Saturday, March 8, 2014
"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, Introduction, Issues, Articles, Schedule, Material, Scheduling, Audios, Radio, Archived, Textus Receptus, Class, Warnings, Thanks!
I may have made a mistake. I started out with the premise that most Americans want to know the truth. I may have been wrong. This may sound "negative" but all the evidence points that way. If you take the time to read the following pages you will understand what I mean, having an understanding of what is going on around you as few have (or probably care to know).
The following information exposes the 'reasoning' behind such programs such as Common Core, Total Quality Management, Total Quality Leadership, Community Oriented Policing, "Church Growth," the "emergent church," the "National Health Care Package" (Obamacare), etc. "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." John 3:19
A brief overview, outline, and chart might be helpful as you read the following. For more on the subject of 'change,' i.e. the dialectic process, read the issues The Key to 'Change' and The Dialectic Process.
This will only be some intellectual exercise on your part if you are not a believer. But if you love the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, deny yourself, endure the rejection of men, follow Him, study His Word to show yourself approved unto God, it will encourage you in your walk with the Lord, confirming to you the importance of staying in His Word, not being ignorant of, therefore seduced, deceived, and manipulated by Satan's devices. It will expose the method (the dialectic method of thinking) used by Satan to seduce, deceive, and manipulate men into doing his will instead of the Lord's—a method which is now being used not only by the government but by the "church" as well, to either neutralize, marginalize, and remove the believer or convert him into participating in the dialectic process' for the 'purpose' of 'change,' i.e. creating church-world unity, i.e. drawing as many as possible away from trusting in the Lord, into leaning to their own understanding, i.e. trusting in the opinions of men instead, i.e. following after men rather than the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ. "... and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." "... He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. " 1 John 3:1, 22
The dialectic process is based upon the ideology (the lie) that we will not be held accountable for our thoughts and actions before God (as Satan said to Eve, "Ye shall not surely die"). It is the rejection of the truth of the Word of God that we will be held accountable before God (as a child before his father) for our thoughts and actions, believing instead that we can do as we pleasure, i.e. that we can think and act according to our "human nature" (our carnal nature) and not be held accountable before God, i.e. that as long as what we are doing does not harm others and/or is "good" for mankind (even in the name of the Lord), it is "good," i.e. doing "wonderful works" even in his name with the Lord responding "depart from me ye who work iniquity" calling them "workers of iniquity" who He "never knew" (Matthew 7:22). It is the rejection of the truth of God's Word that we will not only die in the flesh but also die an eternally death of the soul for our carnal thoughts and carnal actions, unless our sins are covered by the blood of the Lamb of God, i.e. the only begotten son of God, i.e. Jesus Christ, who 'redeems' us from the wrath of the Father upon us for our sins (for our thinking about and doing what we "feel" like doing in the 'moment' over and against His Father's will), 'reconciling' us to the Father. 'Redemption' and 'reconciliation' is not between man and man, i.e. based upon social works between man and the world (for the sake of "human relationship," i.e. making the world a "better place" for man to live in) as dialectic 'reasoning' tries to make it, i.e. which is indicative of "church growth," but is between man and God (for the sake of man's relationship "with the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ"). "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 Apart from the Father all we have is a "humanist" Christ (a socialist gospel) of our own making, i.e. a savior made in our image, 'redeeming' us from the Father and His authority, 'reconciling' us to the world, 'liberating' us to think and act according to our own "human nature." The dialectic solution to sin is the negation of the law of God, which engenders condemnation, i.e. damnation, by 'rationally justifying' "human nature," making it the "norm," establishing it, i.e. how we "feel" and what we "think" in the given 'moment," i.e. in the given situation (making the pleasures of this life, i.e. the approaching of pleasure and the avoiding of pain) the ground from which to determine right from wrong, good from evil, thereby negating the necessity of recognizing, loving, and obeying, i.e. pleasing the Father, focusing upon the children (the carnal nature of the child) instead.
While the universality of dialectic 'reasoning' is based upon man's effort to 'liberate' himself (rationally-practically) from the Father's authority, the gospel message is all about the only begotten Son of God 'reconciling' us (by his obedience-righteousness) to His Father's authority. The former is based upon the dialoguing of men's opinions to a consensus. The latter is based upon the preaching and teaching of God's Word, "as is," i.e. accepting it by faith. The former requires the suspending of the Father's position regarding the issue of the 'moment,' i.e. doing what is right and not doing what is wrong according to His will, for the sake of sharing opinions. The latter requires the suspending of opinions, i.e. how everyone "feels" and what everyone "thinks" regarding the issue of the 'moment,' for the sake of doing the Father's will. The former 'rationally' exonerates ('justifies') the law of the flesh ("human nature," i.e. unrighteousness) thereby negating the law of God (righteousness), thereby negating the necessity of the law of faith (righteousness imputed). The latter requires the law of faith (righteousness imputed) to overcome the law of the flesh ("human nature," i.e. unrighteousness), revealed and condemned by the law of God (righteousness). The transition (antithesis) of man caught between the law of God (righteousness) and the law of the flesh ("human nature," i.e. unrighteousness) which engenders the "guilty conscience," can only be resolved by either exonerating the law of the flesh (lasciviousness) or exonerating the law of God (legalism) over and against the law of faith (righteousness imputed), which leaves all still in their sins—with all men remaining subject to the law of the flesh—or accepting the law of faith ('liberty' from lasciviousness and legalism, i.e. righteousness imputed), in Christ Jesus, who did not come to negate the law of God (righteousness) but instead fulfilled it, thereby putting the law of the flesh to death, so that all of faith in Him could walk in the Spirit, i.e. fulfilling the law of God as they daily die to themselves and live in Him, i.e. in His obedience to His Heavenly Father, i.e. with his obedience, i.e. His righteousness being imputed (by the Father; His righteousness "shall be imputed, if we believe on him [the Father] that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;" Romans 4:24) to those of the law of faith in Him, having a life freed of a "guilty conscience," as well as having eternal life with His Father and Him (with the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ). "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." Jude 1:4
Remove damnation (the Father and His Son's judgment upon sin) and abomination ("human nature" uninhibited by Godly restraint) becomes the "norm," i.e. the way of life (leading to eternal death). Infatuated with the pleasures of this life man no longer is concerned about where he will spend eternity. It is here that the world can unite as one, i.e. building a "new" world order upon man's carnal desires, i.e. thinking and acting according to his "felt" needs of the 'moment,' living only in, of, and for the "here-and-now," 'driven' by ("lusting" after) its carnal pleasures, dying in its sins, as the master facilitator of 'change' seduces, deceives, and manipulates, i.e. 'liberates' man from Godly restraint, i.e. 'emancipates' the child from his Father's authority, enslaving man and child to his abominable ways. It is here, worshiping at the alter of abomination (as in the days of Noah, as in Sodom, i.e. in a world of "human nature" unrestrained by Godly/parental restraint), that we find ourselves today.
Speaking to this generation, regarding the Father's authority, is like speaking into a barrel with no sound coming back. Having embraced dialectic 'reasoning' (the thoughts and actions of the child) as the way of life, the Father's authority has now become a foreign (alien) concept to its thoughts and actions. "Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph." Exodus 1:8 It could be said that today we live in a nation that no longer recognizes and/or honors (knows) the Father's authority.
The dialectic process is the negation of the Father's authority in man's thoughts and actions. Hegel's ideology is at the heart of this 'change,' i.e. the 'liberation' of the child's nature out from under the Father's authority. "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." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) As you will see, not only Karl Marx but also Sigmund Freud followed in suit, i.e. Freud believing, despite the Father's loving, i.e. caring for, i.e. feeding and protecting His children, the Father's authority (to restrain the child's nature) needed to be destroyed if the child was to know himself as he is, i.e. "human." The scriptures have warned us of the results of such thinking and acting. "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 The scriptures warn us of the unrepentant heart (obstinacies) of the culture which choses the way of the child over and against the way of the Father's authority. "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." Jeremiah 6:16 When we love the Father, His walls of protection are a source of peace to our soul, but when we love the things of the world, i.e. the nature of the child, His walls become a barrier to the carnal desires of our flesh. "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
The dialectic process (Hegel's, Marx's, and Freud's ideology [pg. 22]) is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6 (man's effort to 'justify' the law of the flesh, i.e. the "child within," i.e. man's carnal nature, i.e. "human nature," with the help of the master facilitator of 'change'), negating Hebrews 12:5-11 (negating the Father's authority to give commands and rules, to bless those who obey, to chasten those who disobey, and to cast out those who reject His authority), negating Romans 7:14-25 (negating the law of God—which engenders a "guilty conscience," i.e. thereby negating the "guilty conscience"—thereby negating the need for salvation in Christ Jesus only, i.e. by the law of faith only). By moving the learning environment from the preaching and teaching of facts and truth, to be accepted as is (by faith), i.e. synonymous with parental authority, to the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e. synonymous with the child's nature being 'rationally'-practically 'justified' over and against parental authority, the law of faith is negated by the law of the flesh. The universality (cosmic-consciousness, i.e. self-world actualization) of "human nature" is made 'reality' through the use of "human 'reasoning,' i.e. by the use of dialectic 'reasoning, as was first put into praxis in the garden in Eden (Genesis 3:1-6), negating the Father's authority (parental authority) over the children i.e. negating God's authority over man, that is, in man's (or the child's) thoughts and actions.
All policy (including in the "church") is now being based upon the use of the dialectic process (humanist 'reasoning,' i.e. the dialoguing of men's opinions to a consensus for the sake of socialist harmony, i.e. "church growth," making the knowledge of God's Word subject to man's knowledge of his own "sense experiences," thereby making knowledge, i.e. truth subject to "human experience," i.e. subject to the world, i.e. to nature only, i.e. subject to 'change,' rather than subject to God and His Word alone, i.e. which is never changing). Knowledge based upon facts and truth are not readily adaptable to 'change' while knowledge based upon the "feelings" (our "sensuous needs" and "sense perception") of the 'moment' is. "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 When a father abdicates his God given authority to rule over his family to the world (turning his wife and his children, and therefore himself over to "experiential knowledge," i.e. to the "sense experiences" of the 'moment,' i.e. to the carnal nature of man to know the "truth") he relinquishes his family (and therefore all that God has given him) over to the world (and visa versa), rejecting the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ in the process.
