Introduction to the Articles:
The following is an outline (flow chart) of those presentations to help you follow along. Righteousness = "Not" (a parent's or God's command restraining sensuousness or the child's natural 'inclination' to relate with the world, correlated to preaching and teaching "as given" truth to be obeyed without question or challenge) with the use of chastening (or threat of chastening) to enforce it (Hebrews 12:5-11) produces a system of Righteousness (a patriarchal paradigm of 'categorical imperatives,' i.e. established facts and truth, i.e. laws, rules, or commands not to be questioned, i.e. requiring faith, belief, and obedience) - sensuousness (the foundation of the matriarchal paradigm of "feelings" for unity, oneness with the world) = produces "Why'" to get "Not" into dialogue (to negate preaching, teaching, and chastening), but when "Because I said so," the threat of force (or pain) is used by the patriarchal paradigm (to inhibit or block dialogue), an "ought" is produced in the one under authority (sensuousness responding to the "Not" with an internal voice of dissatisfaction, i.e. pent-up self-justification, a love for or inclination toward the object of gratification, i.e. that which is of the world, and a reaction of hate against the one in authority, i.e. hostility against the restrainer, expressed in rebellion, i.e. potential revolution = rebellion 'justified' through dialectic 'reasoning' and put into social action = praxis ) (Romans 7:14-25) - dialectic 'reasoning' (a heresiarchal paradigm of 'change', 'justification' in favor of one's carnal inclination) = 'justification' of sensuousness, via. "thought," i.e. rebellious nature against righteousness exposed through dialogue and 'justified' through 'reasoning' (dialogic 'reasoning' justifying and liberating self, i.e. sensuousness, i.e. justifying rebellion), when put into social action 'justifies' revolution, i.e. transformation, i.e. 'change,' overthrowing (negating) tradition, "fixity," absolutes, parental and Godly authority, the system of Righteousness.
The following is added here (not being a part of the messages above) to accentuate the use of dialectic 'reasoning.' By simply replacing the preaching and teaching of God's Word (along with the chastening which come from God upon those He loves and the wrath of God upon "the children of disobedience," i.e. those who reject His love and His chastening) with the dialoguing of men's opinions of the Word of God (seeking to understand the word of God in the light of man's "felt" needs, in an environment of permissiveness, tolerance of ambiguity, tolerance of unrighteousness, tolerance of sin), and focusing upon the love of God for man, without recognizing sin, righteousness, and judgment, faith is replaced with sight, belief is replaced with theory, concern for pleasing God is replaced with concern about pleasing man, the preaching of God's Word is replaced with the dialoguing of men's opinions (or preaching the opinions of men), conviction and repentance is replaced with tolerance and "celebration," spirit is replaced with flesh, "Thou shalt not," "It is written," and "Thy will be done" which speaks to the soul and spirit is replaced with "We ought" or "Our will be done," which speaks to the heart and mind of flesh, confirmation with God's word is replaced with the consensus of men, the righteousness of Christ is replaced with the sensuousness of man, and salvation from God's wrath, through faith in Christ, is replaced with "salvation" from God's chastening, through the praxis of faith in man, in human relationship building, leaving man "alive" in his sins and condemned to eternal death. This is the way of dialectic 'reasoning,' this is the way of Genesis 3:1-6, this is the way of man, this is the way of the "new" world order, this is the way of the "contemporary" church, where man, in the praxis of consensus (intoxicated with the sensuousness of the 'moment') can not comprehend the consequences of his actions, i.e. the change of his paradigm, i.e. the change which has taken place in his way of thinking and acting (synesthesia), i.e. exchanging belief with opinions, facts with feelings, reality with illusion, God and His Word with man and his theories, preaching and teaching with dialogue, truth with lies, certainty with ambiguity, righteousness with sensuousness, life with death.
"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 "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him." John 4:23 "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;" " 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 5:26, 30 "And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him." John 8:29 "If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour." John 12:26 "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." John 14:23 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:" John 15:26 "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father." John 16:28 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." John 17:21 In the life, death, and resurrection of Christ (the only begotten son of God) it is the Heavenly Father (a patriarch construct, a top-down paradigm or way of thinking and acting) who is the initiator and sustainer of life (of righteousness―as Jesus defined as "I go to my Father"), which those of dialectic 'reasoning' seek to negate in the thoughts and actions of men, turning man to himself (the collective of the creation, the children) rather than to God (the creator, he who is above the creation, the Father) for the answers to good and evil, right and wrong, life and death.
Those of dialectic 'reasoning' separate the father from the son (making the son at odds with the father) so as to negate the father to thereby negate the son (to negate righteousness) to make all one, all in the creation becoming one that is (only that which is of sensuousness becoming as one as "enlightened" man, putting dialectic 'reasoning' into praxis, liberates his own sensuousness from the top-down restraints of righteousness, i.e. liberates the children from the top-down restraints of the father, liberates man from the top-down restraints of God, liberates the proletariat from the top-down restraints of the bourgeoisie, etc.―in this I am not 'justifying' the wickedness of men's hearts, men who are in positions of authority, only that the office is of God, the tyrant, if that is who is there, is not, i.e. don't remove the office because of the tyrant, pray to God that he would remove the tyrant from the office, knowing he is looking at your heart to determine whether it is worth doing since leadership reflects the heart of the people). By getting a man or child to focus upon (attend to) and 'rationally justify' his own sensuousness over and against the restraints of the righteousness of God or the father (the earthly father not being righteous in and of himself, only the top-down system of Righteousness being an issue in dialectic 'reasoning'), righteousness is negated in the heart and the mind, and therefore the actions of man become only "human," worldly. This is the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of dialectic 'reasoning' being put into praxis, the liberation of man from that which is not of him, i.e. not of his carnal nature, i.e. liberating man from righteousness, i.e. liberating the son's obedience to the father's will, even unto death, from the thoughts and actions of all mankind.
"Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.... For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen" Matthew 5:9, 10, 13 Gnostic texts (heresy texts, the result of dialectic 'reasoning' being used in the past to change scriptures to engender confusion and dialogue in the church, are the source for contemporary translations being used in the churches today) leave out vs. 13 so that man can claim kingdom, power, and glory for himself, making God one with man and man one with God, i.e. "God has done nothing without a man" heresy. My response to that kind of arrogance: "Tell God on the day of judgment that he could not have done it without you. Talk about a bug zapper. I want to be in another universe when that goes off." The truth is: While God uses everything, including the devil for his glory, you can not know His glory, His love, and eternal life unless you are dead, i.e. dead to yourself, dead to your love of this world, doing His will. "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:15-18 Any other thinking is of the devil, who seems to be behind most pulpits (or facilitating "group" meetings) today, "'youth' groups" included.
Self-social 'justification,' i.e. 'justification' of our thoughts and our actions, i.e. our lusts and our pride, based upon our commonality with and approval by others, i.e. with society―what temporal/tangible/material/sensual interests a group of men (or children) have in common and are willing to live, work, and fight together to initiate and/or sustain―as the means whereby we are able to negate the authority of God and His Word (where justification is from a higher authority than self, society, or the world) is the way of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the way of the world (where "class consciousness" means the awareness that any authority above human nature is the initiator and sustainer of repression and alienation, and must be negated if mankind or the child is to be freed, "liberated," "emancipated" to be themselves again, collectively, universally united as one with all men or children, in their common human nature). By 'discovering" our common nature with society (our love of the flesh and our resentment toward authority which inhibits it) we are able to negate the the patriarchal paradigm's restraint upon our natural inclinations, i.e. restraining our carnal nature, the worldly nature of man and child.
We are now witnessing the dialectic process negating righteousness, accentuating sensuousness as the way of "growing" the church. The emphasis today is upon unity based upon human relationship (sensuousness―consensus), unity built upon the ideology of philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology and contemporary theology, i.e. marketing practices (where 'reasoning,' i.e. dialogue, is used to 'justify' sensuousness and sensuousness is used to 'justify' the use of 'reasoning,' i.e. dialogue―'reasoning' from our "sense experiences," from sight, be it our imagination, rather than making our reasoning subject to God and His Word, by faith, accepting God's word as is, dying to self and the world and living to it, i.e. living in Him). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the sensuousness (personal-social concerns, the "felt needs") of the 'moment' is the cause (the 'drive') of life and social unity, based upon dialectic 'reasoning' 'justifying' sensuousness over and against righteousness, is the effect (the 'purpose') of life, both sensuousness and 'reasoning' are then united as one, become the source for knowing truth. From then on, the basis of reality is found in man and not in God, with social unity ('purpose') built upon the "wisdom" of men rather than Christian fellowship built upon "every Word which proceedeth from the mouth of God"―where unity is a byproduct of doctrine, where unity is based upon agreement first and foremost upon the authority of God and His Word (why the enemy, Satan and his "ministers," have planted heresy documents in the church to cause confusion, forcing the church into uncertainty, engendering dialogue, i.e. initiating and sustaining dialectic 'reasoning' as the means to knowing the truth).
The unity of believers is a byproduct of believers in Christ (first they have to be believers) coming together in faith, their reasoning, i.e. their justification for assembling being based upon Christ and Christ alone, i.e. in His name, i.e. in His love, i.e. by His Spirit, i.e. according to His word, i.e. having faith in His Word and not in the "wisdom" of men's opinions (growing in the knowledge of God and His Word and not in the opinions of men regarding God and His Word―the opinions of men is the kind of knowledge, i.e. "experiential" knowledge, sensual knowledge, which is full of pride, i.e. puffed up, using and abusing God's Word to impress self and man, for "the approval of men" rather than for "the approval of God" and God alone). Believers unity is built upon the preaching and teaching of the Word of God, accepting it as is, i.e. not changing it through dialogue to 'justify' self and society and thereby 'justify' the flesh and the world (the "feeling" of oneness drawing men together rather than Christ). Believers unity includes the enjoyment of fellowship of like minded people, i.e. having "the mind of Christ," as well. We are to preach and teach the Word of God as is and let it change us, and thereby change the world and not cut, rearrange, and past it (extrapolate from it that which is 'relevant' to our sensuous 'moment'), i.e. dialoguing our opinions of it, to make it at-one-with our natural inclinations and the world. The problem is not what the world is doing, it is what the church is doing, participating in the world system of dialogue and compromise, i.e. participating in men's opinions, tolerating ambiguity, tolerating sin, tolerating unrighteousness for the 'purpose' of initiating and sustaining peace and harmony with the world (thereby making compromise the foundation of the church rather than Christ, who lived, died, and rose again without compromise, i.e. living in the world but not of it, i.e. Jesus did not 'discover' truth through the dialoguing of men's opinions and has not called us to do the same, that is 'discover' truth through the dialoguing of men's opinions). Discussing (judging) our thoughts and our actions in the light of God's Word, leaves it in authority, lets it speak to us, convicting us of our sin, persuading us to repent, encouraging us to endure, etc., bringing us up (building us up in the faith), while dialoguing about what we think or feel it is saying makes our "sense experiences" equal with it, i.e. bringing it down, thereby humanizing it (destroying faith in God and His Word alone).
