A Quick Overview of Dialectic Reasoning links and endnotes by Dean Gotcher

Group dynamics: "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs [common-ism/social-ism, i.e. the carnal (rebellious) nature of the child ("human nature," all that is of the world), rejecting individual-ism/the-ism, i.e. the father's/Father's authority] by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin, in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) Diaprax is the dialectical process being put into praxis. It is your desire for or love of pleasure, including (especially) the pleasure which comes from the approval of others, and your resentment toward or hate of restraint, i.e., your resentment toward the person(s) who or thing(s) which prevents (inhibits or blocks) you from having the pleasure(s) of the 'moment' you desire, i.e., your hate of the pain (and hate of the person or thing which engenders it) which comes from your missing out on the pleasure(s) of the 'moment,' including (especially) the pain which comes from your not being able to relate with others or being rejected by others who you desire to relate with, being put into social action. When it comes to choosing between the flesh and the spirit, i.e. the child's carnal (rebellious) nature and the father's/Father's authority "system" you can not love one without hating the other (you can not "hold to the one" without "despising the other"), i.e. loving the one results in you hating the other ("holding to the one" results in you "despising the other"). "No man 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 ["human nature]." Matthew 6:24 If you love the world (the child's carnal-rebellious nature) you must hate the father/Father and his/His authority "system." If you love the father/Father and his/His authority "system," you must hate the world (the child's carnal-rebellious nature). "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:15, 16

World unity ("worldly peace and socialist harmony," i.e. "democracy") can not be built upon the father's/Father's authority "system." It can only be built upon the child's carnal-rebellious nature, i.e. upon that which all men have in common, i.e. their love of the things of the world and their hate of restraint, negating the father's/Father's authority "system" in the process. According to Sigmund Freud, patricide 'liberates' incest, i.e. incest negates the father's authority. To 'liberate' the child's nature (to praxis incest) you must negate the father's authority (you must praxis patricide). In other words, it is not how far down the road you have gone (you might not agree with the level of compromise, i.e. the level of immorality someone else has lowered themselves to while traveling down the road of compromise), it is the road you are on, i.e. you are either on the road of compromise, i.e. 'justifying' "human nature" (being silent in the midst of unrighteousness and abomination, which makes unrighteousness and abomination the "norm") or you are on the road of no compromise, i.e. obeying the father, honoring his authority (reproving, correcting, or rebuking unrighteousness and abomination).

"Building relationship upon 'self' interest'" establishes the child's carnal interest (approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e. sensuousness, i.e. the child's carnal desires of the 'moment') over and against the father's authority (doing right and not wrong, i.e. with the child feeling, thinking, and acting and relating with others and the parents according to the father's will, i.e. according to righteousness, i.e. with the father restraining the child's natural inclination to become at-one-with the world, in pleasure ,in the 'moment'). Since parochialism (with local ideologies limiting the influence outside sources have upon the child), individualism (with each individual child being subject to their father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, inhibiting or blocking socialist unity, i.e. consensus), nationalism (with limited government, i.e. local control restraining socialist, i.e. preventing Federal programs and money from coming between the parents and their children—"helping" the children "transcend" their traditional "roots," i.e. their parent's values and beliefs, i.e., "helping" the children overcome their parent's "prejudices" and "biases," i.e. changing the way the children feeling, thinking, and acting, and relating with one another and respond toward parental authority). "What we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to challenge the student's fixed beliefs." "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

Diaprax is putting dialogue (the child's "feelings" of the 'moment') into praxis, negating the father's/Father's authority "system" in the process. When the father/Father "discusses" an issue with his son he does not abdicate his/His position of authority but in "dialogue" he becomes equal with the son in the 'moment.' (The difference between discussion and dialogue.) There is no father's/Father's "above-below," "top-down," "right-wrong" authority "system" in dialogue, only "equality," only opinion (how a child/person is feeling and what he is thinking [which is subject to his "feelings"] in the 'moment'), i.e. only the carnal 'moment.' Therefore, in dialogue, no one has a sense of "guilt" for disobeying the father/Father since, in dialogue, there is no father's/Father's authority to feel "guilty" about disobeying. It was through dialogue, through the use of the dialectic process, i.e. getting the "children" to share (especially with one another) what they are talking to themselves about in the 'moment,' i.e., their feelings and their thoughts, which are taken captive to their feelings of the 'moment,' i.e. 1) their desire(s) of the 'moment,' 2) their resentment towards anything or anyone who is preventing, i.e. inhibiting or blocking them from attaining that which they want in the 'moment,' along with 3) their desire for approval or acceptance—with approval from two or more (of differing positions) 1) desiring the same pleasures, 2) resenting authority which prevents (inhibits or blocks) them from attaining it (which requires the 'compromising' of established positions, i.e. the father's/Father's authority in order to initiate and sustain the relationship), having greater influence, i.e. offering a greater opportunity to attain the pleasures of the 'moment' than approval from the one in authority, where relationship is based upon an established position, i.e. theirs, i.e. with you doing right and not wrong according to their will and standards, missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment'—and 4) their resentment (hate or fear) of disapproval or rejection—which 'changes' from the one, i.e. from the authority figure to the two or more, i.e. to "the group" as pleasure (the child's feelings) supersedes (becomes the issue of focus instead of) doing right and not wrong (the father's/Father's authority), that Satan was able to deceive the woman in the garden in Eden (and every man since). Genesis 3:1-6

Jesus would not dialogue with the devil. Instead He preached, taught, and lived the words of His Father, "It is written ...." Jesus said: "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 His whole ministry depended upon His Father's authority. (John 17) "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 and He has called us all to do the same. "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 In fact Jesus came that we might come to know His Heavenly Father as our Father. "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 Jesus (the obedient Son of our Heavenly Father), who, by his death on the cross, 'redeeming' us from His Father's wrath upon us for our sins (for our disobedience) is the only one who, through his resurrection from the grave, can 'reconcile' us to His Heavenly Father. "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

Praxis of the dialectic process is anathema to the Gospel, it rejects the Father's authority. No one can keep their faith in the Son and His Heavenly Father and praxis dialectic 'reasoning'—'justifying' their carnal feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment' and their relationships with others, who are likewise 'justifying' themselves. "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15

It is only in the Son, i.e. in His obedience to His Heavenly Father that we have eternal life, i.e. that we are saved from Hell and eternal death. "And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:15-18 Without the only begotten Son there is no Father and without the Father there is no only begotten Son, with the Holy Spirit bearing witness of both. "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." I Corinthians 8:6 "And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 3:1

Although the Son, Jesus Christ, is equal with God, He, as a son before his father, humbled Himself (taking on the form of a man), and did what we could not do, He did all things which were commanded of Him by His Heavenly Father, i.e. He lived righteously. His righteousness is therefore imputed to all who have faith in Him and His Heavenly Father. By shedding His blood on the cross, to 'redeem' us from His Father's wrath upon us for our sins, i.e. for our disobedience, and by His resurrecting from the grave He 'reconciled' us to His Heavenly Father. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:5-11

Dialectic 'reasoning' negates the Father-Son "top-down" relationship. It negates the gospel message. By making sensuousness ("sense experience," i.e. pleasing the flesh, i.e. pleasing man), not righteousness (pleasing the Father, doing right and not wrong according to the Father's will) the ground of being, it negates faith. "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." Romans 8:8 6 "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 "Enlightenment," i.e. dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. self 'justification,' i.e. aufheben, i.e. dialoguing your opinion with others to a consensus, i.e. to a feeling of "oneness," negates the Father-Son "top-down" relationship in your thoughts and actions. It, leaving you sufficient, i.e. "righteous" "in and for" yourself, negating (blinding you to) the gospel message and your hope of eternal life, leaving you in darkness and eternal death instead. "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Luke 11:35

The so called "new world order" is as "new" as Genesis 3:1-6, the first praxis of dialectic 'reasoning'—the art-craft of seduction, deception, and manipulation upon which the "new world order" is being initiated and sustained. It is man's attempt to negate Hebrews 1: 5-11 (the father's/Father's authority) and Romans 7:14-25 (the "guilty conscience" for disobedience), i.e. to negate the 'top-down' "old world order," thereby negating the Father's and His obedient Son's solution, i.e. faith in the Father, in the Son, and in the Word, i.e. living and walking by the Holy Spirit. Hegel, Marx, and Freud all focused upon 'liberating' the child from the father/Father by exalting (esteeming) the nature of the child over and against the father's authority, negating the father's authority in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions, negating the father's authority in the relationship that children have with one another in the process. Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the 'liberation' of children from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. the negation of the father's/Father's authority from society is the foundation upon which the thoughts and actions (theory and practice) of the so called "new" world order is based.

George Hegel's wrote: "the child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [once his feelings, thoughts, and actions and relationship with others is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority 'system']." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) Karl Marx wrote: "once the earthly family [with the earthly father's authority 'system'] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with the Heavenly Father's authority 'system'], the former [the earthly father's authority 'system'] must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically [in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions and in his relationship with others]." (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #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 [that the father's/Father's authority 'system' no longer has relevance in and for the family]." (Sigmund Freud as quoted in Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)

The child's nature is to approach pleasure, including the pleasure of approval which comes from the father (the "one" in authority, i.e. the "old" world order) or from the other children ("the group," the many in common, i.e. the "new" world order) and to avoid pain, including the pain of disapproval (rejection) which comes from the father (the "old" world order) or from the children ("the groups," the many in common, i.e. the "new" world order), with the former engendering the conscience and individualism (doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will, restraining or blocking the impulses and urges of the 'moment') and the latter engendering the super-ego and socialism (the children 'driven' by pleasure, therefore 'purposed' in augmenting pleasure, not for only for themselves but for all the world as well). "Self," as in "your-'self,'" desires two things, i.e. pleasure and the approval of others (both of which are from nature), i.e. either from the parent (the "one") or "the group" (the "many"). "Equality" can only be found in "the group," i.e. in the many, i.e. in nature. Therefore, to move from consciousness (where the child is subject to parental authority), to self-consciousness (where the child is dissatisfied with parental authority), to self-actualization (to where the child is 'liberated' or 'liberating' his "self" from parental authority), the child most progressively distance himself from the father's (the parent's) authority while "building relationship" with "the group." i.e. "build relationship" upon that which he has in common with all children, i.e. his "self interest" of approaching/augmenting pleasure and avoiding/attenuating pain, i.e. 'discovering' him "self" and the "self" of others through the dialoguing of opinions, i.e. 'discovering' what all children have in common with all the children uniting in consensus, i.e. uniting upon "human nature" only. Those of dialectic 'reasoning' seek to 'create' a "new" order of the world where all the children of the world can become "one," not only in their personal thoughts but also in their social actions, negating the father's/Father's authority in the process.