There are two forms of knowledge, i.e. knowledge you have been told, i.e. as the revealed Word of God, i.e. of the Spirit, which you have to accept by faith, and knowledge which is experiential, which is of the world, i.e. of the flesh, which you can "naturally" identify with, by sight. The scriptures warn us that knowledge puffs us up. It is when we take pride in controlling our thoughts and actions regarding the things of the world that the things of the world control us, occupying our thoughts and our actions over and against the will of God. It is why we must die daily to ourselves, humbling ourselves before the Lord, asking Him to forgive us for our self-seeking carnal thoughts and actions, asking Him to direct our thoughts and actions instead, no matter how much we know or think we know. "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 It is why the Lord calls us children until the day we die, needing his direction to keep us from going astray, going our own way, being subject to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. like a drug addict, hooked on self-social (worldly) 'justification,' i.e. 'justifying' ourselves, i.e. our carnal nature, before men.
In "purpose driven," 'purpose' is 'driven' by the natural desires (carnal nature) of men, i.e. including and especially the desire for "the approval of man," therefore establishing policy upon man's sinful nature (even deceitfully doing so in the name of the Lord, cutting, rearranging and pasting scripture to 'justify' his desired outcome). It is not directed by God, desiring his approval, i.e. therefore establishing policy according to his will alone. Tolerance of sin is only a circumventing of the authority of God. While God is patient with us, i.e. that we might repent of our sins, He does not tolerate sin. Tolerating the sin, i.e. treating the sinner as thought he were "innocent" in his sinning is to 'justify' the sin, as those of dialectic 'reasoning' would desire (the 'purpose' in 'purpose driven') "If the guilt [the guilty conscience] accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man [reflected in the Father's authority over his children] can ever be redeemed by freedom [the children 'redeemed, i.e. 'liberated' from the Father's authority, 'reconciled' back to the world], then the 'original sin' [the children determining what is right and what is wrong according to their own personal "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment'] must be committed again: We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence [as the child was before the Father's first command and threat of chastening or threat of being cast out]." (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) The dialectic theory (opinion) being: if the "guilty conscience," engendered by the Father's authority over the child, is ever to be negated, the child must be assisted (as Satan assisted the woman in the garden in Eden) to think for himself, i.e. to think and act according to his own "felt" needs ("sensuous needs," i.e. "lusts") of the 'moment,' so that he can become what he was before his Father's first command and threat of chastening, i.e. "human." Frederick Engels, Karl Marx's friend wrote: "Man has only to understand himself, to take himself as the measure of all aspects of life, to judge according to his being, to organise the world in a truly human manner according to the demands of his own nature, and he will have solved the riddle of our time. But there is no other salvation for him, he cannot regain his humanity, his substance, other than by thoroughly overcoming all religious ideas and returning firmly and honestly, not to 'God', but to himself." (Frederick Engels, The Condition of England A review of Past and Present, by Thomas Carlyle) Instead of "fleeing from youthful lusts" (2 Timothy 2:22), i.e. resisting that which proceeds from "human nature," in dialectic fashion, man is instead to "embrace" "youthful lusts," i.e. embrace his humanity, establishing his desire for the approval of men ('justifying' his own nature) as the pathway to worldly peace and socialist harmony (removing all, including the unborn, the elderly, the fundamentalist, etc. who get in his way). "From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts." James 4: 1-3
The dialectic idea being: If there is no longer accountability before God for a persons thoughts and actions, i.e. for being "human," if unity, i.e. based upon "human relationship," becomes the focus of life, if man's opinion, i.e. how he "feels" and what he "thinks" in the 'moment,' is regarded as being equal with (which makes it more important than) what God says, then there is no longer a need for salvation, except from the preaching and teaching of God's judgment upon man for his sins. Even in the fellowship of believers, unless sin is reproved, i.e. with the sinner either repenting or being cast out, sin becomes the "norm." Where "the group" (for the sake of unity) remains silent (tolerant) in regards to the deviant, that level of depravity becomes the "norm." As the Marxist, Jürgen Habermas stated it: "With the devaluation of the epistemic authority of the God's eye view [due to man basing truth upon his own opinion rather than upon what God (or for the child, what his Father) says], moral commands lose their religious as well as their metaphysical foundation. The fact that moral practice is no longer tied to the individual's expectation of salvation and an exemplary conduct of life through the person of a redemptive God and the divine plan for salvation has two unwelcome consequences. On the one hand, moral knowledge becomes detached from moral motivation, and on the other, the concept of morally right action becomes differentiated from the conception of a good or godly life. … uncoupling morality from questions of the good life leads to a motivational deficit. Because there is no profane substitute for the hope of personal salvation, we lose the strongest motive for obeying moral commands. With the loss of its foundation in the religious promise of salvation, the meaning of normative obligation also changes. The differentiation between strict duties and less binding values, between what is morally right and what is ethically worth striving for, already sharpens moral validity into a normativity to which impartial judgment alone is adequate. The shift in perspective from God to human beings has a further consequence. 'Validity' now signifies that moral norms could win the agreement of all concerned, on the condition that they jointly examine in practical discourse whether a corresponding practice is in the equal interest of all." (Jürgen Habermas, Communicative Ethics The inclusion of the Other. Studies in Political Theory)
If, for example, you are attending a "church" that is taking or has taken polls, surveys, and feasibility studies to "grow" itself (the same method that is used in marketing to "make customers," i.e. the same method used by Total Quality Management in the workplace, Common Core in education, etc.), it is trusting in the opinions of men, making man's "feelings" and "thoughts" its head rather than the Lord God and His Word. The dialectic lie, i.e. the great deception is that the "church" can "grown" itself (basing fellowship upon mans relationship with man, in defiance to the Apostle John's teaching: "and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 3:1). The truth is the Lord only adds to the fellowship of believers by His Word being preached and taught as is and accepted as is and obeyed as is, i.e. un-tampered by "human reasoning," i.e. un-perverted by the opinions of men. The minister of the Lord feeds the sheep with the Word of God. He does not contaminate it with the opinions of men as the wolf in sheep skin does, fleecing the sheep instead. "Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." 1 Corinthians 4:1 Even the Lord rebuked Peter for his desire to please men (that Christ came to lead Israel, i.e. to deliver it from domination, i.e. making the gospel a social issue and the "church" an agent of social 'change') rather than pleasing God (that the Father sent His only begotten Son to redeem man from eternal damnation, i.e. making the gospel a personal issue, and the body of Christ, i.e. brothers and sisters in the Lord encouraging one another in the way, as well as reproving, correcting, and rebuking any who are turning away from the way). "But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Matthew 16:23 Our trust is to be in the Lord himself and not in man—whose opinion (even of the Word of God) leads us astray, making us dependent upon him (man's wisdom) and not upon the Word of God and the Holy Spirit for understanding. "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5 As long as the thesis (the position) of one's life is in the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ (in the Father and the Son), his carnal nature remains the antithesis (the only obstacle to daily overcome, i.e. to die to, walking in the Spirit instead, i.e. to be freed from the power of sin and a "guilty conscience"), but when he makes his carnal nature the thesis (the position) of his life, i.e. "maketh flesh his arm," then the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ (the Father and the Son) become the antithesis (the only obstacle to daily overcome, i.e. to die to) in his life, making it possible for him to find oneness, i.e. synthesis, i.e. consensus with the world with no "guilty conscience." This is where we find ourselves in this nation, due to the hypocrisy, heresy, and apostasy, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning' being used to "grow" the "church" today.
I realize that many, if not most people, will not read very far into the information given below because it get's personal (hits too close to home) as it exposes, judges, and condemns dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. Hegel's, Marx's, and Freud's ideology (pg. 22). Their ideology, the dialectic process, is grounded upon negating the Father's authority, 'liberating' the children from the Father's authority, 'justifying' sensuousness over and against righteousness, i.e. establishing darkness, i.e. the child's carnal desires, over and against light, i.e. the Father's will. It is not that parents are perfect, none are perfect and some are downright tyrants, but that their office of authority is perfect, given to them by God—with the father ruling over his home well, loving his wife as Christ loves his bride, the desire of his wife's heart being to her husband, and the children obeying their parents, in the Lord, initiating and sustaining a "top-down" order, under God, not only in their lives but in society as well. To negate the "negative," i.e. the Father's (God's) authority, the "positive," i.e. the child's (man's) carnal desires must be 'liberated.' If a "new" world order, based upon "human nature," i.e. man freed of Godly (Fatherly) restraint, is to become a reality, the dialectic process (from which we get the Dia in Diaprax) must be put into social action (or praxis from which we get the prax in Diaprax). A man's desire for the approval of men (seeking after the praises of men more than the praises of God) is what blinds him of the Father's love for him, blinds him to the necessity of the Father's authority over his life, i.e. the necessity of the Father directing his steps. When men (as children of disobedience) refuse to acknowledge their need for the Father's authority (refuse to be personally held accountable for their carnal thoughts and actions) and repent of their lusting after the pleasures of this world (finding support, i.e. 'justification' for their carnal thoughts and actions through the approval of men), then the Father has no choice but to turn them over to their own demise, blinding them to the consequences of their thoughts and actions. "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." 1 John 12:40 The consensus process ("self-social" 'justification') blinds man to the judgment of God upon him for his sins since it sidesteps sin ("individual" accountability before God) as the issue, making the issue social ("human relationship") instead.
