authorityresearch.com

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

Satan's Device.
(Personal note.)

by
Dean Gotcher

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7

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

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

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

Replacing discussion (what dad and-or God says, that is that which is above, is of the Father) with dialogue (how you "feel" and what you "think," that is that which is below, is of the world) when it comes to behavior is a subtle change with major ramifications. Discussion is either being or doing right or being or doing wrong according to the father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, with the father holding those under his authority accountable to obeying or applying them, with the father having the final say. Dialogue on the other hand is along a spectrum or continuum of "sense experience," from love to hate or like to dislike, with the carnal desires or resentments of the 'moment,' that the world, that is that the current situation and-or object, people, or person is stimulating controlling the outcome (the reason that that which is of the earth, that is dialogue, that is men's opinions will not enter the Kingdom of God), with the child, that is that which is "of the world" having the final say. The Lord Jesus Christ is the only one who lived completely to discussion, doing what the Father said in all things commanded, redeeming all who give their life to him, saving them from the Father's judgment upon them for their use of dialogue to 'justify' their self, to 'justify' their disobedience' when it came to doing the Father's will, doing their will instead. Those who live only of and for dialogue do not and can not recognize the Father's authority, thus they are antichrist in their thoughts and action. The spirit that now rules the world.

You either reason from what you have been told (discussion) or you 'reason' from your carnal nature, that is your carnal desires (dialogue). When it comes to behavior those who obey "the Father," that is those who humble, deny, die to their self in order to do the Father's will (from now on with the understanding that the Heavenly Father has preeminence over the earthly father even though the small f in father is used), that is those who submit to the father's authority go to discussion, where the father (both Heavenly and earthly) who authors, that is preaches commands and rules to be obeyed as given and teaches facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith, at least at first, until understood) and enforces them (judges, corrects, reproves, chastens, condemns, casts out for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is for lusting instead of doing right) has the final say ("Because I said so." "It is written."). Those who are "of the world" go to dialogue, where their carnal desires (lusts) and fears of the 'moment' that the world stimulates guide them in making decisions (known as stimulus-response), where they (deceived, feel like and think) they have the final say. "Old school" is discussion, that is doing what the father says. Contemporary education is dialogue, that is only "of the world." Carl Rogers, in his book on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy wrote: "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, 'What would my parents want me to do [discussion]?" During the process of therapy the individual come to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me [dialogue]?'" See diaprax chart. Diaprax is dialogue being put into praxis, negating the father's authority in the process. The more you dialogue with your self (and with others), regarding what you want to do or want to have, that you have been told you can not do or can not have the more you become dissatisfied with, resentful toward, hateful toward whoever it is that is standing in the way of (preventing you from doing or having) what you want (what you are lusting after). Marxism is simply the exclusion (denial) of the father's authority in your conversation with your self and with others.

Karl Marx, rejecting the father's authority (discussion) believed (as explained by Friedrich Engels) "In the eyes of the dialectic philosophy, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." Satan's device, that is "dialectic philosophy," that is 'reasoning' from the flesh is the praxis of using dialogue, that is using "feelings" (stimulus-response) to come to the "truth," making behavior subject to 'change,' that is subject to the immediate environment, that is subject to the lusts of the moment that the world stimulates, hating restraint, that is hating the father's authority for getting in the way. You do not have to tell (teach) the next generation to hate (disrespect and attack) authority, all you have to do is create a safe place-zone-space where they can dialogue their feelings and thoughts (lusts), that is their opinions to a consensus (to a feeling of oneness) with one another, without having any fear of being judged, condemned, cast out and they will hate (disrespect and attack) authority automatically. Benjamine Bloom in his book Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain, by which all educators are certified, and schools accredited today (paraphrasing Karl Marx) 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." What are called "Bloom's Taxonomies" (Marxist curriculum) define and establish behavior using dialogue, negating any external, "top-down" authority [discussion] in establishing right and wrong behavior. The Marxist Antonio Gramsci, quoted in Selections from the Prison Notebooks wrote: "The philosophy of praxis is the absolute secularization of thought, an absolute humanism of history." The name for the National Test for teachers is PRAXIS, making 'reasoning' subject only to man's carnal nature, that is lust and the world that stimulates it. The scriptures warn of us such times as these.

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine [discussion]; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears [dialogue]; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:3, 4 ". . . there is no fear of God before his eyes." ". . . God is not in all his thoughts." Psalms 36:1, 10: 4

Satan's device is to replace discussion (what the Father says, that is replace what you have been told) with dialogue (with your carnal desires, that is with your lusts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating) when it comes to behavior. When it comes to behavior when you use discussion you will do the father's will. When you use dialogue, you will do your will instead. Which method you choose in establishing behavior controls the outcome, that is how the next generation will communicate with and respond to itself, other, the world, and authority; discussion being 'loyal' to "the father," respecting authority, dialogue being 'loyal' to self and "the world" only, questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking authority. Discussion is of the Father. Dialogue is of you. Discussion and dialogue are two opposing political systems. Discussion rules over, that is inhibits or blocks dialogue when it comes to behavior. Dialogue on the other hand, when it comes to behavior silences, censors, removes (negates) discussion. Discussion only recognizes the father's authority (being told). Dialogue only recognizes the carnal nature of the child ("sense experience"). When discussion (right-wrong) is brought into an environment establishing behavior via dialogue (lust for pleasure and resentment toward restraint), the person insisting upon discussion, that is what the father says will always be accused of being argumentative (prejudiced, "negative," intolerant, "unreasonable," divisive, hateful, a lower order thinker, maladjusted, unadaptable to 'change,' "Not a team player," judgmental, etc.,) when he is only trying to persuade (make thought and therefore behavior subject to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, that is subject to being told). When dialogue is brought into an environment establishing behavior upon discussion, the person will always be accused of being rebellious (disrespectful to authority) when he is only trying to seduce, deceive, and manipulate (make thought, and therefore behavior subject to feelings, that is to "sense experience"). You persuade with facts. You manipulate with feelings. By using discussion when it comes to behavior (thus cutting off dialogue) lust becomes sin, making doing the father's will (righteousness) the norm. By using dialogue when it comes to behavior (thus cutting off discussion) lust is no longer sin but simply "human nature," making sin (unrighteousness) the "norm."