Isn't it strange that no matter how clear you make the truth, people still can't (refuse to) see it, having to accept it by faith, even though it is in plain sight for all to see. Our love for the things of this world (of sight), i.e. seeking to become at-one-with the world, in pleasure, in the 'moment' (aufheben, i.e. 'justifying' our "self" in the 'moment') blinds us to the love of Our Heavenly Father, who chastens us that we might partake in His holiness, i.e. that we might inherit eternal life. As a father desires to bless his children, giving them toys to play with, he often finds that the child is more in love with the blessing, with the toy, than with him. Such is the situation with man. Dialectic 'reasoning' is built upon this ground, i.e. the child's heart, purposed in 'liberating' the children from the father's authority, with the children becoming lovers of pleasure more than lovers of the father (of God). How would you like to be a father whose children never talk to him, who never thank him for the may gifts he has given and is giving them, i.e. the next breath they take is a gift from God. Have you talked to and thanked your Heavenly Father for the many blessing He has and is giving you, including your next breath.

"Once the earthly family [where the children are obedient to their earthly father, honoring his authority] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [where the Son of God is obedient to His Heavenly Father, honoring His authority], the former [the traditional family] must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically [in the thoughts of the children, which are subject to their feelings of the 'moment'] and practically [in the actions of the children, with the children thinking and acting according to the laws of nature, i.e. according to the laws of the flesh, i.e. according to "human nature" only, no longer being restrained by the father's/Father's authority, therefore no longer restraining others, i.e. "the group," i.e. society with the father's/Father's authority]." (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4)

If the father/Father's authority is to "do right and not wrong" (as established by the father/Father) and the child's nature is to "approach pleasure and avoid pain," then either the father's/Father's authority rules over the child, restraining his "feelings," or the child's "feelings" become the standard for society, negating the father's/Father's authority in the process.

"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." (G. F. W. Hegel in Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel)

Theodor Adorno wrote: "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." "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." "Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them." "Authoritarian submission [the child submitting himself to the father's authority] 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." "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 [the socialization of America and the world]." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

'Liberate' the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions and his relationship with others from the father's/Father's authority and he (and the world) can become as he (and it) was before the father's/Fathers first command, rule, fact, or truth, i.e., "normal," i.e., carnal, i.e., only of the world again. "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:18 "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." Psalms 36:1-4

Dialectic 'reasoning' is anathema to the gospel, rejecting the Son of God's obedience to His Heavenly Father. It is being rewritten, by those of dialectic 'reasoning,' to be about the Son suffering and dying for man only, leaving him in his carnal state, negating the Father's authority in the process. "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16

The gospel is about the obedient Son and the Father's authority. "Cast down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" 2 Corinthians 10:5 7

"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

"I and my Father are one." John 10:30 "... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father," John 14:9 "He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." 1 John 3:22

"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." John 4:14 "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 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 "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 "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 10:32, 33

"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 "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

"And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." 1 Peter 1:17-23

"... and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 3:1

"Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Matthew 6:9-13

"Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature)

"To identify with more and more of the world, moving toward the ultimate of mysticism, a fusion with the world, or peak experience, cosmic consciousness, etc." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)

"The person at the peak experience is godlike . . . complete, loving, uncondemning, compassionate and accept[ing] of the world and of the person." (Abraham Maslow Toward a Psychology of Being)

"Salvation is a byproduct of Self-Actualization Duty." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)

1 Timothy 6:20, 21 "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 John 2:15-18 "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1

"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

"That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." 1 Corinthians 2:5

"And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:" Philippians 3:9

"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." Hebrews 12:2

"For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." Romans 1:17

"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." 1 John 5:4

"... nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8b

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." 2 Corinthians 11:3

The Tyndale, Geneva, King James Bibles and their source, the Textus Receptus. The "contemporary" translations are based upon heresy documents, i.e. Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus אּ, etc. which are of Gnostic origin, which are the preferred source for the Metzger, Nestle, Aland Greek texts, which, unfortunately, are the preferred Greek texts studied by ministers in Seminary. Because of their entrenched ignorance (concerning the source of their study) and their pride in 'their' knowledge of the Greek (despite the heresy of the Greek source), 'enlightened' Christians will defend these heresy texts by discrediting and attacking any who expose the error of their way, preventing others from knowing the truth, refusing to seek out and know the truth themselves. These heresy documents introduce confusion into the church, forcing the church leadership away from the preaching and teaching of sound doctrine and into the dialoguing of men's opinions (thus into 'growing' the church on human 'feelings,' thoughts, and reasoning).

Faith does not come by hearing mans opinion of God's word (there is no certainty, conviction, contrition, or conversion in opinions), but rather faith comes by hearing God's word itself being preached and taught. It is important you know (you are certain) that what you are hearing, reading, studying, preaching, and teaching is God's word. "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the God." Jesus quoting Deuteronomy 8:3

What eventually became entitled the Textus Receptus or the "received text" (1633) was first presented by Erasmus (Novum Instrumentum omne, 1516). It was compiled from several manuscripts from the 'Majority text,' i.e. the Byzantine (Syrian) text, which were a large number of manuscripts and fragments originally protected by the eastern church from the western church's (Roman Catholics church's) efforts to destroy them, and therefore were not accessible to the western world until after the 1453 conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Empire. By Christians fleeing from the east into the west, these guarded manuscripts were eventually accessible to western scholars. The significance of these manuscripts is that they are able to be compiled as one Greek source from which to be translated from, which brought preaching and teaching the Word of God "as is" back into the church, the Catholic sources being many varied sources (with major confliction in doctrine between them) which brought dialogue (men's opinions) into the "church," resulting in the "church" having to turn to men or a man (man's wisdom) for the "proper" understanding of the word. "Miserable Christians, whose words and faith still depend on the interpretations of men and who expect clarification from them! This is frivolous and ungodly. The Scriptures are common to all, and are clear enough in respect to what is necessary for salvation and are also obscure enough for inquiring minds. . . let us reject the word of man." (Luther's Works. V. 32, p. 217) Luther used the "Textus Receptus" to translate from, uniting the church upon the Word of God and not the opinions of men.

Today there is a major move to confuse the Protestant Church and bring it back under Roman Catholic rule (via. the "ecumenical," i.e. "consensus" movement). By discrediting the use of the Textus Receptus as God's Word, examining (and thus negating) the Word of God in the "light" of Gnostic text, the Protestant Church is being seduced, deceived, and manipulated, i.e. drawn away from the preaching and teaching of sound doctrine (weighing the Word of God with the Word of God alone, which only the Textus Receptus provides) and into the dialoguing of mans opinions (through Textural Criticism), making God's Word subject to men's opinions rather than men's opinions subject to God's Word. In this way, the individual, standing before a Holy, Pure, and Righteous God is instead made into a part of the "mother church," finding 'purpose' in life based upon his social relationship with others, i.e. building upon the same structure as Karl Marx advocated, rather than in God alone, where man can stand alone (if need be), with the truth, with God, having a clear conscience, exposing the world and the apostate church for its carnal ways (from the Word of God alone). A Marxist wrote: "Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." (Max Horkheimer, Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung, in Martin Jay The Dialectical Imagination: The History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research 1923-1950) Even Karl Marx new the force of the apostate church and its method of uniting man upon "human relationship" (finding identity in the social, i.e. in the common) which he only wanted to secularize. Marx wrote: "It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society ["community," "human relationship"] is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities." (Karl Marx) While relationship is important ("It is not good that man be alone") "human relationship" can not come between God and you or you will reject God for it. Becoming as a god yourself you will determine right from wrong according to your own carnal nature, according to your own carnal desires rather than from God, who is spirit, i.e. who is not of the flesh, i.e. who is not subject to the opinions of men.

The Alexandrian and Origen text (Gnostic texts) are the basis for almost all contemporary translations. Oregenes Adamantius 185-245 AD, was a Greek, Egyptian-born Gnostic writer, teacher, & mystic, who, with his contingent of scribes, synthesized philosophical teachings into the scriptures (which no longer made them God's word but rather the opinions of men, needing enlightened men thereon to interpret them, i.e. the same as some "expert" lawyer rewriting your will so that he can "interpret" (re-interpret) what you meant, to others, done for his financial gain and prestige, i.e. so that others would turn to him for advice, i.e. direction). These Gnostic texts, with their humanistic, philosophical base, have opened the churches and seminaries up to humanistic reasoning (higher criticism or vain speculations) and dialogue, with the opinions of men in control of the meaning of God and His Word. Almost all translations today carry this error (heresy).

Most Christians who detected the error of the "Church Growth Movement," the emergent church, etc. were using translations from the Textus Receptus (King James, Geneva, Tyndale, Luther, etc. bibles) They discerned the compromise, i.e. the structural change of the word of God, and the resulting humanism being practiced within the "contemporary" church, by their having been raised in Churches using translations from the Textus Receptus. The use of contemporary translations (based upon the Alexandrian text and Origen and his distorted Gnostic writings resulting in Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus אּ, Codex X, MSS, etc., which are the basis for new testament Greek textual study and translations today, i.e. Nestle, Aland, Metzger), has pulled the church into basing 'truth' upon the opinions of men, i.e. apostasy.

Any criticism, by those who hold to the "contemporary" translations, i.e. criticism against the warning of heresy which I am presenting in this article (regarding the contemporary translations and their source) leads back to the heresy sources, which is a cyclical route used by those in the Gnostic camp (whether they know what they are doing or "know not what they are doing") in an effort to 'rescue' or cut off any escape from the works of heresy. Though many may come to know the Lord while under the "contemporary" texts, they can not grow deep in their knowledge of the Word of God, their faith in 'the Word of God' coming into question (questioning its infallibility) if they persist in study, conflict and confusion (deliberately designed by those who wrote the heresy texts) will lead them away from faith in the Word of God to faith in the opinions of men concerning the Word of God, their own opinions and the opinions of others replacing belief (negating fundamentalism). Instead of having confidence in God and His Word they will place their confidence in man and his 'wisdom,' substituting dialogue for preaching and teaching, opinions for belief, that which is below for that which is above, sensuousness for righteousness, sight for faith.

" And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." John 8:23, 24

"Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:16, 17

This discrediting of the Textus Receptus, rejecting it in preference to heretical text, is a common practice used in seminaries, in their effort to humanize the church, making it more accessible (acceptable) by the world, synthesizing it to "that which is below," i.e. the "purpose" of Gnostic writers. "That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above, corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracles of the One Thing." (The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus, translated by Dennis W. Hauck.) "The Hermetic tradition was both moderate and flexible, offering a tolerant philosophical religion, a religion of the (omnipresent) mind, a purified perception of God, the cosmos, and the self, and much positive encouragement for the spiritual seeker, all of which the student could take anywhere." (Tobias Churton The Golden Builders: Alchemists, Rosicrucian's, and the First Freemasons.) Humanizing the word of God, by the use of heretical text, in an effort to "keep it up with the times," makes it easier to "grow the church," keeping it in harmony with a "rapidly changing world." Those who justify and practice the compromising of God's Word are no longer men of God, although they may hold the 'title' and position, since they have turned to the praises of men and have rejected the praises of God.