Moving from preaching and teaching the truth (as given, i.e. as revealed from above) and repenting of our disobedience against God, to dialoguing men's opinions, which are engendered from our natural inclinations, i.e. from our sensuousness, i.e. from our flesh, a paradigm 'shift' has taken place within the church. The church has moved from doctrine, from the Word of God (from the authority of God and His Word, i.e. from the scriptures―make sure you have the scriptures and are not reading translations from heresy documents, Metzger and Nestle-Aland Greek, which are products of textual criticism, using Alexandrian, Gnostic sources, i.e. Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus אּ, and Codex X, products of men's opinions, perverse writings created to cause confusion and engender dialogue, i.e. uncertainty and speculation within the church―from that which is from God, from that which is of his Spirit), from that which is from above, to human relationship, to the "sense experiences" of men, to the opinions of men, to that which is of the flesh and the fleshy mind of man, to that which is below, man's natural inclination, i.e. man's carnal nature seeking oneness (belonging, i.e. identity and purpose) with the world, so that relationship with the world would be first and foremost in the minds and actions of all men. Man's carnal "human nature" is now in 'control' of the church. "Human nature" (man's flesh of sin, body of death, and vain speculations) has now become the bases for determining right and wrong behavior.
"In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of existence [in their sensuousness]. Therefore the dialectic of the moral life must repeat itself [until all are united as one in the "common ground" of their sinful nature, united as one in the ways of unrighteousness]." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest) bracketed information added For the process of 'change' (the emerging beast) to not only be initiated but to also be sustained, it must be able to breath. Only, instead of the breath of God (spiritual), which created the soul of man by his breath of life, first having formed him from the dust of the ground, creating an individual soul before God (creating the woman because it was "not good that man be alone," i.e. alone not in reference to that which was formed from the dust of the ground, equality with the earth, subject to that which is of death, which seeks to "control," but from that which was breathed into the nostrils of man, top-down authority system from above the earth, subject to He who is life and the giver of life, who rules over), its breath is the "breath" of society (sensual), i.e. the "spirit" or sensation of the collective "soul" of human relationships, united as one, working together creating and sustaining a society of men, the brotherhood, the community (common-unity), the fraternity, with individual man now liberated from, i.e. void of the spirit of God (separated from He who is above, ruling over), now subject to the "spirit" of society (individualism is replaces with socialism, man's "soul" now only recognized as being of it, sensuous), i.e. the dead soul walking, i.e. man and his carnal inclinations 'justified' in his own eyes, his identity being increasingly tied to society, i.e. community, i.e. man's common, carnal, sensual "needs" and, as breath is necessary to stay alive, the process must forever be "repeated," sustained through the praxis of consensus being put into social action (a perpetual repeating of the "feeling" of oneness with man and nature regarding all issues of life, initiating and sustaining the laws of lawlessness, turning the laws of the land against righteousness―forcing the righteous to serve under the laws of unrighteousness, "vexing," i.e. oppressing their souls―tolerating and esteeming the lawlessness and disobedience of fallen man, serving the laws of the flesh, 'justifying' sin, making all subject to the lawless one, the Antichrist, denying both the Son and the Father―as roleplaying, a key component of consensus makes all praxis, "As I tried the sociometric system [roleplaying] 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).'" J. L Moreno, Who Shall Survive?)
Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. consensus and roleplaying is antithetical to God and His Word. Roleplaying is an active part of the consensus process, accentuating sensuousness, open expression of personal feelings engendered from the body's stimulation from the present environment, i.e. from the world, desiring bodily oneness with something of gratification in the world, over and against righteousness, parental or Godly authority, restraining such bodily desiring and/or action, that gratification would be found in higher authority instead, in that which is Spirit, i.e. not of the carnal body experiencing oneness in the 'moment' with the world. "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." " Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." "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." Romans 8:10, 6:11, 13 Brainwashing ("washing" from the brain the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the system of Righteousness, i.e. faith, belief, obedience, and the acceptance of chastening from God or parent for one's disobedience), progressive education, re-education, "goals 2000," "No child left behind," "Life long learning," "School-to-Work," "Education Nation," etc might be different titles, but they are all of the same process, i.e. the dialectic process, which to fallen man "seemeth to be right" and the way of life but instead is the way of sin and death, the same process as first put into praxis in the garden in Eden, i.e. Genesis 3:1-6.
It is through the continuous praxis of dialoguing to consensus (emphasis is continuously placed upon the building of human relationships and/or relationship with the environment, i.e. with nature, i.e. community―cutting off the Father, i.e. His authority and His commands and his protecting the family from the temptations of the world, i.e. from "the evil one"―through the dialoguing of opinions and putting a common opinion, collectively agreed upon consensus, a feeling of oneness into social action, praxis―sensuous thoughts reunited with action, 'changing' the world through social action, i.e. the children united in removing the patriarch who blocked sensuous thought from being put into action) that man's natural (carnal) inclinations are 'rationally' freed from the "unnatural" restraints of the system of Righteousness, i.e. 'rationally' man is being freed from parental and Godly authority. Individualism, a man subject to the will of God or the child subject to the will of the parent, is now socialism, all men and all the child are now subject to the "sensuous needs" of society―the soul of man and spirit of God (not subject to the sensuousness of the world) are replaced with the feelings and thoughts of sensuous man. "Humanism asserts that the test of human conduct must be found in human experience [in the sensuousness of man's carnal "sense experiences"]; concern for man [concern for the child] replaces concern about pleasing God [concern about pleasing the parent]. Humanism elevates man [elevates the child] to the rank of God [to the rank of the parent]." (Lenard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectic Humanism) Bracketed information added to show the correlation between God and parent (the King and the bourgeoisie), man and children ("the people" and the proletariat), i.e. the dialectic correlate. In the praxis of dialoguing to consensus and putting consensus into action, the child is no longer under the authority of the parent (man is no longer under God's authority, "the people" are no longer under the King's authority, i.e. no longer under law as he is under Law, under God―where we got the understanding of "Lex, Rex," i.e. that the King is under the Law of God along with the people, making the King and the people both subject to God and His Law, including His Laws of nature, the King a tyrant when he goes against the Law God gave to the people, i.e. their right to have freedom of the conscience under God, where every man is accountable personally before God, and God alone for his thoughts and his actions, and the people tyrants, engendering anarchy, when they go against the Law God gave to the King, to serve and protect the citizens in their right of freedom of the conscience under God, resolved in the limiting of the power of the King and the power of the people so that the patriarchal family, the creator of the conscience, the creator of King's and the people, both under God, could rule over the nation, creating a civil society under law, i.e. leaders and followers, i.e. the King and the people, i.e. the parent and the child, both restrained by the conscience―without the freedom of the conscience, under God, the people may be de jure, by law, free but de facto, in fact, slaves, slaves to the laws of sensuousness, i.e. "controlled" by the laws of the flesh, i.e. servants to the laws of tyranny―under the "control" of "the children of disobedience," under the control of tyrants). Under the dialectic process (humanism) the children (the people) are no longer under their parent's rule (under God's authority), having a "guilty conscience" when they disobey, but are now in "control" of their own lives, controlled by their natural inclinations, i.e. controlled by the temptations of the world and the tempter, i.e. controlled by the master facilitator (perceiving themselves to be free when in fact they are slaves, i.e. subjects to those who control the environment, at least controlling them by the controlling of their perception of the environment, i.e. through the power of suggestions and their natural inclinations). While the conscience, a product of a top-down system of authority, may be corrupted, being a product of man's (the parents) earthly desires (chastening used by the parents on their children for the parents earthly pleasures), it is imperative that it stays its course of action (producing a "guilty feeling" for any thought or act of disobedience against higher authority's commands), so that under Godly authority, it might become pure, subject to God's will. Dialectic 'reasoning' sears the conscience, negating any top-down system's use of it, whether it be sacred or secular, making it a super-ego, i.e. subject to environmental, sensual stimulation, turning man into an animal, responding to stimulants ("sensuous needs" and "sense perceptions") of his own nature, making all tyrants, subject to agents of tyranny, i.e. "controlled" (seduced, deceived, and manipulated) by agents of 'change.' According to dialectic 'reasoning,' man, as God, must create man after his own image, but in man's case, as an equal in sensuousness, dialogue being the only way of manifesting and indentifying that which man has as equals (his own sensuousness), negating that which can not be commonly expressed and identifiable to all, i.e. negating that which is not of man but is only of God, i.e. righteousness. If all can not identify with it experientially, it not being experientially manifested in everyone's life (from themselves, i.e. sensuous), it is not of man and therefore must not be of nature. It is only through the praxis of dialoguing opinions to a consensus that that which is common to human experience (sensuousness) can purge man of that which is not of of himself, i.e. purge man of that which is not of his carnal nature (righteousness).
