authorityresearch.com

The Key to 'Change:'
is your dissatisfaction with your Father's authority.

by

Dean Gotcher

"For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.  If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?  But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.  Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?  For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but He for our profit, that we might be partakers of His holiness.  Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby."  Hebrews 12:6-11

Karl Marx understood that the Father's authority 1. to give (preach) commands and rules and teach facts and truth to His children, and discuss them with his children (at his discretion) 2. to bless or reward those children who obey his commands and rules and do what is right and not wrong, 3. to chasten those children who disobey His commands and rules (which produces a "guilty conscience" in the child when he thinks of disobeying or does disobey), and 4. to cast out those children who disrespect His authority, inhibits or blocks 'change.'  He knew that it was therefore imperative that the father's authority had to be negated if 'change' (man 'liberated' of Godly restraint, i.e. freed of a "guilty conscience" for disobedience) was to become a 'reality.  He realized that the pattern of the earthly father's "top-down" authority introduced the children to the same pattern of thought and action as the Heavenly Father's "top-down" authority, and that the latter's pattern or paradigm or way of thinking and acting (belief in and obedience to God) could not be negated in the thoughts and actions of the children (in the future society) without the former's pattern or paradigm or way of thinking and acting being negated first.  This is what 'change' is all about: the negation of the Father's authority by 'liberating' the children from the father's authority so that they can return to doing what they were doing before the Father's first command and threat of chastening, i.e. pursuing the carnal pleasures of life, i.e. being positive, i.e. being "normal," i.e. thinking and acting according to "human nature" only, without a "guilty conscience."  Just know this: when 'change,' i.e. the negation the Father's/father's authority is put into praxis propounding "the 'good' life" (as was first put into practice in the garden in Eden), death ensues.

"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12

Therefore, according to Karl Marx, those children who are 'liberated' (those who were "cast out") from the Father's/father's authority (making them "children of disobedience," i.e. the deviant, i.e. the initiators of 'change') must 'liberate' the rest of the children from the Father's/father's authority if 'change' is to be sustained (become the only way of life).  The Father's/father's authority engenders the "guilty conscience" (the fear of judgment for one's thoughts or actions) while the desire for the approval of the other children who are 'liberated' from the Father's/father's authority, who are free to be themselves, engenders a "super-ego," based upon the approval of men.  If the "children of disobedience" are to 'liberate' society of the Father's "top-down" authority they must not only negate the father but must also negate the children who continue to honour his authority as well, doing so without a "guilty conscience."   'Change' is after all about seducing, deceiving, and manipulating, i.e. 'liberating' the child from the Father's/father's authority by negating the Father's/father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the child, making the child, along with all the other children of the world, a "child of disobedience," united with all the children of the world, i.e. becoming as "one" with them in thought and action, i.e. 'liberated' all the children from the Father's/father's authority through the process of 'change.'  The dialectic process of 'change', with its thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, can only arrive at synthesis (the children of the world united as "one," uniting according to what they all have in common, i.e. their carnal human nature) by making the child's carnal nature the center of attention, i.e. the thesis, or else the Father's/father's authority, accepted as thesis, prevents the child's carnal nature from being 'justified,' preventing synthesis, i.e. inhibiting or blocking 'change.'  The antithesis (the source of contention or controversy) must be the Father's authority or synthesis ('change') can not become 'reality.'

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

In the process of 'change' the child's "feelings" of resentment (hate) towards his Father's/father's authority (when his carnal desires were being restrained, i.e. when he could not have his way) is 'justified' through his association with other children with the same "feelings" of resentment (hate) towards their Father's/father's authority.  The facilitator of 'change," deceiving the children into believing that their hate of the Father's/father's authority is in reality love, i.e. love for all the children of the world, knows that it makes it easier for him to help them (the children) 'loose' their "feelings" of resentment (hate) upon the Father/father and His authority (and all who honor, i.e. serve and protect it) when the Father/father demands His/his way.  By the children accepting "human nature" as being "normal" (the "norm"), the Father's authority, which is used to restrain "human nature," i.e. preaching and teaching right from wrong, is perceived by the children as being "irrational" (as not being appropriate to the given situation).  Therefore his commands and rules are (his "top-down" authority is) perceived by the children as being "irrelevant" in a world of 'change,' i.e. in a world of children dialoguing their opinions to a consensus , i.e. uniting upon their "feeling" of "oneness" (which, according to the training manuals, does not come naturally, i.e. needing the assistance of a facilitator of 'change,' roleplaying Satan in the garden in Eden, to initiate and sustain the process of 'change').  God (the Heavenly Father) is justified in judging the world in the end because the children, instead of listening to the Words of the Father/father, i.e. following after God, i.e. loving Him, i.e. loving the Father and honoring His authority, have been seduced and deceived into listening to the words, i.e. to the opinions of the other children around them instead, i.e. listening, not only to their own heart's desires, but also to the heart's desire of others around, following after "the children of disobedience," i.e. uniting as "one" with those who hate the Father's authority, who seek to put it to an end.

By the children 'justifying' themselves, 'justifying' their love of the pleasures of this life, 'justifying' their carnal (vain) ways (being deceived with their own words) over and against the Father's/father's authority, all the children become "children of disobedience"—in the process of 'change.'  "Appropriate information," which initiates and sustains the process of 'change,'  is any information which comes via "inductive reasoning," i.e. from the child's personal (sense) experiences, i.e. subjective "truth," i.e. how the child "feels" and what he "thinks" in the 'moment' (in the situation) rather than via "deductive reasoning," i.e. from knowledge handed down to the child from the Father, i.e. objective truth, i.e. from what the child has been taught by his Father, directing him in how he is to think and act in the 'moment' (in the situation).  This guarantees that any information introduced into the so called discussion, i.e. what is actually the dialoging of opinions, perpetuates the process of 'change,' i.e. negates the Father's authority in the experience and therefore in the outcome.  With the use of psychology (with its emphasis upon freely sharing one's opinion), especially in a "group settings" (which incorporates the effects of "group dynamics," i.e. the desire for the approval of others, i.e. the desire for belongingness, i.e. finding one's identity within the group), while working on personal-socialist issues, the Father's authority is automatically negated, i.e. categorized as being the barrier to 'liberty.'  "Freud noted that patricide and incest are part of man's deepest nature." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)  When the child is striking out at the Father who is preventing him from having his carnal heart's desire, he is, according to the process of 'change,' putting man's 'quest' for freedom into praxis.  It is here that socialism finds it's 'drive' and it's 'purpose.'

"... 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, and the establishment of the brother clan,"  (Herbart Marcuse explaining Freud's historiography in his book, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud)

According to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. according to the process of 'change,' sin is not the estrangement of man from God (the estrangement of the child from the Father's authority) but instead "is the estrangement of man from man [sin is the estrangement of the children from one another, divided by their father's commands and rules which differ from family to family, from nation to nation]." (Leonard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God)   Thus, the 'drive' and 'purpose' of 'change' is to negate the father's authority over his children (negating the father being honoured and obeyed as God is honoured and obeyed by believers) by uniting the children, making them as "one" according to their "human nature," i.e. making them as "god" themselves, thereafter determining right from wrong according to their carnal "felt needs" of the 'moment,' becoming as "one" with one another upon that which they all have in common—instead of the children thinking and acting according to their father's commands (as a believer, i.e. according to the Word of God, i.e. being in the world, but not of it), which divides them from the world, the children become socialist, i.e. being not only in the world, but of it as well, united with the children of the world thinking and acting according to their "felt needs" of the 'moment.')  By the righteous accepting ("tolerating") the unrighteous (being silent in the midst of unrighteousness, for the sake of human relationship), they become unrighteous in the process.

By starting with the child's "feelings" as the "ground" from which to determining right from wrong, good from evil, the child is deceived into believing that his love for the things of the world (his vanity) is "good," is "right," when in truth it turns him against his Father's authority, i.e. hating the Father and His authority, making the Father and His authority evil (in the eyes of the child) in the process.  From creation to judgment, from the garden in Eden to Armageddon, from conception to the last breath you take, this is the issue of life and death, i.e. the Father's authority and the child's desire for 'liberation' from it, the child being deceived into believing that his 'liberation' from the Father's authority is "good," when in truth it is evil, with 'liberation' making him subject to the things of the world instead and therefore subject to the judgment of God (the Father), who will have His way in the end.  With this understanding, there is not a textbook you pick up, a news story that is told, an event that happens around you and to you, that does not revolve around this issue, the negation of the Father's authority for the sake of the children ("All children are at risk," "No child left behind," etc.), called the process of 'change,' and God's (the Father's) judgment upon it (and them, i.e. "the children of disobedience") in the end.

"Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them."  Colossians 3:5-7

This issue which you are reading, "The key to 'change'" (exposing the process of 'change') should be taught in every college and university, but won't be for obvious reasons.  This issue on the process of 'change' would be just some mental exercise except for the fact that hundreds of millions have died and more continue to die violent deaths (born and unborn) and billions are being oppressed as a result of its use by governments claiming to "care" about "the people."   You and your loved ones may be on that list some day.  If those in government do not have the fear of God in them, i.e. if they think and act as a child with no Father's authority in their lives (like Karl Marx, i.e. as "children of disobedience"), then all they really care about is getting what they can out of government (out of you) for themselves, claiming all the while that what they are doing is for the "good" of "the people" (for your good), to keep themselves in office, in some position of control over you and your money, including your children, your property, and your business.  You had better not put your life in their hands because if they perceive that you do not, can not, or will not take care of their "felt" needs (support and contribute to, i.e. serve and protect their cause of "taking care" of "the people") then they will "take care of you" for the "good" of "the people," with no "guilty conscience."  "Transparency," for government, i.e. government under the influence of 'change,'  means the government's "need" to collect information on you, for the purpose of 'change,' i.e. to initiate and sustain socialist unity (like a one way mirror), without divulging its intentions to 'change' you, make you a socialist, i.e. take your God given inalienable rights away.