Most "biblical scholars," who falsify the history of the Textus Receptus, base their information upon the errors they learned from seminaries or secular institutions which teach a liberal message (some of which may call themselves "conservative"). They produce confusion regarding the source, therefore cause doubt, and loss of faith in the Word of God. The excuses are many, but the outcome is the same—the loss of love for the Word of God, replaced with the love of men's opinions (thus they no longer fear God but now fear man, i.e. as the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus days, they love the praises of men rather than the praise of God). They believe in intellectual assent—"I'm educated in the Greek texts (i.e. the Gnostic based Nestle, Aland, Metzger Greek texts) and therefore since you use the King James or Geneva bible, you are therefore out of touch with the times, you need group therapy (human compassion, wisdom, and understanding) to help you discover what God's 'purpose' for your life is."

"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 1 Corinthians 2:13 Scholasticism goes in the direction of "man's wisdom," especially when a person is not humble before God, and does not fear him, not willing to bring "into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." 2 Corinthians 10:5. If you fear God, you gain understanding from His Word. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever." Psalms 111:10 If you do not fear God, you can foolishly change His Word to make it fit with your understanding (you can feel better about yourself and be less offensive to others, getting more people in a "group hug" that way). "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." 1 Corinthians 1:21

Although I use the King James Bible, I am not "King James Only," although I have many friends who are. I am Textus Receptus only (which condemns me to ignorance, irrationality, and irrelevance according to most 'enlightened' minds). There are also the Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops and other translations from the Textus Receptus, which differ in there translating (with reasons to support their differences). See, for example, a critique of King James Bible by some Tyndale readers, i.e. George Davis and Michael Clark (explaining why Tyndale used the word congregation instead of church in his translation of the Greek word εκκλησια, meaning "called out ones"—"So what had Tyndale done in his translation that was so heretical? According to David Daniell, Tyndale had translated the Greek word for 'elder' as 'elder' instead of 'priest', he had translated the Greek word for 'congregation' as 'congregation' instead of 'church', the Greek word for 'repentance' as 'repentance' instead of 'penance' etc. Why were such differences important to the church? The Roman Church has priests, not elders. A congregation implies a locally autonomous group of believers guided by the Holy Spirit and not a hierarchical unified church subject to a Pope. The Roman Church is built on penance and indulgences to the priest and Church, not repentance to, and forgiveness from God. In trying to faithfully render the Greek into English, Tyndale's translation exposed the errors of the church to the people which quickly brought the wrath of the church down on him." Michael Scheifler, William Tyndale - Heretical Blasphemer?). A history of the differing translations from the Textus Receptus (favoring the Authorized King James bible) is explained in another article by Steve Houck. There are many others who, starting out sounding as thought they are supportive of the Textus Receptus, will instead attempt to deceive you, using cyclical reasoning, to taking you back to the heresy sources and therefore take you into confusion, so be discerning.

"The ideas of the Enlightenment taught man that he could trust his own reason as a guide to establishing valid ethical norms and that he could rely on himself, needing neither revelation nor that authority of the church in order to know good and evil." (Stephen Eric Bronner Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists) ["Revelation" is the Word of God, and "that authority of the church," is Christ, the head of the church.]

A good starting point, to the understanding of the importance of the Textus Receptus and the battle over its use, is to read the book Which Version is the Bible? by Floyd Nolen Jones (to order: www.christianbook.com/which-version-is-the-bible/floyd-jones) Although this book is under intense attack by the "Enlightened Christian 'scholars' and 'ministers' and booksellers" (you will understand why when or if you reading his book), I highly recommend it for what information it provides regarding textual criticism (it is not hard reading and does a good job covering the core of the problem, i.e. why and how liberals took over the translating of the Bible and the tricks of their trade).

Although the "enlightened" may 'seem to rule' the day, bringing as many as they can under their rule (through seduction, deceit, and manipulation), when they stand before God, they and their opinions won't matter, i.e. they might change God's Word to please themselves and the rest of mankind here-and-now, but they won't change God's mind there-and-then, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;" Romans 1:18. To humanize (contemporize) God's Word, for the approval of man, is to deceive yourself and others and bastardize yourself before God. Don't kid yourself, your intent is to make God's word (which is spiritual—eternal and therefore can not be changed), "easier" for man to understand (which is temporal—temporary and ever changing), so that more $$$ and respect of men can come your way. With your love of your 'wisdom,' you want more souls to come into your kingdom—temporal, masquerading yourself as sent by God for His kingdom sake—eternal. "I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied." Jeremiah 23:21 "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in they name have cast our devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:22, 23 To change the Word of God, so that the world can join the Church (so that it can be the bride of Christ), is to do what a whore does, make it easy. The true bride of Christ is not a prostitute, selling herself to the world, even "in Jesus name." She is spotless and without wrinkle. "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

Those who 'push' the contemporary translations (translated from the Gnostic documents, i.e. Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus אּ, Codex X, MSS, etc) have made the church "a friend of the world" and an "enemy of God." I have yet to meet, in all my travels across this land, a minister of the "contemporary" church who truly fears God and loves His Word. Since they fear the opinions of men and love their own words, i.e. their sensuous and perceptive words which "drive" (are the force behind) the "purpose" of the "church," they gain their understanding, not from God and His Word, but from their own dialectical praxis with the world. In the pride of their position and their intellect, they have cut God's head off and, by polls, surveys, feasibility studies, and consensus, put man's head (their head) in His place. "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 "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5

"But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." 2 Timothy 3:13

"Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15

Hegel wrote: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [once, through the use of psychotherapy, the child is 'liberated' from the father's authority, i.e. 'liberated' to be himself again, i.e. carnal, i.e. approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e. only of "human nature" again, as he was before the father began 1) preaching and teaching commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith), 3) chastening the child for disobedience, i.e. for doing wrong, i.e. for choosing the pleasure of the 'moment' over (and therefore against) doing right, i.e. doing the father's will, and 4) casting the child out (cutting him out of the will) for disrespecting, i.e. questioning or challenging his authority—with 2) being the father blessing (rewarding) the child for obedience, i.e. for doing the 'job' right according to the father's directions, i.e. according to the father's will]." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)

Blooms' Taxonomies (or Marzano's or Webb's taxonomies), which all certified teachers are required to use in the classroom and all accredited schools are required to use in their system, states its "testing" and "grading" system as a "psychological classification system." It is the same classification system and procedure (pattern) as is used in a "soviet" where a diverse group of people (in this case students)—inclusive of deviant (perverse) students (who are antithetical to patriarchal authority), dialoguing their opinions to a consensus (to a feeling of "oneness")—there is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue and in an opinion, only the child's feelings and thoughts of the 'moment (with their thoughts being subject to their feelings of the 'moment—with their feelings of the 'moment' being subject to the situation or environment of the 'moment' which is being manipulated by the facilitator of 'change'—i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e., their love of the world, which includes the love of approval from others who approve their love of the world, and their hate of the father's/Father's authority which inhibits or blocks them from becoming at-one-with it, as well inhibits or blocks them from building relationship with those who are in love with it, in the 'moment'), over social issues—where "relationship" with self and others (according to their natural impulses and urges of the 'moment' or "self interest") becomes the focus of life (instead of doing things right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, or truth), in a facilitated meeting—since according to all the training manuals this process (globalism/universalism based upon dialectic 'reasoning') does not come naturally but needs an "expert" trained in how to seduce, deceive, and manipulate all 'willing' participants into "right praxis," i.e., into right social action—not only negating the father's/Father's authority in themselves but in others, i.e., in society as well, to a pre-determined outcome—that no decision is to be made without the forgoing procedure (inducting from personal feelings and thoughts of the 'moment' rather than deducting from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. thinking and acting, i.e. responding to the given situation according to his own feelings and thoughts of the 'moment,' i.e. living in the 'moment' rather than thinking and acting, i.e. responding to the given situation according to the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e. according to dialectic 'reasoning,' living in the "past"). The soviet, i.e. the consensus process (with its emphasis upon regionalizing, i.e. generalizing) is used by all departments of government, such as the "department of human resource," to network of all branches of government (from the national, as well as the international level, all the way down to the local "community")—circumventing the separations of power (the limiting of government granted us by the Constitution)—making sure that the different branches of government are all on the same page in regards to social 'change,' manipulating the "feelings" and "thoughts" of the people in order to initiate and sustain the process of 'change.'

"It is clear that no expositions can be regarded as scientific which do not follow the course of this method [the dialectical process], and which are not conformable to its simple rhythm, for that is the course of the thing itself." "I could not of course imagine that the method which in the system of logic I have followed is not capable of much elaboration in detail, but at the same time I know that it is the only true method." (George Hegel as quoted in Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel)

"The Method is no-way different from its object and content;―for it is the content in itself; the dialectic it has in itself, that move it on." (George Hegel, Reading Hegel, The Introduction) The "content," i.e., the "thing in itself" is a persons dissatisfaction with the way the world "is," and the desire for 'change," i.e. for motion ("that move it on"), with him thinking (reflecting upon, dialoguing within himself) about how the world "ought" to be: "For it is not what is that makes us impetuous and causes us distress, but the fact that it is not as it ought to be." (George Hegel, The German Constitution) The greater the distance between the "is" and "ought" the more the person will be motivated to 'change' the world, i.e. to 'change' the situation. The greater the negativity (dissatisfaction) the person has toward the world that "is," the more the person becomes an individual: "a greater inner negativity and therefore a higher individuality" (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life). Losing identity with (hope in) the way the world "is," the "is" looses meaning and value, with the "ought" itself becoming 'reality,' i.e., the drive and the purpose of life. "What can no longer be related to a concept [begriffen] no longer exists." The method is therefore the "is" and the "ought" being posited (tossed back and forth in the mind) until the "ought" becomes the "is," i.e., becomes 'reality,' negating the world that "is," i.e., that was.

"Human reason [a persons dissatisfaction with the way the world "is," therefore thinking about how it "ought" to be]— the consciousness of one's being is indeed reason; it is the divine in man, and spirit. In so far as it is the Spirit of God, it is not a spirit beyond the stars, beyond the world. On the contrary, God is present, omnipresent, and exists as spirit in all spirits." (George Hegel, Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion: A. The Relation of the Philosophy of Religion to its Presuppositions and to the Principles of the Time. I. — The Severance of Religion from the Free, Worldly Consciousness)

In this way of thinking, God is man 'discovering' himself, i.e. man is God 'discovering' Himself, i.e. the particular and universal becoming one through dialectic 'reasoning.' According to dialectic 'reasoning,' without the God above man, restraining "human nature," i.e. engendering dissatisfaction in man, and therefore causing man to think about how the world "ought" to be, i.e., man could not come to know himself as he is, dialectic (reasoning) in nature, i.e. 'liberating' himself from the world that "is," i.e. 'liberating' man from God's authority (the child from the parent's authority). In this way the outcome itself is not the objective, the method is. It engenders the outcome "in and for itself."

As Tillich stated it: "The answer to man's predicament lies in the realization by individual man, that all men are essentially one and that the one is God. This self-realization is a 'return' to union: potential becomes actual ["ought" becomes "is"]." (Leonard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God)

Therefore, if you refuse to 'reason' dialectically, i.e. refuse to question God's (or your parent's) commands and rules, and question His facts and truth, i.e. challenge His authority in your feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in your relationship with others, i.e. you refuse to identify with and become a part of 'reality,' you are of no worth to the world that is "becoming."

