Introduction to Articles
"And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16: 15
I get so excited knowing the truth. And just as excited when sharing it. Thinking that Christians would be just as excited as me when I share it at meetings or call them or they call me to have a meeting, I have learned (after years of speaking across this nation―some 15+ years and 4000+ presentations in 46 states) it is Christians, "enlightened Christians" that is, who are most distraught with what I share. Being more concerned about "the approval of men" ("so that they can 'feel' good or 'feel' better about themselves"―where 'right' or 'good' is based upon their own sensuousness, i.e. pleasure or pain, i.e. approval or disapproval) than "the approval of the Lord" (where 'right' or 'good' is based upon His own righteousness), they either want me to 'change' my presentation (so that it will not interfere with their relationship with others, i.e. "so that they can be less offensive to others," i.e. so that the truth will not offend anyone, including themselves, i.e. it will not interfere with the "respect" they need from others, i.e. not cost them "support" for their 'cause,' i.e. not "run off" those not of the faith they "need" in order to defend themselves from the world system―some hosts reporting in the past that after my presentation "all hell broke loose," the "hell" coming especially from "enlightened Christians"―that should take care of most "rational," i.e. enlightened people asking me to come and share the truth with them, their family, their friends, and their community) or not share it at all ( saying "People won't understand what I am saying," even though they do).
Liberals should feel safe knowing that only a few people will bother to read this kind of material. Most people 'will' to remain ignorant of how liberals, disguised as "conservatives," are seducing, deceiving, and manipulating them, thinking that "ignorance is bliss." The "Christian conservative" won't read it because it is to "secular" ("academic," i.e. "intellectual," i.e. "To hard to understand") and the liberal (together with the enlightened Christian) won't read it because it is to "religious" ("irrational," i.e. "scriptural," already knowing that it is "not worth knowing").
Until people become aware that they have a disease, they don't tend to study it with the hope of overcoming it and living longer. Man has replaced, as the focus of life, spiritual "disease" (man's separation from God―an issue of eternity, i.e. an issue of righteousness, i.e. where sin is the estrangement-alienation between God and man, i.e. caused by man's love of sensuousness, i.e. "lusting" after the things of this world, i.e. of the flesh, of man only) with temporal disease (man's separation from the "enjoyments" of this life―an issue of the temporary, i.e. an issue of sensuousness, i.e. where sin is estrangement-alienation of man from man, where sin is therefore caused by man's love of righteousness, i.e. sin is therefore man's affection for the things not of this world, i.e. for those thing which are of the spirit of God only, which causes "dissention, division, and divisiveness," causing "repression, estrangement, and alienation" among men―as one author stated it" "God is the anthropological source of alienation." Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists; "'Sin' is the estrangement of man from man." Leonard F. Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God; "God is the source of corruption in individuals." John Dewey, Democracy and Education; "If Freud's hypothesis is not corroborated by any anthropological evidence ["the domination of man by man" being the source of "neurosis"―a deep relation to physical and emotional events of the past, rules inculcated by parents, etc., which prevent relating with the events of the present, i.e. inculcated rules of the past inhibiting adaptability to 'change' to fit in with the present―which would be true in that parents and other authorities, being of flesh, pass away but God, being Spirit, does not, being everlasting He is therefore ever present watching over us on how we respond to the commands he gave us yesterday, gives us today, and will give us tomorrow, all according to and in agreement with His everlasting Will], it would have to be discarded altogether ... except for the fact that it telescopes, in a sequence of catastrophic events, the historical dialectic of domination ... elicits aspects of civilization hitherto unexplained [by rejecting God, replacing Him with a Gnostic story, secularized by Hegel, Marx, and Freud, i.e. man "dominated" by God, above human nature, i.e. preventing the spirit of oneness seeking itself out of the many, i.e. the many "divine sparks," i.e. "The dialectical method was overthrown―the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole." György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness What is Orthodox Marxism?, is replaced by the spirit of man itself being dominated by an abnormal, "irrational" Spirit of God of man's own making, created by "abnormal" man for the purpose of initiating and sustaining domination over other men―the source of such thinking, which is found all around the world in all men, i.e. God above man, is left unexplained by Hegel, Marx, Freud, etc. other than to label it as the source of "neurosis," the source of belief-action dichotomy, the source of antithesis]." "... the Freudian hypothesis ... does not lead back to the image of a paradise which man has forfeited by his sin against God," [it leads] "to the domination of man by man [in this way the issue of "sin" is negated from human thought and action, i.e. the real 'purpose' for 'reasoning' dialectically]." Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud; "In Eclipse of Reason Horkheimer ─ ‘this mentality of man as the master can be traced back to the first chapters of Genesis.'" Martin Jay, The Dialectic Imagination "Freud, Hegel, and Nietzsche are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." "The abolition of repression would only threaten patriarchal domination [faith, belief, obedience in higher authority, God being the highest authority, as well as the acceptance of the use of chastening to initiate and sustain that top-down order]." Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
Why eternal life (righteousness) does not seem to be important today is that life in the "here-and-now" (carnal "enjoyment," sensuousness, "the approval of men") seems to be what is most important, even for the Christian. Sin and repentance (concern about eternity, i.e. living in the present by faith, where reason is subject to righteousness, i.e. subject to what God says, i.e. the reason you are doing what you are doing is because "the Lord said to") has become moot in the "light" of social needs (concern for the "contemporary," where 'reasoning' is subject to sensuousness, i.e. subject to how man feels and what he thinks in the 'moment',' i.e. the reason you are doing what you are doing is because "it feels like, i.e. 'seems to be,' the 'right' thing to do" in the situation, i.e. in the 'moment'). What has happened to this nation, manifested in sensuousness―abomination, is the result of righteousness, the rejection of it, as being the issue of life, with "enjoyment," i.e. pleasure and sensuous 'reasoning' ('reasoning' sensuously―"the imagination of the heart"), i.e. self-social 'justification,' social issues having taken its place.
While with righteousness there is no tolerance (there is only forgiveness for those who repent of and turn from their sensuous ways) with sensuousness there must be tolerance (there is only tolerance for those who repent of and turn from the way of righteousness). While righteousness (forgiveness) can only be imputed by Christ to those of faith in Him (and known and revealed by those who walk in the Holy Spirit) sensuousness (humanity) can only be "purified" by men who "lean upon their own understanding" (who walk in their own carnal nature, building "common ground" upon only that which is common to all men, united in the spirit of brotherhood, in community, i.e. in common-unity, united in the love of Eros, in the "enjoyment," i.e. in the pleasures of this life in consensus―call it agape or any other name all you want, it is still Eros―the fruit bears witness to which spirit it is, i.e. whether it is of God, of righteousness, or of man, of sensuousness, i.e. I don't see Christians running to the Word of God for answers today, if it is the Word of God, but rather to the opinions of men).
Without the word of God, there is no righteousness. All there is is a world of men seeking to attain it (righteousness) through their own sensuousness. Where there is confusion (seeking to unite sensuousness and righteousness) there is only uncertainty. The "contemporary" Christian (the dialectic Christian) being uncertain of the word of God (being full of men's opinions) is full of confusion. The "contemporary" church (the dialectic church), full of men trying to fuse righteousness (God's word) with sensuousness (men's opinions) and sensuousness (men's opinions) with righteousness (God's word) is therefore 'driven' by the way's of the world ('driven' by sensuousness). 'Purposed' in finding oneness with both the world and with God ('purposed' in sensuousness), deceiving itself and those who come to it for answers, i.e. that it knows the truth when in fact it follows after its own sensuous lies, it, like wolves in sheep skin, draws all who would come to it for the truth, i.e. escape God's judgment upon them for lusting after sensuousness, back into the world of sensuousness, now calling it 'righteousness.' Of the many who entered the wilderness only two entered the promised land, the many not entering because of their lusting after sensuousness (not having faith in, not believing upon, and not obeying God and His word, being lead instead by men's opinions, i.e. 'driven' by the "approval of men,"―the only reason for polls, surveys, feasibility studies, etc.―'purposed' in achieving it, i.e. unity and oneness in consensus, i.e. in that which is of sensuousness), the two entering because they sought after righteousness (men of faith in, belief upon, and obedience to God and His word alone, i.e. following after God and His word alone).
God has called all men to reason from faith (righteousness), i.e. to repent of their sins before Him, rather than to 'reason' through sight (sensuousness), i.e. 'justify' themselves before men. Through sensuousness man can only understand life from (through) his own carnal nature. Therefore, despite his ever learning, he can never come to the knowledge of the truth. Having sensuous eyes he can not see spiritual truth and having sensuous ears he can hear spiritual truth, his eyes and ears filtering righteousness, that which is of God, through his own sensuousness, through that which is of his own nature, blinding him to the truth of his sinfulness, i.e. his wickedness before a holy, righteous, and pure God. Without the fear of chastening (or the fear of the "wrath of God," the fear of judgment for sin, i.e. for disobedience), the commands which chastening (or wrath) enforce, i.e. that which is spiritual (that which is not of and therefore not understandable of the sensual 'moment'), i.e. that which is righteous (according to He who is above the sensual 'moment,' be it God or parent) is sensually perceived as being 'irrelevant.' Commands are sense perceived as being 'irrational' when they inhibit or block (create conflict with) the pleasures ("enjoyment," i.e. that which is sense perceived as being 'good') in and of this life, i.e. inhibit man finding unity (oneness) with the world (through the flesh), especially when man's sense perception is that in the sensual action (praxis) "no one will be hurt," i.e. all participations are consenting to (in agreement with) the action (praxis) which is sensually perceived as being 'good,' i.e. the praxis is engendered through consensus, i.e. with sensuousness. Therefore when it comes to the "body of death," i.e. the law of sin, i.e. the law of the flesh, i.e. that which is of sensuousness, i.e. of the world, the commands of God, that which is of His righteousness, i.e. His word, i.e. not of this world is sensually perceived as being not only 'irrational' (God and parent's commands are out of step with the 'time') but also 'irrelevant' (their use of chastening or fear of chastening, to enforce their commands, must be negated) in a world of 'change,' i.e. of sensuousness, i.e. of the flesh.
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' that which is good, i.e. that which is only of God, i.e. of righteousness is sense perceived as being evil when it inhibits or blocks man's sensuousness (punishes him for his desire for pleasure, his desire for 'change') and that which is evil, i.e. that which is only of his nature, i.e. of sensuousness is perceived as being good when it augments pleasure, when it engenders 'change.' Because of his sensuous nature (ever in flux, i.e. "I 'reason' therefore I am," i.e. I am ever 'changing' in a 'changing' world), no matter how much man might seek to please God (who is eternally established, i.e. "I Am that I Am," never 'changing,' i.e. "no shadow of turning"), he can not. 'Change' can not take place in an environment of preaching and teaching, where commands are enforced through chastening, without the direct use of counter-force against it. But in an environment of dialoguing opinions, 'change,' that is 'change' of paradigm, is instantly achieved. Righteousness is instantly negated in an environment of sensuous 'reasoning,' i.e. an environment of men seeking to achieve consensus. It is in the environment sensuousness that man finds his nature and nature 'driving' him in the 'purpose' of actualizing oneness (peace and pleasure) with himself and the world. It is here, in the environment of sensuousness (of 'change'), that the dialectic process finds its 'purpose,' i.e. the negation of righteousness ('rationally' negating that which is not of sensuous man, i.e. of the world).
Therefore man, in dialectic fashion (choosing himself, i.e. his feelings, i.e. unrighteousness, i.e. sensuousness as the standard for knowing truth), chooses the broad pathway of 'change,' i.e. the pathway of unrighteousness, i.e. the way of sin (the laws of the flesh). "Πáντα pεî καî οúδèν μéνει "Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Heraclitus) "What truly is always true is that all is in flux, the truth-seeker ought properly to address himself to the study of this life process of truth seeking itself." (G. W. F. Hegel) "Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity, though such a process is indeed possible. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) It is sensuousness which carnal man readily identifies and relates with, not righteousness. "The objective sought [uniting in sensuousness and negating righteousness] will not be reached so long as the new set of values is not experienced by the individual as something freely chosen." "An outright enforcement of the new set of values and beliefs is simply the introduction of a new god who has to fight with the old god, now regarded as a devil." (Kurt Lewin and Paul Grabbe, "Conduct, Knowledge, and Acceptance of New Values" The Journal of Social Issues, 1:3:56-65 August, 1945)
Truth, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' is found in "sense experience" (through sensuousness) rather than in established laws and commands (in righteousness). 'Truth' must therefore be 'changeable' (must be 'rationally' relevant to the 'moment,' i.e. make 'sense' in the 'light' of the current situation, i.e. be only of nature) or it is not real. (According to Marx, reality, the "absolute subject," can only come out of the "ether of the brain." Karl Marx, the Holy Family) According to dialectic 'reasoning,' truth which is 'irrational' (not sensual, not carnal, not natural) is 'irrelevant' to the "big picture." The dialectic fear is, if righteousness is given power to rule over the affairs of man it will inhibit or block man's 'quest' to initiate and sustain social harmony and world peace ("self-actualize" unity in social praxis). Therefore righteousness must be negated, not only in the thoughts of man but also in his social actions, if man is to know himself as he really is, i.e. carnal, i.e. natural, i.e. only of the world, i.e. working for a "new" world order, where only he (collectively) is god. This is the only 'truth' which can be known, i.e. be acceptable to man, according to dialectic 'reasoning.'
The truth is, it is only in righteousness, that which is only found in Christ (imputed by Him to men of faith in Him) that man can know the truth, i.e. know who he is, where he came from, and where he is going. Apart from the truth which is in Christ (Christ is the truth) all that man has is his ability to 'justify' himself, i.e. 'justify' his carnal nature, i.e. 'justify' his lust for the things of this world, using his 'reasoning' abilities to glorify himself, glorify that which is created, rather than, through faith, glorifying God who created all things. Man's heart being wicked (unregenerate), can only engender a world of wickedness (sustain a world of unrighteousness and lies).
Carnal man, in and of himself, can not comprehend (understand) that which is Spiritual, that which is of God, that which is of righteousness, i.e. 'unchanging,' holy, sacred, pure, perfect, good. His carnal nature, that which is of the world, of the earth, can only comprehend that which is temporal, that which is of sensuousness, that which is of unrighteousness, i.e. 'changing,' secular, impure, imperfect, perverse. Spiritual, according to mans carnal nature and his 'reasoning' to justify it, can only be that force which unites (draws) man to nature itself, i.e. 'drives' him to be at one with himself and nature in a condition of peace, i.e. guaranteed sustenance (bread) and leisure ("enjoyment" or pleasure). Without God revealing himself, i.e. his love, mercy, and grace, through His word, through His only begotten son Jesus Christ, man can not know of God's true nature, i.e. of His love, mercy, and grace. Without the Holy Spirit, man can not know God's true nature, i.e. His love, mercy, and grace ('"joy unspeakable" and peace that "transcends understanding") whereby he is able to endure the tribulations which comes from the world against him, i.e. against righteousness. It is only in the righteousness of Christ, imputed to men of faith in Him, that the nature of God is manifested in the hearts, minds, and actions of a man. While man can know of God (know there is a god), recognizing the order of creation, they can not know Him, apart from his revealed word, i.e. in Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Man, in rejecting God's judgment upon him for his sin, i.e. for his disobedience to His command to obey or else (to break one of the the laws is to break them all, i.e. its not the law itself which is the only issue, it is obedience to the paradigm of perfection, purity, holiness, righteousness) is therefore subject to only his sensuousness, that which is of the world, of nature, and of his 'reasoning' abilities to 'justify' it. By perceiving himself as being the same as the rest of nature, subject to laws of nature only, he can only revert to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. 'reasoning' through dialogue, through speculation and experimentation to come to know himself and the world he finds himself in. In this praxis of dialectic 'reasoning' he negates (blinds himself to) the creator of the world and His righteousness.
Not being able to endure the pain of rejection which the world bestows upon those who seek after righteousness (being derided, rejected, persecuted, etc. for living by faith), man turns to his carnal nature and 'reasoning' abilities to 'justify' himself (thinking and acting according to sight, i.e. according to his own sensuousness). Without God revealing Himself to man, all man can do is believe that there is a God (someone or something created nature and the laws of nature), acknowledge his own failure in obeying him (in some way, shape, or form seek to appease God for the pain he is suffering), and try, through his works and 'reasoning' abilities, to redeem himself from God's wrath upon him (his actions still based upon his own sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities). While a man might seek after righteousness, without the righteousness of Christ, he can not know God. He will always set out to make a kingdom of 'righteousness' on the earth of his own, creating a kingdom on the earth according to his own perception of 'righteousness,' i.e. subject to his own sensuousness, i.e. to augment pleasure and attenuate pain (so as to control the environment, i.e. the world, for the "betterment" of life for all (at least for the "We working for us."), suppressing and removing the 'unrighteous,' i.e. those "not of us," by force of government when necessary―while believers are freed from the ways of the world, in Christ, they are still subject to civil ordinances and are to respect and obey government, up to where it goes counter to God's will, i.e. the gospel calls no man to overthrow government for the kingdom of God, i.e. the Lord himself will do that in His coming, it calls the redeemed to be a witness of "God's will being done on earth" by men of faith in Him alone). Whether in sacred or secular form this has always been of the praxis of unredeemed man (unredeemed by the blood of the Lamb of God), i.e. making kingdoms for his God, according to his own carnal nature ('justifying' himself by doing so), even doing it in "the name of the Lord" (possessed by the 'good works' they have done or are doing for the Lord―the gospel carries no such mandate). In his effort to escape the tribulations of this life, to avoid pain and approach pleasure (living according to his own sensuousness), man is not willing to endure the pain of daily dying to his own nature (dying to the temporal, rejecting unrighteous and the approval of the world) and taking on the nature of God (walking in the spirit, following after Christ, living in His righteousness―believers are not self-righteous, i.e. their righteousness being only of Christ, the son of God seated at the right hand of the Heavenly Father, it is those of the world who are self-righteous, 'righteous' according to their own carnal nature). The witness of God to the world has always been the witness (martyrdom, i.e. rejection by the world) of those seeking after righteousness (that righteousness which can only come from God). The world, loving the pleasures of this life (darkness) rather than the righteousness of God (light), can do nothing else but persecute the righteous for their own sake, i.e. for the sake of their own sensuousness, i.e. for the sensation of "social harmony" and "world peace," "sense experienced" in the praxis of consensus (an environment in which the righteous can not, without causing "division," "dissention," and "disharmony," i.e. causing pain in the world and receiving pain from the world, participate).
While good and evil, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' can only be 'discovered' through man's sensuous nature, i.e. with his natural desire to augment pleasure and attenuate pain (that which is natural), good and evil, according to God's will, is based upon what He is, i.e. according to his 'nature,' i.e. righteousness (that which is super-natural, i.e. not of nature). Deception comes when man bases good upon (seeks to achieve good through) his own carnal nature. His 'reasoning' is therefore used to 'justify' himself, his sensuous thoughts and actions as being good ('righteous' in his own eyes) when in fact they are evil. It is on this ground (that man is basically good or has the potentially of becoming good) that philosophy takes its stand. That man can become 'good' ('righteous'), given the 'right' conditions, the 'right' education, doing the 'right' actions, negates (in the thoughts and actions of men) the necessity of righteousness being imputed by God to men of faith in Him.
Enlightened Christians ("contemporary Christians") follow the same train of thought that Stephen Bronner describes in his book on Marxism: "The ideas of the Enlightenment taught man that he could trust his own reason [engendered from emotions or sensation] as a guide to establishing valid ethical norms and that he could rely on himself [his carnal nature and his 'reasoning' abilities in 'justifying' himself], needing neither revelation [the scriptures, i.e. the word of the Lord] nor that authority of the church [the Lord Himself] in order to know good and evil." (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists) bracketed information added Enlightened people are not 'rational' (as they would like you to believe), they are emotional (what they accuse you of being). Pin then down with the truth and they become emotional, i.e. hateful toward you, disparaging you, labeling you as being 'irrational' (in 'denial') or uncaring, treating the truth you share (and thus you) as being 'irrelevant' (of no worth). As disappointing as this might be, i.e. "Christians" choosing sensuousness over righteousness, choosing self-social 'justification' over justification in Christ, choosing human feelings and 'reasoning' (men's opinions, theories, etc.) over faith in God and belief in His Word, choosing sensual knowledge over revelation knowledge, choosing man's will over God's will, choosing to fear man rather than God, choosing Caesar over Christ, aut Caesar aut nullus, "either Caesar or nobody" (Caesar provided circuses, "entertainment," "celebration," and sensuousness, Christ a cross, "suffering," "shame," and righteousness), choosing to put their trust in man, in his flesh and his 'wisdom,' rather than in the Lord (Proverbs 3:5, 6), choosing the creation over the creator, choosing the pleasures of this life over God, etc., I am not discouraged (at least I don't stay disconsolate or crestfallen for too long). It is God, the Lord, the scriptures, the truth, and His righteousness (His peace), after all, that is enduring. "Be careful for nothing (Gr. be anxious for nobody); but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:6-7 information added We are to have (put on) the mind of Christ instead of the mind of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the sensuous, "self 'justifying'" mind of man. As you will come to understand, it is (of all things) righteousness which is at the heart of the dialectic process, i.e. why the enlightened Christian has rejected it and the average "Christian" does not properly understand it (or does not want to understand it). If you want to get along with the world you can not let righteousness "tag along." If you try to bring the two together, to have the "best" of both worlds, i.e. the world of sensuousness (flesh) and the other world of righteousness (Spirit), it just 'ain't gonna' happen, no matter how hard you try. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18; Matthew 6:24; Isaiah 55:8-9; Galatians 5:16-26)
It appears the moment you put righteousness on the table of sensuousness and 'reasoning' you are being "controversial," i.e. "divisive," i.e. "hateful." The truth, God's Word, "Thus saith the Lord... It is written," in a room full of human feelings and thoughts, i.e. a room full of men's opinions, i.e. a room full of "I feel" and "I think," i.e. a room full of unrighteous men (perceiving themselves to be 'righteous,' i.e. 'rational' in their own eyes―including Christians, i.e. enlightened Christians) is always responded to as being "controversial," i.e. "divisive," i.e. "hateful." You are the one needing counseling (training on "how to win friends and influence people," needing honing on your "human relationship building skills"). The problem with the "church" today is that it does not know the Word of God because it has been "leaning upon" human 'wisdom' (counseling by enlightened minds), therefore, like an untrained pilot who has not read and learned from the proper manual to know what to do in a crisis, it may be to late (he might not have time) to read it to know the right solution to the crisis, as the plane stalls, only having an opinion (a guess, i.e. an "I feel" or an "I think") to go on. But, then again, if everybody is "laughing," "celebrating," "enjoying" themselves (with everyone leaning to their own understanding, i.e. leaning upon men's opinions, "enjoying" their "common" experience of togetherness) instead of turning to the Lord for help as it falls (the focus of life being upon the "positive" instead of the "negative," i.e. right and wrong, good and evil determined by internal "feelings" instead of by an external authority, i.e. the focus of life being upon the 'goodness' of man's deeds and his "potential" instead of the deceitfulness and wickedness of man's heart and God's demand for perfection, i.e. for righteousness, and God's way of doing things for man to receive it, i.e. through faith, the focus or issue of life being upon sensuousness instead of righteousness, where experiential "truth," i.e. "truth" based upon how one feels or what one thinks rejects truth which is inculcated, accepted "as given," accepted by faith―when wickedness is accepted as the norm, as "normal human behavior," the righteous, those made righteous in Christ, are perceived and therefore must be treated as abnormal, i.e. be persecuted), it might not be a crisis after all (as far as man "perceives" it), that is until it crashes, but by then, with everyone "eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage," i.e. living the 'good' life, i.e. living in prosperity, who cares. As long as everybody "enjoyed" the 'trip,' it was worth it for the 'moment.' But then there is eternity (where man's opinions won't count, i.e. won't make a difference), i.e. why righteousness is the issue of life in the "here-and-now," affecting life in the "there-and-then." Righteousness, like the flood, rains on everyone's parade (except for the redeemed), i.e. judging man's thoughts and his actions according to God's will. Despite how 'good' a man might feel about himself in the sensuous, "here-and-now" 'moment,' eternity (righteousness) awaits to judge him, i.e. judge him for his unrighteous thoughts and his unrighteous deeds (praxis or actions) which he "enjoyed" in the sensuous, "here-and-now" 'moment.' (It is not that man could ever live a life of righteousness, in and of himself―why righteousness must be imputed―but that he is redeemed by He who is righteous, sanctification being the work of Christ in the life of the redeemed as they daily die to their sensuousness, i.e. not doing their will, and live daily in His righteousness, i.e. doing His will.) Man, blinded by his "here-and-now" sensuousness ('rationally' justified carnal nature), i.e. justified through his "enlightened" mind, is unable to perceive that there is a "there-and-then" day of accountability to righteousness, when he will learn where he will spend eternity. "There is a way that seemeth right ['righteous'] unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25 bracketed information added When human relationship becomes the standard from which to determine 'righteousness' then a man can not grow in the knowledge of the word of God, his relationship with others (his desire for "the approval of others"), like rocky soil, will determine how deep into it he can afford to go.
If you don't have God's Word and His righteousness in responding to life's tribulations, i.e. life's 'situations,' i.e. life's 'crisis,' all you have is your opinion or other men's opinions (human 'reasoning' skills and 'self-justification' that "seems right" at the time) based upon your own sensuousness (your carnal nature―from which psychology, sociology, etc derive their 'drive' and 'purpose,' i.e. liberating it, i.e. man and his nature, from accountability to righteousness). Righteousness (God and His Word) in that case will simply be an inconvenience which you will have to push aside ("temporally" put to the side in your effort to find "common ground" with yourself, i.e. with your feelings, with your fellow man, i.e. with his feelings, and with the world) to 'rationally' "solve" the problem (crisis) at hand. Without the praxis of 'change' (the dialectic process being put into individual-social action) the crisis (the conflict between what "is" and what "ought" to be) can not be resolved (the parent's "Because I said so," i.e. the parent's will ruling over the child's will, can not be overcome, i.e. negated, by the child's will, i.e. his "because I said so," liberating the child's will from parent's will, i.e. liberating man from a higher authority which is not in harmony with his carnal nature, i.e. liberating his "ought to be," that which is of his nature from "the establishment," from that which is not of his nature, that which is of the "there-and-then," so he can be himself, and only himself, i.e. only human, i.e. only of his nature, i.e. sensuous, as he "ought to be" in the "here-and-now"). "The eclipse ['change'] of a way thinking cannot take place without a crisis." (Antonio Gramsci) 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 [righteousness is a "barrier" to or a restrainer of sensuousness, i.e. of 'change'].... 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) "During the period of innovation [period of 'change'], an environment is invisible. The present is always invisible because the whole field of attention is so saturated with it. It becomes visible only when is has been superseded by a new environment [in other words, you were "enjoying" the 'moment' so much you could not see the 'change' (the paradigm 'shift') taking place until afterwards, i.e. it is now too late to 'change' back, i.e. like "humpty dumpty," a poem of the French Revolution, once the King's head is cut off you can't put it back on again, i.e. after eating of "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" you can not going back and not do it]." (Federal Education Grant, Dec. 1969 Behavior Science in Teacher Education Program; benchmark grant to all federal education grants) bracketed information added Putting aside righteousness for the sake of the sensuous 'moment,' that is, for "the approval of man," is what the dialectic process is all about, i.e. all done for the 'purpose' of 'change.' "For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels." Luke 9:26 The pattern of enlightened (dialectic) Christians, including ministers, is to put aside (redefine) the issue of righteousness, when it conflicts with (becomes a barrier to) the issues of sensuousness, i.e. causes division instead of social harmony.
By substituting "enjoyment" ("the approval of men"―sensually perceived as "positive") for righteousness ("the approval of God"―sensually perceived as "negative"), as being the issue of life, man creates for himself a "new" world order, an order of the world built upon the sensuousness and dialectic 'reasoning' of man (human reasoning justifying sensuousness over and against righteousness, "enjoyment" over and against doing what is right and not doing what is wrong according to God's will), determining what is right according to how others might feel or what others might think rather than upon doing right and not doing wrong according to the righteousness, i.e. the perfect will of God. The dialectic 'reasoning' is: if, during a war (during a crisis), despite their difference in faith, race, etc. men are willing to fight together to defend their "common" interest (externally putting aside, for the moment, their differences, yet internally still retaining the conditions they believe in for righteousness sake), by manipulating them into dialoguing their opinions into consensus before and during the war (the crisis), i.e. getting them to collectively put aside their differences by finding "common ground" (sensually and 'rationally') so that they can fight "together" for the common cause, they will 'willingly' negate the conditions of righteousness for the common cause, not only externally but also internally (in theory and in practice). In this way (by dialectic 'reasoning') men's opinions and theories (sensuousness 'rationalized' and 'rationalized' sensuousness) negate faith and belief (righteousness), and dialectic 'reasoning' ends up managing (ordering) the thoughts and actions of men (as is done in "Total Quality Management") rather than God and His Word. By asking someone to put aside their belief for the "common" 'good,' you are asking them to deny their belief. In the end you are asking them to make "the common 'good,'" based upon sensuousness (the flesh), their "new" belief. "Physical experiences cause a change in our theories and concepts about the physical world." "The objective sought [the paradigm 'change'] will not be reached so long as the new set of values is not experienced by the individual as something freely chosen." (Principles of Re-education, Kurt Lewin and Paul Grabbe, "Conduct, Knowledge, and Acceptance of New Values" The Journal of Social Issues, 1:3:56-65 August, 1945) "There is evidence in our data that once a change in behavior has occurred, a change in beliefs is likely to follow." "It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately." "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "What better way to help the patient [the child] recapture the past than to allow him to re-experience and reenact ancient feelings [of dissatisfaction] toward parents in his current relationship to the therapist? The therapist is the living personification of all parental images. Group therapists refuse to fill the traditional authority role: they do not lead in the ordinary manner, they do not provide answers and solutions, they urge the group to explore and to employ its own resources. The group [must] feel free to confront the therapist [learn how to confront parental authority], who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation. He [the child] reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role he once occupied. … the patient [the child] changes the past by reconstituting it." (Irvin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) In all of this, righteousness (Godly and parental authority) is negated in the praxis of sensuousness (the child's carnal nature, i.e. "human behavior") being 'justified.'
The modern age was the result of the protestant reformation, i.e. of righteousness imputed, i.e. of production being a byproduct of "doing your best as unto the Lord" ("industry and honesty," individual thought and action set upon pleasing higher authority, with God the Father being the highest authority, not to attain righteousness but rather because of it) and "the priesthood of all believers" (individual thought and action being lead and directed by higher authority, i.e. by God himself, with no man, i.e. that of sensuousness coming between), i.e. of righteousness , i.e. of love for the Father and His only begotten son, Jesus Christ, and not of the renaissance, i.e. of consumption, i.e. of aesthetics, i.e. of sensuousness, i.e. of the love of "enjoyment" of the flesh (what we have become today). Post-modernism is the negation of righteousness, i.e. the rejection of righteousness as being the reference point for determining right from wrong, with a return to paganism, i.e. neo-paganism as the measure of thought and action, i.e. the 'justification' of sensuousness promoted by psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. via. "contemporary" education (including "contemporary Christian" education).
In the post-modern age man appeals to "reason" (dialectic, i.e. sensuous 'reason,' as he did in eating from the "tree of knowledge") not faith (righteousness in Christ, who is the only answer to man's eating of the "forbidden fruit"). In man's 'wisdom,' faith is replaced with man's carnal "sense perception," righteousness with sensuousness, that which is from above with that which is below, the scriptures (God's council) with psychology, sociology, etc. "The entry into Freud cannot avoid being a plunge into a strange world and a strange language―a world of sick men, .... It is a shattering experience for anyone seriously committed to the Western traditions of morality and rationality to take a steadfast, unflinching look at what Freud has to say. To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) History, instead of being a study of man being redeemed by righteousness, is now, dialectically, the study of man "redeeming" himself from righteousness. "If ... man can ever be redeemed by freedom, then the ‘original sin' must be committed again: ‘We must again eat from the tree of knowledge ...." (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) "Religion and science [dialectic 'science,' "science falsely so called" 1 Timothy 6:20] can be kept apart [righteousness can be negated] , indeed, one is able to do conscientious screening and not let one activity impede the other―in short, it is an exercise in 'role playing.'" "As I tried the sociometric system [role-playing] 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).'" "Our epoch will reach a climax with a scientific Christ [Antichrist] ending the chain." "... the origins of my work go back to a primitive religion [kabalism, Gnosticism, Hermeticism] and my objectives were the setting up and promoting of a new cultural order." "I could well imagine a world of a reversed order, opposite to ours, in which ethical suicide of people after 30 or 35 as a religious technique of countering overpopulation is just as natural as birth control has become in our culture. In that society the love of life would be carried to its extreme. 'Make space for the unborn, make space for the newborn, for everyone born.' Every time a new baby is born make space for him by taking the life of an old man or an old woman." "... sociometric democracy in which the unborn, the living, and the dead are partners-instead of keeping the unborn and the dead out of partnership." (J. L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive) bracketed information added
If you think Moreno is mad, just know this, FDR thought the world of him, as have presidents, legislators, and judges since. Today all federal agents (and most educators) must participate in "sensitivity training," i.e. role-playing, which was his brainchild (more on Moreno). It is not just "fun and games" as it "seems to be." Role-playing has deadly consequences (I would be laughed at by "enlightened" college students and faculty in saying that, i.e. especially those who live for dopamine, endorphin, and estrogen or testosterone, i.e. who live for the augmentation of self-social "enjoyment"―which college seems to be mostly about these days). "Role-playing," dialectic thinking and acting (the praxis of washing righteousness from the brain) is a wide gate "that leadeth to destruction." "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:13, 14 "Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able." Luke 13:24
Martin Luther warned of the dangers of 'dialectic phantasies,' i.e. of chimerical, quixotic thinking, i.e. thinking with caprice. The post-modern age is what Luther was warning us about, i.e. a return to neo-paganism, this time on a global scale, with sensuousness and spontaneity ("caprice") being its foundation. "But science insists that action is initiated by forces impinging upon the individual, and that caprice [impulse, deviancy] is only another name for behavior for which we have not yet found a cause." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets neither the revelations of God nor man – can take precedence over my own direct experience." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) "The life instinct ... demands a union with others and with the world around us based not on anxiety and aggression [righteousness] but on narcissism and erotic exuberance [sensuousness]." "... a science based on an erotic sense of reality." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "Sense experience must be the basis of all science." (Karl Marx) "Emancipation [from righteousness] lies in fantasy and the language of experience irreducible to linguistic rules: mimesis." "Marcuse thus could write that ‘the realm of freedom lies beyond mimesis.'" (Stephen Erik Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists) "Universal Reconciliation relies on a reason that is before reason―mimesis or ‘impulse.'" (Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action) "Impulse, the primary fact, back of which, psychically we cannot go." (John Dewey, "Social Psychology," Psychological Review, I, July, 1894) bracketed information added. Hegel called it "intuition," a "feeling," a "need," "enjoyment," which makes the "individual" and the "people" one and the same in the "immediate," where the "individual" and "the people" (society) are "subordinate" to one another and therefore "organic," thus "self" and "property" are "universal," "related" to one another, i.e. materially, cosmically, sensually. The "inner light" ("the child within") and the "universal light" ("the universal child") are only able to become "united" as one (overcoming righteousness, i.e. negate its engendered "self-environment rift") through dialectic 'reasoning.' (quoted words are those Hegel used in his work System of Ethical Life) He believed that the family, by being a "barrier" to the child, engendered within the child the drive (the impulse, the desire) for 'liberation,' starting him down the pathway of become at one with the universal. Without the barrier (righteousness against sensuousness) and the ensuing rebellion (sensuousness against righteousness), 'reasoning' would not have become actualized, i.e. become man's means of "salvation" from the conditions of righteousness (Genesis 3:1-6), whereby man could become himself, become "self-actualized." Karl Marx believed that it was not enough to talk about it, but that it ('change,' i.e. the negation of righteousness as being the issue of life) must be put into social action, i.e. into praxis. Luther warned those of his day to avoid the dialectic process with a passion, i.e. that if the gospel (righteousness imputed) was not "incessantly" preached and taught in the universities they would become "wide gates to hell," i.e. institutions of dialectic "filth." That is what they have become, all in the name of "progress," i.e. in the 'quest' for "global unity," i.e. in the praxis of making the world "safe for democracy."