The Marxist, Kurt Lewin knew the "force" of each and how to identify them (what he called "force field analysis") and (when it came to behavior) knew how to move people from the one (discussion) to the other (dialogue), that is how to "unfreeze, move, and refreeze" them (especially through the use of "the group," what he call "group dynamics," that is where the pleasure which comes from the approval from others and the pain of rejection pressures a person to abandon discussion, that is what the father says for the sake of dialogue, that is relationship with "the group") in order to initiate and sustain the 'change' process, discussion being the force of the Father, who has the final say (which is "negative" to the flesh) and dialogue being the force of the flesh, where the child, that is you have the final say (which is "positive" to the flesh). Any time you are in a meeting where you are told to be "positive" and not "negative" (when it comes to behavior) now you know what it is really all about, removing the father's authority (discussion) so the facilitator of 'change' can sin without having a guilty conscience, so the facilitator of 'change,' having "the group's" ("the people's") affirmation can sin without being judged, condemned, cast out—being followed, supported, defended, praised, and worshiped by "the group" (by "the people") for 'justifying' their sinful nature instead.

For the Marxist (Godlessness, where collectively everyone is God) to rule discussion must be replaced with dialogue, that is discussion must be negated in order (as in "new" world order) for everyone to do wrong, disobey, sin, that is to lust without being judged, condemned, or cast out, doing so without having a guilty conscience. When it comes to behavior, substituting discussion with dialogue, that is what the father says ("old school") with your opinion ("contemporary education"), that is what you KNOW (from being told) with how you "feel" and what you "think" (that the world is stimulating), that is facts with "feelings" (making "feelings" 'facts'), that is faith with sight, that is eternal life (the there-and-then) with the "eternal present" (the here-and-now), that is humbling, denying, dying to your self with living in the 'moment' all you have to look forward to is dying in your sins, spending eternity, not in the glory, love, joy, peace, and holyness of the Lord but in the lake of fire that is never quenched, prepared for the master facilitator of 'change' and all who follow after him, that is who substitute what the Father says with the pleasures (lusts) of the 'moment' that the world stimulates.

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

Those intoxicated with, possessed by, and addicted to dialogue, that is to their self, that is to lust, that is to their "self interest" (when it comes to behavior) cannot accept God's judgment upon them for their sins, that is for their unrepentant heart, since perceiving their self as being God (since you are God in dialogue), sin (and God's judgment upon it or them) is no longer an issue since, being God, sin is not found in them (only doing things "badly" at the most—which is an opinion, that is "human nature").

Georg Hegel (as sited in Carl Friedrich's book, The Philosophy of 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."

The opposite of right is "wrong," not "badly." Using "badly" in place of wrong makes being or doing wrong an opinion, not a fact or truth. There is no wrong in dialogue (except right-wrong thinking), making discussion, that is established commands, rules, facts, and truth subject to the current situation, that is an opinion. "Peace," according to Hegel thus means one can sin, that is lust, that is enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' without having a guilty conscience, that is without being held accountable, receiving the approval, that is "affirmation" of others (initiating and sustaining "worldly peace and socialist harmony"). The error in his "Reasoning" is that man can only judge a person from his own carnal nature (right being anyone 'justifying' his carnal nature, that is his propensity to lust after pleasure that the world is stimulating and wrong being anyone judging him for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is for lusting after pleasure)—which makes truth subjective, that is ever subject to 'change.' Georg Hegel's dictum (establishing a standard for "Reasoning"), replacing the word "wrong" (a command, rule, fact, or truth) with the word "badly" (an opinion) is logically wrong, that is irrational (and deceptive), making it wrong for anyone to accuse him (or anyone else "Reasoning" like him) of being or doing wrong. This is the "Reasoning" that now permeates our culture.

In discussion God is God. In dialogue you are God. When dialogue (your carnal nature, that is lust, that is "What can I get out of this situation and-or object, people or person for my self?") is made subject to (restrained by) discussion ("What does my Father want me to do?") God directs your steps ("Nevertheless thy will be done"). When discussion (What the Father says, that is the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth) is made subject to dialogue (What you want to do) God is negated in your thoughts ("You can't tell me what I can and cannot do"), directly effecting your actions.