14. "the cause of neurosis, according to those who 'reason' dialectically, i.e. according to sense experience, i.e. feelings, i.e. pleasure only"

"Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, is a clear instance of repression; and therefore leads to neurosis." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." "Human consciousness can be liberated from the parental (Oedipal) complex only be being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." "The abolition of repression would only threaten patriarchal domination." "Freud, Hegel, and Nietzsche are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." (Norman O. Brown Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

"By ‘dialectical' I mean an activity of consciousness struggling to circumvent the limitations imposed by the formal-logical law of contradiction." "Formal logic and the law of contradiction are the rules whereby the mind submits to operate under general conditions of repression." (Norman O. Brown Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

Gaining access to your "feelings" of the 'moment.' Without gaining access to your private feelings of the 'moment, i.e. toward yourself, society, and authority, the facilitation of 'change' is limited in his ability to manipulate the environment in order to seduce you into participating ('willingly') in the process of 'change. "Re-education must be clever enough in manipulating the subjects to have them think that they are running the show." "The objective sought will not be reached so long as the new set of values is not experienced by the individual as something freely chosen." "An outright enforcement of the new set of values and beliefs is simply the introduction of a new god who has to fight with the old god, now regarded as a devil." (Kenneth Benne ,Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

"The individual may have ‘secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it. To gain access is particularly important, for here may lie the individual's potential." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

"The learning environment must give major emphasis to the … opportunities to practice the behavior. [to 'liberate' themselves, i.e., their feelings, thoughts, and actions and relationship with others from the standards and conditions of parental authority]" "… grade students with respect to their interests, attitude, or character development." "One's beliefs, attitudes, values , and personality characteristics are more likely to be regarded as private matters, except in the most extreme instances already noted." "My attitudes toward God, home and family are private concerns." "The public-private status of cognitive vs. affective behaviors is deeply rooted in the Judaeo-Christian religion and is a value highly cherished in the democratic traditions of the Western world [the "old" world order]." "Closely linked to this private aspect of affective behavior is the distinction frequently made between education and indoctrination in a democratic society [socialist's need to gain access to your feelings, i.e. your desires of the 'moment' and your dissatisfaction toward authority in order to seduce you into participating in the 'change' process]."
"Education opens up possibilities for free choice and individual decisions." "Indoctrination, on the other hand, is viewed as reducing the possibilities of free choice and decision." "Indoctrination is regarded as an attempt to persuade and coerce the individual to accept a particular viewpoint or belief, to act in a particular manner, and to profess a particular value and way of life." "Indoctrination has come to mean the teaching of affective as well as cognitive behaviors." "Perhaps a reopening of the entire question would help us to see more clearly the boundaries between education and indoctrination, and the simple dichotomy expressed above between cognitive and affective behavior would no longer seem as real as the rather glib separation of the two suggests [right and wrong will become subject to the individual's feelings of the 'moment' making it easier for facilitator's of 'change' to manipulate them into fulfilling their desired outcome, ownership of their father's property and business, i.e. control over their lives without them known it, at least at first, until it is to late to turn back to the "old" world order]." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom Taxonomy of Education Objectives Book 2 Affective Domain)

By gaining access to a persons private "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' Carl Rogers wrote: "We can choose to use our growing knowledge to enslave people in ways never dreamed of before, depersonalizing them, controlling them by means so carefully selected that they will perhaps never be aware of their loss of personhood." (Carl Rogers, quoted in Vance Parker, People Shapers) "‘Now that we know how positive reinforcement works ['justifying' the child's feelings' of the 'moment], and why negative [parental restraint] doesn't … ‘we can be more deliberate and hence more successful in our cultural design.'" "We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled, though they are following a code much more scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do. That's the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement—there's no restraint and no revolt. By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior—the motives, the desires, the wishes. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises. . . .we will inevitably find ourselves moving toward the chosen goal, and probably thinking that we ourselves desired it. …it appears that some form of completely controlled society … is coming." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

BRAINWASHING: Washing the father's authority from the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the children, as well as from their relationship with one another.

Brainwashing: The environmental condition of: (1) a diverse group of people, (2) dialoguing to (3) consensus, (4) over social issues, (5) in a facilitated meeting, (6) to a predetermined outcome, i.e. the negation of the patriarchal paradigm (patricide, the "negation of negation," i.e. the negation of Godly restraint upon sensuousness and human pleasure, i.e. nirvana, utopia, etc), (7) for the purpose of "change," (heresy, incest, socialism, common-ism, democracy, social harmony and world peace, i.e. a "new" Heresiarchal order of the world which is emerging due to the negation of the impediment of a "negative," judgmental God, i.e. an "authoritarian" higher authority, i.e. "authoritarianism," i.e. the "old" patriarchal order of the world). The diverse group of people is not necessarily the difference in race or religious views but the difference in paradigms in the room (patriarch, matriarch, and heresiarch paradigms, i.e. righteousness, sensuousness, and seduction, deception, and manipulation), with "several" participants "who were further along in reforming" than others. Dialoguing negates preaching and teaching, replacing belief with opinion, ideals and truth with theory, categorical imperative with hypothetical, absolute with relative, certainty with ambiguity, God above with man below, spiritual with flesh, sovereignty over with sovereignty with, etc. Consensus, meaning with the sensuous (corporal, bodily), basing the means and the end (the drive and purpose) of the meeting on human nature, i.e. materialism, i.e. survival and approval (fear of the loss of life, i.e. pleasure, and the respect of men; individual and social), incorporated in the thoughts and the actions of all participants. Over social issues blocks off transcendent control of the means to resolve and the outcome of conflict. The facilitator guides the discussion, making "change" easy. The pre-determined outcome is the use (praxis) of the dialectical process in setting policy and resolving problems, i.e. the negating the system of righteousness (faith, belief, obedience, and chastening) in the individual and in society.

The facilitator is trained in how to control the group environment and produce the desired outcome through the blocking off of "inappropriate information," i.e. unacceptable questions and answers which cause group disharmony and social division, i.e. facts based questions initiated by those with a patriarchal paradigm, and facts based answers given by those with a patriarchal paradigm with the intent of sustaining their outcome, the retention of the patriarchal paradigm as a means for resolving crisis, while introducing "appropriate information," i.e. appropriate questions and answers which allow freedom of feelings of dissatisfaction toward authority, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, to be expressed without fear of reprimand, with questions incorporating the feelings and thoughts of all participants, i.e. opinions, theories, etc. (expressing a collective resentment, i.e. a "full partnership" of "dissatisfaction," towards the patriarchal paradigm). Thereby, through the use of brainwashing, the facilitated group experiences the praxis of circumventing the use of the patriarchal paradigm in defining and resolving problems (solving social crisis), pulling all participants into a Heresiarchal outcome, i.e. the negation of the patriarchal paradigm, washing from the brain of all participants the patriarchal paradigm, replacing a negative authoritative outcome with a positive social outcome (replacing spiritual with flesh, the conscience with the super-ego). In this way humanism replaces super humanism, i.e. science replaces religion, the Heresiarchal paradigm replaces the patriarchal paradigm as the means to a desired end, world permissiveness.

"Before effective plans for change can be made the present state of affairs must be defined as accurately as possible . . . . [in other words] what are the forces which are keeping our methods in the present ‘groove'?" "Driving forces are those forces or factors affecting a situation which are "pushing" in a particular direction; they tend to initiate a change and keep it going. Restraining forces may be likened to walls or barriers. They only prevent or retard movement toward them." "When we have determined the nature of forces which are affecting the present state of affairs we can think more clearly in selecting the forces or factors which should be modified if the conditions are to change in the direction we desire . . . our task then becomes either to increase the total strength of the driving forces for change or to decrease the total strength of forces opposing change or both." "The component forces can be modified in the following way: (1) reducing or removing the forces; (2) strengthening or adding forces; (3) changing the direction of the forces." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne Human Relations in Curriculum Change) [The latter option "changing the direction of the forces" is the direction brainwashing takes requiring a three step process of "Unfreezing, Changing, and Refreezing" the person through the use of group pressure.] "Whenever change is planned one must make sure that the new condition will be stable. We need to develop in our analysis as clear a picture as possible of the forces which will exist when the new condition is achieved." (ibid.) [The new condition will continue if the restraining force has been overcome. The restraining force will not "push it back" to the old position providing careful planning has been made to insure that the forces which support the new condition are stable. If change is to be sustained conditions will need to be such that desire for change will continue.] "The method which we have discussed here is a general method which can be applied to any problem of changing human behavior. It supplies a framework for problem solving . . . the method can be applied to problems of changing the curriculum, changing pupil behavior, school-community relations, administrative problems, etc." (ibid.) Warren Bennis wrote of Kurt Lewin's "Unfreezing, Changing, Refreezing" dialectic process and its use by the Communist Chinese for the purpose of brainwashing. This is the same procedure and the same steps used in a facilitated meeting (being used in your community) as explained above.

1. The individuals in the group first attempt to establish a patriarchal paradigm, based upon who knows how to solve the problem at hand:

2. The facilitator circumvents the patriarchal paradigm by frustrating those who attempt to establish it, i.e. those attempting to "gain control" of the meeting in their concern of solve the problem. The facilitator achieve frustration by "recognizing" but no responding favorably to "knowing" questions and answers ("What do you know?" "I know.") while asking with interest "feeling" and "thinking" questions ("How do you feel?" "What do you think?") and then showing respect and enthusiasm for "I feel" and "I think" responses. This effectively moves the meeting onto a "shifting" foundation of opinions, and away from a solid foundation of facts. In this way facts or truths are treated with indifference as if they were opinions and opinions are treated with respect as if they were facts. The role of the facilitator is to re-focus the people in the group from simply solving the problem the "old fashioned way" to resolving it only through group cohesiveness.

3. The group begins to focus on itself in the "Here-and-Now." Through the facilitators ability to manipulation the environment, through the use of group dynamics & cognitive dissonance, time (perceived as being wasted by "knowing" people, patriarchs) presses the participants into focusing on the problem which needs to be solved. The group now begins to mock the patriarchs, the authoritarians, who "insist" on their way and are "interfering" with those in the group solving the problem at hand.

4. The group learns the group task roles and group building and maintenance roles which are necessary to accomplish the project at hand (addressed below), and the group also learns to identify and reject individual roles which interfere with group cohesiveness and are perceived as jeopardizing the project.

Facilitate meeting: open-ended, non-directed, offended by any closed worldview.

Non-judgmental environment: free to be spontaneous. Be positive, not negative.

Social issue: attended to natural/man made problems/events which (might) affect everyone.

Diversity: experience tolerating differences for the sake of solving a common problem.

Consensus: conceding to those things which everyone can embrace. Experiencing the "gratification" of developing unity out of diversity.