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' only when someone outside the traditional family, i.e. who perceive themselves as being over and against the patriarchal system ("equal to," which makes them above the Father's authority), comes into the lives of the wife and the children (as the serpent in the garden) can the wife and the children (and therefore society) be 'emancipated' from the "top-down" system of the so called "old" world order (why the UN, Peace Core, UNICEF, etc. go to the women/children of the village to "educate" them in the health, i.e. social issues of the village, getting the wife-mother/children to focus upon the children over and against the husband's-Father's authority). "Any non-family-based collectivity that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a democratizing impact on that relationship." "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." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society) The "new" world order can only be initiated and sustained by creating an environment (a special situation, i.e. "an experiential chasm") in which the children can learn to use (knowingly or unknowingly) dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' their carnal thoughts and carnal actions (referred to as "theory and practice" as well as "higher order thinking skills"), establishing "human nature" (what they all have in common) over and against the Father's authority (which separates them from one another). If 'change' is the name of the game then social interaction has to be 'changed,' from the "old" "top-down" system to the "new" "equality" system. In gnostic fashion, not until the individual parts (the children) are able to overcame the Father's authority, can mankind (god) come to know himself as he is, universal, i.e. what lies dormant in the child, his universal nature of lust (to become "at-one-with" nature) can only become reality as he, through dialectic 'reasoning,' 'liberates' himself from the Father's authority. As long as the Father's authority remains in place mankind can not come to know itself as being "at-one-with" the world, which is only possible through man's use of "the dialectic method." "The dialectical method was overthrown [the Father's authority was kept in tact, and therefore] the parts [the children] were prevented from finding their definition within the whole [finding their identity within the society of impulses and urges]." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) "Human consciousness can be liberated from the parental complex only by being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "Consciousness, instead of being the watchman over a dangerous and unpredictable lot of impulses, becomes the comfortable inhabitant of a society of impulses and feelings and thoughts." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) Only be coming between the husband and his wife/the Father and His children can society be 'liberated,' i.e. freed to become "human" again, thinking and acting as one, i.e. making all things subject to the child's carnal nature as it negates the Father's authority, doing so without a "guilty conscience."
You can skip the following paragraph and come back to it later if you want but it is entered here to "make the point very clear" on how the dialectic method of 'change' is being applied in the classroom (Common Core). "How can a situation be brought about which would permanently change social interactions?" "To bring about change, the old constellation of forces have to be upset." "Hand in hand with the destruction of the old social interactions must go the establishment (or liberation) of new social interactions." "Group decision facilitates change." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change Pdf) "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." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society) "… objectives [of changing the child and the world] 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 many 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 non-authoritarian behaviors are emphasized." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book II Affective Domain) This pattern of learning strongly correlates with the pattern of "learning" associated with the brainwashing which our solders faced under the Communist Koreans: "The manner in which the prisoner came to be influenced to accept the Communist's definition of his guilt can best be described by distinguishing two broad phases—(1) a process of "unfreezing," in which the prisoner's physical resistance, social and emotional supports, self-image and sense of integrity, and basic values and personality were undermined, thereby creating a state of "readiness" to be influence; and (2) a process of "change," in which the prisoner discovered how the adoption of "the people's standpoint" and a reevaluation of himself from this perspective would provide him with a solution to the problems created by the prison pressure. Most were put into a cell containing several who were further along in reforming themselves and who saw it as their primary duty to "help" their most backward member to see the truth about himself in order that the whole cell might advance. Each such cell had a leader who was in close contact with the authorities for purposes of reporting on the cell’s progress and getting advice on how to handle the Western member . . . the environment undermined the (clients) self-image. . . . Once this process of self re-evaluation began, the (client) received all kinds of help and support from the cell mates and once again was able to enter into meaningful emotional relationships with others." (Warren G. Bennis, Edgar H. Schein, David E. Berlew, and Fred I. Steele, Interpersonal Dynamics: Essays in Readings on Human Interaction) "Unfreezing. This term, also adopted from Lewinian change theory, refers to the process of disconfirming an individual's former belief system." (Irvin Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy) "In brief, unfreezing is the breaking down of the mores, customs and traditions of an individual – the old ways of doing things – so that he is ready to accept new alternatives." (Edger Schein and Warren Bennis, Personal and Organizational Change Through Group Methods: The Laboratory Approach) "A successful change includes, therefore, three aspects: unfreezing the present level, moving to the new level, and freezing group life on the new level." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "He [the client] reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role he once occupied. . . . the patient changes the past by reconstituting it." " . . . a patient might, with further change, outgrow . . . his spouse . . . unless concomitant changes occur in the spouse." (Irvin Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy)
As strange as this may sound, this is all that Hegel, Marx, and Freud had in mind (pg. 22), the 'liberation' of the child's carnal nature ("human nature") out from under the Father's (God's) authority, creating a "new" world order of "Godlessness," with mankind (dialoguing his opinion, i.e. how he "feels" and what he "thinks" in the 'moment'—there is no Father's authority in the dialoging of opinions—to a consensus, putting that consensus, i.e. that "feeling" of "oneness," into socialist action, uniting mankind as "one" in the praxis of negating the Father's authority from the face of the earth) perceiving himself (collectively) as being god (setting policy for himself and the world, i.e. creating a world void of Godly restraint, i.e. initiating and sustaining a world of abomination—God can "stick around" as long as he does not give commands and rules to be obeyed without question, i.e. to be accepted as is, by faith, chasten those who disobey, and cast out those who disrespect His authority). "Freud, Hegel, ... are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." "The abolition of repression [the 'liberation' of the children from the Father's authority] would only threaten patriarchal domination [the Father's authority]." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) A "church" built upon "the approval of men" (upon pleasure) can not stand (endure to the end) in the midst of persecution. A "church" built upon the dialoging of opinions to a consensus will only product a great falling away in the end. Only the bride of Christ, seeking after the approval of the Father and the Son, will stand, i.e. will endure to the end. The dialectic idea being, don't fight against the "church," join it instead, i.e. help it "grow" itself upon "the approval of men."
What a Harvard Professor observed in the 50's has now become the way of thinking and acting for most Americans. "Contemporary social science, especially in America, bears the impact of Hegelian thinking to an extraordinary degree. Cultural anthropology and social psychology, especially of the psychoanalytic and Gestalt variety, and much of present day sociology… are more Hegelian than they would like to admit, or do acknowledge." (Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel, 1953) It is the method of thinking which has now taken over this nation, including the "church."
Dialectic 'reasoning' ("Hegelian thinking") is based upon the theory (opinion) that belief (faith) in God is the result of (begins with) the child's honoring of his Father's authority, i.e. "the conception of the ideal family situation for the child: (1) uncritical obedience to the father and elders, (2) pressures directed unilaterally from above to below, (3) inhibition of spontaneity, and (4) emphasis on conformity to externally imposed values," (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) That to negate the divisiveness of religion (according to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' the initiator and sustainer of "prejudice," i.e. "repression," "alienation," and "neurosis," i.e. Nationalism, i.e. Fascism), the Father's authority to 1) give commands and rules to be obeyed by faith, i.e. without questioning their validity and challenging His authority, to 2) chasten those who disobey, to encourage them to do right and not wrong, according to His standards, and to restore them to His authority, and to 3) cast out those who do not accept 1) and 2), i.e. to no longer provide for (tolerate, accept, and sustain) those who question His commands and rules and challenge His authority, must be negated in the lives, i.e. in the thoughts and actions of all the children of the world. "Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the individual to the state, and so forth, have so frequently and, as it seems to us, correctly, been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed that a search for correlates of prejudice had naturally to take these attitudes into account." "The power‑relationship between the parents, the domination of the subject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) By the generalizing of information ("General Systems Theory"), global socialists incorrectly blamed the German family system for engendering Fascism when in truth national socialism (as well as global socialism) has to destroy the tradition family system if it is to initiate and sustain power. As a result of this generalization, the Frankfurt School, Kurt Lewin, J. L. Moreno, Wilhelm Reich, and many who followed them in their propagation of dialectic 'reasoning,' contributed greatly to the decimation of the traditional family system in America today. The dialectic ideology being: get rid of the father's authority in the home and you get rid of a nation, under God (making mankind, united as "one," God instead).
The Marxist, Theodor Adorno, stated: "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." "Authoritarian submission was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) As Karl Marx himself put it: "The life [authority] which he [the child] has given to the object [to the Father, i.e. honoring his Father's authority] sets itself [the Father's authority] against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) Hegel's, Marx's, and Freud's ideology (pg. 22) is dedicated to 'liberating' the child ("human nature") from the Father's "top-down" authority, making "human nature" ("approach pleasure and avoid pain" which engenders abomination), i.e. not the Father's commands and rules (do right and not wrong), the standard from which to determine "right" from "wrong." It is why Abraham Maslow could write in his journal: "So it looks as if nudism is the first step toward ultimate fee-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." "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." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow's Journals)
The child's nature is based upon "approaching pleasure and avoiding pain," i.e. the natural inclination to be at-one-with nature, in pleasure, in the 'moment.' According to dialectic 'reasoning,' when the child submits his will (to "approach pleasure and avoid pain") to do his Father's will (submits the dialoguing of his opinion, i.e. how he "feels" and what he "thinks" in the 'moment' to the preaching and teaching of truth, accepted the Father's commands and rules as is, i.e. as given), i.e. to "do right and do not do wrong," i.e. to think and act according to his Father's will (to live by faith and not by sight), the child abdicates his will (his desire to do that which is normal, i.e. "lusting" after pleasure) to doing that which is abnormal ("repressing" pleasure, i.e. abstaining from or fleeing from "lust," i.e. suppressing his "ought's," to do the Father's will). By convincing the child that his belief (his Father's position, which he has accepted as is, i.e. as his) is simply an opinion amongst opinions, the child's honoring of the Father's authority is weakened if not negated. According to dialectic 'reasoning' the child's will (the child's "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. his opinions, which draw him to and unite him with the world, i.e. "human nature") must come before (supersede) the Father's will (the Father's commands and threat of chastening which "repress" the child, i.e. which "alienate" the child from his own nature and the world). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' if society remains focused upon sustaining the Father's authority then the child (and society) will forever remain abnormal (neurotic, repressed, alienated), divided against its own nature, prejudiced against the nature of others.