While with God discussion (doing the Father's will) is the only means of communication, with man, being both a "living soul" and "flesh," both discussion (doing the father's will) and dialogue (doing his will) are his means of communication—making him (when it comes to reasoning) both objective and subjective, deductive and inductive, belief and theory, position and opinion, "right-wrong" and "like-dislike," absolute (eternal; unchanging) and relative (temporal; ever subject to 'change'), intolerant and tolerant, "I KNOW (because I have been told)" and "I feel" and "I think" ("sense experienced"), patient and impulsive, "top-down" and "equal," fellowship and relationship, cognitive and affective, "negative" and "positive," righteousness (virtuous) and sensuousness (lascivious), "law and lawfulness," "purpose and purposiveness," chastisement and affirmation, there-and-then and here-and-now, humbling, denying, dying to self and esteeming self, dividing upon right-wrong and uniting upon "self (lust) interest," the guilty conscience and the super-ego, faith and sight, being told and "sense experience," above and below, spirit and flesh, telling you up front and seducing, deceiving, and manipulating you (not telling you everything up front), established and continuously 'changing' (situational), etc.,. The problem comes when you use dialogue (doing your will) in the realm of discussion (doing the father's will) when it comes to behavior. When it comes to behavior when you start with discussion the father rules, dividing between you're doing right (blessing you) and you're doing wrong (correcting, reproving, chastening, casting you out) but when you start with dialogue, making dialogue the only means of communication ("let's be 'positive' and not 'negative'), discussion, that is the father's authority is negated, you are uniting with all those who are "of the world," thinking and acting according to your carnal nature, without Godly restraint. While in discussion there are specifics, that is what you can and cannot do (stated up front, that is "the devils in the details") in dialogue there is only the big print (what you want to do; the details are, that is "the rest of the story is" conveniently left out, that is missing), replacing the details with generalizations—the details only conveniently being brought up in order to divide (point out areas of disagreement between) those who insist upon discussion (known as "divide and conquer"). Those "of (and for) the world," when it comes to behavior seek to make discussion subject to dialogue in all things, negating discussion (engendering "so called science"); evaluating where a person is along a spectrum of discussion-dialogue (his adaptability to 'change') at any given moment (regarding any given situation or issue) moving him or her "experientially" (called the psycho-motor) from discussion to dialogue so he or she can do wrong, disobey, sin, that is lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates without having a guilty conscience (which is a product of discussion), drawing (seducing) all into dialoguing their opinions to a consensus so they can do wrong, disobey, sin, that is lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates with their affirmation, that is without being judged, condemned, and cast out (since right-wrong, that is discussion, that is the father's authority, that is doing the father's will, according to those "of (and for) the world" is the basis of 'prejudice'). Why attack God when instead you can 'change' how a person communicates with his self, others, the world, and authority, that is 'change' his paradigm (replacing discussion with dialogue when it comes to behavior) and he becomes god himself, no longer needing God, finding his identity with all the god's of the world instead, making his carnal nature and the world that stimulates it all there is (all else being a phenomia, that is unexplainable).

The answers are in the questions. Whoever developes the questions produces the answers. Discussion based questions produce objective (right-wrong) answers. Dialogue based questions produce subjective (stimulus-response) answers.

Man's reasoning ability, which comes from God is used either to reason from what he has been told, that is from the Word of God (all else when it comes to discussion deals with the creation, that is true science, that is biologically a man is a man and a woman a woman, designed physically and emotionally for procreation) or reason from what he wants, that is according to his impulses and urges (lusts) of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating (where all is "fair game" when it comes to sexual desires). Discussion emanates from being told, dialogue from what you want. As dialogue takes over the world, that is becomes progressively the only means of communication (especially when it comes to behavior) the ability of people to carry on a true discussion (especially when it comes to the Word of God, with the Word of God having the final say) becomes more difficult if at all possible. Ironically those who promote dialogue (when it comes to behavior) must tell those under their influence they will not be held accountable for their thoughts—"having a form of godliness [telling others what to do] but denying the power thereof [God's judgment upon them for disobeying, that is for sinning; replacing "Thou shalt surely die" with "Ye shalt not surely die"]." 2 Timothy 3:5 You cannot preach the Word of God, that is God's judgment upon sin into a culture of dialogue and it be heard. They cannot receive it. Dialogue will not allow it. It is what the apostle Paul was explaining in Romans 1:19-32.

"And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:15-18

"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:32-34

The Communist dictator Mao Zedong stated that "Words and actions should help to unite, and not divide, the people."

Wilfred Bion, in his book A Memoir of the Future explained the agenda is to "prevent someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space."

Satan's device is replacing discussion (what the father says) with dialogue (how the children feel and what they think) when it comes to defining and establishing behavior. All Satan, that is the master facilitator of 'change,' that is the master psychotherapist has to do is seduce you into dialoguing where discussion should be taking place. All he had to do was seduce the woman in the garden in Eden into dialogue, that is into basing right and wrong behavior upon her "feelings" of the 'moment' (her natural inclination to "touch") that the environment (that "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil") was stimulating, thereby negating discussion, that is what God (the Father) said regarding right and wrong behavior (where God the Father has the final say). When it comes to knowing right and wrong behavior discussion is based upon doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth (which you have been told), that is according to what the father says while dialogue is based upon your carnal desires, that is your "feelings" of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating (stimulus-response). Depending upon which you turn to when it comes to behavior defines you as a conservative or a liberal, either walking in faith, that is by what you have been told or walking by sight, that is by your "sensuous needs," "sense perception" and "sense experience," known as "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," that is by only that which is "of Nature," that is "of the world." (1 John 2:16, Karl Marx) When dialogue becomes the means to establishing right and wrong behavior "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," that is the law of the flesh becomes the law of the land, oppressing the people.

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

For example, the Lord Jesus Christ insisted upon doing and insists upon everyone else doing His Father's will. Not once did he say "What can I get out of this (situation and-or object, person, or group) for myself?"; to feed his flesh or tell anyone else to do the same, which is the language of dialogue (as will be explained below).

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

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

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." 2 Corinthians 5:10

In a discussion the father has the final say. Your position is (and therefore your thoughts and actions are) dependent upon what he says, that is upon what you are told. In dialogue on the other hand you have to "suspend" (as upon a cross) any established command, rule, fact, or truth, that is what the father says that divides you from others in order for you to build relationship with them and them build relationship with you—built upon your and their common self-interests (lusts), called "sand" in the Bible.