"Thus saith the LORD; 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  "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." Psalms 118:8

"Health Care," when it entails social health, 'justifies' your demise at the hand of a "doctor" or any "health care provider" (if you stand in the way of, i.e. block, or can no longer contribute to the process of 'change'), doing his job for the "good" of society, i.e. "taking care of you" with no "guilty conscience."   The moment government "serves and protects" the environment, both the social environment and the natural environment (in the guise of "serving and protecting" the 'wellness' of "the people"), the citizen becomes a servant (a slave) of the government, with his soul and body belonging to the world and no longer to God, i.e. with "the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof." (1 Corinthians 10:26) becoming "the fruits of the earth [including you, your family, your property, and your business] belong to us all [to society, i.e. to the socialists], and the earth itself to nobody [except those who control it for the "good" of "the people"]."  (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality)  "Belong to us all" means public-private partnership where private (nobodies business) becomes pubic (everybody's business), which negates private, i.e. where capitalism (individualism) is sanctioned only if it supports socialism (the "community," society, or "people groups"), which negates capitalism, in it's praxis of 'liberating' "the people" from the father's restraints, negating individualism under the father/Father (God), i.e. negating the children honoring the Father's/father's authority, 'liberating' them from having to obey the Father's/father's commands and rules, i.e. 'liberating' them from having to do His/his will to receive their inheritance, which now belongs to the "community," i.e. "the people," i.e. the socialist.  Polls and surveys, i.e. which collect the opinions of men, i.e. how they "feel" and what they "think" engenders a socialist outcome which negates representative government, i.e. replacing it with a "bi-partisan" (socialist) form of government.  A government by polls, surveys, and consensus propagates the socialist "party line," thus negates a representative form of government.  The trickery of 'change' is knowing that the answers are in the questions, thereby asking the right questions to get your desired outcome.  "What do you 'know?'" question engender "I 'know'" ("Because my Father said so," i.e. "It is written," not readily adaptable to 'change') answers, which inhibit or block socialism ('change'), while "How do you 'feel?'" and "What do you 'think?'" questions engender "I feel'" and "I think'" (opinions, i.e. the "feelings" and "thoughts" of "the people" in the 'moment,' which are readily adaptable to 'change') answers which initiate and sustain socialism ('change').  The key to totalitarianism on a global scale is in the "governments" (from the local to the international governments) ability to gain access to a persons "feelings" and "thoughts," for it is here that control is mostly easily initiated and sustained, i.e. with the person eventually having no access to the "needs" of life (physical, mental, and social) without first divulging his intent to collaborate with the "community" for the "good" of society, i.e. for the "good" of "the people," i.e. for the "good" of the earth.  Instead of government serving and protecting him and his interests (his right of individualism under God, i.e. inalienable rights) he must serve and protect government and its interest (the right of socialism, supporting and promoting a world freed of Godly restraint, i.e. a world based upon human rights).

If you are into sound bites and/or want to 'justify' your sinful nature, i.e. not think past your carnal feelings of the 'moment,' i.e. remain subject to the whims of 'change,' than go read Wikipedia for your answers (or listen to the media).  This issue (if you trouble yourself to trudge your way through it) does not encourage you to simply blame government (or someone else) for your problems, although it has a big part in the deed (with the government's interest in controlling, i.e. "caring for" your physical, mental, and social heath [read: socialist health] being a major one—"humanist rights," based upon man's carnal nature, negates "inalienable rights," given to us by God, in a world of 'change').  It points the blame at you.  If you don't start there, with your "adaptability to 'change,'" with your propensity to sin, to sell your soul for the pleasures of the day (leaning to your own understanding and not trusting in the Lord with all your heart), i.e. turning to the "wisdom" of men instead of to the Word of God (the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ) for your advice, you will never come to understanding what 'change' is all about.  For those who might equate "church" doctrine (the written works of men explaining what God means) to God's Word, i.e. in their effort to save man from the process of 'change,' my response is I will continue to bring people to the feed of Christ Jesus, for their soul sake, while you bring them to the feet of _Whoever_, for your institutions sake.  Concerning the issue of 'change' itself though, why would you be concerned if you weren't tempted to 'change,' i.e. yield yourself to the world's affect upon you, being easily seduced, deceived, and manipulated to disobey, question, and challenge your Father's authority on a daily basis, loving yourself and the things of the world instead of Him?  If you remove yourself from your Father's hand of protection, turn your eyes away from Him, all you have left to look at is the world (which is out to victimize you, i.e. out to use you for it's own gain), claiming all the while that it "cares" about you.

By bringing up scriptures (in an article dealing with the 'changes' we are experiencing in education, in the workplace, in government, and even in the home and the church) I knowing that I will not only lose the "liberal" reader but the "Christian" reader as well since both are only interested in the opinions, i.e. the "wisdom" of men these days—no longer concerned about what the Word of God has to say about them (and to them) and the world they live in.  It is how Karl Marx would have wanted it.  'Change,' after all, is an issue of life and death, even though at first it might seem benign, i.e. for your "well-being."  If you don't care about yourself, what happens to you in a world of 'change,' at least care about your children, i.e. your posterity.  Karl Marx did.  Concerning the world, you, and your children's existence in it, Karl Marx wrote: "The objective ... is change [the object is not the Father who is unchanging, i.e. eternal (spirit), but the children who are ever 'changing,' subject to the whims of the ever 'changing' environment, i.e. temporal (of the flesh and world only)]."  (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11)

Karl Marx has more to do with your thoughts and actions, and the world you live in today, than you might know or are willing to admit.  He (building on Hegel's works, "tweaking" them) built his "new world order" of 'change' upon the Word of God, that is, turning them "upside down," as you will see by statements made by him (quoted below), i.e. making mankind, i.e. the children (and therefore the world) "good," i.e. as God, righteous in and of themselves, thereby making God the Father, and those who love and obey Him, evil (negative, divisive, hateful, intolerant, "prejudiced," "lower order thinkers," maladjusted, neurotic, unadaptable to 'change,' "resisters of 'change," etc.)  More than likely there were day's when you, as a child, probably agreed with Karl Marx, revealing his ideology in your thoughts and actions as you 'justified' (or attempted to 'justify') your "goodness" (your will) over and against your father's "evilness" (his will), questioning and challenging his authority (to be clarified below—as father's themselves can be tyrants, i.e. evil in an office that is not evil, as Marx would want you to believe).  It is upon this "ground" that George Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud built our "new world order" of 'change,' the negation of the Father's authority, so that man could be himself again, i.e. 'justified' in his own eyes, thinking and acting according to his own nature only, i.e. becoming at-one-with the world, in pleasure, in the 'moment' again, as he was before the Father's first command and threat of chastening for disobedience.

"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

When we lost the Father's authority we lost the nation.  It is why we have become a nation of abomination today.

If you don't start here (with the Word of God) you can never understand those who are promoting a world of 'change,' i.e. their affect upon you and the world you live in today, 'changing' you and the world so that you can be at peace with yourself and with it, loving and serving the world over and against loving and serving your Heavenly Father instead.  Christ Jesus, the only begotten son of God was not sent by His Heavenly Father to judge, condemn, or even save the world (although God loves the world since He created it).  He came to save you and me from His judgment upon the world because of our sins.  The day will come when the Lord, at the Father's sending, will return to judge (not redeem) the nations of the world (something He has not called the redeemed to do, i.e. to judge or redeem the nations or the "people groups" of the world, only to preach the gospel to all nations, who will reject it in the end, with only the "whosoever" hearing, receiving, and being 'redeemed').  With the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ it gets personal, i.e. it is not for others and the world that He came.  Sent by His Heavenly Father, i.e. in obedience to His Heavenly Father's will, Christ Jesus came for you, not because He loves you (which he does) but because He loves His Father.  It is only from here, in His love for His Father, that you can understand His love for you and therefore his love for others.  Don't let your love for others (your love for yourself, i.e. since our love is only of vanity, i.e. our love for others stemming from our love for ourselves) come between you and Him, for this is where socialism begins.  It is only in His love (dying to Himself to do His Heavenly Father's will) that you (dying to yourself to do His Heavenly Father's will, denying yourself, picking up your cross, i.e. accepting the rejection of men for the faith, and following His Son) can you love others as He loves them.  As the prodigal son learned, your inheritance is not in the things you can get from your Father for yourself and for others (for your "friends"), your inheritance is in His love for you.  This is something which those of the world can not, i.e. Hegel, Marx, and Freud could not understand, choosing the pleasures of the 'moment' as the 'drive'' and the 'purpose' of life instead, losing their soul in the end.  The world says "don't miss out" (on the pleasures of the world) while God the Father says "don't miss out" (on eternal life).  Which one you listen to and follow ("missing out on the world" or "missing out on the Father") will determine where you will spend eternity.  Change is all about life and death, not only in this life but in the eternal life (or eternal death) which is to come.  Where you will spend eternity all depends upon who you turn to for change, i.e. to God or to man, to the Father or to the world and the "children of disobedience," i.e. the facilitators of 'change.'

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.  If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.  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.  And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."  1 John 2:15-17

The "pride of life" is our ability to deceive ourselves into believing that we have the "lust of the flesh" and the "lust of the eyes" (the gratifying things of the world which stimulate dopamine 'emancipation'—which makes us subject to, tied to, or united with the 'moment,' imagined or real) under our control when in truth we are under its (under the world's) control, or rather under the control of those who "help" us attain and retain the things of the world (the pleasures of this life, including "the approval of others," i.e. "the praises of men" ), thereby 'justifying' ourselves, that is, 'validating' our flesh, i.e. our "human nature" as being "good," making us righteous in our own eyes (and therefore "feeling" that our "lusts," i.e. our "human nature," our propensity to sin should be accepted, at least "tolerated," in the eyes of others and vice versa, i.e. that their "lusts," i.e. their "human nature," their propensity to sin should be accepted, at least "tolerated," in our eyes since we are both alike, i.e. the only "ground" upon which "equality" can be built).  While the world is 'ever-changing'—with the children (including [and especially] the children in adult bodies) ever 'changing' with it, i.e. "lusting" after, i.e. being subject to the 'changing' environment (subject to the pleasures of the flesh and of the eyes) of the 'moment'—the Father (His office of authority) is not subject to 'change,' i.e. his commands, given in the present to be obeyed in the present and the future are  perceived by the child, in the time that follows, as being of the "past," preventing the child from having his desires of the 'moment' (his "felt" needs satisfied) in the present ("I'll just die if you don't let me go out and play with my friends") and the future (as in the following day when he meets his friends with his father's command still in place).  That is, while the earthly father himself (as a child of the world, i.e. of the flesh) is subject to the whims of 'change,' his office of authority is not subject to the whims of 'change,' being given to him by God, who is unchanging.  While the earthly father might (or might not) be restraining his "child within"—which is subject to 'change,' he restrains his child's carnal desire of the 'moment,' i.e. his child's "child within," determining for him what is right and what is wrong behavior in the present and the future, which is not of the 'moment,' not of the the child's carnal nature in the "here-and-now," not subject to the present world of the child (at least according to his perception of it).  Hebrews 12:5-11 gives us a clear picture of the Father's rule over the child, according to God's will.  It is this structure, pattern, or paradigm of Hebrews 12:5-11 that those of 'change' are 'driven' by and 'purposed' in negating.  After having read and studied hundred of social-psychology books (over 600 that I kept track of), after having taught in a University on the subject of 'change' (only lasting a semester and a day, would love to teach in a University again but it more than likely won't ever happen, i.e. "Katy bar the door"), and after having given over 6000 presentations from coast to coast over the past seventeen years on the dialectic process, i.e. the process of 'change,' I am always brought back to these verses as the problem (for those of dialectic 'reasoning') and the solution (for those who want the nation and the people to return to self-control, self-discipline, and morality).  For it is here, in the Father's authority, that 'change' faces its greatest obstacle, its greatest barrier and therefore it is the Father's authority that must be negated if 'change' is to take place.

