Deductive and Inductive Reasoning: Part 1
To Compare or to Contrast that is the question.
Understanding the "New" World Order.
by
Dean Gotcher
Deuteronomy 27:1-26
And Moses with the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying, Keep all the commandments which I command you this day. And it shall be on the day when ye shall pass over Jordan unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, that thou shalt set thee up great stones, and plaster them with plaster: And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law, when thou art passed over, that thou mayest go in unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, a land that floweth with milk and honey; as the LORD God of thy fathers hath promised thee.
Therefore it shall be when ye be gone over Jordan, that ye shall set up these stones, which I command you this day, in mount Ebal, and thou shalt plaster them with plaster. And there shalt thou build an altar unto the LORD thy God, an altar of stones: thou shalt not lift up any iron tool upon them.
Thou shalt build the altar of the LORD thy God of whole stones: and thou shalt offer burnt offerings thereon unto the LORD thy God:
And thou shalt offer peace offerings, and shalt eat there, and rejoice before the LORD thy God. And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly.
And Moses and the priests the Levites spake unto all Israel, saying, Take heed, and hearken, O Israel; this day thou art become the people of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt therefore obey the voice of the LORD thy God, and do his commandments and his statutes, which I command thee this day.
And Moses charged the people the same day, saying, These shall stand upon mount Gerizim to bless the people, when ye are come over Jordan; Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Joseph, and Benjamin: And these shall stand upon mount Ebal to curse; Reuben, Gad, and Asher, and Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali.
And the Levites shall speak, and say unto all the men of Israel with a loud voice, Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.
Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour's landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of the way. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger, fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife; because he uncovereth his father's skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that lieth with his mother in law. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that smiteth his neighbour secretly. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Romans 4: 1-25
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
Romans 6: 1-26
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE REASONING
Table of Contents
INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING PART I
PART ONE OF THREE PARTS ON INDUCTIVE-DEDUCTIVE REASONING
Whoever re-defines terms for you controls your life.
Either it agrees or it disagrees.
Cognitive Dissonance―When our perception conflicts with the a priori.
The utilization of perception to negate an a priori-based paradigm.
Rearranging the field to destabilize and "shift" a person's paradigm.
Contrast―respect for an authority paradigm―and the ability to think deductively.
Focusing only on what is similar
Making room for the middle ground―substituting "theory" for a priori.
INDUCTIVE―DEDUCTIVE CYCLICAL REASONING RESULTS IN A SUBJECT-OBJECT SYNTHESIS
Your faith defends you; you can not defend your faith.
INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN
SCRIPTURE STUDY: PARADIGM SHIFT IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN
The materialist perverts deductive reasoning
The liberal will always replace a priori with theory
The liberals effort to negate the belief-action dichotomy*
The liberal's utilization of cyclical reasoning.
Deductive Reasoning - CLOSED SYSTEM
Inductive Reasoning - "OPEN SYSTEM"
Inductive reasoning and its effect upon politics.
Dialectical thinkers can only steal, kill, and destroy that which is established by God.
God is not a respecter of persons, and he demands obedience.
INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING PART I
To Compare or to Contrast that is the question.
Understanding the New World Order.
by
Dean Gotcher
Heaven or Hell, or somewhere in between (the land of illusion*―liberalism, socialism, globalism)
(*An example of Inductive Reasoning: What heaven and hell have in common are the souls of men. So if we focus only on what heaven and hell have in common, mankind, then heaven and hell are no longer relevant.)
PART ONE OF THREE PARTS ON INDUCTIVE-DEDUCTIVE REASONING
The following articles INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING PART I, INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING PART II, and INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING PART III on the subject of inductive reasoning will "seem" redundant in nature but if you trudge through I believe it will help clear up the confusing language that educators and facilitators are using to mask their socialist, materialist agenda. This study has helped explicate why the dialectic process has been implemented in the classrooms of America and even in the churches. Because of its pervasiveness it has become imperative that we bring "into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." 2 Corinthians 10:5 I encouraged you to continue to do what is right, if you have been doing what is right, and start to do what is right, if you have not. There is a right and a wrong way to respond to this beast. "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand." Ephesians 6:11 It is important to know its behavior, its thinking process, and its weaknesses. The same is true for each one of us. Because of the universality of the dialectical procedure, I have covered some of this material before and will re-cover it in future Diaprax articles. There is always a clearer understanding that comes to mind even though I have been exposing this process via speeches for over twelve years. What is most refreshing is the newness of God's Word and the rest it brings to my soul every time I turn to it to expose this stuff. "It is of the LORD'S mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness. The LORD is my portion, saith my soul; therefore will I hope in him. The LORD is good unto them that wait for him, to the soul that seeketh him." Lamentations 3:22-25
Dean Gotcher
Over the past few decades there has been a dramatic change in the way American's behave and think. This change is often referred to as a paradigm shift. The way we think as a culture has moved from a traditional toward a transformational thought process or, more technically, from a didactic (facts based) to a dialectic (feelings-rationalized based) paradigm. An easy way to distinguish between didactic and dialectical thinking is to associate the former with the act of contrasting and the latter with the act of comparing. Contrast is noticing what is different, the difference between right and wrong, black and white, light and dark, etc. while comparing is noticing what is similar, what things have in common. Instead of things being black and white things become "grey" in appearance. The didactic, contrasting, method of thinking is deductive in reasoning, evaluating behavior from established standards (the establishment) . The dialectic, comparing method of thinking is inductive in reasoning, evaluating an environment to collect data to discover what is common, to discover the norm.
