authorityresearch.com

Proverbs 3:5, 6 "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."

The Basis Of All Issues.
(Personal note.)

by
Dean Gotcher
(Most quotations below have added information to make what the writer is stating clearer to understand. If you want the actual quotation you need to get it from the written manuscript itself since added information is bracketed but not noted by the speaker.)

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."

When it comes to behavior our earthly father is like the Heavenly Father, telling us what is right and what is wrong behavior, what we can and can not do, holding us accountable to what he says, to what we have been told. Yet unlike the Heavenly Father who is Spirit and Holy, therefore good and right, that is perfect (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.") our earthly father, being of the flesh (Romans 7:19 "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing.") is susceptible to "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride of life," to that which is "of the world," known as stimulus-response, therefore he is susceptible to being and doing wrong, doing what he wants instead of doing what the Father says, what he is told.

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

When we make our flesh, how we "feel" the substance from which we determine right and wrong behavior we have to reject the Heavenly Father's authority. As will be covered in detail in the following issue, discussion, where the Father has the final say, with us having to do what he says, what we are told is a totally different political system than dialogue, were we have the final say, 'justifying' our self, that is our flesh, how we "feel," 'justifying' our lust for pleasure and our dissatisfaction with, resentment or hatred toward restraint, toward the Father and His authority for getting in the way. Dialogue is that spectrum test we take, from "I love," to "I like," to "I'm not interested," to "I dislike," to "I hate," grading a situation, an object, the people, or a person according to how much pleasure or pain (the absence of pleasure) it or they stimulate, while discussion is either-or, either we are right or we are wrong according to the Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, according to what we have been told. In discussion God is God, requiring us to obey, to do His will. In dialogue, we are God, chasing after pleasure (dopamine), doing what we want in the 'moment' (at least in our mind, in our imagination).

The world renown psychotherapist, Carl Rogers, in defiance to God and His Word wrote: "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual come to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

This is why those "of and for the world," when it comes to behavior, as the serpent did with the woman in the garden in Eden, by creating a safe place, zone, space, a we can talk about anything here without fear of being judged, condemned, being cast out, "Ye shalt not surely die" environment attempt to draw you into dialogue, since there is no Father's authority, that is wrong in dialogue so they can do what they want, what they are lusting after, that is do wrong, disobey, sin, lust without having a guilty conscience, with your affirmation, thus no longer having to fear you judging them according to the Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, condemning and casting them out (refusing to have relationship with them, firing them, or not hiring them) because of their immoral thoughts and immoral actions.

Wilfred Bion, director of the Tavistock Institute, the global headquarter for 'change' agents, wrote: "Prevent someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space." (Wilfred Bion, A Memoir of the Future) The "empty space" is you talking to yourself in the 'moment,' either using dialogue to 'justify' yourself or discussion doing what you are told. The 'change' agenda's agenda is to prevent discussion, that is to prevent the Father from having the final say or rather any say at all.

When it comes to behavior the purpose or agenda of "dialectic reasoning," "enlightenment," therapy is to leave the Father's authority, what the Father says out of your communication with your self and with others, which is being practiced in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, and even in the "church" today resulting in "the people" judging, condemning, and casting anyone out who brings it in, accusing them of being argumentative, judgmental, hateful, prejudiced, a lower order thinker, maladjusted, unreasonable, unadaptable to 'change,' not a "team player," mental, a fascist, causing disharmony, dissention, division, and so forth, needing to join in the dialogue, that is set aside what the Father says or leave (go somewhere else). The 'moment' you hear "I feel" and "I think" when it comes to defining God's Word, making God's Word subject to the opinion of men (dialogue) the fellowship is going liberal.

When it came to "the lust of the flesh," what Karl Marx called "sensuous need," while the woman in the garden in Eden perceived through dialogue that the "forbidden fruit" Genesis 3:6 "was good for food" Jesus Christ, through discussion, what the Father said responded: Matthew 4:4 "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

When it came to "the lust of the eyes," what Karl Marx called "sense perception," while the woman in the garden in Eden perceived through dialogue that the "forbidden fruit" Genesis 3:6 "was pleasing to the eyes," when the master facilitator of 'change' offered the Lord Jesus Christ "the world" if he would bow down and worship him (we in our carnal nature worship through our eyes), the Lord, through discussion, what the Father said, responded: Matthew 4:10 "Get they behind me Satan, for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."

When it came to "the pride of life," what Karl Marx called "sense experience" while the woman in the garden in Eden perceived through dialogue that the "forbidden fruit" Genesis 3:6 was "desirous to make one wise," when the master facilitator of 'change' tempted the Lord Jesus Christ to jump off the pinnacle, forcing God to choose between His Word and His love for His Son (His Word and his love for you), showing everyone how "important" He was the Lord, through discussion, what the Father said responded: Matthew 4:7 "It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." 