The answers are in the questions. How the questions are asked (asking the person either for facts or for opinions) either engenders facts and truth (restraining sensuousness and speculation to initiate and sustain righteousness) or engenders opinions and theories (negating righteousness and "categorical imperatives" to augment sensuousness). The facilitator of 'change' is skilled in moving the questions asked of and by the group from fact's engendering questions to opinion engendering questions, i.e. so as to engender opinions and theories and thus guarantee that the outcome is freed of patriarchal rule (freed of condemnation, judgment, and damnation, i.e. wrath from God upon the "children of disobedience" and the need for repentance before God for one's disobedience, i.e. for one's sin, for salvation). Freeing the group of patriarchal questions, by only asking and recognizing heresiarchal questions of "How do you feel?" and "What do you think?" (or only recognizing facts based questions which can be rephrasing as opinion question), frees the room of a patriarchal answer of "I know" or "It is written" and therefore frees the group (and society) of a patriarchal outcome (faith, belief, obedience, and the use of chastening to initiate and sustain the system of Righteousness). Only recognizing opinions (treating all truths and facts as opinions or theories) frees the individual and society from obedience to a higher authority, be it to parents and/or to God, making "all the people" subject to continuous 'change,' i.e. "continuous/continual improvement," "sustainable development," Kaizen, etc, sensually based feedback, 'rational' recognized efficiency or improvement, and evolution, i.e. continuous/continual and sustainable, i.e. manageable 'change' within the system (void of any extraneous, i.e. non-sensuous, i.e. non-observable, non-measurable, and therefore non-controllable resistance or inhibitors coming from outside the system, i.e. coming from outside the general, i.e. the common system of sensuousness, preventing environmental, social, and economic sustainability for all future generations, inhibiting or blocking the process of 'change,' stopping man from claiming the world as his alone, i.e. "controlling" it for his own carnal pleasures―the truth is: "the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." 1 Corinthians 10:26―man is to take dominion over the earth, not to use it to take dominion over man, as is now being done by the "environmentalists"). 'Change' (dialectic 'reasoning' and action―praxis―the collectivization-communitization of man as becoming one, i.e. only in himself, from himself, and for himself as one in continues, sustainable 'change') is the sum total (the end) of Marxism. The process of 'change,' the dialectic process put into praxis, is its only means. "The philosophers [the opinionaters] have only interpreted the world in different ways [still initiating and sustaining alienation if their opinion is accepted and acted upon as fact, i.e. unchallengeable and therefore unchangeable], the objective however, is change [opinionate forever, question everything without end (except the process that is), then nobody rules except social-psychologist, i.e. transformational Marxists, who seduce, deceive, and manipulate the "masses" into supporting them in their use of the dialectic process for the "good" of "the people," as all who participate die in their sins, as Satan, the master facilitator of 'change' and his followers would want it]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) bracketed information added Jesus came, in obedience to His Heavenly Father, that you might believe upon Him and not die, that instead, you might have everlasting life. "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
This is the same scenario which was put into praxis in the garden in Eden as recorded in Genesis 3:1-6 Adam and the woman would never have experienced 'change' and death if they had remained righteous, i.e. obedient to God's commands, subject only to His will. Only God the Father, sending His only begotten son to cover man's sins, can redeem a man from the condemnation which follows for his participation in such praxis. You can call it the church, the brotherhood, or the fellowship all you want, the system (the method) being used reveals that it is humanism being put into praxis in the contemporary church (the "youth," adult, etc. groups) today, guaranteeing the condemnation of all who participate. Only the master facilitator would want it so. "Ministers" will go to their grave defending their use of dialogue to cover their sins and the sins of those who follow them, claiming all the while that they are using it to "grow" the church, to further "the kingdom of God." "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." 2 Corinthians 11:13-15
It was found that forcing people to dialogue, through punishment or the threat of punishment or the use of torture or maltreatment, does not work, i.e. does not produce lasting 'change.' It was realized, through much "experimentation" upon American solders, that the use of outright physical force only sustained a top-down, patriarchal system, i.e. a system based upon commands of either-or. Falsely identified as a patriarchal paradigm (by social-psychologist, i.e. transformational Marxists), it was instead a heresiarchal paradigm which was in use, only in a more ridged, more overt form of force (traditional Marxism). The patriarchal paradigm of either obedience to commands or else chastening, judgment, condemnation, wrath, etc. was replaced with a tyrants paradigm which include torture and maltreatment―as brainwashing entails (whether overt or covert). The first efforts of brainwashing, i.e. washing from the brain the patriarchal paradigm, failed because solders tended to return to a patriarchal paradigm after liberation from their capture's praxis of torture and maltreatment. The facilitators of 'change' then realized that they could not use outright force to produce 'change,' at least not until enough people have become brainwashed so that they would justify and participate in using force for the "greater good," as a mopping up exercise for the "purification" of the rest of society.
It was realized that only through creating an environment where the person is inclined to dialogue his opinions in a "non-hostile" environment: an "open-ended" "non-directed" environment, that the process of brainwashing worked, i.e. had lasting effect. That by being "non-hostile," i.e. tolerant of ambiguity, tolerant of sensuousness and the sensuous, tolerant of man's carnal nature and the deviant or perverse person, the person and the group naturally become "hostile" toward or intolerant of righteousness and the righteous, i.e. hostile toward the person who persists in inculcating the parent's or God's commands, i.e. commands which restraining or blocking the group from uniting upon sensuousness, i.e. preventing the sensuous from uniting upon sensuousness (preventing mankind or the children from uniting upon their common carnal human nature―kindergarten, the "children's garden," was the first attempt in education to give the children an environment freed of parental authority so that they could experience a common bond amongst equals, their first experience of social unity based upon their own common nature).
Trying to win the world over to Christ by bringing the world into the fellowship (by using dialogue to "help" create unity), made the fellowship at-one-with the world, i.e. no longer in Christ but of the world. Trying to win the sensuous (the unrighteous) over to righteousness by bringing the sensuous (unrighteousness) into the fellowship of the righteous (those redeemed by the blood of the Lamb of God), made the righteous at-one-with sensuousness (the redeemed at one with the world and therefore no longer of the fellowship of the redeemed―while Jesus came not for the righteous, i.e. righteous in themselves, but the wicked, those who see themselves in the light of the Lord, by the redeemed, the righteous in Christ, becoming again equal with the "righteous," those righteous in their own eyes, they become equal with the wicked in their wickedness and put to shame the work of Christ on the cross, thus making the gospel a social gospel, negating the work of Christ on and in their life). Thus the fellowship is no longer in righteousness but of sensuousness, "living" according to the "felt" needs of man, subject to man's will, 'driven' by his carnal desires, coming to know the "truth" according to his "wisdom," "alive" to his sensuousness (walking in the flesh, dead to righteousness), i.e. taken captive by the things of the world, no longer living according to God and His Word, subject to His will, lead by the Lord, knowing the truth by His wisdom, dying daily to self (walking in His Spirit, alive in His righteousness) and dead to sensuousness, i.e. no longer being a captive to the things of the world. Consensus produces 'change,' i.e. affectively negating the patriarchal paradigm in the person, i.e. negating the top-down system of Righteousness in the individual, negating the taking "into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5) in the individual. Sensuousness (oneness with equals) thus overtakes righteousness (those obedience to God the Father, and the parent), i.e. overtaking "the called out ones" bringing them back into the world in their thoughts and in their actions, i.e. "theoretical and practically" as Marx stated it, i.e. taken captive to sensuousness and vain speculations. "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" Galatians 3:3
Consensus can only take place as the person "willingly" participates in the process of 'change,' 'justifying' his own and others sensuousness over and against his parent's or God's righteousness (not that dad and mom are perfect in themselves as God is, but that their office, given to them by God, to be used under His authority, is). "Willingly" means that he either participates in the "group think" process or else faces the torture (torment) or maltreatment of social rejection, i.e. he is internally tormented, 'driven' by the fear of rejected by men, i.e. fearful of loosing the respect of men he once held or hoped to achieve. This is what the devil uses to destroy man, i.e. social rejection, but what God uses to purify man, where man is forced by man to either choose God over man, righteousness over sensuousness (by faith, belief, obedience, and the acceptance of chastening), or man over and against God, sensuousness over and against righteousness (self-social-environmental 'justification' according to dialectic 'reasoning'). While it is painful for man to have to give up the sensuousness and the approval of man, i.e. repenting of his trusted in man, dying to his trusting in his own sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities, no longer walking by sight, in the flesh, it is liberating for him to turn to the truth, turn to the Lord, and learn to live in His righteousness, walking by faith in the Lord, lead by the Spirit. What makes this so painful to those who have been "excommunicated without writ" from the "church" is that the rejection of righteousness (betrayal to the cause of righteousness, imputed by God to men of faith in Him, in Him alone, God's way of salvation for man, redeeming him from his condemnation and damnation) is coming from those who claim to be doing the service of the Lord (those who were trusted as being men of God), who now "control" the sheep fold through the marketing techniques of dialectic 'reasoning,' devouring the sheep, using them for their own gain, leaving them in their sins, scattering those who can or are willing to escape, i.e. the scattered choosing the Lord over man, righteousness over sensuousness, refusing to have any spot (unrighteousness of the flesh) or wrinkle (contentment with the world) on their robes. When the "church" embraces the world (tolerates the opinions, i.e. the sensuousness of men), it becomes a harlot. The righteous, those redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, must then come out of her.
"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 by the North Korean , January 19th, 1953) The "useful purpose" of brainwashing is that the person embraces dialectic 'reasoning' as the right way to think, thereby not only negating in his thoughts didactic reasoning (reasoning from facts and truth which are established by higher authority, correlated with deductive reasoning where the outcome can not be outside of or challenge the premise, the a priori) but will also through his actions work to negate didactic reasoning (negate the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. negate the source of "negativity" to the caprice, inclination, or impulse of sensuousness) from society, i.e. from the environment (negate that which judges the spontaneity or caprice of sensuousness as being evil or "bad" when it goes counter to the standards of or challenges, i.e. seeks to 'change' the top-down condition of righteousness, i.e. more accurately the top-down, above-below condition of the system of Righteousness since righteousness itself can only be imputed to man below by God above to men of faith in Him). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' for the "goodness" of man ('change,' sensuousness, "play behavior," abomination) to become manifest, become a reality, be actualized, the "badness" of the environment (rigidity, righteousness [as far as a system that is], "barrier behavior," godliness) must be neutralized, magnetized, and removed or converted first or during the development of the "good" society. To create the "good" society of 'change,' of "play behavior," you must negate man of "rigidity," of "barrier behavior," and to create the "good" man of 'change,' of "play behavior," you must negate society of "rigidity," of "barrier behavior." Both go hand in hand. Man and society must unite in 'change' through the negation of "rigidity," negation of that which refuses to or can not become at one with sensuousness. Both man and society must unite upon sensuousness (unite upon that which man has in common with himself and society, i.e. his own nature, i.e. upon that which is of the flesh) as they unite in the negation of righteousness (negate that which divides man from himself and society, negate that which is of the nature of God, of He who is above, i.e. that which is not of the "spirit" of man, not of the "spirit" of "Us" and "We," not of "oneness," not of the flesh, not of equals). As Kurt Lewin explained it: "Change in organization [or change of paradigm, the way a person thinks and acts] can be derived from the overlapping between play and barrier behavior. To be governed by two strong goals [to hold to one's principles of 'rigidity,' of barrier, or righteousness and yet be accepted by the group of 'change,' of play, of sensuousness] is equivalent to the existence of two conflicting controlling heads within the organism. This should lead to a decrease in degree of hierarchical organization [confusion]. 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 [called cognitive dissonance where a person is caught between his belief, i.e. righteousness, the voice of restraint of the parent or God, his conscience, etc., and his natural behavior, i.e. sensuousness, his own inclination to relate with the world, i.e. be drawn to the world by the lust of the flesh]. 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 [either the voice of the parent or of God win's over the thoughts and actions of the child or person or the voice of the group win's him over as he lays aside the restraining voice of the parent or of God for the "approval of the group"] before they are effective." (Kurt Lewin as quoted in Child Behavior and Development Chapter XXVI, Frustration and Regression) bracketed information added
It is easier to change a person in a group setting, where his interests (restrained by parents or God) are being openly discussed (with approval) by the group, than one on one. The dynamics of the group setting (approval-disapproval) has tremendous "influence" upon his "willingness" to participate or not participate in the process of 'change.' By the groups approval (augmentation) of "play behavior" and disapproval (attenuation) of "barrier behavior" he is more inclined to go with the group, join with them in "play behavior," rather than hold to his original position, i.e. the position of his parents or of God, i.e. his "barrier behavior," and face group rejection. It is important therefore the "leader" of the group (the facilitator of 'change') know now to neutralize (by getting everyone to share their opinion), marginalize (by everyone "sense perceiving" the advocate of "barrier behavior" as being hardheaded, uncaring, and therefore hateful), and remove (by group approval, if and when necessary) those who initiate and sustain "barrier behavior," i.e. maintain the patriarchal paradigm, in the group or else convert them by getting them to "willingly" participate in the "play behavior" of the group. For those who hold to their "barrier behavior" the experience can be one of maltreatment, torment, and internal torture as they are "extruded" by the group from the group. A "change agent... should know about the process of change, how it takes place and the attitudes, values and behaviors that usually act as barriers.... He should know who in his system are the 'defenders' or resisters of innovations [resisters of 'change']." (Ronald Havelock, A Change Agent's Guide to Innovation in Education) bracketed information added "Working through the resistances to change is the key to the production of change." (Irvin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) "Techniques for overcoming resistance, developed mainly in the field of individual psychotherapy, can be improved and adapted for use with groups and even for use on a mass scale." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) Destroying a persons faith in God, i.e. making him dependent upon the opinions of men, is the 'purpose' of dialectic 'reasoning,' whether it is used on an individual basis or in a group setting (the group setting only being more effective in producing a "group think," socialist mindset in the individual).