'Change' from the "old" to the "new" world order can only happen when the child and society become united as one, i.e. united in 'liberating' "human nature" from the Father's authority, i.e. turning good (doing right and not doing wrong according to the Father's will, i.e. righteousness) into evil, and evil (approaching pleasure and avoiding pain according to the child's nature, i.e. thinking and acting according to sensuousness, unrestrained by parental authority) into "good." In other words, all children must come to consensus (unite as "one") with the help of the 3) cast out ones (with the facilitators of 'change, i.e. with those who reject faith, i.e. accepting only that which is of sight, i.e. of "sense experience," i.e. of nature only—as being 'reality'). All children (and therefore all adults) must unite in the praxis of questioning the Father's rules and commands and challenging His authority, from thereon no longer initiating and sustaining His authority, i.e. no longer recognizing it or propagating it as an acceptable way of thinking and acting, negating it instead, i.e. thereby 'liberating' themselves and the world from the restraints of God. It is only through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. 'justifying' man's sinful nature, i.e. "human nature" as being "normal," that man can 'redeem' himself from Godly restraint and 'reconcile' himself back to the world). When you make "thinking through your feelings," i.e. 'justifying' "human nature," i.e. augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain the way of life, nothing can stop you from falling into the abyss, i.e. nothing can stop you from sinning with impunity, until God's judges you for your sins (for your unrepentant heart). "And he said unto them, 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 16:5 "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." Proverbs 22:15 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 1:7 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," Romans 1:22
Dialectic 'reasoning' is anathema to faith in God. "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 No one who 'reason's' dialectically ('justifies' sensuousness over and against righteousness, i.e. establishes the child's nature, i.e. "human nature" over and against the Father's authority, i.e. puts Genesis 3:1-6 into praxis over and against Hebrews 12:5-11, negating Romans 7:14-25) can have faith or keep their faith in the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ. "The ideas of the Enlightenment [dialectic 'reasoning'] taught man that he could trust his own reason ["thinking through his 'feelings'"] as a guide to establishing valid ethical norms and that he could rely on himself [rely upon his own feelings, thoughts, and actions], needing neither revelation [the Word of God] nor that authority of the church [Jesus Christ in obedience to His Heavenly Father in all things, calling all to deny themselves (mortify the deeds of the flesh), pick up their cross (mortify "the approval of men"), and follow Him] in order to know good and evil." (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists) Embracing "imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God," man has rejected "the obedience of Christ," i.e. has turned 2 Corinthians 10:5 upside down—"Casting 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 The antithesis between the law of sin (the law of the flesh, i.e. of "human nature") and the law of God (of the Spirit, which requires absolute obedience to God, which no man can do in and of himself) can only be overcome by the law of faith, i.e. faith in the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who fulfilled the law (who obeyed the Father in all things commanded), 'redeeming' us, by his blood, from the Father's wrath upon us because of our love of the flesh (living by the law of the flesh, i.e. according to "human nature") over and against the law of God (which only the Holy Spirit can bring forth out of our lives as we humble ourselves before God). Dialectic 'reasoning,' establishing sight ("sense experience") as the only means to knowing right from wrong, negates faith, thereby condemning all who use it, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning' (even in the name of the Lord to "grow" the "church"), to eternal damnation.
The scriptures warn us of dialectic 'reasoning': "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 of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." 1 Timothy 6:20, 21 Scriptures warn of of those who "facilitate 'change,'" i.e. of those who seduce, deceive, and manipulate man (and child) to get their way (even from the pulpit): "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." 2 Corinthians 11:13-15
The lie of dialectic 'reasoning' is that man will not be held accountable (by God, i.e. by the Father) for his carnal thoughts and carnal actions (which challenge, i.e. defy the Father's, i.e. God's commands). The dialectic 'logic' is that if the Father's authority is negated in the thoughts and actions of the child then the fear of God is negated in the thoughts and actions of man—if the child believes that he will not be held accountable by the Father for his thoughts and actions, then he can become himself again, as he was before his Father's first command and threat of chastening (and condemnation), thus being able to do what he "feels" like doing without having a "guilty conscience." As Satan's lie in the garden in Eden ("Ye shall not surely die") 'liberated' the woman from the fear of God, so psychological counseling 'liberates' man today. "If this field of force [the Father's authority] loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult [the Father] goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence [the "guilty conscience"] also disappears." (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers) "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual comes to ask himself 'What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) In the "open ended," i.e. "We can talk about anything" (non-judgment), "non-directive," i.e. "There is no absolute right or wrong answer" (permissive) environment, man (the child) can 'discover' that "truth" lies within himself, i.e. that "truth" lies within his own "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e. within "human nature" only, i.e. that instead of his heart being wicked it is "good" or has the potential of become "good" as he unites it with the hearts desires of his fellow man, creating a "better" world, i.e. a world of pleasure for all men. Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is only upon the "foundation" of "human nature" (the law of the flesh, the law of sin) that man can initiate and sustain unite, i.e. that he can create a world of "harmony," i.e. a world of "equality," i.e. a world of unrighteousness and abomination, i.e. a world freed of Godly restraint (freed of prejudice, i.e. judgmentalism and restraint). When abomination becomes an accepted way of life, then righteousness (God's condemnation of sin) no longer remains an issue of life. "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, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12 "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Matthew 12:36, 37 "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon." Isaiah 55:7
The lie of dialectic 'reasoning' is the assumption that you are "good" or have the potential of becoming "good" based upon your participation in making the world a "better" ("good") place to live in for yourself as well as for others. Think of the most wicked person that has ever walked upon the face of the earth. That is you, i.e. your heart (the affective domain). Your deceive yourself in that you only see the compromise you made today, to get your heart's desire, as being "good" or "necessary" in order to get that which is "good" in your own eyes (and or in the eyes of others). Having a "good" day is having your hearts desire for the day. Have you ever said to yourself that you would never be like "that wicked person" only to find yourself, someday down the road, being like "that wicked person." It is not how far down the road you have gone. It is the road that you are on. Whether you have walked half way across the pig pen or only taken one step in it, you stepped in it, i.e. you stink. Break one part of the law and you break it all. The issue is not how much you did that was wrong. It is that you did it to begin with. Sin is sin. With dialectic 'reasoning,' sin is "good" as long as you don't have a "guilty conscience" while doing it (or after doing it). You are simply being "normal." Like everyone else, you are simply trying to get along to "have a life." The "guilty conscience" indicates that you are subject to one above, i.e. to the Father's authority which restrains "human nature," i.e. "repressing" and "alienating" you from your impulses and urges of the 'moment,' needing the two or more to 'liberate' you from its restraint—necessary for the sake of unity with the many. In dialectic 'reasoning,' having a "guilty conscience" is sin because it inhibits you from being "normal," i.e. it prevents you from being like everyone else, progressing down the road of 'change,' i.e. being "adaptable to 'change,'" i.e. being "tolerant of deviancy." "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9
Even those of dialectic 'reasoning' recognize that the heart (the affective domain) is wicked, comparing it to "Pandora's Box," i.e. a box full of evil, which once opened, i.e. once 'liberated' from the Father's authority, can never be closed again. "The affective domain [the heart of the child] is, in retrospect, a virtual ‘Pandora's Box.'" (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Education Objectives Book 2 Affective Domain 1964) It has been the intent of those in control of education (who seek to negate the Father's authority over his children, i.e. to 'liberate' man from Godly restraint) to use the affective domain to 'liberate' the heart of the child through his classroom experience, to not only 'liberate' the child from the Father's authority but to 'liberate' society from the Father's authority (God's authority) as well. As the "Affective Domain" book (which is used by every certified teacher and accredited school, whether public, private, or religious) states: "It is in this 'box' that the most influential controls are to be found." "The affective domain contains the forces that determine the nature of an individual's life and ultimately the life of an entire people" "In fact, a large part of what we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the student's fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues." "We are not entirely sure that opening our ‘box' is necessarily a good thing; we are certain that it is not likely to be a source of peace and harmony ...." "There are many stores of the conflict and tension that these new practices [the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. of "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom] are producing between parents and children." ibid. The dialectic 'logic' is: If you are to 'change' society, i.e. if you are to initiate and sustain a new world order of 'change,' i.e. if you are to 'liberate' man (his wicked heart) from Godly restraint, you must first 'liberate' the children (their heart) from their parent's authority.