I write in a way that only those who really want to know the truth―wanting to know how we have came to be a nation (and a church) of 'change' (a 'church' rejecting righteousness as the true and only issue of life)―will read through the material. You have to be in pain yourself, wanting to know what just happened to you, to get through these articles. The following article, as most of the other articles, is repetitious (with many sub-articles in the article, each covering the same subject over and over again but adding something new or saying it in a different way―if you miss the what and how of the dialectic process it is not my fault other than you got tired of reading about it over and over again). I also tend to write paragraph sentences, which are 'logical,' most of the time, but may be hard to follow, requiring some serious thinking, i.e. retention. I am, over time, breaking them down for easier reading, which unfortunate adds more sentences to the article, making it even longer (and more repetitious). I hope to write a concise "Introduction to the Articles" in the future. Only time will tell if I ever get to it or get it done.
If you want a good understanding regarding the dialectic process, how it works and why it affects upon you, it is important that you read all the way through the article at least once as information is distributed throughout it (it may be hard reading but it can be done with perseverance). I sometimes cover a subject in some detail before explaining all the words thus requiring you to read through the article for their meaning. A second reading will help put it all together. The first part of the article will become very clear during the second reading. (The last part of the article is easier reading but if you just read it you will miss out on many important details and quotes―compared to the amount of quotations I use in the other articles there are few in this article, but they are bulwark to the process, some are profound.)
It is hoped that you know the scriptures or come to know them as you read through this material so that you can recall or refer to them often in response to the dialectic process and its praxis in your life and the world around you. I wish every student could understand the dialectic process, what it is really all about, before attending classes in "higher education." But then, it might be harder for them to attend some classes, knowing what is happening to them and the other students in the class. This is a sobering subject, which has major ramifications, not only regarding the nation and the family but, most important of all, regarding the souls of men.
A note of importance, before going any further: I will repeat the following information throughout the article, it is that important (it is the issue of life itself). To understand this article it is important that you know the difference between the word righteousness and the phrase "the system of Righteousness," as well as their similarities. By getting rid of the latter, i.e. the system of Righteousness, its environment of faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, those of dialectic 'reasoning' seek to negate the former, i.e. righteousness, i.e. faith in Christ only. The same is true for the word 'righteousness' and the phrase "the system of 'righteousness,' which are of dialectic 'reasoning' and will be explained later.
It might seem strange at first, that righteousness fits in with the subject of the dialectic process of Hegel, Marx, Freud, etc. fame, but, as you will come to understand, righteousness is all that the dialectic process is about, that is, the negation of it. "Psychoanalysis is necessary in order to differentiate the new ‘purified' animism [human nature only, sensuousness only] from the old naïve animism [man subject to, i.e. tolerant of a higher authority, i.e. sensuousness subject to, i.e. tolerant of righteousness]." Those of sensuousness believe that "life is of the body and only life creates value; all values are bodily values." "The true life of the body is also the life of the id [sensuousness and spontaneity, i.e. impulse, caprice, etc.]." "In the id, says Freud, there is nothing corresponding to the act of negation." (Norman O. Brown Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "Negation" corresponds to the system of Righteousness. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' negation is of righteousness with its commands of restraint upon sensuousness and its use of chastening to enforce them, i.e. restrain sensuousness and spontaneity that is (spontaneity being the main focus, as far as conditions are concerned, for both the system of sensuousness and the system of Righteousness, i.e. the former wanting to liberate it, the later needing to restrain it).
The word "negation" is foundational to dialectic 'reasoning.' It is simply the removal of conflict, i.e. the negation of the condition which engenders conflict between two opposing positions, i.e. removes the conflict (tension) between feelings which are 'changing' and rules which are unchanging. It is a condition which negates the condition of antithesis (a top-down, above-below, unchangingness condition), by 'shifting' the focus from initiating and sustaining a position (right vs. wrong―righteousness being the issue of life, i.e. where 'unchallengeable-ness,' i.e. mandated obedience, i.e. respect of elders engenders 'unchangeable-ness,' i.e. absolutes, i.e. rules are established forever, i.e. higher authority and their commands, as preached and taught, are to be obeyed without question, establishing "rigidity") to the building of relationship (feelings―sensuousness being the issue of life, i.e. where 'challengeable-ness,' mandating the questioning of authority, i.e. disrespect of elders engenders 'changeable-ness,' relativism, i.e. questioning authority and their commands, through the dialoguing of opinions, 'liberates' man from "rigidity"). The dialectic 'idea' is: by accentuating the condition for synthesis (focusing upon feelings which people have in common), moving people from the antithesis of opposing facts and truth, i.e. absolute right and wrong, i.e. "unchanging" beliefs being preached and taught "as is" without end (dialectic 'reasoning' can not function in an unchallengeable/unchangeable, i.e. righteousness, i.e. "negative" environment) to the synthesis of feelings and thoughts, i.e. ever 'changing' opinions and theories being dialogued to arrive at a common consensus (decisions made with sensuousness) for the time being, i.e. for the 'moment' (dialectic 'reasoning' can only work in a challengeable/changeable, i.e. sensuous, i.e. "positive" environment) both the individual and society can be 'changed,' i.e. 'liberated' from the judgmental conditions of righteousness.
The "negation of negation" is the removal, i.e. the negation of the conditions of righteousness―negating that which requires faith, belief, obedience, and chastening (which is "negative"―"win-lose," i.e. which is "intolerant of ambiguity," i.e. "intolerant of the tolerant" while not necessarily "tolerant of the intolerant") which negate the conditions of sensuousness (which is "positive"―"win-win," which is "tolerant of ambiguity," i.e. "tolerant of the tolerant," i.e. tolerant and encouraging of sensuousness and spontaneity and "intolerant of the the intolerant," i.e. intolerant and discouraging of righteousness―"It is important that the therapist attempt to screen out patients [children] who will become marked deviants, deviants because of their interpersonal behavior in the group sessions [their focus is upon righteousness, engendering "negativity" in an environment accentuating sensuousness and spontaneity, i.e. promoting "positivity"] and not because of a deviant life style or past history [present or past carnal behavior]." "There is no type of past behavior too deviant for a group to accept once therapeutic group norms are established." "the deviant [the righteousness minded]… correlates very highly with negative outcome: a member deemed by the others … to be ‘out' of the group has virtually no chance of benefiting from the group and a strong chance of suffering harm [being martyred]." "The successful leader … reinforces each member's activity … escort the deviant back into the group, and he discourages the development of scapegoating and judgmentalism [he cuts off "cause and effect" or "either-or" preaching and teaching]." "One of the most difficult patients for me to work with in groups is the individual who employs fundamentalist religious views in the service of denial [denial of erotic impulses as being 'right' or 'normal' for "human behavior," i.e. rejects deviancy and perversity as being natural and 'right,' therefore to be "tolerated" and "embraced"]." "Communication toward a deviant is very great initially and then drops off sharply as the group rejects the deviant. Eventually, the group will extrude the deviant. They may smile at one another when he speaks or behaves irrelevantly; they will mascot him, they will ignore him rather than invest the necessary time to understand his interventions [they refuse to acknowledge much less accept righteousness as a way of life, definitely rejecting it as the only way of life]." Irvin Yalom Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy bracketed information added), i.e. spontaneous sensuousness―negating that which engenders doubting, questioning, disobeying, and permissiveness (negating unchallengeable-ness which negates or prevents changeable-ness, i.e. negating unchangeable-ness which negates or prevents challengeable-ness, i.e. negating authority which uses chastening to negate challenging or questioning authority). The "negation of negating" is the negation of righteousness as a 'right' way to live or the only 'right' way of life. The "negation of negation" is a "never-never land" where the voice of the patriarchal parent is never heard again, i.e. a condition where a child (or adult, i.e. society) can be as a child, i.e. permissive, with no condemnation for (and judgment of) his "natural" (carnal) thoughts and actions, restraining him from being all that he is and preventing him from being all that can be.
"Right" in dialectic reasoning' is 'right' which feels 'good' (is "positive") in regards to sensuousness (a permissive 'right' which does not negate anymore, i.e. does not judge carnality as being "wicked" anymore). "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 [tolerant] 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) bracketed information added Dialect 'righteousness' does not negate sensuous desires, i.e. does not tolerate the negation of "normal human behavior" according to the conditions of righteousness anymore. "In the eyes of dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred [as righteousness is negated, sensuousness is augmented]." (Karl Marx) "We recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and all places [as righteousness is negated, sensuousness is augmented]." (Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain, pg. 32)
The dialectic process (of the George Hegel, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, etc. cult) is so near you, you come into contact with it on a daily basis. It is the process used by every "certified" teacher in your state and our nation, including "certified" Christian teachers. It is the process which is the foundation for "Bloom's Taxonomies," quoted from above, i.e. a "Taxonomy" of curriculum development (a classification system) used for the classroom, used by every teacher for the purpose of "mapping" the room to more easily negate (facilitate the negation of) righteousness from the classroom experience of the students, teachers, and staff (as well as negate righteousness from the communication between the parents who volunteer, i.e. cooperate with those of the process) for the 'purpose' of engendering 'change,' i.e. worldliness. Many teachers sense something is wrong but don't know what it is or dare address it for fear of loosing their job (for being to "negative," i.e. unprofessional, i.e. "righteous," i.e. 'irrational,' i.e. prejudiced, i.e. intolerant, etc.).
The "negation of negation" is the negation of the preaching and teaching of "as given" truth, initiated and sustained with the use of chastening or threat of chastening (which negates the dialoguing of opinions), which is all 'justified' and put into praxis through the use of dialectic 'reasoning.' Dialectic 'reasoning' is the basis for "situation ethics," where ethics and morals are based upon personal feelings and thoughts in response to a given situation rather than upon established rules of conduct ("situation ethics" are ethics of unrighteousness), as well as for "values clarified," where values are transformed from values established upon higher authorities values to values engendered from one's own personal ("secret") feelings and thoughts ("values clarification" is the establishing of values upon unrighteousness). "The individual may have ‘secret' thoughts [resentment or dissatisfaction toward the restraining, i.e. negative conditions of righteousness] which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it. To gain access is particularly important, for here may lie the individual's potential ['liberation' from the conditions of righteousness]." "One of the primary functions of these [matter-of-fact] questions was to encourage the subject to talk freely. This was attempted by indicating, for example, that critical remarks about parents were perfectly in place, thus reducing defenses as well as feelings of guilt and anxiety." (Theodor Adorno, The Authorities Personality) emphasis and bracketed information added. ("Open-ended" and "non-directed," i.e. opinion based questions, when responded to, 'liberates' the person from the conditions of righteousness, i.e. faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, 'emancipating' him to be himself, i.e. sensuous and spontaneous, i.e. carnal) "Much stress is laid on the creation of an atmosphere of freedom and spontaneity—voluntary attendance, informality of meetings, freedom of expression in voicing grievances, emotional security, and avoidance of pressure." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
A little thinking might be required at first since any study of the dialectic excludes righteousness ("unchangeable" right and wrong―if it is 'unchangeable' it is 'unchallengeable' and if it is 'unchallengeable' it is 'unchangeable'―which is initiated by and sustaining of a top-down authority system which makes use of chastening and rewarding to initiate and sustain order―in pursuit of perfection) as an issue of importance, other than as a phenomena of "abnormal" behavior. This is so that righteousness will appear to have no bearing on the subject (associated only with those of lesser mental abilities or people with "lower order thinking skills," thus being perceived as being a waste of time to those of "higher order thinking skills," other than an exercise on how to bring people of "lower order thinking skills," i.e. those of faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, on board the dialectic ship of damnation―getting way ahead of myself: "lower order thinking skills," being the children obeying the parents commands without question―right and wrong preached and taught "as is" and obeyed without question―and "higher order thinking skills," being the children 'rationally' justifying the 'irrationality' and therefore 'irrelevance' of the parents commands in the "light" of 'changing' times, i.e. the parents commands filtered through the child's own personal "sense experience" in the 'moment,' where the children can then freely and openly question the parents commands and 'rationally justify' their disobedience to the parents and their commands because their behavior is no longer perceived as being disobedience but rather as being "normal human behavior"―the "hum" in "human" meaning of the earth, carnal―"rational" behavior in the pursuit of approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e. initiating and sustaining "good" feelings and thoughts and avoiding "bad" feelings and thoughts toward one another, necessary for the 'purpose' of initiating and sustaining social harmony and world peace, i.e. learning to 'change' quickly in a 'rapidly changing world,' i.e. put aside or not insist upon one's way, i.e. God's or the parent's way, i.e. "It is written" or "Because my parents said so" in every given situation). In fact, few people understand what righteousness really is, rolling their eyes when it is brought up in the "light" of an "academic subject" (not knowing the "academic subject" is all about righteousness, the negation of it that is) or already concluding they know all there is to know about the subject, quickly turning to something else of more importance or interest. Without righteousness, all the world has "going for it" is the dialectic process of 'change,' i.e. of the 'changingness' of sensuousness being dialectically 'justified.' Heard the word 'change' recently?
Righteousness does not 'change' despite the current condition or situation which is changing. While sensuousness is ever 'changing,' i.e. feelings are always 'changing' according to the changing situation, righteousness never changes. Filtering righteousness though one's personal feelings, i.e. seeing righteousness in a different 'light,' i.e. in the "light" of "human experience" and "human reasoning," engenders 'change,' i.e. negates righteousness (in the mind or reflection of the person) as being the basis for determining 'right' though and 'right' action. By 'rationally' justifying the necessity for 'change,' i.e. dialectically 'justifying' sensuousness over and against righteousness in the 'changing' situation, "human behavior" (based upon sensuousness) becomes the only source from which to determine 'right' social action, called praxis. Righteousness thereafter is "sense perceived" as being a "barrier" to 'change,' i.e. inhibiting progress, i.e. preventing the "discovering" and "actualization" of human potential―"The answer to man's predicament lies in the realization by individual man, that all men are essentially one and that the one is God [a God of sensuous 'reasoning' rather than of righteousness]. This self-realization is a 'return' to union: potential becomes actual." (Leonard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God.) "Spirit, in so far as it is the Spirit of God, is not a spirit beyond the stars, beyond the world. On the contrary, God is present, omnipresent, and exists as spirit in all spirits." (Hegel quoted in Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel) "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) "God's work is a source of corruptions in individuals." (John Dewey, Democracy and Education) "Philosophy as theory . . . establishes the basis of its reality as praxis; it serves to distinguish it from religion, the wisdom of the other world." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') "Praxis becomes the form of action appropriate to the isolated individual, it becomes his ethics." "Marx urged us to understand ‘the sensuous world,' the object, reality, as human sensuous activity." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness What is Orthodox Marxism?) Dialectic 'reasoning' ("the spirit in all spirits," i.e. the "social" spirit, i.e. the spirit of "oneness" with nature) was first put into praxis in the garden in Eden where "human potential" became the issue of life, where man could become totally himself in nature, i.e. carnal, 'rationally' liberating himself from the conditions of righteousness, i.e. dialectically 'justifying' his sensuousness as being the basis for determining 'right' from 'wrong, 'good' from evil (only God is righteous and good). "In the process of history [in the process of man dialectically, i.e. 'intellectually' 'liberating' himself from the restraints of righteousness] man gives birth to himself. He becomes what he potentially is, and he attains what the serpent―the symbol of wisdom and rebellion―promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself." (Erick Fromm, You shall be as gods)
The dialectic process is such a subtle process that without outside help (revelation truth, spiritual understanding, "trusting in the Lord with all your heart") you can not keep yourself from using it ("leaning to your own understanding") and therefore coming under its control. It is also a complex process requiring methods of seduction, deception, and manipulation to accomplish its 'purpose,' that being, 'rationally liberating' man from the conditions of righteousness (theoretically and practically). While man is wicked, lost, and condemned, because of his unrighteousness (claiming to be God, i.e. righteous, when he is not, i.e. determining 'right' from 'wrong,' i.e. righteousness, according to his sensuous desires and 'reasoning' abilities), there is a condition whereby man 'justifies' and "enjoys" perpetrating wickedness (unrighteousness perceived as being 'righteousness' instead of wickedness) upon others for his own pleasure, being not only deceived, but taking 'pleasure' in deceiving others. (An unregenerate heart is a wicked heart even though it might be a heart of compassion for the poor, hungry, etc. man deceiving himself by believing that he is 'good' or righteous according to his works of 'good,' which he gets 'pleasure' from doing for the 'pleasure' of others.) Thus while all men use the dialectic process to 'justify' themselves as being 'right' or 'good' in their own eyes (when they are instead unrighteous), there are those who use the dialectic process to 'justify' the negation of righteousness itself (searing man's conscience―it is actually "the approval of men," i.e. the sensuousness of and 'justification' of the "group hug" which sears men's conscience, i.e. 'justifying' his unrighteousness as being 'good' because man perceives and says it is 'good,' i.e. "normal"), thus making man void of any understanding of his wickedness, depravity, and abominations, therefore taking pleasure not only in doing that which is evil (no longer perceived as being evil but rather as being 'good') but also, through the dialectic art-craft (intellectualized witchcraft, secularized Satanism) of seduction, deception, and manipulation, taking pleasure or "enjoyment" in bringing others into their praxis (evil deeds of doing 'good') as well. (Colossians 3:11) Millions upon millions have died, and continue to die violent deaths (including the elderly and the unborn) from the movement of "democracy" doing 'good' around the world. But by God's mercy and grace alone we have no hope of salvation from the dialectic way of thinking and acting (of self-social 'justification'). When man justifies himself in his own eyes, in his praxis of making the world a "better" place for himself (individually and collectively), he negates, in his thoughts and actions, the need of a savior for his unrighteousness, since his behavior is no longer recognized as being wicked but is now perceived as being "normal human behavior." As the conscience is engendered in an environment of righteousness (faith, belief, obedience, and chastening) restraining ("negating") sensuousness and spontaneity i (the conscience) is seared in an environment of 'reasoning' negating-annihilating the conditions of righteousness, for the augmentation of sensuousness and spontaneity (pleasure). For "freedom of the conscience" to govern the affairs of men (restrain tyranny), the system (or conditions) of righteousness must be encouraged and defended, i.e. be given 'liberty.'
According to dialectic 'reasoning' man's "works" (sensuousness―augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain) are necessary if the creation of a "better" ('rational') world is to "emerge." "I don't know exactly who I am, but I can feel my reactions at any given moment, and they seem to work out pretty well as a basis for my behavior from moment to moment." "The innermost core of man's nature, the base of his ‘animal nature,' is positive in nature." "Walden Two: 'Now that we know how positive reinforcement works [dialoguing opinions to consensus], and why negative doesn't' [preaching and teaching truth, and chastening to reinforce it]... ' we can be more deliberate and hence more successful in our cultural design. We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled, though they are following a code much more scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do. That's the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement―there's no restrain and no revolt. By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior―the motives, the desires, the wished. 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) bracketed information added, emphasis in original. Without incorporating "feelings," i.e. the augmentation of pleasure, in the life experience of education, the next generation of workers would, according to dialectic 'reasoning' remain loyal to the "old" world order of accountability to a higher authority, i.e. would remain subject to the conditions of righteousness.
On a sidebar: according to dialectic 'reasoning,' without all men working together for the "common 'good' or cause" (that being "enjoyment" for everyone, i.e. "What 'pleasure' can I get out of this experience for myself, i.e. "approval from others," i.e. the approval of "the collective," being the 'good' one) the "better" world can not "emerge." The workforce of the 'future' is one which can not function without a collective mindset, where the "workers council," i.e. the consensus engendered social project ("The workers' council [consensus work project for the "betterment" of society] spells the political and economic defeat of reification [capitalism, i.e. doing your best for your parents, your boss, your nation, God, according to their will]." György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness bracketed information added), is base upon cooperation of all for the sake of what each individual can get out of the work experience for the "common good," i.e. a consumer driven mindset (pleasing the community―common-unity) where the individual finds his worth in social activity more than in production itself, i.e. a producer driven mindset (pleasing higher authority) where the individual works for "the glory of God," making the best product he can possible make, whether he gets "enjoyment" or not from the work experience at the time. This why it is so hard to find people who are willing to work today, unless they can "enjoy" the experience or it does not interfere with their life of "enjoyment." ("If the work experience doesn't make me 'feel good,' i.e. I can't get 'enjoyment' from the work experience itself or it interferes with my plans of 'enjoyment,' it's not worth doing." "If you don't make me 'feel good,' i.e. if I don't 'enjoy' hearing what you are saying or I don't see any 'enjoyment' coming my way in the immediate future from it, your not worth listening to.") "All that matters is that the opportunity for genuine activity [all thoughts and actions are for the "betterment" of society, i.e. for the augmentation of "pleasure" for society] be restored to the individual; that the purposes of society and of his own become identical [pleasure, i.e. Eros, i.e. "lust"―"Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world. Eros is the foundation of morality. Human perfection consists in an expansion of the self until it enjoys the world as it enjoys itself." "Self-perfection of the human individual is fulfilled in union with the world in pleasure. Freud's later writings attribute to the ego a basic tendency to ‘reconcile,' ‘synthesize,' ‘unify' the dualism and conflicts [above-below contrast] with which the human being is beset." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)]." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom) bracketed information and quotation added "Socially useful work and its results determine a persons status in society." (Articles 14, "Former" USSR Constitution) Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) is an example of dialectic (Marxist) programming: "Shift in philosophy about police duties vs. community responsibilities to a team concept of Total Quality Management of the community.... re-identifying the police role as a Facilitator in the community.... identifying common ground, where all factions of a community can work together for the common good of the community in a broader problem-solving approach. Forming a partnership between police and the rest of the community where each is accountable to each other and the community as whole." (COPS Community Oriented Policing Services, US Department of Justice) emphasis added While it may sound 'good' at first, men learning "to get along" with one another, the conscience, the voice of the parent or God, is seared in the collective experience, being replaced with the super-ego, i.e. the voice of "the village," i.e. the collective united in sensuousness, the mind (and thus the actions) of the public servant is 'liberated' from the restraints of righteousness, his traditional duty to serving the individual citizen in the community is now 'shifted' to the augmentation of the collective experience of the community (communism). What you behold makes you into its image.
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is in "labour" (innovation―'change') that man finds his common (communist) identity with society and the creation. "…the dialectic of the moral life is linked to the development of the system of social labour." "Therefore the dialectic of the moral life must repeat itself until the materialist spell that is cast upon the reproduction of social life, the Biblical curse of necessary labour, is broken technologically." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory) emphasis added "Only when the process of production is organized on a socialist basis, ... can there be true economic democracy, equality of management and labor, and a high national standard of living." "Events of early childhood are of prime importance for the happiness and work-potential of the adult." "According to the present theory, the effects of environmental forces in molding the personality are, in general, the more profound the earlier in the life history of the individual they are brought." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) emphasis added As a patriarchal, i.e. top-down (capitalist) work environment needs a patriarch-ally educated workforce, so a heresiarchal, i.e. equality (socialist) work environment needs a heresiarch-ally educated workforce. "Rather than bringing the father back to play with his son, this strategy would recognize that society has changed, and attempt to improve those institutions designed to educate the adolescent toward adulthood [work-potential]." "Equality of Opportunity becomes ever greater with the weakening of family power." "The family has little to offer the child in the way of training for his place in the community." "In the traditional society each child is at the mercy of his parents. The ‘natural processes' by which they socialize him makes him a replica of them." (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society) emphasis added The work (education) environment directly affects (influences) the home environment. Whoever controls the work (education) environment influences (controls) the home environment. Without the home environment controlling the work (education) environment, the home environment is subject to negation-annihilation. "... the function possessed by so-called irrational institutions such as the family, ... in so-called rational bourgeois [patriarchal] society ... is in reality irrational." "... the survival of irrational 'moments' of society ... can only survive through irrational institutions like the family, through a kind of work in which the workers do no receive their full return for their labour, but are exploited once again within their closest associates, ... called the germ-cell of society... the irrational conditions of society can only be maintained through the survival of these irrational functions ... of the family." (Theodor Adorno, Introduction to Sociology) "[A] more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie [middle class-traditional family system of Righteousness], whose resistance … and whose power lies ... in the force of habit, in the strength of small-scale production." "Unfortunately, small-scale production is still widespread in the world, and small-scale production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale." "... the peasantry constantly regenerates the bourgeoisie—in positively every sphere of activity and life." "... gigantic problems of re-educating ..." "... eradicating their bourgeois habits and traditions...." "... until small-scale economy and small commodity production have entirely disappeared, the bourgeois atmosphere, proprietary habits and petty-bourgeois traditions will hamper proletarian work both outside and within the working-class movement, …" "... in every field of social activity, in all cultural and political spheres without exception." "We must learn how to eradicate all bourgeois [traditional family] habits, customs and traditions everywhere." (Vladimir Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks' Success May 12, 1920) "To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in may ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed. ...many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern is in some ways brought into question while more rational and non-authoritarian behaviors are emphasized." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book 2 Affective Domain) In the 'change' of the work (education), from a family based (top-down) to a socialist based (equality) environment, civilization is 'changed.' The emphasis upon righteousness ("obedience") is replaced with an emphasis upon sensuousness ("permissiveness"). Worldly pleasures ("lust," sensuousness) becomes the 'purpose' of work (labor) rather than pleasing God ("denying self," "righteousness"). The carryover from one (lust for the things of the world, i.e. sensuousness, or denying self before God, i.e. righteousness) directly affects the other (the individual, the home, the workplace, civilization, and even the church).
With God, the work (which is of righteousness, of the Lord himself, and not of sensuousness, of man) is already done, before the world was created. "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began," 2 Timothy 1:9 While man "glories" in his works, which are temporal, i.e. ever 'changing,' i.e. sensual, God glories in His, which are eternal, i.e. 'unchanging,' i.e. spiritual. Grace is receiving that which you do not deserve, i.e. eternal life, peace, joy ("which is given [you] in Christ Jesus"). You do not 'deserve' righteousness and its fruit of peace. It is a gift given by God to only those who, having faith in the Lord, placing their trust in Him alone, i.e. their faith not being in an ideology, a method, a paradigm, a system, or works, etc, but in a person, in Jesus Christ himself, who is the way, the truth, and life (any 'works' done are engendered by, i.e. as a result, i.e. a byproduct of faith in Him). "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Ephesians 2:2,3
Man can not, in his nature, follow after righteousness, for it is not of his nature. For a man to become righteous he must deny (hate) himself, deny (hate) his carnal nature (accept chastening from the Father), deny (hate) his sensuousness, his "lust" for the gratifying things, i.e. "lusting" after the 'good' things of this world, as he seeks after the Lord only (righteousness can only be in and of Christ, imputed to a man because of his faith in Him). "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26, 27 Man therefore finds himself only having two sources for righteousness. It is either only of the Lord (righteousness) or only of the world (sensuousness 'self-justified'). In the end there are only the two, righteousness and unrighteousness―with dialectic 'reasoning' only making unrighteousness "sense perceived" as being another way, i.e. 'righteousness.' The difference between unrighteous and 'righteous' is the former has a "guilty conscience," still conscious of sin (disobedience) against God and parents, while the latter does not, the conscience having been seared by 'self-social justification.' Dialectic 'reasoning,' put into social action (praxis), makes sin (the issue of righteousness) moot ('irrational' and therefore 'irrelevant') in the thoughts and actions of carnal man.
The dialectic process deceives man into thinking there is another choice, that he can have both, i.e. righteousness and sensuousness, peace and the world, life in the Lord and life in the flesh (a "guilt free," i.e. lawless life where only the law of sensuousness, i.e. approach pleasure and avoid pain, i.e. stimulus-response, is all that there is to life, 'driving' man to unite with the world upon the platform of augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain for the "good" of "all," i.e. becoming one, not only in pleasure, which is temporary, but becoming one in 'reasoning,' i.e. dialectically united together, 'purposed' in negating-annihilating the judgmental and eternal, i.e. 'unchanging,' and therefore "controversial" and "divisive" paradigm of righteousness―not only for the individual, i.e. for man, but also for society, i.e. for the nations of the world, i.e. for "the people"). It is by dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. filtering righteousness through sensuousness, that righteousness, i.e. that which is only of God (spiritual), is 'changed' into 'righteousness,' i.e. that which is only of man (temporal). Thus world "peace" (which comes with the love/Eros of the world, the love of sensuousness in the 'here-and-now"), which is the result of men who are 'driven' with the fear of losing their approval ("approval rating") in the eyes of the world and thus losing their source for pleasure from the world, is substituted for that peace which can only come with the love of the Lord, i.e. men of God filled with the Holy Spirit, i.e. the source of peace and joy, i.e. a peace and joy which only the Lord can provide. "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." John 14:27
As you will come to understand, this is what the dialectic process is all about, i.e. the exclusion of righteousness as an issue of importance (the only issue of importance) concerning the way we are to live our lives. ("If that is the way you want to live, fine. But don't insist that everyone else has to live that way.") The dialectic process is all about the creation of an environment (and thus a way of thinking and acting) whereby righteousness is prevented (not given) a foothold in determining what is good and evil, what is right and wrong in any given situation (not only for the individual but also for civilization―where righteousness is no longer considered or brought up in regards to any individual-social issue, other than being an opinion amongst opinions, man no longer having any feelings of guilt or condemnation 'driving' him there). Only righteousness, and righteousness alone, can expose the dialectic process for what it is, i.e. the broad pathway of unrighteousness.
While the word religion is used by those of dialectic 'reasoning,' it is too general a word to adequately explain the intent of dialectic 'reasoning.' While Marx used the word religion, calling it an "opiate," Freud a "substitute gratification," etc. it is in actuality, righteousness, which is at the heart of dialectic 'reasoning,' the negation of righteousness that is. With the use of the word religion, which carries a cold history of man's abuse of man, those of dialectic 'reasoning' can more easily gain public support in negating it to create a "better" world for mankind, while accomplishing their real intent, the negation-annihilation of righteousness (which is personal, i.e. convicting, i.e. of God) as being an issue of life, i.e. the only issue of life. While the method used to negate-annihilate both is the same, religion is not actually negated-annihilated but simply converted to serve a secular agenda to negate-annihilate the sacred, making the secular sacred (making the profane 'righteous') and the sacred secular (the righteous profane), with nature (environmentalism, humanism, communitarianism, occultism, "science," etc.) becoming the religion for secular man. In all cases the intent is to negate an either-or, good-evil, right-wrong, righteousness-unrighteousness, "I am from above and you are from below," etc. duality way of thinking and acting (which, in truth, can never be negated―either the Titanic floats or sinks, men's opinions don't count).
By making all "equal," i.e. of nature, i.e. of sensuousness, through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' duality is replaced with plurality, i.e. righteousness―intolerance of wickedness―rigidity, "inlander-outlander," 'unchangingness,' is replaced with 'righteousness'―tolerance of "life styles" (tolerance of wickedness)―process, diversity, "changingness." The world can then unite as one, as it progressively (dialectically) moves along the sensuous continuum of increased adaptability to 'change,' i.e. the system of 'changingness' negating the 'ridged' top-down duality of righteousness-unrighteousness, with the God of righteousness judging and condemning man for his unrighteous thoughts and his unrighteous actions replaced with man 'perceiving' God according to his nature, i.e. loving, accepting, and caring for man "as he is," i.e. wicked, i.e. unrighteous, i.e. carnal, i.e. "normal."
The dialectic idea is, by 'changing' the method of thinking (the internal paradigm of the individual) and the method of acting (the external paradigm of society) you can 'change' the world (man's perception of it) from being under God's rule to being under man's ("the 'peoples'") control, i.e. "evolving," "shifting," "emerging," 'changing,' i.e. 'changing' inequality into equality (righteousness into 'righteousness'). Righteousness is negated as unrighteousness (human nature) dialectically becomes 'righteousness,' i.e. as man (his carnal nature, i.e. his "felt" needs, i.e. his feelings, i.e. his sensuous "values," i.e. his natural affection for the things of the world) becomes the criterion for "right and wrong," i.e. becomes the essence of "God." As concern for pleasing God, i.e. man's focus upon Godly righteousness (right-wrong duality of black and white), engendered from chastening and fear of judgment ("negativity"), is replaced with concern for pleasing man, i.e. man's focus upon his own sensuousness (pleasure-pain plurality or spectrum of gray or colors) engendered from what he can get out of the situation for himself ("positivity"), both become "sense perceived" as being equal in 'purpose' or goal (God gives the vision while man visions within and amongst himself, i.e. sensually, 'rationally,' to ' 'discover,' initiate, and sustain a goal, the goal being a world of 'pleasure'), i.e. the pleasure or "enjoyment" of a "better" life (the one augmenting the pleasures of the "here-and-now" to create a "better" "there-and then" of man's making, the other requiring the setting aside of the pleasures of the "here-and-now" to enter into the "better" "there-and-then" of God's making). Thus, God, in the thoughts and actions of men, is negated as He is replaced with man's ongoing individual-social sensuous concerns, i.e. his thoughts and actions (opinions, theories, and praxis) filtered through the lens and observed in the "light" of individual-social sensuous needs ("How man can make the world a 'better' place to live in for everyone."). Thus in the "light" of equality, fraternity, liberty (what man has in common with himself, others, and the world, i.e. sensuousness), unrighteousness (sin―sensuousness judged as wicked for claiming equality with righteousness) is replaced (negated) with 'righteousness' (equality―sensuousness 'justified' through human 'reasoning' as being 'righteousness'), as man uniting with himself works to create a "better" world for "humanity," in theory and in practice, i.e. in his thoughts and in his actions.
Even though you know the difference between right and wrong you might not realize how often you attempt to 'justify' your thoughts and actions as being 'right' even though you know what you are doing or thinking is wrong. The dialectic question is: Does your position on good and evil, right and wrong come from within you, from your own nature 'discovering' (through its natural pursuit of pleasure) its oneness with the world (the environment not only stimulating desires but also satiating them), or is it a result of some foreign source, which inculcated through force (through pain or threat of pain), its own values upon you (His spiritual values), producing a position which is not of the environment and therefore not in harmony with and even hostile toward your own nature (your fleshy values)? With the aid of dialectic 'reasoning,' man is not only able to "circumvent" the "alien" force which inhibits and blocks his own nature but he is also able to 'discover' his own ability to 'reason' as he is shown how to use 'reasoning' to overcome (negate-annihilate) the conditions of righteousness (learning how to 'rationally' stand up against righteousness, once he learns, dialectically, that it is righteousness which inhibits and blocks him from being himself, i.e. being at one with nature, i.e. with the world, i.e. of , in, and for sensuousness). Thereby, through dialectic 'reasoning,' he is able to come to know himself as he "really 'is,'" i.e. a sensuous, 'reasoning' being seeking oneness (becoming one) with the world (at-one-with his own carnal flesh as he becomes at-one-with the nature, i.e. at-one-with the carnal flesh of the world). 'Driven' to 'creating' a world at-one-with himself, i.e. a world in social (sensuous) harmony, he is therefore 'purposed' in using dialectic 'reasoning' to 'create' social action, uniting mankind through the praxis of 'liberating' not only themselves from the restraining and blocking ("abnormal") conditions of righteousness, but also 'cleansing' (not just ethnic cleansing, as some attempted and continue to attempt, but also paradigm cleansing) the environment around them (the world) from the conditions of righteousness as well. Instead of changing man's heart (an issue of righteousness), the process 'changes' the environment (an issue of sensuousness) so as to 'change' how man feels, thinks, and acts. (If the natural environment contains all that is necessary for man to actualize his potential then it is up to man to remove from the environment that which is not of nature, i.e. negating-annihilating that which is a "barrier" to his "self-actualization.") Man could not "play" (be at-one-with the world) as long as righteousness remained in a position of authority, to be obeyed without question, i.e. remained in the room as a "barrier" to 'change.' (The Antichrist can not properly function with righteousness in the room, i.e. as Satan could not in the wilderness, with God's Word, i.e. "It is written," i.e. 'unchanging,' correcting and condemning him and his dialectic paradigm of 'changingness,' every time he opened his mouth).