"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." Matthew 7:23-29

While discussion divides upon right-wrong, dialogue unites upon what people have in common, that is their lust for pleasure (which includes affirmation from each other) and their resentment toward restraint (that gets in the way of, that is that inhibits or blocks pleasure). In essence dialogue divides between those who 'justify' or affirm lust, approving them while rejecting those who, insisting upon doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth doing the father's will inhibit or block the praxis of lust.

Bohm and Peat, in their book Science, Order, and Creativity (explaining dialogue) wrote: "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."

When you want to do what you want you go to dialogue , that is you go to "I feel" and "I think," making your opinion the basis for determining right and wrong behavior. When you want to do what is right and not wrong, that is what the father says you go to discussion where the father has the final say, that is "because I said so," "It is written." Whether it is a child, a parent, an educator, an employer or an employed, a legislator, a leader, a judge, or a minister it is all the same, with discussion holding those under authority accountable to the commands, rules, facts, and truth that they have been told and dialogue 'liberating them from the commands, rules, facts, and truth that they have been told, so they can do what they want without having a guilty conscience as well as not being held accountable, that is being judged, condemned, cast out for their carnal thoughts and carnal actions. Only by replacing discussion (what the father says) with dialogue (what the child wants), when it comes to defining and establishing behavior can parental authority be replaced with the child's carnal nature, by what all children have in common.

Richard Paul, in his Critical Thinking Handbook wrote: "Only by bringing out the child's own ideas in dialogical and dialectical settings can the child begin to reconstruct and progressively transcend concepts."

Karl Marx, in his article Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right' wrote: "The only practically possible emancipation is the unique theory which holds that man is the supreme being for man."

Frederick Engels (the finacial supporter of Karl Marx) in his book The Condition of England A review of Past and Present, by Thomas Carlyle wrote: "Man has only to understand himself, to take himself as the measure of all aspects of life, to judge according to his being, to organise the world in a truly human manner according to the demands of his own nature, and he will have solved the riddle of our time."

James Coleman, in his book The Adolescent Society: the Social Life of the Teenager and its Impact on Education wrote: "Parents are 'out of touch with the times,' and unable to understand, much less inculcate, the standards of a social order that has changed since they were young." "For equality of opportunity to exist the family as a unit must be weakened." Since the 50's, whenever it dealt with educational issues our Supreme Court turned to James Coleman (who earned his Dr. at Columbia University under the professor Paul Lazersfeld—who was a member of the "Frankfurt School," that is a Marxist).

Warren Bennis in his book The Temporary Society wrote: "In order to effect rapid change, . . . [one] must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved. It is necessary, in other words, artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children— One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant." "The consequences of family democratization take a long time to make themselves felt–but it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun." "The state, by its very interference in the life of its citizens, must necessarily undermine a parental authority which it attempts to restore." "For however much the state or community may wish to inculcate obedience and submission in the child, its intervention betrays a lack of confidence in the only objects from whom a small child can learn authoritarian submission."

Leonard Wheat, in his book Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God quoted Tillich as declaring: "A stranger, even if his name were God, who imposes commands upon us must be resisted, he must be killed because nobody can stand him."

Dialogue is the "Why?" the child parries when his father tells him "You can not go out," attempting to draw the father into dialogue, with the father, if he participates saying "I don't 'feel' like you should go out" or "I don't 'think' you should go out," which is just an opinion; which carries no threat of punishment for going out. It is when his father says "Because I said so" any change of dialogue is over, that is he is not going out.

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

According to Karl Marx when the child submited to discussion (to letting the father having the final say) instead of insisting upon dialogue (insisting upon his having his way) he 'created' the father's authority system. It is the roll of the therapist (the facilitator of 'change') to "help" the child overcome the restraints of life, that is the effect of the father's authority, that is to 'liberate' the "Why?" [dialogue] from the father's commands and rules [discussion] when it comes to behavior, that is 'liberating' him from the father's authority which prevented him from becoming himself, allowing him to instead think and act according to his carnal nature, that is to think and act for himself, that is to think and act according to "the world" only.

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 . . ."]."

Benjamin Bloom in his book Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain, by which all educators are certified and schools accredited wrote: "To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in many ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed. . . . many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized." "The effectiveness of this new set of environmental conditions is probably related to the extent to which the students are 'isolated' from the home during this period of time." ". . . objectives can best be attained where the individual is separated from earlier environmental conditions and when he is in association with a group of peers who are changing in much the same direction and who thus tend to reinforce each other." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

Warren G. Bennis in his book Interpersonal Dynamics: Essays in Readings on Human Interaction, explaining how the Communist "brainwash(ed)" our soilders 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 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)

When it comes to defining and establishing behavior psychotherapy, "Bloom's Taxonomies," and "brainwashing" are all the same (in method and outcome), replacing the father's authority (discussion) with the child's carnal nature (dialogue).

Therefore it is the role of the "educator" "to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents" (when it comes to behavior replacing discussion, where the parent has the final say with dialogue, where the child has the final say) thus producing "conflict and tension between parents and children." (David R. Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) "Educators" do not have to tell the students to challenge, question, defy, disregard, attack their parent's authority (if they were not doing that already), telling them would be "old school," reinforcing the father's authority system. All they have to do is replace discussion with dialogue when it comes to defining and establishing behavior and the deed is done, that is the students will go home and challenge, question, defy, disregard, attack their parent's authority. All "educators" are certified and school accredited today based upon their use of what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies" (Marxist curriculum) in the classroom, liberating the students from their parent's authority, citizens from Nationalism, and man from God. Bloom referred to Erick Fromm and Theodor Adorno (two Marxists) as the "Taxonomies" "Weltanschauung," that is world view.