THE RIGHT GROUP SIZE for "soviet-delphi-brainwashing" to work: "The size of group should be the smallest group in which it is possible to have represented at functional level all the socialization and achievement skills required for the particular learning activity at hand." "To large a group duplicates skills . . . to small a group leaves gaps of competency." "At the present stage of our understanding, we may guess that for such a task as creative thinking for the purpose of planning an experiment (in which a wide range of social skills is required to keep the problem in front of the group and to build on all the suggestions offered and to have a sufficient range of ideas to begin with) a group from four to eight may be found necessary." "The specific goal is not an achievement goal per se but is rather a socialization goal which must be reached before the achievement goal can be adequately facilitated." The relationship between group and individual action should be such that the individual perceives his out-of-group action as the resumption of a task set in the group and interrupted by the ending of the preceding group meeting."

Using a theory of "human motivation," a facilitator is able to change the purpose and method of education while changing a person's paradigm. Curriculum change is just a subtle way of saying paradigm shift. Motivation, according to this theory, is based on "needs satisfaction." The use of environmental forces can be used to "augment", encourage, or "reduce," discourage, specific behavior. Through the use of group recognition or depreciation (group dynamics) each individual learns quickly what behavior is accepted and which is not.

Though the fusing of "dynamic psychology" with "applied anthropology and sociology" (socio-psychology) in problem solving situations a laboratory type condition, organizational change can be developed and utilized to fulfill Marx's and Freud's dream of creating a humanistic, non-patriarchal, dialectic, materialistic, based society.

According to Douglas McGregor, changes in three aspects of personality, in knowledge, "philosophy", and skill, (value outlook) "must be accomplished if teachers or principals or parents or students are to change their conduct." Kurt Lewin saw the re-education process as "a correct sequence of steps, correct timing, and a correct combination of individual and group treatments." Without cultural changes in personnel, "reasonable" practices and theories in the school system will be resisted and rejected as "absurd and impractical." Therefore before cultural change can take place some form of "mapping and estimating the strength of 'all' forces supporting and 'all' forces resisting a given change in the school program" must be identified.

A change in the relationship between "leadership" and the led (authority/national vs.. democratic/globalist system) depends upon the environment developed for the purpose of needs satisfaction. By making the object need satisfaction, in other words mankind and his desires, rather than obedience toward authority, participants shift their way of thinking from absolutes and sovereignty to relativism/humanism/socialism.

According to Douglas McGregor "1. All human behavior is directed toward the satisfaction of needs, 2. the individual will change his established ways of behaving for one of two reasons: to gain increased need satisfaction or to avoid decreased need satisfaction, and 3. 'augmentation' in the possibilities of needs satisfaction" by a patriarchal figure "an easy and natural method" must be replaced by and environment where participants are given an opportunity to satisfy need "though their own efforts ... neither simple nor easy" to "induce behavior change."

Kurt Lewin saw three ways re-education (brainwashing) effected an individual: "It changes his cognitive structure, the way he sees the physical and social worlds, including all his facts, concepts, beliefs,. and expectations." "It modifies his valences and values, ... his attractions and aversions to groups and group standards, his feelings in regard to status differences, and his reactions to sources of approval or disapproval." In other words, before brainwashing, a person thinks as an individual, respects authority and approval depends upon knowing the difference between right and wrong and doing what is right. After brainwashing a person thinks "group think," disrespects authority, and resents right, wrong thinking in favor of ambiguous, situational standards. Thirdly brainwashing (re-education) "affects motoric action, involving the degree of the individual's control over his physical and social movements" according to Lewin. Thus the focus upon the Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor domains in education, business, and government today. What a person thinks, how he thinks, and how he behaves around change.

Lewin saw that "Social action no less than physical action is steered by perception," what seems to be. He believed that "incorrect stereotypes (prejudices) are functionally equivalent to wrong concepts (theories)." In other words, that black and white, right and wrong, antithesis thinking people think incorrectly. "A change in action-ideology, a real acceptance of a changed set of facts and values, a change in the perceived social world----all three are but different expressions of the same process," This is the effect of brainwashing where one's actions are in agreement with his desires and inclinations, where one values what he accepts as reality, where the social world is not over and against him but he is at one with it.

As Lewin put it "If the individual complies merely from fear of punishment rather than through the dictates of his free will and conscience, the new set of values he is expected to accept does not assume in him the position of super-ego, and his re-education therefore remains unrealized." The success of brainwashing depends upon a person willing participation in the new set of values. The flesh, the imagination and social approval must all be realized, rationalized, harmonized, and actualized for the process to be successful.

Lewin asks "how can free acceptance of a new system of values (Marxism) be brought about?" "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to a group [when] a strong we-feeling is created, [by all experiencing] the same difficulties, and speaks the same language." When "the new system of values and beliefs dominates the individual's perception [and] is linked with the acceptance of a specific group, a particular role, a definite source of authority as a new points of reference," the individual is manipulated into a new world mindset. Individual "resistance" can be overcome by the "acceptance of new facts or values and acceptance of certain groups or roles."

"'Group decision,'" has been used for the most part with small groups and ... rests fundamentally upon the psychological concept of decision rather than upon a concept of gradual accommodation. The essence of the technique lies in the achieving of" group decision action.

According to Kurt Lewin culture is an "equilibrium in movement" and by simply changing the "constellation of forces" and taking "steps to bring about the permanence of the new situation through self-regulation on the new level," all the individuals in the group will shift loyalty from the old system to the new system (from traditional, didactic thinking to transformational, dialectic thinking; capitalism/ nationalism to communism/globalism.)

Removal of counterforces (negative forces) is essential if "stationary quasi-equilibrium" (an established traditional culture) is to be destabilized to the point where change can be initiated and permanent change established. Kurt Lewin saw "changing as a Three-step Procedure: Unfreezing, Moving, and [re] Freezing of a Level." "'Catharsis' seems to be necessary... to bring about deliberately an emotional stir-up" to "remove" prejudice and self-righteousness (religious beliefs and established cultural, local, and national principles.)

"The conception of the ideal family situation for the child: uncritical obedience to the father and elders, pressures directed unilaterally from above to below, inhibition of spontaneity and emphasis on conformity to externally imposed values." "The prototypic 'liberal' is . . . an individual who actively seeks progressive social change, who can be militantly critical (though not necessarily totally rejective) of the present status quo," "One of the primary functions of these [matter‑of‑fact] questions was to encourage the subject to talk freely. This was attempted by indicating, for example, that critical remarks about parents were perfectly in place, thus reducing defenses as well as feelings of guilt and anxiety." Theodor Adorno The Authoritarian Personality

"Religion, especially the Protestant Christian tradition, has permeated our culture with the concept that man is basically sinful, and only by something approaching a miracle can his sinful nature be negated." "I have little sympathy with the rather prevalent concept that man is basically irrational, and that his impulses, if not controlled, will lead to destruction of others and self." "We know how to disintegrate a man's personality structure, dissolving his self-confidence, destroying the concept he has of himself, and making him dependent on another. … brainwashing." Carl Rogers On becoming a person

"Black is black and white is white. Neither torture, maltreatment nor intimidation can change a fact. To argue the point… serves no useful purpose." P.O.W. Major David F. MacGhee responding to brainwashing attempts (replacing a didactic paradigm with a dialectical paradigm in praxis) by the North Korean , January 19th, 1953

"...we have described roleplaying as diagnostic method but it can also be used as 'role therapy' to improve the relations between the members of a group." "... the origins of my work go back to a primitive religion and my objectives were the setting up and promoting of a new cultural order." "Parents have no right upon their offspring except a psychological right. Literally the children belong to universality." "I could well imagine a world of a reversed order, opposite to ours, in which ethical suicide of people after 30 or 35 as a religious technique or countering overpopulation is just as natural as birth control has become in our culture. In that society the love of life would be carried to its extreme. 'Make space for the unborn, make space for the newborn, for everyone born, Every time a new baby is born make space for him by taking the life of an old man or an old woman." J. L. Moreno Who Shall Survive? The Father of Role Playing.

As I tried the sociometric system first on the universe and on the concept of God, its first manifesto was a revolutionary religion, a change of the idea of the universe and the idea of God. The god of Jesus was further extended, the son 'withered away' until nothing was left except the universal creativity of the Godhead and only one commandment: To each according to what he is (an all-inclusive acceptance of the individual 'as he is. ibid

The following analysis assumes that the task of the discussion group is to select, define and solve common problems. The roles are identified in relation to functions of facilitation and coordination of group problem-solving activities. Each member may of course enact more than one role in any given unit of participation and a wide range of roles in successive participations. Any or all of these roles may be played at times by the group 'leader' as well as by various members." Kenneth Benne Human Relations in Curriculum Change

The following roles (The "Individual" Roles) are of disapproval, they are attributes of the patriarchal paradigm. From the child's eye view the authority figure would be seen as a aggressor when he chastens the child for performing their natural carnal inclinations, a blocker when the parent prevent the child from doing what is natural and a "right", recognition seeker when the parent insists the child be silent so the parent can be heard, a self-confessor when the parent seeks the child's understanding when the parent does not have time to "relate" with the child, etc. See Diaprax Article "A Cookbook For Humans" for a detailed breakdown of all these roles. These are the roles which the patriarch must abdicate if the dialectical paradigm is to gain control of the individual's soul and rule the world. These are the roles those who find themselves in an inductive reasoning environment will be pressured to drop if they hope to be participants in the new world order.

You can see why students are learning less facts. "Less is more" we are told. Less teaching of facts (deductive reasoning) allows more time for socialist brainwashing (inductive reasoning). Private schools and home schooling material is not exempt from these programs.

In the following example of inductive reasoning used in a classroom setting, you can see the effect collective discourse has upon all participants. Any categorical imperative, a moral command which is unquestionable and universal, (deductive reasoning) when brought into discourse (inductive reasoning) results in the abdication of the persons "religious foundation." "Thus saith the Lord" plus discourse equals abdication of patriarchal paradigm. This was the pattern of thought which was the Un-American activity of the 50's. Most Americans did not understand the effect of inductive reasoning had upon social issues back then. Just as few understand today. That moment is long past. The ramifications were immense.