This is the dialectic process in action (in praxis). Once you understand what the dialectic process is all about―turning your "affections" away from the things above, righteousness, and onto the things of the world, sensuousness―and how and why the dialectic process so easily affects you and the world around you, it will be life changing. The change not only being your awareness of the seductive, deceptive, and manipulative nature of the process but also knowing the Lord as being your only hope of salvation from the process, the Lord imputing His righteousness to you, through your faith in Him, filling you with his Spirit, freeing you from the process' control over you. The dialectic process is the formula by which the "new" world order 'initiates' and 'sustains' unrighteousness (human nature) as the only way of life (that the tolerance of all ways, except for the way which insist that it is the only way, is the only way). Only those in Christ have overcome the dialectic's way of death, which for a time "seems to be" the way of life.
I use righteousness in regard to only that which can not be attained by man (in, of, and for himself). God demands righteousness. Righteousness is only of God. Righteousness is not of the creation but is only of the creator (While righteousness is ascribed to some men in the scriptures, it is because they had faith in God and served him.) Just because God created the world and called it "good" does not make it righteous in and of itself.
Not until I came to understand the method and the intent of the dialectic process did I come to clearly understand the following. I am that dumb. Not until God gave Adam a command which was not subject to his nature, i.e. 1) a command not engendered from his sensuousness and therefore 2) not subject to or understandable to his 'reasoning' abilities, as well as 3) a command establishing an "obey or else" (either-or) condition, he could not know (he could not experience) the conditions of righteousness. Not until Adam made God's command subject to his own nature: 1) followed after his own sensuousness, 2) 'justified' himself through his own 'reasoning' abilities, and 2) negated God's "obey or else" condition in his thoughts and his actions (theory and practice), could he know (could he experience) the conditions of unrighteousness. Therefore man is not righteous in and of himself. Man's nature is not, nor is nature itself, the source for righteousness. Apart from the righteousness of God, His commands to be obeyed and His judgment for disobedience, all man has is the sensuousness of its own nature.
Apart from God, who is perfect, man can not be perfect. Apart from God, who is righteous, man can not be righteous. Man, not being equal with God, not being perfect and righteous in and of himself, can not be God, who is perfect and righteous in and of himself. In his imperfection and unrighteousness man can only perceive himself as being "like a god," i.e. 'righteous' in his own eyes (which is a false or different 'righteousness,' i.e. an anti-righteousness, i.e. unrighteousness). He can therefore only be a god of his own nature, i.e. a god of unrighteousness. (If God had not given man a "No" command this would not be the case. For example: the first time the child experiences the conditions of righteousness is when he feels a slap on the hand and hears the command "No" for the first time, not necessarily in that order.)
While man may use a system which is (a semblance) of righteousness, his commands can not produce righteousness (can not produce perfection) since he is not righteous or perfect in and of himself. He can only produce a top-down system of Righteousness, demanding of and striving for righteousness (perfection) while never being able to achieve it (only achieving a semblance of it, according to his own perception). Since man's disobedience to God's command in the garden in Eden he has been unrighteous. Man can never achieve righteousness by his own feelings, thoughts, and actions. Whether man is licentious or legalistic (or anything in between) he is the same, unrighteous (See Jude & Romans 3:19-). Whether he tries to fulfill the law or treat it as irrelevant, he has to use dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' his actions, i.e. thinking that by 'reasoning' he can negate condemnation or by his actions he can save himself from condemnation, in ether case making "imputation" irrelevant, i.e. making 'justification' by faith, in Christ alone, void, i.e. making his work on the cross of non affect. Man's works, even done for the Lord, can never produce or result in righteousness. Therefore, since man's fall, righteousness can only be imputed by the Lord to men of faith in Him alone, according to God, i.e. His Heavenly Father's will.
Coming to understand the word "imputed," as used in the scriptures, will change everything you know about yourself, the world, God, and His Word. Without imputation there is no gospel. Righteousness "imputed" by Christ, to men of faith in Him, negates the dialectic process. In Christ, no man has "grounds" for 'self-justification.' Righteousness "imputed" negates dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. 'self-justification' ("self-actualization").
Strange as it may seem, at first reading, the following paragraphs, regarding righteousness, are all about the dialectic process. They are laying the foundation for you to understanding the effect the dialectic process has had upon man down through the ages, i.e. negating the necessity of that righteousness (which is of God alone) which can only be imputed by God to man. Man can not direct his steps, since he is of sensuousness and can only use his 'reasoning' to justify his sensuousness. Man's ways are of sensuousness. It is only God's way which is of righteousness. (Isaiah 55:8, 9) Therefore man's steps must be ordered of the Lord, according to His righteousness, because man's 'reasoning' can only comprehend and therefore 'justify' his own steps in sensuousness. Left up to himself, man can not accept God's way of reasoning, which is of righteousness (right and wrong according to God's will). He can only accept his way of 'reasoning' (scientific 'reasoning') which is of sensuousness, where right and wrong is based upon how much pleasure he is getting out of the situation at hand, not having to follow after the way of righteousness, i.e. not having to worry about how much pleasure he has missed out on (having followed after the way of righteousness) or how much pleasure he will miss out on (if he follows after the way of righteousness). While man is only sensuous in and of himself, he can become righteous in Christ. Apart from being subject to God's will, man's will can only be subject to his own nature, i.e. his sensuous, carnal, unrighteous nature. It is here that the dialectic process 'justifies' is 'purpose' and its 'drive,' i.e. in "human nature," in unrighteousness.
Even thought the dialectic process is called the "scientist method" is it not true science. 1 Timothy 6:20, 21 defines it appropriately as "oppositions of science falsely so called." Although true science passes through a stage of theory or speculation (of "I think" and "I feel") while trying to come to an understanding of a law of nature. Once that law is known, is observable and repeatable (consistent and sure), it is proclaimed as an unchanging fact, as an "Is" and "Is not." It is recorded in books and memorized by the next generation of scientists for use in their field of chemistry, geography, biology, etc. The only reason to put a person through the "discovering" experience is to show them how laws of science are arrived at, i.e. how laws of nature are "discovered." If, from then on, the practice of speculation is used on all things known (on what "is" and what "is not"), it is being used to create confusion for the 'purpose' of 'change,' i.e. it is serving the purpose of questioning what is known ("question everything") in the "light" of "how one feels" or "what one thinks" (theory or speculation), which engenders confusion. It is in this state of confusion (discovering 'reality' out of the feelings of doubt) that the dialectic process establishes its hold upon the mind of man. "What might be if only" or "ought to be" 'freeing' him from "What is and is not."
While the laws of nature will prove him right or wrong, regarding his thoughts and actions, the 'shift' from true science to "science falsely so called" takes place as the use of the scientific method is applied to man's feeling, i.e. human behavior, i.e. called "behavior science." This very "move" makes man appear to be only a material item, "observable and definable," as those of dialectic 'reasoning' like to put it, but not "observable and repeatable" as true science demands. According to dialectic 'reasoning' (which can only function on a materialistic basis), if man were truly material only, sensuous, then by the use of dialectic praxis all men would become dialectic, i.e. of human nature only, in outcome. But not all do. "We will know that our knowledge of the authoritarian character structure [those of the system of Righteousness] is truly scientific when an average authoritarian character will be able to read the information on the subject and then regard his own authoritarian character as undesirable or sick or pathological and will go about trying to get rid of it." "We don't know the answers to the question: What proportion of the population is irreversibly authoritarian?" (Abraham Maslow Maslow on Management) Since dialectic 'reasoning' can only relate to that which is sensual, observable, humanly relatable, understandable, and explainable, all facts (or truths) which are not reducible to numbers (material) are considered an illusion, i.e. all phenomena must have some tangible explanation. Therefore righteousness and the system of Righteousness must be treated as an illusion, a distraction from the 'quest' of man coming to know himself as he "is" and as he "ought to be," with all "can not's" or "Thou shalt not's," which are not of nature, theoretically and practically ("scientifically," dialectically) negated. In the end the dialectic process is not just about man becoming himself (initiating and sustaining "human rights"), it is also about the controlling of man, so that he does not become righteous, i.e. in Christ only, i.e. alienated from his 'species.' "If human rights are to be guaranteed, they must be guaranteed by appropriate social, political, and economic controls of human behavior." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) The deception and lie of dialectic 'reasoning' is in its a priori that man can not know righteousness since it is not real, i.e. since man is only material or materially phenomenal, his "sense experience" of seeking oneness with nature and his 'rational' fight against that which inhibits or blocks that union, manifesting, identifying, and actualizing his 'essence,' i.e. dialectic 'reasoning' (opinion). Knowing sensually and knowing spiritually lies within all men, with sight of the former and faith of the latter (rejecting faith man only has the former, that which he was born into the world with, that which is carnal, what those of dialectic 'reasoning' perceive as being 'reality'). Yet children have faith. Don't they?
The truth is, man does know of righteousness (that it is real), and therefore he can either submit to it (accept it by faith―God gives all a measure of faith) or reject it, i.e. in rebellion fighting against it or in revolution trying to overthrow it (but he must still choose, either to walk by faith or by sight). The key to dialectic 'reasoning' is sight, i.e. the rejection of faith as a way of knowing truth. It is here that those who think dialectic claim all that they see ("sense perceive"), as the woman in the garden in Eden did, as theirs (as children with money in a candy store, i.e. with not parents around to restrain them). "Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied." Proverbs 27:20 Romans 1:16- The knowing condemns man as a liar, i.e. the belief that he is sufficient in himself (believing that he is able to control his own destiny), denying that he needs righteousness (rejecting the 'idea' that he is unable to direct his own steps), because he can not 'rationally' (sensually) identify it (perceptually define it) and naturally (sensually) relate with it ("sense experience" it).
"Freud referred to ... the group's ‘need to be governed by unrestricted force . . . it's extreme passion for authority . . . it's thirst for obedience.' Among the strongest of these is man's need for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnicaring parent, which together with his infinite capacity for self-deception creates a yearning for and a belief in a superbeing." (Irvin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) emphasis added Dialectically 'justifying' his own sensuousness, man, in denial of his need of righteousness (denying that he needs someone to direct his steps, despite all evidence in his research telling him so), follows after the father of lies (who controls the man who is 'driven' by his "lusts" for the things of this world―by controlling the environment, i.e. the objects of man's gratification, i.e. that which he can naturally, sensually perceive, man, 'purposed' in gratifying his "lust" can be seduced, deceived, and manipulated to a predetermined outcome, i.e. bought and consumed). "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." John 8:44
The dialectic man is a man of lies and deceit, a man void of knowledge, a man in denial of the truth, i.e. denying that he is wretched and poor, wicked and lost, a man out to deceive others into joining him in his lie, i.e. 'justifying' his sinful nature as being 'good,' "justifying' to himself that his unrighteousness is 'righteousness.' "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds [Gr. praxis]; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." Colossians 3:11 Those of diaprax seduce, deceive, and manipulate their victim by getting him to focus upon "felt" needs which are common to all men (sensuousness) first and foremost―at first not preventing but disregarding (or discouraging division, i.e. "divisiveness," "dissention," "disharmony" when necessary) any references regarding man's need of righteousness, repentance, salvation, etc., i.e. commenting that these issues can be more appropriately covered in another setting when they distract from dealing with the current issue at hand―and then getting him to agree on the need to work together with others (putting aside doctrinal differences "for the time being") for the sake of responding to the common "felt need" (experiential, sensual, temporal needs) at hand (void righteousness). The lie being, man's "felt" need supersede his spiritual need when the truth is, spiritual need must always come first, i.e. all temporal needs (sensuousness) must be tied to (be subject to) spiritual needs (righteousness). "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4 It is man's duty to "not" let sensuousness (temporal) needs supersede righteousness (spiritual) needs. That is what the temptations in the wilderness were all about, Jesus referencing scriptures in response to "felt" needs, i.e. what did not take place in the garden in Eden when the woman was tempted, i.e. her putting aside (treating as irrational and thus irrelevant) the word of God in her "leaning to her own sensuous based understanding" in the 'moment' of "felt" need, i.e. in her use of dialectic 'reasoning' (Genesis 3:1-6).
In righteousness, the "there-and-then" (the hope of glory) is in the "here-and-now" (Christ in me), which is of faith ("spiritually discerned"), while in sensuousness, the "here-and-now" (the desire for pleasure) is in the hope of the "there-and-then" (a life of "leisure and guaranteed sustenance," i.e. what man had, as a child, before the law came into his life, as the parent, acting as God, said "no" and chastened him for being "normal," i.e. carnal, thus interfering with his "perfect" life), which is of sight ("sensuously perceived"). "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14 In the same way, man's 'rational' mind (scientific, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning' mind, i.e. his opinions or theories) will question and challenge higher authority (the child will question the parent and his command, emulating the parents position of authority to "get" what he wants, i.e. "Why can' I ...?") when higher authority's commands do not make "sense" to him (when the parent's commands do not make "sense" to the child, i.e. the parents "spiritual" commands do not align with the child's "material" desires, do not satisfy his sense based understanding―all commands therefore having to be in harmony with the child's nature, i.e. sensuous, materialized through dialogue instead of remaining "spiritual," i.e. where the child is "forced" to obey "as given" commands, i.e. commands revealed through the preaching and teaching of righteousness, with fear of judgment or chastening to follow for disobedience―keep the word imputed in mind, i.e. man's inability to be righteous in and of himself, or else all is confusion, i.e. all becomes the "fecund" ground of dialectic 'reasoning'―the Lord's resurrection from the grave, now seated at the right hand of the Father, Lord over all His kingdom, waiting to return to judge all men for their thoughts and deeds, all according to the Fathers will, destroys dialectic 'logic,' i.e. man's ability or 'right' to 'justify' himself before anyone―the Kingdom, Power, and Glory is only of, in, and for God, not one bit in man, i.e. why contemporary versions, all translated from the Alexandrian, Origin, heresy "bibles," omit that part of the pray which the Lord's gave us to give, i.e. Matthew 6:9-13 with the last part of vs. 13 omitted, you have to omit it if your going to be a dialectic 'reasoning,' enlightened, heretical Christian of 'change,' i.e. the dialectic idea that "God can't do anything without man").
The law serves only to condemn man, revealing his incapacity to attain righteousness through his own efforts, his unrighteousness (his sins, his "lusting" after sensuousness) being exposed by the law which condemns him for his natural behavior, which could only be yearly covered by the blood of bulls and goats until the birth, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. It is only in the work of Christ alone, i.e. His perfect life in righteousness, His sacrifice for our unrighteousness (for our sins) through his own shed blood, i.e. his unreserved obedience to His Heavenly Father unto death (not the cross but rather His obedience to His Father's will being the focus of His life―the complete denial of His own will, totally submitting His well to the will of His Heavenly Father in life, and the complete denial of men's approval, even to the point of death on the cross of public rejection), and His resurrection from the grave, that we can be made righteous (which is required for eternal life). It is His righteousness alone, which is imputed by Him to those of faith in Him alone, that we, the redeemed can stand before His Heavenly Father and not be destroyed. God's wrath upon us, because of our unrighteousness, is negated only because our unrighteousness is negated by the righteousness of Christ, our faith in Him counted as righteousness by both Him and His Heavenly Father. God has always loved, and still loves the world. It is man's unrighteousness which stands in the way of God receiving man. For only the righteous can stand before the Father and not be destroyed. Therefore, no man can stand before the Father and not be consumed without first being made righteous in Christ―the righteousness of Christ being imputed to him by Christ because of his faith in Him and His Word. It is a gift from God to man, that no man (flesh) can boast.
It is because of the Fathers love for the world, that he sent His only begotten son (who loved the Father), that man might be redeemed (be made righteous, his sins washed away, i.e. "covered" by "the blood of the lamb"), that man (who is made righteous in Christ and does the works of righteousness by the power of the Holy Spirit) might know the Father (who is righteous) through the son (who is righteous). 1) Without the law, man can not know that he is unrighteousness (his human behavior, which is unrighteous―sensuous, not being able to fulfill the law, is at odds with God's nature, which is righteous―spiritual, i.e. God's law therefore making man subject to God's wrath). "Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression." Romans 4:15
Therefore, without the law, man can not know that he was unrighteous, in and of himself incapable of righteousness, and is in need of a savior. 2) Without the savior, the righteous Son of God, unrighteous man can not be made righteous. 3) And without the righteousness of Christ being imputed to those of faith in Him, no man can see and know the Father. In the end, as you will see, the dialectic process is all about the Father and his children, i.e. how Satan was able to come between the Father and his children, so that he could use them for his own pleasures, hating not only the Father but also his children, taking with him as many as he can, into his damnation. Those of dialectic trickery, while not believing the law of God is reality, nevertheless using it, since it is real to those who have faith in God, teaching them how, through dialectic 'reasoning' to overcome its inhibiting and blocking effect upon their "normal" human behavior (preventing them from experiencing the pleasures of this life) and thereby destroy their faith in God and His Word, thereafter no longer placing their trust in the Lord and faith in His Word as "It is written." Those who hold to the law (the legalistic), making their own laws (of religion) to protect themselves from the law (in their effort to fulfill it―which no man can do) and those who believe the law is now null and void (the licentious), making their own laws (of nature) to 'justify' their 'liberation' from the law (in their effort to negate it―which no man can do). The law is fulfilled in Christ, the works of righteousness in Christ, i.e. the law of faith accomplishes what the law of condemning, i.e. condemnation of man's works of sensuousness, could not do, i.e. save man from his unrighteousness.
According to dialectic 'reasoning' (trickery), 1) without the law of God (which is God's standard for righteousness) exposing man as being unrighteous in and of himself, 2) man could not experience dissatisfaction with the conditions of a life of righteousness and therefore become dissatisfied with righteousness itself (man, unable to attain the conditions of righteousness, in and of himself, with the language of dissatisfaction manifesting righteousness as being unnatural, not of "normal" human behavior and therefore not of world culture, in the word "ought"), i.e. without the law inhibiting or blocking his natural inclination to "enjoy" himself in the world that "is," as he "ought" to be able to ___." 3) man could not become aware of his own 'reasoning' abilities, i.e. using dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' his sensuousness ("enjoyment") in disobedience to ('liberation' from) God's law (and therefore negating righteousness as being the issue of life). Without the law, man could not know that there is a God, and without the threat of punishment for breaking it, he could not know that he is not God. Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' man could not 'scientifically discover' that there is no God, i.e. that there is only man (that man, i.e. pleasure, i.e. "enjoyment," is God), without first 'discovering' (through dialectic 'reasoning') that God's law is not of man (since it inhibits and blocks that which is of man, i.e. his natural desire for pleasure, i.e. "enjoyment"―pleasure being the highest 'good' for man). Since God's law is 'rationally' "sense perceived" as being unnatural (unreasonable restrictive), it is therefore 'irrational.' Therefore man's disobedience is no longer regarded as being "disobedience" but rather as being "normal human behavior" in praxis. In the "light" of man's ability to 'rationally' 'justify' his nature as being 'normal' and God's law as being 'irrational,' and therefore "abnormal," for man to truly be himself, righteousness must be treated as 'irrelevant' in matters of deciding good and evil, if man is to initiate and sustain himself as a 'rational' being. Therefore, in dialectic 'reasoning,' man's unrighteousness is not 'rationally' perceived as being unrighteous but is 'rationally' perceived as being "normal human behavior," behavior which is common to all men. It is therefore righteousness, and therefore the righteous, who are perceived as being 'irrational,' and therefore 'irrelevant' (enemies of 'progress') when it comes to matters of life. Therefore a "healthy society" (a "guilt free" world of unrighteousness and lawlessness) depends upon a "healthy" (dialectic) immunization of the general public against the "disease" of righteousness. The world has now come to a point of no return along this line of thinking.
No man can fulfill the law of God. Therefore no man can attain the righteousness of God (God demands perfection of man yet no man is perfect or can attain perfection in and of himself). Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' God' law is perceived ("sense perceived"―according to man's intuition) as being 'irrational.' Therefore, according to human 'reasoning,' dialectic 'reasoning,' God's law makes no "sense" because it inhibits or blocks (and punishes for) that which is natural ("normal") to man. Because it inhibits and blocks "enjoyment" (I use the world "enjoyment" because Hegel used it, knowing the power it possessed in bringing mankind under the control of dialectic 'reasoning'), i.e. because it 'irrationally' blocks man from that which is nature, it is only through man's 'rational' pursuit of "enjoyment,' that righteousness can be overcome (negated). Therefore God's law is perceived as being 'irrelevant' when it comes to matters of human conduct. Human 'reasoning' must be used to evaluate right and wrong, good and evil, in the "light" of human behavior (man's "sense experience"), i.e. according to man's "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," and human behavior must be used as the "ground of being" from which to determine right and wrong, good and evil, in the "light" of human 'reasoning,' i.e. both conditions united in initiating and sustaining man's 'quest' for pleasure, if the conditions of righteousness are to be negated in the individual's thoughts and annihilated through his social actions. Therefore, obedience to God's will, i.e. righteousness, is no longer an issue of importance, other than as an issue, when it is brought up (producing "controversy"), to be used in 'justifying' the use of human 'reasoning' (the dialectic process) in defense of 'human nature,' i.e. 'justify' man's natural desire to approach pleasure and avoid pain as being the only bases from which to decide what is good and what is evil in the 'moment.' By shifting the focus of the source of pain from being external (physical) to being internal (psychological), i.e. the fear of "rejection" or "alienation," i.e. the fear of losing "the approval of men" (social pain), human 'reasoning' could be more easily used to shift the focus of attention from being upon a higher authority (restraining pleasure) to being upon society (augmenting pleasure), thus 'justifying' human 'reasoning' (and not righteousness) as being the source of peace and harmony not only in the individual but also in society. In this way, "positive," that which is naturally pleasurable to man, i.e. the laws of the flesh and permissiveness, i.e. sensuousness, negates the "negative," that which is not naturally pleasurable to man, i.e. the laws of God or parent and chastening, i.e. righteousness. The law of God and righteousness therefore become a non-issue other than an obstacle to be overcome through the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning.'
The dialectic process is man's 'reasoning' abilities used to 'justifying' his unrighteousness. That is until God shows up to judge man for his use of the dialectic process to 'justify' himself in using the dialectic process to 'justify' his unrighteousness, i.e. which is his use of the dialectic process to 'justify' himself in using ... ad nauseam. The dialectic process is like a black hole. Once you enter into its lair it offers you no way out. Without the Lord, it is all that you have, there is no other way out of the abyss. The truth is. There is no black hole or bottomless abyss, there is only damnation and hell waiting at the end of this life for those controlled by, possessed by, 'justifying,' and propagating, the dialectic way of thinking and acting.
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' without the law (God or the parent's "Thou shalt not/You can not" restraining sensuousness), the dialectic process would not have been possible. God's righteousness is revealed in His law, which is spiritual, all (righteousness, law, spirit) being in accord. Man's 'righteousness' is his 'reasoning' ability, i.e. 'reasoning' used to 'justify' his sensuousness ('justify' his lust of the flesh and eyes and pride of life), all in accord, i.e. all in disobedience to God's law, spirit, and righteousness. (Disobeying God and His law is no longer perceived as being disobedience since righteousness is perceived as being 'irrational' and therefore 'irrelevant' in a dialectically 'rational,' i.e. "enlightened" world). Therefore, according to dialectical 'reasoning,' if man can 1) 'rationally' negate the consequence of disobeying the law (you will die, or you will be punished, is turned into you will not die, or you will not be punished), that is, if he can negate the the fear (the anxiety) of condemnation (by making the condemnation appear 'irrational,' i.e. if God or the parent loves you, he won't hurt you, and if he hurts you, he's not a God or parent of love, therefore he won't hurt you because he is a God or parent of love and wants you to be like him, i.e. loving, or if he threatens to hurt you for being yourself, he is unloving and therefore you don't want to be like him, i.e. hateful), he can 2) 'rationally' negate all the rest, 'justifying' to himself that God and His law, i.e. his righteousness is 'irrelevant' (being hateful of the ways of the world) because it 'irrationally' condemns human behavior for being natural (normal), when that is all that human nature can be, i.e. "normal," i.e. loving the things of the world. This is the the 'rational' behind, i.e. the 'logic' behind dialectic thinking. "Thought" could only be engendered from man's "ought" which could only be engendered from his dissatisfaction with God or the parent's "not." Without the "not" there could no "ought." Without the "ought" there could be no "thought." And thus man could not come to know himself as he "is," i.e. human in nature, i.e. unrighteousness perceived as being 'righteous.' Without God's "not," Satan could not show man "his" way, i.e. the dialectic way of thinking and acting, i.e. turning man into "children of disobedience" as they, using the dialectic process, become "righteous in their own eyes."
In a dialectic world, as long as no one is being hurt, i.e. they are not experiencing pain, shame, or a guilty feeling during an event, or they are not aware, in their 'moment' of "enjoyment" being used for someone else's "enjoyment," i.e. taking advantage of people by giving them pleasure, a sense of pleasure, or a hope for pleasure, so that you can use them for your own pleasure, then whatever is take place is alright. As long a "guilty conscience" has no part in the event, then it is ok. This is why you can't make righteousness an issue of importance in a dialectic world or the dialectic world would fall apart, i.e. righteousness would prevent sensuousness and 'reasoning' from becoming one in their praxis of negating righteousness. Without 'reasoning' (self justification) being used to negate the "guilty conscience," the new world order could not exist. This is why people first "put up" with you, then ignore you, reject you, and eventually attack you when you persist in preaching and teaching righteousness, i.e. initiating a "guilty conscience" wherever you go, with you having to endure their indignation to the end as they try to negate it's (righteousness') effect upon their minds. The idea being, if you would just give up or go away, the "controversy" you are creating would simply come to an end, i.e. "We could all feel better about ourselves and be less offensive to others."
Without the law, man could love the world (sensuousness) without hating God (righteousness), but with the law he must either hate God (righteousness) and love the world (sensuousness) or hate the world (sensuousness) and love God (righteousness). The law of God (righteousness) forces man (who is also of the law of the flesh, sensuousness) into an either-or, antithesis condition. And according to dialectic 'reasoning,' without the law of God (a condition for righteousness which only Christ has fulfilled), synthesis (man becoming at-one-with the creation by dialectic 'reasoning,' man 'rationally' 'justifying' himself according to his carnal nature only, man 'rationally' negating the law of God, i.e.. all three being the same) would not be 'possible.' Man, overcoming the law of God, by perceiving it 'rationally' as being 'irrational' ('unreasonable') in a "rapidly changing world," and responding to it 'practically' as being 'irrelevant' ('impractical') in a "rapidly changing world, negates righteousness. Or so he "thinks." "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 The dialectic process deceives man into believing that his hate of God, i.e. his hate of righteousness is not hate but rather love, i.e. love for that which is of nature. He thinks that he can love God (righteousness) and the world (sensuousness) but the truth is he must hate God (righteousness) if he loves the world (sensuousness) or he must hate the world (sensuousness) if he loves God (righteousness). He must do either one or the other.
Since, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' God (or patriarchal parents) and righteousness are only of human perception, they are subject only to human 'reasoning' and human behavior. If God (or the traditional parent) does not recognize human behavior as being normal, i.e. being only of nature, then it is God (or the parent) and his law which is 'irrational' and, insisting on his way only, i.e. demanding righteousness of man (obedience from the children), it is God (the traditional parent) who is hateful. Keeping the world in his sights, setting his affections on things below (dwelling on his "ought to be"), keeps man's hate of righteousness in place (which he does not see as being hate since he is blinded by his sensuousness, i.e. blinded by his 'rational' justification of it over and against righteousness). Thus the focus of dialectic thinking is upon the things of the world (social issues, i.e. crises), i.e. focusing upon everyone's feelings and thoughts (opinions), filtering God and his Word word through the "felt needs" of men (in the 'moment'), i.e. focusing upon the opinions of men (the "ought to be's" of men) rather than upon God and His Word, i.e. filtering the things of the world through the Lord and His Word (according to righteousness). 2 Corinthians 10:5 Without chastening or the threat of it "producing a peaceful fruit of righteousness," i.e. getting man or the child's mind off the world, getting his mind off the "gratifying objects" which he "wants" from it, man will always gravitate to the love of the way of sensuousness, i.e. of the world and hate of the way of righteousness, of God. Not seeing his action (praxis) against righteousness as being hateful but rather perceiving has actions as being 'rational' and therefore 'relevant,' i.e. necessary for the sake of initiating and sustaining "world peace and social harmony," man is able to define righteousness as being hateful, 'irrational,' and therefore 'irrelevant,' because it does not initiate and sustain "world peace and social harmony," but instead engenders controversy, division, and war. The scriptures tell us the truth: "From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts." James 4:1-3
Covering it again, but in a different way. As strange as it might sound, righteousness (actually the system of Righteousness) can not be known to man until God presents him with a "Thou shalt not." (Adam knew God, who is righteous, therefore he know righteousness before he sinned, but he did not know of the system of Righteousness until God presented him with a "Thou shalt not ... lest ye die," command―introducing man to a top-down, patriarchal system.) In the same way the child can not know the system of Righteousness (who is above and who is below) until the parent presentations to him a "No, you can not," and uses force or the threat of force to back it up (which is the beginning of civil government). Anarchy, for example, is people without civil government, i.e. a people without a "can not" backed up with force from a higher authority. The tyranny of the masses, i.e. anarchy, is always engendered through the 'quest' for democracy, i.e. engendered from the will of "the people" (equality), engendered from human nature (lusting after pleasure), engendering unrighteousness. Without the law, i.e. the "negative," the "Can not ... or else" condition, there is no condition of righteousness or system of Righteousness, there is only a condition of sensuousness, a condition of unrighteousness (perceived as being 'righteous'), where that which is of nature only (of the imagination, of the mystic, or fables) controls man's thoughts and actions only (as in the days before the Flood it will be in the last days). The 'righteousness' of man could not have come into being (man could not have come to know himself as he "is") without the righteousness of God having engendered man's 'reasoning' abilities (revealed in his opinion), which were engendered from his "sensuous need" to 'justify' his sensuousness, i.e. "validate" his earthy desires. Further down in the article I use scripture to respond to this dialectic foolishness, i.e. about men justifying themselves before men.
According to dialectic 'reasoning' then, for "the 'better' life for all" (democracy) to come into being, righteousness (hope in a higher authority than man, ruling over His creation) must first and foremost come to an end. But, at the end of the day, everyone who has participated in the dialectic process of unrighteousness (equality in tyranny) comes to realize that there is no "'better' life for all," only a life of seduction, deception, and manipulation, with the opportunist and the one's best trained in the trickery of dialectic lies (semantics) "getting ahead" for the 'moment' (all knowing that crossing the brotherhood will bring the 'moment' to an end). Most people, by then, will have figured out the tyranny of the process and succumbed to the hopeless life of oppression, getting out of the situation what pleasures of unrighteousness they can. It is only in righteousness (humbling yourself before God, respecting and obeying higher authority, God being the highest authority) that you have any hope of escaping from the evilness of dialectic 'reasoning,' which seemed to be so 'good' in the beginning. ("In the beginning" meaning the 'moment' we were first away of 'reasoning' justifying 'tyranny,' i.e. dialectic 'reasoning' being the answer to our dissatisfaction with the restraints of higher authority, i.e. 'justifying' the negation-annihilation of higher authority as being the 'right' pathway to take, "for a 'better' life for all.")
Without the awareness that there is someone in authority higher than himself―when God or the parent 1) introduces a command which restraint that which is natural to man or to the child, i.e. a "You can not" which stops them from something they desire to do, and 2) uses chastening or threatens to chasten, i.e. "Because I said so" to reinforce the command if that command is not obeyed "as given"―man or the child can not know of the system of Righteousness. Without the awareness that there is someone who is not of his own way of thinking and acting in the 'moment,' i.e. God or the parent is not subject to, i.e. is not in harmony with or is not "in touch with" his desires in the "here-and-now," i.e. not in "alignment" with his sensuous desires, and he is forced to be subject to their commands (his will to pleasure becomes subject to their will to pleasure), man or the child can not know of the system of Righteousness (God's will over man's will, the parent's will over the child's will, God's righteousness over man's 'righteousness,' holiness over sensuousness). Without the awareness that man and God (or child and parent) are not equal: 1) that man is not equal with God, spiritually, man not being spirit only, or that the child is not equal with the parent 'spiritually' ('spiritually' meaning that they are on different level's of thinking, the parent's level not of the child's capacity to be sensually understood at the time), and 2) that God is not equal with man, naturally, God not being temporal, or, in like fashion, the parent is not capable of being equal with the child or rather the child is not capable of being equal with the parent, being not of mature mind (mature meaning capable of knowing right from wrong and able and willing to make responsible decisions according to that which is right and not following after that which is wrong despite his personal gain by doing so, holding others accountable to the same conditions), man can not know of the system of Righteousness. (Man's right and wrong and his use of reward and chastening to initiate and sustain right from wrong, is not righteousness. It only initiates and sustains a system, a semblance of Righteousness.)
For the parent to be equal with the child, the parent can not maintain his position of authority over the child. If both become equal, higher authority (the system of Righteousness) is negated (the parent, abdicating his authorship of "can not," and abdicating his authority to "back it up" with force, has no relevance). If both go into dialogue with one another, sharing their opinions, they both become equal as the parent abdicates his position of authority. The very nature of dialogue ("I feel" and "I Think") requires authority to abdicate its position (at least temporarily) for the sake of equality (the negation of chastening). But if the parent preaches and teaches (using chastening to reinforce what he is teaching or preaching) he remains in a position of authority. Equality can no be initiated and sustained if the parent preaches and teaches at the child (with threat of punishment), and the parents authority can not be initiated and sustained in their dialoguing of opinion with the child. Punishing for an opinion (because you disagree with it), changes the environment from one of equality to one of authority. Tolerating an opinion (even when you disagree with it) changes the environment from one of authority to one of equality. If opinions become the basis of 'reality' (as Hegel believed), then any authority which inhibits or blocks the dialoguing of opinions (chastening it) must be negated. This is why, since the 50's, the classroom environment, which changed from the preaching and teaching of truth (with the threat of chastening) to the sharing of opinions through dialogue (with teacher-student partnership, i.e. the teacher 'discovering' truth with the students), has produced generations of students disrespectful of authority.
As dialoguing opinions negates the preaching and teaching of absolute truth, the system of equality negates the system of top-down authority. Dialoguing opinions makes all things equal, engendering a system of anarchy, a system of 'instability,' i.e. a system of 'change.' Preaching and teaching truth makes all things not equal, engendering a system of higher authority, a system of 'stability.' i.e. a system of absolutes. Without the awareness that someone is "arbitrarily" setting the conditions of right and wrong, good and evil (as perceived by the one under authority who resents commands, commands which are not sensually, "experientially," understandable in the temporal "here-and-now," for the man or the child), and they are enforcing these rules with outright force, there is no condition of righteousness for man (or the child), only a condition of the natural. Natural meaning whatever man (or the child) is doing, which seems "good" or "right" in his own eyes, makes him 'righteous' (in his own eyes). Therefore Adam and the woman were righteous in God's eyes only as long as they obeyed God's Holy command, i.e. "not" eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, their actions being based upon God's righteousness and not upon their own sensuous 'reasoning' abilities. But they became 'righteous' in their own eyes (dialectic thinkers) when they based good and evil upon their own sensuous 'reasoning' abilities, i.e. leaned upon their own understanding. By doing the dialectical process, 'justifying' themselves according to their own sensuous desires according to their own 'reasoning' abilities they "got themselves into trouble," made themselves unrighteous, turned themselves into "children of disobedience" before God, incurring His wrath. The dialectic message is clear: "If you keep your eyes on the Lord you will miss out on all that the world has to offer." Not knowing the sign that awaits him at the end of the broad path of dialectic thought and action, man continues down it in the hope of a "better" life. The sign reads: "Welcome to all who have chosen this path which has brought you now to your damnation instead of choosing the straight and narrow path which would have lead you into eternal life. Think about all the things you would have missed out on if you had chosen that path instead."
