipulates it, i.e., the situation and therefore manipulates our perception or opinion. of it. When the facilitator of 'change' "asks" you ("the group") to be "positive" and not "negative" you are ("the group" is) being manipulated. He is getting you ("the group") to leave the deceitfulness and wickedness of man's heart and the wrath of God upon the "children of disobedience," out of the so called "discussion," i.e., getting you to set aside "doing right and not wrong" (according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth) in order for you ("the group") not to hurt someone's "feelings," 'justifying' your ("the groups") carnal desires ("self interest") of the 'moment' in the process—making you ("the group") one, i.e., carnal, i.e., "of and for self" and the world only, not only in your consensus with "the group" but in your praxis (social action) as well. While God redeems man from his carnal nature, reconciling him to Himself—with man receiving eternal life after death, dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., man "justifying himself before men," 'redeems' himself from God, 'reconciling' himself to himself and the world, leaving himself in his sins—receiving eternal damnation after death. "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15

   We do not like being manipulatedseduced, deceived, and manipulated that is. The following is about those who seduce, deceive, and manipulate all who come under their influence, using them as "natural resource" for their own pleasure and gain, i.e., for their own "self 'justification.'" It is about how the process of 'change' is done—turning "either-or," i.e., "Either you are right or you are wrong" (position, based upon commands, rules, facts, and truth which somebody has given you, absolute) into "more or less," i.e., "You are more right than wrong" (relationship, based upon your "feelings" of the 'moment' in relation to the current situation, relativity). You preach and teach "either-or," i.e., "right-wrong," i.e., commands, rules, facts, and truth, giving you your position. You dialogue "more or less," i.e., your "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., your opinion. The facilitator of 'change' manipulates you into abdicating your position by getting you to set aside the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to "get along," leaving you with your opinion, leaving him with your inheritance.
   To participate in the process of 'change' is to be like Esau who sold his birthright (his position in the future) for a bowl of soup and some bread (for his "feelings" of the 'moment'—Genesis 25:34)—setting aside the rewards of the future for the "felt needs," i.e., "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment,' something Jesus refused to do in the wilderness (Luke 4:3)—or to be like Pavlov's dog—seduced by meat, deceived by adding the ringing of a bell (to the eating of meat), and therefore manipulated to respond to (salivate at) the ringing of a bell—or Thorndike's chickens, or Skinner's rats. In other words, bait and switch.
   The key to understanding dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., the "Reasoning" of the facilitator of 'change' is to know that your participation in dialogue (sharing your "self interest" of the 'moment') with him and/or with others turns all positions, i.e., commands, rules, facts, and truth into an opinion, making them (and you) subject to 'change,' i.e., subject to the 'changing' situations of life, i.e., the situation of the 'moment' and the facilitator of 'change' who is manipulating it, establishing your "feelings," i.e., your perception of the 'moment' over and therefore against commands, rules, facts, and truths which you have been taught in the "past"—as the woman in the garden in Eden "saw," i.e., perceived "knowledge of good and evil" (according to her nature, i.e., according to the law of the flesh, i.e., according to the 'moment') as being "good," "pleasing," and "desirous," choosing 1). her carnal desire, i.e., her "self interest" of the 'moment,' 2). the world that stimulated it, and 3)."Reasoning" ("self 'justification,'" i.e., 'justifying her "self")—doing her will—over and therefore against God and His authority—not doing the "Father's" will. By seducing you into dialogue, i.e., into sharing your opinion of the 'moment,' i.e., sharing your "feelings" (your "desires"—there are always two desires, 1). your desire for the pleasure of the 'moment' and 2). your desire for approval or affirmation from others in having it, i.e., satisfying itand "perception"—how you see the situation, i.e., seeing the situation in the "light" of—blinded by—your "feelings" of the 'moment' which are being stimulated by the situation) of the 'moment' with him and/or with others, i.e., with "the group" in response to the current situation, i.e., revealing your "self interest," i.e., your desire (for pleasure) and dissatisfaction (with restraint), the facilitator of 'change' is able to deceive you into believing that he has your "best interest" in mind, when in actually it is his "self interest" he has in mind, thus making it easier for him to manipulate you into switching your 'loyalty' (your desire for approval) from the One (who gave you your position—"right-wrong"—i.e., your parents, teacher, ..., the laws of nature and natures God—as in math, "There is only one right answer. All other answers are wrong.") to the many, i.e., to "the group" (with individuals who might have values and beliefs, i.e., commands, rules, facts, and truth that are antithetical to one another but are willing to set them aside, i.e., compromise them for the sake of 'actualizing' their common "self interest" of the 'moment'—as in "There are no wrong answers"—in consensus, "justifying themselves before men"). "Every one that is proud in heart [justifying his "self" before men, taking pride in his ability to evaluate and take control of the situation, i.e., the world, directing his own steps] is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5 "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23