According to those taken captive to dialectic 'reasoning' ('liberated' from the fear of God and love of His Word), instead of the child evaluating his carnal desires and the world around him, according to his parent's (his Father's) standards, i.e. according to their way of thinking and acting (doing right and not doing wrong), he must evaluate his parent's (his Father's) standards, and therefore his parent's (the Father's) authority according to his own carnal desires (according to his heart's desires) and the world around him (according to the heart's desire of others)—making the approaching of pleasure and avoiding of pain, i.e. "human nature" the system from which to distinguish "good" from "evil." Karl Marx wrote: "Not feeling at home in the sinful world, Critical Criticism [the children evaluating, i.e. questioning, and challenging, i.e. negating the Father's authority] must set up a sinful world in its own home." (Karl Marx The Holy Family Chapter VII Critical Criticism’s Correspondence 1: The Critical Mass) Instead of the home (the parent's and the children who obey them) being uncomfortable in the community (in the world) of sin (of deviancy, i.e. of "human nature") the parents must make sin (deviancy, i.e. "human nature," i.e. the "law of the flesh," i.e. the world) comfortable in the home. For the world of 'change' (a world freed of Godly restraint) to become reality the home environment (the way the parents and the children think and act, i.e. the "top-down" order of the Father ruling, the desire of the heart of the wife being to her husband, and the children obeying their parents, in the Lord) must be 'changed' from the parent's preaching and teaching truth to be accepted and obeyed without question (to be accepted by faith) to the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e. to a general "feeling" of agreement by all. By making the family one, i.e. "equal" in nature ("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), private, i.e. "This is mine, not yours," i.e. "This is my family, not yours," "This is my property, not yours," "This is my business, Not yours," is lost to (is swallowed up by) the common (the common-ist), i.e. the "community" cause. Therefore the deviant child (the child of disobedience, i.e. the cast out ones) must be tolerated (accepted) by the parents if the Father's authority is to be negated. Adorno wrote: "Social environmental forces must be used to change the parents behavior toward the child." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) Every institution in this nation, including the "church," is (knowingly or unknowingly) wrapped around ('driven' by and 'purposed' in) this agenda, i.e. negating the Father's authority in the home (and therefore in every institution), all for the sake of "unity." They have all turned away from the Lord and turned to human relationship and 'reasoning' as the way of life, i.e. they have all turned to the methods of Human Relationship in Curriculum Change (Pdf file) instead of to the Word of God for the solution to life's problems. For dialectic 'reasoning' to become a universal reality, the Father's authority (to do right and to not do wrong "or else") must frustrate the child's nature (his natural inclination to approach pleasure and avoid pain), 'driving' the child to unite with other children (with the "help" of "facilitators of 'change'), i.e. using dialectic 'reasoning' (the consensus process) to 'justify' the 'liberation' of "human nature" from the Father's authority, i.e. 'justifying' the negation of the Father's authority (Godly restraint) from the face of the earth. "Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making [the Father's authority], our objective centers upon .... transform[ing] 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)
Most who claim they understand Hegel's dialectic process, do not. "Understanding" the dialectic process only through their "intellectual" ability ('justifying' their carnal desires) leaves them blind to who and what 'drives' it and his intended 'purpose.' Not until you evaluate (expose) the dialectic process from (by) the Word of God can you see it for what it is: Genesis 3:1-6, i.e. man's ability to 'justify' himself, i.e. 'justify' his carnal desires over and against the Word of God ('justifying' the law of the flesh over and against the law of faith, i.e. 'justifying' the child's nature of "approaching of pleasure and the avoiding of pain" over and against "doing right and not doing wrong" according to the Father's will, i.e. as a "child of disobedience" 'justifies' his thoughts and actions over and against his Father's authority, perceiving his Father's commands as being "irrational" in the given 'moment,' therefore making His authority "irrelevant" not only in his thoughts but in his actions as well), using it (dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. self-social 'justification') to negate Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e. to negate the Father's authority, in an effort of negate Romans 7:14-25, i.e. to negate the "guilty conscience" and God's answer to it, i.e. "Jesus Christ our Lord," being put into political-social-global action (praxis). It is how the facilitator of 'change' 'liberates' the child from his Father's authority, creating a "new" world order where all the children are united in 'liberating' the world from Godly restraint (liberté from the Father's authority, égalité in the flesh, i.e. in the law of sin, fraternité in 'liberating' the flesh from the Father's authority, i.e. negating the Father's authority, i.e. negating "doing right and not wrong" according to the Father's will by making "the augmentation of pleasure and the attenuation of pain" the 'driving purpose' of life, i.e. making "the approaching of pleasure and the avoiding of pain," which is of the child's nature, the only standard from which to determine "right from wrong," uniting all the children of the world upon that which they all have in common, i.e. their carnal nature, i.e. engendering' "common-unity," i.e. consensus out of deviancy). The only foundation upon which the "new" world order can stand is upon that which is only "of the world," i.e. only of the child's carnal nature, i.e. only of man's opinion, i.e. how he "feels" and what he "thinks" in the given 'moment,' i.e. making him subject to "human nature" only. The dialectic process "upon which the 'new' world order stands" negates the authority of the Father (thus negating the "guilty conscience") in the thoughts and actions ("theory and practice") of all who 'willing' participate in the process of 'change,' thereby initiating and sustaining a world of abomination—while the father, the boss, the teacher himself can be killed outright it requires 'reasoning' to 'justify' the desire and the act, negating the "guilty conscience" in the process, i.e. without the 'reasoning' (the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus) the "guilty conscience," the remnant of the Father's authority, remains in place. "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 2:17 "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 "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 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6
If you love your flesh and the world, you'll hate the Father. If you love the Father, you'll hate your flesh and the things of the world. Worldly peace and socialist harmony can not become a reality without hating the Father and His authority. Therefore the 'drive' of and 'purpose' (agenda) for dialectic 'reasoning' is to negate of the Father's authority, i.e. to 'liberate' the child's flesh ("human nature") from the Father's restraints, i.e. to 'liberate' man from having a "guilty conscience" for his unrighteous thoughts and actions—making sin the accepted "norm." There is no other agenda. When you apply "Hegel's" dialectic process to your life there is a price to pay, it's not just academics as those who praxis it would like you to believe. "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." Mark 8:36-38
Inalienable rights, i.e. the rights granted to the child by the Father, are negated as the child embraces "human rights," i.e. the "rights" granted to him by "the children of disobedience" (the cast out ones), with the child losing (spending) his inheritance supporting "the children of disobedience" in their carnal ways—as the prodigal son supported his "friends" until they ran out of his money, i.e. he had nothing left to give them, with them leaving him to die. It is not until he returns home that he comes to know that his inheritance was not his father money (the earth) but his Father's love for him, which is eternal. If the son loves the Father's money, he ends up with friends who only love his Father's money (now perceived as their money). When his friends run out his money he has nothing, not even their love. If the son loves the Father, he ends up with his Father's inheritance as well as His love—passing His Father's love onto his own children along with his inheritance (passing his Father's authority system onto his children, all under God). Puberty, instead of being a time of rebellion against the Father's authority (as advocated by those of dialectic 'reasoning') is instead a time from which the child prepares to become a parent (himself/herself), passing the Father's authority and love for his children onto the next generation. There is a reason the secular commandments (the last six commandments of The Ten Commandments, dealing with man's conduct with man, under God) begin with honoring the Father's (and the mother's) authority (the first four commandments being sacred commandments between man and God). Because of man's love of himself and the world, refusing to return to the Father, i.e. honoring His authority, God will send a strong delusion, that he will die in his sins. "For if God spared not ...." 2 Peter 2:1-22 Man (or child) having his way ('liberating' himself from his Father's warnings) blinds himself to the consequence of his actions, i.e. to who and what now controls him. "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12
It is because of the ideology of Hegel, Marx, and Freud et al (facilitators of 'change,' advocating self-social 'justification' over and against the Father's authority, pg. 22) that we have become a nation of abomination today. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' universal 'truth' lies within the nature of the child (in man's carnal nature), not in the authority of the Father. Rejecting the truth which comes from above man (the Word of God) we now embrace the 'truth' (the "feelings" and "thoughts") which come from within man. Making "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. man's opinion equal with God's Word, negates God's Word in our thoughts and actions. The Word of God gives Satan nothing to work with. That is why he hates it so much. It is only through your opinion of it (your dissatisfaction with it) that he has room to live. As Karl Marx put it: "It is not individualism [where every individual man will stand before God (as a child before his Father, as a student before his teacher, as a worker before his boss, etc.) and be held accountable for his actions, i.e. doing right and not wrong according to His will, i.e. living according to His Words] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society ["human relationship," i.e. "community," i.e. "equality" according to the flesh, according to "human nature," i.e. "We working for Us," i.e. socialism, i.e. common-ism, men dialoguing their opinions, i.e. how they "feel" and what they "think" in the 'moment,' to a consensus, i.e. to a "feeling" of "oneness," i.e. compromising or suspending one's position for the sake of unity, i.e. for the sake of socialist harmony and worldly peace, etc.] is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities." (John Lewis, The Life and Teaching of Karl Marx) According to the ideology of Hegel, Marx, and Freud (pg. 22), freedom is freedom from the Father's authority, freeing man to become at-one-with his carnal nature and the world, and individuality is freedom of the flesh, which is common to all men finding unity with one another and the world. As Karl Marx said, and acted out, "The King's horse is the peoples horse," so two in a garden in Eden said, and acted out, "God's tree is our tree," as is being said, and acted out, today, "Your children are our children, your property is our property, your business is our business, i.e. your life, i.e. your physical, mental, and social life (health) belongs to us all, i.e. your individual value or worth is based upon your value or worth to the advancement of society" (to the advancement of socialism where "one for all and all for one" means that any who are not for the all, i.e. for common-ism, for the "community," i.e. "common-unity" are of no worthy or value, needing to be either converted or negated for the sake of unity, i.e. for the "common-ist cause"). With this 'reasoning,' man's heart, which is wicked, is perceived as being "good," deceiving man into believing that he is "good" in and of himself as long as he serves the "common good," i.e. as long as his heart's desire is to advance (work for the "betterment," i.e. augment the carnal pleasures of) society, i.e. to work together with others, as "one," in 'liberating' the child from his Father's authority, thereby 'liberating' man from Godly restraint—hate of the flesh (of sin) and love of the Father (of righteousness) is replaced with hate of the Father and love of the flesh (of sin), i.e. 'justifying' the child's praxis of grabbing the toy of gratification out of the Father's hands (who was removing it to restrain his carnal ways) and of kicking or striking out at the Father (hating, to the killing of the Father if possible) when He persists in retaining His God given office of authority. "The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful. The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good. He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil [is "toleration of ambiguity," i.e. is tolerant of abomination]." Psalms 36:1-4
Dialectic 'reasoning' turns "the earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof" into "the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality—meaning "the earth belongs to 'us socialists,' i.e. to us facilitators of 'change,' with its fruits, including your children, under our influence and control"). Sounding more like Karl Marx than Karl Marx himself, George Hegel wrote: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, where there is no antithesis of person to person or of subject to object [rejecting any "top-down" order as given by God, embracing only the commonality, i.e. "equality" of carnal nature], the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one [established by God]. So too all contracts regarding property or service and the like fall away here because these things are grounded in the presupposition of private personality. Instead the surplus, labour, and property are absolutely common to all, inherently and explicitly." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) With man's wicked heart 'liberated' from the restraints of God and His Word (opening up "Pandora's box"), our leaders have (and our nation as well as the "church" has) come to the point of accepting abomination (at least the tolerance of it) as the way of life, making abomination the law of the land. "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 "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." Jeremiah 6:16 "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:18
When you start with the Father's authority, i.e. with His commands and rules, chastening ("the guilty conscience") and casting out restrains the child, keeping the Father's authority (tradition, i.e. respect for authority) in place. But when you start with the child, i.e. with his "feelings" and "thoughts," dialoguing his opinion negates the Father's authority, allowing all the children to unite in the praxis of 'liberating' themselves from the Father's authority, creating a world of 'change' (transformation, i.e. abomination) to take His place. "This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." Ephesians 4:11-24
Those of dialectic 'reasoning' (of "human reasoning") instead of attacking the believer's faith outright, attempt to 'change' his way of thinking and acting instead (calling it a "paradigm 'shift'" where, for example the child 'shifts' his focus from his Father's authority to his, and his "friends," "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' instead). They attempt to seduce, deceive, and manipulate the believer into negating his faith in the Father's authority (in the Word of God) by replacing it with faith in the opinions of men, into negating a "guilty conscience" for disobedience (for sin) by replacing it with the "super-ego," i.e. with "the approval of men," into negating his dependence upon God to know right from wrong by making "human nature" (man's "felt" needs of the 'moment') the standard and "human 'reasoning'" (the "wisdom" of men") the method from which to determine right from wrong. By replacing the "guilty conscience," which can only be engendered by One, i.e. by one Father, by one right answer, etc. with the "super-ego," which requires two or more (including you talking to your "self"—which makes two—"reflecting" upon the current condition or situation according to your carnal desires of the 'moment'), facts and truth, i.e. knowledge (knowing) is replaced with opinions, belief is replaced with theory, preaching and teaching is replaced with dialogue, the Father's authority is replaced with the child's "feelings," i.e. with "human nature," i.e. with the child's impulses and urges of the 'moment,' being controlled by the environment of the 'moment,' i.e. by those controlling it or his perception of it, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating him into creating a "new" world order of 'change.' The "Christian" will remain subject to the dialectic process, because he wants to remain ignorant of Satan's devices (he does not want to evaluate his life and the world around him from to the Word of God only, evaluating it from his own and others "felt" needs, i.e. through his and others "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' instead), so he can "do his own thing" (even while he is doing "wonderful things" in the name of the Lord). The "intellectual" will always remain subject to the dialectic process because he can not accept the Word of God as being the only answer to overcoming its control over his life (he does not want to repent of his love of sight, i.e. of his love of the flesh, i.e. of his love of the opinions of men, i.e. of his love of the things of the world, having to walk by faith, i.e. by the spirit, i.e. live by the Word of God, submitting himself, i.e. his will, to the will of God, i.e. to the Heavenly Father and His only begotten Son, instead). Only the believer, i.e. he who fears God and loves His Word, i.e. who daily dies to himself, endures the rejection of men, and follows Christ Jesus, walking in the Spirit ("This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh." Galatians 5:16) has overcome the power of the dialectic process's (of "self 'justification,'" i.e. of the power of sin) over his life. "Christians" were not killed in the Soviet Union, believers were.