Whoever re-defines terms for you controls your life.
To confuse things, those who like to focus on what we have in common, those who think inductively or dialectically, re-define everything. They define everything according to their way of thinking, to justify their way of thinking. Liberals will take a traditional definition of a word and re-define it to produce their desired outcome Therefore anyone who uses their definition of the word will produce the liberals desired outcome. Sheila Slaughter, in her book The Higher Learning and High Technology : Dynamics of Higher Education Policy Formation, wrote that if anyone wanted to understand what was happening in America today a "neo-Marxist lens" would have to be used.
The liberal's definition of deductive reasoning will always bring you, if you accept their definition, into their frame of mind and their desired outcome.
If you have ever found yourself in a situation where you are discussing an issue with someone else, an issue which you both have in common, yet you sense a loss of control in determining the outcome, you have more than likely experienced the controlling factor liberals have used over the ages to bring every issue to their desired outcome and everything under their control. If you want to take control back, it is important to know the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning, and that you stick to the use of deductive reasoning, properly defined. When you know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning or the difference between didactic and dialectic thinking you will understand how the liberals have been able to pull off a paradigm shift in education, in the workplace, in government, and even in the church and manage to get "conservatives" to support these changes.
Deductive reasoning is the process of
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.
Either it agrees or it disagrees.
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.
Cognitive Dissonance―When our perception conflicts with the a priori.
"... and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." Numbers 13:33
"... the eye becomes the human eye, the ear the human ear." Karl Marx
Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. Deuteronomy 29:4
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. Matthew 13:13-16
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).
"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
The utilization of perception to negate an a priori-based paradigm.
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).
"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, McGraw Hill
Rearranging the field to destabilize and "shift" a person's paradigm.
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.
"Change in organization can be derived from the overlapping between play and barrier behavior. To be governed by two strong goals is equivalent to the existence of two conflicting controlling heads within the organism. This should lead to a decrease in degree of hierarchical organization. Also, a certain disorganization 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. 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." Child Behavior and Development Chapter XXVI Frustration and Regression Kurt Lewin, McGraw Hill
Contrast―respect for an authority paradigm―and the ability to think deductively.
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.
"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
Focusing only on what is similar, what we have in common, overcomes differences, overcomes discrimination―Eros.
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.
Making room for the middle ground―substituting "theory" for a priori.
"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,
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." 1 Timothy 6:20-21
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.
"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 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.
"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.
"That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." 1 Corinthians 2:5
"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 I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." Romans 12:3
"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
"By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith." Hebrews 11:17
"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
"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
"... nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8b
INDUCTIVE―DEDUCTIVE CYCLICAL REASONING RESULTS IN A SUBJECT-OBJECT SYNTHESIS
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."
Your faith defends you; you can not defend your faith.
Use deductive reasoning and your faith defends you.
Use inductive reasoning to "defend" your faith and you will destroy your faith.
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.
INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN
If transformational Marxists know what happened in the garden, what is wrong with Christians?
We are not to be ignorant of Satan's devices?
WHAT GOD DID WITH ADAM.
CREATED AN UNCOMPROMISING ENVIRONMENT (DEDUCTIVE)
ADAM MUST PRACTICE DEDUCTIVE REASONING (PRAXIS)
1. CLOSED ENDED
"I tell you what you CAN NOT do."
"YOU CAN NOT EAT OF ONE TREE!"
"THIS IS NOT OK!"
2. DIRECTED
"I tell you what you CAN do."
"YOU CAN EAT OF ALL OTHER TREES!"
THIS IS OK!
No. 1 and No. 2 are Categorical Imperatives―a moral command which is unquestionable and universal. Not to be discussed (no discourse), and applies to all situations, to all times, and all persons. You can not praxis INDUCTIVE REASONING and arrive at the same commands of No. 1 and No. 2.
WHAT SATAN DID WITH EVE.
The "three punch" knock out of the patriarchal.
PUNCHES 1. AND 2.
CREATED A COMPROMISING ENVIRONMENT (DIALECTICAL)
EVE COULD PRACTICE INDUCTIVE REASONING (PRAXIS)
(Social-Psychologist Carl Rogers used this method in therapy; "Rogerian counseling.")
1. OPEN ENDED
"We can talk about anything―DISCOURSE―and thus, potentially, can do anything."
To be open ended you suspend God's "THIS IS NOT OK!"
2. NON-DIRECTED
"I am not going to tell you what you
CAN NOTdo.""We will discover truth together."
To be non-directed you decide for yourself what IS relevant, what IS rational, what IS reasonable, what IS right and what IS wrong.
No.1 & No. 2 are a "discourse-theoretical interpretation" where a "moral arrangement" can only be arrived at through consensual agreement through a discursive process over a "universal interest." (See Jürgen Habermas) You can not praxis DEDUCTIVE REASONING and arrive at the same "moral arrangement" of No.1 and No. 2.
When the language of deductive reasoning, didactic thinking, of a patriarchal paradigm is gone, when "Is" and "Not" are suspended, then the "Ought" comes out, which then negates the "Not." At that point nothing is impossible.