"Change in organization [change in a persons paradigm] can be derived from the overlapping between play behavior [human relations and social approval—Eros] and barrier behavior [principles of right and wrong—patriarchal paradigm]. To be governed by two strong goals [to hold to ones principles, to obey God/parent/etc. and social approval: keep relations with those you have something to gain from who hold a different view] is equivalent to the existence of two conflicting controlling heads within the organism [truth vs. feelings; principles vs. acceptance: cognitive dissonance, Heb 7]. This should lead to a decrease in degree of hierarchical organization [confusion, patricide]. Also, a certain disorganization [cognitive dissonance] should result from the fact that the cognitive-motor system loses to some degree its character of a good medium because of these conflicting heads [confusion, destabilization]. It ceases to be in a state of near equilibrium; the forces under the control of one head have to counteract the forces of the other before they are effective [either the parent (barrier) or the child (play) ends up ruling—patriarch & order or patricide & incest; pleasure has to counteract obedience, which requires self justification, a rational praxis, or obedience has to counteract pleasure, which requires denying pleasure, denying self, a "non-rational" praxis—faith. "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]." Child Behavior and Development Chapter XXVI Frustration and Regression Kurt Lewin, McGraw Hill

"The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult." (Kurt Lewin; A Dynamic Theory of Personality, 1935) In other words the parent punishes the child ("induced field of force of an adult") for seeking something in nature, something which would "naturally" satisfy the child's nature (an "object which in itself attracts the child") which the parent has forbidden ("forbidden object"), thus causing standards of restraint against human nature ("negative valence"). When the children submits to the parent (when the adolescent submits to the patriarch, when the proletariat submit to the bourgeoisie) and their commands, the children's mind and behavior is prejudiced to accept their parent's paradigm (the adolescent's mind and behavior is prejudiced to accept the patriarch's paradigm, the proletariat's mind and behavior is prejudiced to accept the bourgeoisie's paradigm) with its rules over human nature through its control of natural resources. When the children eventually become adults, they praxis their parent's paradigm, and expect and demand the parent's praxis in the community, causing division, alienation, and therefore hostilities in the community, especially towards those with liberalizing carnal natures—socialists, globalists, environmentalists, i.e. all those who facilitate to a consensus, all those who praxis a dialectical paradigm.

The solution according to Lewin was "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." If an environment could be constructed ("If you build it they will come.") in which decisions could be made with freedom of mind and behavior, with no fear of reprisal ("this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child") the paradigm of the parent, of the bourgeoisie, of the patriarch, of God would be negated along with his rules of "proper" conduct ("the negative valence also disappears.")—no longer recognized as viable—thereby annihilating the traditional home with its patriarchal environment and thus "Fear of God is dead." The humanist "right of the child"—Eros and "incest"—thus negates (commits "patricide") the God given right of the parent—"trust and obey." The facilitator finds the child's "will" and the parent's "will," and then gets both to focus on the "will" they have in common. By doing so the parent will "willingly" negate any "will" above him and the child; your "representative" will "willingly" negate any "constituent's will" for the "will" of the subcommittee which arrives at consensus, etc. This units all on the "child within," whom we all love—in our carnal nature. We therefore, "willingly," rally around our common Eros—consensus. "Can't you feel the warmth." Children naturally want to be hugged, not chastened. Get rid of the chastening and we can all get a big hug, as well as give one. This process even works in the "Church."

The "Negative Valence" (Negating the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong.)

Kurt Lewin wrote: "The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult. If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers)

In other words, the "guilty conscience" ("the negative valence") is the result of the father's authority, i.e., his chastening of the child ("an induced field of force of an adult") for desiring to relate with or do something ("which in itself attracts the child") which the father declares is wrong ("a forbidden object").

Since there is no father's authority ("field of force of an adult") in a child's opinion, by creating an environment, where the child can dialogue his opinion to a consensus with others, i.e., where all the children can share their feelings and thoughts of the 'moment' with no fear of judgment, condemnation, or reprisal (where the "field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the "guilty conscience" ("the negative valence") "also disappear."

The Marxist Erick Fromm wrote: "Work done by Horkheimer in the thirties identified 'neurosis' [where children (people), accepting a "top-down" (patriarchal) system of authority, i.e. honoring the father's/Father's authority, i.e. obeying the father's/Father's commands and rules, accepting his/His facts and truth as is (by faith), are in a state of tension, i.e. prevented from becoming at-one-with their carnal nature , i.e., their impulses and urges of the 'moment' which are stimulated by and seeking one-ness with the world, i.e., "human nature," with the parent's (and/or God's) authority, i.e. their commands, rules, facts, and truth restraining, inhibiting, or blocking them from 'satisfying' their carnal desires of the 'moment'] as a social product, in which the family was seen as a primary agent of repressive socialization.'" (Erich Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man, in Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists)

If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 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. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? 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.

These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

"'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 [in other words, the "father' can stick around as long as he no longer produces "neurosis" in the child (where the child has to do the father's will over and against his own will, "repressing" his carnal nature, "alienating" himself from the world and the world from him)]." (Sigmund Freud as quoted in Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)

DIAPRAX is the Practice (praxis) of Dialectic Reasoning: Evaluating God and His Word through Human Perception and Human Reasoning (dialectic reasoning), 'Justifying' Human Nature in the process. DIAPRAX is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6 where God's commands are seen as non-sensuous (unreasonable, irrational, impractical, irrelevant, etc.,) in an enlightened society.

Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Diaprax, the dialectical process put into praxis (practice, social action), is the Heresiarchal paradigm of Genesis 3:1-6 (the 'justification' of sinning) being made the law of the land, creating ("'rationally' justifying" and putting into practice) a "new" order of the world ("New World Order") out of the 'pure' sensuousness of man, where righteousness is negated (man is 'purged' of righteousness) and abomination abounds.

SATAN THE FIRST FACILITATOR OF 'CHANGE.'

Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman,

Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

And the woman said unto the serpent,

We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

"neither shall ye touch it"

"lest ye die."

And the serpent said unto the woman,

"Ye shall not surely die:"

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat,

and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: ... Genesis 3:17

Subtle use of discourse to draw her "Ought"―her "Nor touch it"―out of her.
(The plan is by getting her 'ought' out, she will negate God's 'not,' with some 'help,' i.e. facilitation, then go to 'thought' to justify her 'ought,' freeing herself of Godly righteousness, making herself 'right' in her own eyes.)

"Yea, ... garden?" is an embedded statement in a question known as Neurolinguistics - Most powerful tool in hypnosis. Neurolinguistics is used to destabilize and then sensitize a person to his subconscious desires. It generates a cognitive dissonance event in the person.

GIVE ONLY YOUR NAME, RANK, AND SERIAL NUMBER

The facilitator must engage his victim in a "discourse-theoretical interpretation" if he is to gain control over the person.

Eve paraphrases God's command. By stating an opinion instead of the categorical imperative―an unquestionable and universally applied moral command― a person divulges their "ought." In Eve's case her desire to "touch it." If she had stating the Categorical Imperative, as Jesus did in the temptations―"It is written ....,"―she would not have been able to share her feeling of resentment toward the restraint of the law.

Any time a "THOU SHALT NOT" blocks our hearts desire, an "OUGHT" is created―The imagination of the heart, where our "potential" identity, apart from Godly or parental restrain, can be secretly role played.

Our "OUGHT" is always good in our own eyes. It is desires which make sense to us, restrained by higher authorities non-sense.

If the "OUGHT" is given freedom of expression with no fear of reprisal the "THOU SHALT NOT," which initiated it, is negated, at least is in our eyes.

THE LIE―HALF TRUTH

Adam and Eve did not die from the specific fruit of the tree, the fruit of the tree did not kill them, they died because they disobeyed God.

From here on Eve does not defend God's "Thou shalt not".

The facilitator always makes himself to be equal, in your eyes, with the authority figure he is preparing you to disobey.

Again: the lie was that they would not die. They did not die from the fruit of the tree, the tree did not kill them. They died because God removing them from the tree of life for changing their paradigm from faith to sight, from obedience to Him and His Word to their disobedience to his command, i.e. from trusting in Him with all their Heart, to leaning to their own understanding. Proverbs 3:5. We are made in the image of God, to evaluate the world from His Word (as God does). By evaluating God's Word from our sensuousness, good and evil becomes establish upon our sensuousness, i.e. trusting in our 'reasoning,' and no longer from God's righteousness, no longer having faith in God and loving His Word.

FROM HERE ON EVE USES INDUCTIVE REASONING, NEGATING DEDUCTIVE REASONING.

Eve was the first environmentalist, choosing to love the creation over the creator, loving pleasure more than God.

Truth is now based upon human perception.
God's word, in Eves eyes, becomes non-sensuous,' irrational, therefore God's Word became, in the 'light' of her senses, 'irrelevant.' She now has the mind of Lucifer to temp others to do the same dialectical process, i.e. tempting Adam.

ADAM WAS NOT DECEIVED. ADAM ABDICATES―CHOOSES EVE OVER GOD―HE KNEW BETTER.

Adam was the first socialist, communist, humanist, globalist, on the face of the earth, choosing human relationship over God.

The negation of negation―"Eternal life was not negated until they ate it." "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." James 1:14, 15

Satan's dialectical process: "Feel it, think it, 'justify it,' do it ... sin."

DIAPRAX (Hegel's dialectical process put into Marx's and Freud's praxis) IS THE PROCESS OF SINNING (BECOMING AT-ONE-WITH THE WORLD), i.e. DOING GENESIS 3:1-6, i.e. PARTICIPATING IN SATAN'S GENESIS 3:1-6 PROJECT, i.e. creating a world of 'change.'

For all have sinned. Romans 3:23

"There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace have they not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Romans 3:10-20

"For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops. And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, fear him." Luke 12:2-5

GOD'S SOLUTION: THE NEGATION OF DIAPRAX IN YOUR LIFE through faith in Christ Jesus.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." John 3:16-21

26. "Hebrews 12:5-11"

And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

The father's/Father's authority is:

1) to give commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith) to his/His children.

2) to bless those children who obey and do things right (rewarding them for doing what is right).

3) to chasten those children who do not obey and do things wrong (to persuade them not to do what is wrong but to do what is right), engendering a "guilty conscience" in them for disobedience.

4) to cast out those children who do not accept 1), 2), and 3) but question the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth and challenge his/His authority instead.

While parents are not perfect, the office they serve in is, having been given to them by God (who is perfect) to serve Him in.

27. "Romans 7:14-25"

"For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16

"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." James 1:14, 15

"If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:15

The law of God can save no one, it can only expose and condemn us as sinners, i.e. for "lusting" after the things of the world, i.e. for "lusting" after "the flesh, the law of sin." It brings us to the realization that we are not God (perfect or righteous in and of ourselves). God is the only one who can fulfill the Law (demanding perfection). It is only in Christ Jesus, who fulfilled the law, that we receive salvation. His righteousness (fulfillment of the law) is imputed to us through our faith in Him. Jesus 'redeemed' us from our sins by His blood. And by His resurrection 'reconciled' us to His Heavenly Father. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8, 9

The issue for dialectic 'reasoning' regarding the "guilty conscience" is the law, i.e. the father's/Father's authority (doing right and not wrong according to his commands, rules, facts, and truth) and his chastening for disobedience or doing wrong and casting out for disrespecting, i.e. questioning His commands, rules, facts, and truth and challenging His authority, which engenders it (the "guilty conscience"). By 'justifying' man's "feelings" of the 'moment' (through the use of dialoging opinions to a consensus), those of dialectic 'reasoning' are able to circumvent the "guilty conscience" and the father's/Father's authority (the preaching and teaching of commands and rules to be obeyed as given and facts and truth to be accepted as is, i.e. by faith) which engenders it.