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

John 5:30 Jesus said: "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."

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."

The Father authors commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted is and applied, and enforces them, holding those under Hs authority accountable to doing or applying them, correcting or chastening them when they do wrong or disobey. This is the method or curriculum used in traditional education. The child who honors the Father's authority has a guilty conscience when he disobeys, thus sustaining the Father's authority in society, that is wherever he goes. Those "of and for the world" know that when you use dialogue to establish right and wrong behavior the fear of God, that is the Father's authority, being judged, condemned, and cast out for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, for lusting is removed from the environment, negating the guilty conscience in the process. 

Psalms 36:1". . . there is no fear of God before his eyes."

Psalms 10:4 ". . . God is not in all his thoughts."

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."

Stephen Bronner: "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)

It was the master facilitator of 'change' who "helped" two "children" in a garden in Eden to "reason" from their carnal nature, according to their "feelings" and "thought" of the 'moment' that the world was stimulating instead of doing what they were told, Dialogue, as explained above is based upon our "feelings," our carnal desires, our lusts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, that is that an object and-or the people or a person is stimulating (lust is plural in that lust is not only toward an object or situation that stimulates pleasure but it is also for the approval or affirmation of others), occupying our thought, directly effecting our action, resulting in us having the final say (at least in our mind). Enlightenment is based upon dialogue, what the woman in the garden did when it came to the "forbidden fruit," establishing her self, her carnal nature, lust, what Karl Marx called "sense experience" as the foundation for reasoning, 'liberating' her self from the Father's authority, from having to do what she was told in the process. It can be said therefore, the first act of enlightenment took place in a garden in Eden (see Genesis 3:1-6), where (in an "We can talk about anything without being judged, condemned, cast out, 'Ye shalt not surely die'" environment, safe zone, space, place), when it came to behavior, the woman's feelings ("I feel like touching it") and thought of the 'moment' ("It is just like all the other trees. It will only give me an opportunity to think for my self, making my behavior subject to my carnal desires"), dialogue became the means to defining and establishing behavior, replacing (that is negating) discussion, what the Father said. In dialectic 'reasoning' lust becomes "good" and the Father's authority "evil," for judging, condemning, and cast people out for lusting after pleasure instead of doing His will, doing what they are told.

Herbart Marcuse, explaining the purpose of psychology and its relationship to Marxism: "... 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.'" (Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud)

Abraham Maslow: "We must ultimately assume at the highest theoretical levels of enlightenment ... a preference or a tendency ... to identify with more and more of the world, moving toward the ultimate of mysticism, a fusion with the world, or peak experience, cosmic consciousness, etc." "The more enlightened the religious institutions get, that is to say, the more liberal they get, the greater will be the advantage for an enterprise run in an enlightened way [according to man's carnal nature]." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)

James 3:15 "This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish."

Isaiah 5:20, 21 "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!"

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."

The "law of the flesh," stimulus-response, doing what you "feel" like doing in the 'moment,' in response to the environment (imagined or real) is antithetical to "the law of God," "the law of the Father," doing what you have been told. While the earthly father is subject to "the law of the flesh," his structure of authority is the same as the Heavenly Father's, who is Holy, authoring commands and rules to be obeyed as given, authoring facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith (at least at first until understood) and applied and enforcing them, rewarding those who obey and do things right, correcting those who do things wrong, chastening those who disobey, casting any out who, refusing to repent and obey, question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack Him and His authority instead. The "law of the flesh" makes you subject to "sense-experience," resulting in you approaching pleasure and avoiding pain (disliking, resenting, hating pain) making the experiencing of pleasure (which includes your thinking upon it or imagining it) right and the experiencing of pain (which includes the mental pain of missing out on pleasure) wrong (often referred to as "theory and practice"). The "law of the spirit," that which is of God or the Father makes you subject to doing what you have been told, which requires faith. The "law of the flesh," that which is "of the world" makes you subject to your "feelings" of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, which requires sight resulting in you, when you think upon it and then yield to it, that is doing what you "feel" like doing, doing your will instead of doing what you have been told having a guilty conscience thus having to repent and do what you are told in order to have peace again with the Father (called belief-action dichotomy).

Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

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."

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."

Dopamine, the drug of choice for the child (even the "child" in an adult body, that is an adult acting like a child, doing what he wants instead of doing what he is told).

Our body or our flesh is always subject to approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, making it and therefore us 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 (from now on referred to as simply dopamine, "emancipated" being understood). 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 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, and where it came from. Once 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 pleasure. When the bell rang for recess you felt the sensation of dopamine, yourself being "liberated." That mental attending to it is as muscle memory, anticipating the sensation which comes with dopamine 'justifying' its apprehension unless restrained. Attending to it mentally and thinking upon how to apprehend it increases the sensation of pleasure, making reasoning subject to lust unless restrained physically and mentally, which would be equivalent to being detoxed, making you, if successful no longer under the control of stimulus-response, lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint, at least for the 'moment.' The greater the sensation of dopamine as well as the longer it is attending to (focused upon) the greater the resentment toward restraint. Resentment or hatred toward restraint follows after lust for pleasure. One follows after the other. This is the condition of the unregenerated heart, "human nature," "of the earth" nature.