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

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

Benjamin Bloom continued: "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box.' " "It is in this 'box' that the most influential controls are to be found." "In fact, 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 and getting them to discuss issues."

"Pandora's Box" is a mythological story of a "box" (originally a bottle) full of evils, which once opened, can not be closed—once parental authority, that is the father's authority, that is fear of judgment, that is "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').

Antonio Gramsci, a Marxist who Mousoini threw into prison and who died there wrote in his notebooks (Selections from the Prison Notebooks): "The philosophy of praxis is the absolute secularization of thought, an absolute humanism of history." The father's authority is missing (negated) in Praxis.

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

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear;but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." 2Timothy 1:7

"But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him." Luke 12:5

Benjamin Bloom, in his book Book 2: Affective Domain wrote: "Whether or not the classification scheme presented in Handbook I: Cognitive Domain is a true taxonomy is still far from clear." He then forty years after the printing of the first book Book 1: Cognitive Domain (Forty Year Evaluation) wrote: "Certainly the Taxonomy was unproved at the time it was developed and may well be 'unprovable.'" In his first book, Book 1: Cognitive Domain he wrote: "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. . . . observe(able) and discrib(able) therefore classifi(able)." True science is observable and repeatable.

Thomas Kuhn, the student of Ralph Tyler—who Bloom dedicated his first "Taxonomy" to (Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain)—applied this method to science. Thomas Kuhn, in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolution (quoting Max Planck) wrote: "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." He then wrote: "If a paradigm [a 'change' in culture, from Patriarch to Heresiarch] is ever to triumph it must gain some first supporters, men who will develop it to the point where hardheaded arguments can be produced and multiplied" which eventuates "an increasing shift in the distribution of professional allegiances" whereupon "the man who continues to resist after his whole profession has been converted is ipso facto ceased to be a scientist." In his book it is noted that "Thomas S Kuhn spent the year 1958-1959 at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavior Sciences, directed by Ralph Tyler, where he finalized his 'paradigm shift' concept of 'Pre- and Post-paradigm periods.'" "Kuhn admitted problems with the schemata of his socio-psychological theory yet continued to urge its application into the scientific fields of astronomy, physics, chemistry, and biology [which found its way into the classroom]."

All you have to do is bring dialogue (the "affective domain") into the classroom, when it comes to defining and establishing right and wrong behavior and the deed is done. The dialectic process is the process of dialogue, 'liberating' man from the father's authority (system, known as the Patriarchal paradigm) so he can lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates without having a guilty conscience or being held accountable, that is being judged, condemned, or cast out (in his mind), which the father's authority engenders. When it comes to behavior when you replace discussion with dialogue, as was done in the garden in Eden you replace God with Satan, that is you replace the Father with the master facilitator of 'change', that is with the master psychotherapist, making right and wrong subject to 'change,' that is to stimulus-response, that is to only that which is "of the world" ("of Nature").

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

Discussion (what the Father says) "have I hid in my heart" (what I like or want, that is what I lust after, aka dialogue) "that I might not sin against thee." Discussion and the redemptive (humble and contrite) heart go hand in hand (doing right no matter what it costs). Dialogue and the un-redemptive (deceitful and wicked, that is self-seeking) heart go hand in hand ("What can I get out of this situation and-or object, person, or people for my self"). Without discussion you cannot see what you are doing as being wrong (evil) since dialogue (love of self, that is love of pleasure, that is lust) is standing in the way, 'justifying' your actions (hate). It is not that we do not dialogue. We do. It is when it use it to establish behavior we make ourself subject to our natural inclination to lust after pleasure (that the world stimulates) and to hate restraint (hate the father's authority) for getting in the way (of pleasure), resulting in us becoming "desperately wicked" when we perceive the father is going to take away or is taking away that which we are lusting after, that is that which stimulates pleasure (dopamine emancipation) in us.

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

"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4 Man is not to live by dialogue alone, but by discussion, where the Father has the final say.

When God created man, He did something which he did with nothing else in the creation, He made him a "living soul." "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7). He then did something 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. "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:16, 17). Only man can be told or tell others what is right and what is wrong behavior. Only man can read or write a book. No animal can read or write a book, that is can tell others or be told what is right and what is wrong behavior. All of the creation, other than man, that is the "living soul" is based upon stimulus-response—for living organisms, approach pleasure and avoid pain.

"And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him." Genesis 2:20

Since Adam had both discussion (being told, being a "living soul") and dialogue (stimulus-response, being a fleshy vessel) he could only use discussion with God since dialogue would make him equal with God, which God would not allow. No animal could carry on a discussion or dialogue so no animal could resolve the tension Adam had, that is the need to dialogue. "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." Genesis 2:18 In God creating the woman for Adam the tension was resolved, discussion with God and dialogue with the woman. Without the discussion (before God) you are subject only to dialogue (to your opinion; where there is no "wrong" except those accusing you of being wrong) making your reasoning (and any "discussion" you have) subject to stimulus-response, that is subject only to that which is "of the world."