"The new guilt complex appears to be historically connected with the rise of patriarchal religion (for the Western development the Hebrews are decisive)." "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself." "We must return to Freud and say that incest guilt created the familial organization." "What we call ‘conscience' perpetuates inside of us our bondage to past objects now part of ourselves: the super-ego ‘unites in itself the influences of the present and of the past.'" ((Normal O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History))

With the invention of the "super-ego," Freud was able to 'justify' the use of "feelings" ("emotional impulses") to negate the effect of the "guilty conscience," negating the father's/Father's authority which engenders it. The "guilty conscience" comes from one, which makes it not subject to "feelings," i.e. 'compromise,' engendering "feelings" ("negative feelings") instead, while the super-ego comes from the many, i.e. from the different, allowing for "feelings" to determine the outcome, engendering "openness," "equality," based upon man's carnal nature, i.e. his impulses and urges of the 'moment.'

"It is a function of the ego to make peace with conscience, to create a larger synthesis within which conscience, emotional impulses, and self operate in relative harmony." "When this synthesis is not achieved, the superego has somewhat the role of a foreign body within the personality, and it exhibits those rigid, automatic, and unstable aspects discussed above." (Theodor Adorno The Authoritarian Personality)

"The most effective method for weakening the child's will is to arouse his sense of guilt." "The most important symptom of the defeat in the fight for oneself is the guilty conscience." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom)

"This voice which really isn't you but tells you the way the world works is a direct attack on creativity. We have to work to remove it." "When we learn to silence the inner voice that judges yourself and others, there is no limit to what we can accomplish, individually and as part of a team. Absence of judgment makes you more receptive to innovative ideas [change]." (Michael Ray, quoted in Maslow, Management)

"Social control is most effective at the individual level. The personal conscience is the key element in ensuring self-control, refraining from deviant behavior even when it can be easily perpetrated." "The family, the next most important unit affecting social control, is obviously instrumental in the initial formation of the conscience and in the continued reinforcement of the values that encourage law abiding behavior." Dr. Robert Trojanowicz The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing)

In order to 'liberate' himself from a "guilty conscience," man must 'liberate' himself from the father's/Father's authority, 'justify' his carnal nature, engendering a world of unrighteousness and abomination in the process. By accepting sin, man's depraved urges, impulses, thoughts, and actions, i.e. his "lust" for pleasure as being "normal," i.e. as being "good," any thoughts and actions which inhibit "normality," restraining or blocking man's carnal nature from becoming 'reality' (the law of the land) must become "abnormal," i.e. evil. People are not born homosexuals, they are born sinners, "lusting" after pleasure, attaining it by any means available. Dialectic 'reasoning' is not "freedom of the conscience," which our framing father's gave us, under God, but "freedom from the conscience," which psychotherapist's (facilitators of 'change') give us, under Marx and Freud.

"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." Psalms 36:1-4; Proverbs 6:12-19)

God, our Heavenly Father, having provided a solution to the "guilty conscience" (through Christ Jesus) will have the final say regarding the matter.

28. "all children (including parent's)"

Sounding more like Karl Marx than Marx himself, Hegel wrote: "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)

"Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon .... transform public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests.... transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps..." (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order)

It is not the group meeting that is of issue. It is how the group meeting is being lead. "Truth is a moment in correct praxis." "Philosophy of praxis is both a euphemism for Marxism and an autonomous term used by Gramsci to define what he saw to be a central characteristic of the philosophy of Marxism, the inseparable link it establishes between theory and practice, thought and action." "The eclipse of a way thinking cannot take place without a crisis." (Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks) Praxis is the social action taken to resolve a social issue (a crisis) which entails negating any authority system which (or authority figure who) inhibits or blocks social interaction (a collective solution or consensus on how to solve the problem and collective action taken to resolve it, where everyone's thoughts are united as "one" in the action taken).

"Freud, Hegel, ... are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." (Normal O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

Common Core is built off of Bloom's Taxonomies, two books (cognitive and affective domain) which are the basis of curriculum development for teachers (facilitators of 'change'). Bloom's Taxonomies are built off of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Marx's and Freud's ideology is based upon dialectic 'reasoning.' Dialectic 'reasoning' is the belief that man is to measure himself from himself, i.e. that right and wrong are to be based upon "human nature," not upon what a father "dictates" to his children, a teacher "dictates" to his students, a boss "dictates" to his workers, a king "dictates" to his people, or God "dictates" to man, restraining the child or man from satisfying (actualizing) his natural impulses or urges of the 'moment.' While the traditional education reflected a "top-down" system of parent over child, teacher over student, boss over worker, king over people, God over man, transformational education (Transformational Marxist education) gives the child, student, worker, citizen, man "freedom" to 'discover right and wrong according what he has in common (from where we derive common-ism) with all other children, students, workers, citizens, men, i.e. his carnal "human nature." By 'changing' the classroom environment from the preaching and teaching of facts and truths to be accepted as given (by faith) to where the child's opinion, i.e. how he "feels" about and what he "thinks" in the 'moment,' is given 'liberty' to be expressed (with no "put-downs," i.e. no father's authority of right and wrong blocking or inhibiting him, i.e. condemning him for doing wrong). In this way, through the dialoging of opinions to a consensus, i.e. what all the children, et al 'discover' they have in common (their dissatisfaction of being told what is right and wrong when it inhibits or blocks their "natural inclination" to be at-one-with the world in pleasure in the 'moment'), the "old" word order of parent's, teacher's, bosses, leaders, God "dictating" what is right and wrong is negated, 'creating' a "new" world order, freed of Godly restraint.

"Groups and organizations should be helped to define and redefine those areas of life in which common values and standards are necessary and where efforts to build common out of contrasting beliefs and practices are required." (Kenneth Benne Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

"In order to effect rapid change, . . . [one] must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved. It is necessary, in other words, artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children— One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant." "The consequences of family democratization take a long time to make themselves felt–but it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun." (Warren Bennis The Temporary Society)

To use Bloom's Taxonomies in the classroom is "to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents" [which, according to Bloom, produces] "conflict and tension between parents and children." (Krathwohl, Bloom, Affective Doman, p. 83

The Karl Marx in you and your children:
The love of pleasure and hate of the father's/Father's restraint.

"For a state to become a state it is necessary that the citizen cannot continually think of emigrating, but that the class of cultivators, no longer able to push to the outside, presses upon itself and is gathered into cities and urban professions. ... for a real state and a real government only develop when there is a difference of classes, when riches and poverty become very large and a situation arises where a great number of people can no longer satisfy its needs in the accustomed way." (George Hegel in Carl Friedrich The Philosophy of Hegel, 1953)

The dialectic process is not successful until no one can escape, that is, not until all are participating. The middle class (those seeking to isolate themselves from 'change,' i.e. fleeing the area of crisis which engenders the need for 'change,' seeking financial stability instead) must be negated (must be infiltrated with crisis) until they succumb, engendering a world of disparity between the rich and the poor, where dissatisfaction with the way the world "is" overthrows the rich, making all the same, i.e. poor, with facilitator's of 'change' living off "the people," i.e., living like the rich.

The border issue is not about keeping illegals out. It is about keep legal's from leaving (from not participating in their demise).

"I and my Father are one." John 10:30 "... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father," John 14:9 "He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." 1 John 3:22

"... and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 3:1

Our ability to evaluate, i.e. to determine right from wrong, does not come from the creation itself, i.e. from rocks, plants, and animals (having only stimulus-response and instinct to work from). It is from God, and God alone, that we have the ability to evaluate. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Genesis 1:26

God gave us the ability to evaluate in order that we might love him, i.e. do his will, evaluate ourselves and the 'creation' according to His Word, giving Him praise. In Genesis 3:1-6 we find the first praxis of dialectic' reasoning,' i.e. of man (in that instant, the woman) evaluating God and the World from his carnal nature, 'justifying' himself, i.e. 'justifying that which was formed from the "dust of the ground," over and against the Word of God, i.e. "the breath of life," negating the will of God the Heavenly Father in his feelings, thoughts, and actions and relationship with the world.

By evaluating from our "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e. from our flesh, i.e. according to our carnal desires of the 'moment' we bind ourselves to the world, worshiping it and the pleasures that it brings. We were created by God to evaluate ourselves and the world from His Word, worshiping Him instead.

The Apostle Paul explained man's rejection of God and His Word while using the very attribute He gave him, i.e. the ability to evaluate, with God judging him for worship the creation, i.e. worshiping the pleasures of the world and the flesh with it, instead of Him. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." Romans 1:18-23

It is interesting to note that whoever 'reasons' dialectically, i.e. 'justifying' themselves, i.e. 'justifying' their love of pleasure over and against God and His Word, has to do so using what God gave them, their ability to evaluate, in their case 'creating' a world of their own (a "new" world order) void of Godly restraint. Believing a lie, i.e. that he will not be personally held accountable by God for his sins, those who promote the use of dialectic 'reasoning' deceive not only themselves but all who listen to and follow them, perceiving themselves as being God, 'righteous' "in and for" themselves only.

"In a deductive argument, the truth of the premises is supposed to guarantee the truth of the conclusion;
in an inductive argument, the truth of the premises merely makes it probable that the conclusion is true."
Garth Kemerling 2002.

Inductive reasoning is the process of coming to a conclusion by reasoning from the evidence at hand (depended upon prior experience or experimentation), where particular instances can be arranged (manipulated) to produce a generalized (uncertain or probable) conclusion. While inductive reasoning may be recognized as a scientific method, used to find out about rock, plants, and animals, to taxonomize and thereby better utilize them, to use this method, to "taxonomize" mankind so he can be better utilized in a global economy is evil. It is the means to buying and selling souls. To define the essence of mankind through this method, as done by Georg W. F. Hegel, Karl Marx, and socio-psychologists today, is wicked.

Inductive reasoning is grounded in the universe and can only recognize cosmic-sensuous manifestations as an outcome―it can only recognize that which is observable and repeatable. When used correctly, inductive reasoning brings the scientist either to a termination―where the evidence at hand results in a now known law, previously established by God, or it continues to be a never-ending theory. To materialize mankind is to destroy the device God placed in man so he could know God as his creator―faith.

When mankind replaces the Object, God, by making himself the object―the evaluator-justifier―he can never come to know himself as the object of God's love. This is man deceived. By his own self deception, he will only see himself as a product of, or at one with, the universe. The result of such reasoning is the same result Eve came to in the garden of Eden, at the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the first materialistic, socialistic, humanistic, inductively reasoned praxis of mankind. The inductive procedure is recorded in Genesis 3:1-6 and the resulting behavior of self-justification is recorded in Genesis 3:7-13.

This process (inductive reasoning) can only work with what is observable, and comparable (material-sense perception). As Eve "saw" that the tree was "good for food," she already knew of trees which were good for food. The same would be true for the trees which were pleasing to her eyes, being pleasurable to the senses (aesthetic). Despite God already describing all trees in the garden as being good for food and pleasing to the eyes, she was not investing her time at this tree to re-enforce deductive reasoning. The "THOU SHALT NOT," contrast, would be included in that discourse, and stop the process. With the "And the women saw ..." this was a subjective inductive-deductive evaluative moment.

