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 Curse Upon America

by

Dean Gotcher
(Personal note.)

When it comes to behavior, replacing discussion with dialogue,
replacing the Father's authority with the child's carnal nature,
destroys the child and the nation.

A message I sent to my children (with additions for clarification).

It is so simple, this issue of discussion versus dialogue, using dialogue instead of discussion when it comes to behavior resulting in man 'justifying' his sins. The liberal knows of it. It is the foundation of all his works. It is the foundation of the 600+ social-psychology books I read. It is what the Serpent did to the woman in the garden in Eden, seducing her, deceiving her, and manipulating her into being "positive" and not "negative," moving her communication from discussion, where the Father has the final say to dialogue, where she had the final say when it came to behavior, making her flesh the foundation from which to reason instead of the Word of God, doing her will instead of the Father's, being cast out of the garden, losing her access to the "tree of life," her inheritance because of her disobedience, with Adam following after her.

To use it on your children is to damn their soul. To use it on a nation is to destroy the nation. And that is exactly what has happened. To this day I have known of no one who has addressed what is happening to this nation as what was practiced in Genesis 3:1-6 where the master facilitator of 'change' created an environment where the woman could dialogue how she felt and what she thought when it came to behavior without fear of being judged, condemned, and cast out, with her 'justifying' her carnal nature, establishing her lust for pleasure over and therefore against doing the Father's will. This is the dialectic process where the child 'justifies' his self, his lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint, establishing his self over and therefore against the Father's authority, which is the hallmark of Marxism where "What can I get out of this situation, these people, or this person for my self" is done in the name of "the people" in order to cover up the agenda.

This nation is so drunk on the use of dialogue ("I feel" and "I think," that is "I like" to "I don't like" and everything in between and beyond—any time you take that test or fill out that survey your adaptability to 'change,' your use of dialogue verses discussion when it comes to behavior is being evaluated) which makes everyone God, the decider of what is right and what is wrong behavior. I see its use even in the "Church." While some people might reject it (the use of dialogue instead of discussion when it comes to behavior), they tolerate it, not calling it sin. When I read Luther's works, not "table talks" which is a piece of junk Luther himself would burn, but his actual sermons and notes, volumes of them at the University reference library where I did my research, he understood and condemned the use of dialogue when it came to defining and establishing right and wrong behavior—using dialogue, when it comes to behavior being "death to your soul."

When my wife Karen brought home a senior paper to type up, who condemned psychology I thought he was nuts. Now I know he was spot on. There is no such thing as a Christian psychologist. What harmony has Christ with what the Serpent, the master psychotherapist, the master facilitator of 'change' did with the woman in the garden in Eden, with Adam following. That is what psychology is. Damning to every soul that enters in. It's outcome, even when done "in the name of the Lord."

To condemn it is not a cure. It is just a warning to not enter in, to not walk down that pathway because that pathway leads to hell, to the lake of fire that is never quenched, prepared for the master psychotherapist, the master facilitator of 'change' and all who follow after him. We love it because it 'justifies' our sinful nature, that is why it is so quickly embraced. Being intoxicated with it we are not able to see where it is taking us. The idea "I'm not as bad as he is." blinds us to the truth that we are on the same pathway. It is not how far down the pathway you have gone. It is the pathway you are on. This pathway leads to eternal damnation, to eternal death no matter where you are on it. That is where you are going with your first step.

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it?" Psychology is simply our heart being 'justified.' The woman in the garden threw the master psychotherapist "under the bus" because he seduced, deceived, and manipulated her into doing what she wanted, into satisfying her heart's desire instead of doing what God the Father said. That is what psychology does. "It is not in man to direct his steps." "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not unto your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him and he will direct your paths."

In his book on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy Carl Rogers 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 comes to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" Psychotherapy is simply moving communication from discussion, from "What would my parent's want me to do?" to dialogue, to "What does it mean to me?" It is simply that which took place in a garden in Eden, where therapy replaced doing God the Father's will, as recorded in Genesis 3:1-6, the first therapy session.

All teachers are certified and schools accredited today based upon their use of what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies" as their curriculum in the classroom (where, when it comes to defining and establishing behavior dialogue, how the students feel replaces discussion, having to do what the Father says). Benjamin Bloom, in his second "taxonomy" wrote: "Bloom's Taxonomies" are "a psychological classification system" used "to develop attitudes and values ... which are not shaped by the parents," "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) Forty years after the publication of his first "taxonomy," Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain Benjamin Bloom wrote: "Certainly the Taxonomy was unproved at the time it was developed and may well be 'unprovable.'" (Benjamin Bloom, Forty Year Evaluation) "Bloom's Taxonomies" are patterned after Genesis 3:1-6. Replacing discussion, what the Father says, where the Father has the final say, with dialogue, how the student feels, where the student has the final say, it is death to the student's soul and death to a nation, with the student from then on saying "You can't tell me what I can or can't say or do. I'll report you if you do." Benjamin Bloom referred to his "taxonomies" as "opening up 'Pandora's Box," a box full of evils which once opened can not be closed, as well as being the "Weltanschauung" or world view of two Marxist, Theodor Adorno and Erick Fromm, doing what Karl Marx wanted, 'liberating' the children, that is "the people," "the group" (the purpose for the "group grade") out from under the Father's authority, that is out from under God's control over their lives so they could do what they wanted without having a guilty conscience, so they could do wrong, disobey, sin, lust after pleasure, that is be immoral without being judged, condemned, and cast out.

"Relationships built upon self interest," that is relationship built upon "What can I get out of this situation, these people, or this person for my self?" (of course being done in the name of "the people") is the hallmark of Marxism. In the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, that is in the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom rejection of parental authority, that is rejection of Nationalism, replacing it with globalism, with what everyone has in common (their lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint) is the only outcome.

Introduction.

The "new" world order is based upon your natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint while the "old" world order is based upon your doing right and not wrong according to what you have been told. It is the difference between discussion, doing the Father's will, doing what you are told and dialogue, doing your will, thinking and behaving according to how you "feel" in the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, that is the difference between righteousness and sensuousness. When the "conservative," including the "church" does not make righteousness, that is doing the Father's will, that is discussion, with the Father having the final say the issue of life, its means of communication when it comes to behavior but instead makes sensuousness, "the people's" carnal feelings, that is dialogue, where the child has the final say, America reaps what it sows, death to the soul and death to the nation. No foreign nation has to invade America to destroy it, it destroys itself.

When you are more concerned about your children's social life then where they will spend eternity, then you are a socialist. You might deny it but you can not refute it. You have established dialogue, your child's carnal nature, doing what he or she wants, doing what all children have in common lusting after pleasure and hating restraint, making them all gods becoming God (as they unite as one through the consensus process) establishing themselves over and therefore against discussion, over and therefore against the Father's authority, over and therefore against doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, over and therefore against doing what they are told which would make them all individuals, under God.

The following is an explanation of the difference between discussion and dialogue, which are two different political systems. When it comes to behavior, that is knowing right from wrong which one you use directly effects your life and the life of a nation. While in discussion you can be lost, trusting in yourself or in a man instead of the Lord, without it you can not hear from God, that is receive and accept what God says. Discussion requires faith. Dialogue on the other hand is based upon sight, that is your feelings. It is impossible to hear from God and be pleasing to God without faith, without discussion, where God has the final say. In dialogue your "feelings," your lust for pleasure (which the world stimulates), your "What can I get out of this for me?" always gets in the way. While you might not know the difference between discussion and dialogue, those who are "of and for" the world do and are doing all they can to seduce you, your spouse, your children, your friends, your teachers, your leaders into using dialogue when it comes to behavior in order to use you and all the Lord has given you for their own pleasure and gain, some even doing it "in the name of the Lord," calling themselves facilitators of 'change.' James 4:4 "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." Jeremiah 17:5, 7 "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." "Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is."

Having read over 600 social-psychology books, given over 5,000 lectures, even to Federal judges, taught in a University—upon how America is being destroyed—the following is an exposé on how it is being done, exposing it with the Word of God, hearing from liberal professors, in front of their students when I lectured them, "We can not refute a word you have said." I am a researcher not an activist (or a writer as you can see). It has been very disappointing to share this information with those who could make a difference, with them not responding. I have even been invited out to lunch with heads of major ministries to share this information with them over a meal, with them sitting sideways in their chairs not looking at me (sort of in your face rejection), their ministries either using the process or their seeing their lose of support if they responded. The most painful experiences I had (in one meeting, half with through it was all I could do not to walk out) was sharing this information before "Christians," who when I quoted these men were attentive but the moment I shared the scriptures they went to sleep on me, "Oh, we've heard those verses before. What's new." I even had meetings cancelled after I was asked by my hosts not to share the gospel and I refused, who were "Christians," because I "offended" their financial support with the gospel. I've had "ministers" pacing the back of the room trying to figure out how they could shut the P.A. off without people noticing. This is the state of the American "church." "We want to hear the truth. But not that much truth, where it will cost us." You will never go deeper into the Word of God than where your desire for the approval of men will allow you. With God it is an either-or thing. With man it's "I'm not as bad he is." It is not how far down the path you have gone. It is the path you are on. When it comes to behavior the 'moment' you stepped on the dialogue path you were on the broad path that leads to destruction. Proverbs 1:15 "My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path:" Proverbs 16:25 "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."

A Curse Upon America.

1 John 2:16 "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."

Why start with this verse? What does 1 John 2:16 (or even Proverbs 3:5) have to do with the issue of discussion and dialogue? Everything. Which one you submit to or use when it comes to behavior, discussion or dialogue determines whether you are subject to the Father's authority, doing the Father's will or subject to your carnal nature, lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, hating restraint. Discussion is of the Father, doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, with the Father having the final say. Dialogue is of the child's carnal nature, lusting after pleasure and hating restraint, with the child having the final say. While we have both they are antithetical to one another when it comes to defining and establishing right and wrong behavior. When you make dialogue your means to defining and establishing right and wrong behavior you make your carnal nature the standard, requiring you to either convert (anyone using discussion when it comes to defining or establishing behavior, since anyone insisting upon discussion, insisting upon everyone doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, insisting upon everyone doing the Father's will inhibits or blocks dialogue), or silence them, or if necessary censor them, and if they persist removing them from the environment.

When it comes to defining and establishing right and wrong behavior most preachers of the Word of God do not realize the effect dialogue is having on those in fellowship, in their daily lives with their neighbors, in the classroom, at work, et al., even in the fellowship. As it was put into praxis in the garden in Eden, it is a subtle 'change' with major ramifications. As was done in the garden in Eden, when it comes to establishing right and wrong behavior when you leave the Father out, what you have been told, all you have is the carnal nature of the child 'justifying' his self, in that case her self with Adam following. Doing what the Father says, if there are any questions requires discussion, with the Father having the final say. The child doing his will is based upon dialogue, 'justifying' his self, 'justifying' his lusts. It is a universal, with us, when it comes to behavior either walking by faith or walking by sight, walking in the spirit or walking in the flesh, establishing behavior upon what the Father says or upon how we feel and what we think. It is one or the other. When education (from the Federal level down to the local classroom) made curriculum subject to dialogue, that is to the child's carnal nature instead of subject to the Father, where if there are any questions the Father has the final say, it rejected God, cursing this nation. What you sow, you reap. It is as simple as that. American's can not see it because dialogue is such a big part of their life, doing what they want (even in the "name of the Lord"). The "church" is to blame, making the Word of God subject to dialogue, subject to the opinions of men in order to "grow" the "church," that is in order to "grow" their prestige amongst men and their financial support. When it comes to sin, you do not have to do what you are dialoguing with your self about for it to be sin. Just thinking about it, meditating upon it, roleplaying it in your mind is sin.