The objective of 'change ("the pride of life"—man's perception that he is in control of his "destiny") is to reunite the child's thoughts of the 'moment' (the current time, i.e. the "here-and-now") with the gratifying objects of pleasure in the current environment (with that which is of the world, i.e. imagined or real), making both one (making the current desires and the current "situation" united as one in the 'moment'), negating, in the thoughts and actions of the child, any condition which (or person who) separates the child from the world, i.e. reuniting the child's current desires (thoughts, i.e. theory) with the current environment (situation, i.e. practice) and vice versa, thus turning the child against the Father's authority (while "theory and practice" unites man's carnal thoughts with his carnal actions, negating a Father's authority, "belief-action dichotomy" divides a person between belief, i.e. his Father's authority and his carnal nature, i.e. his carnal desires, with his Father's authority taking precedence) .  While our earthly father and our Heavenly Father both have the same "top-down" authority, that is our earthly father (of the flesh) chastens us so that he can satisfy his desires (leaving us in our sins, living only for this world, subject to eternal death) while our Heavenly Father (who is spirit) chastens us that we might partake in His Holiness (that we might have eternal life).  It is not that God hates man having pleasure.  He created the world for our pleasure, but not that we would worship it instead of Him (you buy a toy for your child that he might have pleasure in it but not that he would love it more than you).  Yet the world is passing away, and if man holds onto the world (which is passing away) he will pass away (die) with it.  Yet man, unlike the physical world, has an eternal soul which is made in the image of God so that he can evaluate the world and his life according to God's will, to praise Him in all His glory.  It is not made in the image of man so that he can evaluate the world and his life according to his carnal nature, to worship the world, according to his flesh.  Therefore if he worships the world and its pleasures, he will die an eternal death.

Karl Marx refused to accept the fact that the two fathers (the earthly father and the Heavenly Father) were different in substance (one of spirit the other of flesh—he rejected spirit as a concept) he recognized that they were the same in pattern or Paradigm, i.e. in their Patriarchal, "top-down" way of thinking and acting, i.e. with the Heavenly Father ruling over man (and the creation) and the earthly father ruling over his children (and his property), making all men (and children) subject to the the Father's will (teaching them to think and act exclusive of their carnal "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e. making them no long subject to the carnal desires of the current "situation," i.e. no longer thinking and acting according to their urges and impulses of the 'moment,' thus making them inadaptable to 'change').   It is in Marx (along with Sigmund Freud, both of Hegel's ideology) that we find the "pure" intent of 'change,' negating the Father's authority thereby 'liberating' man from God so that he can be "himself," i.e. of the flesh only, i.e. subject to the world of 'change' (quotations following).  How you apply this information is up to you.  But know this: when you turn your eyes away from the Father (as those of 'change' desire you to do) all you have left is the world to look upon.

As you will see, negating the difference between the Father, with His authority, i.e. His authority being used to teach the child to do right and not wrong, restraining the child's carnal nature, i.e. inhibiting his urges and impulses of the 'moment,' i.e. 1) giving commands and rules to His children to be obeyed without questioning and/or challenging His authority 2) chastening those who disobey, to restore them to Him, and 3) casting out those who disrespect and/or challenge His authority—which are the same criteria for righteousness, i.e. doing the Father's will without questioning, challenging, and/or disobeying Him or it), and the children (naturally drawn to the world according to their carnal nature, i.e. thinking and acting according to their urges and impulses of the 'moment,' approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, first and foremost) is what 'change' is all about.  The issue is not just the right and wrong of the Father itself, it is the children learning to suspend their "human nature" for the 'moment,' to do right and not wrong, learning to think and act outside of their "natural inclination" of establishing right and wrong according to their own carnal nature, i.e. according to the urges and impulses of the 'moment,' i.e. according to there "feelings," alienating themselves from being at-one-with the world in the given situation, i.e. preventing them from being readily adaptable to 'change.'  It is the difference between man being 'driven' by his desire for the approval of men and the pleasures of this life (which comes naturally), i.e. the children being 'driven' by their desire for approval of others (both from their parent's and other children) and the pleasures of this life (which comes naturally) rather than obedience to God, i.e. obedience to the Father (which does not come naturally), which sometimes requires chastening of the child, on the part of the Father.

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man [since by giving commands to be obeyed by faith, i.e. which are not of the world, chastening those who disobey, and casting out those who disrespect His authority, God does not have to seduce, deceive, and manipulate man, i.e. use the "lust" of the flesh, to get man to do His will (which the "contemporary churches" are attempting to do)]: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.  Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.  Do not err, my beloved brethren.   Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."  James 1:13-17

I am reminded of the verse: "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness."  Luke 11:35  When we make our carnal "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. our opinions (or the opinions of others) the foundation from which to determine good from evil then we turn from the light that gives us life to the "light" which is of us only, i.e. which is of our flesh only, which is death.  The "enlightened" mind can only comprehend the "light" which is darkness and death.  "The ideas of the Enlightenment taught man that he could trust his own reason as a guide to establishing valid ethical norms and that he could rely on himself, needing neither revelation [the Father's authority] nor that authority of the church [the Son of God] in order to know good and evil."  (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists)  Abraham Maslow wrote: "The more enlightened the religious institutions get, that is to say, the more liberal they get, the greater will be the advantage for an enterprise run in an enlightened way."  (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)   His business model of "enlightenment" has now become the "business model" of the "church."

Unrighteousness comes naturally, righteousness does not.  By the manipulator of 'change' (the facilitator of 'change') "helping" (seducing, deceiving, and manipulating) both the father and the children in 'liberating' the 'moment' from the Father's authority i.e. with the father 'liberating' his "child within" (his lust for pleasure, including and especially his desire for approval from others, as he 'liberates' his children from his authority, approving of them, i.e. not 'judging' them for their lusting after the pleasure of this life as well—at least being silent, not speaking up when they do wrong), both are 'liberated' from the Heavenly Father's authority.  In this way, i.e. with the father suspending (abdicating) his authority, i.e. his right-wrong "judgmental" ("prejudiced") attitude ('liberating' his "child within" and thereby 'liberating' his children from his authority), both  the father and the children are created as "equals," i.e. both of the flesh (of "human nature") only, i.e. of the world only, as they were before the Heavenly Father's first command and threat of chastening, which was initiated and sustained (according to dialectic 'reasoning') by the earthly father's first command and threat of chastening of his children for disobedience, i.e. by the children setting aside their carnal 'moment' to fulfill their Father's will, taking on His position as their position—the dialectic 'idea' being, instead of God creating man, man created God—instead of the Father creating the child, the child created the Father when he, as a child, honoured his father's authority and obeyed his commands without question, i.e. living by faith, thinking and acting according to the Father's will, rather than living by sight, i.e. thinking and acting according to his own will, i.e. according to his own "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. according to his own carnal nature.  Before going any further I need to make clear that a person's "position" is always external to himself, i.e. from his father, etc. ultimately from God (for all authority is of God), he just accepts it as where he stands, therefore no man can have a position in and of himself.  His "feelings" and "thought" are of himself only.  Therefore by asking a person how he "feels" and what he "thinks" about his position, when he responds (with his opinion) he negates his father's or God's position of authority over his life. Only by the earthly father's acceptance of the child's position, i.e. the child's "feelings" and "thoughts", i.e. his "rights" (become child centered himself, thus 'liberating his children and his wife from having to "suffer" under His authority, i.e. the children under their father's authority and the wife under her husband's authority, accepting his position as theirs) can both the father and his children (along with his wife) become children of the flesh, children of "equality" in an ever 'changing' world ("children of disobedience"), all 'liberated' from the Father's "top-down" authority (freed of having a ridged position), now being subject only to the carnal whims of 'change,' with the facilitator of 'change' controlling their lives instead.

This is the same dialectic pattern we find used in the garden in Eden by the first facilitator of 'change' (the master facilitator of 'change'), using it on the woman in the garden in Eden, with Adam abdicating to join her in her praxis (Genesis 3:1-6).  Sin and judgment is thereby replaced, i.e. negated (in the thoughts and actions of man and child) in their 'quest' for worldly peace and socialist harmony (in their desire for "belongingness") by basing the "good" life upon the carnal nature (and carnal 'reasoning') of the child ('liberated' from the Father's authority) instead of upon the will of the Father, i.e. upon the will of God.  The whole gospel message is of Christ Jesus (the only begotten son of God) undoing ('redeeming' us from) the affect of Genesis 3:1-6 on our lives, restoring ('reconciling') us, as children, to His Heavenly Father and His authority.

George Hegel built the "new" world order of 'change' upon Genesis 3:1-6, i.e. the dialectic process of 'change.'  Hegel wrote: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, where there is no antithesis [no "top-down" authority] of person to person 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 [when you reject God's "top-down" authority, you reject the husband's rule over his home—his wife submitting the desires of her heart to her husband and the children obeying their parents in the Lord, as well as his right of private property and private business (which the children were to inherit), are all negated (now under the control of the facilitator's of 'change')]."  (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)   Hegel believed that all must become as children of the world (of "human nature" only) if mankind was to be 'liberated,' i.e. freed from Godly restraint: "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 [as he is being "helped" to free himself from his Father's authority according to the pattern of Genesis 3:1-6]."  (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)

According to God's will, the earthly father's office of authority (on the earth below) is a semblance of the Heavenly Father's office (from above).  It is in the negation of the earthly father's authority over his children that 'change' find's it's 'drive' and it's 'purpose,' done in order to negate the Heavenly Father's authority over man.  According to 'change,' all things, from birth to death, stems from this. i.e. 'liberating' all the children of the world from their Father's authority so that they can be themselves (be only of the world, i.e. subject to the whim's of 'change,' "lusting" after the pleasures of the 'moment') again, as they were before their Father's first command and threat of chastening—and thus, unable and unwilling to think and act outside of the pleasures of the world, i.e. void of the Father's restraint (void self-restraint and self-control, other than to augment the process of 'change'), only being subject to, i.e. tempted by the pleasures of the 'moment' (or tempted by the hopes or promises of the pleasures of the world in the future, made by, of, and for the nature of man), they are easily seduced, deceived, and manipulated by (controlled by, i.e. made slaves by, of, and for) the master facilitator of 'change.'  The true gospel message is that of the Son of God 'redeeming' man from the wrath of the Father, His wrath directed towards man for disobeying  His laws, i.e. for sinning, i.e. for loving the world rather than the Father, 'reconciling' him to His Father, while the "new age" gospel message is of man 'redeeming' himself from the law (the child 'redeeming' himself from the Father's authority), i.e. delivering himself from the condemnation of sin by declaring himself (his sinful "human nature," i.e. his "natural inclination" to be at-one-with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment') as being "normal," as being "good," 'reconciling' himself back to the world again by negating the authority of the Father in his thoughts and in his actions ("in theory and in practice").  Karl Marx put it this way:

"Once the earthly family [the earthly father's authority] is discovered to be the secret of the heavenly family [the earthly father's authority being the same paradigm or way of thinking and acting as the Heavenly Father's authority, 1) giving commands to be obeyed by His children without questioning his authority, 2) chastening those who disobey, and 3) casting out those who disrespect His authority], the former [the earthly father's authority] must be destroyed [Vernunft, annihilated, negated, etc.] in theory and in practice [in the thoughts and actions of the children of society]."  (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis # 4)

Karl Marx understood this about 'change,' i.e. how to bring you and the entire world under its (Marxist) control.  He understood that the office of the Father (the Father's "top-down" authority over His children), which prevents 'change,' had to be negated (the children had to be 'liberated' from their Father's authority, i.e. had to become subject to the caprice of 'change' again) if a world of 'change' only, if a world of man's carnal nature only, freed of Godly restraint, a world freed of the "rigidity" of antithesis—where man is caught between having to obey God (the child having to obey His Father's commands) and internally desiring to following after his own carnal "human nature," becoming part and parcel of that which is of the world instead, i.e. creating a world (a "new" world order) negated of (void of) the Father's authority, negated of (void of) Godly restraint was to become 'reality.'  Marx's solution to Romans 7:14-25 (doing that which we do not want to do and not doing that which we want to do) was to accept sin, i.e. man's carnal nature as being "normal" thereby negating the curse of the law, i.e. making man "feel" guilty for sinning, by negating the law of God itself as a standard from which to determine right from wrong, i.e. good and evil from.  If we evaluate life from the child's perspective instead of according to the Father's authority we can be ourselves again, at one with the world, i.e. in consensus with nature.

While Christ Jesus did not negate the law of the Father (he fulfilled it for us, imputing His righteousness upon those of faith in Him) the Antichrist negates the law of the Father, making man's nature, i.e. the law of the flesh, the law whereby all men and children are to think and act.  All he needs is your opinion of your Father's position (from strongly disagree to strongly agree) to free you from your Father's authority (doing right and not wrong), 'changing' your paradigm (your way of thinking and acting) from doing your Father's will, without questioning it or Him, as being right to where right is sharing your opinion with others and them doing the same with you (living by sight, i.e. according to the 'moment,' i.e. the situation determining what is right and what is wrong, with the gratifying things of the world, real or imagined, 'liberating' dopamine, drawing you to the world in the hopes of initiating and sustaining more, i.e. with the augmentation of pleasure being the standard for "good") with wrong becoming doing your Father's will without questioning it and/or Him (living by faith in Him, no longer subject to the power of or "lust" for dopamine emanciaption, i.e. as a drug addict cured of the addiction, no longer easily tempted by the drug pushers of the world, i.e. the facilitators of 'change').  It is that easy.  Your opinion will always side with your flesh, i.e. "doing your own thing" over and against the Father's authority, i.e. "blindly" (according to the world), i.e. by faith doing the Father's will.  It is what the garden experience for two "children" was all about, in the beginning of "humanist history" (their beginning, according to the gnostic story, 'created' by Satan in the garden, helping them become their own "person," the "divine spark" in them, freed of Godly restraint, able to find unity, with them both, along with the world, finding themselves as being one, as being "god," not with God forming man from the dust of the ground and breathing the breath of life into him, making him a living soul, subject to His will) with man (and woman) being helped by the master facilitator of 'change' to 'liberate' themselves from the Father's authority, so that they could be of the world only, i.e. of Eros (of worldly love, loving that which is of nature) alone (a secular rendition of the gnostic story, for those in the "know").

Kindergarten, i.e. the children's garden, for example, is a garden experience for the children freed of their father's authority, i.e. freed of their father's restraints.  Without the garden experience, freeing the children of their individualism (caused by the Father chastening each child personally, not the group of children, for his act of disobedience, therefore not pressuring the child to conform to the nature, i.e. to the "felt" needs of the group, i.e. turning to or depending upon the other children to know right from wrong but to Himself alone, i.e. to the Father instead), the children could not come to know themselves collectively, as "one" in common (as the fraternity).  According to 'change,' i.e. according to the dialectic process, the only way to get rid of the tension (the antithesis condition) between you and the world is to get rid of the source of the tension (God or the Father's authority) by becoming at-one-with the world only.  The idea of 'change' is: don't treat the Father and His authority as being "wrong," i.e. maintaining the antithesis condition of right and wrong, but instead treat the Father and His authority as being irrelevant.  It is where we find ourselves today as a nation, i.e. as a Marxist nation, 'liberating' the children from their Father's authority, 'liberating' the nation from Godly restraint, exonerating and propagating abomination.  As Irvin Yalom put it in his book on counseling, not only are the parent's (traditional parents) no longer worth listening to, so are the grandparents: "The current generation is the first in the history of the world which has nothing to learn from grandparents;"  (Irvin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient [not decent];"  Romans 1:28

'Change' is of the world, which is 'ever-changing,' i.e. being temporal only.  'Change' is not of the Father, who's office is never-changing, i.e. being eternal—His "top-down," right-wrong way of thinking and acting (referred to as a Patriarchal Paradigm, demanding the child suspend his becoming at-one-with the world in pleasures in the 'moment' to do His will) is not subject to the process of 'change,' i.e. does not 'change' according to the pleasure-pain spectrum, i.e. contingent upon the 'changingness' of the nature of the child which is ever-changing according to the pleasures which the world offers him (tempts him with) in the 'moment.'  Once a nation rejects the Father's authority (the Patriarchal Paradigm), turning to the opinion (the "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. which are subject to the whims of the 'moment') of the child instead (referred to as a Heresiarchal Paradigm of 'changingness'), it is difficult, if not impossible, for it to return to the Father's authority again.  We don't by nature get up in the morning and the first thing ask our Father for commands and rules to obey and then ask Him to chasten us if we do not carry them out or disobey.  Those of 'change,' having no other option other than to repent, i.e. return to the Father's authority, must accept 'change,' i.e. the negation of the Father's authority, i.e. the 'liberating' of the child's carnal nature, "lusting" after the pleasures of the world in the 'moment,' as the only 'purpose' for life.  In a world of 'change,' anyone holding to (defending) the true and straight (the straight and narrow) is perceived as going off on a tangent (as being "psychological").  If you can not grasp this, you will never be able to comprehend the 'drive' behind and the 'purpose' of 'change.'

"The consequences of family democratization [the children, 'liberated' from their Father's authority, united in the social action (praxis) of negating the Father's authority from the face of the earth, i.e. from the thoughts and actions of all the children around the world] take a long time to make themselves felt—but it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun." "If one wishes to mold children in order to achieve some future goal, one must begin to view them as superior.  One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant."  ". . . any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy regardless of its intent."  (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)

Here is the everlasting difference between the child and the Father, the created and the creator, man and God, flesh and spirit.  One is from above (restraining or blocking the child's carnal 'moment' of pleasure for his own good, i.e. that he might learn to do good and not evil, i.e. that he might know what to do that is right and not do that which is wrong, according to the Father's knowledge).  The other is not, being of that which is below (augmenting the carnal 'moment' of pleasure, good being the pleasures of the 'moment,' evil being anything which or anyone who restrains or blocks it).  Karl Marx knew this clearly: if the earthly father gives his children an understanding (an earthly experience, i.e. an example) of the "top-down" office of authority of the Heavenly Father (God), directing the steps of the child ("O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23b) restraining "human nature," yet (according to Marx) the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life is to be based upon the "equality" of "human nature" only ("humanism"), then the office of the father, i.e. his authority (from above) to rule over the child (below), has to be negated.  He understood that if the thoughts and actions of the children of the world were to be only of and for themselves (of "human nature" and the world only, i.e. of sensuousness only), the issue of sin (the child's disobedience to his Father and the "guilty conscience" which ensures—which prevents 'change') had to be negated.  This necessitated that the Father's authority over His children had to be negated for worldly peace and socialist harmony to become a 'reality.' Thus the 'logic' of 'change' is: if you negate that which is above (the father above the child, i.e. the boss above the worker, the teacher above the student, i.e. the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ above man, telling the child, the worker, the student, man what is right and what is wrong behavior), i.e. if you negate the condition that engenders "inequality," i.e. the Father's "top-down" authority over the children, as well as negate the children who honour and obey their Father, restraining their carnal nature in the 'moment' to do their Father's will (counter to their carnal nature which is of the world only), i.e. if you negate those who are supportive of their Father's right-wrong way of thinking and acting and therefore are no longer able to relate with or condone (thus condemning of) the other children around them who are being carnal ("normal") in the 'moment,' all you have left is that which is below (man and child-at-one with nature), i.e. "equality," i.e. "normalcy," i.e. all you have left is that which is manipulatable, i.e. readily adaptable to 'change.'  You are only able to negate the issue of sin ('judgment' by God, the Father for disobeying His commands) in the thoughts and action of men by 'liberating' the child from his father' authority (freeing him from the fear of judgment by his father, for his carnal thoughts and actions), so that the child (man) can be totally carnal ("normal") again, subject to the whims of 'change,' i.e. manipulatable, i.e. "adaptable to 'change,'" i.e. only of the world (and eternal death).   Right-wrong, which is established for all times and places, does not come from the nature of man.  Man's propensity to approach pleasure and avoid pain comes from nature.  It is man's nature which is constantly subject to 'change.'