Righteousness is a condition of having faith in a higher authority, having faith in God or the parent, having faith in that which is spiritual, i.e. that which does not make "sense" to the sensuous mind at the time. Righteousness is a condition requiring belief, where a person accepts the commands "as given" as being trustworthy. Righteousness is a condition which requires obedience to higher authority, obeying his commands "as given," whether they make sense or not. Righteousness is not of sight (temporal), i.e. man following after his own sensuous desires in the "here-and-now." Righteousness is not a condition of one's own understanding, evaluating (questioning) higher authorities commands according to his own sensuous understanding, synthesizing authority with his own nature, making authority subject to his own sensuous nature, subject to his 'reasoning' abilities. Therefore, if righteousness can not be synthesized with nature (be at-one-with the feelings and thoughts of carnal man in the 'moment'), dialectically, it is spiritual and therefore not 'rational' or 'relevant' when it interferes with one's "here-and-now" "sensuous needs" and therefore is not 'real.' To the dialectic mind, while the condition of righteousness might be perceived as being 'real,' righteousness itself is not 'real.' Therefore, if it is not of man, not of unrighteousness, not of nature only (of the world), it is not 'real.'
The attributes of righteousness, in a room engineered to initiate and sustain sensuousness and dialectic 'reasoning' (humanism engendered through the consensus process), are "sense perceived" as being "negative": divisive, hateful, intolerant, maladjusted, lower order thinking regarding good and evil, right and wrong, self-seeking, blocking (negative and resisting, disagreeing and opposing), aggressive (disapproving of others opinions), recognition seeking (calling attention to himself), dominating (asserting authority), help-seeking (calling for sympathy from others), special interest pleading (speaking for others, the home, small business, etc), while the attributes of sensuousness and dialectic 'reasoning' are "sense perceived" as being "positive": unifying, loving and caring, tolerating of ambiguity (uncertainty, confusion, and anarchy), balanced and fair, "higher order thinking in morals and ethics," social-seeking, initiating and contributing (suggesting or proposing 'change'), information seeking (asking for clarification of information and facts), opinion seeking (asking for clarification of values), information giving (offers authoritative facts, i.e. appropriate information for the 'purpose' of change), opinion giving (offers belief or opinions regarding the need for 'change'), elaborating (spells out suggestions), coordinating (shows or clarifies relationships), orienting (defines positions), evaluating and critiquing (subjecting the 'groups' accomplishments to some standard), expediting group movement (procedural technician), and recording and assisting regarding the procedure of 'change,' as well as encouraging (praising, agreeing with and accepting), harmonizing (mediating differences), compromising (offering compromise), gate-keeping and expediting (keeping communications open), standard setting and ego idealizing (expressing standards for the group), following (goes along with the group), and observer (keeping record of group procedure and growth. The attributes of righteousness, i.e. of God or the patriarchal parent are therefore "sense perceived" as being "negative" in the "light" of the attributes of sensuousness and dialectic 'reasoning.' The attributes of sensuousness and dialectic 'reasoning' are declared wicked, evil, unrighteous in the light of righteousness. For the righteous to participate in the environment of sensuousness and dialectic 'reasoning,' they must 'willingly' abdicate the authority of God and the parent (under God) as the "arbiter" of good and evil, right and wrong and accept man, human nature, as the beginning and end of all things (making the approval of men for the 'purpose' of augmenting "enjoyment" in the world the highest 'good' of all). It is here, in negating the attributes of God (righteousness) through augmenting the attributes of man (sensuousness), that the dialectic process (human 'reasoning') makes its agenda of 'change,' i.e. hate of righteousness, so clear.
The facilitator (the seducer, deceiver, and manipulator) of 'change' must be trained in "force field analysis." He must know how to 'rationally' identify and augment "positive" (sensuousness) "forces" as well as 'rationally' identify and attenuate "negative" (righteousness) "forces." He must know how to 'change' the policy setting or learning environment from a restraining (old-fashioned), "negative," capitalist (righteousness, "This is the way we have always done it.") environment into a creative (innovative), "positive," socialist (sensuous and 'rational,' "Making the world a 'better,' more 'enjoyable' place to live") environment. [Not that I am against "better" and "enjoyment," i.e. that which is of the creation, but they are not the foundation of life. Righteousness, that which is of the creator is.] The facilitator of 'change' must know how to "move" the individual's and thus the group's thought and action away from the preaching and teaching of "as given" truth and facts as the final answer to life's crisis. He must know how to "unfreeze" the individuals in the group from their "'old-fashioned' way of doing things" (from their dependence upon the system of Righteousness to know right from wrong, good for evil), by getting all participants to openly dialogue their opinions to one another in an environment where all participants can feel free ('liberated') to share their feelings and thoughts without the fear or threat of chastening or disproval. He can then "help" the group come to a workable, i.e. 'rational' "group" engendered solution in solving the social crisis at hand. By "refreezing" the individuals "felt" needs within the group's "felt" needs, i.e. in the "sense experience" of consensus, and "encouraging" the group to put their consensus into social action (praxis), he can engender social 'change,' i.e. negating-annihilating righteousness ,i.e. getting rid of the "old way of doing things," not only in the individual but also in society.
Righteousness and restrained sensuousness and spontaneity go hand in hand as unrighteousness and unrestrained sensuousness and spontaneity go hand in hand. Without the command of "You can not," which restrains or blocks natural impulses and urges, and the threat of "Or else .... Because I said so" being followed up with force, the system of Righteousness does not exist. Therefore with the negation of the condition or threat of "Or else .... Because I said so" of righteousness, the "I ought," the antithesis to righteousness, where man's mind is set upon his own sensuousness, man can be 'liberated' from the restraint of (fear engendered by) righteousness and be united with others in the negation of the command "You can not" of righteousness, not only in his (their) mind but also in his (their) actions, he (they) can then think "I can" without "getting into trouble," i.e. no longer considering their praxis as being unrighteous. By uniting all men upon a collective "We can," in disregard to righteousness, the system of Righteousness is annihilated. In dialectical 'reasoning' since righteousness is sensuousness restrained by "non-sensuous" i.e. 'irrelevant' laws, laws which prevent the world from becoming what it "ought to be," united as one in sensuousness (uniting upon that which it has in common), the system of Righteousness is 'irrational.' Since it goes counter to the way the world "is," i.e. man always seeking unity with the world (man perpetually wanting, i.e. lusting after the things of gratification of nature, of the world), i.e. ever seeking after 'change,' it must therefore be treated as 'irrelevant.'
As you will come to understand, Hegel, Marx, and Freud all understood this truth, that righteousness, i.e. the command "Thou shalt not ... lest ye die" and the higher authority which authors the command with its use of or threat of force (chastening) is definable as a particular system. They all understood that system, the system of Righteousness, as being anathema to human nature (of the system of sensuousness). It is therefore this system , the system of Righteousness, which they all 'rationally,' i.e. dialectically set out to destroy, i.e. to negate in the individual and annihilate in society. Therefore, to understand the dialectical process (man, 'driven' by sensuous 'reasoning' and 'reasoning' sensuously, 'purposed' in negating-annihilating the system of Righteousness) you must first understand the system of Righteousness.
Going over it again, but with new information. Without the "negative," the "Thou shalt not do that or this will happen" (an either-or or cause and effect condition) of righteousness, there could not be a condition where-with-all man could actualize 'reasoning' to 'justify' himself, i.e. "self-actualize" himself as he learns how to 'liberate' himself from the condition of righteousness The dialectic process is of a Hermetic, Kabalic, Gnostic, "positivistic," oneness condition where truth is not found in an either-or (thesis-antithesis) condition but in a consensus (synthesis) condition of the two, i.e. in a feeling of oneness in social action (praxis). "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) "The Hermetic tradition was both moderate and flexible, offering a tolerant philosophical religion, a religion of the (omnipresent) mind, a purified perception of God, the cosmos, and the self, and much positive encouragement for the spiritual seeker, all of which the student could take anywhere." (Tobias Churton, The Golden Builders: Alchemists, Rosicrucians, and the First Freemasons.). It is the dialectical system of 'reasoning' (rationality) which is necessary if man is to free himself from righteousness and its effect upon him and the world. Without 'reasoning' being used to free man from righteousness he can not come to know ("self-actualize") himself as he really "is," i.e. become what he "ought to be." Without 'reasoning' 'justifying' his human nature, the "guilty conscience" (the voice of the father, the command of God, the voice of the "past") prevails. By 'reasoning' negating the "guilty conscience," man can be himself again, as he was before righteousness, i.e. God or parent showed up with their first "Thou shalt not ... Can not" command, reinforced with a condition of threat. In dialectic 'reasoning' the "ought to be" is the only voice which is of man's nature, it is the voice of human nature crying out to know itself as it was before righteousness showed up restraining it. According to dialectic 'logic,' by 'rationally' 'liberating' the "ought" of human nature from the restraints of righteousness, man, in harmony with his own nature, can live in a "new" world uninhibited by righteousness. This 'reasoning' is the heart of beast.
According to dialectical 'reasoning,' if you can get rid of the "negative" (the "Thou shalt not" or "It is written" of the system of Righteousness) by first getting rid of the fear or anxiety of judgment ("lest ye die," i.e. the "or else ... Because I said so" of the system of Righteousness―as Satan did with the woman in the garden), you can 'rationally' get rid of righteousness (negating God's right and wrong, good and evil way of thinking). By making "lest ye die" 'irrationally,' i.e. by making it subject to that which is natural, i.e. sensual (if it is not sensual and therefore not experientially understandable to all men, it is 'irrational'), 'reasoning' can then be used to 'liberate' man from righteousness, making himself 'rational' and righteousness 'irrational.' His 'relevance' therefore depends upon his own 'reasoning' ability, used to 'justify' himself by making righteousness 'irrelevant.' Satan went after the Lord's "need" for food, physically, his "need" for esteem, mentally, and his "need" to control his own life, i.e. making a name for himself, socially. In responding to his current situation, Jesus went to the scriptures for his defense, depending upon them for the answer to his needs, rejecting sensuous needs by turning to the need to be righteous, he thereby rejecting dialectic 'reasoning' as a way of thinking and acting. He had no fear or anxiety, being righteous, and neither should we, being made righteous in Him, living according to the Fathers will, in Him. Our relevance does not lie in us, in the "light" ("enlightenment") of the world of sensuousness, it lies in Him who is the light of the world, who is righteous. The "light" of the world is darkness (sensuous). It is the way of death. The light of the Lord is light indeed (righteous). He is the way of life indeed. "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Luke 11:35
By the "negation of negation," i.e. by removing (or negating) the threat of judgment (the negative), removing the threat of condemnation (by creating an environment where a person can "safely" analyze the commands of higher authority, evaluating them according to his own feelings and thoughts without fear of judgment), he can remove (negate) the right and wrong "as given" commands (negate the commands created by an authority higher than the urges and impulses of the 'moment'), he can remove (negate) the "negation," i.e. negate the negative, fundamental, judgmental attitude of righteousness, not only negate it in the individual himself but also annihilate it in the world through social action. Every consensus meeting you have ever attended has had this in mind. And you thought is was all about fixing a sewer line or bridge or something. No. It was about fixing you, i.e. 'changing' the way you think and act for the sake of unrighteousness. Did you make righteousness an issue in solving the social issue. You probably did not, because you did not want to appear "negative." See, it works. You participated in the "negation of negation" for the sake of social harmony, 'justifying' your silence for the sake of unrighteousness. No you did not do it intentionally (I hope), but that is what you did, 'actually.' Your opinion, not God's word, ruled the day. By our actions, or lack thereof, righteousness really has become 'irrelevant.'
Therefore, we find ourselves today living in a world where righteousness is no longer the issue of life, human sensuousness and human 'reasoning,' i.e. social issues, i.e. man's "felt" needs, i.e. men's opinions, having taken its place. This is also what is happening in the church. Many believers are experiencing first hand the 'shift' from righteousness to sensuousness in the church, all being done through the use of human 'reasoning,' i.e. the dialectic process used for the 'purpose' of "growing" the church. For example: if, according to "higher critical thinking," i.e. according to those who are 'rational,' you can not know with absolute certainty which verses in the scriptures are trustworthy and which ones are not (the scriptures are trustworthy; the question is: are you reading the true scriptures?), then to hold to the scriptures to the point of death is 'irrational,' thus making the scriptures 'irrelevant' when they inhibit or block the "enjoyments" of this life.
Yet, to expose the mindset of dialectic thinking, I sometimes use the world righteousness in place of the phrase "the system of Righteousness," since, according to dialectic thinking, they are both the same. Both are perceived as being 'irrational' and therefore 'irrelevant.' In keeping with dialectic 'reasoning,' the system of Righteousness is a weltanschauung, a paradigm, or a way of thinking which engenders the idea of righteousness (where a persons thoughts and actions are accountable to that which is not of their own paradigm―all of a man's thoughts and actions are naturally to himself, set upon what he can acquire or maintain for himself from the world around him (see the article on Dopamine). The dialectic process is the "academic side of righteousness," which is, in actuality, not righteousness but is rather unrighteousness (human nature) 'rationally' perceived as being 'righteousness.'
Righteousness is not a dopamine engendering ("gratifying") object for which man naturally "lusts" after, i.e. in his sensuousness ('driven' by his "sensuous need" to approach pleasure and avoid pain and 'rationally' 'purposed' in the augmentation of pleasure and the attenuation of pain) "seeking" to be around (why darkness does not pursue after or even hangs around with light). The only reason the unrighteous man shows up around the righteous, as the scribes and Pharisees did with John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, is to find fault with them so they can 'justify' their unrighteous thoughts and their unrighteous actions as being normal (assuming "normal" as being "good"). Dialectic 'reasoning' is "wholistic" in nature. 'Liberating' sensuousness from righteousness "purifies" man's mind (his thoughts) from the restraints placed upon not only his body (his urges and desires) but also upon his reasoning (his ability to justify himself). Chastening not only makes man's body subject to righteousness but also his mind subject to righteousness, forcing him to think upon things which are above, forcing him to make decisions according to that which is not of his nature, inhibiting or blocking his natural desires. 'Reasoning,' therefore, not only 'liberates' his body from the restraints of righteousness ('justifying his actions), but also 'liberates' his mind of the "guilty conscience" which is engendered by righteousness.
Dialectic 'reasoning,' uniting theory and practice (uniting man's thoughts and his actions upon that which is only of nature, that which is 'practical'), makes man whole "again." According to Gnostic, dialectic heresy, man must return to what he was before God and parent, i.e. before demiurge showed up, preventing 'reasoning' from becoming (by making sensuousness subject to righteousness through commands and laws which are not engendered by sensuousness, i.e. laws and commands enforced by pain or threat of pain which is of sensuousness). Chastening prevents 'reasoning' (mind at-one-with itself and nature only, i.e. "intuition") from becoming manifest, prevents 'reasoning' from coming to know itself as the essence of god, prevents the essence of man, his "divine spark" ("as above so below and as below so above") from becoming known to himself, as he 'discovers' his oneness with the world (the world spirit, that which is of oneness). "Wholism" is "purified" 'reasoning,' i.e. man's mind uninhibited by righteousness, "decontaminated," "detoxified," "sanitized," "demythologized" through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. through human 'reasoning' uniting man and the world as one in "enjoyment" (united as one in "celebration," i.e. united as one by putting doctrine, i.e. putting aside the issue of right and wrong according to that which is not in accordance with man, i.e. putting righteousness aside for the 'purpose' of sensuousness, i.e. the feeling of universal oneness, oneness with the world, thus engendering the sensation of world peace and social harmony). In this way man's love (sensuousness) conquerors God's love (righteousness) by becoming one with it through dialectical 'reasoning.' "Can't we all just get along."
Socialists do what they do for themselves ("lusting" after the things of "enjoyment" of this world) while convincing others that what they are doing, they are doing for them, i.e. working for the "common good." They are doing what I call common-ism, communism with a smile―smile or no smile it is still communism, only, in this case "user friendly" at first to draw more in. In truth they are really doing it for themselves, i.e. so they can "feel good about themselves" and "be approved by others" (by people of like mindset as well as those who are becoming). Like Barbary Pirates, they kidnap the innocent (come between the parent and their children by making the parents children their children), using them as ransom for their own profit (you won't get them back until you 'justifying' our actions, i.e. join with us our praxis, by supporting it, "for the 'good' of all," i.e. your money is not really your money, it is, in 'reality,' everyone's money, your children are not your children, they are, in 'reality,' everyone's children, your property is not your property, it is, in 'reality,' everyone's property, etc.―'reality' in dialectic 'reasoning' is the same as opinion, i.e. in our collective opinion, in 'reality,' you and what you have belongs to all of "Us," especially to us). Anyway, I digress, getting ahead of myself.
More specifically, the system of Righteousness is a folk weltanschauung, a patriarchal paradigm, a top-down way of thinking and acting which is in the creation (in the traditional family structure, top-down yet one in Christ) as well as of the creator (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, top-down yet one). Even those who think dialectic recognize man's need for an authority figure. But what they want in authority is a person who is worldly and collective in mind, 'driven' and 'purposed' in 'liberating' abomination (abomination is hate of righteousness engendered by the love of sensuousness) instead of restraining it (for the purpose of initiating and sustaining the love of righteousness). Therefore righteousness, which can only be imputed through Christ to man, and the system of Righteousness, which is of God to man, must both be negated-annihilated if man is to know himself as he is, i.e. heresiarchal in paradigm, i.e. ever 'changing.'
Satan offered Jesus the kingdoms of the world (Jesus could have authority over them if Satan could have authority over Him). Is it no wonder why Jesus did not take him up on his offer? Satan offered him kingdoms of unrighteousness. Jesus' kingdom is a kingdom made up of His righteousness. Jesus is coming back again, but this time it will be for His bride, the redeemed from the world, those made righteous in Him. He is not returning for those of the world, other than to judge them for their unrighteous deeds done in disobedience to His Heavenly Father's will. He first came that all might come to know His Father as He knows Him. "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 bold added Jesus' kingdom is made up of those who think and act in obedience to His Heavenly Father's will, doing what He did. "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" 2 Corinthians 10:5 Jesus' kingdom, the kingdom of God, is made up of those who do His Father's will. "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50 Satan's kingdom, the kingdoms of this world, do as he wills, 'justifying' themselves in their own eyes, in disobedience to the Father's will, living according to the way's of the world. "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16 Seduction, deception, and manipulation are the attributes of dialectic 'reasoning.' The scriptures warn us of being seduced, deceived, and manipulated by those who love this world: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:8 (I digress again. Maybe not.)
The earthly family (the traditional family, with the father as the head of the home, with his children obeying his commands without question) is a type of the heavenly family (the Heavenly Father, sending His only begotten son to obey His commands without question). Amazingly, those of dialectic 'reasoning' base their foundation upon this understanding. Without it they have nothing where-with-all to propagate there 'change' agenda. Both the earthly family and the heavenly family are a condition, or way of thinking which is of the system of Righteousness. Both require faith, belief, obedience, and chastening to reinforce obedience to higher authority. (Faith, belief, obedience, and chastening are the attributes of the system of Righteousness as well as of righteousness. These are the attributes which those possessed with dialectic 'reasoning' seek to negate: "Critical Criticism [children questioning parental authority] is a spiritualistic lord, pure spontaneity, actus purus, intolerant of any influence from without." Karl Marx, The Holy Family)
The earthly father is therefore recognized as the initiator and sustainer of the system of Righteousness. He is the one who establishes law which gives order to, restrains, and judges human nature (earthly and temporal). It is the earthy family which therefore interferes with (inhibits or is a "barrier" to) the child's natural inclination to be himself (carnal). By making the child not only subject to the earthy family but also to the "Holy Family," the child is no longer able to determine right from wrong, good from evil according to that which is of his nature, according to that which is common to all of mankind. According to Hegel, it is therefore in the child's nature, prior to familial inculcation, where morality and ethics resides (it is here, in the child's carnal nature, that communism, i.e. common-ism finds its "ground" of being). According to dialectic 'reasoning' 'liberation' from the influence of the earthly family is therefore where the "new" order of the world finds its 'purpose' and its 'drive.' It is "envy" (the most vile attribute of human nature, which is engendered from covetousness which is engendered from "lust"), which comes from the hearts of the dialectic "children" of the "new" world order, where 'change' (the taking of that which is not theirs to take, i.e. to control as theirs―"the parent's 'liberties' are my 'liberties'") is engendered. Without the authority of the earthy father, under the authority of the Heavenly Father, restraining (chastening) it in the home, 'change,' "envy," and unrighteousness (the children with their carnal-earthy desires) will prevail over the affairs of man until no man can buy or sell without their approval. "And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable." "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:4-5, 12 But, as God did in the garden in Eden, He who is righteousness will return to expose and judge those who praxis the dialectic process ("envy," i.e. "Taking that which is not theirs to take and claiming it as theirs") for their unrighteous thoughts and deeds.
The Heavenly Father (God the Father who is the head of the system of Righteousness in Heaven as well as on earth) is the highest authority to be accountable to. (Read the article on authority, i.e. Romans 13 and listen to James Borchert's audios on authority, i.e. Romans 13) The earthly father and his family are therefore accountable to the Heavenly father. Yet man's authority (the authority of the earthly father, which is of the system of Righteousness) is also subject to the 'influences' of sensuousness, being sensuous also (by nature approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e. the "worth" or "value" of life based only upon the amount of pleasure a person experiences vs. the amount of pain rather than the eternal consequences of one's thoughts and actions). Therefore the earthly father's use of chastening is also subject to the gratification of his own pleasure, inured to having things his temporal way, i.e. of and for his own flesh, and is therefore vain and potentially "brutal," i.e. unmerciful, producing "wrath" in those under his authority, unless he is directed by the Lord.
Side note: whether the father is a tyrant ("autocratic") or he is loving and caring ("benevolent") does not matter, in dialectic 'reasoning,' it is all of the same system and therefore must be treated as evil, or potentially evil, and thus, for the sake of society, be negated in the child's thoughts and annihilated through his social actions. If the children are―and therefore the future world is―to be freed from the "abnormal" attributes of righteousness, the earthly family system must be annihilated-negated. The dialectic focus then is upon finding and using examples of egregious earthly father abuse on the family and using it as the shadow and type of all earthly families (where eventually in the mind of the public, all traditional minded fathers, "isolating" their children from the ways of the world, are suspect of potential "child" abuse, their office of authority engendering it―according to dialectic 'reasoning,' without "public programs" coming between the father and his children, "overseeing" and protecting the children from the potential dangers which lie within the "authoritative" family system, the problem could and more than likely would eventually get out of hand, i.e. result in "child abuse"). The truth is: "Any non-family-based collectivity [i.e. any system not of, i.e. antithetical to the system of Righteousness] that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a democratizing [liberalizing] impact on that relationship [causing a rift between the parent and the child until the parent either abdicates to the child's way of thinking and acting or the parent inhibits or blocks the child from 'discovering' their worldly, carnal 'potential,' i.e. establishes a "barrier" between the child and the world, i.e. develops a strong conscience, fearful of God or parent, i.e. esteem the office of authority of God or parents, which is antithetical to the system of sensuousness].'" (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society) The goal of "contemporary" education is therefore "… to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents … [to produce] conflict and tension between parents and children ... [until the parent abdicates to the enlightened child's way of thinking and acting, i.e. the system of Righteousness abdicates to the system of sensuousness and 'reasoning']." (David Krathwohl and Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book 1 Affective Domain, pg. 83) "Social environmental forces must be used to change the parents behavior toward the child." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) bracketed information added to quotations above.
Back to point: if the earthly father is not restrained by his conscience, or by his awareness of his accountability to higher authority than himself, i.e. accountable to his Heavenly Father's will, i.e. his fear of judgment from his Heavenly Father, i.e. for his abuse of the office of authority which he rules in, or by the Holy Spirit, he will usurp the office of authority and use it only for his own carnal gain and not use it for the training up of his children in the ways of righteousness. You don't have to 'train up' children in the ways of sensuousness, i.e. train them up in the ways of the world. They will, on their own, naturally do that. By creating a world of sensuousness, i.e. permissiveness, you can quickly undo most of the "damage" done by the parents to their children, having trained them up in the ways of righteousness instead of the way of sensuousness, you can show them how to use their 'reasoning' abilities to negate the effects of righteousness upon their lives. This is what dialectic programs, like "Education Nation," are all about. All it takes is one "'enlightened' educator," who the children "like" because they encourage the children to be "themselves," i.e. freely express their "ought's," i.e. "critical theory," i.e. opinion on why there is a need for 'change,' what or who is preventing 'change,' how they can be 'changed,' and when to put 'change' into action, i.e. praxis, all without fear of chastisement―'change' being not just of people but also on how decisions are to be made and carried out, i.e. a paradigm 'change,' i.e. 'change' being from the system of Righteousness to the system of sensuousness, 'rationally,' i.e. dialectically 'justified.' It is not enough to notice the 'change' process going on around you, i.e. in the other classroom. You must respond to it, speaking the truth, proclaiming righteousness, exposing unrighteousness, in love, i.e. warning, reproving, correcting, rebuking, and even chastening those you love, i.e. those who love the process of 'change,' i.e. the earthy stimulus-response process of sensuousness. If you don't bring righteousness onto the table of sensuousness (be willing to face martyrdom) sensuousness prevails over righteousness by default (in the minds of men).
Karl Marx understood the importance of sensuousness as the tool wherewith to 'liberate' man from righteousness. He understood that the strength of righteousness over sensuousness was located in the gospel, in its speculation restraining faith. Marx wrote, regarding faith and sensuousness: "The unspeculative Christian also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, i.e., of faith, of true love, i.e., of love of God, of true will-power, i.e., of will in Christ. Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) emphasis in original (And you thought Karl Marx didn't know the gospel. You have to know what it is you want to destroy if you want to destroy it 'right.') Thus without getting man to question God, sensuousness would remain subject to faith and man would remain subject to righteousness, i.e. subject to God. According to Marx (as well as Hegel before him) it was the role of educators, as agents of 'change,' to turn the "unspeculative" Christian into a speculator (a "higher order thinker" in morels and ethics regarding social issues). The problem was, how to take over the education system, changing and maintaining control over it. Marx wrote: "Education as yet is unable and unwilling to bring all estates and distinctions into its circle. Only Christianity and morality are able to found universal kingdoms on earth." ibid. emphasis added "Concerning the changing of circumstances by men, the educator must himself be educated." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach: # 3) As one of John Dewey's doctoral candidates put it, "Educators and others in the role of change agents must have a method of social engineering relevant to initiating and controlling the change process." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
I am not writing this that anyone would do it, but that they might repent and not do it, clearly seeing how the world system is thinking and going about its business, destroying the souls of men. I doubt most people are fully aware of what they are doing to themselves and to others as they participate in the process. The "enjoyment" which comes from participation within the process intoxicates them so they can not perceive the destructive effect it is having upon themselves as well as upon others who either join them in their "enjoyment" or are martyred by them for refusing to join with them, being perceived as judging them for their unrighteousness. Sensuousness and 'reasoning' united in dialectic thought and action (man intoxicated with the world system) can not know or comprehend righteousness, being only of unrighteousness. Righteousness always produces this either-or outcome, an outcome those of dialectic 'reasoning' so desperately want to overcome. "If the 'restoring of life' of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation, then Marx must collapse into a bottomless abyss." (Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice) "Sublimation is essentially an attempt to ... rediscover the animal in man. If the psychoanalytical theory of sublimation is rejected, psychoanalysis has nothing much to offer to the science of culture." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
You are either made righteous in Christ, through faith in Him, or you remain unrighteous. There is no third or fourth way. Dialectic 'reasoning' can not save you from the reality that you are condemned in your unrighteousness, that God will judge you for your unrighteousness unless you're sins are covered by the righteousness of Christ. Apart from Christ, who is life, there is only one other way, the dialectic way of death. Children, even those who are being raised up under the system of Righteousness, do not understand that the method they are using to 'justify' themselves is the dialectic process. (This is why even "home" schooled children, once they are "out from under" the authority of the home, so quickly become worldly, their heart never changed by the Lord himself.) Therefore they are just as unrighteous as those who understand what they are doing, attempting to 'justify' themselves in negating-annihilating the system of Righteousness, knowingly making the dialectic process the law of the land (for the "good" of all). All religions of the world are dialectic in nature, man seeking to save himself through his own understanding, i.e. determining good and evil in the "light" of his own 'reasoning' abilities, his 'reasoning' being subject to his own "sense experiences." Without repentance before the Lord, without dying to self, in Christ, every man, whether pagan or religious, ignorant or educated, stupid or brilliant, ugly or beautify, rich or poor, or anything in between, will die in his sins. All the dialectic process does is "convince" man that he is 'good,' or has the potential of becoming 'good' through proper upbringing, making sin a moot issue in his thought and in his actions. (There is no such thing as a 'good' Samaritan, i.e. read Luke 10:33 "a certain Samaritan." Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18, and Luke 18:19 "Only God is good." Romans 3:4 also reads: "let God be true, but every man a liar;")
God's authority is of righteousness, therefore chastening is done in His Spirit of love, for the purpose of holiness. Chastening is done not to condemn or to destroy man (who is condemned already, and therefore not to be trusted) but to "exercise" him from condemnation. God chastens those he loves. (Chastening is rejected by dialectic thinkers, seeing it as being sado-masochistic in nature―accepting pain inflected upon that which is naturally engendered toward pleasure, they instead use seduction, deception, and manipulation, social rejection, the fear of social rejection, negation, and annihilation, i.e. killing, stealing, and destroying instead―"Tillich suggests that it would be better to let the giver of arbitrary laws to destroy us physically than to accept the psychological destruction that would accompany submission to an alien will." Leonard F. Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism Marx wrote: "The life which he has given to the object [recognition of and submission to parental or Godly authority] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." Karl Marx, MEGA I/3 "Every form of objectification [recognition of and submission to parental or Godly authority] ... results in alienation. Transcending alienation involves transcending objectification." Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists) According to the system of Righteousness, chastening is done to rescue man (or the child) from going in the wrong direction, turning him away from a life of killing, robbing, and destroying. Chastening is done to direct man (or the child) in the right way, that he might live. Thus God's chastening contains mercy and grace toward the repentant, i.e. toward those who are His, who humble themselves before Him, accepting his chastening, accepting His way of thinking and acting in faith. Thus, any who refuse chastening from Him are not His children. They are instead "stubborn," "prideful," "children of disobedience," and therefore "bastards," who will eventually receive His "wrath." Hebrews 12:5-11 defines the system of Righteousness, both of the earthly family and the Heavenly family (the "Holy family" as Karl Marx called it). The system of Righteousness is therefore a way of thinking and acting which is known as a Patriarchal Paradigm, Father ruling, top-down, hierarchy system. It is a system, or way of thinking and acting, whereby man comes to realize that there is a higher authority above him, an authority which is above his natural desires of the 'moment,' using chastening to restrain him from his sensuous, carnal, unrighteous, rebellious nature and point him in the direction of righteousness.
(Again) Righteousness is only of God, who is spirit, holy, and eternal. Righteousness is not of the creation, which is carnal, unholy, and temporal. Therefore righteousness is not of man. Righteousness can only be imputed by God to men of faith in Him. Without God there is no righteousness. Thus the dialectical 'logic' goes: If God is righteousness and man is not, without righteousness there is no God and therefore without righteousness as the issue of life man is only man, i.e. of sensuous. Therefore, if righteousness is no longer accepted as the only way of life, God's will is no longer the issue of life. If God's will is no longer the issue of life then there is no top-down system from which man has to obey unnatural laws and therefore man can become only man (carnal, of his own nature only).
Righteousness is imputed to men of faith in God, "who diligently seek him." "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6 Without hearing the word of God man can not have faith in God, being only subject to that which is of sight, only subject to the creation or to his imagination (which is subject to his heart's desire to be at-one-with the creation, pursuing, i.e. "lusting" after those things which are pleasurable to him within it). "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17
It is essential that we retain our faith in God and His word or we will be subject to the doubts and questions against it which are engendered by our lust for the things of the world. Being subject to that which is of the creation, which is sensuous, and not to God's righteousness, we will, guided by our wicked hearts and the wickedness of the world, naturally (in our carnal nature) pursue only after unrighteousness, pursuing that which the unrighteous promise to give us, the pleasures of this life only. Apart from faith in God and His Word, trusting in His righteousness ("beholding his glory" instead of "'changing' his glory into an image made like to corruptible man"―"And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." Romans 1:23 "But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." 2Corinthians 3:18). Without faith, we have no defense against the wickedness of our hearts and the wickedness of the ways of the world (which are both the same―therefore they are the only means and the only end available for dialectic thought and dialectic action, i.e. the way of the wicked). "Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked." Ephesians 6:16
For the unrighteous 'thinkers,' the dialectic thinkers of the world (who are 'righteous' in their own eyes), righteousness and the system of Righteousness are both the same, i.e. 'irrational' (unnatural) and therefore 'irrelevant' (of no worth). Therefore, I sometimes use the word righteousness in place of the phrase "the system of Righteousness" since they are both "sense perceived" as being the same in dialectic thought. The dialectic thinking man sees righteousness or the system of Righteousness only as an obstacle to overcome (to negate), showing all mankind how to 'rationally,' dialectically exorcize it from themselves and the world. It is their belief, that through the praxis of sensuous 'reasoning' ("sensitivity training"), i.e. putting "'higher order thinking skills' in morals and ethics" into social action (called praxis), the system of Righteousness, and therefore righteousness itself, can be dialectically removed from individuals and the world, thereby creating a "new" world, i.e. a "new world order," grounded only upon unrighteousness, grounded only upon that which is of the fallen creation, i.e. only that which is of the natural (as man perceives it), for his own pleasure only. The 'logic' follows: if the 'purpose' and 'drive' of man is to "enjoy" the creation, anything or anyone which inhibits or blocks that "enjoyment," or apprehends it only for themselves, at the expense of man's "enjoyment" of it, it is the dialectically duty of all men to unite as one and negate that which is not of and for man's "enjoyment" of the creation only. Thus, in a dialectic world, God or the parents can "enjoy" life, only if all men and children can "enjoy" life without Godly or parental restraints. Thereby "enjoyment" successfully negates that which initiates and sustains the system of Righteousness, i.e. chastening, i.e. capitulation to the will of a higher authority than "human nature." "Capitalism is destroyed in enjoyment." (Normal O. Brown, Life against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "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." "The best way to destroy democratic society would be by way of industrial authoritarianism, which is anti-democratic in the deepest sense." "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." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management) Therefore righteousness must become subject to the "sensuous needs" of man if it is to be of any worth (God must be understood and therefore subject to "human eyes, human ears," i.e. human feelings and human understanding. Therefore, according to dialectical though and action, apart from the system of sensuousness, i.e. the fulfillment of man's "sensuous needs," the system of Righteousness, i.e. God or the parent and their commands, have no value or worth in and of themselves for the 'changing' (sensuous) world.
Man's 'righteousness' is not of God's righteousness and God's righteousness is not of man's 'righteousness.' They are anathema to one another. I use 'righteousness' (un-italicized, in single quotation marks) for that 'righteousness' which is only of man's own "sense experience" (man "sense perceiving" himself as being 'righteous,' i.e. "right," i.e. "good" in his own eyes). 'Righteousness,' being only of and for man's "enjoyment" of the world, is not of that righteousness which is only of God, nor is it of the system of Righteousness which restrain's or blocks' "enjoyment" when it goes counter to that which is right, or participates with that which is wrong, according to an authority higher or greater than the sensuous 'moment' of the one under authority). The 'righteousness' of man is anathema to that righteousness which is only of God (of the Heavenly Father, His only begotten son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit). It is therefore anathema to that righteousness which can only be imputed by God to men of faith in Him. 'Righteousness' (of the "children of disobedience") is also anathema to the system of Righteousness. It is therefore anathema to the traditional family, the patriarchal family, i.e. the top-down, hierarchy system which uses chasten to inculcate right (righteous) thinking and acting in those under authority, which is given by God to man to rule his home "well," preparing the next generation to know and comprehend their need to be righteous (perfect), i.e. not doing that which is wrong, i.e. not doing that which is evil according to higher authorities "as given" rules, commands established by a higher authority to be "obeyed or else," with the earthly family being subject to the Heavenly family above all else.