"We have to study the conditions which maximize ought-perceptiveness." "Oughtiness is itself a fact to be perceived." "If we wish to permit the facts to tell us their oughtiness, we must learn to listen to them in a very specific way which can be called Taoistic." Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature)
INDUCTIVE REASONING―DETERMINING "truth" FROM PERCEPTION―"EVE SAW"
"Truth" is now to be found in the creation, driven by man's "felt" needs. (materialism).
Social-Psychologist Abraham Maslow used this method in therapy, called "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs."
INDUCTIVE REASONING DEDUCTIVE REASONING
| EVE | Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs | All that is of the World | Jesus in the Temptations: "It is written ..." | |
| Good for Food | Physiological needs | Lust of Flesh | "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." | |
| Pleasing to the Eyes | Self esteem needs | Lust of Eyes | "Thou shalt worship the Lord Thy God, Him only shalt thou worship." | |
| Desired to Make one Wise | Self Actualization needs (Purpose driven) | Pride of Life | "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord Thy God." |
PUNCH 3
3. ADVERSITY TOWARDS A PATRIARCHAL PARADIGM
Refusal to recognize the voice of restraint, disrespectful toward authority, resulting in a political system which practices "patricide" where all environments which set policy, from the home to the legislative chambers, must praxis inductive reasoning, praxis a dialectical paradigm, and any person who does not is not "worthy" of holding office, having a family, having a job and should not hold any position of influence. The objective is:
1. first attempt to convert those who think deductively-didactically-patriarchally into inductive-dialectic-heresiarch reasoning,
2. neutralize the affect they have on those around them,
3. marginalize their ability to relate with and influence others, and
4. physically remove them when all else fails.
Even when God pours out his wrath upon mankind in the last days man will not repent. Repentance requires deductive reasoning, i.e. faith, love of the truth.
SCRIPTURE STUDY: PARADIGM SHIFT IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN
DEDUCTIVE - COMMAND- A PRIORI
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. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:7-10
PATRIARCHAL PARADIGM
DIDACTIC - "IS" AND "NOT" - CONTRAST
OBEY=BLESSING & DISOBEY=CURSING
YOUR ONLY OPTIONS ARE TO EITHER OBEY OR DISOBEY
And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Genesis 2:15-17
RELATIONSHIP IS PATRIARCHAL
NOT STEVE, NOT THE GROUP, AND NOT THE CREATION
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Genesis 2:18-23
SATAN―FIRST FACILITATOR
SUBTLE USE OF DISCOURSE TO DRAW HER "OUGHT" OUT
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? Genesis 3:1 ("Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"―Neurolinguistics-Most powerful tool in hypnosis.)
PARAPHRASE - EVE USES HER OPINION WHICH EXPOSES HER "OUGHT"―RESENTMENT TOWARD GOD'S "THOU SHALT NOT!"
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. Genesis 3:2-3
A "THOU SHALT NOT" WHICH BLOCKS OUR HEART'S DESIRES CREATES AN "OUGHT"
THE "OUGHT" ALWAYS NEGATES THE "THOU SHALT NOT" IN THE MIND OF THE PERSON
OUR "OUGHT" IS ALWAYS GOOD IN OUR EYES.
(From here on Eve does not defend God's "THOU SHALT NOT".)
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. Genesis 3:4-5
FROM HERE ON EVE USES INDUCTIVE REASONING.
TRUTH IS NOW BASED UPON HUMAN PERCEPTION.
ADAM ABDICATES―CHOOSES EVE OVER GOD―HE KNEW BETTER.
(First socialist, communist, humanist, globalist act on the face of the earth.)
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. Genesis 3:6
FIRST SCIENTIFIC PROJECT―CLOTHES MADE BY MAN―USE OF INDUCTIVE REASONING TO COVER CONSCIENCE.
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Genesis 3:7
FEAR OF THE PATRIARCHAL
And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. Genesis 3:8-10
GOD TO ADAM
I CREATED YOU TO OBEY ME NOT TO EVALUATE MY LAW
And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? Genesis 3:11
ALL LIBERALS BLAME SOMEONE ELSE FOR THEIR OWN BAD BEHAVIOR
THEY ARE THE EVALUATORS-THEY ARE THE JUSTIFICATION
And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. Genesis 3:12-13
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Genesis 3:14-15
CAUSE AND EFFECT
EVE―DESIRE NOT TO EQUALITY (DESIRED TREE OF EQUALITY) BUT DESIRE TO HUSBAND―PATRIARCHAL-DEDUCTIVE
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Genesis 3:16
ADAM-"LISTEN TO MY VOICE"-PATRIARCHAL "AND NOT THE VOICE OF EVE"-MATRIARCHAL
And unto Adam he said, 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: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Genesis 3:17-19
MANKIND'S FIRST SCIENTIFIC PROJECT IS A FAILURE--NOT BY MAN'S WORKS (TECHNOLOGY) BUT BY GOD'S WORK (BLOOD) IS MAN'S SIN COVERED
And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. Genesis 3:20-21
CAUSE AND EFFECT
BECAUSE YOU DISOBEYED THE EFFECT IS YOU WILL DIE!
FIRST PROPERTY RIGHTS "THIS IS MY GARDEN AND NOT YOUR GARDEN!"