Only by being shown, recognizing, and accepting his carnal nature as being the "norm" (through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus with others of common "feelings" and "thoughts") can the child overcome (transcend, i.e. negate) his Father's commands, become at-one-with the world, thinking and acting according to that which he has in common with all the children of the world, i.e. his "natural inclination" to approach pleasure and avoid pain in the 'moment.'  As the transformational Marxist—those who merge Marx and Freud ("Frauds individual psychology is in its very essence social psychology."  Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud), i.e. social-psychology where the pain or fear of rejection by the Father above, i.e. fear of rejection by the one above, is replaced with the pain or fear of rejection by "the group," i.e. fear of rejection by the many (as "one") below, replacing spirit, i.e. that which is not of the nature to man, i.e. which is of the Father, with the flesh, i.e. with that which is natural to man, i.e. which is of the world—Jürgen Habermas explained it: "Then both parties recognize their rigidified position in relation to each other as the result of detachment and abstraction from their common life context [thinking and acting according to their Fathers standards, which different from one another, dividing family from family (setting walls of division within the "community"), thus dividing the children from one another, rather than thinking and acting according to their carnal nature, i.e. their worldly desires, which they have in common with one another (thus "tearing down walls"—as I say "The Berlin wall did not come down because common-ism was defeated.  It came down because common-ism succeeded")].  And in the latter, the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)  In a world of 'change,' sin, i.e. the "law of the flesh," i.e. man's carnal nature, becomes the "norm," where the child (man), 'liberated' from the voice from above (the Father telling him how he is to think and act, which engenders the "guilty conscience," which inhibits 'change'), is free to be himself again, as he was before the father's first command and threat of judgment for disobedience (the "super-ego" incorporates man's carnal desires of the 'moment,' freeing him from the rigidity of the conscience, i.e. 'liberating' him from the voice of the Father within—"The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself."  "The new guilt complex appears to be historically connected with the rise of patriarchal religion (for the Western development the Hebrews are decisive)."  "What we call ‘conscience' perpetuates inside of us our bondage to past objects [to the Father and His authority] now part of ourselves: the super-ego 'unites in itself the influences [feelings and surroundings] of the present and of the past.'"  Norman O. Brown,  Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History).   "Social control is most effective at the individual level. The personal conscience is the key element in ensuring self-control, refraining from deviant behavior ['change'] even when it can be easily perpetrated.  The family [the Father's authority], 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 [tradition, i.e. Nationalism]."  (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing)   It is therefore, the "personal conscience," engendered by the child's honoring of his Father's authority, that is the enemy of 'change.'

The 'rationality' of 'change' is based upon dialectic 'reasoning,' where you must start with the child's nature (approach pleasure-avoid pain, i.e. sensuousness) as the thesis (as the "norm"), making the Father's authority (do right-not wrong, i.e. righteousness) the antithesis (the source of tension and controversy), or you can never arrive at synthesis (consensus, augmenting pleasure-attenuation pain, i.e. materialism), i.e. the children uniting as "one" in their praxis, i.e. in their socialist action of negating the Father's authority from the face of the earth.  The dialectic of education, for example, is the classroom experience of educators coming between the Father and his children by helping them (in a non-hostile, i.e. non-Father, i.e. non-"top-down" classroom environment or experience) think and act according to their own carnal interests, in common with (in the "light" of) other students with the same carnal interest, i.e. 'justifying' their carnal nature over and against their Father's commands, i.e. helping them 'liberate' themselves of their respect for their Father's authority, i.e. sending them home again 'justified' in questioning and challenge His authority.  In other words, if you leave the Father's authority (do right - don't do wrong) as the thesis (honoring the Father's position of authority), the child's nature (approach pleasure - avoid pain) becomes the antithesis (the source of tension) and synthesis, the children united as one (freeing the world of Godly restraint by 'liberating' the children of the world of their father's authority) can never become a 'reality.'  Only by the children building upon the ground which they all have in common, their carnal nature, their natural urge and impulses to relate with the world in pleasure in the 'moment,' can they come to know themselves as they are, carnal, of the world only.  Only by the children getting their Father to join them on their ground, i.e. their "feelings" for approval, i.e. relationship (thereby getting the Father to negate, i.e. abdicate his position of authority, i.e. willingly 'change' his paradigm from right-wrong to "feelings," from preaching and teaching to dialogue, from "top-down" to "equality") can thy get the Father to negate his God engendered authority ("judgmentalism") from above. The transformational Marxist György Lukács put it this way:  "... as soon as the bourgeoisie [the children who honour and support their Father's "top-down" authority system (from above), i.e. 'justifying' in America at least "top-down" government, which did not give the Federal, State, County, or City governments the authority of the Father over the citizens but rather the citizens the authority over government, with the representatives, i.e. the children, i.e. the elected officials sent into service by the Father (the constituent) to serve and protect the Father's, i.e. the constituent's position of authority, i.e. engendering the right of private property, private business, representative-limited government] is forced to take up its stand on this terrain [in the consensus process, in the public-private partnership, where the Father (the citizens), having to find "common ground" with the child's (those in government manipulated by their) "feelings" and "thoughts," manipulated by the facilitator's of 'change' (below), i.e. creating "equality" through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, turning that which is private, i.e. "Mine, Not yours" over to the children, i.e. "Ours, not just yours"], it is lost [right becomes the child's nature, wrong the Father's authority over it, restraining it, "repressing" the child (the elected official) and therefore society, i.e. preventing 'change']."  (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness What is Orthodox Marxism?)  As soon as the father is forced to accept the "feelings" and "thoughts" of the child to set policy, his authority is lost.  If you do not stay in the Word, in that which is from above, i.e. attached to the vine (John 15:5-14) where there is life, you will stay in the world instead, thinking and acting according to the "felt" needs of your flesh, thinking and acting according to the pleasures of the 'moment,' living according to that which is below, you will "die in your sins."

"And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."  John 8:23, 24

Have you heard the word 'change' recently.  Communism, what I call common-ism (since our carnal nature is what we all have in common) is all about 'change.'  Common-ism is 'changing' the world  from what "it is" (since the termination of the building of the tower of Babel, i.e. divided, i.e. with someone's right being wrong to someone else, with someone else's wrong being right in their own eyes, i.e. God telling man what is right and what is wrong with man having to put aside his carnal feelings, i.e. desires to obey) to what it "can be" (as the world was while it was building the tower of Babel, i.e. united, i.e. "We working for Us," all finding 'commonality' in the pleasures of the 'moment,' united in the 'quest' of augmenting the pleasures of life while attenuating the pains, i.e. living life freed of the Father's authority which engendered "rigidity").  'Change' is about 'changing' the world from that which divides society, i.e. 'liberating' the world from the Father's authority—which establishes, not only for His family but for the city, the state, and the nation as well, His "top-down" ("prejudiced," right-wrong) way of thinking and acting (initiated and sustained in a representative, limited, majority vote style of government). As the pervert Wilhelm Reich wrote: "The authoritarian family becomes the factory in which the state's structure and ideology are molded." (Wilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism)  As His children grow up carrying His absolute right-wrong ("prejudiced") way of thinking and acting, now a part of their lives, into the world, they establish the right of authority to restrains "human nature," thereby according to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. to those of 'change,' "repressing" the child within (the child within seeking to be at-one-with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment'), thus inhibiting the world from 'changing' with the 'changing' times, "repressing" it (perpetuating the Father's authority, his right-wrong way of thinking and acting, not only upon themselves but also upon the world as well, what Sigmund Freud called the "neurosis of civilization").  According to 'change,' if it the Father's authority "represses" the child's "natural inclination" to be at-one-with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment,' then the object of 'change' is to 'change' the world to that which unites society, to that which all men have in common, i.e. with every child and man thinking and acting alike, according to their carnal "human nature," i.e. thinking and acting according to the urges and impulses of the 'moment,' that is, according to the child's "natural inclination" to approach pleasure and avoid pain in the 'moment,' i.e. with the augmentation of pleasure and the attenuation of pain being the criteria for establishing what is "good" and what is "evil."

"These [the fifties] were the years when America first came to be regarded as a 'filiarchy,' a society ruled by its children....In this society money was the primary index of one's power. Yet the young had no true economic clout. Industrial society had defined adolescence as a time of extended childhood rather than one of beginning maturity; and so the only fiscal power teens had was on sufferance from adults." (Douglas T. Miller, Marion Nowak, The Fifties: The Way We Really Were)

Therefore the spectrum of 'change' is from "evil" to "good," from the Father's authority to the child's nature, with "good" being classified as pleasure, or the augmentation of pleasure, and "evil" being classified as pain or the augmentation of pain, i.e. including (and especially) the restraining or blocking of pleasure (in man or the child), forcing him to do that which is right (not do that which is wrong) according to the Father's (God's) will, against the child's (or man's) will to "enjoy" life, i.e. 'liberate' dopamine, i.e. "lust" after the gratifying things in the environment, in the 'moment.'  Children do not buy land to work but toys to play with.  If you want to take control over the land, i.e. control "the people" for your own gain, liberate the children from their Father's authority and they will abdicate (give you) their inheritance, their posterity, i.e. their Father's property, for the pleasures of the 'moment.'  If the child's inheritance from the Father means nothing to the child because his "felt" needs, i.e. pleasures of the 'moment' are being satisfied by another source than the Father, then the child looses interest in what the Father has to say—his Father's authority becoming a barrier to pleasure (a barrier to 'change') makes the Father Himself irrelevant in the thoughts and actions of the child. Thus that which is private, i.e. "My family, Not yours," "My property, Not yours," "My business, Not yours," "My country, Not yours", i.e. inalienable rights, i.e. all based upon the Father's authority over His children (who will inherit that which is His, keeping the "top-down" system in place) has to be negated if 'change,' i.e. if the children, land, labor, earth are to belong to no one, i.e. to no one person (except the facilitator of 'change') and its fruit to everyone.  Rousseau stated it this way: "The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine,' [as God, put two security guards at His garden gate, in essence declaring, "This is my garden not yours," i.e. "the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof." 1 Corinthians 10:26] and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society [private property].  From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality)  This from a man who was a womanizer, having relationships with married women, orphaned his own children, did not support his own wife or his illegitimate children, and considered himself moral simply because he "felt" he was, wanting himself (his impressions of life) to be an example for all to follow (who's ideology we are following today).

"Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people."  Proverbs 14:34  "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!  Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! ... Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!"  Isaiah 5:20-23  "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:10-18

All of history is being written (rewritten, i.e. 'changed,' i.e. expunged of the Father's authority as being "good") to fit this mold, i.e. to 'justify' the child's way of thinking and acting, i.e. making the child's nature (freed of the Father's restraint) the foundation from which to establish what is "good."  'Change' is the children of the world becoming united as upon according to their carnal nature of "love."  Sigmund Freud considered children (incorrectly) to not only be sexual but bisexually in nature.  "In no other case does Eros so plainly betray the core of his being, his aim of making one out of many; but when he has achieved it in the proverbial way through the love of two human beings, he is not willing to go further.'" (Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents in Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud).  By making all one according to their sexual 'drive,' i.e. "free love" (the ground from which to initiate and sustain, i.e. 'justify' "common"-ism), society is freed of having to sustain the Father's "top-down" authority over his family (carried on into society).   Freud believed that "our repressed desires are the desires we had, unrepressed, in childhood; and they are sexual desires."  "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, is a clear instance of that subordination of the pleasure-principle to the reality principle which is repression; and therefore leads to neurosis."  "Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile [willingly submitting to, i.e. obeying "a higher authority" restraining "human nature," instead of being revolutionary in defense of it], but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced [by nature wanting to do "their own thing," i.e. questioning, challenging, disobeying higher authority], and therefore neurotic [caught between the Father's authority and "human nature"]."  (Norman O. Brown,  Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)  By the children becoming united as one, setting their "affections on the things on the earth" (focusing upon satisfying their carnal desires as well as satisfying the carnal desires of others) instead of setting their "affections on things above" (setting their heart upon doing the Father's will, restraining not only their own carnal, natural 'drive' but the carnal, natural 'drive' of others under their influence as well) the "old" world order of the Father's authority engendering the traditional family and society can be replaced with the "new" world order of the children united as one in creating a world of perpetual transformation, i.e. of continues 'change.'   The emphasis upon procreation, the 'reality principle' of psychology, thus was a barrier to 'change,' i.e. the "pleasure principle' of psychology. "Psychoanalytical theory sees in the practices that exclude or prevent procreation an opposition against continuing the chain of reproduction and thereby of paternal domination―an attempt to prevent the 'reappearance of the father.'"  (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)   

According to Brown, Sigmund Freud knew, as did Karl Marx, that the birthplace of religion was found in the Father's authority over His children, keeping the children from becoming at-one-with the world of 'change.' "If there is a universal neurosis, it is reasonable to suppose that its core is religion."  Freud, as did Marx, knew that the future world of 'change' dwelt within the nature of the child, waiting (wanting) to be 'liberated' from the Father's authority.  "Neurotic symptoms, with their fixations on perversions and obscenities, demonstrate the refusal of the unconscious essence of our being to acquiesce in the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower."  "The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious; the foundation has to be recovered."  (Norman O. Brown,  Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

The 'change' of rewritten history (Marx and Freud, i.e. society and the individual united as one upon man's [the child's] "felt" needs) is the Father's authority being negated by the children of tyranny (under the influence of their now unrestrained impulses and urges of the 'moment'), where the duality of doing right and not doing wrong (with the children thinking and acting according to the Father's will, suspending, i.e. abdicating their pleasure-pain spectrum of the 'moment' for their Father's right-wrong way of thinking and acting—a "top-down" construct which, according to dialectic 'reasoning' [which does not and can not accept the spiritual side of man, made in the image of God, finding peace in the Lord] can only come from the Father "repressing" his children, "alienating" them from the other children of the world, engendering "the neurosis of civilization," i.e. dividing the world) is being replaced with the plurality (spectrum, continuum, or gradient) of augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain (establishing the "good" of the 'moment' as the satisfying of the "felt" needs of the children in the 'moment,' with the children suspending, i.e. abdicating their Father's right-wrong way of thinking and acting for the "good" of all—an "equality" construct since all children have this in common, i.e. their "felt" needs being satisfied in the 'moment' as being "good") as the only way for man to think and act (if there is no pleasure in the 'moment' in what you are doing then it is not worth doing, i.e. it is not of nature).  The child striking out at (kicking) the Father who has taken away his toy (the gratifying thing of nature, of his desire) is the praxis of the world spirit, seeking liberty from Godly restraint.  The progression of history is now perceived as the proletariat (the children of 'change,' "lusting" after and therefore controlled by the things of the world only, placing their hope in themselves and mankind, united as one in the praxis of attaining and retaining them for all of mankind), being lead by the vanguard party (those trained in the process of 'change,' referred to as "big brother," i.e. facilitators of 'change,' i.e. "human resource management," helping—seducing, deceiving, and manipulating—the children into 'liberating' themselves from their Father's authority, as they are being united in negating the Father's authority from the face of the earthy), negating the bourgeoisie and the King (negating the children who perpetuate the authority of the Father while at the same time negating the Father and His authority).  According to those of 'change,' i.e. who are rewriting history (turning it upside down), it is not the Father's authority that is the only the problem, it is the children who respect, honour, and submit to their Father's authority who are the problem as well.  Without 'changing' the child's perception of history (the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life being not of and for righteousness, i.e. of and for the Father but rather of and for sensuousness, i.e. of and for the children) the Father's authority can not be negated in their thoughts and actions, i.e. the child can not become subject to "the facilitator of 'change's'" control instead.

"Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." Colossians 3:2

According to the 'logic' of 'change,' the pain that comes from nature is not evil.  It is only the Father's authority (which restrains the child's or man's carnal nature from reaching fruition, i.e. satiation, i.e. preventing him from becoming at-one-with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment') that is evil. "... self-perfection of the human individual is fulfilled in union with the world in pleasure."  "Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world."  "Eros is the foundation of morality." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)  The message of the 50's and 60's, as it remains today, was from the Marxist Herbart Marcuse: "If it feels good, just do it."  He knew that socialist unity could only be based upon the carnal nature of the child (man): "... according to Freud, the drive toward ever larger unities belongs to the biological-organic nature of Eros itself."  (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)  The trickery is, by getting man (and child) to think and act according to the urges and impulses of the 'moment' (according to "human nature"), i.e. role-playing, their focus ("affection") is 'changed' from doing that which is right (not doing that which is wrong) to the approaching of pleasure and the avoiding of pain (approaching the "approval of men" as pleasure and avoiding the "disapproval of men" as pain, i.e. the approval i.e. pleasure of the many, i.e. society, outweighing the approval of the one, the Father, who inhibits or blocks the child's pleasures of the 'moment' for his own pleasures).  The objective of 'change' is to 'shift' the focus of the child (man) away from the Father's authority, which divides the child from the world, to focusing upon the nature of the child and the world, which unites both as one.  Only by 'liberating' the child's mind from the Father's authority can the child and the world become one again, as he was before the father's first command and threat of punishment for disobedience.

The 'moment' you are asked "how you feel" or "what you think" instead of "what is right" regarding an issue or situation, right-wrong (righteousness) is no longer the issue but rather pleasure-pain (sensuousness).  I might know what is right (what not to do) but my "self" is always in agreement with the avoiding of pain and the approaching of pleasure in the 'moment.'  Self deceives me into believing that the pleasure of the 'moment' is "good," blinding me to the Father's command not to (do wrong).  If you refuse to see change (true change) as your need to repent of your sins before the Lord (from sensuousness, i.e. walking according to the flesh, to righteousness, walking in the Spirit), you can only see 'change' through your "neo-Marxist lens," i.e. through your use of "human reasoning" to 'justify' "human nature," so that you, as a child, can be at-one-with the world in pleasures of the 'moment,' with pleasure (for yourself and for others) being the 'drive' of and the 'purpose' for life.  Adaptability to 'change' (negating the Father's authority) is the criteria which is required of you (and everyone else) if you (and everyone else) are to be a part of the "new" world order, i.e. a world 'created' of and for 'change,' i.e. a world 'created' of and for "human nature" only.  A world of 'change' is a world of children not only 'liberating' themselves from their Father's authority but also uniting with one another in the socialist act (praxis) of negating the Father's authority from the face of the earth, i.e. from the thought and action of all men and children.  It is a world of children, united in thought and action (in theory and practice), creating a world of their own, according to their own nature only, void of the Father's authority, i.e. void of Godly restraint.

"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

In a world advocating 'change,' hate is not aimed towards man' sinful nature ("human nature") but towards anyone who (or any condition which) restrains it—hate is especially aimed towards the Father's authority which "blocks" the child's (man's) carnal nature (the love of the flesh and the world requires man's or the child's hate toward anyone or any way of thinking and acting which restrains it).  In the eyes of those who 'justify' sin (who elevate man's "human nature," i.e. sensuousness, i.e. the child's love of pleasure over and against righteousness, i.e. the Father's authority), 'change' is "positive" and the Father's authority, which restraints it, is "negative."  Therefore, if 'change' (man's sinful nature) is to become the law of the land, man's sinful nature must be encouraged ('liberated' and put into praxis, i.e. made the law of the land) and the Father's authority, which inhibits 'change,' must to be discouraged (negated) in all areas of life, i.e. in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, in the church, in the community ("common-unity") and especially in the home, i.e. intolerance of deviancy must become "tolerance of deviancy" in the thoughts and actions of both man and child alike.

In a nutshell: if man's sinful nature is what all men have in common (Romans 7:14-25) and if unity is the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life, then man's sinful nature must become the ground from which society is to be built.  This can only be accomplished by negating the Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11), i.e. negating the issue of righteousness in the thoughts and actions of men, negating doing what is right and not doing what is wrong according to the Father's will, negating the "old" world order where the Father rules over the thoughts and actions of His children, i.e. God rules over the thoughts and actions of men.  'Change' is the socialist action (what is called praxis) of replacing the issue of righteousness (the Father) with the issues of sensuousness (the children), creating a "new" world order out of the "old" world order, replacing a world run according to the Father's authority with a world controlled by the child's carnal nature, where what is right and what is wrong is determined according to the sensuousness of the 'moment' (according to the child's "felt" needs of the 'moment'), according to the child's sinful nature only, i.e. according to what all the children (what all men) have in common with one another around the world—recognizing the child's carnal nature, desiring to be-at-one with nature, as being the foundation from which socialist thought and action must be engendered (Genesis 3:1-6).

Sensuousness is the word from which we get the word consensus (meaning to make decisions for action "with sensuousness").  Confirmation, in this case, is deciding what is right and what is wrong according to what the Father establishes as right and wrong, i.e. that the children are transformed to His right-wrong way of thinking and acting, i.e. that they are no longer conformed to the sensuousness of the world, i.e. that they no longer decide right from wrong according to their "felt" needs of the 'moment' but instead are transformed into his likeness, confirming in themselves, as well as to others, the necessity of doing right and not wrong according to their Father's authority.  Get rid of (negate) the Father's authority and the child's sinful nature (in his perception), is no longer sinful, only "normal," his 'drive' to sin (to be normal, to be at-one-with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment'), i.e. his carnal nature only needing to be channeled into socialist cause if he is to 'discover' the 'purpose' for his life, i.e. 'liberating' himself and the world from the Father's authority, i.e. 'changing' himself and the world from the pattern of the Father's authority into that pattern which was first put into praxis in a garden in Eden.

