A Child Can Understand

authorityresearch.com

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." Proverbs 3:5, 6

A Child Can Understand.
(Personal note.)

by
Dean Gotcher

(Most quotations have added information. If you want the actual quotation you need to get it from the written issue. Unlike most authors I place important definitions throughout and at the end of the paper. Some major ones at the end.)

"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

People keep telling me to make it easy to understand, so a child can understand. A child can understand. Do what the Father says, that is what you are told, which requires faith in the Father. We all come into this world with a measure of faith. It is that simple.

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17

"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

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:" Romans 5:1

You have two choices. Either doing what you are told, thinking and acting according to faith, according to what the Father says, according to the Word of God, doing right and not wrong according to the Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, thinking "What would my Father want me to do?" and acting accordingly or doing what you want, thinking and acting according to sight, according to the world, thinking "What can I get out of this situation, object, people, or person, for myself?" and acting accordingly. Those "of and for the world" choose the latter. Man's "therapy" is based upon lust, stimulus-response not upon doing the Father's will, being told. Carl Rogers, a famous psychotherapist wrote "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 come to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

"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

The role of the Father, preaching commands and rules to be obeyed, teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is and applied and enforcing them, and the role of His children, doing right and not wrong according to what they have been told, that is doing the Father's will.

"And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." Hebrews 12:5-11

"Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." Ephesians 6:1-3

"Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding." "He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding." Proverbs 4:1; Proverbs 15:32

"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." Ecclesiastes 11:9

". . . every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12

Every meeting (of which I had over five thousand) when I shared the following the children sat on the edge of their chairs listening to every word, understanding what was being said. The following, not being exactly what I shared is close enough for them to follow and understand. They may not be able to explain it afterwards. But they understand. They even motioned for me to quite explaining, they were afraid their parents might understand, as if they did not already understand. It was the parents I was most concerned about, "leaning unto their own understanding," having 'justified' their carnal thoughts and carnal actions instead.

While our earthly father is like the Heavenly Father, having authority over us (when we were a child), the Heavenly Father, not subject to the flesh, to lust and the world that stimulates it is never wrong. He is always right. Our body or our flesh is always, by itself subject to approaching pleasure and avoiding pain—which includes the mental pain of missing out on pleasure. Our body naturally produces a chemical known as dopamine, which is associated with pleasure. When we come into contact with something in the environment that is pleasurable dopamine is "emancipated" or "liberated" (those are the words that are used) into a small gap between the nerves, called a synaptic gap. When any of our senses, touch, taste, sight, smell, or sound associated with pleasure come into contact with something in the environment that is pleasurable they send that information to the brain. At the end of the first nerve, dopamine is "emancipated" into the synaptic gap. When it reaches the receptor of the next nerve, that nerve continues to send that information on to the brain that something in the environment is pleasurable. In the brain there are many nerves called dendrites. Some are dedicated to "emancipating" dopamine, making us aware that something in the environment is pleasurable. When that happens, we look into the environment to find out what it is and where it is that stimulated dopamine "emancipation." We do this in order to gain control of it so we can experience more dopamine "emancipation," that is pleasure. God created us with dopamine "emancipation" that we would enjoy his creation. Not that we would worship dopamine "emancipation" instead of Him. Cookies stimulate dopamine "emancipation." Nothing wrong with that, unless we have been told we cannot have them and we continue to look at and think about reaching into the jar for them, then it becomes lust.

The following now gets complex. I will leave the rest for you to make simple, so the child can understand. Although I am convinced, as I witnessed in meetings they understand.

All habitual drugs are associated with dopamine, some stimulating dopamine "emancipation," others imitating it and others preventing its re-uptake or prevent its being broken down in the synaptic gap in order to be re-used again (re-cycled). When we yield to dopamine "emancipation" instead of doing the Father's will it is called lust, leading to sin. "The lust of the flesh" is our yielding to dopamine "emancipation" instead of doing the Father's will. "The lust of the eyes" is our looking into the environment for more stimulation of dopamine "emancipation." "And the pride of life" is our controlling the environment and-or the object, people, or person in it in order to experience more dopamine "emancipation." This is the basis of our "sense experience," to lust after pleasure and to hate restraint, that is hating the missing out on pleasure, dopamine "emancipation." The child is not in love with the toy. He is in love with the dopamine "emancipation" the toy is stimulating. As "the preacher" said, "Vanity of vanities, . . . vanity of vanities; all is vanity." Ecclesiastes 1:2 When we do not do the Father's will our lust for pleasure, for dopamine "emancipation" is more than likely the reason. There is nothing wrong with cookies for example, until you eat them when you are not supposed to. Almost all arguments are around man's lust for dopamine "emancipation." The only reason man is depressed is God is not doing it his way, that is God is not feeding his lust for dopamine "emancipation."

"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. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:1-4

While the Heavenly Father is not subject to dopamine "emancipation," that is lust we are—having to choose between either denying our self, doing His will or feeding our lusts, doing our will instead. This is where the difference between spirit and flesh come in. Spirit is that which is external to us that does not in and of itself stimulate dopamine "emancipation." Spirit is thus doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth and is not subject to the flesh, to stimulus-response. It is known as objective truth. Flesh on the other hand is always subject to dopamine "emancipation," making it subject to the world that stimulates it. It engenders what is known as subjective truth.

"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

"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

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Romans 6:16

When God created man He did something with him which he did with nothing else in the creation, He "formed" him from "the dust of the ground" and then "breathing" "the breath of life" "into his nostrils," He made him a "living soul." "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7). He then did something with him which He did with nothing else in the creation, He told him what was right and what was wrong behavior and the consequence for doing wrong, for disobeying. "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:16, 17). No animal can be told or tell others what is right and what is wrong behavior. No animal can read or write a book. Only man can read or write a book. Only man can be told or tell others what is right and what is wrong behavior. Only man can reason from being told. All the rest of the creation is based upon stimulus-response—for living organisms, approaching pleasure and avoiding pain. The soul KNOWS from being told, making man subject to God and His Word. The flesh knows by "sense experience," making man subject to stimulus-response, to that which is "of the world" only.