FIRST NO TRESPASSING SIGN WERE CHERUBIMS "YOU CAN NOT COME ONTO MY PROPERTY!"
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. Genesis 3:22-24
DEDUCTIVE REASONING-EVALUATING OUR LIFE FROM GOD'S WORD AND OBEYING IT LEADS TO BLESSING.
INDUCTIVE REASONING-EVALUATING GOD'S WORD FROM OUR LIFE, TO JUSTIFY OUR DESIRES, LEADS TO CURSING.
REPENT!
QUIT THE JUSTIFYING!
REPENTING IS NOT ENOUGH. JUDAS REPENTED! YOU MUST ALSO DIE TO YOURSELF (BAPTISM), DENY YOURSELF DAILY (PUT YOUR "OUGHT" ASIDE), PICK UP YOUR CROSS (ACCEPT HUMAN/SOCIAL REJECTION) AND FOLLOW JESUS (THINK AND ACT DEDUCTIVELY, ACCORDING TO JESUS' COMMANDS. AS THE HYMN SAYS "WHERE HE LEADS ME I WILL FOLLOW").
He must increase, but I must decrease. John 3:30
The materialist perverts deductive reasoning by replacing a priori with "theory and hypothesis,"
turning a scientific method into "so called science."The following example of a liberal definition deductive reasoning is found on the following website: http://southalabama.edu/coe/bset/johnson/dr_johnson/lectures/lec1.htm
"There are many scientific methods. The two major methods are the inductive method and the deductive method.
The deductive method involves the following three steps: testing theories and hypotheses
1. State the hypothesis (based on theory or research literature).
2. Collect data to test the hypothesis.
3. Make decision to accept or reject the hypothesis.The inductive method. This approach also involves three steps: generating theories and hypotheses
1. Observe the world.
2. Search for a pattern in what is observed.
3. Make a generalization about what is occurring."
The liberal will always replace a priori with theory to always make deductive reasoning speculative or uncertain and allow for the inductive-deductive cycle of reasoning, this is the dialectic method.
The following chart (figure 1.1) is an example of inductive-deductive cyclical reasoning.
"Truth is a moment in correct praxis." Antonio Gramsci Selections from the Prison Notebooks.
The liberals effort to negate the belief-action dichotomy*
*a product of deductive reasoning.
When a person's behavior is contrary to his belief, is his belief wrong or his behavior? One could ask the question, "Does the behavior justify or condemn the belief (inductive reasoning), or does the belief justify or condemn the behavior (deductive reasoning)?" What do you do when you have a belief-action dichotomy? Either the belief is right and the action (praxis) is wrong, or the action is right and the belief is wrong. For a Christian, the belief is not justified by the action, and the action does not justify the belief. Justification is always in the belief and never in human action (praxis)―this is deductive reasoning, the behavior must always agree with the belief or the behavior is wrong.
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. Romans 7:14-25 emphasis added
On the other hand, to a materialist, justification is always found in natural-rational actions of mankind (human praxis) and is not found in belief, unless that belief happens to be in the theory of evolution. According to the evolutionist, when a person's belief is contrary to the theory of evolution, that person is wrong in his belief and his thinking. The problem for the evolutionist is that his belief in evolution can not be justified through either inductive or deductive reasoning when they are used properly.
The liberal's utilization of cyclical reasoning.
Those who think "healthy" human behavior can only be discovered through inductive reasoning picture those who think deductively as needing counseling. For them, any belief which restrains the natural behavior of mankind must be negated. "Boys will be boys." The only "solution" is to replace the a priori of deductive reasoning, which would destroy their outcome, with the word theory. Then all they have to do is select the appropriate information to support their theory and develop the appropriate questions to arrive at their theory. When these pre-selected questions are asked in an inductive reasoning environment, and only the appropriate information is incorporated, the appropriate answers will be produced, resulting in the pre-determined theory, or outcome. Thus the "deductive-inductive" cycle is praxised and "truth" is experienced (known-gnosis).
"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12
Since man's fall in the garden, man has been deceived into "thinking" he is god. He incorrectly defines the image of God as having the ability to evaluate for himself through the use of inductive reasoning, "I am thinking, therefore I exist," or traditionally "I think, therefore I am" René Descartes. "I can determine what is good and what is not good, therefore I am god." The tree of "knowledge of good and evil," of human evaluation and inductive reasoning is the tree of humanism, which always leads to destruction and death.