Genesis 6:5 "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

When dialogue becomes the means to establishing what is right and what is wrong behavior sin becomes the law of the land.

Matthew 24:38 "For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,"

We then know what time it is.

Luke 17:26 "And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man."

For those "of and for" the world, even those in "sheep skin," when it comes to defining and establishing right and wrong behavior dialogue (and the consensus process) is the only way they can have peace and affirmation, that is "worldly peace and socialist harmony." Peace to those "of and for" the world means being able to do wrong, disobey, sin, to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating without having a guilty conscience, which the Father's authority engenders. Affirmation means that those who judge, condemn, and cast people out for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, who insist everyone do the Father's will, who insist everyone do what they are told are silenced, censored, and-or removed from the environment in order (as in "new" world order) for everyone, that is for them to become at-one-with their self, that is become at-one-with their carnal nature and the world that stimulates it, approving (or affirming) one another's natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint. Those "of and for" the "new" world order (socialists, communists, globalists, facilitators of 'change,' Marxists, psychotherapists, et al., all being the same in structure of thought), rejecting being told what is right and what is wrong behavior, rejecting discussion, rejecting the Father's authority use dialogue in order to 'liberate' themselves and "the people," "the group," their victims from the Father's authority system, in order for "the people," "the group," their victims to follow after, serve, promote, defend, protect, praise, and worship them for 'justifying' their carnal nature, making them God in their eyes.

When you make behavior subject to dialogue, to your carnal nature instead of subject to discussion, to the Father's authority you have chosen a political system that is antithetical to the Father's authority, that is hostile toward righteousness; making you an enemy of God. The wrath of God is upon the children of disobedience, that is upon a nation that makes behavior subject to the child's carnal nature, subject to the child's natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint, subject to dialogue, where the child has the final say instead of subject to the Father's authority, to discussion, to doing right and not wrong according to what you have been told, where the Father has the final say. While the earthly father can be wrong it is the paradigm, the way you are feeling, thinking, and acting toward your self, others, the world, and authority, toward the Patriarchal paradigm that dialogue, when it is used to define and establish behavior negates (removes from the mind of the child and thus from his actions, thus from the environment) that is of issue here. When you 'change' communication from discussion to dialogue, when it comes to behavior, the Father's authority is negated in the mind of the child, making the child a child of disobedience, damning his soul, cursing a nation.

In dialogue, when it comes to behavior we are all gods, 'creating' a world around us, taking ownership of it, wanting to control it in order to feed our lusts, establishing our self over and therefor against God, facing the wrath of God in doing so. A politician, for example when he, through the use of dialogue 'justifies' his behavior he becomes god, 'creating' a world around him, taking ownership of it, wanting to control it in order to feed his lusts, establishing his self over and therefore against his constituents, facing their wrath if caught or if he can not seduce them into joining with him, using dialogue, like him when it comes to behavior, making discussion subject to his and their carnal nature. This is what happened when the Federal Government took control of education, in the classroom using dialogue when it came to behavior to train up the next generation of constituents to 'justify' their natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint, who then put politicians who thought like them into office, working to keep them there, damning their soul and cursing a nation.

Ephesians 2:2, 3 "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."

Colossians 3:5-10 "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, 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; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:"

Romans 8:12-15 "Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father."

The old man, as a child of disobedience lives to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates, lives for the sensation, that is the "sense experience" of dopamine being "emancipated" (more on that later), hating the Father who restrains him, who gets him off the drug that the drug pushers push, that is his lust for pleasure, where-with-all they are able to buy and sell his soul, using him for their own carnal gain. Inheritance is not based upon what the children have but upon what the Father has, giving it to those children who obey Him. But wanting to lust with impunity, living for the "eternal present," not caring what tomorrow brings, those "of and for" the world reject the Father, their inheritance giving it up for the lusts of the 'moment' that the world stimulates. All who reject the Father's authority live with the motto: "What can I get out of this for me?" in the here-and-now. This requires the Father who tells his children what they can and can not do to either "hang himself" or when it comes to behavior go into dialogue with them, abdicating His office of authority instead.

Heraclitus: "Every grown man of the Ephesians should hang himself and leave the city to the boys."

Karl Marx, who rejected the Father's authority built his ideology off of Heraclitus, who rejected the Father's authority. The Apostle Paul was exposing and condemning the ideology that was expressed by Heraclitus, the ideology that now permeates America, the ideology that makes the child's carnal nature, that is man's natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint the foundation from which to define and establish behavior, replacing discussion, what the Father says with dialogue, how the child "feels" and what he "thinks" when it comes to behavior.

1 Corinthians 13:11 "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

2 Timothy 4:3, 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."

Jeremiah 6:16 "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."

Proverbs 4:1 "Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding."

Proverbs 15:32 "He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding."

The agenda of those who are "of and for" the world can best be summed up in Wilfred Bion's statement: "Prevent someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space." with KNOWS being printed in caps. (Wilfred Bion, A Memoir of the Future) The "empty space" is your conversation with your self on how to respond to the current situation. Discussion fills it with what the Father says. Dialogue fills it with what you want to do.

Hosea 4:6 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

When your parents told you to do something you did not want to do or told you you could not do something you wanted to do your natural inclination was to ask (actually tell) them "Why?" Whether you knew it or not your "Why?" was a political system. It was based upon your "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' which were being stimulated by the world. That political system is based upon dialogue, upon "I feel" and "I think," making your carnal "feelings" known as the "affective domain" the medium through which you established what was right and what was wrong behavior, pleasure or lust being right, anyone getting it its way being wrong. Your parents political system (whether they were right or wrong) was different. It was based upon doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, with them preaching and teaching them to you, holding you accountable to them, and discussing them with you if you had any questions, where they, refusing to go into dialogue with you, which would make them "equal" with you and you "equal" with them, since everyone is "equal," that is" entitled to their opinion" in dialogue, maintained their position of authority by saying "Because I said so," with them having the final say. In short discussion is of the Father's authority, where the Father has the final say. Dialogue is of your carnal nature and the world that stimulates it, with you have the final say. It is God who created man to have discussion with Him when it comes to behavior, with Him having the final say and man to dialogue with one another when it comes to what God says he can do or have. It was the master facilitator of 'change's' agenda, who made his first appearance in a garden in Eden to "help" man dialogue with himself and with others when it came to behavior, with man having the final say, thus 'liberating' man from God's authority, from discussion, from having to do what God the Father says, making himself God, the decider of right and wrong behavior instead, making him subject only to his flesh and the world that stimulates it.

Authority is composed of two things, the authoring of commands, rules, facts, and truth to be obeyed or applied and the enforcement of them. Authority is an either-or, right-wrong, above-below, etc... way of thinking, where you are either right or you are wrong. There is no in between. No compromise. No "tolerance of ambiguity." It is not that dialogue is bad in and of itself. You can dialogue when it comes to what you have been told you can do. But when you have been told what you can not do and you dialogue it becomes wrong, engendering disobedience and sin. I like to put it this way, in discussion "God is God." In dialogue "You are God." Dialogue makes you subject to stimulus-response, to approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, to that which is "of the world," with the missing out on pleasure (in your mind) being pain. Discussion makes you subject to the Father's authority, to doing what you have been told.

God hates sin. Man hates anyone who gets in the way of his sin. In man's mind, sin is not sin but simply "human nature," man being himself. "Boys will be boys." By man making sin normal, which dialogue does he becomes God, the establisher of right and wrong behavior. Discussion, where "God is God" and dialogue, where "You are God" are therefore in conflict. When it comes to behavior which one you use reveals your paradigm, your way of feeling, thinking, and behaving toward your self, others, the world, and authority.

Dopamine, the drug of choice for the child (even when the child is in an adult body).

Our body or our flesh is always subject to approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, making it subject to that which is "of the world." 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. We then look into the environment to find out what it is that stimulated dopamine in our brain and where it came from we. When we locate it, our nature is to gain control of it (to attend to it mentally and move toward it physically) so we can experience more sensation of dopamine, that is experience more pleasure in the future as we experience it now. For example, when at school the bell rang for recess you could feel the sensation of dopamine being "emancipated." Our mental attending to it mentally (thinking on it) is as muscle memory, anticipating the sensation which comes with its "emancipation" in the future, 'justifying' its apprehension in the present. Attending to it mentally and thinking upon how to apprehend it physically increases the sensation of pleasure, making our reasoning subject to lust when it is something we have been told we can not have or do. It only becomes labeled as lust or sin when we have been told not or no.

Lust for pleasure, for dopamine is the 'drive' of dialogue. Lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint goes hand in hand with dialogue. When we make pleasure, called the "affective domain" our focus of attention, our 'purpose' in life it becomes our agenda to 'change' or augment the environment in order to have more of it, which requires the removal of anyone who gets in the way. Since the Father, discussion is not subject to the child, to dialogue but rather the child, dialogue is subject to the Father, discussion, in order for the child, dialogue to become free from the restraint of the Father, discussion, the Father, discussion, when it comes to behavior has to be removed from the environment. It is only then that the child, that is dialogue can have his way, with everyone enjoy whatever in the environment is stimulating dopamine, without the Father, discussion getting in the way. This is important to grasp since it is the agenda of the so called "new" world order. Whoever controls our means of communication controls the outcome. Anyone who has been in a consensus, "be positive not negative" meeting will understand the significance of this explanation (when it comes to behavior, with the Father, discussion, that is restraint being "negative" and the child, dialogue, that is lust for pleasure being "positive"). Since discussion is not subject to dialogue (since the Father is not subject to the child) but rather dialogue is subject to discussion (that is the child is subject to the Father), in order for dialogue to become free from the restraint of discussion (in order for the child to be free from the Father's authority), discussion, when it comes to behavior (the Father when it comes to behavior) has to be removed from the environment. It is only then that dialogue, the child can have his way, with everyone enjoying whatever in the environment is stimulating dopamine, without discussion (the Father) getting in the way. From the garden in Eden to judgment day the conflict has been the same, the child either being subject to discussion, doing what the Father says or subject to dialogue, doing what he wants, lusting after dopamine, hating restraint, striking out against anyone taking or threatening to take his drug away.

The Heavenly Father's authority system and the earthly father's authority system are the same, Patriarch in paradigm.

While our earthly father, like the Heavenly Father tells us what is right and what is wrong behavior, holding us accountable to what we have been told, he, unlike the Heavenly Father (who is spirit) he is susceptible to the flesh, to "the lust of the eyes, and the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life," to that which is "of the world," making him subject to stimulus-response, to dialogue when it comes to behavior. The more he turns to dialogue when it comes to behavior the more he uses the office of authority he serves in, given to him by God to do God's will, to satisfy his own lusts. This is true for any politician, corporate leader, educator, judge, etc., even minister (replacing discussion with dialogue when it comes to behavior). The key to understanding the difference between discussion and dialogue, in order to prevent confusion is: when you deal with the physical and biological universe, that is the laws of nature which are established by God, the laws of nature will prove your dialogue, your opinion, your theory true of false but when you use the same method, dialogue to define and establish right and wrong behavior for man all you will end up with is the child's (that is your) propensity to lust after pleasure and hate restraint, making lust "right" and the Father's authority, that gets in the way of lust "wrong" (making you an enemy of God). From then on behavior will no longer be judged according to doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth but where along the spectrum of 'change' you reside at any given time, liking and even lusting after pleasure, not liking or even hating restraint. Any time to take a "like - do not like" test (feedback loop) your use of dialogue, that is your lust for pleasure verses your 'loyalty' to the Father's authority when it comes to behavior is being evaluated and graded. Even taking the test, when it comes to behavior will 'change' your way of thinking, will have an effect upon you. Your participation 'justifies' the process, gives life to the test (and power to the test givers).