Behavior is defined and established upon either discussion or dialogue. In discussion, God is God, having the final say. In dialogue man is God, having the final say. That which is "formed from the dust of the ground" turns to dialogue in order to know right and wrong behavior, with man having the final say while that which God created with His breath, the "living soul" turns to discussion, with God having the final say. Since Adam had both discussion (being told, being a "living soul") and dialogue (stimulus-response, being a fleshy vessel) he could only use discussion with God since dialogue would make him equal with God, which God would not allow. This created a tension within Adam, having the urge to dialogue but not being able to dialogue with anything in the creation since nothing in the creation could dialogue, could go "I feel" and "I think." "And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him." Genesis 2:20 No animal could carry on a discussion or dialogue so no animal could resolve the tension. "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." Genesis 2:18

"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:21-24

In God creating the woman for Adam the tension was resolved, discussion with God and dialogue with the woman. Without the discussion (before God) you are subject only to dialogue (to your opinion; where there is no "wrong") making your reasoning (and any "discussion" you have) subject to stimulus-response, to that which is "of the world." The problem began when the woman in the garden in Eden turned to dialogue regarding the "forbidden tree" (where discussion would have required her to go to God) she became equal with God, making herself God instead, doing what she wanted to do, making the garden hers. This done with the "help" of the master facilitator of 'change,' the serpent. "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? [this is a neurolinguistic construct (an imbedded statement in a question, sensitizing a person to their lusts, when it comes to right and wrong behavior, beginning the process of liberating a person's lust for dopamine "emancipation" out from under their fear of judgment, out from under the father's authority, bring dialogue forward out from under the restraint of discussion)—which is one of the most powerful forms of hypnosis] And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it [here she revealed her lust], lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die [removing the "negative," fear of judgment (which was not a lie regarding the here-and now, the tree itself did not physically kill her—or Adam—but a lie regarding the there-and then, with God removing her—and Adam—from having access to the "tree of life" for their disobedience, then, after death both coming to judgment, inheriting either eternal life or eternal death based upon their either repenting, turning to God, doing the Father's will or 'justifying' their self, 'justifying' their carnal thoughts and carnal behavior, turning to "behavioral science" in order to 'justify' their lusts)]: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods (which dialogue does, everyone is a god in dialogue), knowing good and evil [according to their carnal nature]. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise [evaluating (aufheben) from her senses, leaning to her own understanding she made her self the establisher of right and wrong behavior], she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." Genesis 3:1-6 (emphasis added)

It was man following after the woman, who used dialogue in the realm of God's "Thou shalt not," that led to sin (to disobedience—for making themselves equal with God) and their death (their removal from having access to the "tree of life," which was God's inheritance to them for obedience, which required faith—as much faith as was required of them in the garden is the same amount of faith required of us today). While man can have fellowship with God he cannot have relationship (be equal) with God. The relationship (dialogue) is between the husband and the wife, with the wife being subject to the husband, under God, with their fellowshipping first and foremost being before the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ.

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

When God confronted Adam about where he was when He called out for him, he explained he was afraid of Him because he was naked, with God responding, "Who told you?" then (becoming the first liberal, along with the woman), Adam did not blame himself for his disobedience but rather blamed the woman and then God for 'creating' her, for creating an unhealthy environment for him to live in, in essence it was all God's fault. The woman in same fashion instead of blaming herself for her disobedience blamed the serpent for talking her into doing what she wanted. This resulting in both being cast out of the garden. No longer having access to the tree of life, they and all men since die in their sins because they choose dopamine "emancipation" over and therefore against doing the Father's will, making the garden and the world that stimulated dopamine "emancipation" theirs instead of God's. Replacing "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof" with "The fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody," replacing doing what they are told with the 'reasoning' of men, in disobedience to the Father turning to dialogue, to self 'justification' instead, when it comes to behavior, man chooses "the eternal present," which is passing away, rejecting eternal life, which only comes from God. (1 Corinthians 10:26; Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality)

"And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:18

"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

With your mind you either reason from what you have been told (doing what the Father says) or you (lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' dopamine "emancipation" that the world stimulates, doing what you feel like doing) reason from your "feelings," 'justify' yourself, your lusts, your lust for pleasure ("the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes") and your lust for the approval of men, that is affirmation ("the pride of life," the praises of men).

"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

"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

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9

Your heart, thinking pleasure, that is lust, that is dopamine "emancipation" is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will hates anyone preventing, that is inhibiting or blocking it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' the "emancipation" of dopamine it is lusting after. The unregenerated heart (the Karl Marx in you) cannot see its hatred toward the Father's authority as being evil, that is "wicked," that is "desperately wicked" because its lust for pleasure, for dopamine "emancipation" is standing in the way, 'justifying' the hate. (Mark 7:21-23) This is why David wrote: "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee." Psalms 119:11

"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

Those "of and for the world" have a formula that makes all children subject only to the flesh and thus subject only to the world that stimulates dopamine "emancipation"—thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (known as the consensus process). As drug pushers, by 'creating' an environment that stimulates and then 'justifies' dopamine "emancipation," with them in control they are able to make the children subject to them. The Father only recognizes thesis and antithesis, right and wrong, where He is the thesis and the flesh is the antithesis, chastening the child when he disobeys, that is when he lusts after dopamine "emancipation" instead of doing what he is told, that he might learn to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, that is that he might learn to do the Father's will.