Man can induct only what he sees or senses (human experience . . . "And the woman saw ..." Genesis 3:8), therefore his outcome can only be that of a materialist nature or that which is related to the creation―sensuous. "... lovers of pleasure (sensuous) more than lovers of God (obedience)." 2 Timothy 3:4 This inductive type of thinking is found in the works of Hegel, Marx, Engels, and contemporary American counseling and education, examples following:
"Man knows about God only in so far as God knows about himself in man;" G. W. F. Hegel
"The question has previously always been: what is God? and German philosophy has answered the question in this sense: God is man." Frederick Engels The Condition of England A review of Past and Present, by Thomas Carlyle, London, 1843 Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, 1844
"The only practically possible emancipation is the unique theory which holds that man is the supreme being for man." Karl Marx Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Translated by Joseph O'Malley
"The more of himself man attributes to God, the less he has left in himself." Karl Marx Selected Reading in Sociology and Social Philosophy by T. B. Bottomore
"Tillich is telling those Christians who can hear that they can accept humanism without relinquishing Christianity if they will accept man as the true meaning of God." Leonard Wheat Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God. 1970
"Humanism asserts that the test of human conduct must be found in human experience; concern for man replaces concern about pleasing God. Humanism elevates man to the rank of God. Tillich's message is that God is man, mankind, humanity. Tillichian salvation is a symbol, a symbol for becoming ultimately concerned about humanity―salvation in an "eternal" present. 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. One reason Tillich is unwilling to openly disavow religion is that he must be accepted as a theologian in order to formulate and gain acceptance of an imaginative Grand Synthesis of theology and philosophy. Tillich is actually directing an apologetic humanistic message to a Christian audience." Leonard Wheat Paul Tillich's
"The 'more divine', in other words, the more inhuman, something is, the less we shall be able to admire it. The more 'godly' they are, the more inhuman, the more bestial. We lay claim to the meaning of history; but we see in history not the revelation of 'God' but of man and only of man. Our Christian opponents are guilty of immorality when they make the world and man dependent on the grace of a God. For that reason we have once and for all declared war on religion. We want to sweep away everything that claims to be supernatural and superhuman. Our liberation from the present Christian state of the world and the liberation of the world from it are ultimately our sole occupation;" Engels The Condition
"Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception and sensuous need, that is, only when it proceeds from Nature." Karl Marx MEGA I/3, p. 123
"The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in each particular individual." "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." Karl Marx Thesis on Feuerbach # 6 (Bottomore)
"It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities… only in a socialist society." Karl Marx
"Only within a social context individual man is able to realize his own potential as a rational being." Karl Marx Critique of Hegel's
"The individual is emancipated in the social group." Norman O. Brown Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History
"The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." Kurt Lewin Human Relations in Curriculum Change ed. by Kenneth Benne
"One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group." Irvine D. Yalom Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy
"Small groups are the most effective way of closing the back door of your church." Rick Warren
"Meyers in his study emphasizing group think, Higher Horizons 1961, stated that 'to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents and guardians or by the peer group in the neighborhood' produces 'conflict and tension between parents and children, between students, and peer groups who are not participating in the special opportunities." "… objectives can best be attained where the individual is separated from earlier environmental conditions and when he is in association with a group of peers who are changing in much the same direction and who thus tend to reinforce each other." "… Coleman (1961) demonstrates very clearly that during the adolescent periods, under some conditions, the peer group has a greater effect on the students than do teachers and, perhaps, parents." Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book II Affective Domain 1964, p 83, 84, 82
"…a patient might, with further change, outgrow his spouse unless concomitant changes occur in the spouse." Yalom Theory and Practice
"Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." Horkheimer Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung, p. 33 Martin Jay The Dialectical Imagination: The History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research 1923-1950
"‘Have you merely released the beast, the id, in man?' There is no beast in man. There is only man in man, and this we have been able to release." "In psychology, Freud and his followers have presented convincing arguments that the id, man's basic and unconscious nature, is primarily made up of instincts which would, if permitted expression, result in incest, murder, and other crimes." "The whole problem of therapy, as seen by this group, is how to hold these untamed forces in check in a wholesome and constructive manner, rather than in the costly fashion of the neurotic." Carl Rogers in his book on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy
"Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic." "The bondage of all cultures to their cultural heritage is a neurotic construction." "Neurotic symptoms, with their fixations on perversions and obscenities, demonstrate the refusal of the unconscious essence of our being to acquiesce in the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower." Norman O. Brown Life Against Death
"Work done by Horkheimer in the thirties identified 'neurosis as a social product, in which the family was seen as a primary agent of repressive socialization.'" "A logical connection emerges with the anthropological perspective of the young Marx wherein ‘the eye becomes the human eye, the ear the human ear.'" Erich Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man, New York, 1961, p. 133 Stephen Eric Bronner Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists p. 212
"Man has only to understand himself, to take himself as the measure of all aspects of life, to judge according to his being, to organise the world in a truly human manner according to the demands of his own nature, and he will have solved the riddle of our time." "But there is no other salvation for him, he cannot regain his humanity, his substance, other than by thoroughly overcoming all religious ideas and returning firmly and honestly, not to 'God', but to himself." Engels The Condition
"It has been pointed out that we are attempting to classify phenomena which could not be observed or manipulated in the same concrete form as the phenomena of such fields as the physical and biological sciences." "It was the view of the group that educational objectives stated in the behavior form have their counterparts in the behavior of individuals, observable and describable therefore classifiable." "Only those educational programs which can be specified in terms of intended student behaviors can be classified." "What we are classifying is the intended behavior of students-- the ways in which individuals are to act, think, or feel as the result of participating in some unit of instruction." "Educational procedures are intended to develop the more desirable rather than the more customary types of behavior." "The student must feel free to say he disliked _____ and not have to worry about being punished for his reaction." "… the man who has achieved a philosophy of life – who knows who he is – has arrived at this truth through painful intellectual effort in which the more complex mental processes of the Cognitive Taxonomy are clearly functioning." "Judges problems in terms of situation, issues, purposes, and consequences involved rather than in terms of fixed, dogmatic precepts …." "Obedience and compliance are hardly ideal goals." "A basic tenet of liberal education is that it is by means of intellectual effort that a philosophy of life in large measure is formed." "The major ingredient required in such instruments is that the problem be sufficiently subtle and complex … that the generalized set which we wish to observe can be brought into play." "We are not interested in whether the problem is solved accurately or with elegance." "We want the student to lead the good life and become a good man in all his parts." "… the greatest good for the greatest number." Taxonomy of Education Objectives Book I Cognitive Domain 1956 All teachers are certified, Christian included, and all schools are accredited, Christian included, only after they have learned how to apply Bloom's methods in the classroom.