In Romans the seventh chapter we read: "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing:"

James 1:17 "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

God's law is perfect, revealing to us that we are not. Due to our flesh we are subject to the law of sin.

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

Romans 7:7 "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 3:20 ". . . for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

Unless restrained physically and mentally (by fear of judgment or being punished, which would be equivalent to being detoxed) you will remain under the control of stimulus-response, with lust for pleasure (dopamine) and hatred toward restraint controlling your thoughts, directly effecting your actions. The greater the sensation of dopamine becomes as well as the longer it is focused upon the greater the resentment toward restraint becomes. Resentment can come to the "boiling point," that is become "Critical," that is become hate, especially if there is fear of the object that stimulates dopamine being taken away. Resentment or hatred toward restraint goes hand in hand with the child's lusting after pleasure. One follows the other. This is the condition of the unregenerated heart.

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

Our unregenerated heart, thinking pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will hates anyone preventing it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that it is lusting after or threatening to take it away (why it becomes "desperate"). 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 is standing in the way, 'justifying' the hate. (Mark 7:21-23)

Karl Marx, rejecting the Father's authority thus 'justifying' his unregenerated heart made his lust for pleasure, sin the norm, where dialogue (what he called "Critical Criticism") takes us when it has not restrained (that is when we refuse to carry on a discussion, which comes from the Father's authority, with the Father having the final say).

Karl Marx: "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." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)

It is in dialogue, as Karl Marx put it we "set up a sinful world in our own home," making us "intolerant" of any authority telling us what we can and can not do. The theme for dialectic 'reasoning' is lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint. "You can't tell me what I can and can not do." Marx's 'logic' is since all are immoral (speaking of himself, making himself the norm) no one has the right to fire him or not hire him for being immoral. Which describes the classroom, the workplace, and government today. Therefore discussion, where the Father has the final say must be removed from the environment, from the home, from education, from the workplace, from government, and even from the "church" and replaced with dialogue where everyone has the final say.

In his article Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right Marx 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 void of, in fact hostel toward Godly restraint]." "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]."

Matthew 7:21-23 "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: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."

Galatian 5:19-21 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

Even George Washington understood the condition of the "human heart." In his farewell address he commented that "despotism ... predominates in the human heart." (George Washington, Farewell Address) He warned us: "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation [by those in one branch of government over another]; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

What most Americans today do not realize is that, unlike the French Revolution our framing fathers did not negate the King. They simply made the father in the home King. Thus the "Bill of Rights" were established in order to protect him from governmental encroachment. It was his duty to train up his children, the next generation of citizens to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, having a guilty conscience when they did wrong, disobeyed, sinned. Destroy the father's authority in the home and you destroy the nation. Destroy the Father's authority in the heart of man and you destroy his soul.

God created us with dopamine that we would enjoy his creation. Not that we would worship it instead of Him. Cookies stimulate dopamine in us. Nothing wrong with that, unless you have been told you cannot have them and you continue to look at them, thinking about having one, then it becomes lust. If you act upon it, take one it is called disobedience, with God calling it sin. That is the power of dopamine in us. If we don't control our impulses and urges of the 'moment' our impulses and urges of the 'moment' will control us.

James 1:14, 15 "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."

Romans 6:16 "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?"

Luke 9:23-26 "And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? 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."

The message is: 1) deny your lust for dopamine, 2) endure the rejection of others for not affirming their lust for dopamine, and 3) follow the Lord, doing the Father's will, letting the Father have the final say.

All habitual drugs are associated with dopamine, some stimulate its "emancipation," others imitate it, and others prevent its re-uptake or prevent it from being broken down in the synaptic gap in order to be re-used again (re-cycled). As mentioned before, when you yield to the pleasure of dopamine instead of doing the Father's will it is called lust, leading to sin when you act on it. "The lust of the flesh" is your yielding to the sensation of dopamine instead of doing the Father's will. "The lust of the eyes" is your looking into the environment for (or even thinking about or imagining) that which stimulates dopamine, that is not to be looked upon or is not yours to have. "And the pride of life" is your controlling the environment and-or the object, people, or person in the environment that stimulates dopamine, in order for you to experience more dopamine in the future, which even comes with the praises of men (jealous you have more dopamine than them). Money, for example, when it is made subject to pleasure becomes stored up drug money. This is the basis of your "sense experience," your natural inclination to lust after pleasure and to hate restraint, that is your hating to miss out what it is that stimulates dopamine. The child is not in love with the toy. He is in love with the sensation of pleasure, the dopamine being "emancipated" that the toy is stimulating. As "the preacher" said, "Vanity, vanities; all is vanity." Ecclesiastes 1:2 When we do not do the Father's will our lust for pleasure, for dopamine is more than likely the cause. 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. The only reason man is depressed is God is not doing it his way, that is God is not feeding his lust for the "emancipation" of dopamine. For example, while the "old" marriage vow went "for better and for worse, until death do us part" the "new" vow (though not spoken) includes "or until someone better comes along," where dopamine instead of right-wrong becomes the foundation of thought. That is the power of dopamine along with other drugs and hormones our body naturally produces, adrenaline, endorphin, testosterone, estrogen, etc., all associated with stimulus-response, that which is "of the world" instead of being told, that which is of the Father.

James 4:1-3 "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."

While the Heavenly Father, being not of the flesh, is not subject to dopamine, we, being of the flesh are, having to choose between either denying our self, that is not yielding to our natural inclination to lust after dopamine, doing His will or feeding our lust for dopamine, doing our will instead. This is where the difference between spirit and flesh, discussion and dialogue come in. Spirit (not as man calls spirit, such as "team spirit" which is tied to dopamine) is that which is external to us, that does not in and of itself stimulate dopamine in us. Spirit is thus doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, from now on referred to as being told, and is not subject to the flesh, to stimulus-response. It is known as objective truth, being told, which requires faith. Flesh on the other hand is always subject to dopamine, making it subject to the world that stimulates it (and anybody manipulating the environment), engendering subjective truth. "What is the right thing to do according to what I have been told" is replaced with "What can I get out of this situation and-or object, people, or person for myself."

No matter the age, which one you use, discussion (where you reason from what you have been told) or dialogue (where you 'reason' from your feelings of the 'moment') when it comes to behavior determines your political system, whether you are conservative, holding to established commands, rules, facts, and truth or liberal, ever subject to 'change.' Have you heard the word 'change' recently?

God is going to judge a world, starting with the "church" that refuses His authority, that refuses to obey His Word, that refuses to do what He says, that refuses to do what it is told, but depends upon dialogue, how it "feels" and what it "thinks" in the 'moment' in order to know right from wrong when it comes to behavior, resulting in children (even those in adult bodies) thinking they own whatever they see, lusting after that which is not theirs (like two "children" did in a garden in Eden, who used dialogue so they could do what they wanted instead of doing what the "Father" said). Yes, there is nothing new under the sun. The "new" age is as new as what happened in the garden in Eden. This is why facilitators of 'change,' who are in the know, worship the master facilitator of 'change' who made his first appearance in a garden in Eden, 'liberating' two "children" from the "Father's authority" so they could do whatever they wanted without someone telling them what they could and could not do.

Jeremiah 10:23 "... it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps."

The Lord Jesus Christ Himself stated he could do nothing apart from the Father.

John 5:30 "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 12:47-50 "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." ​​​

He expects the same from us.

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

Matthew 7:21 "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 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

Matthew 4:4 "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone [where we can dialogue with our self and with others which type of bread we like and which ones we do not], but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God [where God tells us what we can and can not do, having the final say]."

The gospel message is all about the Father's authority, with the Son, by shedding his blood on the cross in obedience to the Father 'redeeming' us from the Father's wrath upon us for our sins, for our thinking and acting like we are God, with the Father raising Him from the grave 'reconciling' us to Himself, with us, by His grace and our faith in him inheriting eternal life instead of inheriting eternal death for acting like we are God, for being a fraud. The gospel message is all about the Son of God, Jesus Christ not going into dialogue to 'justify' his self but doing what he was told, Matthew 26:42 "O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." asking all to follow Him doing the Father's will as well: 2 Corinthians 10:5 "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;."

Luke 16:15 "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 [making pleasures, which includes the praises of men the 'drive' of life and its augmentation the 'purpose'] is abomination in the sight of God."

Galatians 1:10 The Apostle Paul writes: "Do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."

1 Corinthians 1:18 "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

Discussion deals with man's soul, which KNOWS from being told, with the Father having the final say. This is why you preach the Word of God, which is foolishness to those of the world, to those who live in the world of dialogue, where they are God. Dialogue is of the flesh, which is stimulated by the world, using it to 'justify' himself, his lusts, dying in his sins, with God having the final say. Regarding where he will spend eternity, he will face the wrath of God for using dialogue when it came to behavior, for making himself God instead of coming to God Himself for direction. In dialogue you 'reason' from your flesh. In discussion you reason from what you have been told. Discussion will not save you but without it you cannot hear from the Father, and repent.

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

While the heavenly Father is holy and the earthly father is born into sin both have the same authority system, 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 have been 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).

"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

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 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).

When God created man He did something which he did with nothing else in the creation, He made him a "living soul."

Genesis 2:7 "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."

He then did something which He did with nothing else in the creation, He told him what was right and what was wrong behavior and the consequence for disobedience.

Genesis 2:16, 17 "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."

Only man can be told or tell others what is right and what is wrong behavior. Only man can read or write a book. All the rest of the creation is based upon stimulus-response—for living organisms, approach pleasure and avoid pain.

Dialogue is the spectrum of like to dislike with everything in between and beyond (with 'change' being subject to what you like or do not like at any given moment in time, correlated to the degree of resentment you have toward restraint that gets in the way of what you like or you are currently lusting after) while discussion is right-wrong, either-or, either obey, do the Fathers' will, do what you are told or disobey, do your will instead, do what you "feel" like doing, while still having a guilty conscience for disobeying, fearing being judged, condemned, and cast out. When dialogue is used (to establish behavior) in the realm of restraint, where children are told what they can and cannot do, rebellion, anarchy, and revolution is engendered, with children of disobedience, lusting after pleasure removing anyone who gets in their way, including the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, and the righteous without having a guilty conscience.

It is what happened in the classroom when, in the 50's and 60's dialogue, the "affective domain," how the students "felt" and what they "thought" became the curriculum, with students doing what they felt like doing, replacing the teaching of two plus two equals four and cannot be any other number, where students did what they were told. It is not that teachers did not care about their students feelings, some did not, it is they knew the importance of their students learning to obey commands and follow rules, learning facts and seeking after truth in order to do right and not wrong and know right from wrong in the future.