The famous philosopher Georg Hegel wrote: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [and, for clarity I add once he is 'liberated' from the father's authority to become as he was before the father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life (separating him from his "self" and the world), "of and for self" and the world only—which dialogue, when applied to behavior does, but more on that later]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life)

Karl Marx built his ideology, known as Marxism, off of the ideology of Heraclitus who wrote: "Every grown man of the Ephesians should hang himself and leave the city to the boys."

Those "of and for the world" only recognize what all children have in common, "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," their lust for dopamine "emancipation," making the Father's authority wrong, thus they add synthesis where all the children, disregarding what the Father says can do what they want, that is lust after dopamine "emancipation" without the Father's authority getting in the way, therefore they can lust after dopamine "emancipation" without having a guilty conscience (which the Father's authority engenders) as well as, having the other children's affirmation, lust after dopamine "emancipation" without fearing being judged, condemned, and cast out (which the Father does for disobedience), following after, serving, protecting, defending, praising, and worshiping those "of and for the world" instead—for 'justifying' their natural inclination to lust after dopamine "emancipation" and hate restraint.

"I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Romans 7:7

". . . for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Romans 3:20

"For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." Romans 7:14-25

While our Heavenly Father, who created us holds us accountable for what we think, say, and do, making us subject to what He says, to what we have been told those "of and for the world" hold us accountable to doing what they want, lusting after pleasure and hating restraint, making us like them, "walking according to the course of this world," "children of disobedience," children of synthesis, facing the wrath of God. When you start with the Father, with what the Father says, making the Father and His word the thesis, you rule over your flesh, making it subject to doing the Father's will. When you start with your flesh, with what you are lusting after, making the world that stimulates it the thesis, your flesh and the world that stimulates it rules over you, making you subject to those who preach and teach synthesis, receiving the wrath of God.

"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:" "Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." Ephesians 2:2 and Ephesians 5:6

That is simple to understand. The Father is the thesis, the author and the finisher of all there is. We are subject to Him for what we think, say, and do. If you, following after those "of and for the world" make yourself, your flesh, lust, dopamine "emancipation" the thesis, thus having to reject the Father's authority (you can only have one or the other, you cannot have both) you face the "wrath of God."

It is the Father who authors commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is (by faith) and obeyed or applied and enforces them. Synthesis, which whose "of and for the world" insist upon makes the child's carnal nature the thesis, rejects the Father's authority. Without the Father there is no being told what is right and what is wrong behavior. Without being told there is no being held accountable for your behavior. In other words without the Father's authority system there is no law (known as "rule of law"). Without law there is no doing wrong or disobedience. Without disobedience there is no sin. Without sin there is no need of a savior. While the law can save no one since we all have sinned, it tells us we are a sinner, needing a savior, one who obeyed the law, the Father in all things commanded dying on the cross, taking our place for our sins, 'redeeming' us from the wrath of the Father.

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Romans 5:8-10

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" Ephesians 2:8

Whoever "denieth" the Father, that is the law, "denieth" the Son, that is the savior—who, by his shed blood on the cross redeemed us from His Father's judgment upon us for our sins.

"He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." 1 John 2:22

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:28-32

From here on you might have to read, digest, and then explain to your child. Every student going to college (having already experience it in high school and even grade school) should read and understand it for himself, in order to understand the world he is going into. While there, it is going to be his daily meal.

In dialectic 'reasoning,' that is in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, that is in the synthesis process there is no Father's authority, therefore there is no established law, therefore there is no disobedience, therefore there is no sin, therefore there is no need of a savior. Therefore the object of dialectic 'reasoning' is to remove the Father, thus removing the Father's authority, thus removing law, thus removing judgment, condemnation and being cast out for sinning so man can sin without having a guilty conscience, that is so he can sin with impunity. When you are asked to be "positive" and not "negative" while establishing behavior in a group meeting you are under the control (influence) of those "of and for the world," defending their lust for pleasure and their resentment toward restraint, wanting you to join in and 'justify' them.

György Lukács, carrying on the same theme as Kant, Hegel, and Marx in his article History and Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism? wrote: "... the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its 'obedience to laws.'"

In Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right' Karl Marx wrote "Laws must not fetter human life [that is inhibit or block lust]; but yield to it; they must change as the needs [that is the lusts] and capacities [that is the interests and the attractions of lust] of the people change."

Karl Marx, in his Fourth Thesis on Feuerbach wrote "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the Holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, that is annihilated, that is negated] in theory and in practice."

As pointed out before, while the Heavenly Father is holy and the earthly father is born into sin both have the same authority system as is used in the traditional classroom, preaching commands and rules to be obeyed as given, teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is (at first at least by faith) and applied, discussing with those under His authority any questions they might have regarding His commands, rules, facts, and truth, providing He deems it necessary, has time, those under His authority are able to understand, and are not questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking His authority, 2) rewarding those who do right and obey, 3) correcting and-or chastening those who do wrong and-or disobey, that they might learn to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate their "self" in order to do right and not wrong according to the established commands, rules, facts, and truth they have been taught (or told), that is in order to do the Father's will, and 4) casting out (expels or grounds) those who question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack His authority, which retains the Father's authority system in the child's or man's thoughts, directing effecting his actions, resulting in the those under the Father's authority KNOWING right from wrong from being told (especially when it comes to behavior).