We did not ask the facilitator the right question, "What are your intentions?" "Why do you want this information?" They would not have told us the truth anyway.
When brainwashing techniques were using on us, did we demonstrate the effects afterwards? If so, why? If not, why not? Did we abandon the evaluation of our environment by way of deductive reasoning, "taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ?" Or, put another way, did we participate in inductive reasoning to justify our a priori? If we did (to either question), we just allowed our a priori to be washed from our brain, we changed from belief to human reasoning, we changed from setting our mind on things above, to setting our mind on things below.
"All concepts that are irreducible to facts are meaningless." "Everything that is not reducible to number becomes illusion for the Enlightenment." "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 p. 212, 231
"If the school does not claim the authority to distinguish between science and religion, it loses control of the curriculum and surrenders it to the will of the electorate." Society as Educator in an Age of Transition, Ed. Kenneth Benne, Eighty-sixth Year of the National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago Press. Ill. 1987, p. 259
"Science can be the religion of the nonreligious." Abraham H. Maslow, Maslow on Management 1998
In the Scriptures the contrast is either blessing or cursing, right or wrong, black or white, light or dark, sheep or goat, saved or lost, heaven or hell, etc. "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:" Deuteronomy 30:19
With mankind, the common carnal act or praxis is justified through comparison. Eve justified within herself, from her own reasoning ability, the goodness of the forbidden tree based on what was common to her senses, of those things which were in the world. "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 "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:15
As quoted above (Romans 7:22-25,) the Apostle Paul explained this belief-action dichotomy as common to all mankind. The system used by Paul is the same system used by all who are obedient to God, the didactic patriarchal system of contrast. In the dialectical paradigm the opposite is true, there is no dichotomy, there is no above vs. below, cognitive vs. affective, etc., just a false method of reasoning. "[S]elf-perfection of the human individual is fulfilled in union with the world in pleasure. Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world. Eros is the foundation of morality." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death) The Marxist, Herbert Marcuse put it this way "If feels good, just do it." Herbert Marcuse Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud.
Accountability to higher authority is built on this contrasting, didactic, patriarchal paradigm. Obey me and you will be blessed, disobey me and you will be cursed. In the class room it would be "Do your assignment right and you will get a good grade. Don't do your assignment, or do it wrong and you will get a bad grade." In the workplace it would be "Do your job right and you will get paid. Don't do your job right and you may be docked in pay or not paid at all." Socialism rewards bad work. Capitalism rewards good work.
A "closed system" is didactic, it teaches established facts and truth. The agenda is to contrast in order not to compromise the truth―either/or, "is"/"not" "Two plus two is four and can not equal any other number."
An "open system" is dialectical, it facilitates 'change.' The agenda is to compare in order to find what is similar—"It seems to us," "We feel," "We think." "Because man and monkey are similar, we theorize that man evolved from the monkey." Theories are treated as a fact and facts are treated as a theories so don't let the facts get in the way of your theory.
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. 2 Corinthians 6:14-18
This dualistic, antithesis, closed system is likewise found in nature's laws. "Two plus two is four and can not be any other number." It is found in the traditional family rights. "I am the parent and you are not." It is found in property owner rights. "This is my land and not your land, and you can not come on my land." It is found in parent rights. "This is my child and not your child, and you can not talk to my child." It is found in business owner rights. "This is my business and not your business, and you can not buy from or work in my business." It is found in community, county, state and national rights. "This is my country and not your country, and you can not come into my country." This closed system is the system of contract law. A constitutional Republic form of government is founded on this system. It is found in the church, the ecclesiastics', "the called out ones," the "set apart." It is a closed system, the creator sets the standards, it is up to us to obey him. Dad and mom are not perfect, but the office is.
In the land of contrast the word "Not" sets the one in authority above (apart from) the one under authority. The person in authority can use "Not" (the language of restraint and if necessary alienation) on the one under authority but the one under authority can not use "Not" on the one in authority. "You can not tell me what I can not do," when stated by the child to the parent, is an act of outright revolution, and must be dealt with properly if the parent is to maintain his office of authority. Yet parents can be tyrants, thus the clause "in the Lord" is found in the verse "Children obey your parents ..." Ephesians 6:1. When Eve was justifying her actions in the Garden of Eden she was in fact stating to God "You can not tell me what I can not do." What seemed like harmless exploration at the moment was in fact a declaration of war against God and his office.
Inductive reasoning and its effect upon politics.
"I am not anti-government, I am anti-tyranny." "The power to tax, is the power to destroy."