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

The unregenerated heart, thinking pleasure, dopamine is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will hates anyone preventing, that is inhibiting or blocking it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that it is lusting after. The unregenerated heart (the Karl Marx in you) cannot see its hatred toward the Father's authority as being evil, that is "wicked," that is "desperately wicked" because its lust for pleasure, dopamine is in the way (that is all sees), 'justifying' the hate.

Mark 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."

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 and think about having one, then it becomes lust. If you act upon it, take one it is called disobedience, with God calling it sin.

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?"

When it comes to behavior, you either do what you are told, that is you do what your Father says or you do what you want, that is you do what you "feel" like doing. In discussion you do what you are told, with the one in authority having the final say, requiring you to deny your self, that is deny your lust for dopamine in order to do what you are told. In dialogue on the other hand you do what you want (at least in your imagination), with you having the final say, 'justifying' your self, that is 'justifying' your lust for dopamine, in order to do what you want (or imagine doing it) without having a guilty conscience since in dialogue there is no guilty conscience in doing what you want (or thinking about it) since there is no Father's authority in dialogue, that is there is no having to do what you are told, which engenders a guilty conscience for doing what you want instead of doing what you are told.

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.

All habitual drugs are associated with dopamine, some stimulate it, 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). When you yield to the pleasure of dopamine instead of doing the Father's will it is called lust, leading to sin. "The lust of the flesh" is your yielding to the sensation of dopamine instead of your 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. "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. Money, for example, when made subject to pleasure becomes, when it is stored up, stored up dopamine or drug money. This is the basis of your "sense experience," your natural inclination to lust after dopamine and to hate restraint, that is your hating to miss out what it is that stimulates pleasure. The child is not in love with the toy. He is in love with the dopamine that the toy is stimulating. As "the preacher" said, Ecclesiastes 1:2 "Vanity" of "vanities; all is vanity." 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 dopamine, the sensation of pleasure.

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 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."

Language, how we communicate with our self and with others (which paradigm we use, how we feel, think, and act toward our self, others, the world, and authority) comes in here. Opinion and theory, established upon "sense experience," upon dopamine resides in dialogue while KNOWING and belief established on being told resides in discussion. Real or true science resides in discussion, the truth is KNOWN (all the laws of nature are established by God, observable and repeatable, unchanging) while "so called science" resides in dialogue, is still in opinions tossed back and forth (called the antithesis of so called or seems to be gnosis. or knowing. or "science" in the scripture) where your feelings of the 'moment,' which are ever 'changing' are treated as a fact or truth, as in the child saying "I'll die if you don't let me go out." I dialogue you have not arrived yet and will never arrive, making EVERYTHING forever subject to 'change.' KNOWING by being or having been told resides in discussion, where there is accountability for being or doing wrong while knowing in dialogue is by "sense experience," with doing better next time the limit of punishment, thus two different justice systems, with those who insist upon discussion be judged, reproved, chastened, condemned, cast out for being or doing wrong while those who insist upon dialogue being 'justified' in their carnal thoughts and carnal actions, in their feelings and thoughts of the 'moment' that the world was stimulating, being encouraged to do "better" next time at the most—the issue of his missing out on dopamine being the concern not the issue of being or doing wrong and not right according to what he has been told. Instead of right-wrong being the issue (which is a position), where you are held accountable for doing or being wrong, which is associated with discussion, right-"badly" (which is an opinion) becomes the issue, where you will only be encouraged to do better next time, which is associated with dialogue. For example, while the "old" marriage vow went "for better and for worse, until death do us part" the "new" vow (which is not that new) 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.

The famous German philosopher Georg Hegel wrote: "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)

This is why when it comes to behavior I always add "wrong" to right since it is easy to leave "wrong," that is what the Father says out when it comes to doing what we want. Hegel wrote: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) And I add for clarity, once he is 'liberated' from the father's authority to become as he was before the father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life (separating him from his "self," his lust for dopamine and the world that stimulates it), making him "of and for self" and the world only—which dialogue, when applied to behavior does.

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 is abomination in the sight of God."

Jürgen Habermas, who was a Transformational Marxist (Marxists who merge Marxism and psychology, both of which reject the Father's authority), explained how dialogue is used to 'liberate' the children, dopamine from the father's authority and thus man from God's. What all men (and children) have in common is their lust for dopamine, not what the Father says. 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)

Ervin Laszlo the originator and promoter of "climate 'change'" explained 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 dopamine, that is lust for pleasure in the participants, directly effecting, that is 'justifying' their carnal actions in the process.