Dialectic 'reasoning,' as oriental thought, believes that confrontation (antithesis, the either-or of right-wrong, above-below, good-evil, righteousness-sensuousness) must give place to accommodation (tolerance of ambiguity) and accommodation must give place to assimilation (synthesis which gives place to a new thesis which in turn is working to experience life through another dialectic cycle of 'change,' a yen-yang cycle of life) before peace and harmony can come to man (all for the sake of "survival"). The idea is that by accommodating both flesh and spirit, to negate confrontation between the two (negate alienation between flesh and spirit), leads to the assimilation of that which "seems to" be of the spirit (the love of God for man and the world―which in man's eyes is "sense perceived" to be "spirit," which is of his own sensuousness, of the "spirit" of the created, of the creation, including the angels, being dawn together, desiring approval, acceptance, oneness with one another, with the creation, but in truth love of God for man and the world is of righteousness―is of that which is not of the creation, which is only of the Father-Son relationship, is only of God and can only be imputed to man by the Father to men of faith in His son, "bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" to His Heavenly Father) with that which is of the flesh (the love of man for himself and the world, i.e. the love of man for "God"―which is of sensuousness―which is only of the man-world relationship, of the creation only, "sense perceived" only, only of nature), thus man, deceived in himself, subject to dialectic 'reasoning,' makes God at one with himself and himself at one with God, both subject to the process of 'change'―both subject to sensuousness, both of unrighteousness. You can not keep your faith in the Lord and praxis dialectic 'reasoning.' To do so is to not only become an unbeliever, but also a deceiver (pretending to be a believer to win all into unbelief, i.e. sensuously 'driven' for the dialectic 'purpose' of creating unity, i.e. peace and harmony amongst men). God warns (commands) us: "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 With God, with Christ, with believers in Christ only, there is no yoking, fellowship, communion, concord, part, or agreement with those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. with those who are of unbelief, unrighteousness, darkness, Belial, infidelity, and idolatry. (see Matthew 5:1-45) "To argue the point ... serves no useful purpose" other than to author confusion. Trying to merge righteousness with unrighteousness, to find that which they have in common, for the sake of unity (for "peace"), for the 'purpose' of 'change,' produces confusion, making all who participate subject to the father of lies, the master facilitator of dialectic 'reasoning,' the devil. "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace [the peace that passes understanding, i.e. peach which is not of the world but is of God alone]," 1 Corinthians 14:33 bracketed information added See Leviticus 18: 1-30 for an understanding of confusion/abomination as we are now witnessing, due to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the 'justification' of man's carnal nature as being "normal," i.e. becoming the norm. The use of what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies," used for curriculum development (paradigm development, i.e. paradigm 'shift') in education, as you will see, were a key component of such 'change' taking place, not only in this nation but in all the nations around the world.
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the patriarchal paradigm, separated from God (detached from our Heavenly Father as being the highest authority), leaving a man or a group of men as being the highest authority (to be obeyed at all cost, without question, i.e. as a father figure) is perceived as being fascism (nationalism). In other words the form of top-down thinking and acting (the patriarchal paradigm) is still in place, the sacred (God) simply being replaced by the secular (man). "The immediate task is to unmask human alienation in its secular form, now that it has been unmasked in the sacred form." (Karl Marx as quoted in T. B. Bottomore, Selected writing in Sociology and Social Philosophy) "Personal relations between men have this character of alienation. Hegel and Marx have laid the foundations for the understanding of the problem of alienation [the division of man from man, one or some above with most below]." (Erick Fromm Escape from Freedom) bracketed information added Dialectic 'reasoning' concludes that "God is the anthropological source of alienation." (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists) According to dialectic 'reasoning,' sin is not the estrangement of man from God, alienation or detachment from he who is above man or mankind, but rather "'Sin' is the estrangement of man from man." (Leonard F. Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God) Therefore, for the sake of "world peace" and "social harmony," the patriarchal paradigm (the father figure and his "rigidity," which is the initiator and sustainer of alienation) must be negated, i.e. replaced with the heresiarchal paradigm (the sensuous and spontaneous, i.e. ever 'changing' nature of the child―why "youth group" leaders act and look more like children then adults, i.e. 'driven' by their own spontaneity and sensuousness, 'purposed' in augmenting spontaneity and sensuousness in the group). By getting people to negate the patriarchal paradigm in small group settings (by getting the group members to set aside their "negativity," the voice of higher authority, i.e. the voice of the father or God, i.e. "sense perceived" as being "rigidity," setting aside the issue of righteousness of the parent or of God, so that the issue of sensuousness, i.e. 'changingness' in themselves and in the group can be 'liberated'―via. dialoguing opinions), all of society could experience the 'shifting' of their paradigm from a top-down system of Righteousness (of confrontation, i.e. of antithesis, of above-below, of right-wrong, of good-evil, of heaven-hell, etc.) to an "equality" system of sensuousness (of accommodation and assimilation, i.e. of synthesis of equals). The dialectic praxis being: "By 'discovering,' focusing upon, and working together to augment that which we have in common (our own sensuousness) we can negate, i.e. overcome, i.e. make of non-effect, that which divides us (the top-down system of Righteousness)." Jesus had a "small group" but not once did He make them (in their sensuousness) equal with Him (in His righteousness, i.e. subject to His Heavenly Father's will in all things), and Himself equal with them (in their carnality, i.e. not having proceeded from His Heavenly Father). Not once did he step outside of a patriarchal paradigm. He always remaining under His Heavenly Father's authority even thou He (unlike us) was equal with the Father (righteous in himself). But having taken on the form of a man he made himself subject to His Heavenly Father's will, as he call's all men to be.
According to transformational Marxists, by putting dialectic 'reasoning' into praxis in small group settings, 'changing' the world (negating the patriarchal paradigm) would come naturally (become a reality) without having to use outright physical force, as was used by traditional Marxists (who failed in producing a love for communism in the people, only being able to produce, "What can I get out of communism for me," i.e. by killing those who have what I want and refuse to give it to me or rather, for the sake of cover, refuse to give it to "the people"). The Berlin Wall did not come down because communism was defeated, it came down because communism succeeded. That is, the transformational Marxist, the social-psychologists, "triumphed" over traditional Marxist, the guys with the guns and bullets. Transformationalist's see the traditionalist's as being the same as the fascists, i.e. using a top-down form of government, with a man as God (as a Father figure) at the top, "running the show," a bloody show. The transformationalist's are just as bloody, only killing the unborn and the elderly (and the unwanted) in a "more humane" way, i.e. having them killed out of public sight or "willingly" taking their own life (expediting their death) for the "greater good," i.e. the right one has over one's body and dying with dignity for the sake of society (all based upon the vanity of the "care takers," i.e. "What can I get out of this praxis for me, Oops, I mean for society").
As Satan did with the woman in the garden in Eden, whoever gives, permits, or encourages the child to eat a piece of candy (experience dopamine), candy which the parent's tell the child that they can not have, becomes the parent of that child, i.e. the child's heart from then on belongs to them. The dynamo of brainwashing resides within the covetousness of men's heart (within our "ought," our carnality, the vanity of life and our envy, i.e. lust to have what others have). Because of the covetousness of your heart, you are seducible, because of your hearts desire for the things of this world, you are deceivable, because you trust in those who say they have your best interest in mind, when they say that they can help you attain your hearts desires, i.e. attain the pleasures of this life, you are therefore manipulability, that is, those of dialectic 'reasoning' can get you to join with them, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating others to join with you (and them), so that everyone can be used in attaining their hearts desire, i.e. "enjoying" the pleasures of this life, even doing so in "the name of the Lord," for the "common," i.e. your good. Welcome to the "new" world order. Who needs the father when you can have his wallet and his bank account at your disposal, i.e. you and your new found friends (social-psychologists) can then have your hearts desire, the lusts of this world, using your parent's money and property, i.e. your inheritance (which is now the social-psychologists money and property, i.e. is now under their control and no longer under yours, i.e. is "ours" until it is all spent supporting them and promoting them and satisfying them in their ways) without parental intrusion. If in this life you seek after the pleasures of this world, then you will have them with the approval of men. But, like a foolish child, in the life to come you will have nothing (but death), having rejected the approval of the Father. "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Matthew 16:25 The Word of God is your birthright to eternal life, why sell it (set it aside, cursing God's blessing) for the approval of men and the pleasures of this life and lose your soul.
In a dialectic environment (dialoguing opinions to initiate and sustain a consensus) a person is more inclined (more 'willingly') to participate in sharing their dissatisfaction with having to obey higher authority and their commands, i.e. dissatisfaction with commands which restrain (go counter to, i.e. are antithetical to) his natural inclinations (his desire for sensuousness, i.e. his natural inclination to approach pleasure and avoid pain―man is influenced by environmental conditions therefore 'changeable,' i.e. readily adaptable to 'change' according to environmental conditions rather than conditions which go counter to, i.e. are not in harmony with the things of the world―thereby whoever controls the environment, controls the people, i.e. only those who are not controlled, i.e. "influenced" by the environment, because of their "private convictions," can stand alone, not following after those who seduce, deceive, and manipulate the "masses"). Through the addition of group dynamics―the desire for the things of the world and the fear of losing the "approval of man," whereby the things of the world can be more easily attained and enjoyed―a person is more easily "facilitated" in changing their paradigm, changing their way of thinking and acting, i.e. embracing the so called "new world order."