The last descriptive of the Gnostic tree, a tree desirous "to make one wise," could only be concluded by prior information regarding the tree itself. If there was any distinction, this was it, the distinction between using deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning to determine one's actions-praxis. Inductive reasoning would label one with such skills―being wise in the their own eyes and in the eyes of others. As Phil Worts said, "Eve was the first problem solver."

It is interesting to note that the liberals who vehemently attack the Bible, because it supposedly stated "the earth was flat and the universe rotated around the earth," are incorrect in their observations. "Religious" leadership embraced earlier secular inductively reasoned observations of the earth. The liberals can only blame religious men for having used liberal inductive-deductive reasoning to defend their "faith." When a Christian applies deductive reasoning to understand the Word of God, he ends up declaring his faith; when he applies inductive reasoning to understand the Word, he ends up destroying his faith.

When man applies deductive reasoning (God's position on human experiences), God is the Object. When man applies inductive reasoning (man interpreting God through his experiences), man, mankind, the creation is the object. When the Christian applies deductive reasoning, God is the justification. When man applies inductive reasoning, man in the light of his experiences―enlightenment― is the justification. "Church Growth" uses inductive reasoning. It is both apostate and heretical. Apostate in that it dialogues on what God calls an abomination (Theoretical Discourse + Abomination = Apostasy,) and heretical in that it uses and promotes the inductive-deductive cyclical reasoning method to "know" God. Remember 1 Timothy 6:20.

1. taking a law or premise as is, as a priori (not depended upon prior experience or experimentation "not by human interpretation"),
2. accepting it as certain (unquestionable) and applicable in all cases (universal,) known as a categorical imperative, and
3. applying it to a specific case using valid syllogisms.

Examples of valid syllogism or sound logic are: if A=B and C=B then A=C; if A=B and C≠B then C≠A.

The law or premise, accepted as established truth, is used to evaluate the truth or rightness of any idea or situation. Those things which are in agreement to the premise are accepted as true but those things which are not in agreement are rejected as not true. An "I know" can be voiced in confidence, "I know that I am right and I know that you are wrong because my conclusion lines up with the premise, and yours does not." The premise "two plus two equals four and can not equal any other number" is universal and unquestionable. It is a categorical imperative. Whether someone is working on a toy, a bridge, or a plane, it works. If someone builds a bridge with two plus two equaling five, you don't cross the bridge. If you do you do it at your own peril.

Contrasting, identifying that which does not agree, is as important in deductive reasoning as is comparing, identifying that which does agree (either/or). Either it agrees or it disagrees. "This idea is in agreement with the premise, and this other idea is not." In deductive reasoning, the moment a statement (hypothesis) conflicts with the premise, a cognitive contrast or gap is recognized, and it is rejected. Contrast is important to determining the rightness of any statement. Just because something seems to be right (supposition,) does not mean that it is right. Just because something seems to be in agreement with the premise, or is similar to the premise, does not mean it is in agreement with the premise. "Seems to" is the language of private interpretation, the result of perception, it is the language of theory. In the language of perceptions―"I think"―we quickly focus on those things which are similar to our desired outcomes, in other words our feelings are involved in determining the outcome, and we tend to loose the ability to cognitively or factually recognize those things which are in conflict with the a priori.

"... and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." Numbers 13:33

The moment the issue at hand (the crisis) shifts us from evaluating from the a priori to focusing on the issue at hand from our own perception or experience, i.e. suspending (shelving) or excluding the a priori, we move out of deductive, didactic thinking into a painful condition known as cognitive dissonance. In this condition of cognitive dissonance, uncertainty (a feeling) takes over. At the center of this uncertainty is our "what about me" self focused concerns. It is in the tension of cognitive dissonance that we tend to determine what is right and wrong according to our feelings, regarding the situation, from an affective contrast―what makes us and/or others feel good and what does not. Our contrast has therefore moved from distancing ourselves from those with an incorrect a priori, or standard, to now distancing ourselves from those who think with an a priori, who think deductively, who think right and wrong. We have done a paradigm shift. We don't just disagree with their premise we disagree with them for insisting on and defending a premise. We end up aligning ourselves with those who think inductively or dialectically―who are reasonable. What is right and what is wrong is no longer based upon principles which are certain and lasting, but is now determined by which thought process a person is using to determine what is right and what is wrong in the moment, i.e. situation ethics, values clarification, etc.

"We must develop persons who see non-influenceability of private convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue."
Kenneth Benne Human Relations in Curriculum Change 1951

According to social engineers (transformational Marxists) no one who is only persuadable―concerned about the facts, holds to established standards or personal convictions, principled, thinks deductively, from a premise or a priori―should be placed in any influential position. Only those who are influenceable―those who social engineers are able to manipulate (feelings), changeable under pressure, concerned about how others feel about their position, concerned about the respect of men, concerned about social rejection or alienation, who think inductively―should be placed in positions of influence. God pleasers are willing to endure rejection because of their strong convictions of what is right, and if they misbehave they are persuaded or convicted by a guilty conscience, to do what is right, while people pleasers are influenced or moved to change their mind out of the fear of human rejection, out of fear of being shamed (respect of men―superego).

When force is used by a parent to inculcate a standard (an a priori) into a child, not only is the standard learned or internalized, a sense of dread, a fear of judgment is also acquired (conscience). If an environment can be arranged where the parent is powerless to carry out judgment (either is not present or is willingly participating in the environment), in the perception of the child, the fear of judgment likewise ceases to exist. The child will then feel greater freedom in participating in the activity which was formerly forbidden (superego).

An environment where relationship and tolerance is accentuated (at the expense of pre-set standards) will have a deteriorating affect on anyone raised to respect and obey authority. Facilitators work hard at creating such an environment. When you find yourself in a meeting where the emphasis is on being "positive" and not being "negative," or being "open minded" and not being "close minded," you are in such an environment. When these terms are identified with feelings they can be contrasted as "play behavior" and "barrier behavior." Play associated with positive feelings―doing what you want to do, and barrier with negative feelings―having to do what you don't want to do and/or not doing what you want to do. In other words, with deductive reasoning, the a priori can act as a barrier to play, producing negative feelings, while with inductive reasoning, the theory can act as a time to play without barriers, producing positive feelings.

In "force field analysis" the role of the change agent is to identify the negative and positive forces in the field (environment) and "map the room." He must identify who is using a traditional-didactic-deductive-patriarchal paradigm―a resister to change, who is using a transitional or just get along, avoid conflict paradigm, and who is using a transformational-dialectic-inductive-heresiarchal paradigm. By integrating the forces in the field to promote play behavior, he can accomplish a breaking down of barrier behavior. While it is a simply/complex process for the facilitator to instigate―it depends upon who is in the field, it is a very painful experience for those who think deductively, who have strong barrier behavior and get caught up in the environment and must be willing to lose things which are dear to them; friendships, promotions, career, etc.

In the Word of God, contrast is always used in reference to the relation between God and man, contrasting who is in authority, and who is not in authority. "Is" and "not" are the key words used in the "system" of contrast. This makes it a "closed system." I AM God and you are not. (You are man and not God.) I AM the creator and you are not. (You are the created and you are not the creator. You can only design.) I AM holy and you are not. Apart from me you can not be holy ("All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." "Only God is good.") In fact with God's evaluation statement "I AM that I AM," he is pure contrast and nothing in the creation can be compared to Him.

Consider this, if we focus only upon what is similar, differences will no longer stand in the way of relationships―humanism. Prejudice can only be removed by focusing upon what is similar. If removal of prejudice becomes the focus of life, then any method which focuses upon contrast to determine right and wrong can not be utilized. Therefore if deductive reasoning must not be utilized to determine proper behavior, God's Word must be treated as just another opinion among many, and its relevance determined by means of the perception of the moment―through the use of inductive reasoning.

"Deductive reasoning holds to a very high standard of correctness ... the truth of its premise guarantees the truth of its conclusion, there is no middle ground." Garth Kemerling

A liberal will not accept this definition. Instead he re-defines the premise as "a general theory," testing it through a narrow hypothesis (appropriately selected questions or statement), and then, through observation, confirm the general "theory." The liberal misrepresents deductive reasoning by linking it to an inductive-deductive cycle, "where the truth of its premises make it likely or probable that its conclusion is also true." (Garth Kemerling) The liberal will always tie deductive reasoning to a materialist speculative outcome. He must. This is the typical approach social engineers use to justify their desired humanistic outcome.

If you get trapped in their snare you will always fall victim to their outcome. When you are pressured to turn your position into another opinion, viewpoint or interpretation amongst many, you just moved from deductive to inductive reasoning by changing you deductive reasoning into what "seems to be" deductive reasoning. Changing an "I know" into an "I think" results in "I think I know." You just created a middle ground. In fact you just gave your ground to the liberal and he will eventually own not only it but you as well.

Deductive reasoning has been labeled as a "pre-enlightenment" thought process―recognizing God (a priori, higher authority) as the creator of the universe, a religious structure of thought. Inductive reasoning is the thought process of "the enlightenment," which accepts the world as non-created, and is viewed as a materialistic, "scientific," non-religious structure (alchemy). The latter form of "science" when applied to human behavior is that which the Apostle Paul warned Timothy,

Avoid the oppositions (antithesis) of so-called science―the antithesis of so-named gnosis (knowing,) και αντιθεσεις της ψευδωνυμου γνωσεως,―whereby those who use this process loose their faith. What is of concern to me is that the "church" is using the latter form of reasoning, the one Paul warned us about.

The simplicity that is in Christ is obedience to the Heavenly Father. "It is written," as Jesus responded to Satan in the temptations, is a deductively reasoning statement, making behavior dependent upon the premise, which is unquestionable and universal.

GROUP TASK ROLES
Initiator-contributor	Suggests or proposes
Information seeker	Asks for clarification of information and facts
Opinion seeker	Asks for clarification values
Information giver	Offers "authoritative" facts
Opinion Giver	States belief or opinion
Elaborator	Spells out suggestions
Coordinator	Shows or clarifies relationships
Orienter	Defines position
Evaluator-critic	Subjects the group's accomplishments to some standard
Procedural technician	Expedites group movement
RECORDER	Writes down the "group memory"

GROUP BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE ROLES
Encourager	Praises, agrees with and accepts
Harmonizer	Mediates differences
Compromisers	Offers compromise as an example
Gate-keeper and expediter	Keeps communication open-facilitator
Standard setter or ego ideal	Expresses standards for the group
Follower	Spells out suggestions
OBSERVER	Keeps records of group process-body language

THE "INDIVIDUAL" ROLE
Aggressor	Disapproves of others' views
Blocker	Negativistic and resistant, disagreeing and opposing
Recognition-seeker	Calls attention to himself
Self-confessor	Expresses personal, non-group "feelings," "ideology"
Playboy	Makes display
Dominator	Asserts authority
Help-seeker	Calls forth "sympathy" from others, expects the "luke-warm" to come to their assistance.
Special interest-pleaser	Speaks for others (small businessmen, grass roots, housewives, etc.)