When the preaching, teaching, and discussing of established commands, rules, facts, and truth, with the Father having the final say is the thesis then the child's carnal nature is under restraint, having to do what he is told, having a guilty conscience when he disobeys, preventing or inhibiting 'change.' At least rapid 'change.' When you make the child's carnal nature, that is dialogue the thesis (the means of communication when it comes to behavior) the Father's authority becomes the antithesis. This then requires that the Father's authority be removed from the environment in order (as in "new" world order) for the child to become at-one-with his self, his carnal nature, making it possible for him to become at-one-with all the children of the world, thinking and acting according to what he and they have in common, their lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint, engendering synthesis (Marxism, Communism, Globalism), restoring the "Tower of Babel" through what is called the consensus process where feelings, that is the "super-ego" supersedes (negates) the conscience. In the consensus process freedom from the conscience, that is freedom to lust without having a guilty conscience replaces freedom of the conscience, that is individualism, under God, replacing the person being an individual in a group with "the group" being in the individual. It is what 'change' (the 'change' process) is all about, children (including those in adult bodies) thinking and acting according to stimulus-response, fearing man (which deals with their flesh) instead of doing what you are told, fearing God (which deals with their soul). Have you heard the word 'change' recently?

Diaprax chart.

Dialogue "What can I get out of this for me?" is antithetical to discussion "What would my Father want me to do and-or say?" In dialogue 'change' is based upon stimulus-response, approaching the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, hating and removing that which gets in the way. In discussion change is by persuasion, making change a mental effort, not quickly or easily accomplished, whereas in dialogue change is subject to the impulses and urges of the 'moment,' making change easy in the "light" of the current situation.

Luke 11:35 "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness."

"Enlightenment" is darkness to the soul.

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

When it comes to behavior if discussion is being used in the classroom you are in a traditional classroom, establishing the Father's authority over the child's carnal nature. If dialogue is being used you are in a Marxist classroom, establishing the child's carnal nature, "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," all that is "of the world" over and therefore against the Father and His authority.

Bohm and Peat: "In an ordinary discussion people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favour of their views as they try to convince others to change." (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity)

Discussion divides between those doing right and those doing wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, KNOWING right from wrong from being told, which is formal, judgmental, either-or, where the Father has the final say, "Because I said so," "Nevertheless," "It is written." Majority vote retains the Father's authority system although the person might lose on the particular issue, where doing or being right and not wrong according to a "fixed position" is the issue at hand. In discussion, doing wrong according to what you have been told engenders a guilty conscience, along with judgment, condemnation, and being cast out if you, when you do wrong do not repent and do what is right, do what you are told. With man, since man is not always right, using the office of discussion to force everyone into doing what he is dialoguing with himself about this is a problem (despotism). With God, since God is always right this is not.

Bohem and Peat: "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)

Dialogue divides between those who insist upon discussion, upon doing the Father's will and those who base behavior upon their own carnal nature, uniting upon the latter, upon "feelings," upon what they have in common, with "I feel" and-or "I think" being their means of communication, which is an opinion, informal, non-judgmental, where the child, retaining his carnal nature has the final say. There is no Father's authority, "I KNOW" in dialogue, or in an opinion, or in the consensus process. There is only the child's natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint being expressed and 'justified.' Dialogue moves opinions to a consensus, negating the Father's authority and the guilty conscience it engenders in the process. Dialogue is moto of the French Revolution: "Liberté" from the Father's authority, since there is no Father's authority in dialogue, "Égalité" since all are intitled to their opinion, and "Fraternité" since the outcome is consensus, where everyone's feelings are in harmony.

Fredrich Engels: "In the eyes of the dialectic philosophy, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Fredrich Engels, explaining Marxism)

Unlike discussion there are no absolutes in dialogue. All educators are certified, and schools accredited today (including Christian) based upon their use of what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies" as their curriculum in the classroom. The preaching, teaching, and discussing of established commands, rules, facts, and truth, with the teacher having the final say (known as "old school") is now replaced with the students dialoguing their opinions to a consensus process, making their feelings of the 'moment' the foundation from which to reason, not established commands, rules, facts, and truth, not what the teacher (or parent, or God) says, not what they are told.

Benjamin Bloom: "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 Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain)

Dialogue is the means by which absolutes are replaced with 'changing-ness,' replacing the Father's authority with the child's natural inclination to lust after pleasure that the world stimulates. It is the meaning of "tolerance of ambiguity." Since the Son of God, Jesus Christ obeyed the Father in all things commanded, demanding you do the same, when you through dialogue build relationship with others you have to "suspend" the Lord upon a cross. While you might deny that that is what you are doing. You cannot refute it. That is what you are doing. Silence is consent. While you might, in your mind plan to share the Lord later on with them, in your effort to initiate or sustain relationship with them your silence 'justifies' in their mind that they are alright, that relationship with them is more important to you than the Word of God. Again it is the difference between discussion, fellowshipping around the Word of God and dialogue, building relationship with one another upon common self interests, that which stimulates dopamine.

Proverbs 3:6 "In all thy ways acknowledge him."

"I feel" and "I think" when it comes to behavior excludes the Father in deciding what is right and what is wrong behavior.

Proverbs 16:25 "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."

"I feel" and "I think" which are subject to the world, subject to stimulus-response make dialogue, what "seems to be" the means of communication from which to establish right and wrong behavior.

Carl Rogers: "The words 'seem to' are significant; it is the perception which functions in guiding behavior."

Like "so called science," when dialogue is used to develop the issue of discussion, discussion becomes "so called discussion" or "seems to be discussion," making the person's carnal feelings and his or her carnal thoughts facts to be obeyed without question (where liberals tend to go, forcing everyone to follow after them without question) deceiving the innocent and the naive.

Isaiah 55:8, 9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

Matthew 6:24 "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."

Romans 6:16 "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?"

Carl Rogers: "Experience is, for me, the highest authority." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

This is the sum total of dialectic 'reasoning,' psychotherapy, the "wisdom of men," resulting in man, denying the Father's authority doing what he wants without having a guilty conscience, becoming at-one-with his self and the world that stimulates pleasure, dying in his sins. The flesh is subject to stimulus-response, to the impulses and urges of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating. The soul is subject to being told, to God who created it. Those "of and for the world" turn to dialogue, to stimulus-response, to what "seems to" be science when it comes to behavior.

Karl Marx: "Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception and sensuous need, that is, only when it proceeds from Nature." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)

Karl Marx simply secularized "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," that which is "of the world," making lust a part of "human nature," to be accepted as the norm. When you make your behavior subject to stimulus-response, to science (as in "behavior science") the only outcome you can have is what all men have in common, "the lust of flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," only "that which is of the world." "Behavior science" makes man subject to his carnal nature and the world that stimulates it. That is all it can do, in the process negating faith in God, that is the Father's authority.

1 Timothy 6:20-21 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."

"Oppositions of science falsely so called" is the use of dialogue when the facts are known, making science, what is known ever subject to 'change.' For those of and for the world everything must be subject to 'change' or they become subject to the Father's authority, making them subject to being judged, condemned, and cast out for their carnal thoughts and carnal actions. Therefore they make behavior subject to the child's (that is to their) carnal nature rather than the subject to the Father and His established commands, rules, facts, and truth.

Theodor Adorno: ". . . a tendency to transmit mainly a set of conventional rules and customs, may be considered as interfering with the development of a clear-cut personal identity in the growing child." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

A group of Marxists, known as the "Frankfurt School," fleeing Fascist Germany came to America in the early thirties. Entering our universities they trained up professors, corporate leaders, educational "experts," and developed institutions and organizations whose sole purpose was to 'change' America. Their agenda was to negate the earthly father's authority in the home, thereby negating the Heavenly Father's authority in the minds of men. Their approach was unique in that they incorporated psychology as a major tool in the advancement of Marxism, making education, the workplace, government, and even the "church" subject to psychology, subject to men's feelings, that is subject to the world instead of subject to the Word of God, that is subject to what the Father says.

Martin Jay: "As the Frankfurt School wrestled with how to 'reinvigorate Marx', they 'found the missing link in Freud.'" (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950)

György Lukács, the founder of the Frankfurt School, officially known as the Institute of Social Research wrote: "... the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its 'obedience to laws.'" (György Lukács, History and Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)

György Lukács was simply saying since 'reality' resides in the child's carnal nature, in the law of the flesh and not in the Father's authority, when it comes to behavior dialogue, how the child feels and what he thinks must replace discussion, doing what the Father says, negating the child having to do the Father's will. "Class Consciousness" is the class of students (mankind, "the people"—the Lord came for "whosoever," not for "the group," He turned down the world, "the group" when the master facilitator of 'change' offered it to Him.) recognizing what they have in common, their lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint, their hatred toward "obedience to laws," their lust for pleasure making them (in their mind) "equal" with the Father, 'justifying' their establishing their carnal nature, their lust for pleasure, their "Why?" over and therefore against the Father and His authority, ("rule of law") since they cannot be "equal," the Father would not allow it. By the Father going into dialogue with the children, when it comes to behavior he abdicates, that is negates the office of authority he occupies. The very act negates it. It is either the one above or the many below, with the "class," "the people" 'justifying' their self, their lusts becoming at-one-with one another according to their carnal nature, united in overthrowing the Father and His authority. While Marx set out to destroy the father's authority in society, Freud set out to destroy it in the minds of men. Both denied the Father, the giver of the law and the Son, who 'redeemed' man from the Father's judgment upon him for breaking the law. If you deny the Father you deny the law, therefore you deny the Son, who, by obeying the law 'redeemed' man from the Father's wrath against for breaking the law.

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

While you might acknowledge the Son, if you deny the Father you deny the Son.

John 10:30 "I and my Father are one."

John 17:21-23 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me."

Fellowship is with the Father, and his Son, who have the final say.

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

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

The following are statements made by those and those who follow them who, when it comes to behavior want you to dialogue with them so they can do what they want, when they want, that is do wrong, disobey, sin, that is lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating without having a guilty conscience, with your approval (that is affirmation), so they can rule over you and all that God has given you, using you and it for their carnal pleasures without you judging, condemning, and casting them out. These are the "children of disobedience" for whom the lake of fire (that is never quenched, prepared for the master facilitator of 'change' and all who follow after him) is waiting, following death.

Revelation 10:15 "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

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

All Karl Marx was saying is that the fathers (who he called "philosophers"), equated to the head of the home, the tribe, the nation, the religious group, etc., who differ in position from one another are the cause of division amongst the children, that is "the people." For unity, that is worldly peace and socialist harmony to become reality, where man can sin without feeling guilty, without being judged, condemned, and cast out agents of 'change,' known as 'change' agents or facilitators of 'change' (in his day called the "vanguard party") must "help" the children, "the people" 'liberate' themselves from the Father's authority, as the master facilitator of 'change' did in the garden in Eden, replacing discussion, what the Father says with dialogue, their "feelings" of the 'moment' so they can be their self, able to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating without having a guilty conscience, without being judged, condemned, and cast out, that is with "the people's" affirmation.