Karl Marx wrote: "The unspeculative Christian [the believer] also recognizes sensuality [his desire for the things of the world] as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, i.e., of faith, of true love, i.e., of love of God, of true will-power, i.e., of will in Christ. [Remember, this is Karl Marx writing this.] Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply. [Marx knew that without sensuality, i.e. without man by nature being drawn to the things of the world, human 'reasoning' could not become manifest, helping him 'liberate' himself, i.e. his "human nature" from Godly restraint, helping him 'justify' himself, i.e. his carnal urges and impulses of the 'moment,' before his own eyes, i.e. evaluating the Word of God and the world through "human 'reasoning'" 'liberates' man from the Word of God, 'justifying' "human nature" and the things of the world in his thoughts and actions.] It is not sensuality which is presented ..., but mysteries, adventures, obstacles, fears, dangers, and especially the attraction of what is forbidden [human 'reasoning' (the divine spirit, i.e. the divine spark, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning') can not become manifest in man without his carnal desires first coming between him and the Father, i.e. his desire to know himself in the "light" of the world, i.e. desiring to know himself as he is, i.e. according to his "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e. according to "the imagination of his heart," apart from God, i.e. apart from the Father's authority, i.e. apart from His "Thou shalt not" and threat of judgment for disobedience]." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) According to Karl Marx (and Sigmund Freud, i.e. "behavioral science"), it is through sensuousness only (from how man "feels" in relation to the world—in relation to the men around him, i.e. from Nature only), that man can come to know 'reality,' i.e. that he can come to know what 'drives' him, realizing his 'purpose' in life. "Sense experience must be the basis of all science. Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception and sensuous need, that is, only when it proceeds from Nature." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3, p. 123) "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)
The believer becomes subject to the dialectic process when he seeks the approval of men (the many) so that he can do or get what he wants, instead of the approval of God (the One), doing what He wants, i.e. when he, as a child, no longer seeks after the approval of his Father but after the approval of the other children on the block, taking pride (self esteem) in that they have control over their own lives, i.e. that they can do whatever "they" want to do whenever "they" want to do it, having no fear of God (no fear of their fathers) for their thoughts and actions. "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished. By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil." Proverbs 16:5-6 It is here, on the Father's authority, that life (eternal life) resides: "... 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 "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." John 5:30 "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak." John 12:49 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50 "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 7:21 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." John 6:46 "All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." Luke 10:22 Jesus declare: "I and my Father are one." John 10:30 "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" John 14:9 "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Matthew 16:24
There is only One Father to whom we are accountable: "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 There is only one way for the Father to know you, i.e. through your faith in His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, who, through shedding His blood for your sins, 'redeemed' you from His Father's wrath upon you for your sins (taking your sins upon himself instead), saving you from eternal damnation, and who through His resurrection, 'reconciled' you to His Father, that you could know Him, and His love for you (for eternity) instead. "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12 Both the Father and Son sent the Holy Spirit to guide, direct, convict, reprove, and encourage you, confirming the Word, conforming you to the image of the Son (obedient to His Heavenly Father in all things) instead, doing His perfect will on you and through you, not by your carnal efforts but by His Word and His Spirit instead, lest you boast. You can never fulfill the will of God in and of yourself. All you can do is die to yourself, die to the approval of men, and follow the Lord Jesus Christ, letting Him work His (and His Father's) perfect will out through your life, as He wills. "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me." John 14:21, 23, 24 We do not keep His commands so that He will love us. We love Him so we keep His commands, i.e. do His will. If you love the Father, His commands are a source of peace to your soul. But if you love the world, His commands are a barrier to your flesh.
We have all done the dialectic process. We do it when we try to 'justify' our carnal desires of the 'moment' by talking to, i.e. dialoguing with ourselves and/or with others in an effort to silence our conscience (negate our Father's voice within us—restraining us from doing what "we" want to do in the 'moment'). Our carnal nature is to use our 'reasoning' ability (our "thinking") to 'justify' our "self," i.e. i.e. to 'justify' our carnal desires—our "feelings," over and against our Father's authority—perceiving his commands and rules as being 'irrational,' and therefore 'irrelevant' in the "light" of the carnal 'moment.' The nature of the child is to "approach pleasure and avoid pain," with the child trying to acquire (seeking to have control over) the gratifying objects in the environment (and therefore the environment itself) in an effort to initiate and sustain (or augment) pleasure, while the authority of the Father is to "do right and not wrong" (according to his standards) as a way of thinking and acting. This requires that the child sets aside his "approaching of pleasure" and "the avoiding of pain" way of thinking and acting, replacing it with a "do right" and "do not do wrong" way of thinking and acting, which includes the enduring of pain (including the pain of missing out on pleasure) while doing his Father's will. Dialectic 'reasoning' (self-social 'justification') is given birth through the child's dissatisfaction with his Father's authority (with his "ought" engendered by his Father's "not" restraining, i.e. inhibiting or blocking his carnal desire of the 'moment,' opening up the avenue of "thought," which is then used in the defense of or 'justification' of his "human nature," i.e. engendering an "I deserve," i.e. a resentment of or hatred toward the Father's authority—our "ought's" are the result of our Father's "not's" which moves us to "thought" on how to 'liberate' ourselves from our Father's authority so that we can negate the "guilty conscience" which inhibits or prevents us from having our way, i.e. from having our heart's desire of the 'moment'). Keep this in mind and all the rest below (Hegel's dialectic process) will make sense. It is hard for us to see (or for us to be willing to look at) the dialectic process in us because it is so much a part of us and we are so much a part of it, using it daily to "get our way," having to ask the Lord to forgive us when we do. It is anathema to God's way of thinking and acting: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9 God has called us out of such thinking. "But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof." Romans 13:14, What distinguishes believers, i.e. adopted children of God, from "Christians," is that believers take "into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" 2 Corinthians 10:5 Believers do not praxis ('justify') the dialectic process as a way of thinking and acting (repenting of it when they do).
Diaprax is the dialectic process being put into "community" action (called praxis). Praxis is when you put your current "feelings" and "thoughts," which are common with others, and therefore agreeable with others (providing they have been or are being, like you, processed to "think through their feelings," i.e. 'driven' by "the approaching of pleasure and the avoiding of pain," 'purposes' in "augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain" not only for themselves but for others as well, which includes negating the pain of the Father's authority. i.e. negating right-wrong, i.e. "prejudiced," "judgmental," "negative" thinking), into social action (so that society can be freed of you inflicting it with a "guilty conscience" by your preaching of the Word of God, i.e. your Father's commands and rules, in the public arena, which informs them that they are sinners, condemned to eternal death unless they repent). The dialectic process is where you and others (two or more) dialogue your opinions , i.e. how you "feel" and what you "think" "in the 'moment'" (with everyone "thinking through their feelings" concerning personal-social issues) until all 'willing' participants come to a consensus, i.e. arrive at a "feeling" of "oneness." Since your "feelings" of the 'moment' are tied to your flesh (sensuousness—the "pleasure-pain" spectrum or continuum of "human nature," where we determine the "worth" of the day and our lives or the lives of others upon how much pleasure, vs. pain we or they had, are having, or might have during the day), which is influenced by the surrounding environment of the 'moment' (which includes your concern regarding "the approval of others," regarding your chance of acquiring the object of gratification of your heart's desire) and your "thinking" is upon your "feelings" of the 'moment' (including what others are "thinking" about you), then you are "thinking through or according to your flesh" in response to the surrounding environment of the 'moment.' (In this way of thinking, whoever gains control of the environment, gains control of, i.e. can seduce, deceive, and manipulate, you.)
As shocking (and denied by you) as this might be, any time you are concerned about "the approval of others" you are "thinking through your flesh." Consensus is an agreement based upon a "'feeling' of 'oneness'" with one another (a "feeling" of "oneness" with the current social environment), upon what to do to satisfy everyone's carnal desires which have been or are being blocked or inhibited by the Father's authority, His "do right-don't do wrong" attitude (by One), i.e. desires not only being blocked or inhibited in the past by His commands and rules, but being blocked and inhibited in the present by those adhering to His authority in the present environment, situation, or crisis as well, i.e. in the current meeting at hand. (By gaining control of the environment, making it subject to "the approval of others" rather than "right-wrong" thinking, the individual or individuals who resist 'change' can be neutralized, marginalized and either converted, as a result of compromising to regaining "the approval of others," or removed for causing dissention and/or division.) According to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' the subject at hand is not the issue being addressed (it could be a "church" board meeting dealing with "missions") it is the procedure (paradigm, or way of thinking) that is being used to deal with the issue. In this environment, situation, or meeting (manipulated by the facilitator of 'change'—whose "role" it is to maintain control over the meeting, preventing any semblance of "top-down" authority, i.e. the Word of God for example, from taking control over the meeting, determining the outcome upon a "right-wrong" way of thinking and acting, inhibiting or blocking an "approach pleasure - avoid pain," i.e. compromise for the sake of social harmony, way of thinking and acting), the Father's authority (or the teacher's/boss's/God's authority), His "right-wrong" way of thinking and acting which forces the child (or the student/the worker/man) to set aside his carnal desires, i.e. his carnal feelings, thoughts, and actions (his "approach pleasure - avoid pain" way of thinking and acting) of the 'moment' (in order to fulfill or satisfy the Father's or the teacher's or the boss's or God's will) is perceived by the child as being the inhibitor of, or barrier to, 'change,' i.e. as being the source of "prejudice," i.e. the cause of "dissention" or "division," i.e. the reason for social disharmony (the initiator of "church," i.e. "community" controversy).