If you pay taxes on your home, you don't own your home. Don't pay your taxes and find out how much home you own. As long as you pay your taxes you can feel like you own it and you can think that you own it. As far as Government is concerned, that is enough illusion on your part to keep both you and it happy. As you invest in maintaining and improving it, you can walk around it and feel and think you own it as long as you pay your taxes, i.. financially support the government, so the government can tell you what you can and can not do with it, all at your expense. This applies to anything taxed. If you have to keep paying taxes to 'own it,' you don't own it. Keep it up and someday government will be able to buy and sell your very own soul (environment tax might do it).
If you work for the government or get assistance from the government, know this, you were 'helped' or paid by government which took from somebody else, by threat of imprisonment, their funds, property, and time. Next time you are in the grocery store getting food with government aid, find someone paying taxes and thank them. They were the one forced to purchase it for you. The question is "How can you thank someone who was, under threat of imprisonment, forced to 'help' you."
Government can not give, it can only take to give. Government does not have a conscience, only people, individual people have a conscience. This is something Americans have not known for decades if not for over a century (land was not taxed until 80 years after the framing of the constitution, the last state to join in the taxation of land coming 70 years later.
Tyranny always appears harmless in the beginning when it makes 'sense' and people think they can control it, overlooking its potential danger. But like a cancer it isn't satisfied until it has total control of the patient). Certainly the present generations doesn't have a clue since they are so excited about getting something 'from' the government, like their tax return. Nothing like an illusion to make tyranny pleasurable. I'm not saying, don't pay your taxes, that is up to you and your conscience. I am saying that a free people know the difference between 'good' government, i.e. a necessary evil, and tyranny and vigilantly guard their souls from governmental ownership of it. We live in perilous times. To the degree you will compromise to save an institution, be it your very own soul, you will join in the destruction of the original cause of that institution, life, liberty, and conscience, i.e. property, i.e. pursued of happiness (conscience being the original meaning). Without freedom of conscience, liberty and life have no meaning, being subject only to tyranny.
States' rights are identified in the Constitution as being higher than the federal, which are rights granted to the federal by the states. The federal government is limited in what it can do, as recorded in the Constitution, the contract with the State, the right of the State being the higher authority. The federal is limited by the States by what it can not do ("Congress shall not.") The States give rights to the federal only to protect the rights of the State. Individual citizen rights are higher than both State and federal in light of what the State and federal can not do for or against the citizen. States' rights are granted by the citizens, only to the degree that it is to serve and protect the citizens' rights. In all of this there are no "human rights" (changing rights to assist social change), only inalienable rights (self evident, permanently set).
All authority is from God (deductive). God is the restrainer of offices; individual, family, civic, and religious. This is why the Ten Commandments were found not only in the Churches, but also in the public domain, from the public school house to the court room; that is up until the last half century. At that time dialectical thinking judges, executors, and legislators used their offices to change the method of law making, in favor of an international, socialist, one world government dialectic system. They moved from the system of representation (re-presentation of the standards they were sent to present) to a system of consensus (the voice of the collective (masses) determines the outcome). When government seeks to usurp the God given authority of the individual (citizen), family, and religious it moves upon the pathway of tyranny. Humanists, which always gravitates to its roots, barbarism, see authority originating from the essence of mankind. With them, when you find that which is common to mankind, you find the "truth" (inductive reasoning).
despotism "...tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one." George Washington
soviet "....eliminate the separation of the legislature, administration and judiciary" György Lukács
Totalitarian governments always remove, by manipulation or usurpation, the restraining language placed upon them by the State and the citizen. Usually this is done in times of crises, where such actions appear to be "necessary" for the preservation of "society", human-ity rights (not individual rights, notice the difference). Individual (inalienable) rights are recognized through deductive reasoning (self evident), whereas human rights are arrived at through inductive reasoning (group think). Evolution (social change) can not take place without a condition of necessity (crisis, tension, pressure, stress, etc.). Good government is always under restraints placed upon it by the States and the citizens (patriarchal authority under God).
For citizens to have inalienable rights the government must recognize and obey the restraints placed upon it, even if its intentions are to do good for its citizens (good in the eyes of government). As George Washington, stated in his Farewell Speech, "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." He believed the Constitution could now exist without "a moral and religious people."
"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield." George Washington Farewell Speech
The Marxist, György Lukács defined the communist, socialist despotic form of government, as taking the form of "revolutionary work councils:" "which the consciousness of the proletariat has striven to create ever since its inception. The workers' council spells the political and economic defeat of reification. In the period following the dictatorship it will eliminate the bourgeois separation of the legislature, administration and judiciary." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness Class Consciousness) (emphasis added)
The "Workers' council" is the consensus process used in most policy setting environments i.e.. business, education, government, church, home, etc. This process was formerly called a soviet. Reification is when laws are established which are not in touch with human nature, laws which transcend and limit human behavior. The proletariat are adolescent minded "adults"―rebellious-revolutionary, sulking children―who desire to "eliminate" the bourgeois, the middle-class, the parents, the patriarchal. If globalization is to be actualized, the checks and balances which George Washington recognized as essential for good government must be destroyed. Homeland security has become such a tool.
When the Supreme Court made "law," determined through their dialectical eyes―the eyes of international law―what the citizens could and could not do, and the Federal government used force over the States and their citizens to enforce these "laws," it practiced usurpation, which continues to this day. We have moved from a government of the free to a "government" of tyranny and oppression. Our "government" is now busy setting laws to limit, if not outright remove, the rights of didactic, deductive thinking citizens. Therefore instead of government being established to serve the people and protect individual rights, it now demands the people serve the government and protect it from the deductive thinking, God fearing citizen.