Ronald Havelock: A "change agent... should know about the process of change, how it takes place and the attitudes, values and behaviors that usually act as barriers.... He should know who in his system are the 'defenders' or resisters of innovations [that is resisters of 'change']." (Ronald Havelock, A Change Agent's Guide to Innovation in Education)

A Federal Grant reads: "During the period of innovation [that is 'change' is taking place], 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." (Federal Education Grant, Dec. 1969, Behavior Science in Teacher Education Program—commonly referred to as BSTEP)

Being able to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, to get what you want and do what you want in an environment where you will not be judged, condemned, or cast out blinds you to where it is really taking you, to what it will cost you in the end, that is the price you will pay with your soul. The limiting, that is restraining of government over your life, as in the Constitution was done in an effort to protect your soul, the right of the Father to train up his children to know right from wrong from being told. All Federal Grants are subject to this Grant. The book "1984" was written in response to this grant, exposing what was in it. In other words, if you participate in using this grant you will not know what hit you until it is too late, that is 'change' has already taken place, you have lost your God given freedom, your unalienable rights (and there is no going back), you have sold your soul to the master facilitator of 'change' so you can do what you want, lust without having a guilty conscience, without being judged, condemned, and cast out. The 'purpose' of this grant, while it spends "the people's" money on social projects (people call it "free money" which is actually debt money, their children's inheritance) it is really all about controlling "the people" who must "tolerate immorality" in the name of "the people," silencing, censoring, removing anyone who judges, condemns, and attempt to cast them out.

Luke 6:36 "And he [Jesus] spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?"

Jeremiah 6:15; 8:12 "Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD."

Matthew 23:33 "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"

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

Matthew 16:26 "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?"

The facilitators of 'change's' agenda is to seduce you into 'justifying' your carnal nature so he can do wrong, disobey, sin, that is so he can lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating without being judged, condemned, or cast out, that is with your affirmation. 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 I now 'own' them). It appears I must keep an eye on you from now on for the 'good' of 'the people,' that is for my 'good.'" The role of the facilitator of 'change' is to make behavior subject to dialogue instead of discussion in order for him to do wrong, disobey, sin, that is lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates without having a guilty conscience. The facilitator of 'change' has to maintain a position of authority, even backing down for a period of time in order to "protect" his supporters, that is through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process continue to initiate and sustain his "power base" in order for them to silence, censor, and cast out those of the discussion camp, who are 'loyal' to the Father's authority who might judged, condemned and cast him out if they regain control over "the people." If I can find out what you are lusting after (which, when it comes to behavior dialogue does) and, removing any fear of being judged, condemn, cast out offer to "help" you attain it (remember the "Why?" you voiced with the Father responding with a threatening voice, "Because I said so." By leaving the Father's threat out you are now free to "be yourself") from then on I "own" you. It is all the serpent, the master facilitator of 'change' did in the garden in Eden with the woman—with Adam, following after her.

2 Peter 2:3 "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you."

Carl Rogers acknowledged the power the facilitator of 'change,' that is the group psychotherapists has over you, your spouse, your children, your neighbors, your legislators, your leaders, your judges, your minister if he is given a position of authority.

Rogers wrote: "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors [our potential ability to influence or control the behavior of groups] will follow." "We can choose to use our growing knowledge to enslave people in ways never dreamed of before, depersonalizing them, controlling them by means so carefully selected that they will perhaps never be aware of their loss of personhood." "We know how to change the opinions of an individual in a selected direction, without his ever becoming aware of the stimuli which changed his opinion." "We know how to influence the ... behavior of individuals by setting up conditions which provide satisfaction for needs of which they are unconscious, but which we have been able to determine." 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." "By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior—the motives, the desires, the wishes. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises."

While discussion cannot save you it is the only means by which you can communicate with God and Him with you, with God having the final say. "God is God" in discussion. When it comes to behavior, when you turn to dialogue you cannot hear from God, and he will not hear from you, since in dialogue you are God, making yourself equal with Him (breaking the first commandment). When it comes to behavior, in dialogue, as a child of disobedient you 'justify' yourself, your flesh, your carnal desires. In discussion, as a child of obedience you humble yourself, die to your flesh, deny your carnal desires in order to hear and know the truth, doing the Father's will.

This is why those of (and for) the world turn to dialogue, how they feel and what they think (the "wisdom of men") when it comes to behavior instead of to the Word of God, what the Father and the Son say, so they can do wrong, disobey, sin, lust after pleasure, killing the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, the righteous and anyone else who gets in their way without having a guilty conscience, with impunity (at least until death). All of society, when it comes to behavior has turned to dialogue, which has cursed this nation. For example, when a judge turns to discussion, to what the Constitution says he will serve the citizens of the nation, restraining his self, recognizing the people's God given rights but when he turns to dialogue, to his feelings and thoughts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, to "What can I get out of this for me?" he will make law and the people subject to his carnal desires, doing so in the name of "the people," 'liberating' the people and himself from Godly restraint.

Norman Brown: "By dialectic, I mean an activity of consciousness, struggling to circumvent the limitations imposed by the formal-logical law of contradiction. (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

All Brown was saying is "I'm trying to figure out how I can get around what my parent's just told me to do."

Any time you take a philosophy class you hear a lot about the word dialectic, as in dialectic process or dialectic reasoning. But nobody really spends the time to explain what it really is. It is simply dialogue. In an environment establishing behavior through discussion (what the Father says), anyone insisting upon dialogue is fermenting rebellion, anarchy, and revolution. Conversely, when behavior is being established through dialogue (how a person feels and what they think), anyone insisting upon discussion is perceived as being argumentative, "negative," "not a team player," a Fascist, divisive, intolerant, hateful, maladjusted, irrational, unreasonable, prejudiced, a resister to 'change,' etc., needed to be converted or else silenced, censored, and if he persists, removed. In the former anyone who insists upon dialogue needs to repent. In the latter, anyone insisting upon discussion must be either converted or be silenced, censored, and, if they persist be removed from the environment for the "good" of "the people," that is for the "good" of the facilitator of 'change.' All of this is based upon the ideology that in order for the child to become himself, thinking and acting according to his carnal nature anyone who gets in his way, that prevents him from become himself must be removed from the environment.

Georg Hegel: "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." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life)

By Hegel placing the child's carnal nature over and therefore against the Father's authority he 'liberated' the child out from under 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," his lust for pleasure and the world that stimulates it), he could then become "of and for self" and the world only—which dialogue, when applied to behavior accomplishes, is its only outcome. Sounding more like Karl Marx than Karl Marx himself, who was not yet born Hegel could then say

"On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, where there is no antithesis of person to person [no "top-down" order] or of subject to object, the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one."

By making the child's carnal nature the standard for behavior, what everyone has in common your spouse, your children, your property, your business, and even your soul is not yours but are all subject to those who propagate this ideology.

Georg Hegel: "When a man has finally reached the point where he does not think he knows it better than others, that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly and he is interested only in what they have done right, then peace and affirmation have come to him." (Georg Hegel in Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel)

The opposite of right is wrong, not "badly," which is an opinion. By Hegel replacing the word "wrong" with the word "badly," he removed the guilty conscience for doing wrong, thus he removed any fear of being judged, condemned, and cast out for not doing the Father's will. He replaced discussion (right-wrong) with dialogue ("feelings").

Karl Marx: "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." (Karl Marx, Fourth Thesis on Feuerbach)

All Karl Marx was saying is, once discussion is found to be the language of both the earthly father and the Heavenly Father, where the Father has the final say it must be replaced with dialogue, the language of the child, with the child having the final say negating the Father's authority in the child's thoughts, directly effecting his actions. Have I said that already?

Heraclitus: "Every grown man of the Ephesians should hang himself and leave the city to the boys."

Karl Marx built his ideology off of Heraclitus, who laid the foundation of thought for the stoics.

Immanuel Kant: "Lawfulness without law." (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment)

All Immanuel Kant was saying is we must create a world where the child's carnal nature, the law of the flesh reigns without the law of the Father, having to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth getting in the way.

Karl Marx: "Laws must not fetter human life; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities of the people change." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')

Karl Marx is saying "Laws must not get in the way of my lusts."

The agenda in all of this is to prevent parents from filling their children's mind with laws that interfere with their carnal nature. Wilfred Bion was director of the Tavistock Institute, the global headquarter for 'change' agents. He gave us a concise dictum for those advancing the 'change' process. The "empty space" is you talking to yourself in the 'moment,' with dialogue being used to 'justify' yourself or discussion doing what you are told, the 'change' agenda's agenda is to prevent discussion, the Father from having any say. When, in a meeting or in the classroom you are asked to be "positive" and not "negative" you are being pressured (out of fear of being rejected by "the group," out of your lust for the approval of others) into making your behavior subject to dialogue, where your lust for pleasure and resentment toward restraint has the final say instead of being subject to discussion, where the Father has the final say. Anyone telling others how to behave according to what the Father says in a "be positive not negative" environment, insisting everyone do what he says will feel the sensation of being tossed out a window, for preaching absolutes, for causing division, for not being a "team player," for being divisive, hateful, maladjusted, a "lower order thinker," a fascist, unadaptable to 'change,' a resister of 'change,' etc.,. When it comes to behavior your participation (which requires you to replace what the Father says with your and the other people's feelings of the 'moment') 'liberates' you (and them) from the Father's authority system, allowing you to be yourself and them to be their self, thinking and acting according to your carnal nature and them according to their carnal nature, thinking and acting according to the impulses and urges of the 'moment' that the environment is stimulating, doing what you and they want to do instead. In that environment anyone insisting upon discussion, insisting upon everyone doing what the Father says is perceived as being argumentative, needing to "go with the process," to go with "the flow," get along with "the group," be "tolerant of ambiguity," tolerant of deviance, tolerant of immorality (we are talking about behavior after all) or be silenced, censored, and-or removed, that is be martyred for the sake of "the group," for the sake of "worldly peace and socialist harmony." (Martyr being the Greek word for witness.) It is an absolute. Anyone insisting upon discussion, that is what the Father says (being told) in an environment insisting upon dialogue, that is self-interest (stimulus-response) is going to be martyred. It is the nature of the beast. Literally.

Theodor Adorno: "Using social-environmental forces to change the parent's behavior toward the child." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

Anyone coming between parents and their children, coming between the future vocation of their children and their children while at the same time establishing their children's behavior upon their own carnal nature, 'liberates' the children from their parents' authority.

Warren Bennes: "Any non-family-based collectivity [that is "group psychotherapist," facilitator of 'change'] that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a democratizing impact on that relationship." "In order to effect rapid change, . . . [one] must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved. It is necessary, in other words, artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children—to insulate the children in order that they can more easily be indoctrinated with new ideas." "If one wishes to mold children in order to achieve some future goal, one must begin to view them as superior. One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)

For the Marxist, as with the psychotherapist it is not the Father who created the child, it is not God who created man but it is the child who created the Father, it is man who created God. Rejecting, rather denying the Father's authority the Marxist has to figure out where the Father's authority originated. Their answer is, when the children obeyed their parents when they wanted to "do their thing," they 'create' the Father's authority system.

Karl Marx: "The life which he has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I-3)

For the Marxist, for the facilitator of 'change' the only way for man to be freed from God's authority is to negate respect toward parental authority. By "justifying" the child's lust for pleasure that the world stimulates in a non-judgmental environment the child is able to reject his parents authority, turning him against his parents and their authority, thus negating faith in God and obedience to His law.

Isaiah 30:9 "That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:"

When a child is free to share his lusts without fear of judgment, condemnation, being cast out he sears his conscience, 'justifying' in his mind his rejection of his parents' authority. This is the role of the therapist, doing what the master therapist did with the woman in the garden in Eden, creating a "positive," "ye shalt not surely die" environment, removing fear of being judged, condemned, and cast out so she could do what she wanted without having a guilty conscience, that is without having any fear of being held accountable engendered 'change.'