If tradition is based upon the Father's authority to 1) give commands to his children (to train them up in doing right and no doing wrong according to His standards, i.e. training them up in right-wrong thinking and acting), to 2) chasten His children when they disobey, and to 3) cast out any who questions or challenges His authority, then the child's "approach pleasure - avoid pain" way of thinking and acting remains subject to his Father's "right-wrong" way of thinking and acting, i.e. the condition of antithesis (the child's carnal nature "repressed" by the Father's authority) remains in place. With the Father's authority remaining the thesis, the child's feelings, i.e. "approach pleasure and avoid pain," remains the antithesis and the child (and therefore society) remains subject to the Father's way of thinking and acting. But, by making the child's "feelings," i.e. "approach pleasure - avoid pain" the thesis, then the Father's authority, i.e. "do right and do not do wrong, according to my standards," becomes the antithesis, i.e. becomes the source of tension and controversy. By negating the Father's right to chasten his children when they do wrong, along with His right to cast those who question and challenge His authority, all the children of the world (through the dialoguing of their opinions to a consensus) are able to 'discover' synthesis, i.e. unite with one another, basing the decisions of their lives upon their common "feelings" of "approaching pleasure and avoiding pain," i.e. "questioning and challenging authority," creating a "new" world order of transformation, i.e. of continuous 'change,' i.e. initiating and sustaining a world initiated and sustained by the cast out ones, i.e. with "the children of disobedience" (the facilitators of 'change') controlling their lives. Hegel wrote: "When a man has finally reached the point where he does not think he knows it better than others, that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly and he is interested only in what they have done right, then peace and affirmation have come to him." (Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel)
This conflict, tension, or antithesis condition, i.e. between the child's nature (the child's desires, i.e. the "approaching of pleasure and the avoiding pain" nature of the flesh) and the Father's authority (the Father's rules and commands, i.e. the "do right and do not do wrong" nature of the spirit), as explained in Romans 7:14-25, is what produces what is called a "belief-action dichotomy." The "belief-action dichotomy" is a condition where the person's belief, i.e. the Father's authority (or the teacher's/the boss's/God's rules and commands—which, from now on, will be referred to as the Father's authority since all authority is of God, i.e. all authority is under our Heavenly Father's authority—it is not that the parent or teacher or boss or minister is perfect, they could be down right tyrants, i.e. using the office of authority for their own personal, carnal gain, it is that the office they serve in is perfect, given to them by God to serve in under His authority, according to His will), conflicts with the child's actions (his actions taken to acquire the object of gratification which is in the environment, for his own pleasure, i.e. conflicts with the child's or the student's/the worker's/man's carnal/natural behavior—from now on referred to as the child's carnal/natural behavior). The child's actions conflict with his belief, i.e. conflicts with the Father's rules and commands, when he accepts them "as is" ("as given," i.e. by faith) and attempts to obey them against his own desires. This produces a "guilty conscience" (when he is thinking of disobeying, is disobeying, or has already disobeyed his Father's rules or commands, i.e. "right-wrong" being his way of thinking over and against "pleasure-pain") which engenders (according to dialectic 'reasoning') a mental-social condition called "neurosis" (according to Sigmund Freud) and "repression" and "alienation" (according to Karl Marx). Since socialism rejects God (the One above ruling over the many below, i.e. don't be deceived, this is in perception only, i.e. there is always "one" at the top) it classifies all patriarchal "above-below," "top-down," "right-wrong" authority as being the source of division within society. Socialists (facilitator's of 'change') will "accept" (seduce) the the believer, i.e. the child who believes in the Father (deceiving him into believing that they are at-one-with him, i.e. even working with him to help him in his relationship with God, i.e. with his Father) only to influence (manipulate) him into participating in dialectic 'reasoning' (self-social 'justification') to help 'liberate' him from God, i.e. from his Father's authority, making him dependent upon them instead, supporting them (by donating himself, i.e. his body, his time and his money, i.e. his Father's money) in perpetrating, i.e. initiating and sustaining the dialectic process upon others along the way (building "community" to sustain his carnal way of life, 'liberated' from the Father's authority). "There are many stores of the conflict and tension that these new practices [the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom] are producing between parents and children." (Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book II Affective Domain)
The dialectic agenda is to bring the child's carnal "feelings" into "thought" and then put that "thought" into action, i.e. to bring his carnal desires for the gratifying things of the world into the open so he can be affirmed by those of like "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. with all united as one, putting their "thoughts" into "action," 'justifying' their carnal nature. For a child, being a part of a group of children, i.e. experiencing a "feeling of oneness," is a gratifying thing. Every child has a "hook" (the key to group dynamics), the desire for approval from others, i.e. the desire for approval from his "friend" or "friends." By pulling his friends into participation in the dialectic process, i.e. into dialoguing their opinions (sharing their "feelings" and "thoughts") regarding their carnal desires, he is more easily pulled into participation as well, as he attempts to retain relationship with them, i.e. as he attempts to avoid rejection by them. In this way his "feelings" of dissatisfaction with any authority who inhibits or blocks him from having access to or from relating with, i.e. preventing him from being at-one-with the objects of gratification, i.e. preventing him from satisfying his carnal desires, becomes "irrational" in this thoughts and therefore "irrelevant" to his actions. Without bringing his desires as well as his dissatisfactions into the open, i.e. through dialogue, in a non-hostel, non-authoritarian, i.e. non-parental environment, preferable with other children having and expressing the same "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. having and voicing the same desires and dissatisfactions at the same time, the Father's authority can not be overcome, not only in the individuals life but in society as well.
Only by uniting (re-attaching) the child's carnal mind ("carnal thoughts") with his carnal "actions" ("carnal behavior") can "theory come closer to practice." Putting the "imagination of men's hearts" (man's natural/carnal "reflection" upon how the world "ought" to be—according to "human nature," i.e. according to the child's carnal nature) into "practice" (into social action, where the child is 'justified' in doing what he wants to do as long as he does not "hurt" himself or others in the process, i.e. in the sensual 'moment') not only is the child 'liberated' from the Father's authority, society is 'liberated' from the Father's authority as well. In this way he no longer has a "guilty conscience" in doing that which is "pleasurable" or "enjoyable" in the 'moment,' i.e. in doing that which the Father would disapprove of (and chasten him for—re-enforcing the "guilty conscience" which inhibits or blocks 'change'), nor does he instill a "guilty consciences" in other, by demonstrating (reinforcing) the Father's authority in their presence. Thus the child can do that which is carnal, i.e. do that which comes naturally (which goes counter to his Father's rules and commands) because it agrees (consents) with what he "feels" is "good" (and therefore "thinks" is "good"), not only "good" for himself but "good" for others as well (with all the children approving of, i.e. becoming "tolerant" of one another's "feelings" and "thoughts" as they all participate in the same dialectic, i.e. 'liberating,' i.e. sensuous experience). In this way 'reality' is no longer based upon the Father's authority ("do right and do not do wrong") but upon the child's own "feelings," "thoughts," and "actions" ("approach pleasure-avoid pain") of the 'moment' (upon his "sense experience") as well as the "feelings," "thoughts," and "actions" (the "sense experiences") of the other children (uniting upon the impulse and urges which all the children have in common in the 'moment'). This is the heart and soul of common-ism AKA communism. Thus, according to dialectic 'reasoning' (through the dialectic "experience") reality' is based upon "human nature," i.e. upon sensuousness, i.e. upon the child's nature, i.e. upon Nature itself, only. 'Reality' can only become 'reality' with the 'liberation' of the child from the Father's authority, i.e. as the children become united as one (in consensus) negating the Father's authority from society.
While God created and affects nature, He is not of nature, therefore He can not be "taken captive to" the sensuousness of it (made to be at-one-with it and it to be made at-one-with Him). Man, on the other hand, born of nature, i.e. knowing only the sensuousness of the world (approaching pleasure and avoiding pain) from birth (that is until he encounters right-wrong thinking and acting administered by his parent's commands, being reinforced by chastening or the thread of it), can only turn to nature when he rejects the Father's authority, i.e. when he rejects the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ—"the only begotten son of God" who obeyed (and still obeys) His Heavenly Father in all things commanded. All religions try to bridge this gap between God and nature (try to comprehend, 'justify,' and use this "top-down," "above-below," spirit-flesh system, i.e. only knowing that there is a God, by his witness in nature—but not able to know Him through nature since God is not of nature). Man, in his efforts can only link God to nature and nature to God, i.e. correlating God to sensuousness and sensuousness to God. In truth, God makes Himself known to us through His Word only, which has to be received by faith only, through the preaching and teaching of His only begotten Son's obedience unto death upon the cross (to 'redeem' us from His Father's wrath upon us for our disobedience, i.e. for our sins) and His resurrection (to 'reconcile' us to His Heavenly Father), with the Holy Spirit confirming His Word, bringing us under conviction, to contrition, to repentance for our carnal (dialectic, i.e. self-social 'justifying') way of thinking and acting, saving us (our soul) from eternal damnation by His work alone, so that no man (according to his carnal fleshy nature) can boast.