I can therefore use 'righteousness' (man perceiving himself as being 'good,' i.e. 'right' in his own eyes) in place of the phrase "the system of 'righteousness'" (man 'rationally' justifying himself according to his fallen nature, comparing himself with himself, using his feelings and his thoughts, i.e. his sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities to know right from wrong, good from evil) because both conditions are only of man's "sense perception" and 'reasoning' ability. Thus the dialectic man accepts only that authority figure who is of and for that which is only of natural, augmenting pleasure, only of the flesh, only of and for the "enjoyment" of this life, only of man's "sensuous needs." The dialectic man therefore resents authority when it is dissatisfying to his sensuous desires, i.e. not harmonious with his earthy nature, i.e. blocking or inhibiting the "good" life "in the 'moment,'" blocking or inhibiting his "here-and-now" pleasures, rejecting, negating, and annihilating it when possible. The dialectic trickery is to join with those of the system of Righteousness, helping them solve a crisis, getting them to focus on resolving the crisis without bringing up the issue of righteousness, convincing them that by working for the good of all (working for the common good), rather than focusing upon their own righteousness, promoting their own values and triggering division, they can "reach" more people for their cause by their 'willing' participation in the dialectic system of 'righteousness.'
Deviancy from righteousness (from the "straight and narrow") is thus the pathway of dialectic thinking (the "broad path" which leads to destruction). It is the praxis of deviancy which becomes the norm for dialectical thinking and acting. Tolerance of ambiguity is the same thing as letting a deviant cell discover its full potential, only to later learn that it is cancer and is going to kill you in its quest for 'survival' and 'change.' As cancer is abomination to the body, the dialectic process is abomination to the soul of man, tolerated in the beginning, for the sake of "equality, fraternity, liberty," it will lead to your death in the end.
On a side note: liberty in righteousness (liberty in law) is emancipation from the manipulating and controlling, i.e. seductive and deceptive conditions of sensuousness, i.e. liberating man from that which is of the world, i.e. liberating him from sensuousness and death. 'Liberty' in sensuousness (liberty in man) is emancipation from the chastening and directing, i.e. faith, belief, and obedience conditions of righteousness. 'Liberty' in man is man 'rationally' liberating himself from that which is not of the world, not of his nature, 'rationally' liberating himself from that which is not of his 'here-and-now' "lusts." It is man 'rationally' liberating himself from righteousness and eternal life. Righteousness is, on the other hand, of a higher authority (God or parent) liberating man (or the child) from the influence and control of sensuousness―of the carnal, of the flesh. Sensuousness (dialectically 'justified) liberates man from the leading of righteousness―of the holy, of the spirit. It is all in how you define 'liberty' that the outcome is determined. Either liberty is life defined by God, which is of His righteousness (revealed by His word) or liberty is a "life-style" of the world, which is of man's own sensuousness ('driven' by his own "sensuous needs," "sense perception," and "sense experience"). One is purposed in righteousness (becoming at-one-with the creator through faith, i.e. purposed with higher authorities purpose, lawful according to higher authorities law), the other in unrighteousness (being at-one-with the creation in sight, in the immediate, in the 'moment,' i.e. "Purposiveness without purpose, lawfulness without law," the object pre-establishing purpose and law according to their will, i.e. God or parent, having been negated. Hegel).
Therefore, whoever defines terms for you either controls your life (is of sensuousness) or directs your steps (is of righteousness). The world controls your thoughts and actions through manipulating your inclinations, requiring seduction and deception, while God directs your steps through His reveled Word and His Holy Spirit, requiring faith, belief, obedience, and chastening. Thus those of the world, those who are 'driven' by their love of sensuousness, hate Godly (God's) restraint of their "pleasure" (dopamine emancipation), reject God's or parent's chastening of the flesh, and are therefore 'purpose' in their heart to negate the conditions of righteousness. They thus praxis the negation of righteousness itself, not only in their own lives, but in the lives of all others as well, for their own "peace" of mind. Dialectic 'logic' is: if righteousness is not of, in, and for the world, it is not of, in, and for man. Therefore righteousness (the conditions of righteousness that is, i.e. faith, belief, obedience to "Thou shalt not," and chastening, i.e. that which is not of the world, i.e. is not at-one-with the here-and-now sensuous 'moment') must be negated if man is to at-one-with himself and the world, i.e. have "peace" in himself and the world). "But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now." Galatians 4:29
Back on point: it is in dissatisfaction that philosophy finds is "'ground' of being"―man's dissatisfaction with the way things are, dissatisfaction with the commands of the traditional family structure (the patriarchal paradigm, the system of Righteousness) which restrains (blocks, limits, inhibits, etc.) the sensuous-spontaneous, ever 'changing' nature of man (his natural, spontaneous 'quest' for pleasure, his 'quest' for 'change,' away from the "there-and-then" in the "here-and-now"). Carnal man, defending his fallen nature through his use of dialectical 'reasoning,' can only perceive the isolated man (or the child), not strong enough to overthrow the condition which engenders dissatisfaction, only as one who is "begrudgingly" follow after higher authority (God or the parent), obeying their commands, doing higher authority's will, for the sake of his own "survival," getting what "enjoyment" or pleasure he can, if any, out of the situation. (I use the words "begrudgingly" and "survival" only for the carnal, unregenerate, "disobedient" man or child and not for the born again man or child, i.e. filled with the spirit of God, or the "trained up" man or child, i.e. self-controlled, civil). But if man (or the child) becomes aware of others of like dissatisfaction (dissatisfaction with the traditional family structure restricting his carnal nature, like your child in the classroom, in a room full of his peers, all wanting the approval of one another, being asked to share his dissatisfactions with the traditional home, not asked that blatantly of course) it can make it easier for him to 'justify' himself (in his own eyes) and unite with others (of like mind) in a 'rational'-sensual way of thinking and acting to overthrow, "negate" the traditional family structure, i.e. negate the obstruction to 'changingness,' negate the obstruction to sensuousness, negate the obstruction to "enjoyment," i.e. negate righteousness, negate the "Thou shalt not...." "You can not ... go out, eat the cookie, etc." " ... or else ..." commands, and the "or else," "Because I said so" threats of punishment for disobeying which restrain the "natural" carnality, i.e. sinful, unrighteous nature of fallen man, restraining "the child within."
Thus, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is dissatisfaction which triggers man's use of 'reasoning' (self-justification, i.e. philosophy) which is then used to "rescue" man (individually) from his dissatisfaction with the commands of the system of Righteousness and therefore "rescue" man (collectively) from the system of Righteousness itself. (Thus it is "higher order thinking skills" in morals and ethics which "rescues" man from the "lower order thinking skills" of obeying the "as given" commands of higher authority, and thus "rescues" man from higher authority itself. He is then 'justified' in annihilating higher authority along with the "lower order thinking skills" of the system of Righteousness which keeps him subject to the commands of higher authority and thus keep him subject to higher authority itself. He is no longer 'justified' in obeying higher authority, which is outside of him, restraining him from himself, since his 'justification' is now 'discovered' to be within himself, within his own sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities, and thus within a society of rebellion and revolution, a society of 'change' united as one against the system of Righteousness, the source of division, "repression," and "alienation.") The scriptures warn you how, through the use of deceitful words ("with feigned words," manipulatable, "plastic" words), your dissatisfaction (which is engendered through your "covetousness" for the things of this world), can be used to buy and sell you ("make merchandise of you"). "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." 2 Peter 2:3 The scriptures tell us of another way: "Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content." Philippians 4:11 "And having food and raiment let us be therewith content." 1 Timothy 6:8 "Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." Hebrews 13:5
Philosophy is man's 'rational'-sensual effort to unite with himself, unite with that which is of his carnal nature only in an effort to 'liberate' himself (and the world) from the system of Righteousness, from, what Norman Brown called, the condition of "limitations imposed by the formal-logical law of contradictions" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History), the "limitations" being the laws of negation (laws which block or inhibit sensuousness and spontaneity), i.e. the laws of "Thou shalt not ." By first "circumventing" higher authorities restraints, the "repressions-alienations" which are produced by the system of Righteousness (the traditional home), by creating an environment which is freed from "chastening" and open to "opinions": thereby not having to take on higher authority face to face as an individual, i.e. not having to question and challenge their commands alone, "lest ye be destroyed," then with social support (united with the masses, as one in revolution) all participants can 'willingly' "circumvent" the system of Righteousness itself, "safely" roleplaying how things "ought to be," treating higher authority, and their commands, as being 'irrelevant,' with all united in annihilating it through "group approval" in the classroom and social action (praxis) in the community. The "children of disobedience" seek to cut off the Father's head and put their head on in its place, only this time without accountability for their praxis, perceiving themselves as being "innocent bystanders" as the blood of the innocent and helpless is shed because of their actions, i.e. because of their "lust" for the things of this world done in the name of "the people" or even in the name of "the Lord."
The dialectic paradigm is social-psychology being put into social action (praxis). The idea being, if you can get rid of (negate) the symptoms of the system of Righteousness, i.e. the "guilty conscience," mentally, i.e. 'rationally,' psychologically, by 'recognizing' it as being 'irrational,' you can get rid of (annihilate) the disease, the system of Righteousness itself, physically, i.e. 'actually,' sociologically (without a "guilty conscience"). By 'recognizing' it as being 'irrelevant,' and thus expendable for the sake of creating a "better" world, you can more easily annihilate it (remove it as being an issue of importance in determining worth or value), for the sake of society. This is why so many people are murdered (including the unborn and elderly), in dialectic controlled countries (and churches), with little if any "guilty conscience" by the 'liberators' (Enlightened Christians included), 'justifying their praxis in the name of "society," i.e. in the name of "the people," (in the name of the institution of the church working with the state), in order to create a "'better' world for 'all'" (that more people can come to know their "Lord," who "loves all 'just as they are,'" i.e. their "Lord" saying that man can remain comfortable in his flesh, i.e. "enjoying" this life, not having to deny himself except for supplying other men's needs, and be full of self-esteem, i.e. seeking after "the approval of men," not having to pick up a cross except to serve social causes, and still follow him, i.e. doing all for the "betterment" of mankind, "in the name of the Lord").
Jesus did not pick up the cross to save man from the "establishment," from the law, from the Father, but to save man from damnation to have eternal life, from the Father's "wrath" to receive and know His love. Dialectic minds miss this truth. By placing their emphasis upon the saving of man from the "establishment," for the sake of their own "enjoyment," they keep the damnation of man, God's "wrath" upon the "children of disobedience" out of mind so they can have a big "group hug," i.e. have more "enjoyment" in this world, taking all they can with them on their way to God's judgment upon them and those who follow them into eternal "life" in hell. God desires that no one perish, but because God is righteous and perfect and holy, all who perish will perish because they rejected God's love and grace, loving the ways of the world instead―for no one can come before the Father, and receive eternal life, who is not made righteous and perfect and holy in Christ first. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." John 3:16-21
For dialectic minds, the negation of the condition of righteousness (the patriarchal environment of duality, of inalienable, unchangeable 'right-wrong' only, subject to established absolutes, i.e. the source of man's sense of "guilt," a sense of failure and fear of judgment for disobeying higher authority which engenders "repression," i.e. subjugation, as well as the source of division between men of differing "right's and wrong's, " i.e. causing "alienation" and "aggression") can only be accomplished by the creation of a condition of mental-physical, individual-social, theory-practice unity (the heresiarchal environment of plurality, i.e. of human, changeable 'rights' only, i.e. subject to changing situations) whereby human sensuousness and human 'reasoning' can be 'liberated' from the the sense of failure and the threat of judgment and become united in the action of overthrowing the condition (the patriarchal environment) of righteousness (doing social activities without righteousness being an issue of relevance, discouraging God's Word from being preached and taught "as is" (ruling over social actions, producing a "guilty conscience" and thus getting in the way of 'progress') by treating God's word as just another opinion amongst opinions. Anyone not "seeing" it this way and not participating in the 'change' process' is made to fell guilty (anti-social) at first, then shunned, and eventually rejected, with laws passed to keep righteousness out of the public's sensuous eye, i.e. protecting the public from righteousness.
If man's heart is not cleansed by the work of the Lord, according to his righteousness, it remains deceitful and wicked, subject to man's sensuousness and pride. Thus man's heart will remain like a child, hateful of any or all who stand in its way, in his 'quest' for pleasure. Those who have (the rich wanting to keep what they have) or those who have not (the poor wanting what the rich have) or those in defense of either (whether rich or poor), have no privilege (escape) from the hateful heart's control. In the end it is not what the rich have or the poor want that is the heart of the issue (which for both is "enjoyment" of the things of the world), it is the condition of the heart itself (either remaining sensuous, wicked, loving the things of the world or made righteous in Christ, loving the Father).
Synthesis is a man, pressured by "group approval," 'willingly' uniting with "the group," uniting upon that which he has in common with "the group," i.e. his sensuous desire for the "approval of men" for the sake of "survival" and the "enjoyment" of his nature and nature itself (envy), 'rationally' leaving out (dialectically filtering out) that which divides him from others and others from him, i.e. that being righteousness, for the sake of accomplishing the social task at hand, i.e. that being "survival," for the sake of augmenting "enjoyment" for himself and for all others, in the "here-and-now" and in the "imagined" future. The objective is to create a condition, engendered by that which is natural to man, to overthrow that condition which is not engendered by the nature of man. Through the use of philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc, i.e. 1) philosophically recognizing the source of man's dissatisfaction as being from higher authority and his righteous, unnatural commands, 2) psychologically negating the fear of it individually, 3) sociologically annihilating the 'relevance' of it socially, and 4) anthropologically liberating man from the source of it universally, man can physically (in practice) be 'liberated' from righteousness 'actually,' as his mind (in theory) is 'liberated' from it 'rationally'―his mind from now on living only in the "here-and-now," i.e. in his opinion and the opinions of others in continuous 'change,' 'liberated' from any personal sense of guilt for his social actions against the righteous, 'liberated' from the "guilty conscience" which he experienced as a result of his "disobedience" to the conditions of righteousness―conditions which were not of his sensuous carnal desires of the 'moment.' Postmodernism is a "guiltless, conscienceless" society established upon consensus, i.e. the individual and "the group" 'rationally' united upon the feeling of oneness with the world, i.e. oneness only with the world, in a 'moment' of 'change.' For it is only in the 'moment' of 'change,' where the individual's spontaneity and sensuousness are 'rationally,' i.e. dialectically 'liberated' from righteousness and 'rationally,' i.e. dialectically reunited in social action, that righteousness does not exist in the individual's thoughts and in his social action, human 'reasoning,' i.e. men's opinions, united in action (praxis) having taken its place, freeing man from the demands of righteousness so that he can, with no sense of guilt, annihilate it from the face of the earth.
The Transformational Marxist, Norman O. Brown wrote: "The guilty conscience [producing social rigidity] 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) The agenda is to negate the conscience, the voice of the father in the child which produces social rigidity, so that the children can annihilate the father (treat the father as being 'irrelevant') without having a guilty conscience, i.e. no longer hearing the voice of the father, internally, as he kills him (treats him with disrespect) externally. The Transformational Marxist, Kurt Lewin wrote: "The negative valence [a "guilty" feeling] of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult [chastening by the Father]. If this field of force [the Father's authority over the family] loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority [in the mind of the child, the father is no longer around or loses his authority to chasten him for his actions]) the negative valence [the "guilty conscience"] also disappears." (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality) bracketed information added The Marxist-Freudian idea is: if we can create a "safe zone" where the children (the next generation, the proletariat), no longer having to hide in their rooms, criticizing their parents and their authority, but now can sharing their resentments and dissatisfactions toward parental authority openly, in a classroom full of like minded peers, can "sense perceive" themselves freed from the authority of God or the parents (the bourgeoisie), their "guilty conscience 'disappears'" (is negated in the individual) and they can then feel free to be themselves, having no sense of guilt as they unite with others of like experience in annihilating (removing from society) the righteous (the extremist, the fundamentalist, the "anti-socialist," the 'irrational') along with their system of Righteousness. The Heresiarchal paradigm of 'change' is the facilitator of children, taking a position of authority, negating patriarchal authority through the anarchy and revolution of the children, children united in working for the "betterment" of all the children. The dialectic process is a mind game which has led to the death of many who have stood in its way (physical death), but will lead to the death to all who use it for the "common 'good," which is unrighteousness (resulting in eternal damnation John 5:29). "And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, fear him." Luke 12:4, 5
In dialectical thought, 'reality' is found (actualized) in human 'reasoning' (in men's opinions) liberating sensuousness from the "limitations" imposed by the system of Righteousness (by God or the parents and their commands preached and taught to be obeyed "as given"). Therefore, according to dialectical 'reasoning,' 'reality' is not found in righteousness (in God's or the parent's commands) which restrains ("represses-alienates") sensuousness and human 'reasoning' but instead 'reality' is found only in human sensuousness and 'reasoning' (in men's opinions) united in the 'moment.' i.e. in the "here-and-now." "Was vernünftig ist, das ist wirklich; und was wirklich ist, das is vernünftig." (Hegel) Translated: "What is rational is real and what is real is rational." or "What is rational is actual and what is actual is rational." For the dialectic thinker, real or actual is the "idea," i.e. of man's "opinion." "What is rational is man's 'opinion' and what is of man's 'opinion' is rational." Thus 'reality' can only be 'actualized' by 'rationally,' i.e. dialectically "circumventing" the patriarchal paradigm with its "limitations," i.e. "limitations" which are engendered by its preaching and teaching of "right and wrong," "either-or," ("Thou shalt not... or else.") which are reinforce by its use of force (chastening) or threat of force ("Because I said so.") used to initiate and sustain obedience to its commands, force or threat of force which prevent man's dialoguing of opinions ("Why can't I go out?), which leads to "I ought to be able to go out," which, if tolerated, would lead to dialogue which would lead to 'liberty' from righteousness. Any way you look at it, the dialectic process is all about righteousness, that is, the negation of it. (Who would have that, the negation of righteousness, continuously upon his mind?). "By dialectic, I mean an activity of conscious, struggling to circumvent, the limitations imposed by the formal-logical law of contradiction." (Normal, O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) You can see where this is all heading, i.e. to the destruction of the traditional home as a way of thinking and acting for the 'purpose' of creating a "new" world built, "ordered," i.e. structured upon man's carnal nature only―a "new" world order of abomination. Deuteronomy 27:14-26
Only when man finds (or creates) an environment of dialogue (internally to himself, "I ought to be able to," and externally with others in an environment of "oughtiness" can he, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' free himself from the restraints of righteousness. "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." "Discovering one's real nature is simultaneously an ought quest and an is quest." Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature) It is only in an environment, where his opinion (his "ought to be") is 'liberated' from the restraints of righteousness (where the fear of God's or the parent's judgment, "Because I said so" is negated, thus God's or the parent's commands, "Thou shalt not's" are "sense perceived" as being 'irrational' and therefore his "Because I said so" is responded to, in praxis, as being 'irrelevant'), that a man can come to know himself as he is (sensual, material, of nature only), can he come to know 'reality.'
You need to realize that there is no righteousness in dialogue (in opinions). If you are to understand what the dialectical process is all about and why it so successful whenever it is applied to man, you must understand the "power" of dialogue (as was done in the garden in Eden) and its effect upon righteousness. Carnal man loves to dialogue his opinions, i.e. share his thoughts regarding his feelings, thus making him seducible, deceivable, and manipulatable, i.e. 'reasonable,' according to his fallen nature. (Meditating on the word of God is not dialogue, in that you are not 'changing' the words of God to align it with your feelings, making it subject to your understanding, but you are making your feelings and thoughts subject to God's word, why you must therefore have it, His every Word, and not men's opinions of it, in your heart.) In fact, the very praxis of perpetually dialoguing within (to) yourself and with others ("continuous improvement," "sustainable development" of communication skills, of "human relationship building skills," initiating and sustaining consensus engendered from dialogued opinions) negates righteousness. Dialoguing opinions 'actualizes,' in man, a 'reality' only of sensuousness, i.e. 'actualizes' a "new" world, a world of "lust" (of "enjoyment") where 'truth' is 'discovered' in a world freed from the 'fundamental-judgmental' restraints of righteousness upon sensuousness. While dialectical man might think he can negate righteousness, so that he can think and act unrighteous, i.e. sensuous, he will someday learn that it is righteousness which will judge him for his unrighteous thoughts and his unrighteous acts, i.e. judge him for his unrighteous praxis of the dialectic process, i.e. rejecting God's justification through the righteousness of Christ by 'justifying' himself, his sensuous nature, instead (refusing to humble himself before God). "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." Romans 5:18
According to dialectic thinking, "Truth is a 'moment' in correct praxis" where man has only himself as a reference for 'truth.' (Antonio Gramsci, as quoted in Martin Jay, Dialectical Imagination) Dialoguing opinions, to 'discover' 'truth' within our carnal desires of the 'moment' (temporal), negates (in our thoughts and our actions) that truth which is eternal, external to our nature (spiritual), i.e. that truth which is of the righteousness of God. God warns us of our "lustful," carnal desires of the 'moment,' declaring that "The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy." "Envy," being the most destructive (evil) attribute of man's fallen nature, lies at the heart of the dialectical process. "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up." James 4:1-10 emphasis added
The answer to life's problems does not lie in man's 'wisdom.' It lies in God's grace. While the preaching of the cross is foolishness to man, the 'wisdom' of man, his dialoguing of opinions to 'discover' truth, is foolishness to God. There is no Godliness in dialogue and opinions, there is only man. Perceiving himself to be God he only seeks after himself for the answers to the problems of life (glorifying himself in his own wisdom, rather than glorifying God in His). "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Psalms 14:1-3 "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." 1 Corinthians 3:18-20
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2:12-16
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence." 1 Corinthians 1:18-29
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1:20-25
"Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God." 1 Peter 1:13-21
The dialectic philosophy is the system of thinking (a Heresiarchal Paradigm of 'changingness') whereby man can come to know himself as "himself" only, i.e. man 'creating' himself in his own image only, carnal, of the world, as he "circumvents" the patriarchal paradigm and its "repressive," "neurotic," "dominating" affect upon him and the world of his carnal desires. It allows man to "imagine" a world as it "ought to be," a world unrestrained by the "Thou shalt not's ... Lest ye die." "You can not ... because I said so" of the system of righteousness. As individual man is 'liberated' from the "Can not. ... Because I said so," of the traditional home, as he unites himself with the "We can" of the socialist family, he 'discovers,' 'emancipates,' and 'actualizes' a "new" world, a world no longer ordered from above, i.e. a world where he is no longer subject to that which is not of his nature, but a world ordered from within, a world where he is subject only to that which is of his own carnal nature. "The movement of the progressive societies has been uniform in one respect. Through all its course it has been distinguished by the gradual dissolution of family dependency and the growth of individual obligations in its place. The individual is steadily substituted for the family as the unit for which civil laws take account." (Sir Henry Sumner Main, Freedom of Expression and Dissent in the Soviet Union)
Unless man turns to the Lord for direction in his life, freeing himself from having to obey the traditional family when it is in disobedience to God's will ("Children obey your parents, in the Lord" Ephesians 6:1, "in the Lord" revealing to the children that the parents can and do get it wrong at times, i.e. parents are to obeyed unless they ask the children to go against God and His Word, i.e. children are to submit to the office of parental authority but they are not to join them in their evil deeds, i.e. lying, stealing, killing, etc., and are willing to take chastening for their disobedience for righteousness sake―"Dad and mom are not perfect, but their office is."), he only has the dialectic process (self 'justification') as his answer, i.e. he either 1) remains under authority, 2) defies authority and goes into a transitional stage of rebellion (self 'justification'―with individual's "ought" put into isolated action), or 3) or negates-annihilates traditional authority through outright revolution (self-social 'justification'―with a collective "ought" put into social action, i.e. praxis). To put down (to be critical of, i.e. disapproving, judgmental, unsympathetic, derogatory, fault finding, etc. of) the authority system of the traditional family, because of the evilness of the parents or the children that may lie within it, is evil (diabolical) in and of itself. The dialectic process needs the former (dissatisfaction revealed in rebellion, generating a "crisis" in the traditional family―a transitional stage of children dialoguing their discontentment of authority within and amongst themselves, i.e. a murmuring of discontentment toward parental commands) to engender the latter (dissatisfaction materialized in the children by open revolution against the traditional family with social support―a transformational stage of dialoging to a social unity, i.e. bringing others of common dissatisfaction toward parental authority "on board," coming to a consensus on the need to overthrow the restraints of parental authority upon the individual and society, i.e. remove from power the resisters of 'change,' which is then put into collective, i.e. social action, i.e. into praxis negating-annihilating the traditional family system, i.e. negating-annihilating the system of Righteousness with its conditions of faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, i.e. negating-annihilating the conditions which are fundamental to the "old" world order).
When the citizens choose leadership ("authority") which lets them do what they want to carnally do, they chose leadership which does what it wants to carnally do, that is, they choose leadership which controls (seduces, deceives, and manipulates) the citizens for their own carnal "enjoyment." (As long as everybody is happy, they can do whatever they want to do.) The tyranny of the masses (spontaneous-sensuousness, i.e. unrighteousness) always leads to totalitarianism (bondage and oppression). "Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules to best suit the state ["the people"]." (R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law) Democracy is "the formation of a somewhat vaguely defined ‘postconventional' consensus through which everyone affected by a decision must be able to participate in reaching it." (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists) "The rights of private judgment can be defensibly defined and enforced on a democratic basis only by processes of collaborative planning. They cannot be guaranteed by dogmas concerning the nature of man." "How to convert ... dogmas to 'hypotheses' remains a central problem for democratic social engineers." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) Democracy, the carnal nature of the masses, always leads to socialism, always leads to despotism, always leads to slavery and barbarism.
Without the restraint of righteousness upon sensuousness, the carnal nature of man (abomination) is all that the carnal minded, i.e. the sensually 'rational' man can know and do. Abomination is the outcome of dialectic thinking and acting. "Freud noted that … patricide and incest [abomination]… are part of man's deepest nature." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) The unrighteous man (the dialectic mind of abomination) always sees the restraints of righteousness as being the cause of "repression" and "alienation." Therefore righteousness must be annihilated ("in theory and in practice," in thought and in action) if man is to be himself, i.e. as in Sodom and Gomorrah, unrestrained and united in one cause. That cause being: "enjoyment" for all. (See Luke 16: 15)
"Freud, Hegel, and Nietzsche are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." "If society imposes repression, and repression causes the universal neurosis of man, . . . there is an intrinsic connection between social organization and neurosis." (Normal, O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) What they are all saying is this: "Neurosis" is caused by parent's restraining ("repressing") their children's natural desires, i.e. sensuousness, forcing them to follow after their beliefs, i.e. 'training' them up in righteousness. Therefore adults, using force on others to perpetuate their beliefs, beliefs which they learned in childhood, i.e. righteousness which restrains ("represses") sensuousness, perpetuates "neurosis" in society. The key to the negation of "neurosis" in society is to negate the "social organization" which produces it, i.e. negate the traditional family which perpetuates righteousness ("neurosis") in their children and thereby perpetuate righteousness ("neurosis") in society. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is "bodily pleasure," sexual urges, which draws all men into the bedroom of universal oneness―which is abomination. [God's Word concurs, adding sin and death, which those of dialectical thought leave out: "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." James 1:14, 15] "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, ... leads to neurosis." "Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic." ibid. Dialectic 'ideology' is: man's sinful nature (which remains with him throughout his life, fighting against righteousness) is the foundation from which morality and ethics are engendered, and is thus 'reality,' and God's demand for righteousness, which is not engendered from human nature (man therefore naturally resisting it, man not able to fulfill its demands) is 'illusion,' i.e. if all men can't "sense perceive" it, "sense experience" it, it's not 'real.'] "The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious [in his carnal nature which is never abated until he is dead―or dead to himself and alive in Christ, which the dialectically blind can not understand, his sensuousness, and 'reasoning' skills used to defend his flesh preventing him from understanding being dead to the flesh and alive in Christ―Romans 7:14-25]; the foundation has to be recovered." ibid with bracketed information added Freud considered all children sexually active long before they are physically ready to pro-create, i.e. Freud believed and advocated that sexual pleasure, from birth, is the greatest pleasure of life. Perverting scriptures (as all dialectic thinkers must do) he stated that Jesus declared that we must all become as children again, sensuous-spontaneous, i.e. what we were before "neurosis," i.e. parental authority, i.e. "taboos," i.e. righteousness set in: "Freud takes with absolute seriousness the proposition of Jesus: 'Except ye become as little children ["polymorphously perverse"], ye can in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven [here on earth]." ibid. with bracketed information added According to Brown, Freud believed, "Infants have a richer sexual life than adults." "Our repressed desires are the desires we had unrepressed, in childhood; and they are sexual desires." "In man, infantile sexuality is repressed and never outgrown;..." "Childhood remains man's indestructible goal." "The aim of Eros is union with objects outside the self.... Eros is fundamentally a desire for union (being one) with objects in the world." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." "The abolition of repression [the 'liberation' of abomination] would only threaten patriarchal domination [would only "threaten" the traditional family structure with the father ruling over the family, setting rules for the children to obey "or else"]." "Human consciousness [man's carnal nature] can be liberated from the parental complex only by being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." "The only valuable things in psychic life are the emotions." "Therefore the question confronting mankind is the abolition of repression – in traditional Christian language, the resurrection of the body [he means the "liberation' of the Eros (the "enjoyment," the "emotions") of the body in this life, i.e. the body 'liberated' from the "neurotic," "guilty conscience" producing "repressive" restrains of the system of Righteousness]." "The resurrection of the body is a social project . . . a practical political problem." "Freud speaks of religion as a 'substitute-gratification' – the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people.'" ibid. emphasis and bracketed information added to quotations above.
Psychology can not be redeemed from its abominable foundation (Orpheus, a homosexual who made love to young boys, after all, was one of Freud's main sources for his ideology). To do so, i.e. negate the abominations of psychology, would negate it's 'purpose,' the negation of righteousness. There is no such thing as a "Christian psychologists." You are either one, grounded in righteousness, or the other, grounded in sensuousness and human 'reasoning' skills, skilled in deceiving yourself, and seducing, deceiving, and manipulating all those who come to you for "help," as a wolf full of sensuousness, devouring the sheep, you have covered yourself with that which "seems to be" righteous in your own eyes, but is not. The truth is you can not be righteous in Christ and be at one with the world, for Christ will not become at-one-with a whore or a beast. Freud's "substitute gratification" is the child's (or man's) unnatural (super-natural) love for the patriarchal parent (love of God), resulting in the child (or man) restraining his sensuous nature, restraining his will to be at-one-with nature, in obedience to the parent's (or God's) will. Marx's "opiate" is the child's (or man's) fear of the patriarchal parent (fear of God), resulting in the child (or man) "feeling of guilt" for following after (or desiring to follow after) his sensuous nature in disobedience to the parent's (or God's) will.
According to the scriptures man is not to trust in man (Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. Jeremiah 17:5), for all men are liars (saying "trust" me, they will betray your trust in them, for their own survival or pleasures). Every one is deceived because they trusted in a man, i.e. they liked him, i.e. he offered them something they wanted, i.e. "enjoyment," "approval," "security," etc. You are only to "trust in the Lord with all your heart" (Proverbs 3:5), trusting in him who does not lie (not needing man for "survival" or "pleasure," he desires man's praise but does not need man or his praise for "pleasure" or to "survive"). We are to love all men (including those who are untrustworthy, i.e. which is all men) in the Love of the Lord (you can love all men without trusting any of them, you are never deceived because you love someone, you are deceived because you trusted them, yet you can still love them even though they are untrustworthy, i.e. God love you). The act of chastening, by the parent (which does not destroy the child's ability to love), is to convince them not to trust in man (including the parent who just betrayed the child's trust in them, their trust being based upon the lie that it is the parent's duty to "guarantee" the pleasures of this life, i.e. the parents "duty" to initiate and sustain "enjoyment"―this is where socialism gets it impetus and chastening nips it in the bud), since the parent's chastening of the child was for their (the parent's) own pleasure (therefore not being trustworthy). Yet the same chastening "produces" an understanding of righteousness in the child, that his love for his flesh (for himself) stands in the way of love for others (not loving them for what they can get out of them for themselves but loving them for themselves as a person, as an individual). His trust from then on, is in the Lord only (who chastens for holiness sake, for man's soul sake, since the chastening was done for righteousness sake and not for sensuousness sake), which allows the child to love all men (as God loves all men) while trusting in no man, trusting only in the Lord. It is not an issue of how much a person has, whether they are rich or poor (the rich are not to be trusted, the poor are not to be trusted, nor anyone in between, from none are trustworthy), it is an issue of the heart, both rich and poor having either a heart of envy and hate (trusting in this world, lusting after the things of this world) or a heart of forgiveness, mercy, and love (trusting in the Lord, seeking his will to be done), i.e. which undoes socialism. Man's conditions of trust and love, perceived as being synonymous, makes love of and for the flesh, i.e. sensuousness (pleasure) the standard for trust, whereby man is easily seduced, deceived, and manipulated, trusting in that which will betray him in the end, i.e. the flesh and the 'wisdom' of man which 'justifies' it.
While 'religion,' i.e. 'religion' which is of man, places trust in something of man's own making (tied to the temporal, subject to his own sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities and therefore untrustworthy), true religion, which is of God, revealed by His Word and His Spirit only (both in agreement), and not of human opinions, therefore not of and therefore subject to sensuousness and human 'reasoning,' is trustworthy, being everlasting and true (unchanging). Yet dialectical thinking, claiming to be academic, uses the 'religions' of man, which are corrupt (all 'religions' of men are untrustworthy, i.e. claiming to be 'spiritual' they are in truth sensual, i.e. subject to the "prince of the power of the air"), for the 'justification' of negating that religion which is of God (which is trustworthy, being spiritual, of God and not sensual, of man). (Dialectic thinking is, in 'actuality,' a 'religion' of man, a 'religion' which makes man subject to his sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities.) Rejecting God, through "academic" 'reasoning,' man rejects that which he does not understand sensually, claiming all religion is only of man (man following after the unknown, which goes against his own nature, because he is 'forced' to obey out of fear of what might happen to him if he does not do so, preventing him from 'discovering' for himself what is 'real,' i.e. sensual, for himself) making man "neurotic," when in truth, all 'religions' of men (which are not of men) are subject to the sensual. This is the reason why those who follow the dialectical pathway are so easily captured by the occult (mysticism), including Christians, when they turn to their own feelings and reasoning abilities, instead of to the Lord, for direction in their lives.
From their own mouths, or in this case writings, dialectic thinkers admit the dialectic connection to mysticism: "Psychoanalysis is the heir to a mystical tradition which it must affirm.... The ‘magical' body of occidental mysticism, and the ‘diamond' body of oriental mysticisms, and, in psychoanalysis, the polymorphously perverse body of childhood [are one and the same]. Psychoanalysis, mysticism, poetry, the philosophy of organism, Feuerbach, and Marx – the unseen harmony is stronger than the seen. Whitehead constantly draws attention to the dialectical patterns in mystical thought." "Dionysus affirms the dialectical unity of the great instinctual opposites: reunifies male and female, Self and Others, life and death." "Freud saw that in the id [man's sensuous and spontaneous nature] there is no negation [there is no "Thou shalt not's"], only affirmation and eternity [man is 'good']. The instinctual reality is Dionysian drunkenness 'We can come nearer to the id with images, and call it a chaos, a cauldron of seething excitement.'" "The 'dialectical' consciousness ... a manifestation of Eros ... that Dionysian ego which does not negate any more." "In the words of Thoreau: 'We need pray for no higher heaven than the pure senses can furnish, a purely sensuous life. Our present senses are but rudiments of what they are destined to become.'" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) bracketed information added "We must ultimately assume at the highest theoretical levels of enlightenment management theory, a preference or a tendency ... 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." "Science [dialectical "science," "so called science," 1 Timothy 6:20] can be the religion of the nonreligious." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management) bracketed information added "Fritjof Capra has performed a magnificent service in pointing out the parallels between eastern mysticism and quantum physics, two fields that, at first blush, might seem in opposite camps. .... One of my motivations is to explore unexplored harmony and communion in the universe. I would like to introduce each of these seemingly opposite groups to each other. It might have symbolic significance. And it would, of course, be a movement in the direction of wholizing my own inner world." (Jack Gibb, The Passionate Path. Member and lecturer at the National Training Laboratories during the 60's & 70's) Strap God to your sensuousness (to "human experience") and before long you serve a sensuous god (serving "human experience"), worshiping the creation (through "sense experience"), in a religion of your own making (or is it).