While dad (the "earthly father") is not perfect, he may be (or may have been) a down right tyrant (or MIA/AWL)—as a child lusting pleasure, that is dopamine "emancipation" without restraint—his office of authority is perfect, having been given to him by God (the "Heavenly Father") who is perfect, in which to do His will. When it comes to establishing right and wrong behavior it is important that he discusses with his children any command, rule, fact, or truth they question, providing he deems it necessary, has time, they are able to understand, and are not questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking his authority. Without the discussion (where the father/Father holds himself accountable to the same commands, rules, facts, and truth as he holds the children, with the "earthly father" admitting he was wrong, when he was wrong) wrath can develop in the child (the pathway to Marxism).

The gospel message is all about the Son of God, Jesus Christ doing the Father's will, that is doing what he was told, even dying on a cross, by his shed blood covering our sins (propitiation), doing so in obedience to the Father ("O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." Matthew 26:42) asking all to follow Him doing the Father's will as He leads; "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.

"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." John 5:30

"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." John 12:47-50

"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21

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

In his article The Holy Family Karl Marx 'justified' the use of dialogue, what he called "Critical Criticism" to 'justify' his sins. Thus exhonouring the human heart, that is his heart he made sin, lust for dopamine "emancipation" the "norm." "Not feeling at home in the sinful world, Critical Criticism must set up a sinful world in its own home." "Critical Criticism is a spiritualistic lord, pure spontaneity, actus purus, intolerant of any influence from without." In his article Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right he explained what he meant by "Criticism." "Criticism is now simply a means. Indignation is its essential pathos, denunciation its principle task. Criticism is criticism in hand-to-hand combat. Criticism proceeds on to praxis [or social action]." "The critique of religion [that is hatred toward the Father's authority] ends with the categorical imperative to overthrow all conditions in which man is a debased, enslaved, neglected, contemptible being [that is man being called a sinner, thus being judged, condemned, cast out for his carnal thoughts and carnal actions, for his lust for dopamine "emancipation" instead of doing the Father's will]."

"Building relationship upon self interest" is the hallmark of Marxism. It is a sad day when you have to explain Marxism in order to explain what is happening in the world around you today.

Karl Marx, in his article Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right' wrote: "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual."

In other words, according to Karl Marx it is lust, that is enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the current situation and-or object, people, or person is stimulating that makes us at-one-with the world, establishing lust for dopamine "emancipation" over and therefore against the Father's authority that gets in the way. Self is therefore "actualized" in lust, not in doing the Father's will.

Karl Marx, in his Sixth Thesis on Feuerbach wrote "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations."

Karl 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, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx)

In other words, according to Karl Marx, who rejected God's authority, who rejected his soul being eternal, and thus his being judged by God for his carnal thoughts and carnal behavior, the child, that is he having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate his "self" in order to do the father's will is not what "fulfills" the child or him. "On the contrary," he wrote it is the father's authority, the child or his having to do right and not wrong according to the Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth that "destroys him," that prevents him from becoming his self, thinking and acting according to his carnal nature, thinking and acting according to what he has in common with all the children of the world. The child's desire for approval from others, requiring him to compromise, that is "suspend" as upon a cross truth in order to "get along," in order to build relationship "is the necessary framework through which freedom" from the Father's authority and "freedom" to lust after pleasure, to do what he wants without having a guilty conscience (which the Father's authority engenders) "are made reality." If you are more concerned about your child's social life than where he or she will spend eternity, you are a socialist. You might deny it, but you cannot refute it.

Norman O. Brown, in his book Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History wrote "The individual is emancipated in the social group." "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt be assuaged." "Self-perfection of the human individual is fulfilled in union with the world in pleasure." "According to Freud, the ultimate essence of our being is erotic." "Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world." "Eros is the foundation of morality." "The individual is emancipated in the social group." "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt be assuaged." What Sigmund Freud, in defiance to God and His Word was saying is dopamine "emancipation" is the foundation of morality, not doing the Father's will.

According to Sigmund Freud the guilty conscience is a product of the Father's authority, which sustains the Father's authority in society. It is only in the "social group" that the guilty conscience can negated. According to the Marxist, Norman O. Brown without the "social group" the child and society remains subject to the Father's authority. Therefore the child and society can only be liberated from the Father's authority and the guilty conscience which the Father's authority engenders in the "social group," which 'justifies' the child's carnal nature, that is Eros, that is lust.

Kurt Lewin, in his article Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics wrote: "(T)he group to which an individual belongs is the ground for his perceptions, his feelings, and his actions"

Kurt Lewin, in Kenneth Benne's book, Human Relations in Curriculum Change wrote: "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 Wilbur Brookover's book A Sociology of Education explained the effect leadership style has upon the group and the child. "The child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group."

Kurt Lewin, regarding the effect different types of leadership have upon people wrote: "Change in methods of leadership is probably the quickest way to bring about a change in the cultural atmosphere of a group." "Any real change of the culture of a group is, therefore, interwoven with the changes of the power constellation within the group." (Barker, Dembo, and Lewin, "frustration and regression: an experiment with young children" in Child Behavior and Development)

It is the guilty conscience, which is engendered by the Father's authority that sustains the Father's authority in the child and in society.

Norman Brown gives us a definition of the guilty conscience from a Marxist's perspective. He wrote: "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself." "What we call 'conscience' perpetuates inside of us our bondage to past objects now part of ourselves:'"

Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, in his book The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing defining the development the guilty conscience and its effect upon society wrote: "The personal conscience is the key element in ensuring self-control, refraining from deviant behavior even when it can be easily perpetrated." "The family, the next most important unit affecting social control, is obviously instrumental in the initial formation of the conscience and in the continued reinforcement of the values that encourage law abiding behavior." Trojanowicz then promotes bringing the police and the community together with the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, negating local control, that is the father's authority system and the guilty conscience replacing it with the "police state." Done with the use of 'crime' to bring "the people" together.

There is no Father's authority, that is judgment, condemnation, fear of being cast out in dialogue therefore using dialogue to establish right and wrong behavior negates not only the Father's authority it negates the guilty conscience as well.