Dialectical thinkers can only steal, kill, and destroy that which is established by God.
"The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." John 10:10 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Matthew 5:17 "For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Romans 10:2-4 "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:" Luke 12:51 "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 "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." John 10:9 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice." John 10:1-4 (emphasis added) "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 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12
"Public space becomes for liberals an extension of their private living room."
"Liberals tend to colonize all spaces they are in."
Elizabeth Powers
Today, government rights are many and the citizens' rights are very few. This is the pattern of dialectical, democratic, socialist, globalist tyranny. When a tyrant says to the people, "You can not tell me what I can not do," it is simply practicing the language of a tyrant. It is impossible to praxis the dialectical process and swear to defend the Constitution of the United State of America against any enemy foreign or domestic. Dialectical thinkers can only kill, tear down, and destroy that which is established. I do not write in defense of the Constitution because "it is a writ of God." Patrick Henry saw problems in it. He saw the same problems we now face today.
"The expression, We, the people, instead of the States of America." ". . . extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous." "Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain." "... our rights and privileges are endangered." "You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberty can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government." "Suspect every one who approaches that jewel [liberty]." "Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it [public liberty], but downright force." "Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." ". . . When this constitution speaks of privileges, there is an ambiguity, a fatal ambiguity." "I will submit to your recollection whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers." ". . . You will find the balance on the side of tyranny:" "[N]ations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism." "We should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people." "Did you ever read of any revolution in any nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?" "Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone." "You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America." "What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness." "You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies:" "Of what service would militia be to you, when most probably you will not have a single musket in the State;" "The States can do nothing, this power being exclusively given to ‘Congress':" "Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example, where rulers overcharged with power, willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly?" "A willing relinquishment of power is one of those things which human nature never was, nor ever will be capable of:" "This Constitution . . . gives an unlimited and unbounded power of taxation." "The whole of our property may be taken by this American Government, by laying what taxes they please, giving themselves what salaries they please, and suspending our laws at their pleasure." "Americans, they will preserve and hand down to their latest posterity, the transactions of the present times; they will see that I have done my utmost to preserve their liberty. For I never will give up the power of direct taxation but for a scourge:" "Shew me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rules being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty?" "This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility – and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves." "The Senate can, with the President, make treaties, that shall be the supreme law of the land: They may make the most ruinous treaties; and yet there is no punishment for them." (Patrick Henry June 5 and 7, 1788―1788-1789 Petersburg, Virginia edition of the Debates and other Proceedings . . . Of the Virginia Convention of 1788)
I defend it because it allowed a didactic, patriarchal, deductive system of thought to have free reign among the citizens, mostly via the Bill of Rights. These rights were added because of the effort of men like Patrick Henry. For anyone who thinks the Marxists see the Constitution as being purely a secular document the following quotations from the Transformational Marxist, Max Horkheimer, the director of the Frankfurt School, should suffice. "For the men who made the Constitution there was no principle that did not derive its authority from a religious source." (Max Horkheimer, Eclipse of Reason) "Government and its trust is ‘found on the nature of man, that is, on the will of his Maker and . . . [is] therefore sacred. It is an offence against Heaven to violate that trust.'" (quotation of Dickinson's in Max Horkheimer's book Eclipse of Reason)
God is not a respecter of persons, and he demands obedience.
For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law. "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;" Romans 2:11-15
"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Romans 6:16 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, "We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29
Liberty is found in law. Not in the law of man, but in the law above the carnal inclination, selfish-sinful nature of mankind. Liberty is found in the law above man [didactic reasoning] and under that law the people are truly free. We now have laws of lawlessness, carnal laws justified by the inductive reasoning of fallen man. The leaders, all branches, now turn to social psychologists, inductively reasoning change agents, to determine the course of action to take in education, the workplace, the home, etc. Slavery to the flesh now prevails. Eros rules. These people do no fear God, they hate God and His law. Those who praxis this process lust after the respect of man, and they love the money which follows. They resent any environment where they must obey. God is not a respecter of persons and he demands obedience. Judgment is coming, it is already here in part. "There is a way which seemeth right ... but ... death." Proverbs 14:12
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 1:26
"The institutions in socialist society which act as the facilitators between the public and private realms are the Soviets." (George Lukács, Process of Democratization)
It is very clear that contrast (between public and the private) can not exist without the restraining language of "Thou shalt not" and the private must have power to enforce it. When the dialectical process of consensus is used to manipulate (force) the private into partnership with the public, the rights of the private are always sacrificed to the "common cause" of the public. By simply removing―negation of negation―the language of private rights (negation of "This is not yours"), along with the power to enforce it (negation of "and you can not have it."), the foundation of the home, sound education, private business, civil government, and Godly religion is destroyed. When this happens the ideology of Karl Marx, and others like him, controls the lives of the now oppressed people. It is very clear where America lies today on the scale between a free and an oppressed people. When the rules of unrighteous reign, when inductive reasoning prevails in determining the affairs of mankind, the righteous are always persecuted and oppressed.
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6 "And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them." Isaiah 8:7 "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator." 1 Peter 4:17-19
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2006-2015