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)

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, you are still on the pathway to destruction.

When it comes to behavior, when you have been told what you can and cannot do or say and you hear the words "I feel" and "I think" you are in "the world" of lust for dopamine, "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" being 'justified. The soul KNOWS from being told. The flesh by "sense experience." Discussion, "I KNOW because I have been told" supports the Father's authority, doing right and not wrong according to have been told (either-or) is the issue at hand. Dialogue, "I feel" and "I think" on the other hand supports the child's carnal nature, where along the spectrum of 'change,' based upon "I like" to "I don't like" and everything in between and beyond is the issue at hand. When it comes to behavior, when you go to discussion (not "so called discussion" which is established upon dialogue and therefore is only an opinion) the Father has the final say, requiring the child to humble his self, that is deny his lust for dopamine and do right and not wrong according to what he has been told. When you go to dialogue, dopamine the child has the final say, doing what he wants in the 'moment' without restraint, approaching pleasure and avoiding pain—which includes the mental pain that comes with missing out on pleasure, dopamine. When it comes to behavior, those "of and for the world" turn to dialogue in order (as in "new" world order) to 'justify' their own lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint, making behavior subject to stimulus-response, that which is only "of the world." On the other hand, those who seek to do the Father's will turn to discussion as their means of communication, requiring them to do right and not wrong according to what they have been told. To those "of and for the world" being told, the father's authority, established commands, rules, facts, and truth is associated with spirit, thus is not subject to the flesh, is not subject to "the world," is not subject to stimulates-response, is not subject or adaptable to 'change' according to man's "felt" needs or lusts of the 'moment' and therefore is to be rejected if man it to become his self, thinking and acting according to his own nature, lusting after pleasure and hating restraint, that is hating missing out on pleasure. If spirit considered, it is labeled a phenomena, a feature of nature not yet identified. When it comes to behavior which one you choose, discussion or dialogue defines your state of mind, your paradigm, where or who you are looking to in order to deal with the issues and crisis of life. One requires faith in the One who is above, that is above "sense experience," above the impulses and urges of the 'moment' that the world stimulates while the other depends upon "sense experience," upon that which is only "of the world." Merging the two only creates confusion, the merging of facts and feelings, making feelings, opinion, theory a fact, needing to be trusted and acted upon, negating faith, the Father's authority, being told, making established commands, rules, facts, and truth only an opinion, no longer absolute, no longer to be accepted as is and obeyed, making them ever subject to 'change,' subject to stimulus-response instead of absolutes which get in the way of "worldly peace and socialist harmony," dopamine, lust for pleasure and the lust for the affirmation of men. When it comes to behavior, the more you focus upon dialogue, 'justify' the person's lust for pleasure, lust for dopamine the greater his resentment and hatred toward restraint will become. Just leaving out the Father's authority when dealing with behavior, removing accountability for one's behavior (based upon being told) accomplishes the deed.

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 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.

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)

All educators are certified, and schools accredited today based upon their use of what are known as "Bloom's Taxonomies" as their curriculum in the classroom. In the first "taxonomy," quoted above 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." When it comes to behavior, when you use dialogue in the classroom, making the students "feeling," their "affective domain," their lust for dopamine "emancipation" the curriculum you negate the Father's authority (you can only have one or the other), making the students lust for pleasure, which includes their lust for approval of one another the foundation from which to 'reason,' 'justifying' their natural inclination to hate the Father's authority for getting in the way, making lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint, stimulus-response, only that which is "of the world," Marxism the outcome.

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, regarding education wrote: "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)

Watch your language. Your language reveals who you are. When it comes to behavior your language reveals your paradigm, how you feel, think, and act toward yourself, others, the world, and authority. The same is true for everyone you meet. Discussion and dialogue are two totally different political systems. Discussion is objective, where the Father, what you are told has the final say while dialogue is subjective where your flesh, how you feel has the final say. While you have both discussion and dialogue (by God being "formed" from "the dust of the ground," the flesh and the world that stimulates it associated with dialogue and by the breath of God being a "living soul," knowing right from wrong from being told associated with discussion), when it comes to behavior which one you turn to, to that which is associated with "the dust of the ground," dialogue or that which is associated with "the breath of God," discussion determines whether you are a conservative or a liberal, whether you are seeking after righteousness, doing right and not wrong according to what you are told or sensuousness, lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates. In discussion the Father has the final say, "Because I said so," "It is written," "Nevertheless," that is God is God, associated with "top-down authority," with you KNOWING right from wrong from being told (this same pattern of thinking, paradigm applies to traditional thinking parents, educators, employers, legislators, leaders, judges, doctors, sheriffs, ministers, etc., - while they might be wrong the issue of being right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth still remains) while in dialogue you have the final say, associated with your "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating,' your "I feel" and "I think" making you God, with you knowing right from wrong from your own "sense experience" (this same pattern of thinking applies to 'liberal' thinking parents, educators, known as facilitators of 'change,' employers, legislators, leaders, judges, doctors, sheriffs, ministers, etc., - where anyone refusing to dialogue when it comes to behavior insisting upon discussion, based upon established commands, rules, facts, and truth instead is to be converted (participate) or be silenced, censored, and rejected or cast out - when they say you can share anything you want and not be judged, condemned, or cast out they lie because if you tell others how they are to behave according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth you will be judged, condemned, and cast out, no true discussion allowed here - that is why when you talk to anyone who has participated in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, "Let's be positive and not negative" meeting, which is now almost all there is, you can no longer communicate with them, they are no longer able to discuss issues with you, only being able to dialogue, requiring you to do the same). 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.