Kurt Lewin, in his book A Dynamic Theory of Personality (explaining in two sentences how the guilty conscience is 'created' and how to destroy it) wrote: "The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child [the guilty conscience] thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult." "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (that is, if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears."

While the guilty conscience ties the child to the Father or rather the Father to the child the "super-ego" ties the child to society.

In Book 2: Affective Domain Benjamin Bloom wrote: "Superego development is conceived as the incorporation of the moral standards of society. Therefore the levels of the Taxonomy should describe successive levels of goal setting appropriate to superego development."

It is the Father's authority system itself that Karl Marx was out to negate. Having denied the Heavenly Father's authority and the eternity of the soul all he had to negate was the earthly father's authority (which he believed engendered the Heavenly Father's authority, that is religion) Sigmund Freud had the same agenda.

Explaining the merging of psychology and Marxism, focusing upon the ideology of Sigmund Freud the Marxist Herbert Marcuse, in his book Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud (from where we get "If it feels good, just do it") wrote: "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father." "'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 husband and father no longer exercises his authority in the home, over his wife and children]."

Sigmund Freud's history of the prodigal son is not of the son coming to his senses, humbling his self, returning home, submitting his self to his father's authority, learning his inheritance was not his father's money but his father's love for him (Luke 15:11-24), but of the son joining with his "friends," returning home, killing the father, taking all that was his (the father's), using it to satisfy their carnal desires, that is their lusts, killing all the fathers in the land (devouring the fathers, which is done through dialogue) so all the children could be the same, that is like them, thereby affirming them, that is their "incest," 'justifying' and supporting their control over them.

Abraham Maslow, in his journals The Journals of Abraham Maslow wrote: "Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory to round it out. And of course, vice versa." "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, that is including the most basic scheme as true-good social conditions are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions stunt human nature, ... This is to say, one could reinterpret Marx into a self-actualization-fostering Third- and Fourth-Force psychology-philosophy. And my impression is anyway that this is the direction in which they are going now." "Yet nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian and Jewish foundations. Must move in the direction of the Reichian orgasm." "I must put as much of this as is possible and usable in my education book, and more and more in succeeding writings."

In his book Maslow on Management Abraham Maslow wrote: "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students [those who adhere to the father's authority] that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards."

In other words society needs man's natural inclination to lust after pleasure in order to become one (united) and man's natural inclination to lust after pleasure needs societies 'justification.' The 'liberation' of self, that is of lust out from under the Father's authority "is necessary for personal growth," while submission of self to the Father's authority "stunt(s) human nature." Marxism is philosophy and psychology becoming at-one-with one another. It is in dialogue (which does not recognize the Father's authority) that all can become one, "bypass" the Father's authority in making rules, policies, and law, that is in establishing right and wrong behavior—resulting in lust being right and the Father's authority being wrong.

The Marxist Jürgen Habermas, one of the youngest and probably smartest of the "Frankfurt School" members in his book Knowledge and Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory wrote (regarding the effect dialogue has upon a group setting): "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." Dialogue, opinion, and the consensus process are grounded upon the child's natural inclination to lust after pleasure, his lust for dopamine "emancipation" and his hatred toward restraint, known as the affective domain which is void of the Father's authority, void of having to humble or die to one's self, that is deny one's lust for dopamine "emancipation" in order do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, where the Father has the final say.

Ervin Laszlo, who organized and promoted the "climate change" agenda, in his book A Strategy For The Future: The Systems Approach to World Order wrote: "Bypassing the traditional channels of 'top-down' decision making our objective center's upon transforming public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests [both associated with dopamine "emancipation"], transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps."

Karl Marx in his Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach (which is inscribed on his tomb) wrote: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways, the objective however, is change."

In other words it is the father's authority system, that is the father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth (which differ from father to father) that divides the people. It is in the child's propensity to approach pleasure and avoid pain, that is to lust after dopamine "emancipation" and hate restraint, that is to respond to the current environment, to 'change' in accordance to the current situation and-or object, people, or person present that is the objective of life. Without the "help" of the facilitator of 'change' the children, having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, for lusting after dopamine "emancipation" instead of doing the Father's will, will remain subject to the Father's authority system. The facilitator of 'change,' perceiving his self as being the personification of "the people," who, like him lust after the carnal pleasures of the moment the world stimulates, hating restraint, sees it as his duty to 'justify' the people's natural inclination to lust after pleasure in order to 'justify' his natural inclination to lust after pleasure. When you question the facilitator of 'change's' actions he will respond with "It is not just about you," really meaning "It is all about me, so I can lust after pleasure without having a guilty conscience, with your affirmation. If you refuse to affirm me, that is my lusts or get in my way 'the people' will remove (negate) you (since having 'justified' their lusts, their lust for dopamine "emancipation" I now 'own' them). It appears I must keep an eye on you from now on for my 'good.'" This is the true meaning of "sight-based management."

All the facilitator of 'change' has to do (in a "positive" environment, that is in an environment which will not judge, condemn, or cast you out for lusting after pleasure or for being wrong) is ask you how you feel and what you think regarding the commands, rules, facts, and truth you have been taught (that get in the way of your carnal desires, dopamine "emancipation"), especially when it comes to behavior and the facilitator of 'change' "owns" you. This applies to all who participate in the facilitated, dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process (establishing lust over and therefore against the Father's authority).

"To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" (Brown)

"... the 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence.'" (Marcuse)

Education and the praxis of 'change.' Establishing the heart, the child's lust for pleasure, dopamine "emancipation" over and therefore against the Father and His authority.