Nevertheless an attack upon religion, by those of dialectical thought, was only against fundamental and thus judgmental religion as they saw it, against religion which separated a man's 'reasoning' abilities from his sensuousness and his sensuousness from his 'reasoning' abilities (thus preventing him from questioning and experimenting for himself), preventing him from "scientifically" (dialectically) "dabbling" in the unknown (exploring the subconscious, "getting in touch" with his own nature, coming to know his own impulses and urges of sensuousness) to experience and know the unknown for himself, sensually (to 'rationally' come to know universal oneness with all men and nature, all 'driven' to oneness by the same impulses and urges of sensuousness). Anything preventing such experience (a oneness experience of 'reconciliation' with the universe) becomes the source of "neurosis" according to dialectical 'reasoning.' "If there is a universal neurosis, it is reasonable to suppose that its core is religion.... Psychoanalysis must treat religion as a neurosis." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
"Work done by Horkheimer in the thirties identified 'neurosis as a social product, in which the family was seen as a primary agent of repressive socialization.'" (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists) To correlation religion, righteousness (the system of Righteousness being the same as righteousness in their dialectical eyes), the traditional family, nationalism, with "neurosis," as is done by dialectical thinkers, is to declare psychological-sociological war upon religion, righteousness, the traditional family, and nationalism. 'Justified' in their own eyes, through dialectical 'reasoning,' they reject chastening, which produces a " peaceful fruit of righteousness," i.e. initiating and sustaining the system of Righteousness, and are thus blinded to the truth that righteousness can only be imputed by Christ to men of faith in Him, His righteousness being not of the world. With both psychology and sociology united in the praxis of negating righteousness, the traditional family, etc., social-psychology is the theoretically and practically praxis of putting praxis (human nature) into therapy and the therapy into praxis (human action). "The relation of theory to therapy is just as constitutive for Freudian theory as the relation of theory to praxis is for Marxist theory." (Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice) By converting man's belief into a theory during "therapy"―with theory, man's opinion filtering out all aspects of righteousness, i.e. negating "Thus saith the Lord" and "Because I said so," negating belief by making it a theory, an opinion―and then putting theory, i.e. men's opinions, i.e. unrighteousness, i.e. Godlessness into social action―praxis, man can be 'liberated' from the effects of righteousness upon his personal and social life. "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself ‘What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual comes to ask himself ‘What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers, On Becoming a Person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)
Marx believed that righteousness (that which is of God, of "the Holy family") had its 'ground of being' in the system of Righteousness (the system of the traditional home, of "the earthly family") and that by "annihilating" the secular source of righteousness, i.e. "the earthly family," the traditional family, the sacred source of righteousness, i.e. "the Holy family," i.e. God, would also be negated. "'The earthly family ... must ... be annihilated' if man is to become himself, i.e. be free from the restraint of righteousness, is the dialectical heading for the "new" world order. The placard over the "new" world order's Auschwitz reads: "Annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm makes you free." According to dialectic thinking of today, instead of the "good life" being a race issue, as in Fascism, where the negation of a race, the annihilation of the Jews, blacks, whites, reds, browns, "outlanders," etc. (which is national socialism, dialectical nationalism, Traditional Marxism) was the issue, it is a paradigm issue, the negation of a paradigm, the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm, the annihilation of the traditional family structure, from which nationalism, states rights, sovereignty, and righteousness derive its justification. Annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm is the theory and the practice of global socialism, dialectical globalism, Transformational Marxism ("Education Nation"). Marx wrote: "Thus, for instance, once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically." (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4 ) Emphasis added "Theoretically" is in man's thoughts (theories, opinions) and "practically" is in man's social actions (praxis). The dialectic message is clear. For world peace and social harmony to become a 'reality,' "the traditional family must be annihilated." In other words, if you can't negate nationalism, join with it and defend it. "In the defense of nationalism" negate the traditional family by "helping" it. By creating governmental departments to "protect" the children (all the children) from "abuse" (from parental abuse), not just physical, but mental and social as well, nationalism will become negated in the mind of the individual citizen and annihilated within his social action. (I have quotations by social-psychologist in some of my other articles that make this very clear. Warren Bennis for example) "All children are at risk" "No child will be left behind"―read the article "'Hegel's' A + -A = A". "Education Nation" means a parentless (non-patriarchal), homosexual, abomination, global (at-one-with the nations of the world and nature itself) nation.
In the same way the Church has been 'changed.' Satan stopped fighting the church and instead joined it (joined the department of administration so he could "help" the church "keep up" with the "rapidly changing times"). By dialectically "helping" it "grow" itself ("driven" in the "purpose" of "growing" itself in a "rapidly changing world"), 'shifting' it focus from righteousness under God (from the system of Righteousness, with the father recognized as the head of the home, the family under his authority, i.e. the family remained together in the church under the preaching and teaching of God's Word, the father explaining the Word to his family later as needed―the scriptures are clear on this) to human relationship building skills (to the system of sensuousness and 'reasoning' skills with the children and parents separated at the front door of the church so they could dialogue their opinions of God's word, age appropriately―psychology and sociology is clear on this), it became apostate. The correlation is recognized by the Marxists as being important to the process of 'change' (the correlation of the traditional family structure, the system of Righteousness and righteousness itself as being the source of "neurosis," "repression," and "alienation," and therefore the 'necessity' of negating the traditional family structure if righteousness is to be negated as an issue of life in society). But dialectical 'change' is not recognized as being evil by those in the contemporary church, not seeing any wrong in the process of 'change,' having been programmed to think in its way they use it instead, focusing upon sensuousness and human 'reasoning,' i.e. men's opinions, i.e. doubting, questioning, disobeying, and permissiveness, i.e. "sense experience" as being the only way to know 'truth' rather than upon righteousness, i.e. God's word, i.e. faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, knowing the truth through faith, i.e. trusting in the Lord only (and not in any man).
Freud saw the same "problem" (parental authority) and the same solution (collective action) but focused more upon 'changing' the individual internally through 'counseling,' i.e. with the children "collectively killing and devouring the father," rather than upon externally 'changing' 'society,' through the praxis of society annihilating the "earthly family" by outright force, as Traditional Marxist did (the latter keeping the conscience in tack, only negating the external, only changing the social, the former keeping the social in tack, only negating the conscience, only changing the individual). Freud wrote: "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [the Patriarchal Paradigm, the system of Righteousness no longer exists in the home and therefore no longer 'influences' society]." "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother ['liberate' and "enjoy" sensuousness]—culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan [us against them, needing to restrain them for the tribe's, i.e. their sake], which in turn deifies the assassinated father [keeping his top-down system in place with it "Do this ..., Don't do that .... or else" commands] and introduces those taboos and restraints which, ..., generated social morality [what Freud called the "neurosis of society"]." (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) Emphasis and bracketed information added What Freud called the "neurosis of civilization" was created when the "guilty conscience" (the voice of the father in the child, the internal system of Righteousness exonerating the father, "deifying the assassinated father"), the voice of a right-wrong, top-down system, "Do this ..., Don't do that ... or else," was not killed (negated) in the child as he joined with the other children in the killing (negating) of the father, killing only the external system of Righteousness, the father himself.
Without annihilation, the top-down system of the father prevails, not only in the individual, in his conscience, but also in society, ruling over social action. Without perceiving his command as being just another opinion amongst opinions, which is thus perceived as being 'irrational,' (a command can not be perceived as being 'irrational' unless it is first perceived as being just an opinion), without perceiving his top-down office of authority as then being 'irrelevant,' (the information contained within his opinion then perceived as having no relevance to the situation at hand), the "guilty conscience" prevails. If the conscience (the fear of chastening for doing wrong, i.e. the voice of the righteous father) is not killed, i.e. the superego (the pleasures of the 'moment,' "the approval of others," and the "potential opportunites for more 'enjoyment' in the future," i.e. the sensuous voice of the socialist "village") taking its place, "neurosis" (the belief-action dichotomy―Romans 7:14-25) remains.
Without the human heart (which is deceitful and wicked) and the human mind (which is foolish) being involved in the praxis of 'righteousness' (augmenting unrighteousness), righteousness remains. Righteousness is abomination to the dialectical thinker-actor. The righteous are infidels (unfaithful to the social cause), according to those who are seeking social 'change.'
While Marx worked from the outside in (killing the fathers, and those who supported them, in society), Freud worked from the inside out (killing the father within the individual). The problem was how to do both at the same time, but instead of killing the fathers physically and the individual's moral compass, uniting them as one, maintaining social infrastructure for the 'purpose' of "enjoyment" for all. While both were 'purposed' in one thing, that is, the killing of the father (practicing patricide), taking not only his wife ("mother earth") and using her (incestuously―sensuously and spontaneously, i.e. consensually) for their own pleasure, but also taking his land, his children, and his money and using them as well for their own pleasure, "in the name of the people," 1) uniting all the children (along with their mother) in consensus, to praxis 'patricide,' doing the fathers work without his ruling, i.e. setting ridged rules and commands for personal-social conduct, and 2) negating of the "guilty conscience" in the praxis of 'incest,' having the fathers pleasure without his rules, it was not working ('changing' society was not effectively 'changing' the individual and 'changing' the individual was not effectively 'changing' society). Unless both were dealt with at the same time, that is, freedom from the restraints of righteousness (hating the father system and loving the social system enough to praxis patricide) and freedom to be sensuous and spontaneous in the 'moment' without restraint (freed from the restraining, threatening, condemning voice of the father and therefore freed to unite with the "pleasurable things" of the world to praxis incest without "taboos") were united in one praxis, man could not be free, i.e. be truly only himself, i.e. be controlled by his own nature only, i.e. be a "normal" human being. Psychology is a system of unrighteousness, determining right from wrong through human behavior, i.e. measuring man with man, i.e. the more universal (common with others) the thoughts and actions of a man is, the more "normal" he is. All men question authority, therefore to not question God's commands (not to murmur), when his commands do not make sense, is to be abnormal. "... for that the LORD heareth your murmurings which ye murmur against him: and what are we? your murmurings are not against us, but against the LORD." Exodus 16:8b and Numbers 14:36 "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without murmurings and disputings: That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain." Philippians 2:12-16
The key to overcoming the "neurosis of civilization" was the "aesthetic dimension." The "new" world order is an ordering of the world (right and wrong) upon sensuousness (fraternity), instead of upon righteousness (patrimony). "... the aesthetic dimension and the corresponding feeling of pleasure ... is the center of the mind .... link the ‘lower' faculties of sensuousness, (Sinnlichkeit) to morality ... – the two poles of human existence." (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: a philosophical inquiry into Freud) "The Frankfurt School," Marcuse a member, merged the two approaches (Freud-psychology and Marx-sociology; the internal nature of man, i.e. survival, for the hope of pleasure―"group task roles," and the external nature of man, i.e. the desire for approval from others, also for the hope of pleasure―"group building and maintenance roles" Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) into one, creating social-psychology, utilizing the "aesthetic dimension" of man, his desire for pleasure, his desire to be at one with that which is "beautify," i.e. uniting upon the "approval of man" and his sensuous desire for "enjoyment," becoming at-one-with the "gratifying objects" of nature (without owning them, i.e. not keeping them for himself only, claiming they are for him alone, i.e. not keeping them from others), along with his desire for "justice," i.e. negating that which is ugly, negating that which divides or separates a man from his own sensuous nature and nature itself, negating that which causes "repression-alienation," thereby creating a "new" world based upon "human relationship building," i.e. based upon the theory that the negation-annihilation of righteousness (negation-annihilation the "negative" "Can not's" of parents and the "Thou shalt not's" of God) is the only way to attain world peace and social harmony, i.e. based upon the "gospel" of humanism that life is not to be found in the preaching and teaching of the righteousness of God, who is in heaven, but is to be discovered and emancipated through the dialoguing of "sensuous needs," in a society of sensual impulses and urges, a society of men on the earth, i.e. in man seeking and finding unity with the world, i.e. unity with himself, all mankind, and nature, through his own carnal nature and 'reasoning' abilities, i.e. uniting upon that which is "common" to the world (common-ism), the love "lust" of pleasure―communism, not created by force as the traditional Marxist tried, thus keeping the conscience, the internal father in tact, but created by seduction, deception, and manipulation (of the facilitated, diversity, dialoguing, consensus, soviet styled meetings), converting the conscience into the superego, replacing the voice of the father with the voice of the "village," as the Transformational Marxist are now doing (all people uniting as one in consensus, in the augmentation of pleasure).
The Berlin wall did not come down because Communism was defeated. It came down because common-ism had succeeded. The only difference being, one uses the direct force of violence first―pain, the other uses the indirect force of the consensus process first―pleasure, "group dynamics," i.e. man's "sensuous need" for "the approval of man" if he is to survive, i.e. "If we don't 'pull' together we can't get it done." "If we don't get it done we won't survive." "If we don't survive it is your fault for not 'pulling' with us." "Therefore we are 'justified' in negating-annihilating you for the sake of our survival." The "group grade" is built upon this 'logic,' used to program the next generation to embrace this way of thinking (the "life raft" mentality) "or else."
According to Max Horkheimer, the director of the Transformational Marxist Institute of Social Research (the "Frankfurt School"), "Protestantism ["the priesthood of all believers," i.e. you can stand alone with God, overcoming the world in you and around you, through Him alone and all men will individually be held accountable by God for their personal thoughts and social actions] was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." (Max Horkheimer, Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung, p. 33 Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: The History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research 1923-1950) Bracketed information added What shaped America was the Protestant idea that Individual man can do nothing apart from God, i.e. apart from the father, or put another way, through God, individual man can do all things (initiating and sustaining individualism). That is now replace with the dialectical teaching that man can do nothing (even for God) apart from man, i.e. apart from society (initiating and sustaining socialism). Thus God can do nothing apart from man (this kind of 'reasoning' is abomination). Marx wrote: "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 more of himself man attributes to God, the less he has left in himself." (Karl Marx, Selected Reading in Sociology and Social Philosophy) "The individual is emancipated in the social group." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born again in the group." (Irvin Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy) "Freud's theory is in its very substance ‘sociological.'" (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) Marcuse, quoting Freud, wrote: "Individual psychology is thus in itself group psychology ... the individual ... is an archaic identity with the species." "This archaic heritage bridges the ‘gap between individual and mass psychology.'" (Freud, Moses and Monotheism in Marcuse)
The common theme between them all is the negation of the father's authority (equated to the system of Righteousness with its "No, you can not," "Because I said so," chastening or threat of chastening commands establishing an above-below, top-down system of authority), tearing down the fathers "hallowed walls" (Obama) of "separation" (the father protecting those who are under his authority from the world's influences and control), overcoming his hedge of protection surrounding, i.e. "isolating" the family (the children coming from the traditional family then able to stand alone as a principled individual, able to stand apart from social influences, i.e. producing principled leadership which manifests "non-influenceability of private convictions in joint deliberations..." regarded as a "vice" rather than a "virtue" to dialectical thinking, Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) by 'liberating' the children (equated to the system of sensuousness which consists of the five senses being subject only to the spectrum of the approaching of pleasure and the avoiding of pain, i.e. making the augmentation of pleasure and the attenuation of pain and grief the 'purpose' of life) through dividing the family (treating each and all members equally as individuals, circumventing the top-down system of authority) and them uniting them upon common feelings and common thought (equated to using the system of 'reasoning,' where each individual is freed to express and 'justify' their dissatisfaction with the restraints of higher authority, finding common agreement with one another based upon each individuals feelings and thoughts, i.e. opinions which correlate with every one else's opinions―common opinions united as one in consensus), i.e. putting sensuous-'reasoning' (intuition, i.e. the "sixth sense" of commonality, i.e. universality of opinions) into social action (equated to praxis), negating the system of Righteousness (equated to no longer doing what is right and no longer doing what is wrong, according to God's, the parent's, ... higher authority's will, i.e. "as given" commands, but forever doubting, questioning, challenging, and treating Godly or parental commands as being 'irrational' and therefore responding to their position of authority as being 'irrelevant,' attacking it whenever it rises up to establish its position of authority, not only individually in thought but also socially in action). In this way the individual's thoughts are upon the social (sensual) "felt" needs of man (physical, mentally, and socially), with human relationship, i.e. "comradeship," "the approval of men" being the highest "felt" need, the greatest "enjoyment." With the mind void of, the brain washed of the "alienating" affects of righteousness, societies thoughts and actions are only upon and only for the carnal nature of the individual man, protecting it and therefore society from the "repressive" affects of the system of Righteousness, negating-annihilating the 'affects' the traditional family's authority upon not only the individual child but also upon society as a whole, and therefore negate-annihilate righteousness as being the only way of life (abruptly and harshly intimidating and attacking it when it raises its head, threatening and punishing any and all who attempt to support it). This is communism. Now in your neighborhood. But don't tell anybody. They will think you are crazy, i.e. overreacting, paranoid, full of "conspiracy theories." Like liars and thieves, "children of disobedience" (in adult bodies) conspire to. Don't they?
Following the logic of "If A = B and B = C, then A = C": If the traditional family produces individualism and individualism produces nationalism then the traditional family produces nationalism. Then "If A = B and B ≠ C, then A ~p C" (the symbol ~p means negate). If the objective of life is to produce (liberate, emancipate, actualize) socialism and socialism is inhibited or blocked ("repressed," "alienated") by the traditional family then the objective of life is to negate (~p) the traditional family. If the object of life is unrighteousness (that which is of man alone) and righteousness (that which is of God alone) inhibits or blocks unrighteousness then the object of life is to negate righteousness (by 'rationally' exonerating and 'actually' augmenting unrighteousness, i.e. 'liberating' the carnal nature of man from the restraints of righteousness through an environment facilitating dialogued opinions into a consensus and then putting consensus into praxis solving the social crisis dialogued, with the understanding that dialogue, which is of sensuousness and of human 'reasoning,' always negates righteousness, theory-dialogue always negates belief, opinion-dialogue always negates facts/truth, the very praxis of dialogue does it).
While the system of Righteousness (over man, but of man―God gives all men a measure of faith, i.e. that which initiates and sustains the traditional family) and the system of sensuousness (of man) both contain the love of pleasure and the hate of pain (along a pleasure-pain spectrum), righteousness itself is based upon a different hate-love association (not of a continuum but of opposites or of an either-or, is-not duality), that being the hate of sin (disobedience to the father) and the love of righteousness (obedience to the father) with man's heart of hate changed into a heart of love, by the work of the Lord and the power of the Holy Spirit (something which man, bound to the flesh, can not do in and of himself). Apart from the righteousness of God, hate, for man, is simply diverted from hating those who hate the father, the father being the only source for pleasure (a "substitute gratification" to Freud and an "opiate" to Marx) and his way of thinking and acting ("My will be done") to hating the father himself (the restrainer and blocker of spontaneity and sensuousness) and his way of thinking and acting (a top-down system). Hate projected from dialectical 'reasoning' and action is not "sense perceived" as being hate but rather as being a sensation of love, the "love" sensation being the sensation of 'liberation' from the system of Righteousness, i.e. man 'rationally' 'emancipating' himself from righteousness, with only the father (now "sense perceived" by the family as being 'irrational' and therefore treated as 'irrelevant') knowing "dialectical love" as hate, calling it and responding to it as hate. In defending his position of authority he is from then on "sense perceived" (by the socialized family) as being hateful and therefore must be annihilated for the initiation and sustentation of a society of "love" (which is really hate of righteousness―which is the "love" of Antichrist). Correlate this scenario with money (the rich and the poor) and you clearly see the 'revolutions' and protests of the 'liberals' down through the ages, as well as today, as being simply the hate of righteousness, treating righteousness as being irrelevant (and thus the enemy) in their 'quest' to solve life's problems of the day. If the father ignores "dialectical love," i.e. permissiveness, not chastening it, he will eventually experience "dialectical hate," i.e. negation-annihilation. "... and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved." Matthew 10:21, 22
This dialectical reaction, i.e. the rejection of righteousness and the annihilation of the patriarchal father, is why Rousseau (an opportunist in immorality, i.e. a womanizer and a charlatan, as well as the catalyst for the French Revolution and Hegel's ideology), rejected Christianity and it's belief "that we are miserable sinners, born in corruption, inclined to evil, incapable by ourselves of doing good'." (Leo Damrosch, Rousseau: Restless Genius) Reflecting the dialectical doctrine of "equality for all," Rousseau wrote: "The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine,' and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality) Rousseau, in dialectical fashion, begins with the premise that man is basically 'good.' All logic proceeding from this assumption (which nature itself proves false) results in man 'justifying' himself in the negation of that which he "sense perceives" as being 'evil,' the above-below, "mine-not yours," "right-wrong" (righteousness) way of thinking and acting. It took Hegel's "intellect" and Marx's praxis to bring the annihilation of righteousness and the patriarchal paradigm into "actualization," declaring the Word of God an anathema to world peace and social harmony. Dialectical thought refuses to recognize that "the earth is the Lords" and not man's, that man is created by God to glorify God and not himself (in all that he says and all that he does). "For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." 1 Corinthians 10:26, 31
'Reasoning,' not faith, is therefore the means and the end to man's salvation according to dialectic 'reasoning.' That is the message of the dialectical process. The Transformational Marxist, Jürgen Habermas, stated it (the demise of salvation as being from outside of man's nature and efforts) this way: "With the devaluation of the epistemic authority of the God's eye view, moral commands lose their religious as well as their metaphysical foundation." "(1) The fact that moral practice is no longer tied to the individual's expectation of salvation and an exemplary conduct of life through the person of a redemptive God and the divine plan for salvation has two unwelcome consequences. On the one hand, moral knowledge becomes detached from moral motivation, and on the other, the concept of morally right action becomes differentiated from the conception of a good or godly life." "… uncoupling morality from questions of the good life leads to a motivational deficit. Because there is no profane substitute for the hope of personal salvation, we lose the strongest motive for obeying moral commands." "With the loss of its foundation in the religious promise of salvation, the meaning of normative obligation also changes. The differentiation between strict duties and less binding values, between what is morally right and what is ethically worth striving for, already sharpens moral validity into a normativity to which impartial judgment alone is adequate. The shift in perspective from God to human beings has a further consequence." "But if moral realism can no longer be defended by appealing to a creationist metaphysics and to natural law (or their surrogates), the validity of moral statements can no longer be assimilated to the truth of esoteric statements." (Jürgen Habermas, The inclusion of the Other. Studies in Political Theory) It is here, according to Habermas, that "discourse ethics" becomes the only means to man's "salvation." "... in this way the categorical imperative [the "Thus saith the Lord] receives a discourse-theoretical interpretation ["We think or feel"] in which its place is taken by the discourse principle (D) [all must 'willingly' participate in dialoguing to consensus], according to which only those norms [the carnal attributes of man] can claim validity that could meet with the agreement of all those concerned in their capacity as participants in a practical discourse. [resulting in] the collapse of its [the "Thus saith the Lord," "the earth is the Lords, and the fullness thereof"] religious foundation." ibid. bracketed information added Righteousness "collapses" in dialogue.
Some statements by Marx and Habermas on the traditional family (patriarchal) system (of the system of Righteousness) and why and how it must be destroyed. "Every class [group of children, man―the proletariat] lacks the breadth of soul which identifies it with the soul of the people, that revolutionary boldness which flings at its adversary [the parents, God―the bourgeoisie] the defiant phrase; 'I am nothing and I should be everything.'" "For one class [the children, man] to stand for the whole of society, another [the parents, God] must be the class of universal offense and the embodiment of universal limits. A particular social sphere [the system of Righteousness equated to capitalism, i.e. the "capitulation" of one's will to another] must stand for the notorious crime of the whole society, so that liberation from this sphere appears to be universal liberation. For one class [the children, mankind] to be the class par excellence of liberation, another class [the parents, God] must, on the other hand, be openly the subjugating class." "No class of civil society can play this role [emancipators of society] unless it arouses in itself and in the masses a moment of enthusiasm, a moment in which it associates, fuses, and identifies itself with society in general, and is felt and recognized to be society's general representative, a moment in which its demands and rights are truly those of society itself, of which it is the social head and heart." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right) "Revolutionary violence reconciles the disunited parties by abolishing the alienation of class antagonism [parents/righteousness "repressing"-"alienating" children/man] that set in with the repression of initial morality [social Eros]. … the revolution that must occur is the reaction of suppressed life, which will visit the causality of fate upon the rulers [the patriarch]. It is those who establish such domination and defend positions of power of this sort who set in motion the causality of fate, divide society into social classes [above-below, God-man, parents-children, bourgeoisie-proletariat], suppress justified interests ['rational' sensuousness], call forth the reactions of suppressed life [hate toward righteousness], and finally experience their just fate in revolution. " (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest: Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory) bracketed information added
The Marxist Theodor Adorno, also a member of the Frankfurt School, wrote: "... the conception of the ideal family situation for the child: (1) uncritical obedience to the father and elders, (2) pressures directed unilaterally from above to below, (3) inhibition of spontaneity and (4) emphasis on conformity to externally imposed values." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." [By linking the earthly family to the heavenly family, the hope is that by destroying the earthly family you will destroy the heavenly family in the peoples individual thoughts and social actions]." "The power‑relationship between the parents, the domination of the subject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) According to dialectical thought, if the school does not separate itself from "religion," i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the authority of the parents, and align itself with the "scientific method," i.e. dialectic reasoning, i.e. "higher order thinking skills in morals and ethics," it, and the next generation, will remain subject to the will of the parents, i.e. training their children up in their "lower order thinking skills," retaining their values and way of thinking. "If the school does not claim the authority to distinguish between science and religion, it loses control of the curriculum and surrenders it to the will of the electorate." (Society as Educator in an Age of Transition, Ed. Kenneth Benne, Eighty-sixth Year of the National Society for the Study of Education) Adorno's work, quoted from above, was on the traditional family (the "authoritarian personality"). It was on how to identify the person with a traditional mind, for the 'purpose' of negating it. His book was foundational to "Bloom's Taxonomies," which are foundational to teacher certification and school accreditation to this very day, not only in America but around the world.
The authors of the taxonomies were clear about the effect their use in the classroom was having upon the children and the parents of the traditional home, i.e. causing "conflict and tension" in the home. "The major impact of the new program is to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents." [The issue of discussion in the classroom was centered around social issues without including issues of righteousness: Who do you turn to to know right from wrong? i.e. the commands of the Lord, the parents, and the teachers were not accentuated while, the students own feelings and thoughts, or the opinions of men, i.e. in this case the opinions (the feelings and thoughts) of the students became the avenue for 'liberation' from the commands of the parents.] "There are many stores of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." ["These new practices are producing" children with attitudes of contempt toward the parents authority and their values as they experienced "group" values of permissiveness (tolerance of ambiguity―acceptance of immorality) in the classroom.] "The effectiveness of this new set of environmental conditions is probably related to the extent to which the students are 'isolated' from the home during this period of time [a key component of the brainwashing (re-education) process]." "… objectives can best be attained where the individual is separated from earlier environmental conditions and when he is in association with a group of peers who are changing in much the same direction and who thus tend to reinforce each other." "Coleman (1961) demonstrates very clearly that during the adolescent periods, under some conditions, the peer group has a greater effect on the students than do teachers and, perhaps, parents." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book II Affective Domain) emphasis and bracketed information added Ask the teachers in your town if they are using Bloom's Taxonomies. Most will defend them to the death, at least stating that they are "more right then wrong" (which is a dialectic response to justify their continued use of them). Their job (reputation of being a "professional" amongst their peers) depends upon their use of them in the classroom or in the administration of the school system. "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs [socialist values and beliefs of unrighteousness perceived as 'righteousness'] by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
This process (the dialectical process) would only be some intellectual exercise (for people with to much time on their hands) if it were not for the fact that it is used in the American education system (through the teacher's use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom) and has been the root cause of "tension and conflict" within the traditional family for decades. The American classroom was captured by this process in the 50's. With little knowledge of the source of the "tension and conflict" within the traditional home, resistance against the source has been unsuccessful except for the movement of home schooling―which is now being undermined with the process being inserted into the home schooling material and propagated by relatives, community programs, at home school conferences, as well as through the church. If that does not succeed then the families participation within the private school or public school programs (designed to "help" them) accomplishes the 'agenda.' Private schools embraced its use from the "get-go," their teachers having been training in institutions of higher learning on how to use the "taxonomies" in their classroom. When either system (the school system or the contemporary church) did not succeed in creating "conflict and tension" within the traditional home, college accomplished the deed. I explain this in several articles below.
The process I expose (the dialectic process), is used in almost all of our thoughts and actions ('justifying' our sensuous selves while we lived in the "old man"). Because it is of our nature, we can not see it for what it is apart from God's word. It is a complex and subtle process. Therefore I have to expose it over and over again, in the light of God's Word, as I explain its effect upon us and our land. The subject is "heady" at times. The articles therefore getting "heady" as well (your head will hurt, requiring you to "think it through," i.e. "What did he just say?" only afterward saying "Why couldn't I see this before?"). Yet once it "makes sense," (what the dialectic process is, how it affects you, and how the Lord overcame it and you can only overcome it in Him) your life will forever be changed (no longer in a state of perpetual 'changingness' and uncertainty). Like me you will then know that "but by God's mercy and grace alone" (in Christ only, revealed by the scriptures only, through faith in Him only, i.e. by His grace only) you could not have been saved from it's control over you. (I speak of the redeemed in Christ.)
The following article exposes the "dialectical process" for what it is, man becoming himself apart from God or parent. While a child grows up and moves away from the home, being physically apart from his parents, he still tends to carry the parents customs, beliefs, and values away with him as he leaves. But a child involved in the 'changingness' of the dialectical process, doubts, questions, and rejects his parents customs, beliefs, and values while still living at home, causing "conflict and tension" in the home. It is a process now being put into social action (praxis) throughout the world by government-nongovernment (profit-nonprofit/public-private/secular-sacred partnerships) "soviet" styled programs (and you thought it, the soviet system, i.e. the consensus meeting, came to and end with the "fall" of the "iron curtain," silly you). I call it Diaprax because it is simply the dialectical process being put into practice, i.e. being put into social action (called praxis). It is "Pandora's Box" opened (the heart of man 'liberated' from the Godly or parental restraints). It is the lawlessness nature of man "coming out of the closet." It is man uniting himself with himself becoming as one. It is man no longer restrained by righteousness, restrained by that which is not of his nature, no longer feeling "guilty" for "doing his own thing," i.e. "being himself." as he finds his identity with the "masses," i.e. "the people."
No person, who thinks dialectically, can swear to defend any contract or uphold any office of authority which serves to defend it (the contract and the office) and mean it. To do so is to defy the very 'purpose' of the dialectic process, 'changingness' (the negation-annihilation of patriarchal authority―all patriarchal authority is of God). To lie (seduce, deceive, and manipulate the people) through the use of semantics ("double-speak," ambiguity, generalization, etc. and promises of a "better life" for "the people") is the only way a politician or educator (trained in the dialectic process) can acquire and maintain a position of authority. Through usurpation (by deception), for the purpose of tyranny, they praxis the dialectical process of 'changingness.' In maintaining their position of authority they are able to replace righteousness as the issue of life by making all things sensual, i.e. social in nature, the issue of life (accentuating one over the other, i.e. treating righteousness as being only an opinion amongst opinions, i.e. an equal―but of "lower order thinking skill," amongst equals―of "higher order thinking skills"). All contracts, covenants, and rights thereafter, become subject to the whims of those in control, thus all people are subject to their use of the process of 'change' for the 'purpose' of 'change,' i.e. for the 'purpose' of propagating the system of unrighteousness, i.e. initiating and sustaining the dialectic process and its praxis of usurpation for "the good of the people," i.e. taking control over their souls for their "betterment."
For example: civil disobedience is the praxis of the dialectical process, i.e. the praxis of usurpation by treating authority as being 'irrelevant,' in the environment of dialogue, consensus, intimidation (confrontation) by disassociation, circumvention, disrespect of authority, and 'change.' There is no forgiveness in civil disobedience, i.e. no changing of the heart of man, from a heart of hate to a heart of love, i.e. a heart of love which is of God's love only (which only the Lord can change and the Holy Spirit can only do). In man there is only a "changing" of the focus of the hate and a "changing" of the focus of the love, i.e. a 'changing' of the heart from hating those who take from you that which is yours and a loving of those who recognize and respect your authority over that which is yours, into a hating of the patriarch who thinks that that which is his, is his (and no one else's) and a loving of those who overthrow his authority so that some can take and use that which was his for themselves, in the name of "the people." As a pimp (social-psychologist) makes sure his whore ("the people") is (are) satisfied while he (they) profits himself (themselves) on her (the peoples) labors ($$$), dialectical thinkers make sure that "the people" perceive that their "needs," (their "enjoyments") are being met (or going to be met) as they 'profit' from their labors. The whore (the people who sold their soul to the dialectical process, i.e. survival through the "approval of men," i.e. "approval of the group") must 'profit' the pimp (support the social-psychologist in their program to facilitate 'change,' i.e. seducing, deceiving, and manipulating, i.e. buying and selling more whores, i.e. engender more dialectically minded people) if she (the people) is (are) to receive any more favors. The elderly, or anyone costing the pimp (social-psychologists) their 'profits,' soon discover how "caring" pimps (social-psychologists) really are (the aborted, i.e. the unwanted child experiencing their 'caring heart' right away). When it comes down to the pimp's (the social-psychologist's) pleasure or the elderly person's future, the pimp's (the social-psychologist's) pleasure (the "sensuous needs of the peoples"), the tyranny of the masses, from which they get their 'profit' comes first, and in the consensus of "the people" they win out (the elderly, along with the unborn, are "right sized" out of society, i.e. "dying with dignity," for the cause of "enjoyment" for all). In dialectical thought, your worth is based upon your ability and/or willingness to satisfy the "'needs' of the people," from which dialectical thinkers (social-psychologists) make their mental, emotional, and physical 'profits.' The 'purpose' of the 'purpose driven' church is, like the whore, to make 'customers,' initiating and sustaining a "gospel" based upon the "enjoyment" of this life (doing it even in the "name of the Lord"). "'What is our purpose at this point?' is recognized as one of the most helpful questions that can be asked . . ." "Purpose: . . . the building of group-centered attitudes and . . . the perpetuation of such group-centered behavior." (Kenneth Bennie, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) In other words: the serpent had no legs to stand upon, according to God's judgment upon him, until the people (his social-psychological, "democratic," 'rationally'-sensuous and sensuously-'rational,' synergistic, group think followers) were willing to collectively lift him up by participating in his dialectical process of 'change,' all done for the "goodness" of man.
The dialectic theory and action knows that without undoing the effects of the tower of Babel upon man (which separating man from himself, the language of differing cultures preventing him from collectively uniting upon his sensuous-'reasoning' abilities), man can never "know" his true identity and free himself from the language of righteousness (mine-yours, above-below, etc.), which divides him from himself, others, and nature. Only in the language of sensuousness and 'reasoning' united as one (the language or "communication skills" of "human relationship building") can man free himself from "alienation," "repression," and division and become one again, uniting in thought and in action and putting his collective opinion into social action, i.e. into praxis, creating a "new" world out of his carnal nature only, "in his name" only ("let us make a name for ourselves"). By removing the language of righteousness (which divides men) from the culture (by negating the patriarchal family, i.e. negating the fathers commands, preached, taught, and obeyed "as given"), the culture is united upon the language of unrighteousness (by 'actualizing' the children's sensuous desires, i.e. 'actualizing' the children's opinions, dialogued to a consensus and then putting them into social action, "ever changing," i.e. ever chasing after pleasure, i.e. after "enjoyment," while never changing, i.e. while remaining unrighteous, i.e. "deceitful above all things" and "desperately wicked").
The dialectical world is like a ship at sea without an anchor, ever changing position but, with no shore in view (thus men having no reference point but themselves), never changing its way of thinking and acting (thus having no need of an anchor). But without an anchor it can never approach a shore in crisis, or the process of "'changingness' without changing" will come to an end, i.e. reality will bring the dialectical illusion to an end, i.e. all that is done "in the name of man" will be for nought as all men (according to their thoughts and actions) will be judged by the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings, Jesus Christ the "Rock" which all ships will be judged by. All men (their thoughts and their actions) will be evaluated (take note, you who use Bloom's Taxonomies) according to His righteousness, as they come to his shore for final judgment.