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."

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."

When it comes to behavior which one you turn to (discussion or dialogue) determines your political system, either turning to discussion where you are accountable to the one above, which takes on the form of doing or being right according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, as in "old school" doing what you are told or being corrected and-or chastened for disobeying, thus having a guilty conscience for doing wrong leading to repentance, with you doing right from then on, or if you, refusing to repent continue to disobey, being judged, condemned, and-or cast out or turning to dialogue instead where you are only accountable to that which is below, which takes on the form of doing what you want in response to the current situation and-or object, people or person present, doing what you "feel" like doing in the 'moment,' known as stimulus-response. 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, quoting Max Planck,

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).

Benjamin S. Bloom, et al: "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 "Bloom's Taxonomies" by which all teachers are certified, and schools accredited today)

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. "

For example your "Why?" in response to your Father's command that got in the way of your lust, your heart's desire, your self-interest of the 'moment' (your wanting to go out and spend time with your new friends, who's thoughts and actions you knew were contrary to your Father's principles) was your effort to draw the Father into dialogue, into saying "I feel" and "I think" where you could then do what you wanted (mess around with your new friends) and not be punished, it was then, if he went into dialogue with you, which would be just his opinion which is different than yours (everyone is entitled to their opinion), since there is no wrong in dialogue or in an opinion you could do wrong (with your new friends) without being judged, condemned, and-or cast out (if he did not find out, and if he finds out it did not matter anyway, his opinion did not count, he cannot reprimand you), allowing you to do wrong without having a guilty conscience. But when the Father said, "Because I said so," or in God's case "It is written," with threat of punishment for disobeying, for doing your will instead, He retained His authority resulting in your hope for dialogue with the Father, that is doing what you want being cut off. Thus, your response to the Father, "You're being unreasonable." "You don't understand" is in harmony with Thomas Kuhn since your "reasoning" and "understanding" is based upon your "feelings," your lusts of the 'moment' not upon doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, being told. The soul KNOWS from being told. The flesh from "sense experience." Thus, the moto of those "of and for the world,"

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," 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, what the Father says (being told) in an environment insisting upon dialogue, self-interest (stimulus-response) is going to be martyred. It is the nature of the beast. Literally.

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.

It is not that dialogue in and of itself is evil. As long as you use it (your "I like" and your "I don't like" and everything in between and beyond) where you have been given the right to think and act upon that which you have been told you can have or do you are 'justified' in its use, but the 'moment' you use it regarding what (or take it where) you have been told you cannot have or what you cannot do it manifests itself as lust, establishing your carnal nature over and therefore against the Father's authority, making you, before God a sinner. Likewise it is not that discussion in and of itself will save you. It is that without it you will not (and cannot) hear from the Father and thus, when it comes to God, because of your disobedience you cannot recognize your need for a savior—His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ—having used dialogue where you were not supposed to, 'justifying' your lust, searing your conscience. While Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who "took on the form of a man" was able to dialogue, that is share His opinion, His "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' He did not, always discussing with His Father what to do next, and being led by the Holy Spirit doing the Father's will instead, we, having used dialogue to 'justify' our self, our behavior, our lusts, our disobedience have sinned.

By those "of and for the world," discovering through dialogue what it is you are lusting after (what you are coveting) and offering to "help" you "actualize" it (make it a part of your life), thereby gaining your trust (in your perception of them they have you, your best interest, your self interest in mind) they are able to "own" you, using you as "human resource" to satisfy their lusts, casting you aside when you no longer satisfy their lusts or get in their way, doing to you what you did to the Father for getting in your way (your worth to them and the Father's worth to you being measured upon the pleasures of the 'moment' you provide them and the Father provided you in the present, the "eternal present" or you're have the potential of providing them or the Father having the potential of providing you in the future, not upon your soul, where you will spend eternity after death—resulting in the issue of righteousness, doing the Father's will being replaced with sensuousness, doing your will instead thereby negating righteousness as the issue of life and death—no "conservative" organization or institution I know of today, that is politically involved makes righteousness (God's definition of righteousness) their foundation of thought, their platform, giving it lip service at the most in order to draw more people and therefore cash into supporting their cause).