Dialectic 'reasoning' produces a common-collective environment where a person can 'rationally' justified his "ought," his dissatisfaction with higher authority's "not" ("We have to study the conditions which maximize ought-perceptiveness." "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) as in "We 'ought' to be able to do that which we want to do, free to do that which we are naturally inclined to do, instead of being told what we can or can not do." Thus the church is favoring inclination, i.e. that which comes from the system of sensuousness (that which comes from the flesh, i.e. from man, i.e. from that which is below, of the earth, of nature, of the world), over and against the restraint of and condemnation of the flesh, i.e. that which comes with the system of Righteousness (that which comes from the spirit, i.e. from God, i.e. from that which is above human nature). "So if we can all agree on the 'ought,' i.e. the natural urges or inclinations that we all have in common ('discovered' through dialoguing our opinions), then we 'can' do that which we are told we 'can not' do, thereby become ourselves again, i.e. human." In this way, according to dialectic process, i.e. to the man influenced by the environment of dialectic 'reasoning,' "nothing will be impossible to us, providing we all work together" (at least according to his perception). Dialogue ("I feel" and "I think") negates "Thou shalt not," i.e. negates the internal system of Righteousness (Genesis 3:1-6), i.e. negates the conscience, i.e. negates the father's voice of restraint within the individual, i.e. negates the fear of punishment for a person's thoughts and/or actions, i.e. thought and/or actions which go counter to or are antithetical to parental or Godly commands. Dialogue circumvents the conscience and therefore, when socially 'justified' as the means to "knowing" right from wrong, sears the conscience. In dialogue, the child's lust for sensuousness is liberated from the parent's voice of restraint or rather sensuousness (control by the environment) is restored where righteousness (direction by the parent or God) once prevailed. Focusing only upon that which is "right," that which is "positive," i.e. augments sensuousness, while it negates that which is wrong, that which is "negative," negating righteousness, with no one being the wiser. People are unaware of the paradigm change until the change has take place because the "positive," the "You can do what you want to do" is more attractive than the "negative," i.e. the "You can not do what you want to do." In a "can do" environment, where the "can not do" is negated, the person is doing what they want to do, thereby negating righteousness, i.e. negating the restraints of the parent or God upon their sensuousness. "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 one of the casual notes preserved at Widener) In dialectic 'reasoning' there is not absolute right or wrong, except for the process being used to know right from wrong way of thinking and acting, i.e. the dialectic way of thinking and acting (sensuousness) being right, the patriarchal way of thinking and acting (righteousness) being wrong. In this way the patriarch or the righteous become 'irrelevant' (of no worth) in the process of 'change,' i.e. in making decisions regarding the issues of life. Dialoguing to consensus makes all who are of righteousness (directed by He who is above), i.e. who are not of the sensuous 'moment' (not controllable by that which is below, i.e. not controlled by the environment, i.e. not "contemporary"), 'irrational' and therefore 'irrelevant,' in the "win-win" (you are liberated from righteousness and therefore everyone is liberated from righteousness so that all can be united in sensuousness―consensus) process of 'change.' "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." Matthew 6:24
As long as the person's behavior is "controlled" (directed) by a voice greater than his natural inclinations, he remains outside of social-psychological control. He remains subject to that which is above his own inclinations. He remains subject to God or parent (the parent only as type or shadow of God's top-down way of dealing with man, in the child's life). "The way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23 Not until the person's behavior is influenced by environmental (social or worldly) conditions (detached or liberated from Godly or parental rules, subject to an environment of sensuousness instead of righteousness, subject to stimulus-response instead of obedience, guided by the superego instead of the conscience, having a mind of confusion and uncertainty instead of a clear mind of certainty) can social-psychologists control the world, i.e. be financially and emotionally supported by the "masses," as they "help" them deal with their daily "crisis." Their prayer to their dialectic god (Satan) is "Give us this day our daily crisis so that we can control the masses and live the 'good' life as they pay us to 'helping' them deal with 'change.'" "‘We must accept the fact that some kind of control of human affairs is inevitable. We cannot use good sense in human affairs unless someone engages in the design and construction of environmental conditions which affect the behavior of men.'" (B. F. Skinner in Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) With "common sense" the individual rules over the environment while with "good sense" the individual is controlled by the environment, i.e. seduced by the environment and deceived, and manipulated by those who 'control' it. "In client-centered therapy, … we institute certain attitudinal conditions, and the client has relatively little voice in the establishment of these conditions." (ibid) Not until social-psychologists (transformational Marxists) have control over the law making apparatus of the country, i.e. have control over the citizens (via. departments established under the different branches of government, i.e. serving, protecting, and uniting all branches as one in 'drive' and in 'purpose,' i.e. controlling how people are to think and act, including those in government, i.e. helping them make laws and accept laws which are void of righteousness, and thus have independent control over the general public, i.e. controlling how the "citizens" go about their daily duties, now subject to society rather than God) can social conditions be established which will initiate and sustain social-psychological control over the "citizens," i.e. over the government, the workplace, entertainment, the home, and the church (communism, i.e. universally mandated unrighteousness, i.e. democratization, conscietization, synergism, etc.). "Any non-family-based collectivity [those of dialectic 'reasoning'] that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a democratizing impact on that relationship regardless of its intent." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society) (bia) (bia is used hereafter for bracketed information added) "Using social environmental forces to change the parent's behavior toward the child." (T. W. Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) Change "the parent's behavior toward the child," and you change the world.
While, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the king or the father can be physically removed from the environment (absent, fled from, imprisoned, or killed―see Kurt Lewin), the "residue" of his authority still remains (resides) within the person or the child, i.e. in their conscience. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' without the conscience being converted to the super-ego (sensuousness added to the conscience, i.e. the conscience seared, i.e. made subject to sensuousness again, subject to that which is below, i.e. subject to that which is of his nature, of his natural inclinations), the citizen or the child will not be able to participate properly in the process of 'change,' i.e. he will instead seek for God, a king, or the father to rescue him from the process of 'change' and therefore remain 'unchangeable,' i.e. resisting and fighting against 'change,' remaining subject to that which is above, subject to that which is not in harmony with or not in agreement with his natural inclinations.
Norman Brown, who was in favor of dialectic 'reasoning,' wrote, regarding the development of the conscience: "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) Dr. Trojanowicz, also in favor of dialectic 'reasoning,' wrote: "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. Unfortunately, because of the reduction of influence exerted by neighbors, the extended family and even the family, social control is now often more dependent on external control, than on internal self-control." (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, Community Policing The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing) What might sound at first like support for the traditional family and the development of the conscience is in truth not so.
The intent of dialectic 'reasoning' is to negate the development of the conscience (and the traditional family) for the sake of "positive" social 'change,' i.e. socialism. Trojanowicz wrote: "... once you can identify a community [where the parent or the child is willing to compromise his belief, i.e. sin (or tolerate it) to initiate or sustain relationship with others (maintain sensuousness, i.e. oneness with the world)], you have discovered the primary unity of society above the individual and the family that can be mobilized ... to bring about positive social change [democracy, socialism, communism to circumvent and negate the conscience, i.e. undue the effect of the traditional family upon the individual]." (ibid) bracketed information added (bia) Brown wrote: "The individual is emancipated [from the effects of the conscience, i.e. liberated from the voice of the father, i.e. freed from the "Our Father which art in Heaven, Hollowed be thy name .... Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven ... Thine be the kingdom, power, and glory forever"] in the social group [within the human relationship building environment, with its "feeling" of "oneness," i.e. with the addition of sensuousness to the conscience―if chastening develops the conscience (God or a higher authority than the sensuous 'moment' of man or the child determines right from wrong, i.e. uses chastening to remove sensuousness as the system from which to determine right from wrong with), i.e. prevents man from becoming as God, i.e. prevents man from perceiving good or righteousness as being in and of himself, prevents man from being 'righteous' in his own eyes, 'righteous' according to his own nature, then by adding sensuousness (the nature of man) to the conscience, the conscience, and the use of chastening which initiates and sustains it, is negated, thus allowing man or mankind to perceive himself as being as god, then the nature of man (sensuousness) rules instead of God (righteousness), the nature of the children rule instead of the father, i.e. opinion rules instead of belief, i.e. sight rules instead of faith, i.e. the flesh rules instead of the spirit]." "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants [as the children of Israel united as one in their murmuring against God in the wilderness, rejecting righteousness and choosing instead to follow after their own natural inclinations, following after their sensuousness] could the sense of guilt be assuaged." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) (bia)
Consensus, i.e. unanimity, based upon the human feeling of 'oneness,' supersedes parental or Godly restraint and thereby negates a 'guilty conscience,' i.e. negates the voice of the father in the child, i.e. negates the system of Righteousness, i.e. reunites the child, restrained from being at one with the world, prevented, through the parent's or God's chastening, from basing right and wrong according to his own sensuousness, back to the world of sensuousness. By attaching "tolerance of ambiguity," i.e. sensuousness, i.e. consensus to a group decision, the consciences is sacrificed to the super-ego, i.e. sacrificed for the sake of social harmony and world peace, i.e. sacrificed for "the approval of men," i.e. sacrificed to a "new" world order where man (the social-psychologist, i.e. the child) rules instead of law (God, i.e. the father). "It is not the will or desire of any one person which establish order but the moving spirit of the whole group. Control is social." (John Dewey, Experience and Education) "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) "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." (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 Philosophy of Right) "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 in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "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)
The protestant reformation, i.e. "the priesthood of all believers," has been undone through the "group think" process of the "contemporary church." Even the transformational Marxists, Max Horkheimer recognized the effects of the protestant reformation, i.e. the effect of fundamentalism upon this nation, i.e. why it had to be undone if the "new" world order was to be realized, i.e. if the issue of righteousness (the individual before God, subject to him foremost, i.e. "because God said so," i.e. "It is written ...") was to be superseded by the issues of sensuousness (the individual and society united as one in "common cause," i.e. "What will the group think"). "Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." (Max Horkheimer, Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung)
Consensus is dialectically 'justified' sensuousness. Dialoguing opinions to a consensus (a "feeling" of oneness with the group) develops the super-ego (replaces the parent's or God's "will" over the individual's "will" with the collective "will"―the collective, i.e. the one, the individual and the other, society becoming united as one, all becoming one as they ground ' reality' upon their common experience of sensuousness). "Superego development is conceived as the incorporation of the moral standards [recreating man upon the common carnal impulses, urges, and inclinations] of society [freeing man from the moral standards of the parent or God, which are sustained by the conscience―which restrains man, turning him against not only his own "normal" carnal behavior but the "normal" carnal behavior of "the village"]." "the levels of the Taxonomy should describe successive levels of goal setting appropriate to superego [or socialist, not conscience or individualist] development." (Krathwohl and Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book II―all certified teachers in your local schools, public and private, are trained to use Bloom's Taxonomies to negate parental and Godly authority in the mind and actions of the next generation.) (bia) "... the super-ego ‘unites in itself the influences of the present [sensuousness, the urges of the 'moment,' wanting oneness, i.e. union with the environment] and of the past [filtering the past through the present, i.e. 'rationally' excluding 'irrelevant' or 'inappropriate' information which comes from the past, i.e. removing that which inhibits or blocks present urges, impulses and inclinations, i.e. uniting the past desire, preserved in the "ought," and the present urge which "is," which are both "sense perceived" as being "necessary" and not "harmful" or "injurious" to self and others in the present 'moment' or the future imagined world of sensuousness].'" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) (bia) The mind which is directed by the conscience (which is developed through chastening or threat of it) is freed from the influences of sensuousness ("chastening produced a peaceful fruit of righteousness"―freeing the mind of the "controlling" nature of sensuousness; it is better to be chastened by God or the parent and turn to righteousness than to face "the wrath of God" as well as be torn down, destroyed, and killed, i.e. used and abused by man, for having remained in your sensuousness, i.e. the world will seduce, abuse, and extrude you as a used up prostitute, once it, like the prodigal son's "friends," has used up all the sensuousness it can get out of you). The mind, controlled by the superego, is "enlightened" and guided ('driven') by sensuousness and is therefore controlled by environmental influences. Tyrants can not control a people who are directed by a strong conscience but can easily "control" a people who are 'driven' by and 'purposed' in the augmentation of sensuousness. In consensus, the voice of the 'village,' the voice of sensuousness, i.e. the voice of community (common-unity), i.e. the sensation of oneness with that which is below, i.e. not of that which is above, replaces the voice of the father, the voice of righteousness, i.e. the voice of He who is above the sensuous 'moment,' i.e. above the present urges, impulses, or inclinations of the worldly 'moment.' In consensus man is reunite with mimesis (the caprice of the sensuous 'moment'), through mimesis. "Emancipation [from the father's commands and his authority, i.e. from his "Thou shalt not"] lies in fantasy and the language of experience irreducible to linguistic rules [lie beyond the universal rules of language ("the limitations imposed by the formal-logical law of contradiction." Norman A. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) which inhibit or block the impulsive experiences of life, i.e. the sensuousness and spontaneity of the 'moment']: mimesis." (Stephen Erik Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)] Emancipation lies in man 'rationally' liberating himself from the system of Righteousness, i.e. from its restraining or blocking of his "normal" human behavior, "repressing" his natural inclinations to be at-one-with the world, i.e. live in the "here-and-now." You can do it in a "bible study" as long as you get everyone to dialogue their opinions of the word of God, how they "feel" and what they "think," and you don't preach and teach (or allow others to preach and teach) the word of God as is, expecting everyone else to accept it as is (detaching sensuousness, i.e. the world from it's meaning)―discussing the word of God leaves the word of God in authority while dialoguing men's opinions of the word of God makes it subject to human interpretations, subject to environmental (worldly) control and 'purpose.'