As in Sodom and Gomorrah, man is uniting in his human (of the earth) nature only. The "modern" man is no longer restrained by thoughts and actions of righteousness. Uniting in himself instead, in his nature (sensuousness) alone, mankind is become as a god (in his eyes), a god serving under the banner of "humanity," "compassion," "enjoyment." Name the process or call it anything you want, it is Genesis 3:1-6 being put into praxis (human nature, i.e. sensuousness, 'rationally' being 'liberated' and put into universal social action). It is a process which wants your name on its list of participants and supporters.
If the great "experiment" is to be successful, (as in Sodom and Gomorrah―until God's judgment showed up) everybody, which includes you, must participate in the process of 'change,' no one can escape, i.e. no one is to be "left behind." At least that is the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of those controlled (seduced, deceived, and manipulated) by the dialectical process, i.e. 'driven' by and 'purposed' in becoming at-one-with the world (man no longer "alienated" from his own nature and the world). Their hope is in a "new" order of the world ("a brave 'new' world"), a "new" world order in which the world is "grounded" upon the "enjoyment" of this world only (what all men have in common and would work together in initiating and sustaining if not for the restraining-inhibiting-condemning system of Righteousness, a system which makes men individuals, holding all men accountable individually―there is no "group grade" on judgment day but only personal accountability for every man's thoughts and actions before his creator). Their aim is to create a world of peace and social harmony whereby man can be totally freed from Godly restraint, i.e. no longer "required" to be righteous, no longer "forced" (out of fear of judgment) to do that which is not of his sensuous nature, i.e. no longer missing out on the "enjoyments" ("lusts") of the world, i.e. no longer condemning those who aren't "missing out." Not knowing the joy and the peace which comes from the Lord only, i.e. the joy and peace which can only come through the Holy Spirit, all that sensuous 'rational' man can understand is that without the "enjoyment" of this world, he is "missing out." He is thus 'willing' and able to (without any "sense of guilt") crucify any and all (including the unborn and the elderly) who get in his way of having the "'good" life, a life of "enjoyment," done in the name of "the people," or in the case of the church, "in the name of the Lord."
In dialectical thinking, until 'reasoning' can come to the aid of sensuousness (in education, via. "speech," i.e. dialogue exposing and expressing personal dissatisfaction with righteousness inhibiting "enjoyment," and human "intellect" being used to find a solution, a social project, which will 'liberate' "enjoyment," i.e. liberate sensuousness from the restraints of righteousness, i.e. liberating man from "Do as I say ... Because I said so," i.e. from "Thy will be done," so that man can be free to do as he feels and he thinks, i.e. "Our will be done ... for the 'good' of humanity.") and sensuousness can come to the aid of 'reasoning' (where the feeling of 'alienation,' caused by righteousness, is replaced with a feeling of oneness, as righteousness becomes 'rationally,' collectively perceived as being 'irrational' and therefore 'irrelevant' to social needs, thereby negating the "guilty conscience" of the individual as the voice of the "village" taking the place of the voice of the father in the brain), and both are put into praxis (revolutionary-voluntary action, man 'willingly' working together, in theory and in practice, in his thoughts, individually, and in his actions, collectively, negating-annihilating the environment of the system of Righteousness, i.e. "negativity" toward the flesh, and thereby 'emancipating' the world from the 'fundamental-judgmental' message of righteousness itself), man will forever remain subject to the unnatural (super-natural) commands of higher authority, retaining a "guilty conscience" for his carnal behavior, a "guilty conscience" produced by the system of Righteousness. Hegel, Marx, Freud, Rogers, Maslow, etc. believed that when man does not "enjoy," i.e. "have ownership of" "commands" he does not or can not carry them out as required, in "enjoyment."
Lecturing and commanding, i.e. preaching and teaching the use of the process will not do. It is only by everyone's 'willful' participation in the process that the individual and the group can come together as one, i.e. become one in the group experience of becoming, i.e. coming to consensus and putting it, "group hug," (the Dionysian, orgiastic, man is one, consensus 'moment') into action (social action―praxis). It was therefore man's duty to initiate and sustain an environment where commands and "enjoyment" are never separated except for the 'purpose' of augmenting more "enjoyment," creating a "better life" for all in the future (necessitating the negation of righteousness which says the "good" life is not to be found in man but can only be found in God, as man dies to his carnal nature in this life and follows the Lord). That environment is called consensus, where sensuousness and human 'reasoning' (men's opinions) are united and then put into social action (praxis), where deceived man, taking pleasure (finding "enjoyment") in deceiving others, becomes the only way of life (destroying the lives of those who refuse to participate in or fight against the process of 'change'). Without the deception, it won't work. We don't have the nature or desire to be manipulated (used by someone else for their pleasure, to our destruction, while they promise us or we have hope of pleasure, having no knowledge of what they are doing). When you manipulate something you tend to destroy what "is" to arrive at what you think "ought to be." What "is," i.e. you (your family), "is" no more. Like "humpty dumpty" you (or your family) can't be put back together again after the 'lab' experiment of "we feel" and "we think," (putting theory into practice on you or your family), i.e. "Opps! That didn't work. Next!" The thing is, in the end, it never works (except to destroy what is).
Having read and studied hundreds of social-psychology books (Maslow, Rogers, Marx, Freud, Hegel, etc.), in the light of God's Word I have come to understand that they all express the same 'drive' and 'purpose,' that being the negation of the system of Righteousness and thereby righteousness itself. (Many statements by these men, which I use throughout my articles, will bare this out.) Their dialectical 'belief' is that through the praxis of human 'reasoning,' i.e. seduction, deception, and manipulation (while the "scientific process" is used to manipulate, i.e. 'change' the things of the environment, i.e. change natural resources into useful things for the augmentation of human pleasure, it must include seduction and deception when it is used to manipulate, i.e. 'change' man, i.e. "human resource," into the same desired outcome, that being the augmentation of pleasure), united with and 'driven' by sensuousness, i.e. doubting, questioning, disobeying, and permissiveness ("positivity"), righteousness, i.e. faith, belief, obedience, and chastening ("negativity," i.e. chastening or the threat and fear of chastening which is used to reinforce faith, belief, obedience) can be negated-annihilated from the face of the earth. Thus man can create a world of peace and social harmony (a world of "We working for us"), a world no longer divided by walls of "righteousness," i.e. walls (hedges of protection around the children) created by the judgmentalism ("I'm right and your wrong") and sovereignty ("Mine, not yours") of the Patriarchal God and the Patriarchal home (the bourgeoisie).
According to these carnal-'rational' men ('intellectual,' but wicked, men of the world, i.e. philosophers) the only way to achieve unity and "positivity" (augment 'rational' sensuousness) is to negate the source of division and "negativity," i.e. is to neutralize (by getting everyone's opinion, the rebellious children's opinion, i.e. the proletariats opinion on the issue at hand, your position which is God's or the parent's position of right and wrong, becomes just another opinion amongst opinions), marginalize (getting your "friends" to question you and distance themselves from you to avoid "collateral damage," i.e. being associated with you and your "hard headedness" and "uncaring" attitude toward other peoples "opinions"), and remove 'irrational' righteousness (get you, "pushing" God's or your parent's position, to shut up or leave) or converting it by making it 'rational,' i.e. bringing it into harmony with sensuousness (get you to see the world in a more "positive" light, through your own feelings and thoughts, your opinion, and therefore through other peoples feelings and thoughts rather than through God's or your parents position). Thus world unity and social harmony ("positivity") can only be achieved by "the negation of negation," i.e. by the negation of the source of "negativity," i.e. by the negation of righteousness, i.e. by the negation of faith, belief, obedience, and chastening as being the only way of life. This way of thinking (dialectical thinking) is anathema (abomination) to the way of the Lord, who demands faith, belief, and obedience and uses chastening (judgment) or the threat (and therefore fear) of it to initiate and sustain faith, belief, and obedience. What the world can not know is that being filled with the Spirit of God, fear is replaced with God's Love, fear only being the realization of where you would be without his love, his mercy, his grace, his revealed word, his Son, and his giving you faith to believe.
The dialectical 'belief' is that by seducing, deceiving, and manipulating man (by facilitating him) into redefining righteousness as being of 'human nature' only (getting him to focus only upon the "here-and-now"), by getting him to see human behavior "in the pursuit of pleasure," "in the pursuit of enjoyment" (being a "right" of sensuousness, of "positivity") as being the "human right" of life and by getting him to no longer "pursuit" a "right" greater than human nature (getting him away from focusing upon the "there-and-then") as being the "right" of life, a "right" restraining human nature (a "right" of "negativity"), righteousness negates itself (no longer being in the thoughts and actions of men in the "here-and-now" working for the "there-and-then" world of their own making). A righteous man, made righteous by one who is greater than his human nature, is a man "in denial," i.e. "in denial" of his own 'righteousness,' i.e. "in denial" of the 'righteousness' of human nature, according to dialectical thinking. If that which is not natural to man (the unnatural righteousness of God or the inhibiting to human nature "right" and "wrong" of parents) is no longer in his thoughts and his actions, it no longer exists. By turning a "negative" environment of "right vs. wrong" (man in the pursuit of righteousness, i.e. pleasing God) into a "positive" environment of "Can't we all just getting along," "Lets agree to disagree," (man in the pursuit of sensuousness, i.e. pleasing himself according to what is natural), righteousness, that which is not of man's nature can 'rationally' be replaced with 'righteousness,' that which is of man's nature. Get rid of the "Thou shalt not's" and the "Can not's" (judgmentalism) of righteousness and man becomes 'righteous' in his own eyes, 'righteous' according to his own nature.
Hegel stated it this way: "When a man has finally reached the point where he does not think he knows it better than others [he no longer judges another persons thoughts and actions as being "good or evil" according to his parents or God's standards], that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly [he is "non-judgmental," he no longer demands righteousness, he no longer demands that which is not of the other person nature, which is therefore not attainable by him in the 'moment'―he no longer demands that which is not common to all men, in the same 'moment,' under the same conditions (common in space and time, i.e. of nature only)] and he is interested only in what they have done right ["right" as being in, from, and for the sensuousness of man, i.e. the augmentation of "enjoyment" for all men], then peace and affirmation have come to him ["positivity" has negated "negativity," i.e. man is no longer conscious of, therefore no longer condemned by that which is not of his nature, being only conscious of himself becoming sensually-'rational' at-one-with himself, others, and nature itself]." (G. F. W. Hegel, in one of the casual notes preserved at Widener) bracketed information added Without the negative (his dissatisfaction with higher authority and their commands) making man aware of the positive (his unrelenting "lust" for the "enjoyment" of his own nature), man could not 'rationally' unite with himself ('rationally' become social, unite with others, in his quest to become 'normal') in the positive. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' only by man 'rationally,' collectively 'liberating' the positive (sensuousness, his own feelings and thoughts) from the negative (from righteousness, from the commands and demands of higher authority) can he come to know himself as he "ought" to be, i.e. "a social animal," 'rationally' united in himself ('rationally,' dialectically united as one in the world) in the praxis of negating the "negative," i.e. negating that which is not of nature, negating that which is not "positive," i.e. negating that which restrains or prohibits the sensuousness of pleasure in the "here-and-now," i.e. negating that which prevents or condemns the spontaneous sensation of "enjoyment" in the 'moment.'
Following Hegel's child like 'logic' (in counseling people today) we can say: We are not going to tell the captain of the plane how to do his joy, that we are indifferent to him having crashed the plane, killing all the passengers on board, being only interested in the fact that he had his landing gear down at the time. This may sound extreme but it is the reality of how far down this road we are today. "Its not how far down the road you've gone. It is the road that you're on that is the problem." One step on the dialectic road and you are a child in an adults body. Horrendous things will soon follow with no accountability for ones actions. We have a lot of this in government today. We are not going to tell the student that his speech was bad, indifferent to his poor posture, bad presentation, inappropriate language, etc., being only interested in the fact that he was smiling all the time, etc. i.e. finding something "positive" to say to make sure he "feels good" about himself. The last example being my teacher training experiences in college, i.e. how I was to conduct my speech class in high school. I have nothing against encouraging anyone to be better at what they are doing (if what they are doing is right), it is just the fact that when they are bad at it, they are bad at it, and should be informed of it if they are to improve themselves. Chastening, when done right, does not destroy a student, it tells him that he needs to do that which is right and not do that which is wrong. This is something dialectic thinking detests, judging someone according to an absolute right and wrong, that is except when it comes to someone resisting or fighting against the use of the process, i.e. then they are "wrong." "Right?"
Today's "assessment tests," for example, are asking test examiners to overlook bad spelling, typographical errors, improper sentence structures, etc. so they can focus upon the students thinking methods to determine their grade (the student "freed" from academic pressure so that they can "freely" express their feelings and thoughts). This is grading their paradigm, their way of thinking, i.e. how they arrived at their answer, mapping them for future 'programming' in the system of 'change.' This produces a lethargically generation, interested only in "peace and affirmation," ("getting along with others" and feeling good about themselves, i.e. "Don't judge me and I won't judge you." "Make me feel good and I will make you feel good." etc.) incapable of standing alone, if and when necessary, with the truth. The use of this method of thinking, this kind of 'logic' is why two space shuttle missions failed, killing all on board. (I cover this in one of my other articles, with thanks to Steve Goss for the insight and information.)
Hegel's ethics explained that only when the children can come together in group discussion, dialoguing opinions, can they 'discover' that which they have in common, sensuous desires which are restrained by parental authority. Only then can they become conscious of their dissatisfaction with the system of parental authority (their source of dissatisfaction), can they come to realize that they must 'rationally' uniting with one another, i.e. unite upon their common interest and in consensus create a "new" world, built upon the 'righteousness' of social harmony (the 'logic' used to 'justify' the French, Russian, Chinese, etc. and soon to come to your neighborhood if it hasn't already arrived, Common-ist Revolutions: democratization, conscietization, synergization, habitualization, communitization, i.e. volunteerism―"will to power" through community cause, i.e. through common-unity cause―communitarianism, etc.). The common theme is the child's "enjoyment" of being loved by others "as he is" and loving others "as they are," in his/their "here-and-now" carnal nature, i.e. being supportive of his/their "life instinct," Eros. (Freud) (Capital, property, "surplus labor" being the major obstacle to "equality of opportunity," "equality" in a life of "enjoyment" for all.) By the children (the proletariat) 'liberating' themselves (and the world) from parental authority (the bourgeoisie) they create a "new" order of the world. A "new" world order of man, i.e. a "new" world order of only man, an order where man's Id, Ego, and Super-ego are all united as one, i.e. his impulses, will, and self-social consciousness are at-one-with the world around him, in harmony with nature, only nature, i.e. only that which is of the world (human, environmental, "green"―I want to say "gang-green").
Guided by his common feelings, his common thoughts, and his common actions only, man is becoming himself. In dialectical fashion he no longer knows himself as being created in the image of God, therefore subject to God's will (God is a God under law, His own law, law which is of his nature, spiritual, so there is no conflict between Him and His law, thus man made in his image is a man under His law, subject to His will). Mankind, becoming one in common feelings, common thoughts, and common action (man freed from the law of God which divides and condemns him), is man coming to know himself in his own image (his image only knowable in his common "sense experiences" with others, only knowable in his social action with mankind in the praxis of making the world a "better" place for the 'pursuit' of "enjoyment" for all (with sensuousness supplanting righteousness as the standard whereby man establishes the value of life). Dialectical thought is: Not until man becomes aware of his own "sensuous needs" through his own "sense perception" and bases his life upon his own "sense experiences" with others, which can "only proceed from nature," can he come to know himself as he "is" and, through praxis, become what "ought to be." (Karl Marx)
This is Hegel's constant theme in his works on ethics, not worded this clearly for obvious reasons, using instead words, phrases, and sentences like: "intuition," "concept," "universal," "particulate," "intellect," "education," "corporeal sign," "tool," "spoken word," "must be," "ought to be," "it is as it ought to be," "universal right," "needs," "surplus money," "enjoyment," "contracts," "private personality," "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [all are carnal in nature, therefore oneness can only be found in the carnal nature of man, i.e. if all are sinners, then sin is "common human behavior" and should be recognized, tolerated, respected, and encouraged as "normal"], where there is no antithesis of person to person or of subject to object [there is no top-down system in sensuousness], the surplus is not the property of one of them [the father can not 'rule' over anything or anyone], since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one [permanently established by a higher authority since there is no higher authority, i.e. there is no righteousness]. So too all contracts regarding property or service and the like fall away here because these things are grounded in the presupposition of private personality [individuality engendered from the 'right' of authority, i.e. read: you have no worth or 'right' outside of the universal, since you are only of the universal]. Instead the surplus, labour, and property are absolutely common to all, inherently and explicitly." [Hegel sounds like Karl Marx doesn't he, etc. worded in a tapestry of a future world void of parental authority, a world void of 'inalienable rights,' a world void of the system of Righteousness and thus a world void of righteousness itself] "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality ...; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality ..." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) bold-underline is added for emphasis This is what Hegel is all about, read the underlined quote again and see what the dialectic is all about, i.e. the tyranny of the children controlling the world, oppressing all of mankind, for their own pleasure). "the spirit of his spirit in and through the ethical order," [He is saying what he wrote: "The spirit of his spirit [the child's spirit of sensuousness and spontaneity, the spirit of belongingness, being at-one-with, at-peace-with nature, his own and others in thought and in action] is in and through the ethical order."] "In democracy absolute religion does exist, but unstably, or rather it is a religion of nature; ethical life is bound up with nature, and the link with objective nature makes democracy easy of access for the intellect [being only of nature, i.e. Marx]." ibid. bracketed information is added While Hegel left it up to the "world spirit" to guide man in his "march through history," Marx put it into action, i.e. into social action (praxis), with society, in consensus, removing the righteous through the praxis of 'change.' The scriptures warn us: "Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment. Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh: for childhood and youth are vanity." Ecclesiastes 11:9, 10
Man's knowledge (of sensuousness), puffed up with pride, resisting, rejecting, and removing the knowledge of God (of righteousness) destroys him. Man's works (look at what wonderful things we have done in the name of the Lord) units him in his rejection of righteousness―where unity is the byproduct of those in Christ, coming together in his name alone, to worship him alone. The works of men, of sensuousness and 'reasoning, men 'justify' themselves before themselves (and God) by their praxis of 'righteousness,' negate (bring to not) that righteousness, the work of Christ, which can only be imputed by Christ to men of faith in Him alone. The law of faith (righteousness), that which is of the spirit of God, is thus replaced with sight (sensuousness, i.e. of man's "sense perception" and "sensuous needs") and 'reasoning,' 'justifying' that which is of the 'spirit' (flesh) of man. What harmony has Christ with Belial.
Hegel, following after the 'logic' of Kant, believed that hope is only to be found in the spirit of 'reasoning,' i.e. in the praxis of man 'rationally' becoming as one according to his sensuous nature revealed through opinion (hope being man's desire for happiness, happiness being pleasure, pleasure being of the mind, the mind being 'rational,' in harmony with that which is "beautiful" and "just," which is of nature― where the "gratifying object," which is external, and "dopamine emancipation," which is internally, are united as one in the "here-and-now" 'moment,' in the "enjoyment" of that which is of nature only―expressed in the form of an opinion). In man's 'rational' discovering and uniting of himself as one in the "pursuit of pleasure" (in his 'quest' for "enjoyment," biblically called "lust"), 'reasoning' (i.e. opinion, used to 'justify' his feelings, thoughts, and actions, used to 'liberate' his own nature from the restraints of righteousness) is 'discovered,' 'emancipated,' and 'actualized,' i.e. the "divine sparks" now becoming as one, as man comes to know himself as one, as 'reasoning' is used to emancipate sensuousness from the restraints (contamination) of righteousness (in the praxis of consensus). In his quest for "enjoyment" man is 'rationally' driven toward union with himself, his fellow man, and nature only. Man then 'rationally,' i.e. for the sake of survival (satiating his "felt" needs," solving the crisis' of life) unites himself with his fellow man in the praxis of consensus, becoming as one, in mind and in body, in theory and in practice, negating that hope which is not of nature (that hope which is only found in God above nature, requiring faith, belief, obedience, and the chastening of sensuousness and 'reasoning,' i.e. requiring death to the carnal nature of man, i.e. demanding the denying of self of the "lusts" of the flesh and eyes, as well as denying of self the approval of others, i.e. the "pride of life," and following He who is not of this world, Jesus Christ). Although man might say that he places his hope in the Lord above, in the world to come, Hegel saw that his natural feeling, thoughts, and actions said differently―his behavior betraying his belief, i.e. sensuousness betraying righteousness, whereupon he relied upon his 'reasoning' to 'justify' his sensuous behavior. Sensuousness thus gives birth to 'reasoning' as 'reasoning' is used to emancipate sensuousness from the unnatural restraints of righteousness. In this way of thinking, dialectically, righteousness is necessary if 'reasoning' is to come to know itself in the praxis of 'liberating' sensuousness from the restraints of righteousness―'liberation theology' is an example of this "logic."
The Apostle Paul, in Romans 7:14-25, explains the conflict in man, between righteousness and sensuousness, this way. Without faith, belief, obedience, all "grounded" in the imputed righteousness of Christ, being the answer to the conflict and tension between the two, man has only "the body of death" as the answer. He will die in his sins. Philosophy negates righteousness by making 'reasoning' itself the solution to the conflict, i.e. 'reasoning' coming to the aid of sensuousness (human nature) rescuing sensuousness from righteousness (from the righteousness of Christ, from the super-natural, from denying oneself, i.e. dying to the flesh, eyes, and the pride of life), i.e. 'reasoning' overcomes the antithesis between righteousness and sensuousness, negating righteousness (negating the demand for righteousness, the source of "repression" and "alienation," "neurosis" and dividing man from man and man from his own nature) with the synthesis of 'rational'-sensuousness and sensual-'reasoning,' i.e. all that is 'real' (men's opinions, emancipated and united through dialogue) becoming one. The old and new world orders are based upon this difference, either human 'reasoning' defending sensuousness or righteousness (in Christ only) is the only solution to the crisis of life, with faith defending righteousness. As 'reasoning' defends sensuousness faith defends righteousness. Choose righteousness that you might have life. "Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee. My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever. For, lo, they that are far from thee shall perish: thou hast destroyed all them that go a whoring from thee. But it is good for me to draw near to God: I have put my trust in the Lord GOD, that I may declare all thy works." Psalms 73:16-20, 25-28
Man thus finds himself back in the garden in Eden, choosing between righteousness or sensuousness, obedience or disobedience, faith or sight, doubting, questioning, and self-justification, i.e. dialectical 'reasoning,' only that he is now depending upon the mercy and grace of God for salvation from God's condemnation and wrath upon the "children of disobedience." Salvation can only be found in His revealed (not of men's opinions) Word, only through the work of Christ, His obedience to His Heavenly father, i.e. only in Christ, only according to your faith in Him, only by His grace. Human effort toward salvation only leaves man condemned, blind, in denial of the truth, that he is wicked and is destined to eternal damnation if he does not repent, receiving the Lord into his heart. Dialectical 'reasoning' (Genesis 3:1-6 thinking and acting) leaves man, as the ostrich with his head in the sand, standing safely only in his illusion, until God's judgment arrives and condemns him for his foolishness. Believing, foolishly, that God's judgment won't arrive, he destroys not only his own life but the lives of all who follow after him in his praxis of negating righteousness, so that he can "feel better about himself and be less offensive to others," i.e. as he wagers his life upon the dialectical process, i.e. building his "new" world order upon Satan's' Genesis 3:1-6 dialectic process. As Marx, i.e. sociology was built upon the process of Genesis 3:1-6, so was Freud, i.e. psychology. "The entry into Freud cannot avoid being a plunge into a strange world and a strange language—a world of sick men, ....It is a shattering experience for anyone seriously committed to the Western traditions of morality and rationality [based upon the scriptures] to take a steadfast, unflinching look at what Freud has to say." "Our real choice is between holy and unholy madness: open your eyes and look around you—madness is in the saddle anyhow." "It is possible to be mad and to be unblest, but it is not possible to get the blessing without the madness [without the wickedness]; it is not possible to get the illuminations without the derangement," "I wagered my intellectual life on the idea of finding in Freud what was missing in Marx." (Mike Connor quoting Brown, from the March 23-30, 2005 issue of Metro Santa Cruz) "In the process of history man gives birth to himself. He becomes what he potentially is [unrighteous, wicked], and he attains what the serpent―the symbol of wisdom and rebellion ['reasoning' and sensuousness]―promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself [become 'righteous' in his own carnal eyes]." (Erick Fromm, You shall be as gods: A radical interpretation of the old testament and its tradition) "If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man [the patriarchal paradigm] can ever be redeemed by freedom [freedom from a patriarchal family and a patriarchal God], then the 'original sin' must be committed again ['reasoning' must come to the aid of sensuousness again freeing man from righteousness]: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence [the dialectic 'logic' being: Before God's "can not" was spoken, man was innocent, negate God's "can not" and man becomes innocent again―Jesus did not negate the law, He fulfilled it, taking our place in payment for our sins against it, he was slain before the world was created, i.e. before the law was given, but dialectic man chooses his own way, rejecting the way of the Lord he wagers his life upon the 'wisdom' of men that he was never guilty of sin to begin with, and thus as a fool professing to be wise, he foolishly chooses damnation instead of life].'" (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) bracketed information added
This is Diaprax, the praxis of the "'new' world order" (as "new" as Genesis 3:1-6) with its use of the dialectical process, i.e. human 'reasoning,' i.e. self-social justification being used to 'liberate' man from God (or perceive himself as being 'equal' with, greater than, or as god)―negating God, so that he can be "himself" (come to know himself as he "is," i.e. experientially 'discovering' himself, 'recognizing' his "potential," and actualizing his 'purpose'), 'rationally' 'justifying' his sensuousness, his "lust," his "enjoyment," before man (and before God), as being 'good.' Only God is good. By perceiving himself as being as God, man becomes 'good' in his own eyes. And then by perceiving himself as being 'good' in his own eyes, he perceives himself as being God. Unchanging, unremitting (unmerciful) in his 'drive' and 'purpose' of augmenting pleasure, until the real God shows up, and in his "wrath" judges him as a "child of disobedience."
While "common sense," on the one hand, i.e. of the "old" school of thought, says that man is not good and is not to be trusted, that 'justification' for one's thoughts and actions are individual (particular) in nature, i.e. that the individual's need for survival determines what is good and what is evil, "good sense," on the other hand, i.e. of the "new" school of thought, says that man is basically good and therefore can be trusted, that 'justification' for one's thoughts and actions are social (universal) in nature, i.e. the individual's social needs, i.e. therefore societies needs, i.e. man in consensus, determines what is good and what is evil in the 'moment,' in the current situation. But justification, being neither of the individual nor of the social, can only be found in the Lord, in the righteousness of the Lord himself, imputed to men of faith in Him. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." Romans 5:1, 2 All other justification is an "abomination in the sight of God." ''And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16: 15
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 The "normal" man's heart is wicked (full of lust) and deceitful (full of envy and pride). "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:" Matthew 15:19 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:" Mark 7:21, 22 "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5
All men are born into sin, born in the flesh, and try to 'justify' their own sensuousness, i.e. pleasure, i.e. "enjoyment" by making it the basis for 'good.' Perceiving their own heart as being 'good' (in their pursuit of pleasure), they can never in and of themselves, i.e. sensually-'rationally,' comprehend true righteousness. As it was in the day's of Noah so it is today, "enjoyment," the "imagination of men's hearts" is, for natural man, the only way of "life." Who can (or dare) stand in its way. Only the Lord can cleanse and change the heart of man (cleanse his heart of wickedness and deceit―change a heart that is ever lusting after the things of the world into a heart desiring the Lord, with man then able to put off the "old man," his mind which in the past was always 'justifying' his wicked and deceitful heart, now "renewed in the spirit") and recreate man in His righteousness (making the "normal" man's heart and mind "new" in his image, and thereby making the righteous "abnormal," "maladjusted," "neurotic," "irrational," etc. according to dialectical 'reasoning'). "But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." Ephesians 4:22-24
Except for true believers (the bride of Christ, the congregation of the saints, the redeemed in Christ), secular and religious institutions and organizations throughout America and around the world, are rejecting God and His Word, and therefore righteousness as a way of life (absolutely rejecting it as the only way of life), and are therefore uniting in the act (praxis) of bending their knee to Diaprax. By setting his affections upon the things of this world only, all that man can "know" is his own sensuousness, and human 'reasoning,' which he uses to "justify" himself as he is (living in unrighteousness and sin, calling it "normal" human behavior). Through human 'reasoning,' rejecting the things of God, he is only left with his own carnal nature to "control" himself in the beastly world of his own 'creation' (a world of his own imagination). Believers know better. "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence [desires], and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. But now ye also put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds [praxis]; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." Colossians 3:1-11
(Going over it Again!) Diaprax is the system of human 'reasoning,' i.e. seduction, deception, and manipulation, serving the system of sensuousness i.e. doubting, questioning, disobeying, and permissiveness, united in the praxis of 'liberating' the individual and society from the 'restraints' of the system of Righteousness, i.e. faith, belief, obedience, and chastening. When human 'reasoning' is used to support sensuousness it is reproved (judged) by the system of Righteousness. When the system of Righteousness is subjected to the system of 'reasoning' supporting the system of sensuousness, it is attacked and annihilated―this is the difference between how the authority of the Father is treated (respected and honored) in the traditional family and how it is treated (negated-annihilated) in the "counseling" environment. When the system of 'reasoning' ("higher order thinking skills" in "morals and ethics") and the system of sensuousness (the love of pleasure, love of that which is "positive," love of that which is of and for the flesh, i.e. love of anyone or anything which initiates and sustains permissiveness, and the hate of pain, hate of that which is "negative," hate of that which is not of and for the flesh, i.e. hate of he who restrains and chastens permissiveness), i.e. man's head (mind, i.e. 'reasoning' ability) and his flesh (body, i.e. sensuousness), are being united as one (through what Marx called "the 'ether' of the brain"), transformed into the "psycho-motor" (man's mind and nature united as one), both the individual and society practice (praxis) the negation of the system of righteousness, i.e. replacing faith, belief, obedience, and chastening with the system of sensuousness, i.e. doubting, questioning, disobedience, and permissiveness, as the 'right' way of thinking and acting, thus negating righteousness as being an issue of life, all issues now being social, of man only (of nature only). "Man has only to understand himself, to take himself as the measure of all aspects of life, to judge according to his being, to organise the world in a truly human manner according to the demands of his own nature, and he will have solved the riddle of our time. But there is no other salvation for him, he cannot regain his humanity, his substance, other than by thoroughly overcoming all religious ideas and returning firmly and honestly, not to 'God', but to himself." (Frederick Engels, The Condition of England A review of Past and Present, by Thomas Carlyle) Human nature is no longer to be evaluated (restrained-condemned) by doctrine (what God or parent says―of the system of Righteousness). Doctrine must instead be evaluated (negate-annihilate) through human nature (how man feels and thinks―of the systems of sensuousness and human 'reasoning' united).
In this "new" world order way of thinking and acting, secular and religious institutions and organizations are emerging as one, perceiving themselves as being 'freed' (like rebellious children, i.e. "children of disobedience") from the restraints of God's will (God's will making man's will, which is subject to sensuousness, subject to righteousness) ruling over, i.e. "Lording" it over man and his will. According to psychology/sociology when man's will is not subject to sensuousness and sensuousness is not subject to man's will (both are divided, not in harmony with one another) man is 'neurotic'/'irrational.' Therefore only when man turns to himself, turns to his own "sense perception" and 'reasoning' abilities, i.e. turns to the opinions of men, can he, then in the praxis of his own human nature, become himself, 'liberated' from an authority figure who is not in harmony with his carnal nature. Perceiving everything, determining whether it is 'good' or 'evil,' according to his own nature, according to his own "sense experiences," he is freed from the "repression" of righteousness. When a Christian does this he is no longer "trusting in the Lord with all his heart," but is instead depending upon his own "sense perception" and human 'reasoning' abilities to resolve his "sensuous needs." "Leaning unto his own understanding" he is therefore directing his own steps in the praxis of unrighteousness. Proverbs 3:5 What the world does is what the world does. What concerns me is what the believer is doing, hanging around with the ways of the world and calling it Christianity, not only deceiving himself, but also "enjoying" the praxis of seducing, deceiving, and manipulation all who turn to him for 'help' and 'guidance,' manipulating them into coming his (the worlds) way.
To synthesize the two, human 'reasoning' and sensuousness is to negate righteousness, i.e. reject that righteousness which can only come from the Lord above. 'Justifying' the sensuousness and 'reasoning' ability of man makes him 'righteous' (good) in his own eyes. Man, making himself 'rationally righteous' in his own eyes through inductive reasoning and dialogue ('contemporary' education, i.e. "Education Nation") makes that righteousness which can only come from the Lord (righteousness which is of God above only and not of human nature below) subject to sensuousness ("enjoyment"), and therefore makes God subject to the interpretations of men, i.e. makes His Word subject to the dialogued opinions of men, whereby man can then 'rationally' ("intellectually") extrapolate (cut, rearrange, and past) from God's Word and His creation, only that which 'justifies' his sensuous nature below, thereby 'justifying' his "human behavior" as being "normal" ('rational' when it is in harmony with all humanity) and thus 'righteous' in and of itself. For example, Hegel's dialectic Jesus is a user friendly, non-offensive Jesus, who lived and died to create an open-ended, non-directed world, i.e. a world where man is becoming himself as he learns to love ("enjoy") himself as he "is," 'rationally,' dialectically becoming what he "ought" to be, i.e. at peace and in harmony with himself and the world, affirming himself as becoming as he 'rationally' detaches himself from that which is not of himself and his fellow man and nature. Dialectical 'reasoning' turns a gospel of righteousness (and "discord"―above-below, a duality of either-or) into a "gospel" of sensuousness (and "harmony"―equality, plurality in unity).
(Going over it Again!) The following articles expose Diaprax (the dialectical process of Hegel and Marx fame, which Marx put into social action―praxis) for what it is, a process used by seducers, deceivers, and manipulators to 'justify' themselves, and all who follow after them, as being god's over God's creation, i.e. God's tree is man's tree (always changing the subject from righteousness, i.e. "What God, i.e. His Word, says," to sensuousness, i.e. "How one feels" and "What one thinks"―replacing the preaching and teaching of "It is written" with the dialoguing of opinions on what God might have meant, in the 'light' of human feelings and thoughts). Carl Friedrich, a professor, who during the 50's taught at Harvard, wrote: "In present-day America the viewpoint of Hegel is now so widely accepted that it is difficult to believe that it once was a revolutionary principle." "A knowledge of Hegel is perhaps more essential than that of any philosopher of the past for anyone who wishes to understand the intellectual crises of our time." "The fusion of Greek soul and Kantian Reason . . . permitted Hegel to rise to the plane on which he could understand the message of Jesus [a dialectic gospel, perceived through "human eyes and human ears" (as Karl Marx put it) and made "understandable" through human 'reasoning'―when the world "understands" the word of God it is not the word of God]." (Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel) bracketed information added
People, including 'ministers,' who want to continue living in sensuousness (living in the flesh), 'justifying' their sinful nature―thus directing their own lives according to their own sensuous 'reasoning' abilities, i.e. opinions, i.e. 'intellect'―treat God's word as an opinion (as an opinion amongst opinions) in their praxis of self-social 'justification.' In their dialectical 'reasoning' they reject God's warning's and his chastening. It is "enjoyment," i.e. pleasure, i.e. the "lust" of this life ("the approval of man and his nature") in the "here-and-now" that is the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of life in the church today. It is "enjoyment" that is now making the Christian life "worth living." The 'drive' of sensuousness (the urges and impulses of "normal human behavior" to "enjoy" life and to be "accepted by others" while they "do their own thing"―as long as it is "beneficial" and not "harmful" to themselves or others) and the 'purpose' of liberating sensuousness (liberate "normal human behavior" from the restraints of righteousness, liberating man and society from the effects of "fundamentalism," i.e. "judgmentalism," i.e. prejudice, i.e. narrow-mindedness, etc. i.e. as the world perceives it) must be united, according to dialectical 'reasoning,' if man is to know himself as he really "is" and 'rationally' become what he "ought" to be (that being, to be at-one-with himself, singularly and collectively, individually and socially). Dialectically, it is sensuousness which units and it is righteousness which divides. Reasoning, made subject to righteousness keeps man divided, while 'reasoning,' engendered from sensuousness's dissatisfied with righteousness, uniting with sensuousness in 'liberating' man from righteousness, 'liberating' him so that he can unite with himself and the world (children who are dissatisfied with parental authority, when united with other children of like feelings, in thought, unite into a "new" order of equality, an order united in the praxis of negating the "old" top-down order of righteousness). Preach and teach biblical righteousness and you will clean out most churches today, i.e. clear the room (and cut off your "profits" from and for the flesh). The contemporary church's message is instead "If you don't' cut off the prophet, he will cut off your profit." What "believers" who continue to participate in the "postmodern church" do not realize is, as their concern for pleasing God is progressively replaced with their concern for pleasing man (as the approval of God is progressively replaced with the approval of men), Jesus "withers away" (J. L. Moreno), as human nature taking his place (as sensuousness takes the place of righteousness as the issue of life).