"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? [this is a neurolinguistic construct (an imbedded statement in a question, sensitizing a person to their lusts, when it comes to right and wrong behavior, beginning the process of liberating a person's lust out from under their fear of judgment, that is out from under the father's authority, bring dialogue forward out from under the restraint of discussion)—which is one of the most powerful forms of hypnosis] And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it [she revealed her lust], lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die [removing the "negative," that is fear of judgment (which was not a lie regarding the here-and now, that is the tree itself did not kill her—or Adam—but a lie regarding the there-and then, with God removing her—and Adam—from having access to the "tree of life" for their disobedience, then, after death both coming to judgment, that is inheriting eternal life or eternal death)]: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods (which dialogue does, everyone is a god in dialogue), knowing good and evil [according to their carnal nature]. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise [evaluating (aufheben) from her senses, that is from her understanding she made her self the establisher of right and wrong behavior], she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." Genesis 3:1-6 (emphasis added)

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

What the woman and Adam did was a "land grab," with the master facilitator of 'change' in control. What was God's garden (He set the standards) was now the facilitator of 'change's' (he now set the standards). What those "of (and for) the world" see, like the woman in the garden in Eden they "own," giving control of the land along with their self to the master facilitator of 'change.' By 'discovering' what you covet (that is not yours), and offering to "help" you attain it, the facilitator of 'change' not only "own" you, he "own" it as well, with you (as "human resource") maintaining it for him.

It is the woman's propensity to dialogue, man's to discuss. This is why 'liberals' push dialogue, in order to neuter the men, that is discussion.

"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2:14, 11, 12

"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

Who told you?

"Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. . .. I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked?" (excerpts from Genesis 3:8-11) emphasis added.

Rejecting being told (when it comes to right and wrong behavior, that is to what you can and can not do), turning to stimulus-response, that is "reasoning" from the flesh, that is from "sense experience," that is through dialogue instead leads to sin. The liberal's, that is Marxist's, that is the facilitator of 'change's' response is not to admit he is "wrong," that is is to blame someone else or the situation (the environment) for his "bad" behavior—since there is only stimulus-response (in his mind).

"And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." Genesis 3:12, 13

When confronted with their sin's, that is their lusts they became the first 'liberals,' that is Marxists. Instead of admitting they were wrong, showing remorse for their sins, and repenting they ('justifying' their self, that is their lusts) blamed the situation and someone else for their "bad" behavior (for their behaving "badly"), with Adam blaming the woman—"throwing her under the bus" (along with God for creating her, that is for creating an "unhealthy environment" for him to live in)—and the woman blaming the Serpent, that is the master facilitator of 'change'—"throwing him under the bus" for "helping" her 'justify' her lusts.

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken." Genesis 3:22, 23

In the woman being seduced (by the master facilitator of 'change') into using dialogue (making herself god) in the realm of God's "Thou shalt not," with Adam following, God drove them both out of the garden (removing them from having access to the "tree of life," that is their inheritance for obedience, which required faith—as much faith as is required of us today). While man can have fellowship with God, he cannot have relationship (be equal) with God. The relationship (dialogue) is between the husband and the wife, with the wife being subject to the husband, under God (discussion), with their fellowshipping being before the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, along with others who are doing the same.

Carl Rogers, rejecting the Father's authority 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." "In this process the individual becomes more open to his experience. It is the opposite of defensiveness or rigidity. His beliefs are not rigid, he can tolerate ambiguity."

By bringing dialogue (your carnal desires, that is your "sense experience") into the realm of discussion (what God says, with God having the final say, that is being told) lust is made manifest, making you subject to manipulation, with those "of (and for) the world" turned you into "human resource" to be used by them to satisfy their carnal desires, casting you aside when they lose interest in you, you no longer bring them pleasure, or you get in their way. Doing to you what you did to the father for getting in your way.

"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." (Rogers)

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Corinthians 15:22

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

For the believer, when it comes to behavior there is only discussion between God and man, with God (God's Word) having the final say. For those "of (and for) the world" there is discussion and dialogue, with dialogue controlling the discussion, that is the outcome, resulting in their no longer having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, that is for lusting while those who are still subject to doing right and not wrong while still doing what they want, what is called "belief-action dichotomy" still have a guilty conscience, still recognizing discussion as a means to knowing right from wrong behavior—but not acting accordingly. The testing method of today is no longer based upon being or doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth ("old school") but where along the spectrum of discussion-dialogue the person resides at any given moment in any given situation with the emphasis upon the person using dialogue when it comes to behavior, 'liberating' himself from the father's authority and the guilty conscience it engenders.

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 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.

When a judge turns to discussion regarding an issue pertaining to the Constitution, he (or she) 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.

The gospel message is based upon discussion, with God having the final say (always).

The gospel message is all about the Son of God, Jesus Christ doing the Father's will, that is doing what he was told, even dying on a cross, by his shed blood covering our sins (propitiation), doing so in obedience to the Father ("O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." Matthew 26:42) asking all to follow Him doing the Father's will as He leads; "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" 2 Corinthians 10:5.

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

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

"Thou has love righteousness, and hated iniquity;" Hebrews 1:9 This defines the Son of God.

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

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

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

The reason being, while the earthly and the Heavenly father have the same system of authority, that is authoring commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is and obeyed or applied and enforcing them, only the Heavenly Father is Holy.

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

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24

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

"Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." Hebrews 12:5-11

While the heavenly Father is Holy and the earthly father is born into sin both have the same authority system, 1) 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 (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 restrains the father's authority system in the child'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). Traditional education is based upon the father's authority system, being told what is right and what is wrong behavior instead of 'discovering' it for your self via dialogue.

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

Immanuel Kant, in his article Critique of Judgment wrote of "lawfulness without law" and "purposiveness without purpose." where the law of the flesh rules without the law of God getting in the way and the purpose of life is pleasure without having to do the Father's will, which gets in the way.