While man can place himself between man and God, making himself dependent upon another man or another man dependent upon him to "know" God (to know of God), i.e. using dialectic 'reasoning' (seduction, deception, and manipulation) to do so. If he does, Jesus does not know him, i.e. Matthew 7:22, 23, since he is not doing His Heavenly Father's will, i.e. Matthew 12:50. God's word is clear that no man is to come between God and man, i.e. between the father and his children (man is to be under the Father's directing, living in and according to His righteousness―living according to His Word and by His Spirit, and not live under man's control, 'driven' by his own sensuousness―living according to his flesh and the ways of the world, i.e. according to its praxis of sin). "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 Using the Word of God to do God's (man's) "business" is not knowing the Father nor is it doing His will. It is only man placing himself before himself, others, and the world as a god himself, i.e. as one equal with God (as was the praxis in Genesis 3:1-6). Righteousness (the kingdom of God) is: doing the Fathers will. Unrighteousness (the kingdom of man) is: not doing the Father's will. The lie and the deception is: man believing (claiming) that he is doing the Father's will (being dead to his own sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities and alive in the Lord's righteousness) when in truth he is actually doing his own will (living according to his own sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities), in the "name of the Lord." 'Rationally' filtering righteousness through sensuousness blinds man to his praxis of unrighteousness. Man, leaning upon dialectic 'reasoning,' thinking that he is good or righteous in himself, not only deceives himself but also deceives all who follow him in his deception, i.e. following him in his deceptive way of thinking and acting, i.e. having confident in his unrighteousness, which "seems to be" righteous. "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12 "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." Romans 8:5-10 "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." Romans 6:18-23 It is in the Father alone that righteousness is imputed to men of faith, i.e. faith in our Heavenly Father who "raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." "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 4:23-25 Apart from our belief in our Heavenly Father and faith in Jesus Christ, His only begotten son who was obedient to His Heavenly Father unto death, there is no hope of righteousness and eternal life. Apart from Him, apart from His righteousness imputed, all we have is sensuousness and death, i.e. the gospel of dialectic 'reasoning.'
Praxis is dialectically, i.e. 'rationally,' 'justified' sensuousness put into social action (revolution is actualized as the person is "self-actualized," i.e. 'discovering' that "truth" lies within himself, i.e. in his own life experience, liberated from being conformed to the image of the Father, i.e. made subject to the Father's language of restraint, i.e. subject to his "Thou shalt not," i.e. the child or man having to be obedient to that which is not of nor at-one-with his nature in the 'moment,' i.e. "repressing" the urges of the 'moment,' "alienating" the child or the person from the world, i.e. from the same urges or inclinations which he has in common with the world, i.e. with all of mankind). Therefore social action (praxis) is man, 'driven' by sensuousness, 'rationally' 'purposed' and therefore 'purposed' in 'rationally' (sensuousness and 'reasoning' become as one, i.e. synthesized, i.e. united in the praxis of) negating the system of Righteousness externally, i.e. negating the fathers voice of restraint in society, i.e. negating the patriarchal paradigm (negating the bourgeoisie, negating the father ruling over the home and ruling over his own private business and thus affecting social action―Lenin's speech, i.e. the same speech being put into political and social praxis by "contemporary" leadership in America―which is the same process experienced by the youth in the "youth group" sharing their opinions with one another, coming to agreement upon their feelings and thoughts, in opposition to or in defiance of their parent's commands, uniting upon a common cord, expressing their "lust" for "freedom" from their parent's restraining ways) through the praxis of the heresiarchal paradigm of 'change' (the proletariat, the children "controlling" the environment, initiating and sustaining sensuous gratification, i.e. "enjoyment," i.e. dopamine emancipation, i.e. "equality" in carnality for all according to their "felt" needs―over and against righteousness―thereby promoting another gospel, i.e. another Christ―a "user friendly, non offensive, readily adaptable to change Christ," i.e. a humanized Christ, made in the image of man, having meaning and 'purpose' only according to man's "felt" needs―an antichrist).
As patricide (the father's authority is made 'irrelevant,' i.e. "God is dead") is praxised, i.e. put into social action (laws are passed which criminalize parents who chasten their children), incest (the "children of disobedience," i.e. the carnality of man, restrained only for more) is actualized (justified, liberated, protected, and propagated), and vise versa, i.e. as incest is praxised, i.e. put into social action, patricide is actualized = producing a nation and a world of abomination―Romans 1:16-32―that world which we see around us today. Sodom and Gomorra were all about unity at all cost, i.e. unity based upon sensuousness, i.e. unity based upon consensus, i.e. upon man's natural inclinations and his carnal will, which was anathema to unity based upon righteousness, based upon God's will. Unity based upon sensuousness (by consensus), i.e. upon sight, i.e. upon "the imagination of the heart," is anathema to righteousness (top-down authority, God and His Word being the highest authority). Unity based upon consensus is anathema to faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, i.e. is anathema to "trusting in the Lord with all your heart" because it is man "leaning upon his own understanding," 'justifying' himself, i.e. 'justifying' his carnal nature, his natural inclinations, before himself and the rest of mankind (the world).
Theodor Adorno defined the purpose of dialectic 'reasoning' being put into praxis in this way. He wrote: "It is a function of the ego [the 'I will' of the child] to make peace with conscience [the 'You will' and "You will not" of the father], to create a larger synthesis within which conscience, emotional impulses, and self operate in relative harmony [the father, man's carnal inclinations, and the child become one]." "When this synthesis is not achieved [the father's "You will not" is not negated, i.e. is not sense perceived as being 'irrational' and therefore treated as being 'irrelevant'], the superego has somewhat the role of a foreign body within the personality [remains a conscience, i.e. the child remains obedient to the father and his commands], and it exhibits those rigid, automatic, and unstable aspects discussed above [the child remains 'neurotic']." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) (bia) "This voice which really isn't you but tells you the way the world works is a direct attack on creativity ['change']. 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." (Michael Ray in Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management) (bia) "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 [requiring a police state, i.e. "sight based management"], rather than in the costly fashion of the neurotic [where children and man is subject to parental and Godly authority]." "By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior―the motives, the desires, the wishes [whoever controls the environment, control human behavior]. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) (bia) Not only is liberty and freedom lost to the citizens of this nation but also the soul of man (and the child) is lost as well.
Maslow's responded to the "authoritarian personality," i.e. the traditional family system, i.e. the system of Righteousness, in this way. "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards." "In a democratic society a patriarchal culture should make us depressed instead of glad; it is an argument against the higher possibilities of human nature, of self actualization." "In our democratic society, any enterprise―any individual―has its obligations to the whole." "Tax credits would be given to the company that helps to improve the whole society, and helps to improve the democracy by helping to create democratic individuals." "Meaningful work comes very close to the religious quest in the humanistic sense." [The] "goal is simply to build group companies where people can self-actualize." "Salvation is a byproduct of Self-Actualization Duty." "The best way to destroy democratic society would be by way of industrial authoritarianism [free market enterprise, i.e. family run business], which is anti-democratic in the deepest sense." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management) (bia) Dialectic 'reasoning' is synonymous with the "negation of negation." i.e. the destruction (negation or annihilation) of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the negation of the use of chastening, i.e. the negation of the way of thinking and acting which develops the "guilty conscience" ("negativity"). Negating the patriarchal paradigm, chastening, the "guilty conscience," all of which restraint sensuousness, frees man to become himself, i.e. "normal," i.e. carnal, i.e. worldly, i.e. "positive" again.
With no fear of God and love of His word (which describes most ministers and their followers today), righteousness is supplanted with sensuousness (the preaching and teaching of the word of God, as is, is supplanted with the dialoguing of men's opinions of it, building "common ground" upon that which man has in common with himself, i.e. his own sensuousness, rather than upon Christ, i.e. His righteousness―attaching sensuousness to righteousness, i.e. man to God, negates righteousness, i.e. makes man equal with God and God equal with man, i.e. God 'discovering,' i.e. coming to known himself through man, and man, collectively 'discovering' himself to be God, both becoming as one―chastening prevents man, i.e. sensuousness, from becoming God, i.e. righteous in and of himself alone). Dialectic 'reasoning' uses sensuousness (speculation in support of sensuousness) to evaluate and judge righteousness (to elevate man above God, the children above the father, human reasoning above revelation, the flesh of man above the Spirit of God, sensuousness above righteousness), making righteousness (the father's commands and the children's duty to obey them) "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant" in the sensuous 'moment,' i.e. as the unrighteous thoughts and unrighteous actions of unrighteous men are put into praxis, i.e. into social action (even doing so in the "name of the Lord" to "grow" the church). Righteousness, evaluating and judging, i.e. restraining and chastening sensuousness, is thereby negated. If there is any talk of righteousness it is only in lip serve, i.e. used for social cause, i.e. used to seduce, deceive, and manipulate the deceivable to set their affections on things below, i.e. upon the world, i.e. upon those things of the creation, i.e. upon their 'reasoning' regarding the things in the heavens and upon the earth, instead of upon He who is above the creation, i.e. upon God alone―many being deceived into believing that righteousness and sensuousness can be united through human 'reasoning' and put into social praxis to make the world a "better" place (more "positive"), i.e. man's sin before God and God's "wrath upon the children of disobedience, i.e. the 'quivering daughters' of disobedience" becoming moot in the praxis of the sensuous 'moment,' i.e. man united in doing what "seems to be 'right'" in his own eyes, known as consensus, i.e. "feeling" at one, not only with himself but with the world―putting his confidence in his "good" heart and his "good" deeds for mankind and nature, Psalms 10:3, 4. The grace of God, when made subject to dialectic 'reasoning,' sets man free from the fear of God (fear, dread, awe, and wonder of God), so that he can be himself again, i.e. sensuous, his carnal nature 'rationally' justified in his own eyes. The "pride of life" is when man able to, through dialectic 'reasoning,' justify to himself and others the lust of his and their flesh and the lust of his and their eyes. Through the imagination of his deceitful and wicked heart, man is able to dialectically perceive and justify himself, i.e. his carnal nature, as being "good," deceiving not only himself but all who follow him in his deceitful 'reasoning,' falling away from the faith, not enduring to the end (2 Thessalonians 2:3, Matthew 24:5, Hebrews 6:4-6 & 10:26-31, 2 Peter, 2:20, 21, Luke 22:32―any effort to circumvent these verses and others like them requires dialectic 'reasoning' to do so).