   You can only see by either the "light" of your own "self" and the world (love of pleasure and hate of restraint), which is darkness and death, or by the light of the Lord (the pure Word of God), which is life. "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." John 3:19-21
   By manipulating the situation, i.e., by "encouraging" all participants to be "positive" (according to the flesh, i.e., according to their desire for pleasure and resentment toward restraint) so they can "feel" better about themselves and be less offensive to others, and not "negative" (preaching and teaching doing right and not wrong), giving everyone the "right" to express their "feelings," i.e., their carnal desires, i.e., their "self interests" of the 'moment without their parent's or God's commands, rules, facts, or truth, i.e., without "right-wrong" and the fear of chastening for doing wrong or disobeying or the fear of being cast out for questioning and challenging the father's/Father's authority, i.e., without the father's/Father's authority system getting in the way, the facilitator of 'change' guarantees that the outcome will be "of and for self," i.e., "of and for" man's carnal nature only, engendering an attitude of "self 'justification,'" i.e., an attitude of hostility toward authority, leaving the participants with the false perception that they can do wrong, i.e., sin with impunity. Controlling the environment, either 'restraining' the child's/man's natural inclination to approach pleasure (his "lust" for the things of the world) and avoid pain (his hate of restraint), i.e., as explained in Hebrews 12:5-11 (resulting in a guilty conscience for doing wrong and the need for repentance and forgiveness, as explained in Romans 7:14-25) or 'liberating' it, i.e., as was done in Genesis 3:1-6, guarantees the likelihood of a desired outcome (objective), either resulting in obedience (leading to blessing and life) or anarchy, rebellion, and revolution (leading to judgment and death). "Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment." Ecclesiastes 11:9
   The tension (antithesis) between desire, i.e., "self interest"—what all men have in common with one another—and restraint, i.e., God's authority—which divides man from man, i.e., between those who have faith in Him and obey Him and those who do not—is overcome, according to dialectic 'reasoning'—the "Reasoning" of the facilitator of 'change'—when man is able to 'justify' his "self," 'liberating' his "self" from the authority of God, i.e., establishing his "self interest" over and therefore against God and His authority, with the "help" of the facilitator of 'change.' By moving communication between men away from the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth, which are to be accepted as given, i.e., by faith toward the dialoguing of men's opinions—which has no authority structure within it, only man's "self interest" of the 'moment,' making all things "equal" between men—man is able to establish his identity upon what he has in common with all mankind, i.e., his "self," i.e., his "self interest," i.e., his desire for the things of this world and his dissatisfaction with restraint, overcoming the tension between desire and restraint ('liberating' desire, i.e., his carnal nature and negating restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system—except that restraint which would engender or augment more pleasure).
   The system of tension between "self" and restraint, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' begins in the home, i.e., between the child's nature, i.e., the child's desire for pleasure, and the father's/Father's authority system which restrains it. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the father's/Father's authority system is 'created' by the child when the child accepts the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth as is, by faith, and obeys him, thus 'creating' God. Therefore the dialectic agenda is to negate the father's authority system in the home, 'liberating' the child so he can be his "self" again (thinking and acting as he was, according to his carnal nature, before the father's first command, rule, fact, or truth and the threat of punishment for disobeying or doing wrong came into his life), i.e., only of the world, thereby negating God's authority system over man, 'liberating' man so that he can be his "self" again, i.e., only of the world. The "trickery" is done by 'shifting' communication (in the classroom, workplace, government, church, home, etc., i.e., in the garden) from the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, which would reinforce the father's/Father's authority system (Hebrews 12:5-11), engendering a guilty conscience for doing wrong (Romans 7:14-25), to the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (Genesis 3:1-6), which negates the father's/Father's authority system in the participants, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong in the process.