All teachers are certified, and schools accredited today based upon the use of what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies" as their curriculum in the classroom. In the second "taxonomy," Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain we read "Bloom's Taxonomies" are "a psychological classification system" used "to develop attitudes and values ... which are not shaped by the parents," "The student must feel free to say he disliked [having to do what the parent tells him to do] and not have to worry about being punished for his reaction." "... a large part of what we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the student's fixed beliefs ..." "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box.' " "The affective domain contains the forces that determine the nature of an individual's life and ultimately the life of an entire people." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

"Pandora's Box" is a mythological story of a "box" (originally a bottle) full of evils, which once opened, cannot be closed—once parental authority, the father's authority, fear of judgment, "the lid" is removed it is difficult if not impossible to put it back on again. In the praxis of dialogue (when establishing right and wrong behavior) the father's authority is negated, that is the "lid" is removed, that is "pandora's box" is opened, that is wickedness and evil is loosed ('liberated').

In the first taxonomy, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain we read, "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 places." (Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain)

Karl Marx's ideology, as explained by Friedrich Engels was the same as Benjamin Bloom's. He wrote "In the eyes of the dialectic philosophy, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred."

Benjamin Bloom, in the second taxonomy listed two Marxists, Erick Fromm and Theodor Adorno as his and therefore the "taxonomies" "Weltanschauung" (that is world view). Both men were members of "The Frankfurt School."

Erick Fromm, in his book Escape from Freedom, which Bloom refers to wrote: "We are proud that in his conduct of life man has become free from external authorities, which tell him what to do and what not to do." "All that matters is that the opportunity for genuine activity be restored to the individual; that the purposes of society [the augmentation of lust] and of his own [pursuing after lust] become identical." "... to give up 'God' and to establish a concept of man as a being ... who can feel at home in [the world] if he achieves union with his fellow man and with nature [his and other's carnal nature and the world that stimulates dopamine "emancipation"]."

Theodor Adorno, in his book The Authoritarian Personality, which Bloom refers to wrote: "Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." "Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the individual to the state [parental authority, local control, Nationalism], and so forth, have so frequently and, as it seems to us, correctly, been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed that a search for correlates of prejudice had naturally to take these attitudes into account." "The power-relationship between the parents, the domination of the subject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem." The error in Adorno's 'logic' is that all forms of socialism must negate the father's authority in the home and the Father's authority in the mind of men in order for the socialist to rule over "the people." By generalizing the patriarchal paradigm, which includes God himself is falsely equated to "Fascism." A practice all communist countries use to silence any objection to their actions.

What is rejected in the curriculum and therefore missing in the classroom is the Father's authority system, directly effecting the students' way of thinking and acting. Thus, Bloom could write in the second taxonomy, "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children.".

In the second taxonomy Bloom wrote, "What we are classifying is the intended behavior of students—the ways in which individuals are to act, think, or feel as the result of participating in some unit of instruction." "… ordering and relating the different kinds of affective behavior." "… we need to provide the range of emotion from neutrality through mild to strong emotion, probably of a positive, but possibly also of a negative, kind." "… organized into value systems and philosophies of life …" "...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 nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized."

Forty years after the publication of the first taxonomy bloom wrote "Certainly the Taxonomy was unproved at the time it was developed and may well be 'unprovable.'" (Benjamin Bloom, Forty Year Evaluation) Bloom admitted that his "taxonomy" was only a theory, an opinion. Yet if you do not accept it as fact and apply it in the classroom, applying the Father's authority system in the classroom instead, you will be punished. Ask any teacher.

Benjamin Bloom in his book Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain, by which all educators are certified and schools accredited wrote: "To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in many ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed. . . . many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized." "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." ". . . 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." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

Irvin D. Yalom, in his book The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy wrote: "Without exception, [students] enter group therapy [the "group grade" classroom] with the history of a highly unsatisfactory experience in their first and most important group—their primary family [the traditional home with parents telling them what they can and cannot do]." "What better way to help [the student] recapture the past than to allow him to re-experience and reenact ancient feelings [resentment, hostility] toward parents in his current relationship to the therapist [the facilitator of 'change]? The [facilitator of 'change'] is the living personification of all parental images [takes the place of the parent]. Group [facilitators] refuse to fill the traditional authority role: they do not lead in the ordinary manner, they do not provide answers and solutions [teach right from wrong from established commands, rules, facts, and truth], they urge the group [the students] to explore and to employ its own resources [to dialogue their "feelings," that is their desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' in the "light" of the current situation, that is their desire for "the group" approval (affirmation)]. The group [the students] must feel free to confront the [the facilitator of 'change'], who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation [rebellion and anarchy]. [The student] reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy [brainwashing—washing respect for and fear of the father's authority from the student's brain (for his thoughts)] is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role [submitting to the father's authority, that is doing the father's will] he once occupied. . . . the patient [the student] changes the past by reconstituting it ['creating' a "new" world order from his "ought," that is a world which "lusts," that is a world void of the father's authority and the guilty conscience which the father's authority engenders for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is for "lusting . . ."]."

Kurt Lewin, the father of, Unfreezing, Moving or Changing, Refreezing People, Force Field Analysis, and Group Dynamics wrote "A successful change includes, therefore, three aspects: unfreezing the present level, moving to the new level, and freezing group life on the new level."