Only those who know of their wickedness before a pure, holy, and righteous God and God's love and mercy towards them (in their brokenness before and total dependence upon Him), does grace have true meaning, and not just a sympathetic, emotional, i.e. sensual experience for the 'moment' to impress self or man. If God was not perfect, i.e. if He was not demanding of perfection, i.e. if He was tolerant of imperfection or intolerant of perfection, i.e. if He was not righteous, man's wickedness, i.e. his disobedience, , i.e. his sin, i.e. his love of sensuousness, i.e. his "lust" for the "enjoyment" of this life would not be an issue (true love is not emotionally based, i.e. sensuously based, but is everlasting, no matter how the person who is loving is being treated by the one who is being loved, the only condition required is that love of this kind is accepted by the person being loved, i.e. the person must be willing to love without dependence upon sensuousness, i.e. without vanity, i.e. "no matter what it has cost me in this life, I still love you"). Only in worshiping God and dying to self, i.e. hating the flesh (hating vanity) and walking in the spirit, i.e. setting your affection upon things above and not upon the things of the earth, does the gospel having true meaning and affect in your life, the gospel being God's grace and mercy towards you ("a child of disobedience," condemned, with God's wrath waiting to cast you into hell), because of the Lord's love towards you and your repentance before Him, not your ability to 'justify' yourself, i.e. your praxis, i.e. your thoughts and actions before yourself and men, finding and 'justifying' what you have in common with man, your love of ("lust" for) sensuousness―which would be 'another' gospel. Without the knowledge of God's wrath there is no understanding of His love. "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14
(continued from above)
You either preach & teach righteousness (right from wrong, i.e. "Is" and "Is not") and chasten sensuousness ("lust" i.e. disobedience) or you will end up with dialogue ("ought") 'liberating' sensuousness to where 'reasoning' (self-justification, opinion, "seems to be") can be used to engender consensus (a feeling of oneness with the world of "lust"), i.e. mankind united in the praxis of negating righteousness, i.e. man negating the "Though shalt" and "Though shalt not" of God, i.e. man negating his duty, i.e. faith and belief in and obedience to God (obedience being a result, i.e. a byproduct of the Lord's work in us, i.e. dying to our abilities and "talents," i.e. recognizing our inability to "carry out orders," i.e. orders which we could never do, and still can not do, in ourselves to the pleasing of God, and instead walking in the Spirit, trusting in the Lord with all our heart). Environment = "gratifying object" → Nerves system (5 senses) = Synaptic gap = dopamine emancipated = "want" → Brain = more dopamine = more "want" = "lust of the flesh" → Mind = "aware," react to "want" = "want more" → Eyes = look for "gratifying object in the environment to attain or retain it for more dopamine emancipation" = "lust of the eyes" → Action to attain object of gratification in the environment to control it to stimulate more dopamine emancipation = "pride of life" is your able to control the the object of gratification (or control the environment to control the object of gratification) to augment dopamine emancipation. You are not in love with the object of gratification, i.e. the people you "love" to be around, but you are rather in love with the dopamine the object of gratification, i.e. the people you "love" to be around stimulate or "emancipate" within you = vanity, vanity, all is vanity (love of money is simply stored up dopamine emancipation, thinking about the money you have to emancipate dopamine with, emancipates dopamine), i.e. all that is of man is sensuous love no matter how social (or religious) it becomes, i.e. "What can I get out of the situation, person, environment, group, 'approval of men,' etc. for me," i.e. lusting after the praises of men, thinking that "physical, mental, and social oneness with man, " i.e. "the approval of men," i.e. consensus, is where love resides.
A few (or more) side comments, not a part of the message: Seeking after the approval of the father, doing the fathers will → the conscience. Seeking after pleasure, i.e. dopamine emancipation, doing your own will in defiance to the fathers will while still wanting the fathers approval yet fearful of his chastening → confusion (a belief-action dichotomy). Through collective, i.e. social approval = consensus → negating the fathers will (perceiving it as being 'irrational' and therefore 'irrelevant' in a 'rational,' Genesis 3:6 world), so that all can seek after pleasure without a "guilty conscience" → the super-ego. Praxis = putting into social action the negation of the father's authority to "author" commands and enforce them by force or threat of force. Through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' making laws, through seducing and deceiving, i.e. uniting the "children of disobedience" upon their common "lusts" ("lusts" exposed in the individuals and used to unite the group through the use of dialogue, i.e. "I feel," and "I think") and then manipulating them into passing laws or give social agencies the authority to pass laws to punish parents when they chastening their children when they disobey their commands (commands preached and taught, to be obeyed as is without question, i.e. without dialogue, i.e. "Why?" "Because I said so!"―while man's words, preached and taught to be obeyed as is, speaks to the head and the heart of man, God's word, preached and taught to be obeyed as is, also speaks to the spirit and the soul of man; while both are top-down in structure, one is bound to the creation the other is of the creator) → negating righteousness (that only God is 'good' and man "is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked" in and of himself and needs a savior outside his nature to redeem him from the father's wrath upon his unrighteous thoughts and his unrighteous actions→ a top-down system of righteousness initiating and sustaining a patriarchal paradigm of "fixity") as the issue of life by replacing it with sensuousness (that man is good or is potentially 'good' in and of himself, only needing a "healthy" environment from which to actualize his 'goodness,' his 'righteousness,' → an "equality" system of sensuousness, initiating and sustaining a heresiarchal paradigm of 'change') as the issue of life and then putting sensuousness negating righteousness (social cause, man united in creating a "better" world, i.e. a world based upon "enjoyment," i.e. a world "lusting" after dopamine emancipation, i.e. a world of abomination) into social action (praxis).
While God gave us the ability to enjoy the creation (dopamine emancipation) he did not create us to love it (sensuousness) more than Him (righteousness). True love is not of the flesh (from man himself) but is of the Holy Spirit (from God only―John 15:9-12, i.e. God's love is tied to his commandments, John 14:15, 21, 21, 15:9-15). While man may have brotherly love―phileo, besides carnal love―Eros (both of which are of his sensuousness, i.e. of the flesh, i.e. of the world), he can only receive true love from God―agape―by His Holy Spirit. We are to "agape the Lord or God" as well as "agape our neighbor as ourselves" which we can not do in and of ourselves, our love being vain. We are to deny ourselves (deny our sensuous desires, our carnal love, deny our lust for the pleasures of this world and the desire for the approval of men―which is intoxicating, i.e. desiring the approval of men draws us after them when they approve us as we are, justifying our sinful nature), and pick up our cross (deny our sensuous desire for "the approval of men" because we "approve them," like them for approving us, i.e. we want their "love" therefore we "love" them and therefore justify their carnal nature to initiate and sustain their love). We must be willing to suffer with Christ in his suffering of pain which the world brought his way, not only physically but also mentally and socially, i.e. being acquainted with grief), and willingly face rejection by the world (rejecting "the approval of men" as being the standard for love). We are to put on the whole armour of God and stand, not running after the pleasures of this world nor running away from the pain it brings our way, but rather enduring all that the world brings our way (pleasure and our lust for it and pain, the rejection of man's love), we are to stand in Him, having done all to keep standing, enduring all things.
Because of the love of the Lord for us, i.e. the Love of the Father for us and His only begotten Son's love for His Heavenly Father, i.e. His love in us by the Holy Spirit (sent by the Father and the Son), our love for Him (the fruit of the Holy Spirit), i.e. following Him above all that is in the world (both pleasure and pain), we can love others according to God's love, loving the world but not loving sin, i.e. not loving (and therefore condoning) our own or others disobedience to his commands. "And he answering said, Thou shalt love [Gr. agape] the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself." Luke 10:27 "For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Romans 13:9
God's grace does not condone disobedience (unrighteousness). Only when humbling ourselves before God and seeking His face, denying ourselves and following after Him, can we know of the Fathers grace toward us, the Father accepting Christ as having taken our place for His wrath against us, providing us a way back to the Father after having disobeyed Him (sinning against Him). Grace is receiving that which we do not deserve because of our efforts (God's love and eternal life). Mercy is not receiving that which we do deserve (judgment and eternal death). Loving "thy neighbour" does not allow us to condone (tolerate) their sinful behavior any more than God's love for us allows us to condone (tolerate) our own sinful behavior. To call our behavior sinful yet to condone or tolerate it is to produce confusion. The world therefore causes confusion by not calling our "normal human behavior" sinful. Building on the premise that man is basically good or has the potential for becoming good according to his environment of upbringing, his education, etc. the facilitator of the world system deceives man into believing that he is good when only God is good, thereby leaving man in his sins, subject to the Fathers wrath.
Reject the Fathers chastening in this life (chastening produces "a peaceful fruit of righteousness") and you will receive His wrath on judgment day (the wrath of God is upon "the children of disobedience," those who reject his chastening). While the Lord is patient with us, waiting patiently for us to repent of our sins before Him, loving us while we were still in sin, he does not condone or tolerate sin, i.e. the Holy Spirit bringing us under conviction (producing antithesis) for our thoughts and actions (theory and practice) of sin, which is of the flesh (of sensuousness―where approaching pleasure and avoiding pain is the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of life).