   In a meeting, when you mix the dialogue of opinions, i.e., "feelings" (globalism) with the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth (local control), treating them as "equals," i.e., given them both equal time to speak, the dialogue of opinions, i.e., the "feelings" of the 'moment' wins out (those leading the meeting giving "feelings" equal footing with authority results in those in leadership getting those in authority to abdicate their authority to dialogue, negation their authority by doing so), negating the effect the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth (local control) has upon the participants and the outcome. This applies in the political realm, where elected officials—focused upon their common "self interest" as a result of facilitated meetings—work together as one (in consensus) against—perceiving as irrational and therefore treating as irrelevant—those in the "community" who (wanting local control) stand in the "communities" (their) way, giving the "disgruntled" a chance (three minutes) to share ("vent," i.e., preach and teach their position) in the town hall meeting, in order to give the community the perception that they (the elected officials) are being "fair," listening to all sides when they have already made up their mind, negating local control, i.e., individualism, under God, replacing it with globalism, i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus.
   Once the facilitator of 'change,' as a "laboratory technician," 'discovers' your "self interest" of the 'moment' (getting you, through your dialoguing with him and/or with others, to reveal your desire for pleasure and dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., your opinion) he is able to create the right environmental conditions that will draw you into his trap, seducing, deceiving, and manipulation you for his own pleasure and gain (having no guilty conscience in doing so, since he is only doing a "scientific experiment," getting you to use "higher order thinking skills," 'justifying' your "self," i.e., 'justifying' your "feeling" of the 'moment' in the current carnal situation, thus 'justifying' his theory that you are "human," i.e., "normal," i.e., that you will willingly sin, i.e., walk by sight and not by faith, i.e., become "healthy" physically, mentally, and socially when placed in the "right" environmental conditions). The scriptures instruct us to avoid such conditions, i.e., conditions which engender "situation ethics," i.e., which require compromise, i.e., setting aside (excluding) faith in order to participate, i.e., in order to "fit in," i.e., in order to be a "team player." As the Apostle Paul warned Timothy to avoid "oppositions [antithesis] of science falsely so called [i.e., the dialectic process]:" we too are to avoid participation in its trap of "self" 'justification.' (1 Timothy 6:20, 21)
   True science deals with everything in the world except that which God formed from the dust of the ground and breathed His breath of life into, i.e., the soul of man. While "psychology" means the "study" of the "soul" it only recognizes that which is of the world only, i.e., the cognitive, affective, and psycho-motor of man, that which is stimulated by and responds to that which is of the world only. When man uses the "scientific method," i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., the dialoguing of his opinion with himself and with others in order to know the 'truth' about himself and the world, he ends up 'justifying' his carnal nature, negating the authority of God in his feelings, thoughts, and actions, i.e., negating faith, making himself "of and for" the world only, only subject to that which is of sight, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong in the process, doing unconscionable (unrighteous and abominable) things as a result.
   The "facilitator of 'change," i.e., the seducer, deceiver, and manipulator of people uses "group dynamics" (explained in Part Two)—your desire for approval from others—in order to do "force field analyses" (ibid.), i.e., in order to 'discover' your 'loyalty' in the 'moment'—whether your 'loyalty' is to the One, i.e., holding yourself and others accountable to their commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., preaching to your "self" and to others about "doing right and not wrong," doing what the One has taught you, or whether your 'loyalty' is to the many, i.e., encouraging compromise, i.e., getting everyone to willing set aside "right-wrong" ("judgmental" or "prejudiced") thinking, willing to let the deviant have his say (without judging him) and freely participate—with "right-wrong" thinkers being fearful of the many rejecting them if they do not accept, i.e., "tolerate" him—in order to initiate or sustain relationship, i.e., with everyone dialoguing, i.e., sharing their "feelings" in the 'moment,' i.e., about what they are "thinking," or whether your 'loyalty' is somewhere in between, in order to know how best to "unfreeze, move, and refreeze" (ibid.) you, 'changing' ("shifting") you away from 'loyal' to the One to 'loyalty' to the many (and the process of 'change'). By getting you into dialogue, i.e., getting you to willingly share your desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., your "self interest" (along with everyone else), the facilitator of 'change' is able to "unfreeze" you from your preaching and teaching "doing right and not wrong" (to your "self" and to "the group") according to your parent's, teacher's, boss's, .... God's commands, rules, facts, and truth, and "move" you into seeking approval from the many. By your willing participation with others, "building relationship" with them based upon common "self interest," the facilitator of 'change' is able to "refreeze" you to 'loyalty' to the many, setting aside "right-wrong" thinking and preaching in order to "fit in."