When you use dialogue to establish right and wrong behavior you make yourself subject to the world, doing what you want that the world is stimulating, making you subject to stimulus-response, not to the Father, doing what you have been told. While the conservative person does not know the difference between discussion and dialogue the liberal does, using it to "beguile" the conservative in order to 'create' a world which not only 'justifies' his lusts but satisfies (augments) his lusts as well. The "apostate church," the dialectic "church" when it comes to the Word of God uses dialogue, making the Word of God subject to men's opinion, therefore subject to 'justifying' their lusts, making it antithetical to the gospel message, making themselves and all who follow after them an enemy of God.

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."

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 and 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.'

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 normal. 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 law of the flesh, "the lust of flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," only "that which is of the world." 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.

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

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

Carl Rogers: "The words 'seem to' are significant; it is the perception which functions in guiding behavior." He then wrote: "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) By justifying the child's and therefore his propensity to lust after pleasure and hate restraint he made lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint the 'drive' of life and thus its augmentation the 'purpose.' This is the sum total of dialectic 'reasoning,' psychotherapy, the "wisdom of men," resulting in man, denying the Father dying in his sins.

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

While those "of and for the world" seek after lust, blaming those who seek after God, doing the Father's will as being the source of division amongst men and the cause of war, war is actually the result of man's lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint, their rejection of the Father's authority. When it comes to behavior which one you turn, to man (dialogue) or to God (discussion), to 'justifying' lust or to repentance determines where you will spend eternity. Now to the definition of discussion and dialogue.

Bohm and Peat define discussion. "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 being (or doing) right and those being (or doing) wrong according to what you have been told, KNOWING (from being told), which is formal, judgmental, either-or, where the Father retains his authority, 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 do not repent and do what is right, do what you are told. With man, since man is not always right this is a problem. With God, since God is always right this is not.

Bohem and Peat define dialogue. "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 against those who insist upon discussion, doing the Father's will, causing division and for those who base behavior upon their own carnal nature, uniting 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 retains his carnal nature, has the final say. There is no Father's authority 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 "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. It is the means by which absolutes are replaced with relativity, the Father's authority is replaced with the child's lust for pleasure and resentment toward restraint, it is the meaning of "tolerance of ambiguity." When it comes to behavior you have to "suspend" the Son of God, Jesus Christ upon a cross (since He was obedient to the Father in all things commanded, demanding you do the same) in order to dialogue, in order to find common ground with an unbeliever. While you might deny that that is what you are doing. You cannot refute it. That is what you are doing. Like "so called science" when dialogue is used to develop the issue of discussion, discussion becomes "so called" or "seems to be" discussion, not a true discussion, deceiving the innocent and the naive. The Patriarchal paradigm, way of feeling, thinking, and acting toward self, others, the world and authority is grounded upon discussion. The Heresiarchal paradigm of 'change' is grounded upon a person's "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating.

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

Abraham Maslow wrote: "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)

Norman Brown wrote "Human consciousness can be liberated from the parental complex only by being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) There is no Father's authority in dialogue, in what is called dialectic 'reasoning,' where you 'reason' from your own carnal nature, from your lusts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating instead of from what you have been told.

Brown continued "By dialectic, I mean an activity of consciousness, struggling to circumvent the limitations imposed by the formal-logical law of contradiction. (ibid) All Brown is saying is "I'm trying to figure out how I can get around what my parent's just told me to do."

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) All teachers are certified, and schools accredited today, including "Christian" based upon their use of curriculum in the classroom known as "Bloom's Taxonomies," which state that Erick Fromm's ideology (along with Theodor Adorno's, both of whom were Marxists) is its "Weltanschauung," that is, its world view.

In dialectic 'reasoning' all who participate are working to get around and thereby negate the Father's authority so they can do what they want, that is lust after pleasure without having a guilty conscience, without being judged, condemned, and cast out. "Peace" in the mind of those "of and for the world" is being able to sin or lust after pleasure without having a guilty conscience, having the approval, that is the affirmation (consensus) of men. Consent, for man makes sin right, negates judgment, condemnation, being cast out.

It is the Father who authors commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is (by faith) and obeyed or applied and enforces them. Without the Father there is no being told what is right and what is wrong behavior. Without being told there is no being held accountable for your behavior. In other words, without the Father's authority system there is no law (known as "rule of law"). Without law there is no doing wrong or disobedience. Without disobedience there is no sin. Without sin there is no need of a savior.