'Rationally,' dialectically, by turning away from that which is not of nature (righteousness) toward that which is of nature (sensuousness), the church becomes acceptable to the nature of man. By turning righteousness, that which is not "enjoyable" to natural man, that which makes him feel guilty for his natural thoughts and actions, into sensuousness, that which is "enjoyable" to natural man and is 'harmonious' with his natural thoughts and actions, the Christian life, according to dialectical 'reasoning,' can become "worthy" of living. Therefore, according to dialectical 'reasoning,' if Christianity is not "sensually enjoyable" to man in the "here-and-now," it is not Christianity. What a hundred years ago would have been unthinkable is now the way of life, i.e. the way of feeling, thinking, and acting, i.e. "doing business," even in the church, so that all can live in Arcadia (Utopia) in the "here-and-now," et in Arcadia ego, "I also lived in Arcadia in simple pleasure and quiet"
By rejecting chastening from God (rejecting accountability to God above for our thought and actions below, i.e. God's restraint upon and judgment against man's carnal praxis below) those who praxis Diaprax, praxis lawlessness ("lawfulness without law...." G. Hegel). Although dialectically minded (human relationship building) ministers say that they speak for God, maintaining their position of authority in the Church, they are not of God. They are instead enemies of God, using the office of authority under God for their own sensuous gain. They have "captured" the office of authority and are using it to confront and negate-annihilate any and all who are "fundamentalist" in their though and actions, i.e. "prejudiced" against and intolerant of "normal" human behavior, i.e. "blinkered" against the sinful nature of man.
Don't disrespect the office of authority which they occupy (which the lawless one sits in the seat of), just continue to serve the one who created the office (God the creator of all that is good), living in the Lord's love, power, and wisdom, walking in His Spirit, enduring the abuse the deceived and wicked one(s) doles out, letting God deal with him/them as He wills. While the Lord may use you to expose the apostate or reprove the disobedient, be sure that it is the Lord and not you yourself who is doing the exposing/reproving―the apostate will always and the disobedient will often tell you (along with their followers) that it is you and not the Lord who is speaking (if they are willing to recognize you at all―by not recognizing you their followers don't have to recognize God's Word you are sharing). Man's opinion (including yours) does not count. The Lord has to get rid of yours as well, if He is to truly speak to and through you.
David let God remove Saul. He did not do it himself, even when he had the opportunity. (God's Kingdom is not of this world, built upon and therefore subject to the flesh and the 'wisdom' of man, of the will of man but is instead of His own will alone.) David served God (the authority above the office) and not himself, i.e. his desires. By David not removing the man abusing the office of authority, according to his own strength and 'wisdom,' it was God and not man who was glorified in the end.
David did eventually have to remove himself from servitude to the man who used the office of authority for his own gain. (The usurper will usually claim his action of usurpation and tyranny, i.e. your martyrdom, was necessary for the sake of the institution and the needs of men.) While David had to flee for his own life's sake you may have to "flee" for your own soul sake ("fleeing youthful lusts" the permissive environment is engendering). Yet David never removed himself from servitude to the Lord, the author of the office of authority, even when the office itself was being misused by man.
The office of authority is not in and of man (although fallen man might think so). If God so desires He will fill that office with men of righteousness as you humble yourself before Him and seek His face. When his people cry out to him with repentant hearts, turning from their wicked ways, he listens. But He always does as He wills, whether we understand it or not. If it does not go according to our will we are not to despair because His will is always achieved in the end.
After all is said and done, it is not how others responded to you that matters, it is, how you responded to them in Him. Were your responses 'driven' by your sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities or were they 'directed' by Him, in His righteousness, in His love, by His Spirit, according to His Word. God chastens those he loves, leaving the rest to their own demise, i.e. subject to His "wrath" in the future. Wrath is not ours to do. Chastening is, i.e. reproving, correcting, and rebuking in His love. Those who receive His word are His, those who reject it are not. It is not for us to judge man on his immediate response to God's word, we are only to continue in it, and share it as he directs, enduring the shame the world dishes out against it (as Jesus did). We are to suffer in the same suffering as He did, enduring to the end. If you take it personal, your response is not of the Lord. If you grieve for those who reject the word of the God, praying for their salvation, it is of the Lord (realizing that some you do not pray for or cast your pearls before, i.e. those who are of antichrist, i.e. those who know what they are doing).
The leadership of the nation (and the church) reflect the heart of the people. When righteousness is replaced with sensuousness, the tyranny of the masses rules. It is not the leadership which is the problem it is the heart of the people. If the citizens refuses correction from the Lord, then their leaders will reflect that same reprobate mind. Having no fear of God, therefore being only 'driven' by the fear of man, they will reject His word of correction. If the citizens humble themselves before the Lord and seek His face (their language of communication with God, themselves, and the world, as well as within the church, containing their desire for righteousness rather then sensuousness) then their leaders will reflect some humbleness (if not having reverent fear of God and loving His Word they will at least fear those who fear and serve God rather than man). This is why in early America, secular men (often begrudgingly) passed laws which recognized and supported the practice of righteousness in the public arena.
Those in authority in the "contemporary" church, i.e. those not serving under the Lord's directing, might give lip service to the Spirit and the Word of God but instead describe and serve the spirit of the flesh, the spirit of sensuousness, the spirit of "human relationship," the sensuousness of oneness with fellow man and the words of men, the opinions of men. Satan, the Devil, was not intimidated by the woman sharing her opinion of God's word but he was by Jesus quoting it. They are not servants of the Lord but are instead servants of their own flesh ('driven' by human empathy rather than being directed by Godly righteousness―it is not that we are not to have empathy but that empathy in and of itself is not righteousness). The pleasure which comes from the fellowshipping of the saints is a 'byproduct' of individuals at-one-with Christ coming together with those of like mind, worshiping the Lord. The pleasure (and empathy) which comes from the fellowshipping of the saints can not become the agenda or the 'fellowship' becomes socialist. It is only when men's words, their opinion amongst opinions on the Word of God, are used to 'change' the Word of God, redefining it (perverting it by redefining it) according to their own sensuous feeling and thoughts ('driven' with the 'purpose' of initiating and sustaining social unity), that it is turned into a socialist message which is then used for social 'change' The Word of the Lord condemns them for their praxis.
Every minister of the "contemporary" church turns to the opinions of men when I open up the Word of God and start sharing from it to them, even spouting at me "That's your opinion." I having to inform them "That was the same defense that Karl Marx's used to defend himself from the Word of God," i.e. treating every truth and ideal, including the Word of God, as an opinion of man. Rather than being of God, with the awe and wonder, fear and dread of being before a Pure, Holy, and Righteous God alone, before a God who demands purity, holiness, and righteousness of all, they speak of a God of "love" yet they down play, ignore, or reject the "wrath" of God, with hell, i.e. condemnation for sin, being either a topic of discussion to "dialogue" opinions on or not being relevant to the gospel message at all. Ministers using this 'logic' is why homosexuals and lesbians can "preach" from the pulpit today. Not fearing the wrath of God they worship the sensuous "love" of the flesh, 'justifying' it in the "love," "mercy," and "grace" of the "savior" of their own making. Jesus is not returning for a bride who is holding hands with, i.e. keeping company with, i.e. finding oneness with, etc. the world. His bride has him on her mind, and him alone. All that she thinks about and all that she does is around him alone.
Instead of setting their mind upon the things of the Spirit, upon what God says (preaching and teaching the truth in righteousness), they set their mind upon the things of the flesh, upon how a person "feels" and "thinks." Dialoguing men's opinions to 'discover' the "truth" in God's Word and then 'preaching' and 'teaching' the Word of God from that "truth," i.e. weighing God's Word upon the opinions of men, then 'changing' it, i.e. transforming it into the image of men so that the carnal man can "understand it better," is 'preaching' and 'teaching' "the truth in unrighteousness." "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." (Romans 8:5-8)
They refuse to take correction (chastening) from the Word of God (as a rebellious son refuses to take chastening from his father) because they do not fear God and do not love his word (viewing it through their own feelings, thoughts, and actions). Instead they turn to the opinions of men (turning to empathy, enjoyment, and human 'reasoning') in their effort to retain their office of 'influence' while hiding their love of the flesh (their love of the "pleasures of this life" and their love of "the approval of men"). In this way, by not fearing God and loving his word to the death of their flesh, they readily refuse correction from His Word to preserve their flesh. Fearing the lose of men's approval they show their love for their opinions instead, seeking in them their livelihood. Thus they expose themselves as not being ministers of the Heavenly Father but rather being ministers of men, ministers of their flesh. Refusing to accept chastening from the Father above, i.e. refusing to be reproved by His Word they expose themselves as being instead, "bastards." "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent." Revelation 3:19 "Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the LORD thy God chasteneth thee." Deuteronomy 8:5 "If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons." Hebrews 12:7, 8
The article "Hegel's" Formula: (A + -A = A) (especially the forward and introduction, which are longer than the body of the article, but are well worth reading), as well as the trilogy of articles 1) Diaprax: A spiraling process of 'changingness.', 2) Diaprax: The Dialectical Formula, and 3) Diaprax: The dialectic process in praxis is sin. are a good starting point to understanding Diaprax and its effect upon you and the world around you. It is not academics, or government, or a way of doing business to get ahead (to "grow" or "emerge" the church or the Kingdom of God), as many would like you to think, it is the praxis of "spiritual wickedness in high places" (lawlessness: "lawfulness without law," as Hegel stated it) disguised as academics, government, and doing "business." "Higher education" is no longer about learning truth and preparing for a trade (the "old" school of "honesty and industry"), it is about socialist programming ("Education Nation") for a "new" world order, where righteousness (doing what is right and do not do what is not right, "Do what I say or else..... Because I say so") is supplanted with sensuousness and "human reasoning" (as long as it is 'good' for society, i.e. for the betterment, i.e. the "enjoyment" of society in the "here-and-now" and/or for the future then it is OK, it is "right") as the issue of life, i.e. as the resolution to the crisis' of life (social needs replace righteousness as the issue of life). Therefore the 'righteousness' of man supplants the righteousness of God in the hearts and minds of men. While you can gain a lot of head knowledge about the dialectical process you can not understand it, what it does to you and the world around you, without beginning and ending with the subject of righteousness. Political candidates, educators, parents, and even ministers today avoid the issue of righteousness as being the only issue of life. Out of the fear of being labeled 'irrational' and 'uneducated' and thereby being treated as 'irrelevant' they instead busy themselves with the feeling and thoughts of man. It just shows you how diapraxed we have become as a people (especially in the church).
While I approach the subject of Diaprax academically, it can only be exposure, withstood, and defeated by God (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit―in God's righteousness). There is no escape from its effect upon you academically or physically. Man's knowledge of it and human effort against it, i.e. man's cognitive, affective, and psycho-motor abilities can not save him from its (the dialectical process of self-justification) control over him, and thus God's judgment upon him. (Those "domains," applied in the classroom environment, excluding the restraints of righteousness, is why "education" has turned into the praxis of unrighteousness, where man's values are based upon his 'rational' justification of his affections, his sensuous desires―the basis for the 'teaching' of "Values Clarification," "Situation Ethics," etc.)
Diaprax is a process of Satan's use, with its first praxis on man begun in the garden in Eden―Genesis 3:1-6. I can take the writings of Hegel, Marx, Rogers, Maslow, etc. i.e. all 'thinkers' and 'movers' of "history" to those six verses and describe to you what they are doing and why they are doing it. Near the end of meetings, once listens understand the dialectical steps Satan used on the woman in the garden in Eden, I do this with Marx's statements. This is what these articles are all about, i.e. showing you why you should not "do" it, Genesis 3:1-6 that is, i.e. trying to convince you that you can not "not do it," you can not "not do" Genesis 3:1-6 without the righteousness of Christ Jesus in you, i.e. His righteousness which redeems you from the Fathers wrath upon you for doing Genesis 3:1-6 (that is 'justifying yourself, i.e. your will, before yourself, other's, as well as before God, just as Adam and Eve attempted, as recorded in verses 12 and 13).
Redemption from God's wrath, which is upon all who praxis Diaprax (praxis Genesis 3:1-6), can only come through believing upon Jesus Christ and walking in the Holy Spirit. Only when a man is made aware of his sin against God (by His law), made aware of his need for a savior (by God's Word in Christ Jesus), and repents of his sin against God, receiving the Lord into his heart (the Lord cleansing his heart of unrighteousness), making Him savior and Lord of his life (obeys His commands, living according to the Fathers will by the power of the Holy Spirit) can he be freed from the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6. I'll state it again: Freedom from diaprax is only made possible through the righteousness of Christ, His righteousness imputed by Him, upon all and unto all who place their trust in Him alone (have faith in Him, acknowledging His absolute dependence upon and obedience to His Heavenly Father, His death upon the cross, His resurrection, and His eternal Lordship) and let Him direct their steps (all according to the will of the Father, made accessible by His only begotten Son, the Word of God, and made doable by the power of the Holy Spirit). This is the gospel message of Jesus Christ, who the Father sent to overcome the world in you.
Those who are in Christ must endure the hate of the world against Him (it's hatred for His exposing the world of its sin, i.e. exposing man's love of the darkness of this age, i.e. exposing him as being wicked, i.e. exposing man's love for his sinful, sensuous nature and His warning of God's ensuing judgment, i.e. God's judgment upon all who praxis the dialectical process, all who praxis Genesis 3:1-6, all who praxis Diaprax, all who 'justify' themselves before man and God in theory and in practice). The righteous (those clothed in the righteousness of Christ, whose sins have been covered by the blood of the Lamb of God and are baptized in water and in the Holy Spirit) must remain (endure) in Him, clothed in His righteousness, i.e. living daily in His righteousness alone, enduring the worlds love of sensuousness and therefore hate of righteousness, (the righteousness of Christ in the redeemed is what makes them hated by the world) unto the end. "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand." Ephesians 6:11 The battle is not ours to win, we are but to "stand" "in the way," clothed in His righteousness, filled with His power, that not us, i.e. our flesh and our mind, our sensuousness and our 'wisdom,' but that He alone, in His righteousness, might receive all the glory and praise.
These articles are about exposing the darkness of the unrighteousness of the harlot 'church' and the 'new' world order, both growing and emerging as one, both built upon the praxis of the dialectical process. They are about exposing the darkness of this present age with the light of God's Word, according to His righteousness, so that we might not be ignorant of Satan's devices, no longer being seduced, deceived, and manipulated, by and thereby tempted into embracing the "'new' world order's" way of thinking and acting. "Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices." 2 Corinthians 2:11
The more I have come to understand the "new" world order (the re-ordering of the world in a "new" way of thinking, which is not "new"), i.e. the praxis of Hegel, Marx, Freud, Rogers, Maslow, Drucker, etc. the more I have come to understand the 'drive' and 'purpose' of those caught up in (possessed by) the praxis of the dialectical process, i.e. caught up in the praxis of negating the righteousness of God by the praxis of replacing it with the 'righteousness' (sensuous 'wisdom,' i.e. opinions) of men, i.e. the sensuousness and 'reasoning' ability of man synthesized. Likewise, the more I have been able to identify Diaprax as the praxis of unrighteousness (as an "academic" tool of 'justification' used by "the children of disobedience" in their attempt to negate the righteousness of God―for example: all certified teachers, Christian teachers included, use what is called "Blooms' Taxonomies" to develop their classroom curriculum which effectively turns their classroom into a dialectical training camp for the next generation, replacing righteousness with sensuousness by amalgamating them, i.e. making righteousness subject to sensuousness in the classroom―by 'rationally' extrapolating from righteousness that which sensuous man can harmoniously relate with, 'righteousness' is made 'rational,' i.e. no longer disturbing, i.e. no longer condemning man for lusting after his own sensuousness), the more I have found myself being avoided, distanced, criticized, labeled, censored, and even threatened (responded to as having said nothing important, or as being irrelevant, or being potentially damaging to one's future hopes, aspirations, and reputation) by 'conservatives' and the religious, including Christians. It appears people want truth, but not this much truth, or at least this kind of truth (scriptural truth), i.e. convicting truth.
I can only comprehend that the more liberal (the more dialectical in theory and practice), i.e. the more 'liberated' from righteousness, the country and the church become, any association with this material could result in you being labeled as being extreme, as "just going to far," as one "minister" kept telling me, interrupting me whenever I quoted scriptures. Go figure. Another "minister" (AG minister) yelled at me, interrupting the meeting for almost an hour with the phrase "We have to dialogue," only to apologize at the end for yelling at me, not for rejecting the word of God as being the final authority, to be preached and taught as is and not dialogued as an opinion amongst opinions (afterwards emailing me an eastern religion response, i.e. about us getting our heartbeat in rhythm with God's heartbeat, etc.). The key indicator of those who are possessed by the dialectical process is their defense of the dialoguing of men's opinions (their defense of sensuousness and human 'reasoning), defending it to the death, i.e. to the death of the preaching and teaching the Word of God "as is" that is (to the death of righteousness). Instead of responding as Jesus did, preaching and teaching the truth of "It is written" they responded as the woman in the garden in Eden did dialoguing their opinions of "I feel" and "I think." An "open-ended," "non-directed" environment of dialogue negates the restraining, directing environment of preaching and teaching where man comes to know that truth is not of himself, i.e. is not of his own sensuousness but instead is of the one who created him, of His righteousness, who, with His commands and judgment, requires faith, belief, obedience, and chastening. In the environment of "negation of negation" the sensuousness of pleasure (the flesh of man) replaces righteousness (God) as the issue of life.
The pattern of human 'justification' is universal. It is now taking over the world because Christians, their words and actions, no longer under the restraint of God and His word, are no longer restraining the world by God's words and actions. Rejecting that justification which comes only from the righteousness of Christ, the church has now structures itself upon that 'justification' which comes only through the sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities of man.
But for me, the truth is the truth. Once you know it (Him), there is no going back, there is no other way of living. In the end the truth (the Lord) is all that there is, that is of eternal value. "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
Two things keep getting dropped out of church ministry when it uses diaprax (only given mention as a topic of interest to some). They are righteousness and the Father―both being the means and the end of all things good, i.e. the "ground" of all being. The means to the Father being righteousness, which is only found in Christ, and the end being the Father himself, who is righteousness, who no man will see who is not made righteous in Christ, which is why the Father, who is righteous, sent Christ, who is righteous, who did not came for you and for me on his own, but came in obedience to the Father's will by the power of the Holy Spirit, which is righteous. Only in God is righteousness to be found, apart from God there is no righteousness and life. If those who push diaprax are working to negate-annihilate righteousness from the face of the earth, then why are "believers" joining in and doing diaprax. They must be doing it for "the approval of men." Foolish, deceived, wicked men.
The 'secret' in understanding Diaprax is that the gospel is not just about the Son of God, it is about the Father as well. By focusing upon the Son of God, God's love, mercy, and grace, i.e. His righteousness imputed to men of faith, without the Father, His law of righteousness which condemns man because of his sin, Diaprax has free reign within the church (hiding within and riding upon the sensuousness of human 'reasoning.') It is all about the Father and His Love for the world along with his demand for faith, belief, obedience, and chastening (which produces a "peaceful fruit of righteousness"), with righteousness being only from God, on which the gospel stands, his righteousness having to be imputed to men, only being imputed to men of faith in him.
The dialectical 'shift' is subtle, but has major ramifications. Focusing upon unity "in Christ's name" (God's love for the world) without the Father's demand for righteousness in the individual before Him (God's "wrath upon the children of disobedience," i.e. "be ye perfect as I am perfect" which no man can do in and of himself, singularly or collectively, i.e. why only God the Father, who is perfect, sending His only begotten son, who is perfect, can save man from God's judgment upon man, who is imperfect, i.e. a sinner) negates that righteousness which can only be imputed by the Lord to those who have faith in Him only. When this is done, man focusing upon unity with man (so that he can do wonderful things for the Lord) and treating it as righteousness, 'righteousness' is founded upon man's works of 'righteousness' for "God" and man, i.e. for the church (sacred) and for his fellow man (secular) united. Both the law of God and the righteousness of Christ (imputed only to men of faith) condemn man as being wicked in and of himself, i.e. being incapable of producing righteousness in and of himself no matter his personal and social efforts in doing 'good' for God or man. Without righteousness, whereby no man will see the Father, being the issue of life, imputed only through Christ to those of faith in Him, the "congregation of saints" is turned into a society of men, a community of social interests. Where church leadership and therefore the "church" seems to find itself today.
It is not that we are to not love one another, we are. God chastens those he loves, which to us does not seem to be love at that 'moment' but rather "grievous" (we have no control over the situation) while fallen man's love is vain, carnal, sensuous and is of no value, except for the things of this world (controlling the things of this life for the 'purpose' of pleasure―thinking we are controlling the world for the 'purpose' of pleasure, the truth is, the world of pleasure is controlling us). Without our love being from the Lord above, from Him alone (from His righteousness, i.e. the love of the only begotten Son for the Father, the Father's love for the lost, and the Holy Spirit's love giving to men of faith), we will remain deceitful and wicked in our own love, i.e. loving from of our own heart, i.e. from and for our own sensuousness, of and for the pleasures of this life, i.e. for our own gain ("enjoyment," i.e. "lusts"), i.e. loving all things from and for our own vanity and pride.
In the end it can become quote lonely, concerning the approval of men that is (which we all crave in our carnal nature―"It is not good that man be alone," i.e. God did not send angles to keep Adam company but instead created a women from him, of his own bone and flesh, to be his "help meet"). But that is why we are to endure to the end, "loving not our lives to the death." Revelation 12:11, walking in the spirit, overcoming, in Christ, in His righteousness (by following after Christ), enduring not only the temptation which comes from our natural desire for approval from others (overcoming by picking up our cross daily) but also enduring those temptations which come from our desires ("lusts") for and "enjoyment" of the things of this world, for our carnal pleasures, which we equate with "survival"―"I'll just die if I don't have that"―(overcoming by dying to ourselves daily). In the end, we will all stand alone before God, giving account for our thoughts and our actions to Him alone. Only being able to overcome condemnation and eternal death by having followed the Lord, living in his righteousness only. After all that is why the Father sent Him, isn't it.
Only those redeemed in Christ will have Christ by their side, ushering them into the Kingdom of God, to know His Father, to spend eternity with all the redeemed, with all the saints, worshiping Him alone, beholding His Power and His Glory, something which those who praxis the dialectical process, those who 'justified' themselves before man in this wicked age will not have (that being, having Christ by their side) and will never know (that being, having eternal life with God, i.e. entering heaven). Instead, on that day, they will stand alone, by themselves, staring into the abyss of eternal death and pain, where the approval of men and the opinion's of men (man's dialectical 'wisdom') will be of no value or worth (will do them no 'good'). "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." Matthew 16:24-27 Luke wrote verse 27 in this way:: "For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels." Luke 9:26 "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished. By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil." Proverbs 16:5, 6
Most 'conservatives' and 'Christians' want to stop their freedoms (the "enjoyment" of the things of this life) from being taken away. They are seeking for answers and solutions to their lose of 'liberty' to "do as they please." They know that the dialectical process, when it is explained to them, is at the heart of the "take over" of America. But most will never understand the reason why it is "succeeding," i.e. is so "successful," and how to overcome it, because they refuse to turn to the Lord for the answer (responding to God's demand of man to be perfect as He is perfect, to walk in His righteousness, i.e. doing His will and not doing their will)―repenting of their sins before the Lord: placing their faith and trust in Him alone, believing upon His word alone, obeying His Fathers will alone, and accepting His chastening, i.e. receiving His righteousness which can only be imputed by the Lord to those of faith in Him alone. You must stand with the Lord alone, before you can stand with believers together, i.e. you must stand before the Lord alone, repenting of your sins and putting on His armour, before you can stand with believers, worshiping and serving the Lord in His righteousness together, withstanding the temptations of the sensuousness of the evil day (even in the 'church'). Fellowship is not synonymous with apostasy, but where apostasy reside we are not to fellowship. While God desires that the redeemed fellowship one with another in Him, in His love (encouraging, correcting, reproving one another), fellowshipping with man is not the 'drive' nor the 'purpose' of the gospel. It is not through fellowship that we are redeemed, it is only through Christ, and Him alone, that we are redeemed.
You can not respond correctly to (much less understand) Hegel, Marx, ....., i.e. the dialectical process and praxis, i.e. Diaprax and the "new" world order, without the Word of God. Without God's Word, you can never know who you are, where you came from, and where you are going. The concept of "limited government," for example, can only come from an understanding of God's word, i.e. regarding the wickedness of man's heart (your heart) and the need to limit his lust (your lust) for power when placed in a position of authority over others, using it, the power, and them, others, for his own gain (for your own gain). Inalienable rights are rights which no man can put a lean upon because they are rights which come from God, while "human rights" are rights which no god (God) can put a lean upon because they are "rights" which come from man. Socialism is capitalism on a global scale, man using man for his own gain, only on a grander scale (vanity knows no limit). Socialism is simply capitalism in a cosmic "group hug." That is why socialism always creates an Ubermensch, an Antichrist in the end (it always comes down to choosing one, either Christ or Antichrist, righteousness or sensuousness, there are no other choices). Those on the Antichrists side are even today giving speeches on how to avoid Armageddon. Seriously! These are those who will lead you into the abyss with themselves, having "no fear" because they do not take serious where they are going, i.e. where they are taking you, because they are intoxicate with the "enjoying," i.e. the pleasure, i.e. the praise they receive from you, while leading you there.
The world (even your family and 'friends'), under the influence of Diaprax, will respond to any warning (especially from the Word of God) with "Don't tell us where we're going (don't be so judgmental), we're having to much fun.... we're enjoying 'life' to much ...." The last part of the sentence ("going there.") is understood in sentence structure but is not included in their response, since it is not comprehended (relevant) in their mind. Intoxicated with the praxis of the dialectical process, i.e. the pleasures of this life in the 'moment,' the "enjoyments" of life and human relationship, i.e. the "approval of men," they reveal to all that they are in love with the pleasures of this world and the approval of men (both of sensuousness) more than they are in love with the Lord and His Word (righteousness). I even speak to the shame of ministers who have become masters of facilitation (masters of seduction, deception, and manipulating), i.e. agents of 'change.'
It is impossible to please God without faith―which is counted as righteousness. You can not have faith in (believe in or obey) or keep your faith in (retain your belief in, continue your obedience in) the Lord and praxis the dialectical process. You can not do Diaprax and serve the Lord. You can not serve according to your sensuousness and serve in His righteousness. Depending upon sight, basing 'truth' upon sensuousness (which is temporal) negates faith, i.e. negates the work of righteousness (which is eternal). The question is, "If those who do Diaprax can not please God then why are those who are in leadership position (or positions of 'influence') within the 'church' doing Diaprax to 'grow' or 'emerge' the church?" The questions which follow are: "Who are 'they?'" "What is 'driving' them?" "What is their 'purpose', i.e. What is their intention?" "Who sent them?" "Where are they going?" "Where are they taking you?" The most important question of all is: "Why are you remaining under their 'influence?'" If it is because you "love the approval of men" more than "the approval of God" then you will most likely stay. If it is because "you want to rescue some from the process" then it is because "you" want to direct "your" life. If it is because "the Lord wants you there as a witness for the truth" then you must already be dead to the desire for "the approval of men." The word witness in the Greek means "martyr." Make sure it is the Lord who is directing you (for righteousness sake) and not you yourself (for sensuousness sake). Human 'reasoning' (self-social justification, dialectical 'reasoning') will always take you to the latter, i.e. to yourself, i.e. to sensuousness and human 'reasoning.' In the end, if they refuse to repent for their use of the dialectical process, when it is exposed by the preaching and teaching of God's word, by the light of God's righteousness, then they are exposed as being pimps, doing "business" with the bride of Christ, turning her into a prostitute and marketing her to the world, i.e. "making customers" for themselves, "in the name of the Lord."
To "market," to "make customers" is the controlling the people (sensually, through covetousness, i.e. through seduction, i.e. the use of deceptive words, to buy and sell them, i.e. make merchandise of them) for your own personal pleasures (gain). It is the pride of life, i.e. "Look at what I or we have," i.e. the false perception (deception) that we can control our lives and the lives of others (manipulate the world, the situation) for the "betterment" of all (of and for sensuousness, i.e. "enjoyment" of the flesh, for all) which "leads to destruction," and the haughty spirit, i.e. "Look at what I or we have done," which "leads to a might fall." Woe be to the man who uses the bride of Christ for his own gain. Not only will you die in your sins but the wrath of God is upon you. While you may be gaining in this life, gaining "the approval of men," for the 'moment,' you are loosing your soul, not only in this life but also in the life to come (for eternity), not having the approval of God, i.e. being His enemy, i.e. being of the harlot church which is of the world system of sensuousness, of unrighteousness, of wickedness, i.e. persecuting those who are made righteous in Christ ("And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." Revelation 17).
"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
Although we are in the world, we are not to be of the world, 'driven' by our sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities, i.e. 'purposed' in 'justifying' ourselves before man and God, i.e. "self justification." We are to daily live by faith in God, putting our trust in the Lord (being alive in His righteousness), i.e. trusting in the wisdom of the Lord and His Word, preached and taught as is, as He directs our steps by His Holy Spirit, rather than to live by sight, putting our trust in man (being 'alive' in our sensuousness), i.e. trusting in man's polls, surveys, feasibility studies, feedback loops, synergistic programming, etc. i.e. trusting in the 'wisdom' of man (in his 'reasoning' abilities, "leaning upon our own understanding"), i.e. trusting in man's opinions dialogued (what "could be" if only "we ..."), as we direct our steps in our own sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities.
There is no righteousness in dialogue. Righteousness is not founded upon (does not have its "ground" of being in) the opinions of men. Righteousness must be imputed by Christ to men of faith in Him because it is not in, nor of man, i.e. who is of sensuousness. Righteousness does not emanate from how a man "feels" or in what he "thinks." Opinions are responses which are engendered by and for sensuousness. This is why man tries to escape righteousness and the judgment which comes with it, i.e. the condemnation of the flesh and the conviction of the soul, by turning to dialogue, i.e. by turning to the opinions of men which have no conviction, contrition, or condemnation, being only an opinion amongst opinions of men, i.e. only of 'reasoning' attempting to justify sensuousness, i.e. justify unrighteousness.
".... O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23 When a man steps out from trusting in, having faith in, believing in, and obeying the Lord, all he has left is his sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities (the way of Genesis 3:1-6) to rely upon, all he has is the way of diaprax, i.e. the dialectical process (self-justification) put into social action (praxis). It appears that 'truth' has now become synonymous with "the approval of men," based upon the "feelings" and "thoughts of man. With the church preaching it's not christianity unless it is a "financially successful," socially adaptable (tolerant of ambiguity, which means uncertainty), and "enjoyable" (or potentially "enjoyable") to all, truth is now associated with the things of this world instead of the Word of God itself. The "postmodern" church ("postmodern" meaning no fixed reference point other than what is "sense experienced" as "enjoyable" to man in the 'moment' or potentially "enjoyable" to all men in the future) is 'preaching' and 'teaching' (via dialoguing men's opinions) a dialectical "christianity," a 'practical,' 'enjoyable,' i.e. 'rationally' sensual "christianity," thereby, in error to the message of the scriptures, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating believers, i.e. those who are seeking truth, into the ways of the world, calling it the gospel. Christians are running down to the "Christian" bookstore, getting everybody's opinion of the Word of God rather than reading it for themselves and letting the Holy Spirit give them understanding and the Lord direct their steps.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9 The Lord's thoughts are upon righteousness and His ways are of righteousness (His righteousness), while man's thoughts are upon sensuousness and his ways are of sensuousness (his 'righteousness'). To merge the two (via dialectical thought and action, i.e. theory and practice) is to produce confusion (leading all away from the ways of righteousness, which is only from God above, into the ways of sensuousness, which is of man below; where man, i.e. "normal human behavior" is dialectically, i.e. 'rationally' justified via. the praxis of consensus (where men collectively lean upon their collective understanding and consider their praxis 'righteousness,' i.e. 'right' in his own eyes―"There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25). By putting consensus into social action (known as praxis), men are seduced, deceived, and manipulated into believing sensuousness, i.e. "enjoyment," i.e. man in harmony with man and nature, is 'righteousness' itself. Doing the dialectical process in the "name of the Lord" does not make it righteous, it only makes it more deceitful (producing a great "delusion").
Although many of the latest articles are lengthy and repetitive (the earlier articles being somewhat shorter, having more on the application of the process than on the duality between the sensuous-'reasoning' of man and the righteousness of God) I hope you will read and study all the articles to know what is happening to this nation, the church, and yourself and how you must respond if you are not to be "caught up" in the process rather than being "caught up with the Lord." For those who have been involved in or "run up against" the TQM, TQL, School-To-Work, COPS, DARE, HMO, Church Growth, Emergent Church, "No child left behind," Child Protective Agencies, "Education Nation," National Training Laboratories, etc. 'training' programs (all of the same dialectical format: a diverse group, dialoguing to consensus, over social issues, in a facilitated meeting, to a pre-determined outcome―that no decisions will be made outside of the dialectical format of a diverse group, dialoguing to consensus, .... do over again and again and again .... until you are dead) these articles will be quite revealing, exposing what has happened or is happening, revealing not only that which is of the world but also that which is of our Lord Jesus Christ. For only in the Lord alone is there salvation. Only in the Lord alone can you know true peace and joy, i.e. know that peace which "transcends understanding" and that joy which is "unspeakable," i.e. know that peace and joy which sensual-'rational' man can never know in all his "knowing." Only in the Lord alone is there that righteousness which is life. "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:13, 14
If you don't start with righteousness as being the issue of life, you can not see above the fray of the sensuous 'moment' and know where you are and turn from where you are going―in bondage to the pleasures of this life going into eternal damnation. Seven billion sinners sinning, does not make sin 'right'). Only in Christ is righteousness and true life found. It is only in Him alone, in His righteousness, that the issue of life resides. In the praxis of defending your bondage to the "enjoyment" of this life you will attack and destroy righteousness. Satan will keep you busy pursuing and defending the "enjoyment" of this life (having "pleasure in unrighteousness"), even doing so in "the name of Lord," only to use you for his Genesis 3:1-6 project, the negation of righteousness from the face of the earth (personally and socially) so that all men might remain deceived, "taking pleasure" in deceiving one another under his influence and control, and remain condemned by God for their unrighteous praxis in this life. Not believing in the truth, not following after that righteousness which is only imputed by Christ to men of faith in Him, but rather believing in a lie, following after their own sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities, dialectical man ('justifying' himself before himself, measuring himself with himself) will spend eternity in the "life" to come, with the great deceiver, in hell―which will not be eternal "life" spent in enjoyment and pleasure but will instead be eternal "life" spent in torment and pain―because they "believed not the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." I encourage you to trust in the Lord with all your heart, if you are not already doing so, and stop leaning to your own (sensuous) understanding (Proverbs 3:5). Pray that God will put in your heart "the love of the truth," which is in Christ, "that you might be saved."
"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thessalonians 3:3-12
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2011-2015