As the Marxist, Erick Fromm defined it: "In the process of history [where, since the garden in Eden, children have been helped by the "master facilitator of 'change'" to 'discover' who they are (in the "light" of their carnal nature and the world), and then shown how to 'rationally' and 'actually' 'liberate' themselves from their Father's authority, 'changing' the world as they do so] man gives birth to himself [frees himself and the world from his Father's (God's) authority].  He becomes what he potentially is [of his own carnal nature only, at-one-with the world only], and he attains what the serpent—the symbol of wisdom and rebellion ["human reasoning" 'justifying' "human nature"]—promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself [man determining for himself what is right and what is wrong behavior according to his own carnal nature and the world only]."  (Erick Fromm, You Shall Be As Gods)  The issue of 'change' is not to fight against or attack the Father (God), sustaining a "top-down" way of thinking and acting, but rather to exclude (wash) Him from the child's thoughts and actions.  By "helping" the child determine his Father's authority to be irrational, in the "light" of the child's carnal "felt" needs of the 'moment,' the Father's authority becomes irrelevant in the child's thoughts and actions.  In this way the child, united as one with all the children of the world (as God, 'righteous' in and of themselves), delivers himself from his Father's (God's) restraint of his carnal "human nature," with the child (and therefore man) becoming as he was, i.e. purely human, i.e. wholly carnal, i.e. being able to sin again, i.e. to be "normal" again with impunity, as he was before his Father's (God's) first command and threat of chastening or punishment for disobedience.

Socialism is a form of government which is more interested in what it can get out of your wallet and you than it is in 'liberty,' espousing 'liberty' to keep itself in place.  Democracy, Socialism, Communism, and Globalism are all built upon the ideology of 'change,' i.e. 'changing' the world from the Father ruling over His children, restraining their carnal nature, to the children controlling the world, 'changing' it (creating a "new" world order) so that the world can be in harmony with their carnal nature (and their carnal nature can be in harmony with it).  The difference between Democracy, Socialism, Communism, and Globalism is how fast you want to get there (to 'change' that is), i.e. purging the world of the Father's authority, i.e. changing it  from honoring the Father's authority,  from doing the Father's will (or doing God's will), despite the consequences to self—obedience to His command(s) despite the absence of or the missing out on pleasure and/or despite the presence of pain in the 'moment,' as the right way of thinking and acting—to "doing your own thing" (doing what comes naturally in the "given" situation, i.e. "situation ethics"), i.e. to the thinking and acting according to human nature, to the 'liberating' and augmenting of pleasure, i.e. "enjoyment," i.e. "lust" (not only for yourself but for all others as well) as the "right" way of thinking and acting.

In other words change is not the change that naturally takes place, i.e. change in weather, age, etc. but is instead the 'changing' of how a person thinks and acts, i.e. 'changing' him from respect for authority to the "questioning of authority" as a way of thinking and acting.  This is done by 'changing' the environment in which a person learns how to think and act (called environment control in education), 'changing' the environment  from where the Father directs the steps of His children, i.e. the teacher directs the steps of his students, i.e. God directs the steps of man to and environment where the children (and men) are encouraged to and assisted in direct their own steps (being seduced, deceived, and manipulated by facilitators of 'change'), where all are united in creating a "new" order of the world where good is determined according to the augmentation of man's (or the child's) own carnal "felt" needs, i.e. according to their nature of "lusting" after the gratifying things in the environment, i.e. according to the pleasures or "enjoyments" of the 'moment' only.  According to Sigmund Freud, the child is only able to replace the substitute gratification (a religious construct) he receives from his Father's approval, i.e. for his obedience to his Father's authority ("the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people.'"  Norman, O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) by 'discovering' that true gratification can only come from his carnal nature and the world becoming united as one, in pleasure, in the 'moment.'

Karl Marx wrote: "Concerning the changing of circumstances [concerning the changing of the environmental condition in which a child is raised, i.e. how he is trained to think and act] by men, the educator must himself be educated [the way the parent or teacher thinks and acts must be 'changed' as well, i.e. from the preaching and teaching facts and truth to be accepted as given to the 'discovering' of the "truth" of the 'moment' through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus , which is then put into action (praxis), i.e. putting the collective theory (opinion) into practice, i.e. into socialist action].  The changing of circumstances [the changing of the classroom, workplace, government, home, church, and community environments] and of self can only be grasped and rationally understood as revolutionary practice [as a 'change' in the way people think and act, from obedience to authority to the "questioning of authority," from the preaching and teaching of facts and truth to be learned and obeyed as given to the dialoguing of opinions to a common agreed upon consensus]."  (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 3)   As Kenneth Benne, one of John Dewey's doctoral candidates, put it, "Educators and others in the role of change agents must have a method of social engineering relevant to initiating and controlling [sustaining] the change process."  "We must develop persons who see non-influenceability of private convictions [who see people who remain loyal to their Father's authority, who preach and teach truth and facts to be accepted as given, i.e. who have a "guilty conscience" when tempted to compromise their Father's or God's commands (or their constituents principles which they were sent to represent)] in joint deliberations [in a consensus environment] as a vice rather than a virtue [as being evil rather than good (the consensus process is used to make the righteous (those of absolutes) look evil (hateful) and the unrighteous (those of "tolerance") look good (loving and caring)]."  (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change, pdf format)   From the man most responsible for Agenda 21 and "global warning" fustianism we read: "Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon .... transform[ing] public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests.... transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps..."  (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order)

Benne wrote: "A change in the curriculum [in the way people (children) are trained up to think and act, i.e. from the right-wrong (righteousness) way of thinking and acting to the "feelings" of the 'moment' (sensuousness) way of thinking and acting] is a change in the people concerned—in teachers, in students, in parents and other laymen, in administrators.  The people concerned must come to understand and accept the different pattern of schooling [which includes the workplace, government, religion, the home, the community, the world].  This means change in their knowledge [selecting the "appropriate information" which engenders the desire for 'change' in the cognitive domain, i.e. 'changing' from learning facts and truth which are established outside of personal experience, which are from the perspective of the Father's knowledge only, restraining "human nature," to where facts and "truth" are engendered from the life experiences of "human nature" only, i.e. is subject to the life experiences of the children, engendering 'change' according to the situation (their emotions) of the 'moment']....  Typically, people involved who were loyal to the older pattern [those who are loyal to the "top-down" pattern of the Father's authority over His children (God's authority over man)] must be helped to transfer their allegiance to the new [loyalty to the "equality" of all men (and children) based upon what they all have in common, i.e. their carnal human nature, i.e. their "felt" needs of the 'moment'].  This means change in their values [to help 'liberate' the affective domain, their dissatisfaction towards parental (Godly) restraint over their carnal nature (blocking their carnal desires)]....  Moreover, the people concerned must do some things differently from the way in which they did them before the change.  This means changes in their skills [changes in their habits (their psycho-motor) from supporting their Father's "top-down" pattern to the supporting of the "groups" pattern of "equality" negating the Father's authority].  And, most difficult to predict and control, are changes in the relationships [where people readily relate and work with those of the "equality" way of thinking and acting, i.e. "tolerant of deviancy, perversity, and depravity" (tolerant of 'change'), over and against those of the "top-down" way of thinking and acting, i.e. those who are "prejudiced" against deviancy, perversity, and depravity (intolerant of 'change')—the idea being since "prejudice" comes from the Father establishing right-wrong thinking in His children, by 'liberating' the children from their Father's authority, uniting them upon "human nature" only, "prejudice" is negated]...."  (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

Hilda Taba, who came from communist Estonia to America and was rescued from deportation (during the McCarthy era) by Ralph Tyler (Benjamin Bloom dedicated his first "Taxonomy" book, Cognitive Domain, to Tyler), wrote: "The school must make room for the deviant student."  "This person will be able to discriminate among values and to deviate from the moral status quo."  "How such persons can be discovered, and, above all, how such persons can be produced in greater number is the major problem for research in character formation." (Robert Havighurst and Hilda Taba, Adolescent Character and Personality)

Re-education aims to undue the traditional education a child has received under his Father's authority.  By re-educating the child in a socialist environment, where the Father's authority is called into question, the child can more easily be 'changed'—the Father's authority can be more easily be negated in the child's thoughts and actions.  Kurt Lewin wrote: "It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately [where group dynamics (the desire for approval by others) takes hold of the person, tempting him to compromise his principles, i.e. His Father's position, to initiate and maintain respect and relationship with others]." "The individual [the child, the educator, the legislator, the policeman, the minister, the spouse, the worker, etc.] accepts the new system of values and beliefs [the negating of His Father's authority] by accepting belongingness to the group."  (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Bennie, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)   Re-education is another word used for brainwashing, i.e. washing from the brain (from the thoughts and actions of the next generation) their Father's authority, replacing loyalty to their Father, i.e. to a "higher authority" than their "human nature" (restraining "human nature"), with loyalty to the "common good," to a society of children (in adult bodies) 'liberating' and augmenting "human nature" over and against the Father's authority.  As will be made clearer later on in this issue (if it is not already), while the earthly father is not perfect (he may be a downright tyrant, i.e. a child in an adult's body, i.e. vain, selfish, greedy, envious of others, i.e. evil), the office he serves in (which is given to him by God) is perfect.  The office is not the problem, it is the one who is serving in it who is abusing it (for his own gain).  Those of 'change' simply use the ones who are abusing the office as an example to 'justify' the negation of the office.

By 'changing' the child's classroom (learning) environment from the teacher's preaching and teaching of facts and rules to be obeyed by the students, without question, to where teachers go into partnership with their students, 'discovering' truth together through the dialoguing of their opinions to a consensus (purging the classroom experience and the child's thoughts and actions of the Father's authority, i.e. since there is no Father's authority in dialogue) the child's way of thinking and acting can be 'changed,' i.e. 'liberated' of His Father's authority.  "Kurt Lewin emphasized that 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."  (Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education)

This type of 'change' is called a 'change' in paradigm (more often referred to as a "paradigm 'shift,'" in that a persons 'shift's his 'loyalty' from 'loyalty' to his family, specifically to his Father's authority, which restrains his "human nature," to 'loyalty' to the community, i.e. to society, i.e. to that which 'liberates' and augments "human nature" over and against the Father's authority, i.e. over and against God's authority).  Therefore 'change' is  from a Patriarchal Paradigm, where the children and society recognition and respect the Father's authority over His family to a Heresiarchal Paradigm of 'changingness,' where "the children of disobedience" are in control of society, negating the Father's authority over His children, i.e. coming between the Father and His children for the sake of society.  'Change' in this case is the negating of a "top-down" (right-wrong) way of thinking and acting (which engenders a "guilty conscience" for doing wrong), replacing it with an "equality" ("feelings" based) way of thinking and acting (which engenders a "super-ego," with the "feelings" of the 'moment' help in determining what is right and what is wrong behavior in the given situation, i.e. during the given 'moment'), not only in the individual but in society as well, with facilitators of 'change' seducing, deceiving, and manipulating every child and adult into making "human nature" (the pleasures of the here-and-now) the only foundation (and purpose) for their life, with no regard concerning the Father's authority, i.e. with no regard concerning God's authority—who restrains and judges every man (as a Father does His child) for his carnal, 'willful' thoughts and actions.