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

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

"There is no type of past behavior too deviant for a group to accept once therapeutic group norms are established." (Yalom)

There is no father's authority in dialogue, in an opinion, and in the consensus process. The consensus meet stems from the tower of Babel, that is Noah's sons, who in defiance to God (instead of scattering, having to depend upon the father, based upon discussion) built a tower, uniting "the people" via the process of dialogue. It was the same method of the mur of Tsarist Russia, the directorate of the French Revolution, the soviet of the Soviet Union, the U.N., the "New World Order" all done in an effort to remove the father's authority from making policy, rules, and law so those in power can lust without having a guilty conscience, so they can remain in power without being judged, condemned, and cast out (without having any fear of God, that is being judged, condemned, and cast out for their wicked thoughts and wicked actions). Anyone participating in the consensus process (be it your local sheriff, town council, mayor, teachers, union leader, businessmen, judges, lawyers, doctors, minister, etc.,) comes out, no longer loyal to the standards they were raised up in, that is to the local community, county, state, nation, and-or to God, now a socialist, that is now dependent upon what "the group" thinks, that is what "the group" might say. That system is a process where 1) a diverse group of people (who must tolerate, that is incorporate the immoral, that is Satan himself), 2) dialoguing their opinions to a consensus (where the father has no input, therefore has no part of the outcome), 3) over social-person issues (all must participate, that is sell their soul to "the group" or the process cannot succeed), 4) to a pre-determined outcome, that all policies, rules, and laws must be made via the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process in order (as in "new" world order) for those in power to rule ("own" "the people," buying and selling souls aka "human resource") without being judged, condemned, and cast out, removing (silencing, censoring, removing, killing) anyone who gets in their way, including the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, the righteous, doing so without having a guilty conscience (since the guilty conscience is engendered from the father's authority system).

By making law establishing "the group" as having the same rights as a person, as each group meets with different people present rules, policies, and laws are made subject to that group's decision, making rules, policies, and laws ever subject to 'change,' without anyone being personally held accountable (only individuals, not groups have a guilty conscience). This is the tyranny of the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process. Those in power, using the process can rule without restraint (without governance). They can let "the group" make rules, policies, and laws for them, silencing any opposition. After all it is the method they are after, not the content.

Without the Father (the father's authority system) there is no law. Without the law there is no disobedience. Without disobedience there is not sin. Without sin there is no need of a savior. In dialogue there is no father's authority, there is no law (except the law of the flesh), there is no disobedience, there is no sin, and therefore there is no need of a savior. All there is in dialogue is the carnal nature of the child, that is lust being 'justified.' This is why the world goes to dialogue instead of to discussion when it comes to behavior. If there is any "discussion" it is made subject to dialogue (men's opinions) via the consensus process first.

What is missing in dialogue.

In dialogue there is no father's authority, that is 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, eternal life, etc. They are all missing (negated) in and through dialogue.

"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." Jeremiah 6:16

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

"Sound doctrine" depends upon "enduring" discussion (weighing the Word of God with the Word of God) while "fables" result from dialogue, where people, always wanting to hear something new (that tickles their ears), who "heap to themselves teachers" 'justifying' their "lusts," thereby being unable to hear "the truth."

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

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).

"The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure, that is lust is the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's will], and desperately wicked [hating anyone preventing, that is inhibiting or blocking it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' it lusts after, hating anyone threatening to take or taking it away]: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9

The unregenerate (carnal) heart (the Karl Marx in you) cannot see its hatred toward the father's authority as being evil, that is "wicked," that is "desperately wicked" because its lust for pleasure is standing in the way, 'justifying' the hate. (Mark 7:21-23) Karl Marx, in his article The Holy Family described the praxis of dialogue (the human heart, that is his heart): "Not feeling at home in the sinful world, Critical Criticism [dialogue, which is subject to the human (carnal) heart] 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 Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, he wrote: "Criticism is now simply a means. Indignation is its essential pathos, denunciation its principal task. Criticism is criticism in hand-to-hand combat. Criticism proceeds on to praxis [action]." "The critique of religion [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 [being called a sinner, thus being judged, condemned, cast out for his carnal thoughts and carnal actions]."

"And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15

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

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

In other words, according to Karl Marx it is lust, that is enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the current situation and-or object, people, or person is stimulating that makes us at-one-with the world, establishing lust 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 6th Thesis on Feuerbach wrote: "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations."

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

"Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished. Proverbs 16:5

"From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:1-4

"The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." John 10:10 "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." Luke 9:56

In other words, according to Karl Marx (denying the Father and the Son, that is man's need of a savior) a man having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate his "self" in order to do the father's will is not what "fulfills" him. "On the contrary" it is the father's authority, that is a man 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 men of the world. Man'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."

The Marxist 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."

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

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

Kurt Lewin, in Kenneth Benne's book, Human Relations in Curriculum Change wrote: "It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately." "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group."

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

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

Karl Marx, in his 4th 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."

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

Norman Brown 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:'" A definition of the guilty conscience from a Marxist's perspective.

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 (e.g., 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. The guilty conscience is a product of discussion (right-wrong). The "super-ego" of dialogue (compromise, for the sake of relationship).

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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 & Jewish foundations. Must move in the direction of the Reichian orgasm." "I must put as much of this as is possible & usable in my education book, & more & 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 society's ("the group's") 'justification' (affirmation). 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" the father's authority in making rules, policies, and law, that is in establishing right and wrong behavior—resulting in lust being right and the father's authority being wrong.

The Marxist Jürgen Habermas, one of the youngest and probably smartest of the "Frankfurt School" members in his book Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory wrote (regarding the effect dialogue has upon a group setting): "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence."

Ervin Laszlo, who organized and promoted the "climate change" agenda, in his book A Strategy For The Future: The Systems Approach to World Order wrote: "Bypassing the traditional channels of 'top-down' decision making our objective center's upon transformating public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common [lust] 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."

Karl Marx in his 11th Thesis on Feuerbach (which is inscribed on his tomb) wrote: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways, the objective however, is change."