Edger Schein and Warren Bennis explained what "unfreezing" was all about "In brief, unfreezing is the breaking down of the mores, customs and traditions of an individual – the old ways of doing things – so that he is ready to accept new alternatives." (Edger Schein and Warren Bennis, Personal and Organizational Change Through Group Methods: The Laboratory Approach)

Warren G. Bennis in his book Interpersonal Dynamics: Essays in Readings on Human Interaction, explaining how the Communist "brainwash(ed)" our soldiers wrote: "The manner in which the prisoner came to be influenced to accept the Communist's definition of his guilt can best be described by distinguishing two broad phases—(1) a process of 'unfreezing,' in which the prisoner's physical resistance, social and emotional supports, self-image and sense of integrity, and basic values and personality were undermined, thereby creating a state of 'readiness' to be influence; and (2) a process of 'change,' in which the prisoner discovered how the adoption of 'the people's standpoint' and a reevaluation of himself from this perspective would provide him with a solution to the problems created by the prison pressure."
"Most were put into a cell containing several who were further along in reforming themselves and who saw it as their primary duty to 'help' their most backward member to see the truth about himself in order that the whole cell might advance. Each such cell had a leader who was in close contact with the authorities for purposes of reporting on the cell's progress and getting advice on how to handle the Western member . . . the environment undermined the (clients) self-image."
". . . Once this process of self-re-evaluation began, the (client) received all kinds of help and support from the cell mates and once again was able to enter into meaningful emotional relationships with others." (Interpersonal Dynamics: Essays in Readings on Human Interaction, ed. Warren G. Bennis, Edgar H. Schein, David E. Berlew, and Fred I. Steele)

Therefore it is the role of the "educator," as a facilitator of 'change' "to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents" (when it comes to behavior, replacing discussion, where the parent has the final say with dialogue, where the student has the final say, establishing the student's lust for dopamine "emancipation" over and therefore against parental authority) thus producing "conflict and tension between parents and children." (David R. Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) The "educator" (the facilitator of 'change') does not have to tell the students to question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack their parent's authority when they get home from school, if they were not doing that already (telling them would be "old school," maintaining the "old" world order of being told even if it was done for the 'purpose' of 'change,' for the 'purpose' of creating a "new" world order), all they have to do is use a curriculum in the classroom that "encourages," pressures the students to participate in the process of 'change,' into dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, 'justifying' their carnal nature, establishing their "lust" for dopamine "emancipation" over and therefore against their parent's authority. Being told to be "positive" (supportive of the other students carnal nature) and not "negative" (judging them by their parent's standards) pressures students to 'justify' their and the other students love of pleasure and hate of restrain, doing so in order to be approved, affirmed by "the group," resulting in "the group" labeling those students who, holding onto their parent's standards, refusing to participate in the process of 'change' or fighting against it as being "negative," divisive, hateful, intolerant, maladjusted, unadaptable to 'change,' resisters of 'change,' not "team players," lower order thinkers, in denial, phobic, prejudiced, judgmental, racist, fascist, dictators, anti-social, etc., "hurting" people's "feelings" resulting in "the group" rejecting them—the student's natural desire for approval and fear of rejection forces him to participate. The same outcome applies to all adults, in any profession who participate in the process. Once you are 'labeled,' you are 'labeled' for life. In the soviet union, once you were 'labeled' "psychological," no matter how important you were in the past, your life was over, your career was done.

The key to understanding "Bloom's Taxonomies," Maslow's "Hierarchy of 'felt' needs," Lawrence Kohlberg's "dilemma questions" (the "life raft dilemma" for example where the student must murder somebody, himself or someone else in order for "the group" to survive, which damns his soul; it is a well-known fact to participate in taking tests based upon opinions instead of facts, treating them as facts the person is 'changed'; just taking the test, Adorno in his book The Authoritarian Personality explains as much) as well as many other methods use to evaluate people and "solve" problems, is that they all do Praxis, that is exclude the father's authority when it comes to behavior—therefore they cannot be honestly discussed, being all based upon an unproven (unprovable) opinion. Everyone who participates in the process is guilty, having replace discussion (the father's authority) with dialogue (their carnal desires), because they wanted to establish their "feelings," that is their lusts, which includes the affirmation (praise) of men as the basis of life instead of doing the father's will. "What can I get out of this (situation and-or object, person, group, etc.,) for myself?" that is lust ends up with "What will happen to me if they no longer need me, reject me, or turn on me?" that is fear of man (instead of God).

Curriculum Change:

Kenneth Benne recognized the effect curriculum change would have upon how people think and act. He wrote, "A change in the curriculum is a change in the people concerned—in teachers, in students, in parents . . .." "Curriculum change means that the group involved must shift its approval from the old to some new set of reciprocal behavior patterns." ". . . people involved who were loyal to the older pattern must be helped to transfer their allegiance to the new." "Re-education aims to change the system of values and beliefs of an individual or a group." "For actual changes in 'content' and 'method' we must change the people who manage the school program. To change the curriculum of the school means bringing about changes in people—in their desires, beliefs and attitudes, in their knowledge and skill . . . curriculum change should be seen as a type of social change, change in people. Curriculum change means a change in the established ways of life, a change in the social standards. It means a restructuring on knowledge, attitudes, and skills in a new pattern of human relations. 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)

Replacing discussion, the Father's authority with dialogue, the child's carnal feelings in developing behavior.

"In an ordinary discussion people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favor of their views as they try to convince others to change." (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity) Discussion is based upon doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, being held accountable (there is a consequence) when you do wrong.

"A dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals." "The spirit of dialogue, is in short, the ability to hold many points of view in suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation of common meaning." (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity)

While in discussion, God is God, having the final say in dialogue you are God, having the final say. When the woman in the garden in Eden turned to dialogue regarding the "forbidden tree" (where discussion would have required her to go to God for an answer) she became equal with God, making herself God instead, doing what she wanted to do. This done with the "help" of the master facilitator of 'change,' the serpent.