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." ​​​​​​​

György Lukács, the 'creator' of The Institute Of Social Research, more commonly referred to as the "Frankfurt School" made it clear, the need to negate the Father's authority, the requirement to follow laws that inhibit or block the child's natural inclination to lust after please. He wrote "... the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its 'obedience to laws.'" (György Lukács, History and Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)

"Class Consciousness" is recognizing the child's carnal nature (the students' lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint in the classroom), making it and therefore them "equal" with the Father and His authority, thereby establishing their carnal nature, their lust for dopamine "emancipation," their self over and therefore against the Father and His authority since they cannot be "equal." It is either the one above or the many below, with the "class" 'justifying' their self, their lusts becoming one according to their carnal nature.

This is the same ideology as expressed by Heraclitus, the Stoics, Socrates, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Immanuel Kant, Bismarck, Karl Marx, etc., all who made themselves God, the decider of right and wrong behavior, establishing lust over and therefore against the parent's, the leader's, God's authority, promoting a gnostic way of thinking.

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." ​​​​​​​

Either making doing the law the means to salvation or rejecting the law outright, thus rejecting God plan of salvation, they face the wrath of God after death.

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." ​​​​​​​

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

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.

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

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." ​​​​​​​

In dialectic 'reasoning,' that is in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process there is no Father's authority, therefore there is no established law, therefore there is no disobedience, therefore there is no sin, therefore there is no need of a savior. Therefore, the object of dialectic 'reasoning' is to remove the Father, thus removing the Father's authority, removing law, removing judgment, condemnation and being cast out for sinning man can sin without having a guilty conscience, he can sin with impunity, with men's ("the groups") approval.

In Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right' Karl Marx wrote "Laws must not fetter human life; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities of the people change." In other words, as a person's lusts change, laws must be adaptable to 'change.'

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

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 retrains 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).

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.

The gospel message is all about the Son of God, Jesus Christ doing the Father's will, that is doing what he was told, even dying on a cross, by his shed blood covering our sins (propitiation), doing so in obedience to the Father (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 He leads; 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."

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." ​​​​​​​

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."

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 only defend the flesh. Faith, as a shield defends you, that is your soul. You can not defend faith.) 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, through dialogue if it 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.' The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus: "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.)Tobias Churton: "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. Luther wrote: "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.

The Marxist Jürgen Habermas wrote: "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 seeks 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 wrote: "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) Martin Luther: "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) Martin Luther:​​​​​​​ "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) Martin Luther:​​​​​​​ "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) Martin Luther:​​​​​​​ "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) Martin Luther:​​​​​​​ "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) Martin Luther: "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) In other words, only God is good (righteous)—His righteousness 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).

The problem is the heart:

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

The heart, thinking pleasure, that is lust is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will hates anyone preventing, that is inhibiting or blocking it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' it is lusting after. The unregenerated heart (the Karl Marx in you) can not 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)

In his article The Holy Family Karl Marx 'justified' the use of dialogue, what he called "Critical Criticism" to 'justify' his sins. Thus exhonerating the human heart, that is his heart, his lust for pleasure he made sin the "norm." 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." In his article Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right he explained what he meant by "Criticism." Karl Marx​​​​​​​: "Criticism is now simply a means. Indignation is its essential pathos, denunciation its principle task. Criticism is criticism in hand-to-hand combat. Criticism proceeds on to praxis [or social action]." "The critique of religion [that is hatred toward the Father's authority] ends with the categorical imperative to overthrow all conditions in which man is a debased, enslaved, neglected, contemptible being [that is man being called a sinner, thus being judged, condemned, cast out for his carnal thoughts and carnal actions]." 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. Karl Marx​​​​​​​: "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 he 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). Karl Marx: "It is not sensuality which is presented ..., but mysteries, adventures, obstacles, fears, dangers, and especially the attraction of what is forbidden." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) Emphasis added.

"Building relationship upon self interest," upon lust is the hallmark of Marxism, requiring the person negate the Father's authority in order not to have a guilty conscience, judging, condemning, casting others out, that is rejecting them 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.

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

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

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

Karl Marx wrote "It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx)

In other words, according to Karl Marx, 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, that is with 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:'"

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). 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) 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. Vladimir Lenin: "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.

Regarding education, the Marxist Theodor Adorno, in his book The Authoritarian Personality wrote "Our aim is not merely to describe prejudice but to explain it in order to help in its eradication. Eradication means re-education." "Using social-environmental forces to change the parent's behavior toward the child." (Adorno)

Explaining the merging of psychology and Marxism, focusing upon the ideology of Sigmund Freud the Marxist Herbert Marcuse, in his book Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud (from where we get "If it feels good, just do it") wrote: "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father." "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [the husband and father no longer exercises his authority in the home, over his wife and children]."