Genesis 3:1-6: "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 out from under their fear of judgment, that is 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 [she revealed her lust], lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die [removing the "negative," that is fear of judgment (which was not a lie regarding the here-and now, that is the tree itself did not 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, that is inheriting eternal life or eternal death)]: 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, that is from her 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)

Erick Fromm: "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 ... to give up 'God' ..." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom)

Theodor Adorno: "Our aim is not merely to describe prejudice [what the Father says] but to explain it in order to help in its eradication. Eradication means re-education [replacing discussion, what the Father says with dialogue, how the child feels and what he thinks in his classroom experience]." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

As mentioned before all teachers are certified, and schools accredited today based upon their use of what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies" as their curriculum in their classroom. Benjamin Bloom in his second "taxonomy" listed two men who represented his "Weltanschauung," that is who represented his world view, Erick Fromm and Theodor Adorno. What they and Bloom had in common was their rejection of the Father's authority. This is what is deliberately missing in his "taxonomies."

Benjamin Bloom: "Bloom's Taxonomies" are "a psychological classification system" used "to develop attitudes and values ... which are not shaped by the parents," "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain; commonly referred to as by which )

Norman Brown and Herbert Marcuse explained the use of psychology in the advancement of Marxism.

Norman Brown: "Human consciousness can be liberated from the parental complex only by being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." "Freud and Hegel are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, is a clear instance of that subordination of the pleasure-principle to the reality principle [which Brown defines as the father's authority, doing right and not wrong according to his standards] which is repression; and therefore leads to neurosis [that is the child having to do the father's/Father's will while wanting to do his own instead, having a guilty conscience when he does his own thing, making him neurotic]." "According to Freud, the ultimate essence of our being is erotic, and demands activity according to the pleasure-principle. The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious; the foundation has to be recovered [this is where the use of dialogue in the classroom when it comes to establish behavior comes in]." "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)

Sigmund Freud considered all children as being sexually active, thus being repressed because of the Father's authority, as well as neurotic for do the Father's well, wanting to be approved by the Father while thinking upon (imagining or roleplaying in their mind) that which comes natural to them, that which the Father would disapprove of.

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

By finding what a person is dialoguing with himself about, regarding what he has been told he cannot do and providing him an opportunity to share it, without fear of being judged, condemned, or cast out he can be brought into participation in the process of 'change.'

Kenneth Benne: "Persons will not come into full partnership in the process until they register dissatisfaction." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

Herbert Marcuse, explaining Sigmund Freud's view of history, where man's agenda is to not only "kill" the Father but also to "devour" the Father as well, 'liberating' himself from the Father's authority once and for all, so he can praxis "incest" without being judged, condemned, and cast out, quoting

Freud 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." (Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud)

Irvin Yalom: "Freud noted that patricide and incest are part of man's deepest nature." (Irvin D. Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy)

Paul Tillich: "A stranger, even if his name were God, who imposes commands upon us must be resisted, he must be killed because nobody can stand him." (Paul Tillich in Leonard F. Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism)

"If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:16

While those "of and for" the world love pleasure, using children to satisfy their lusts the Father loves his children, giving himself for them. 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) 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. Both Brown and Marcuse recognized the use of dialogue in the garden in Eden, where the woman replaced God's authority, His Word with herself, with her lusts, with her carnal desires, with how she felt and what she thought in the 'moment,' with psychology.

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

Herbert Marcuse: "... 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)

Karl Marx: "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')

By beginning with pleasure, making the "enjoyment of the present" the 'purpose' of life, what all men have in common, hatred toward the Father and His authority would automatically become the outcome.

Mao Zedong: "Words and actions should help to unite, and not divide, the people."

In order to have unity, worldly peace and socialist harmony, what the Father says must be replaced with dialogue, how the child feels and what he thinks when it comes to behavior.

Abraham Maslow: "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." (Abraham Maslow, in his journals The Journals of Abraham Maslow)

Marx and Freud both promoted the spirit of rebellion, anarchy, and revolution. Making man subject to stimulus-response, that is create a "healthy environment" (whatever you might think that is) and you can create a "healthy person." The Protestant Reformation, which established "the Western traditions of morality and rationality" rejected this reasoning, declaring that nothing in the creation can change the human heart, only God can. This psychology, as Karl Marx rejected, giving lip-service to it at the most in order to deceive the innocent and the naive.

Norman Brown: "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." "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; 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." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

John Dewey: "A democratic society repudiates the principle of external authority." "God is the source of corruption in individuals." (John Dewey Democracy and Education)

Abraham Maslow: "In a democratic society a patriarchal culture should make us depressed instead of glad; a patriarchal culture 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." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)

Kenneth Benne: "We must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." (Kenneth D. Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

Jürgen Habermas: "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)

Jürgen Habermas, who was a Transformational Marxist (Marxists who merge Marxism and psychology, both of which reject the Father's authority), explained how dialogue (the children finding their identity in one another) is used to 'liberate' the children, dopamine "emancipation" from the Father's authority, and thus man from God's authority.

Ervin Laszlo: "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, transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps." (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy For The Future: The Systems Approach to World Order)

Ervin Laszlo the originator and promoter of "climate 'change'," was explaining the "consensus" process, where, through the use of dialogue in a group setting the Father's authority is excluded in establishing rules, policy, and law, thus 'liberating the sensation of dopamine "emancipation," that is lust for pleasure in the participants, negating the Father's authority in the participants in the process, directly effecting, that is 'justifying' their carnal actions.

Proverbs 16:5 "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished. No matter how many people join you on the pathway to destruction, it is still the pathway to destruction.

The philosophy of praxis.

Colossians 3:9 "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;"

The Greek word for "deeds" is praxis. Praxis is the practice or action of leaving the Father's authority out of your communication with yourself and with others when it comes to behavior, in other words not recognizing accountability to God for one's thoughts and actions.

Antonio Gramsci: "The philosophy of praxis is the absolute secularization of thought, an absolute humanism of history." (Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks)

In praxis you do not have to attack the Father, thus giving Him recognition, all you have to do is leave what He says out and He becomes irrelevant, something to be removed from the environment when He shows up and gets in the way. That is why you are asked to be "positive" and not "negative" in meetings, asked to leave the Father's authority out of the conversation (other than to criticize it, call Critical Theory, Critical Criticism, Critical Race Theory, Critical Thinking, etc.,). The name for the national test for teachers is Praxis.

Colossians 2:8 "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."

Ephesians 5:5-7 "Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them."

Martin Luther wrote, regarding education: "I greatly fear that the universities, unless they teach the Holy Scriptures diligently and impress them on the young students, are wide gates to hell. I would advise no one to send his child where the Holy Scriptures are not supreme. Every institution that does not unceasingly pursue the study of God's word becomes corrupt." (Luther's Works: Vol. 1, The Christian in Society)

Watch your language. Your language reveals who you are. When it comes to behavior your language reveals your paradigm. Our ability to reason comes from God, either using it to do His will, from being told (discussion) or using it to 'justify' our flesh (dialogue), 'justifying' "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride of life," in disobedience to God, called sin. Which one we use when it comes to behavior determines who we serve, either God or the flesh and "the world" that stimulates it. This is why David "hid" discussion, what the Father said in his heart, where he was tempted to dialogue, that is 'justify' his lusts and therefore disobey.

Psalms 119:11 "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee."

The meaning of 'change' as used today does not mean by persuasion (based upon established commands, rules, facts, and truth) changing from one position to another but rapidly 'changing' in response to the current situation, based upon your feelings of the 'moment' that the environment is stimulating, approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, which includes the mental pain of missing out on pleasure, following after, supporting, defending, praising, worshiping, even dying for those who 'justify' pleasure, lust, known as facilitator's of 'change,' rejecting those who insist everyone doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth that get in the way of pleasure, lust. True science, which is based upon discussion, known facts is now replaced with "so called science," which is based upon dialogue, the opinions of men being tossed back and forth until there is a consensus (a feeling of oneness, where everyone has compromised in order to have "group hug," the approval of man) in order for man to sin without having a guilty conscience, with everyone's affirmation no longer being judged, condemned, and cast out. Thomas Kuhn, explaining his "'paradigm shift' concept of 'Pre- and Post-paradigm periods,'" where facts-based scientists are replaced with feelings-based scientist.

Thomas Kuhn quoting Max Planck: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." whereupon "the man who continues to resist after his whole profession has been converted is ipso facto ceased to be a scientist." (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution)

When education is based upon being told, that is the preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed, the teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is and applied, and if there are any questions using discussion, where the Father has the final say, rewarding those who obey and do what is right, chastening those who disobey and do things wrong, casting out those who question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack authority it supports the Father's authority. When it is based upon feelings, the "affective domain" of the students instead, with students dialoging their opinions to a consensus it negates the Father's authority in the minds of the students, engendering anarchy, rebellion, and revolution against the traditional home and civil society, both of which depend upon discussion in order to maintain order (as in "old" world order).

Kindergarten was developed by socialists in order for children to experience a learning environment without being told.

This is the dialectic pathway, the broad pathway of human-ism, of socialism (in any form—be it Fascist, Communist, Globalist, Marxist) where the child's carnal nature, stimulus-response, 'change' rules over and therefore against the Father's authority, doing what you want rules over and therefore against doing what you are told, where your lust for pleasure rules over and therefore against your having to humble, die to, capitulate yourself, deny your lusts in order to do right and not wrong according to the Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth. Fascism is included because the Father's authority is negated, in the home as well as in the "church." More than half the girls came back from the Nazi youth camps, pregnant, something I am sure their fathers would not approve of.

Hebrews 10:25 instructs us on the importance of fellowship. "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is;" This verse or portion of a verse is used to pressure those who have left the "church" because of its apostasy, because of its use of dialogue, that is dialectic 'reasoning' to grow the "church" to return, they do not share the rest of the verse and the verses following (verses 26, 27) for obvious reasons. "but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." You cannot "grow" the church if you adhered to these verses. You cannot use dialogue, man's opinion, establishing man as being equal with God, making man greater than God when it comes to His Word. These verses expose those who do so as "wolves in sheepskin," as facilitators of 'change.' When you build relationship with others upon self-interest, upon what you and they covet, what you and they are lusting after, you make yourself subject to them instead of to the Father. In their suggesting the building of relationship upon self-interest and your listening to them, your thinking about doing it you have already given them authority over you. You would not be listening to them if you were not already thinking about doing what you were not supposed to do, coveting, lusting, leaving the Father, what the Father says out of your conversation with yourself and with them, making room for your and their carnal desires in the conversation.

Romans 10:3 "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

While there are those who perceive themselves as being saved by obeying the law, known as legalists, there are those who rejecting the law, reject God altogether. Salvation is not found in obeying the law or in rejecting the law, but in faith in the person Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God who, obeying the Father in all things commanded, took our place on the cross, covering our sins with his own blood.

Romans 5:8-10 "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."

Galatians 2:16, 20, 21 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

Whoever denies the Father, that is law, denies the Son, that is their need of a savior—who, by his shed blood on the cross redeemed us from His Father's wrath upon us for our disobedience, for our not fulfilling the law.

Romans 1:28-32 "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."​​​​​​

Max Horkheimer: "Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." (Max Horkheimer, Reasoning and Self Preservation) Protestantism, the priesthood of all believers, doing your best as unto the Lord, putting no man between you and the Lord was recognized by the Marxist Max Horkheimer as the source of individualism, under God, needing to be negated if globalism was to become a reality. He recognized that (unlike the Catholic Church, Cults, and all forms of socialisms, local, national, and global—which use group dynamics to control "the people"—there is no theocracy, that is man taking up arms to defend "the faith" in and of this world.