An example of the difference between discussion and dialogue would be eating lunch at a buffet where you can choose the foods you like, which would correlate with dialogue (you are as a god, choosing right and wrong behavior, that is what you like, and you do not like). But if you have been told there are certain foods that are bad for you (that you like), now you have to discuss with your self (and with others, if you choose) which foods you can eat and which ones you can (or should) not. If you go to dialogue, you will go ahead and eat what you like (what you want). If you go to discussion, you will not. Which one wins out (discussion or dialogue) determines what you will eat for lunch that day—dialogue for pleasure (that the world or environment is stimulating) or discussion in order to do right and not wrong (according to what you have been told). We tend to mingle (juxtaposition) between the two (finding homeostasis), using dialogue, that is we compromise in order to eat what we want. "Just a little taste." When it comes to behavior, the more you go in the direction of discussion the more you reason from established commands, rules, facts, and truth. Conversely the more you go in the direction of dialogue the more you 'reason' from your carnal desires of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating. Reasoning based upon discussion results in your doing the father's will, doing what you have been told while 'reasoning' based upon dialogue results in your doing what you want. Those "of (and for) the world" go to dialogue, making any discussion subject to it. The "skill" (trickery) of the facilitator of 'change' is to bring the two (discussion and dialogue) together in conflict with one another, in a "feelings" (dialogue) based environment (where affirmation from others or fear of rejection by them is at the forefront) creating what is called "cognitive dissonance," pressuring the participants to choose between either doing the father's will (and missing out on pleasure, the lusts of the 'moment,' experiencing rejection by "the group") or go with "the group" (enjoying the pleasures, the lusts of the 'moment,' experiencing "the groups" approval). Ernest R. Hilgard, in Introduction to Psychology explained cognitive dissonance as "The lack of harmony between what one does and what one believes." "The pressure to change either one’s behavior or one's belief." Irvin D. Yalom, in his book Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy wrote: "… few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [their loyalty to the father's authority] in the face of apparent group unanimity; and the individual rejects critical feelings toward the group at this time to avoid a state of cognitive dissonance. To question the value or activities of the group, would be to thrust himself into a state of dissonance. Long cherished but self-defeating beliefs and attitudes may waver and decompose in the face of a dissenting majority." The more "the group" goes into dialogue the more the person insisting upon discussion becomes perceived as being argumentative.

The dynamics of "the group." Group Dynamics. The changing of the individual from being an individual in a group, doing the Father's will (being "in the world but not of it") to "the group" being in the individual, with the individual compromising (suspending, as upon a cross) what the Father says in order to have the approval of "the group," affirming his and its lust for dopamine "emancipation," replacing discussion with dialogue when it comes to behavior.

"The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful. The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good. He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil." Psalms 36:1-4

"For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth. The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts." Psalms 10:3, 4

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:3, 4

"For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." 2 Timothy 3:2-5

"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 6:15-18

End Notes

Facilitators of 'change,' that is psychologists, that is behavioral "scientists," that is "group psychotherapists," that is Marxists (Transformational Marxists)—all being the same in method or formula—are using the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (affirmation) process, that is dialectic 'reasoning' ('reasoning' from and through the students "feelings" of the 'moment,' that is from and through their "lust" for pleasure and their hate of restraint, in the "light" of their desire for group approval, that is affirmation and fear of group rejection) in the "group grade," "safe zone-space-place," "Don't be negative, be positive," "open ended, non-directed," soviet style, brainwashing (washing the Father's authority from the children's thoughts and actions, that is "theory and practice," negating their having a guilty conscience, which the Father's authority engenders for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process—called "the negation of negation" since the Father's authority and the guilty conscience, being negative to the child's carnal nature, is negated in dialogue—in dialogue, opinion, and the consensus process there is no Father's authority, that is no established aka absolute command, rule, facts, or truth to be accepted as is, by faith and obeyed; there is only the person's carnal desires, that is lusts of the past and the present being verbally expressed and 'justified'), inductive 'reasoning' ('reasoning' from and through the students "feelings," that is their natural inclination to "lust" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—dopamine emancipation—which the world stimulates, that is their "self interest," that is their "sense experience," selecting "appropriate information"—excluding, ignoring, or resisting, that is rejecting any "inappropriate" information, that is established command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way of their desired outcome, that is pleasure—in determining right from wrong behavior), "Bloom's Taxonomy," "affective domain," French Revolution (Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité) classroom "environment" in order (as in "new" world order) to 'liberate' children from parental authority, that is from the Father's authority system (the Patriarchal Paradigm)—as predators, charlatans, pimps, pedophiles, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating them as chickens, rats, and dogs, that is treating them as natural resource ("human resource") in order to convert them into 'liberals,' socialists, globalists, so they, 'justifying' their "self" before one another, can do wrong, disobey, sin, that is can "lust" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates, with impunity.

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken." Jeremiah 6:16, 17

Home schooling material, co-ops, conferences, etc., are joining in the same praxis, fulfilling Immanuel Kant's as well as Georg Hegel's, Karl Marx's, and Sigmund Freud's agenda of using the pattern or method of Genesis 3:1-6, that is "self" 'justification,' that is dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning," that is 'reasoning' from and through your "feelings," that is your carnal desires of the 'moment' which are being stimulated by the world (including your desire for approval from others, with them affirming your carnal nature) in order to negate Hebrews 12:5-11, that is the Father's authority, that is having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate your "self" (your lusts) in order to do the Father's will, negating Romans 7:14-25, that is your having a guilty conscience when you do wrong, disobey, sin, thereby negating your having to repent before the Father for your doing wrong, disobedience, sins—which is the real agenda.

"And for this cause [because men, as "children of disobedience," 'justify' their "self," that is 'justify' their love of "self" and the world, that is their love of the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) which the world stimulates over and therefore against the Father's authority] God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie [that pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will]: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth [in the Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ], but had pleasure in unrighteousness [in their "self" and the pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates]." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12