   When concern about the approval of the many, i.e., "the group" becomes more important to you than the approval of the One, you are by nature blinded to the consequences of your actions, i.e., blinded to the blessings and protection that come from the One, losing your identity to the common-ness (communism) of the many, i.e., to the "self interest" of "the group," who might not be interested in blessing and protecting you later on, if and when you get in their way, i.e., when you are no longer able to satisfy their "self interest" of the day—why we have "legalized" abortions and are moving towards euthanasia, i.e., limited health care for the elderly today. It is a process that works so well it will make your head spin, i.e., leave you speechless. It is the same procedure pedophiles use to gain the trust of children and pimps use to gain the trust of women, doing awful things to their victims.
   It even works in the church. While preaching "a good sermon" from the pulpit in order to gain the "trust" of the "church" and then from time to time preaching "a good sermon" in order to silence "the opposition," i.e., the "resistors of 'change,'" the facilitator of 'change' is able to "unfreeze" the "church" by getting everyone to dialogue, i.e., to share their opinion of the Word of God in the "bible studies," cell groups, youth groups, church functions, board retreats and meetings, etc. He is then able to (more easily) "move" the "church" away from the preaching and teaching of the Word of God as is, i.e., weighing the Word of God with the Word of God, having to accept it as is, by faith, thus weighing the "church" from the Word of God, moving it to the dialoguing of men's opinions instead, so that its members can "feel" better about themselves and be less offensive to others—with those refusing to dialogue, i.e., insisting upon "church doctrine," i.e., that "church" decisions be based upon the "older" versions of the Bible, i.e., the King James, Geneva, Tyndale, etc., Bibles (those Bibles which are translated from the "Textus Receptus" Greek), thus holding the "church" to the "past," being labeled as argumentative, "hard headed," uneducated, outdated, divisive, unadaptable to 'change,' hateful, intolerant, hurtful to others, etc., getting in the way of "church" unity and progress, i.e., preventing "church growth." Then, by getting the "church" to work on projects which stem from the so called "bible studies," the facilitator of 'change' is able to "refreeze" the "church" on the dialoguing of men's opinions to a consensus, i.e., to a "feeling" of "oneness" (consensus), uniting the "church" upon "feelings" instead of upon faith, making the "church" readily adaptable to 'change.' With the facilitator of 'change' having done his job, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating the "church," the "church" has become "at-one-with" the world, subject to the opinions of men, i.e., willing to work with the world, making it a "better" place to live in (in sin).
   The dialoguing of men's opinions of the Word of God—making the Word of God and the opinions of men equal—makes the Word of God subject to the opinions of men, negating the authority of the Word of God in the hearts, thoughts, and actions of men. You do not dialogue what you believe. That would make your belief an opinion among opinions, subject to 'change.' You preach and teach it, as is, by faith, instead. To add your opinion to a command, rule, fact, or truth would be equivalent to an engineer saying "I think it is safe to cross the bridge" (which he just built), 'changing' certainty into uncertainty (turning faith in commands, rules, facts, and truth to build the bridge, resulting in "It is safe to cross the bridge" into building it according to his opinion of the 'moment' resulting in "I think it is safe to cross the bridge."—Would you cross the bridge? or expect him to be hired to build the next one? In these days he probably would be hired).
   By add the dialoguing of opinions to the preaching and teaching of "right and wrong," the preaching and teaching of "right and wrong," i.e., your faith will eventually "wither away," i.e., become negated (for the sake of "church" unity and growth, i.e., initiating and sustaining relationships). By adding theory to belief, you negate "belief-action dichotomy," i.e. you negate the Word of God reproving, correcting, rebuking, i.e., exposing and judging man for his wicked and deceitful thoughts and actions, warning him of judgment, i.e., needing a savior to save him from his "self" and damnation, leaving theory and practice, that which is of the world only, in its place. By adding the wisdom of men, i.e., "Reasoning" based upon man's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self 'justification'" to the Word of God, faith is negated, i.e., is replaced with the opinions of men.
   While God told "two children" in a garden not to eat of the fruit of the tree or else, leaving their feelings and thoughts to themselves ("private convictions"), the first and master facilitator of 'change' asked one of them how they felt, which led to thought, i.e., "Reasoning" based upon feelings and sight (which negates faith), which led to action (praxis), with both "building relationship" with one another based upon common "self interest," eating from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, deciding what is good and what is evil according to their own nature, according to their own "feelings" (desires) of the 'moment,' in response to that which is of the world only, which stimulated them and the facilitator of 'change' who seduced, deceived, and manipulated them. This is the process of 'change' the facilitator of 'change' initiates and sustains for the 'purpose' of 'liberating' man from the authority of God.