John 18:36 "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

You can not defend your faith. You can only defend your flesh. Faith, as a shield defends you, that is your soul. Faith defends you, from your lusting after pleasure and the buying and selling of your soul. Protestantism liberates the individual from "group think." The believer might be in "the group" but "the group" is not in him, that is he, now under the Father's authority is no longer of "the group," making him able to "come out of the group" (2 Corinthians 6:14-18), that is he able to stand alone (with the Lord) when and if the fellowship goes wrong, that is, if it, through dialogue goes counter to the Word of God. It was when Luther, in his effort to become a "good" Catholic discovered Catholicism was based upon Aristotelian Ethics, where in Gnostic form men's opinions were used to redefine the Word of God, making it more understandable to man and adaptable to 'change.' "That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above, corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracles of the One Thing." (The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus, translated by Dennis W. Hauck.) "The Hermetic tradition was both moderate and flexible, offering a tolerant philosophical religion, a religion of the (omnipresent) mind, a purified perception of God, the cosmos, and the self, and much positive encouragement for the spiritual seeker, all of which the student could take anywhere." (Tobias Churton The Golden Builders: Alchemists, Rosicrucian's, and the First Freemasons.) Even Martin Luther understood the use of Gnostic writings (Aristotelian philosophy) in the corrupting of the Church. Any effort to make man one through what he naturally has in common is Gnostic in structure.

Martin Luther: "Aristotle condemns us. In short, philosophers know nothing about God the creator and man made of a lump of earth. Augustine says that he found all things in the Platonic books except this one thing, that the Word was made flesh. But Hermese Trismegistus composed that book for Plato. That book reached Augustine and he was deceived by its persuasion. [foot note concerning Tristmegistus an Egypto-Hellenic theologian. (Augustine has an extensive discussion of Trismegistus in the City of God, viii, 22-27)]" (Luther's Works: Vol. 34, Career of the Reformer: IV, p.143)

The use of Aristotle (create a healthy environment and you can create a healthy person), that is stimulus-response was what the Protestant Reformation rejected. Nothing in the creation can change a man's heart. Only the work of Christ, and Christ alone can change a man's heart.

Jürgen Habermas: "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)

Marxists know of God's judgment upon them for their sins but seek to remove His Word from the environment so they can do wrong, disobey, sin, that is lust without having any sense of guilt.

Romans 1:32 "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." (See Romans 1:21-31)

Martin Luther: "Miserable Christians, whose words and faith still depend on the interpretations of men and who expect clarification from them! This is frivolous and ungodly. The Scriptures are common to all, and are clear enough in respect to what is necessary for salvation and are also obscure enough for inquiring minds ... let us reject the word of man." (Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer: II, p.217) "In vain does one fashion a logic of faith, a substitution brought about without regard for limit and measure." (Luther's Works: Vol. 31, Career of the Reformer: I, p. 12) "My advice has been that a young man avoid scholastic philosophy and theology like the very death of his soul." (Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer: II, p.258) "The sophists have imposed tyranny and bondage upon our freedom to such a point that we must not resist that twice accursed Aristotle, but are compelled to submit. Shall we therefore be perpetually enslaved and never breathe in Christian liberty, nor sigh from out of this Babylon for our scriptures and our home?" (Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer: II, p.217) "The sophists, nevertheless, rise proudly up, hold their ears, close their eyes, and turn away their heart just so that they may fill all ears with their human words, and alone may occupy the stage so that no one will bark against their assertion[s] ... The word of man is sacred and to be venerated, but God's word is handed over to whores ... the meaning of sin ... is dependent on the arbitrary choice of the sophists." (Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer: II, p.216) "I greatly fear that the universities, unless they teach the Holy Scriptures diligently and impress them on the young students, are wide gates to hell. I would advise no one to send his child where the Holy Scriptures are not supreme. Every institution that does not unceasingly pursue the study of God's word becomes corrupt." (Luther's Works: Vol. 1, The Christian in Society: p. 207) "We do not become righteous by doing righteous deeds but, having been made righteous, we do righteous deeds." (Luther's Works: Vol. 31, Career of the Reformer: I, p. 12)

A note here regarding the current translations, they are all subject to dialogue, to the opinions of men, even the "New" King James Bible, deliberately done to cause confusion in the fellowship, leading believers astray (despite what they might say, "Making the Word of God 'easier' to understand 'so more might be saved.'"). The history behind this goes directly to the method used to copy the original texts. With the one pathway using discussion, "What exactly did Isaiah or Paul write down." working to keep the text original, not changing one word. This was done by copying letters, with many proof-checks to make sure the new copy was as the original. These manuscripts, fragments, and letters, which numbering in the thousands were smuggled into Europe from the Eastern church, as the Moslems took over Constantinople. They were compiled into what are known as the Textus Receptus (the Greek and Hebrew of the Strong's Concordance). Luther translated the German Bible from this source as did Tyndale, King James, and Calvin. (Any doctrinal conflict was in the translation not in the source.) The other path was taken by the Catholic Church, which used dialogue, "we feel" and "we think" as its method of copying, focusing upon words, changing them to fit the current culture, that is "human nature," thus corrupting the Word. This made the Word of God (which it no longer was) subject to the opinions of men, making the "church" subject to the leadership to know what they saw the word saying for the day (with those in the "church" paying them for their "wisdom"). In Luther's effort to be a "good" Catholic he discovered as he researched in the library that the Catholic Church used dialogue to make the Word of God and "the people" subject to their agenda, which was using the "church," "group dynamics" (desire for the approval of "the group") to control the people for the purpose of making money. In the 1880 two Catholics, posing as Protestants gained control of the committee overseeing the Textus Receptus and convinced them to use three Catholic sources, Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus אּ, Codex X (of gnostic construct) which conflicted with one another, making the Textus Receptus now subject to the opinions of men, restoring dialogue (the approval of men) back into the "church." The Metzger, Nestle, Aland Greek texts which ministers learn from in seminary are based upon this heretical copies, with all contemporary translations being subject to them (they will martyr you, ex-communicate you without writ) if you say this in seminary or even in the contemporary "church" today (with dopamine, lust and the praises of men now in control of their brain). Many members of the congregation discerned the heresy of the "church growth" movement because they (unknowingly) detected the change in language from discussion to dialogue, the compromise that these false copies brought into the "church," thus replacing righteousness, (that is only God can change the human heart) with sensuousness (that is the building of relationship upon common self interest) so "we" can now become the focus of "church."

Only God is good (righteous)—His righteousness is imputed to man only by his faith in Him. When man attempts to create a "good" person by 'creating' a "good" environment (for him to grow up in) all he has to work with (and therefore actualize) is "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride of life," justifying' his self, that is his lusts before men, deceiving himself and all who listen to him, dying in his sins.

Ephesians 2:8, 9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

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

The Father's authority requires faith. The child's carnal nature requires lust, which the world (sight) engenders. Herein lies the difference between traditional and transformational education, that is KNOWING from being told, that is the Father's authority (which deals with the soul—belief-action dichotomy) and the experiment, that is knowing from "sense experience," that is from lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint, that is from the child's carnal nature which is stimulated by the world (stimulus-response; theory-practice). The "land of the free and the home of the brave" is negated as students, beaten down by "the group." are pressured to abandon freedom of the conscience, that is individualism, under God for approval of "the group." The facilitator of 'change' with his insistence upon dialogue when it comes to behavior is the Serpent in the Garden, 'liberating' the children from the Father's authority so he can be worshiped by the children—not caring about their soul, that is where they will spend eternity (damning their soul).

In his article The Holy Family Karl Marx explained the Christian faith—you have to know how what you want to negate works in order to make sure it does not come back again, negating its effect upon the individual and thus upon society through the use of generalization.

"The unspeculative Christian also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, that is of faith, of true love, that is of love of God, of true will-power, that is 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."

Through the use of generalization, using Fruit Trees as an example Marx explained how the believer can be seduced, that is pulled into compromise, setting aside his faith in order to get along with others in order do what he wants (what the Father's authority is preventing him from doing). In The Holy Family Marx wrote:

"It is not sensuality which is presented ..., but the attraction of what is forbidden." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) Emphasis added.

"Building relationship upon self-interest," upon lust, upon "the attraction of what is forbidden," upon what that which not yours to have, but someone else's is the hallmark of Marxism, requiring the person to negate the Father's authority, remove the Father from the environment in order not to have a guilty conscience, in order not to be judged, condemned, and cast out, that is rejected because of their carnal thoughts and carnal actions. It is a sad day when you have to explain Marxism in order to explain what is happening in the world around you today. 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 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: "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, rejecting the the Father's authority and the "living soul" the child 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. "On the contrary" it is the Father's authority, that is the child having to do right and not wrong according to the Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth that "destroys him," that is that prevents him from becoming his self, thinking and acting according to his carnal nature, that is 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 in order to "get along," that is in order to build relationship "is the necessary framework through which freedom" from the Father's authority and "freedom" to lust after pleasure, that is to do what he wants without having a guilty conscience (which the Father's authority engenders) "are made reality."

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 guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, for lusting after pleasure instead of doing what a person is told, which is engendered by the Father's authority and the use of "the group," society, the necessity to compromise, to set aside established commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to build relationship with others based upon common self-interest, lust negating the guilty conscience and its effect upon the individual and therefore its effect upon society. Where relationship with others based upon common self-interest, lust supersedes obedience to the one who's established commands, rules, facts, and truth get in the way of relationship with others, based upon common self-interest, lust.

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," where relationship is based upon compromise, that the guilty conscience for doing wrong, for disobeying the Father can be 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: "The 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.

The Marxist Norman Brown gives us a definition of the guilty conscience from a Marxist's perspective, contempt for the Father's authority. 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:'" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

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 (which and who will be covered below) 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 all he had to do is negate (remove) the earthly father's authority from society (which he believed engendered the Heavenly Father's authority, that is religion). In other words by the child submitting to the earthly father's authority he 'created' the Heavenly Father's authority system. Without "help," that is the removal of the Father's authority from society, from the environment the Father's authority for Karl Marx would continue to control the child's thoughts, directly effecting his actions. This was expressed by Lenin during the Russian Revolution, Communist takeover of the Russian people, "The peasantry [the traditional, middle-class family] constantly regenerates the bourgeoisie [the Father's authority system, insisting their children do right and not wrong according to what they have been told in order to get ahead]—in positively every sphere of activity and life." "We must learn how to eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs, and traditions everywhere." (Vladimir Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks' Success May 12, 1920) For socialism to be successful the middle-class, parents who insist children do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth must be negated. This includes teachers, businessmen, legislators, leaders, etc., including ministers. The use of dialogue when it comes to behavior accomplishes the deed. Thus, the agenda was to replace the traditional educator who preaches commands and rules to be obeyed, teaches facts and truth to be accepted as given, by faith, and refuses to dialogue but insisted upon discussion, where they have the final say with facilitators of 'change' who utilizing the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, excluded the Father's authority system in establishing behavior, effectively removing the Father's authority system from the students thoughts, directly effecting their behavior, effecting society.

In other words society needs man's natural inclination to lust after pleasure in order to become one 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, "bypassing" (disregarding and rejecting) 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.

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."

If I have twenty students from different homes, whose fathers differ from one another on established commands, rules, facts, and truth I have twenty students divided from one another if they are 'loyal' to their father's authority. The only way I can make them one is to focus upon what they have in common, their lust for pleasure and resentment toward restraint. 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 respond ('change' in accordance) to the situation and-or object, people, or person in the 'moment that is the objective of life. Without the "help" of the facilitator of 'change' the children remain subject to the Father's authority system. 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), 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).