In other words, it is the father's authority system, that is the father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth (which differ from father to father) that divides the people. It is in the child's propensity to 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 'justified' 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."

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."

The antichrist cannot rule without "the people" using dialogue when defining and establishing behavior. By 'justifying' their natural inclination to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates (that the current situation and-or object, people, or person is stimulating) he "owns" them (using them as "human resource"), with them following, serving, supporting, protecting, defending, praising, and worshiping him, willingly killing (without having a guilty conscience) and dying for him (dying in their sins).

"He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." 1 John 3:8

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, ... for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Galatians 2:16

"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."
Galatians 5:19-21

"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." Ephesians 2:8, 9

Neither by the works of the law of God or the works the flesh can a man be saved ("inherit the kingdom of God"); but by the faith of Jesus Christ alone. We are 'justified' by faith in Jesus Christ alone.

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

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

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

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9

Dialogue, when used to define and establish behavior 'redeems' us from the Father's authority (faith), 'reconciling' us to the world (sight). Jesus Christ, on the other hand by taking our place on the cross redeems us from the Father's wrath upon us for our sins, that is from eternal damnation (the lake of fire that is never quenched). By his shed blood on the cross, with the Father raising him from the grave, reconciling us to Himself we receive the inheritance which Adam and the woman rejected, we receive eternal life. You discuss the Word of God, with the Word of God, that is God having the final say. To dialogue, that is add your opinion or someone elses opinion to it makes you an enemy of God, breaking the first commandment.

For example, using the Word of God itself, there are two paths which have been taken down through the ages, those who use discussion, retaining the integrity of the original manuscripts (known as the Textus Receptus; the Greek and Hebrew of Strongs Concordance) and those who use dialogue, changing the original manuscripts (adding to it, taking from it, or 'changing' its meaning) to fit with contemporary society (the Alexandrian, Gnostic, Catholic texts, that is the Metzger, Allend, and Nestly texts—which all contemporary "bibles" are translated from, and are use in Seminary to train up "ministers" as 'facilitators of change').Whoever defines terms for you controls your life. In discussion the father defines terms for you. In dialogue the facilitator of 'change,' that is Satan, that is the seducer, deceiver, and manipulator of men defines terms for you. The Protestant Reformation (the priesthood of all believers, putting no man or object between you and God, doing your best as unto the Lord) was built upon translations from the Textus Receptus. Contemporary translations, rejecting the Textus Receptus as their source from which to translate from, using heretical sources instead have brought confusion (the opinions of men) into the "Church," their intended agenda. Only those who translate from the Textus Receptus via discussion, where the text retains the final word can convey the Word of God to the believer. All other pathways lead to confusion, engendering doubt and apostasy. We can disagree on the translation but not the source (if there are any disagreements they are minor, not effecting doctrine).

Martin Luther wrote of the effect dialogue has upon the Christian: "Miserable Christians, whose words and faith still depend on the interpretations [opinions] 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 [the opinions of men]." (Martin Luther, Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer)

"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)

The Marxist Max Horkheimer, who was for a time director of the Institute of Social Research ("The Frankfurt School") in his book Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung; in English. Reasoning and Self Preservation wrote: "Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism."

Max Horkheimer was a member of a group of Marxist who came to the states in the early thirties, entering our universities and "assisting" our government (from the Federal level down) in making laws, pushing the 'change' process (Marxism) down the throats of Americans. It was the effect of Protestantism, that is individualism under God that they were most dedicated in negated. 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.

Anyone who has been exposed to and participated in the praxis of psychology is "damaged goods." To participate is to deny the Father. You cannot praxis psychology and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Dispite your denial of it there is no such thing as a Christian psychologist, there is only a psychologist who is deceiving his self and others in believing he is a Christian, when in truth he is praxising Satan's way of thinking. The Curse of Psychology (pdf)

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:8

"[E]ven so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." John 3:14-21

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

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9

"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." Jeremiah 17:5, 7

Apart from God and His Word (are you reading it daily, applying it to your heart and soul, dying to your lusts daily, rejecting the lusts of others, that is rejecting the approval and praises of men, enduring their rejection instead, following after the Lord, doing the Father's will) all man has to look forward to is the lake of fire that is never quenched, prepared for the master facilitator of 'change' and all who followed after him.

"He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels." Revelation 3:5

"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." "For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth. The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts." Psalms 36:1-4; 10:3, 4

"For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;" 2 Timothy 3:2-4

This all results from the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" (Marxism) in the classroom, with the next generation of citizens establishing their behavior upon their own carnal nature, that is lusts rejecting the father's authority, that is restraint as the result. 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,' that is 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,' that is into dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, 'justifying' their carnal nature, that is "lust" over and therefore against their parent's authority. Being told to be "positive" (supportive of the other students carnal nature) and not "negative" (judging them by their parent's standards) pressures students to 'justify' their and the other students love of pleasure and hate of restrain, doing so in order to be approved, that is affirmed by "the group," resulting in "the group" labeling those students who, holding onto their parent's standards, that is 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., that is "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

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

Home schooling material, co-ops, conferences, etc., are joining in the same praxis, fulfilling Immanuel Kant's as well as Georg Hegel's, Karl Marx's, and Sigmund Freud's agenda of using the pattern or method of Genesis 3:1-6, that is "self" 'justification' in order to negate Hebrews 12:5-11, that is the father's authority, negating Romans 7:14-25, that is their having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sining, thereby negating their having to repent before the father—which is the real agenda.

"And for this cause [because men, as "children of disobedience," 'justifying' their lust (dopamine emancipation) establish their self 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' that the world stimulates]." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2024 (4/11/2024)