   Because of the facilitator's presence in the "church," instead of the "church" (or rather the assembly, fellowship, or congregation of believers—ἐκκλησία means "called out ones," i.e., a congregation or an assembly, not "church," which is subject to state authority—why King James wanted the word "church" used instead of congregation or assembly, keeping the "church" under his authority) being uncomfortable in and in conflict with the world and the world uncomfortable with and in conflict with "church," the world has become comfortable in and in harmony with the "church" and the "church" has become comfortable with and in harmony with the world. The scriptures are clear regarding this. "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" 2 Corinthians 6:14, 15
   When they accuse you of "forsaking the assembling" when you "come out from" their "church" of dialogue—there is no faith in dialogue, only an opinion, i.e.., a perception, which is of sight, i.e., of covetousness and lasciviousness—they speak not from the Word of God but from their "lusts," i.e., from their deceitful and wicked heart—their "exhorting" is not in the faith but in the assembling without faith. The scriptures declare: "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." Hebrews 10:23-27 They leave out "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering" and "if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins" when they speak, hoping that by their not "hold[ing] fast the profession of our faith without wavering" and not "receiving the knowledge of the truth" (the dialoguing of opinions will do that, i.e., negate your faith and blind you to the truth) they and others will not be held accountable for their sins, i.e., that they and others can sin with impunity. They call themselves believers, when they are not, in order to seduce, deceive, and manipulate you. After all seduction, deception, and manipulation (the approval of men) has now become the only way they can think or else they would have "receive[d] the knowledge of the truth," repented, and "come out" of the apostate "church," i.e., the "church" of dialogue, i.e., the "church" of men's opinions themselves, assembling with those of common salvation, i.e., with those "hold[ing] fast the profession of our faith without wavering." "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Jude 1:3 Jesus Christ alluded to the fact that there would not be faith when he came the second time.
   To start a synagogue you have to have ten. When Jesus our Lord said "two or three" he changed everything. It is not the place or the number that matters. It is your heart before the Lord. It is from here, and here alone, in the Lord alone (just you and His Heavenly Father and Him—Jesus said "I and my Father are one," "If you have seen men you have seen my Father") that true fellowship between believers begins and ends. "And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 1:3 Dialogue, i.e., "self 'justification'" will not bring you to the alter of God, i.e., to the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. It will only take you to the alter of men's opinions, to that which is "of and for self" and the world alone, apart from and antithetical to the Father, even if done in the name of the Lord.
   All that is of the world is subject to stimulus-response and therefore manipulatable. All facilitators of 'change' are seducers, deceivers, and manipulators, trained to treat all who come under their influence as dogs, chickens, and rats, i.e., as "natural resource." Do not be fooled by their smiles and their "I am here to 'help' you." They have to disarmer you, i.e., gain your trust in them, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating you by saying they have your or the "communities" "best interest" in mind, when, in reality, all they have is their "self interest," i.e., their love of this world and hate of restraint in mind instead. Your desire for the approval of others, i.e., your "feelings" or carnal desires ("self interests") of the 'moment' (made manifest in the praxis of dialogue) will always take you captive to them. Denying your "self," picking up your cross, i.e., enduring the rejection of men, and following after Christ Jesus, in obedience to His Heavenly Father, is the only way. "Cast down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" (2 Corinthians 10:5 7) for "the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:17

Continued in Part Two.

Endnotes:

"The life which he has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)
"God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
"And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you ;" 2 Peter 2:3 Your "self interest" allows those who say they "care about you and have your best interest in mind" to turn you into "human resource" for our own pleasure and gain.

When the children rule, the people are oppressed.

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken." Jeremiah 6:16, 17

"And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable." "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:4-5, 12 "... and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death." Mark 13:12

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:3, 4

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:21-32

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 1997-2016