Psalms 36:1-4 "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 10:3, 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."

2 Timothy 3:2-5 "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 Corinthians 6:15-18 "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."

When it comes to behavior God speaks through preaching, teaching, and discussing, from His established commands, rules, facts, and truth, rewarding those who do right and obey, chastening those who do wrong and disobey, that they might repent and turn from their wicked ways and do right and obey, casting out those who refuse to listen and thus refuse to repent and turn from their wicked ways while the Serpent, when it comes to behavior speaks through dialogue, 'justifying' man's carnal nature, thus 'justifying' man's rejection of and rebellion toward the Father's authority.

"Rule of law" resides in discussion, the "tyranny of the masses" in dialogue. Culture, the standards of the past reside in discussion while the destruction of culture (culture war) resides in dialogue. The regenerate heart resides in discussion the unregenerate (natural or carnal) heart with its lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint in dialogue.

Purpose in discussion is to do right and not wrong according to what he has been told while in dialogue it is to get what you want. You are 'driven' and manipulated (with "feelings") in dialogue, led and persuaded (with facts and truth) in discussion. Peace is having done right and not wrong or being right and not wrong according to what he has been told (righteousness being imputed by God, by His grace through our faith) in discussion, while 'peace' is not being held accountable for one's carnal thoughts and carnal actions in dialogue, since everyone is entitled to their opinion in dialogue, thus there is no wrong. The only wrong being those who insist upon discussion, that is doing right and not wrong according to what they have been told, that is doing the Father's will that gets in the way of their "feelings," their "sense experience," the "affective domain," dopamine "emancipation," their lusts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating.

What is missing (you lose) in dialogue.

In dialogue there is no Father's authority, therefore no inheritance, posterity, history, tradition, unalienable rights, sovereignty, representation (representative government), limited government, local control, culture, heritage, absolutes (established commands, rules, facts, and truth), private convictions, private property, and private business, "limits and measures," being wrong, humbling, denying, dying to, disciplining, controlling, capitulating of "self," contrition, repentance, forgiveness, salvation, conversion—redemption and reconciliation—(for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning), fellowship, etc. They are all missing (negated) in and through dialogue.

Generalization resides in dialogue, only that which is 'relevant' to the desires of the 'moment' is presented in order to get one's way while in discussion, as the saying goes "The devils in the details," the objective is to be or do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth. In the use of generalization those who insist upon discussion, that is accountability for doing or being wrong according to what the Father says are silenced, censored, and removed (negated). if they persist they are accused of being argumentative.

Prejudice when it comes to discussion is based upon doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth while prejudice in dialogue is based upon parents telling their children how to behave, holding them accountable when they do wrong or disobey. If the teacher insists two plus two is always four and cannot be any other number, holding his students accountable for being or doing wrong, or the boss expects his employees to do right and not wrong according to what they have been told, or the President, governors, mayors, legislators, senators, town councilmen, and judges insist upon "rule of law," that is the constitution, making decisions based upon it they, according to the dialogue group are considered prejudiced, Fascists. This includes God.

"Top-down" resides in discussion while "equality" resides in dialogue, which is based upon "feelings," upon man's carnal nature, upon his lust for pleasure and resentment toward restraint. "Robert's Rule of Law" or "Rule of Law" resides in discussion while consensus or worldly peace and socialist harmony resides in dialogue. While discussion can save no one (as with the law) it is the means by which we know right from wrong from being told, thus that we are wrong when we are wrong.

"Bloom's Taxonomies:" "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

All educators are certified, and schools accredited today based upon their use of what are known as "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom. In the first "taxonomy," Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain Bloom wrote, "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." Bloom simply paraphrased Marxist ideology, as explained by Friedrich Engels. "In the eyes of the dialectic philosophy, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." Forty years after the publication of the first taxonomy bloom admitted, "Certainly the Taxonomy was unproved at the time it was developed and may well be 'unprovable.'" (Benjamin Bloom, Forty Year Evaluation) Bloom, in his second "taxonomy," Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain, acknowledged that he was warned of what he was doing. "Whether or not the classification scheme presented in Handbook I: Cognitive Domain is a true taxonomy is still far from clear." "It has been pointed out that we are attempting to classify phenomena which could not be observed or manipulated in the same concrete form as the phenomena of such fields as the physical and biological sciences. It was the view of the group that educational objectives stated in the behavior form have their counterparts in the behavior of individuals. . . . observable and describable therefore classifiable." True science is observable and repeatable. Yet if any teacher does not accept "Bloom's Taxonomies" as fact and apply them in the classroom, applying the Father's authority system in the classroom instead, he or she will be punished. Ask any teacher.

In the second "taxonomy," Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain we read the following: "The student must feel free to say he disliked [having to do what he is told 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'). The "taxonomies" are the tool by which Marxist's, facilitator's of 'change' are able to evaluate where the students are regarding their paradigm, whether they are loyal to the Father's authority, thinking only of their self, or 'loyal' to "the group," socialist causes, and the facilitator of 'change,' using that information in order to shape the classroom in order to 'change' their paradigm, making sure they are Marxist, are becoming Marxists or are silence, censored, and removed (negated).

Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain: "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."

According to Bloom, as mentioned above it is the role of the "educator," as a facilitator of 'change,' a group psychotherapist "to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shaped 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 pleasure, dopamine "emancipation" over and therefore against parental authority) thus producing "conflict and tension between parents and children." (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," that is 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 or God's standards) pressures students to 'justify' their and the other students love of pleasure and hate of restraint, doing so in order to be approved, affirmed by them, 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. Generalization has been used by men who lust after pleasure in order to destroy (silence) those who stand in their way or who can get them cast out.

Irvin D. Yalom, in his book The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy wrote: "Without exception, [children] 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 child] 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 children] 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 [children] must feel free to confront the [the facilitator of 'change'], who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation [rebellion and anarchy]. He [the child] reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy [brainwashing—washing respect for and fear of the father's authority from the child's brain (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 child] 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 morels, 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 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)

Benjamin Bloom in his book second "taxonomy," Book 2: Affective Domain 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)

The role of those using dialogue instead of discussion when it comes to behavior is to 'liberate' the next generation, and therefore their self from the Father's authority system in order for them to lust after pleasure without having a guilty conscience, with "the people's" affirmation, so they can lust without being judged, condemned, and cast out for their immoral behavior. When it comes to behavior, for traditional minded people to tolerate the process of 'change,' that is to participate in or be silent when dialogue is used, where those "of and for the world," the facilitator of 'change,' the group psychotherapist and all who follow him have the final say, it has become the law of the land. When you are silent in the midst of unrighteousness, unrighteousness becomes the "norm," "the law of the flesh," sin, man's carnal nature has become the law of the land.

A Soviet (the consensus process):

"Has authority been banished in these later days? Has the world reached a point where it will condone the formation of pupil soviets?" (Will C. Woods, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of California, March 1921) The facilitated, "be positive and not negative," open-ended non-directed, dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, "group grade" classroom your child is learning to think and behave in is a soviet. A soviet is a diverse group of people (which must including the deviant, the catalyst for 'change'), dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, over social issues (where social worth becomes more important than the right of the individual, under God), to a pre-determined outcome (that no policy or law is to be made without the soviet system, that is the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, which prevents the Father's authority from establishing policy, rules, or making law). When policy and law are established according to self-interest, the victim (whose individual rights were violated by the criminal) becomes the criminal (by forcing his laws upon the criminal, who was simply following "human nature"), who, now becomes the victim—since he has to obey established laws preventing him from becoming his self (subject to his carnal nature, that is subject to what he has in common with all that is "of the world"). Anyone holding to established commands, rules, facts, and truth placed in a dialoguing of opinions to a consensus environment will always be perceived as being argumentative, experiencing terror as his individual rights, under God are replaced (negated) with social cause, that is social worth. Your child does not have to be told to question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack your authority as a parent (if he or she was not doing it already), all he or she has to do is participate in a classroom using "Bloom's Taxonomies" as its curriculum, that is learn right and wrong behavior in the "group grade" classroom, where he or she must go with "the group," that is become a socialist, replacing individual rights, under God with "social worth," that is be affirmed by "the group" or be rejected, that is silence, censored, and-or cast out by it, going with or affirming "the group" and he or she will do it automatically.

R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, in their book Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law, explaining the effect dialogue has upon decisions made in the court room wrote: "Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules to best suit the state."

When dialogue replaces discussion, when it comes to behavior those who base their lives upon discussion, that is the father's authority are terrorized, that is martyred. A conservative judge, for example will use discussion when making judgment, turning to the Constitution (established law), letting it have the final say while the 'liberal' judge will turn to dialogue redefining the Constitution (or ignoring it) making law subject to his (and "the people's") lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint, 'justifying' the killing of the unborn, the elderly, the righteous, and the innocent, doing so without having a guilty conscience.

Our highest court, in Strauss Vs. Strauss., 3 So. 2nd 727, 728, 1941 wrote: "Every system of law known to civilized society generated from or had as its component one of two well-known systems of ethics, stoic or Christian [men's opinions or rule of law]. The COMMON LAW draws its subsistence from the latter, its roots go deep into that system, the Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic frictions and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled." Karl Marx, rejecting the father's authority system (discussion) built his ideology off of Heraclitus who wrote: "Every grown man of the Ephesians should hang himself and leave the city to the boys." (Heraclitus's ideology, based upon dialogue influenced the Stoics). Karl Marx, in Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right' wrote: "The justice of state constitutions is to be decided not on the basis of Christianity, not from the nature of Christian society but from the nature of human society." In ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 15, 1973 our highest court (rejecting and therefore in defiance to the Christian faith) turned to stoicism (men's feelings of the ''moment'; influenced by the immediate situation, rejecting the restraints of the Constitution) in making law: "there has always been strong support for the view [opinion] that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics." In ROE V. WADE our highest court embraced the principle or ideology of Marxism, establishing it over and therefore against the Word of God, that is Godly restraint, that is individualism, under God, that is "rule of law," which protects the individual from governmental usurpation of his God given rights.

When a judge turns to discussion regarding an issue pertaining to the Constitution, he is bound to the limits and measures established by the Constitution, that is he cannot "make law." The judge can only interpret the case before him in whether it violated the Constitution or not. When a judge turns to dialogue, he is not bound by the limits and measures of the Constitution but free to "make law." The Constitution was created to prevent dialogue ruling over the people.

The replacing of discussion with dialogue when it comes to behavior is Jean-Jacques Rousseau world where, in defiance to "the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof," that is rejecting the Father's authority, with the Father having the final say, "The fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody [except to the one making this statement who, in his thoughts and actions "owns" whatever he sees (as did the woman in the garden in Eden), that is as Karl Marx declared "The proletariat (Karl Marx and all who think like him) thus has the same right as has the German king (the father) when he calls, the people his people and a horse his horse."]." (1 Corinthians 10:26; Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality; Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') Whoever defines terms for you controls your life. Either man or God. Who you turn to determines where you will spend eternity.

2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12: "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 2:11, 12 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, establishing lust over and therefore against the Father's authority, believed a lie that pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will, believed in their self and the pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates instead of in the Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned." When it comes to behavior, when you replace discussion, what the Father says, with the Father having the final say with dialogue, what you say, with you having the final say you damn your soul. That is the curse of psychology, that cursed a nation.

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.

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.

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2024 (7/28/2024)