While we are to trust in no one except the Lord, we are to love everyone as God loves everyone, by His Spirit. God's love does not tolerate our unrighteousness, thus, while we are to love our fellow man, we are likewise not to tolerate our neighbor's unrighteousness. We are not to be silent in the midst of unrighteousness, in appearance condoning it, i.e. tolerating it for the sake of initiating or sustaining human relationship, i.e. for the sake of initiating or sustaining the "approval of men," (if I do not hurt the other persons feelings he will not hurt my feelings) but we must be willing to expose sinful behavior, according to the Word of the Lord, and chasten it according to the Word of the Lord, speaking the truth in His love whether in public or in private (not to destroy the person but to bring them to repentance, i.e. this is the kind of Love which is from God, in agreement with his righteousness and not from man, proceeding from his sensuousness, being vain, for self gain), as He directs our steps, i.e. as He directs our thoughts and our actions in all things―going to the person in private if the behavior is private, then by two, etc. not for the purpose of destroying him but to bring him to repentance, i.e. to restore him to right relationship with the Lord (Matthew 18:15-17, James 5:19, 10, Galatians 6:1). This is different than when a person sins publically, condoning it, or is a heretic (speaking lies, following after his own vain glory, seeking the praises of men), then he is to be exposed and reproved publically, as the Apostle John did concerning Diotrephes. (3 John 1:9 and see also Titus 3:10)
The confusion comes when we "sense perceives" that our love (of our sensuousness, seeking after the "approval of men") is God's love (of His righteousness, by His Spirit), or is equal to God's love, referring to it as agape, deceiving ourselves, as well as those who follow us in our praxis of seduction, deception, and manipulation (calling brotherly love, i.e. our feeling of "oneness," i.e. the sensation of "the approval of men," God's love―dialectic love is found in the "spirit" of the feeling of oneness with mankind, i.e. of the creation, while God's love is of God alone, given to us by His Spirit, i.e. not of the creation). We tolerate our own unrighteousness (our own carnal nature), hiding it from the light―as those in the darkness love the darkness because it hides their sins―condoning it because of our love for sensuous pleasures rather than God. While God love's us and is patient with us, waiting for us to repent, He is intolerant of our unrighteousness, exposing it in the light of His Word―as light exposes whatever it is that is hiding in the darkness, condemning it and thus us because of our love for it (because of our praxis of determining right from wrong, good from evil according to the sensuousness of our flesh, i.e. in the "light" of the environment which stimulates our flesh, i.e. "positive" being that which uses or augments pleasure, "negative" being that which uses or does not attenuate pain) rather than loving Him (knowing right from wrong, good from evil according to His righteousness, according to His Word and His Holy Spirit, i.e. not being "controlled" by the sensuousness of this world).
While dopamine emancipation can be a part of man's experience in loving in God's love (by His Spirit), it is not necessary. God's love does not depend upon man's love (dopamine emancipation). This is why temporal man can not comprehend it, "sense perceiving" it as being a "phenomena," trying to classify it according to his sensuousness, by his dialectic 'reasoning,' thereby making it "social" in definition, i.e. according to his nature (which is vain). This is why man is now attempting to create a "new" world order or "grow the church" through the dialoguing of opinions (which can only comprehend that which is of sensuousness). This is the method whereby man can "control" man by controlling the environment which engenders dopamine emancipation (man's love of being loved by others for his 'loving' of them, i.e. tolerating and thus entertaining their unrighteous thoughts and unrighteous actions, calling it "human nature," instead of correcting, rebuking, or even reproving it in the light of God's Word as Jesus did in the wilderness).
The church has 'shifted' it paradigm from inculcating the truth or preaching and teaching the Word of God ("as is") to souls, with the Lord daily adding to the assembly of believers such as should be saved and the Lord directing the steps of those who are His, according to His word, according to His will, by His Spirit, and is now dialoguing men's opinions (to a consensus, i.e. a sensation of oneness, i.e. of all in agreement to stay united at all cost, i.e. "lets agree to disagree" for the sake of unity―"agreeing to disagree" lets unrighteousness have the same 'right' as righteousness, i.e. righteousness therefore no longer being righteous, unrighteousness, i.e. sensuousness takes its place) as "the way" to come to the knowledge of the "truth" ("Truth is a 'moment' in correct praxis." Gramsci). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' "truth" can only be found in the humanity (the earthiness or sensuousness or "sense experience") of man and his social relationships (in his commonality with other men) and can not originate from a source outside of, beyond, or above human 'reasoning' or understanding, restraining it and/or condemning it (being judgmental of "human nature").
For example (thanks to pastor John Coleman for putting this up on his website, johnecoleman.org) this link to Martin Luther King Jr.'s teaching of a humanistic Jesus shows the effect of dialectic 'reasoning' (abomination) upon the mind and actions of men, not only upon his mind and actions but also upon the mind and actions of those who followed him (affecting not only the church but also the family). For more on Martin Luther King Jr. and his use of dialectic 'reasoning' (to 'change' culture from a top-down, patriarchal paradigm to an "equality" system, a heresiarchal paradigm of 'change,' where the children of rebellion, the proletariat, take over "control" of the individual and society, negating the traditional family with its father figure at the head of the home) read my article Civil Disobedience and its side effects (civil disobedience is an oxymoron, you can not be civil, i.e. respect and honour the office of authority of the father and disobey it or him at the same time without replacing the top-down system, the patriarchal paradigm, with a system of abomination, the heresiarchal paradigm, as we now see raising its head up, i.e. "emerging," in all cultures). Gestalt is the belief that only when 'reason' (and thus sensuousness) is freed from the restraint of the past (when the children or the next generation is liberated from the can not's of the past generation, i.e. the restraints "the authorities" place upon the impulses and urges, i.e. the "lusts" or "enjoyments" of the 'moment' of the present generation), can "truth," which lies within mankind (that which is common to all mankind, i.e. the "divine spark" of humanity, i.e. "God," i.e. the essence of man 'driving' him to become as one, become at-one-with mankind, nature, and the cosmos, i.e. the world), become known and actualized. "According to the philosopher Hegel, truth is not found in the thesis, nor the antithesis, but in the emerging synthesis which reconciles the two." (Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to Love) As I have always said: "It is not a race issue but a sin issue. It has never been a race issue. It has always been a sin issue that we are dealing with." According to Martin Luther King Jr. (using dialectic 'reasoning') truth is not to be found above human nature (in Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of the Heavenly Father, obedient to his father to the death, i.e. of faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, who is now seated at the right hand of God) but is to be found in human nature itself.
Dialectic 'reasoning' adheres to the belief that sin is the estrangement of man from man. That sin is the result of laws or commands given by a higher authority than man's sensuous nature, estranging individual man from finding unity through his common human nature with all of mankind. Dialectic 'reasoning' rejects the belief that sin is the estrangement of man from God. That sin is man's disobedience to the laws or commands given by a higher authority than man, estranging man from He who is above and is not of human nature, not of the sensuous impulses and urges of the man's or the child's nature of the 'moment' (with the good news of the gospel of having overcome man's nature and the eternal damnation which comes with it's praxis because of the only begotten son's obedience to His Heavenly Father to death on the cross and his resurrection from the grave that man might be freed from the control of his carnal nature, freed from his "lusting for the control of 'pleasure'" or rather freed from the "lust for pleasure" controlling him and therefore freed from eternal damnation). Instead being freed from the power of his nature, i.e. freed from sensuousness, in dialectic 'reasoning,' man is freed from the commands and judgment of God, i.e. freed from righteousness. You can 'change' the culture but without the heart of man being changed by the Lord (bringing man to a right relation with His Heavenly Father), all you end up with is a pagan culture of hate, greed, vanity, murder, and abomination, no matter how "social" it might become. Sodom was social unite in praxis at its highest level, with social unity (based upon "human relationship") as its cause and its affect, i.e. its "drive" and its "purpose" was "unity at all cost," with sensuousness at its core. Dialectic 'reasoning ("human relationship, based upon 'enjoyment/pleasure,' at all cost," the "tolerance of sin and unrighteousness") has become the means and the end to all "truth" for the "contemporary" church and the "contemporary" Christian. It is why we, in practically all facets of life from the highest offices of our land to the streets (including, and especially the "church's") have become a nation and a people of abomination, promoting abomination ("tolerance of ambiguity") around the world. Every "hallowed wall," including the Christian, (Obama in his speech in Berlin) must be torn down so that all can join in the process of creating world peace and social harmony, or the process, i.e. world unity based upon human nature (based upon unrighteousness), can not become a reality.
"... let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, 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 12:1, 2 Jesus obeyed His Heavenly Father and is now seated at the right hand of His Heavenly Father awaiting His order to return again for those who are His, i.e. all those who are obedient to His Heavenly Father. All made possible through His birth, i.e. taking on the form of a man, living obedient to His Heavenly Father's will, even to death (facing the rejection of men, i.e. not basing right and wrong on "the approval of men"), i.e. while living in the world he did not live according to the world (according to sensuousness), and His resurrection from the grave and returning to His Heavenly Father, that the Holy Spirit could be sent to comfort and direct us in obedience to His Father's will as well―living by faith and not by sight, walking by His Holy Spirit and not according to our flesh, living in His righteousness, which is holy and pure, which is life, and not in our 'righteousness,' which is as a filthy rag, which leads to death.
In the true church (the body of Christ) man has no "control" (nor desires to have "control") over others (coming between them and the Lord, whereby he can seduce, deceive, and manipulate them for his own sensuous "pleasures," i.e. using the bride of Christ, as a prostitute, for his own gain), while in the apostate church man "controls" man through the use of the environment (which includes himself) which engenders sensuous "pleasure," i.e. dopamine emancipation. This is why the "contemporary" church (which means "with the temporary," i.e. through sensuousness, i.e. an attribute engendered from feelings or "experiential sensation") has contempt for the Word of God, i.e. making it subject to men's opinions. The worth or value of scripture is determined according to how a person "feels" about what it says or what he "thinks" it means according to his or others "sense experience" in the 'moment,' i.e. according to men's opinions, i.e. according to what pleasure or hope of pleasure he can derive from it or use it for. Only that which he and others can sensually identify with (experientially in the 'moment' identify with in the group setting) is of worth or value. Only those scriptures which are understandable or can be redefined to become understandable to all men, both lost and saved, in the current environment (in the 'moment'), is of worth or value, i.e. is "trustworthy." "In this process the individual becomes more open to his experience. It is the opposite of defensiveness or rigidity. His beliefs are not rigid, he can tolerate ambiguity." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) ". . . he must experience the group as a refuge wherein he is safe, wherein he can entertain new beliefs and experiment with new behavior without fear of reprisal." (Irvin Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy) "Existential living is to say that the self and personality emerge from experience. It means that one becomes a participant in and an observer of the ongoing process of organismic experience." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) "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, Maslow on Management) "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) "Then both parties recognize their rigidified position in relation to each other as the result of detachment and abstraction from their common life context. And in the latter, the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory) The "contemporary" church, is 'driven' by and 'purposed' in initiating and sustaining an "experiential" environment which engenders man's love of dopamine emancipation, even doing so "in the name of the Lord," thereby deceiving many, i.e. making merchandise of them, i.e. buying and selling their souls in the marketplace of "pleasure," i.e. 'driven' by and 'purposed' in dopamine emancipation. In this way they keep coming back for more, for more dopamine emancipation that is.
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2012-2015