Sigmund Freud's history of the prodigal son is not of the son coming to his senses, humbling his self, returning home, submitting his self to his father's authority, learning his inheritance was not his father's money but his father's love for him (Luke 15:11-24), but of the son joining with his "friends," returning home, killing the father, taking all that was his (the father's), using it to satisfy their carnal desires, that is their lusts, killing all the fathers in the land (devouring the fathers) 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 Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud had the same agenda, the negation of the Father's authority, for Marx in society, for Freud in the individual. Abraham Maslow, in his journals The Journals of Abraham Maslow wrote: "Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory to round it out. And of course, vice versa." "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, that is including the most basic scheme as true-good social conditions are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions stunt human nature, ... This is to say, one could reinterpret Marx into a self-actualization-fostering Third- and Fourth-Force psychology-philosophy. And my impression is anyway that this is the direction in which they are going now." "Yet nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian and Jewish foundations. Must move in the direction of the Reichian orgasm." "I must put as much of this as is possible and usable in my education book, and more and more in succeeding writings."

In 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."

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

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

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. 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 'justifying' their lusts I now 'own' them). It appears I must keep an eye on you from now on for my 'good.'" This is the true meaning of "sight based management."

All the facilitator of 'change' has to do (in a "positive" environment, that is in an environment which will not judge, condemn, or cast you out for lusting after pleasure or for being wrong) is ask you how you feel and what you think regarding the commands, rules, facts, and truth you have been taught (that get in the way of your carnal desires), 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).

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

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.'"

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.

When it comes to behavior when dialogue is used instead of discussion the carnal nature of man is being 'justified.' while in discussion a person's behavior is 'justified' because he has done right and not wrong according to what he has been told. "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.

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).

Prejudice in discussion is based upon those who insist other do what the Father's, doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth while prejudice in dialogue is based upon those inhibiting or blocking lust because of their insistence upon everyone doing the Father's will making traditional parents, telling their children how to behave and holding them accountable, teachers insisting that two plus two is always four and cannot be any other number (or the XX chromosome is a girl and the XY chromosome is a boy, always, no confusion there), holding their students accountable for being or doing wrong, bosses who expect their employes to do right and not wrong according to what they have been told, Presidents, governors, mayors, legislators, senators, town councils, and judges who believe in "rule of law," the constitution and make decisions based upon it.

"Top-down" resides in discussion while "equality" based upon "feelings," man's carnal nature, his lust for pleasure and resentment toward restraint resides in dialogue. "Rober'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.

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 "Bloom's Taxonomies" are "a psychological classification system" used "to develop attitudes and values ... which are not shaped by the parents," "The student must feel free to say he disliked [having to do what 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). 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."

Therefore 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 restrain, 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.

Carl Rogers in his book on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy acknowledge the power facilitator of 'change,' that is group psychotherapists have over the people if given a position of authority. Carl Rogers: "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."

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 can not 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. As was the Serpent's agenda in the garden in Eden, there is no other purpose. 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 faciliatory 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.

The Soviet:

Will C. Woods: "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, as Kenneth Benne in Human Relations in Curriculum Change stated it, we "must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue"), 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 interests 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.

Ervin Lazlo's "Bypassing the traditional channels of 'top-down' decision making our objective center's upon transforming public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics" statement was simply explaining how the soviet system worked, where policy was (and still is) made through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, which rejects (does not recognize) the Father's authority system (known as the Patriarchal paradigm where the one in authority authors commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is, by faith and obeyed or applied and enforces them) so the outcome was (and is) void of the Father's authority system in order for all (especially the facilitator of 'change') to do wrong, disobey, sin, that is lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates without being judged, condemned, and-or cast out, doing so without having a guilty conscience (which is engendered by the Father's authority system). Ever been in a facilitated meeting where you were asked to be "positive" and not "negative?" You were in a soviet, where those who are "negative," who insist they and others do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, that is do the Father's will are "asked" (that is pressured by "the group's" to participate or be rejected) to be "positive" or be silenced, censored, and-or cast out (negated) so those who are "positive" can do wrong, disobey, sin, that is lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates without having a guilty conscience, doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is lusting without being 'judged, condemned, cast out, having everyone's affirmation.

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 protectes 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. Even George Washington understood that "despotism ... predominates in the human heart." (George Washington, Farewell Address) He wrote: "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."

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') It is Georg Hegel's world where the child's carnal nature, that is the child's impulses and urges of the 'moment' that the world stimulates, that is lust rules over and therefore against the father's authority. Georg Hegel wrote: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [once he is 'liberated' from the father's authority to become as he was before the father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life (separating him from his "self" and the world), "of and for self" and the world only—which dialogue, when applied to behavior does]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) It is Georg Hegel's world where, sounding more like Karl Marx than Karl Marx himself, who was not yet born "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," your spouse, your children, your property, your business, and even your soul is not yours but are all subject to George Hegel's, Jean-Jacques Rousseau's, Immanuel Kant's, Karl Marx's, et al, that is the Marxist's, that is the facilitator of 'change's' lusts of the 'moment,' making all that "is" objects to fulfill (satisfy) his carnal desires of the 'moment,' 'justifying' his removal of all who get in his way

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

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.

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

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 (8/26/2024)