"Theory and practice," where a child's carnal/natural thoughts (opinions or "theories") are in concord (in harmony) with his carnal/natural actions (behavior or "practice"), negates the Father's authority. In the dialectic process of consensus, i.e. in bringing "theory" (all the children's opinions) into "practice" (with all the children uniting as one upon the "feelings" and "actions" they can agree, i.e. consent upon), the 'justification' of the child's carnal/natural "thoughts" 'justifies' his carnal/natural "actions." In this way the "belief-action dichotomy," i.e. the conflict between the child's carnal desires and the Father's authority (the conflict between the flesh and the spirit, between the child and the parent, between the student and the teacher, between the worker and the boss, between man and God) is negated in the "thoughts" and "actions" of the child, et al. Through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' any spiritual, unnatural (above nature, i.e. super-natural) commands and rules (the Father's authority), ruling over, and thereby "repressing" (judging and condemning), the child's carnal/natural "thoughts" and "actions" of the 'moment,' i.e. "alienating" him from the carnal/natural "thoughts" and "actions" of other children, is negated, thereby establishing a broad (non-judgmental/non-condemning of sin, i.e. of "human nature") pathway to social unity and world peace (read: socialist unity and worldly peace). Even the "church" is using the consensus process to "grow" itself, i.e. "emerging" the "church" from the world of "human nature" (upon the opinions, i.e. the "feelings" and "thoughts" of men, via. polls, surveys, and feasibility studies, i.e. upon the doctrines of men) rather than building it upon the authority of God's Word, i.e. upon the obedient Son of God, i.e. upon the Lamb of God only (upon sound doctrine). "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;" 2 Timothy 4:3 1 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;" 1 Timothy 4:1
Dialectic ideology is based upon the premise that without "thought," i.e. "theory" (men's opinions) being put into "practice" (the child's carnal desires being 'liberated' from the Father's authority via. "human reasoning"), the "guilty conscience" ("belief," i.e. the Father's commands and rules residing in the mind of the child) would prevail over the thoughts and actions of the child, preventing 'change.' Stimulus-response, i.e. social engineering does not work well when people still have a "guilty conscience," i.e. the Father's authority in their thoughts, directing their actions, keeping them from participating in the ever 'changing' 'moment's' of life. According to the ideology of Diaprax, the solution to man's "belief-action dichotomy" (Romans 7:14-25, i.e. the "neurosis" of man) is not found in Christ Jesus, as the Word of God declares (by denying your self and accepting rejection from others as you follow Christ Jesus only, being made righteous, i.e. right before the Father, living by the law of faith in obedience to and in the obedience of the Son of the Father, i.e. His righteousness imputed to those of faith in Him, giving us His Holy Spirit so that we might be lead by and walk in it) but in you returning to yourself, i.e. being carnal, being natural, becoming at-one-with the "law of the flesh," i.e. the "law of sin," i.e. embracing "human nature," i.e. men's opinions, i.e. how everyone "feels" and what everyone "thinks" in the 'moment,' with man's carnal nature becoming the law of the land, "enjoying" the 'moment' of "unity" becoming the only "right" way to think and act. The "success" of Diaprax was not to declare open war against righteousness (against the believer, i.e. against those made righteous in Christ) at first, but to "encourage" (seduce, deceive, and manipulate) them into embracing "human nature" (to embrace their own "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. their opinions as well as the opinions, i.e. the "feelings" and "thoughts" of others), to "tolerate ambiguity," to accept "unity in diversity, i.e. unity in deviancy," to be "adaptable to 'change,'" to "agree to disagree" (thus making men's opinions equal with God's Word) in the hope of bringing the lost to Christ by "growing" the "church" upon the doctrine of "community" instead of upon the Word of God. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;" Rom 1:18
The commonality of the Father (the teacher/the boss/God)—as far as structure of thought and action go—is that they all (1) give commands and rules to be obeyed as is ("as given"), i.e. to be accepted by faith by the child (by the student/the worker/men)—which may (and often does) require the child (the student/the worker/man) to set aside (not fulfill) his desire of the 'moment,' evaluating himself and the world around him (evaluating and judging his carnal desires as well as the carnal desires of others) from the Father's (from the teacher's/the boss's/God's) commands and rules—(2) chasten those who disobey (to bring them back under His authority, i.e. to do that which is right according to the Father's will, i.e. according to His commands and rules), and (3) cast out any who refuse to accept His "top-down" authority to (1) give commands, (2) chasten the disobedient, and (3) cast out any who disrespect, question, and challenge His authority—casting out the "children of disobedience" (the facilitators of 'change') who evaluate the Father's commands and rules from their own "feelings" and "thoughts," thereby questioning and challenging His authority—Hebrews 12:5-11.
To those of dialectic 'reasoning,' whether the Father is benevolent (loves, i.e. feeds, cloths, and protects the children) or not does not matter. To those of dialectic 'reasoning,' the negation of the structure, pattern, system, or paradigm of "top-down" authority (which engenders the "guilty conscience" for disobedience, i.e. which inhibits or blocks compromise, which inhibits or blocks the child's ability to be "readily adaptability to 'change'" in a "rapidly 'changing' world") remains the main objective alone. Without its negation (the Father's authority and therefore the child's "guilty conscience" for disobedience), "equality" (all of the children freed from the Father's, i.e. Godly restraint, i.e. all of mankind 'liberated' from the fear of God and love of His Word, i.e. the negation of man preaching and teaching Christ Jesus in the public arena engendering conviction, contrition, and repentance for sin, the negation of man having to obey God, the negation of man having to lay aside the pleasures of the 'moment,' the negation of man having to stand alone with the truth, i.e. the negation of man having to endure the pain of rejection by the many for the joy that lies ahead with the One, the negation of community division, social disharmony, and world wars) can not become a 'reality.' The commonality of those of dialectic 'reasoning' is their dissatisfaction with having to obey the Father's commands and rules when they inhibit or block their carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e. when they obstruct their "lusting" after the gratifying things of pleasure of the 'moment,' i.e. when they prohibit the children from "enjoying" the things of the world of the 'moment,' i.e. when they prevent dopamine 'emancipation' in the 'moment' (Genesis 3:1-6). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. according to "human reasoning," without the self-social-environmental 'justification' of the dialectic process (without theory, i.e. men's opinions) being put into practice, the "guilty conscience" (the Father's authority) would prevail, and man would remain forever "neurotic," "repressed," and "alienated," forever subject to the Father's authority while at the same time desiring to be himself, i.e. of the flesh, i.e. of the world only. The soul of the child (which is eternal, i.e. subject to the Father's authority) get's lost (and therefore remains lost) in his participation within the dialectic process (within the consensus process).
The difference between the two paradigms (a paradigm is a way of thinking), i.e. the patriarchal paradigm of the Father/the teacher/the boss/God and the heresiarchal paradigm of the children/the students/the workers/mankind "of disobedience," is that those of the patriarchal paradigm discuss with (basically preach to and teach) the children the right action to be taken in a given situation, with the One in authority persuading those under His authority that His position is the only right one to take (engendering a "top-down" order), while those of the heresiarchal paradigm dialogue amongst themselves to 'discover' the "right" action to be take in the 'moment,' to augment pleasure (to initiate and sustain the "positive"—'liberating' "equality") and attenuate pain (to negate the "negative"—negating "top-down" authority), finding a collective (common, i.e. common-ist) 'rational' ('practical,' carnal) solution to any differences (to any conflict or crisis), i.e. engendering an order based upon the "equality" of the flesh, i.e. "equality" based upon man's carnal desires. While the heresiarchal paradigm of "equality" is "restrained" (inhibited or blocked) in the act of discussion (resulting in the patriarch retaining His "top-down," "do right and do not do wrong, according to My commands and rules 'or else,'" authority), the patriarchal paradigm is suspended (negated) in the act of dialogue. Therefore: the key to dialectical success is to get the patriarch into dialogue (not only amongst themselves but with the heresiarch as well), thus negating the patriarch's "top-down" (do right and don't do wrong according to my commands and rules) authority. When the patriarch (and anyone who is under His authority) "willing" participates in the dialectic process (dialogues—establishes policy, i.e. establishing "right" behavior according to the child's "felt" needs of the 'moment' only, i.e. according to the child's "carnal desires"), He automatically invalidates (negate) His authority.
George 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." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)
Karl Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with the Son being obedient to His Father's authority in all things, even unto death], the former must itself be annihilated theoretically and practically." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4)
Sigmund Freud wrote: "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same." (Herbart Marcuse explaining Freud's historiography in his book, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud) "Freud speaks of religion [loving the Father over and against the world] as a 'substitute-gratification' – the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people." "We must return to Freud and say that incest guilt [the Father's authority engendering a "guilty conscience" in the child while he is doing (or thinking about doing) that which comes naturally, i.e. becoming at-one-with the world in pleasure, i.e. following after his carnal nature, i.e. satisfying his urges and impulses of the 'moment, i.e. "lusting" after the things of the world—Freud considered children as being sexually active, just not able to procreate] created the familial organization." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a ‘barrier to incest,’ ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother [to be at-one-with nature, i.e. following after their natural urges and impulses of the 'moment']—culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan," (Herbart Marcuse explaining Freud's historiography in his book, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud)
Abraham Maslow wrote: "Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory to round it out. And of course, vice versa." "This is a realistic combination of the Marxian version & the Humanistic. (Better add to definition of "humanistic" that it also means one species, One World.)" (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)
A book which all your local teachers are trained to use in their classroom, used to 'change' your child's paradigm, 'liberating' his/her heart from parental restraint, states: "The affective domain [the heart of the child] is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box [a box full of evil which, once opened, can not be closed]." (Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook 2, Affective Domain)—the book which is used by teachers to develop their curriculum, i.e. to program how the next generation of citizens will think and act, i.e. 'liberating' the children from the Father's authority, freeing them from Godly restraint.
"Psychoanalysis must treat religion [man having faith in God as a child has faith in his father, obeying His commands and accepting his chastening when he disobeys] as a neurosis." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
"A Dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals." "A key difference between a dialogue and an ordinary discussion is that, within the latter [in a discussion] people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favour of their views as they try to convince others to change. At best this may produce agreement or compromise, but it does not give rise to anything creative." "The purpose of dialogue is to reveal the incoherence in our thought ... genuine and creative collective consciousness." "What is essential here [in the consensus process] is the presence of the spirit of dialogue, which is in short, the ability to hold many points of view in suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation of common meaning." (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity) emphasis added
© Institution for Authority Research Dean Gotcher 1997-2014