"For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."  Ecclesiastes 12:14  "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.  For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."  Matthew 12:36, 37 "Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience."  Ephesians 5:6  "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them."  Colossians 3:5-7

'Change,' in this case, means 'changing' from that which divides society, i.e. from focusing upon that which makes man and child different, i.e. from doing right and not doing wrong according to the father's will and authority, i.e. from obedience to a higher authority than "human nature," restraining "human nature," restraining pleasure, to that which unites society, i.e. to focusing upon that which man and child have in common ("human nature"), i.e. to man's "natural inclination" to approach pleasure and avoid pain, with the augmenting of pleasure for all (who contribute to, have the potential of contributing to, or can be used to promote the process of 'change') being the highest "good" (the greatest good) for all.  The key to 'change' therefore is: if you want to have world "peace" and social "harmony," i.e. "worldly peace and socialist harmony," i.e. to have a world run according to "all that is in the world," then you have to get rid of the Father's authority, making the world "safe for democracy," i.e. safe for the children of disobedience (tyranny) to rule.

"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

Karl Marx understood this importance element, i.e. the need of man to negate the Father's authority in man's life, i.e. in the life of the child (and society) if 'change' was to become a 'reality,' if man was to create a "new" world order, i.e. a world 'liberated' from God's authority, a world run according to "human nature" only, i.e. according to "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life."  Karl Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family [the earthly father's authority] is discovered to be the secret of the heavenly family [the earthly father's authority being the same paradigm as the Heavenly Father's authority, 1) giving commands to be obeyed by His children without questioning his authority, 2) chastening those who disobey, and 3) casting out those who disrespect His authority], the former [the earthly father's authority] must be destroyed [annihilated, negated] in theory and in practice [in the thoughts and actions of the next generations of children and society]."  (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis # 4)   How is the father's authority being treated these days?  Is it being honoured, as it was in the past, or is it being treated (as according to Marxist ideology) with contempt (or as irrelevant)?

"Once uncertainty is created in the parent how best to prepare the child for the future, the authoritarian family is moribund [the father no longer rules over his family once he becomes fearful of what "the authorities" will do to him for chastening his children when they disobey his orders—with the media and education pointing out every incident of children (babies) being injured or killed by their parents (which is evil), with the intent of giving the general public and the parents the perception that the physical chastening of children for disobedience is child abuse], regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken."  "The state, by its very interference in the life of its citizens, must necessarily undermine a parental authority which it attempts to restore."  "Any non-family-based collectivity [any dialectic 'reasoning' (common-ist) organization or department that focuses upon the 'rights' of the child] that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a democratizing [liberalizing, i.e. "emancipated" the children them from parental authority] impact on that relationship [negating in the thought and actions of the children (and society) the right of the father to rule over his home, his property, and his business outside of government surveillance and control, negating his ability to limit others to the pleasures and privileges which come from the ownership of and control over property, His most sacred property being the "guilt free" conscience, having done right and not wrong regarding his property, according to the standards of a "higher authority"].  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 [from the parents]."   "An overweening interest in the future development of the child―in other words, a child centered orientation [negates the Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the child]."  (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)   "We must use social-environmental forces to change the parent's behavior towards their children." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

While capitalists are interested in acquiring and controlling money (storing up pleasure for themselves in this life, setting pleasure in the 'moment' aside, for themselves and others, to acquire and store up pleasure, i.e. money for the future), socialists are interested in acquiring and controlling not only a person's money but his soul as well (making "lust" for pleasure in the 'moment,' what all men have in common, the greatest "good" for all—the easiest method whereby all men can be controlled, i.e. seduced, deceived, and manipulated).  While both leave man in his sins, it is easier for a capitalist to come to the Lord, i.e. for his heart to be changed, than a socialist (although nothing is impossible with God) since a capitalist still recognizes man's accountability to "higher authority," i.e. recognizes judgment for doing wrong, the socialist's agenda being the opposite, i.e. the 'liberation' of man's heart and soul from "higher authority," freeing man from judgment by a "higher authority" other than by "human nature" itself, using their control over the environment, i.e. indirectly controlling man's behavior, claiming that pleasure, i.e. man's carnal nature, is the "highest" good, i.e. that "human nature" in and of itself is "good," i.e. that man is "good" or has the potential of becoming "good" as he helps 'liberate' pleasure in all men, making it the highest "good" of all, for all.  The idea being: get a man (or a nation) hooked on pleasure (thinking and acting according to "human nature"), instead of righteousness (thinking and acting according to the Father's will), and, as long as he perceives that the facilitator of 'change' (the drug pusher or "pimp") is the only one who has access to delivering it, he will follow him anywhere (with no "guilty conscience" doing whatever he asks of him, i.e. the "guilty conscience," coming only through righteousness, having been sacrificed at the alter "For the common good," i.e. "For the good of all"—the incorporation of pleasure, i.e. the Id, having turned the conscience into a "super-ego," now making the person subject to 'change').

"In the 'moment,' is key to understanding the power of 'change.'  While pleasure is part of life, the Father trains the child to put it to the side "in the 'moment' as he is working, that he might have access to it later on in life (store it up, via. private property, business, etc.). The 'liberal' knows that when the child lives by and for "the 'moment'" (that he has not been taught self control, self discipline, learned to humble and deny himself) he is subject to the facilitator of 'change's control, that by controlling the environment of the child's pleasures he can control the child, the child not being able to think and act outside the 'moment' of pleasure (lusting after it), thus subject to doing the facilitator of 'changes' (not his Father's) will, thinking it is his will all along (with no stored up pleasure, i.e. private property or business later on in life of his own, i.e. no longer able to be free of socialist control).

"By a careful design [by control of the classroom or workplace environment, 'liberating' it of the Father's (or God's) authority], we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior―the motives, the desires, the wishes [the child's (or man's) "lust" for pleasure].  The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises." "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions [remove the Father's authority from the environment], the predicted behaviors will follow [children (or men) will follow and serve only those who provide them pleasure in the 'moment' while promising them pleasure in the future]."  "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 [be carnal, deviant, perverse, depraved, i.e. living in and for the 'moment' of pleasure only], not what they are forced to do [obey their Father, the teacher, and/or God, denying the 'moment' of pleasure for the future)."  (Carl Rogers On Becoming A Person)

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness [considering themselves ("human nature") as God, i.e. righteous in and of themselves, i.e. righteous in their own eyes], but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."  1 Timothy 3:2-5  emphasis and bracketed information added

While the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ minister to and through man's soul, by His Word and the Holy Spirit, in agreement with the spirit in man, i.e. by that which is not of the flesh, i.e. by that which is not of the world ('redeeming' man from judgment for his sins, for his loving of the flesh over God, 'reconciling' him to His Heavenly Father), man can only tie his soul to his flesh, i.e. to that which is of the world (psycho-motor—'redeeming' himself from the Father, 'reconciling' himself to the world), 'justifying' his "lust" for pleasure, establishing it as being "good," i.e. the norm, i.e. the standard from which to judge good and evil from, leaving himself in his sins.  While in a traditional society any change, for the "good" of society, leaves the Father's (God's) authority in place (restraining "human nature," i.e. classifying deviancy and depravity as being abnormal, i.e. as being evil), in a transformational society (using dialectic 'reasoning') 'change' requires the negation of the Father's (God's) authority for the "good" of society ('liberating' "human nature," i.e. classifying deviancy and depravity as being normal, i.e. as being good).  We can clearly see the effects of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. 'change' in America today.

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?  Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul."  Mark 8:36

'Change' was the ideology of Karl Marx, i.e. the dialectic process but into praxis (into socialist action).  Karl Marx wrote: "The philosophers [that includes you] have only interpreted the world in different ways, the objective however, is change." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11)  In other words, according to Karl Marx, i.e. according to dialectic 'reasoning,' we all have our opinion (our theory—he negated belief as an issue by simply redefining it as a theory) on how the world "ought" to be, i.e. according to our personal (individual) desires and "felt" needs, which tends to keep thing as they are once our "ought," our opinion is established as "is," i.e. as "the way it is."  "The objective however," according to Karl Marx, i.e. according to dialectic 'reasoning,' is that we maintain (initiate and sustain) a condition which perpetuates 'change' (where we get phrases such as "continuous improvement," "sustainable development") where no one person's "ought," i.e. no one individual's desire or "felt" needs, i.e. no one opinion (or belief, i.e. or theory) becomes the only way to think and act for others, preventing other 'ought's' or opinions (or theories) from being shared and 'realized' (experienced)  Only when all people can learn to share their opinions (dialogue their opinions amongst themselves without one opinion ruling over everyone else's) on how the world "ought to be" and can come to a common agreed upon procedure (consensus) on how to create it, i.e. on how to initiate and sustain a positive "new" world order, can 'change' (how everyone "feels" and what everyone "thinks" in the 'moment') overcome the world that "Is," i.e. overcome the negate "old" world order where absolutes rule over man (and child), telling him how he is to think and act in every given 'moment,' i.e. "This is the way it has always been" or "is to be," which produces a "guilty conscience" for disobedience, which prevents 'change.' 

As long as the Father could migrate (move his family) away from or defend it from the environment of "oppression" (socialism) he could retain some semblance of rule over his home, preventing 'change' in paradigm.  Therefore the socialist's (globalist's, environmentalist's) control over property (land and money) was essential (not only where he resides but also to where he might go) to prevent his "escape" from the process of 'change,' i.e. perpetuating it somewhere else.  Hegel wrote (thirty years after the United States had became a nation): "For a state to become a state it is necessary that the citizen cannot continually think of emigrating, but that the class of cultivators, no longer able to push to the outside, presses upon itself and is gathered into cities and urban professions. ... for a real state and a real government only develop when there is a difference of classes, when riches and poverty become very large [where the middle class, with its emphasis upon the Father's authority, is undermined through the 'liberation' of the children from their Father's authority, the next generation calling into question their Father's authority because of his inability to provide for their "felt" needs] and a situation arises where a great number of people can no longer satisfy its needs in the accustomed way [they can no longer preserve their "old" ways of doing things, being forced to compromise, they must overthrow their Father's authority in an effort to survive]."  (G. F. Hegel in Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel)

Therefore each new "crisis" requires the process of 'change,' i.e. the consensus process (hegemony, i.e. seduction, deception, and manipulation, i.e. tempting man—finding a person's "repressed" desires and giving him hope in attaining them, lying to him—giving him only "appropriate information" to produce the desired outcome, i.e. generating a perception in him which is necessary to attain the desired outcome where he is accountable to the facilitator [the manipulator] of the group and no longer his Father's authority, thereby beguiling him into 'willingly' doing those things which manipulators don't want to do themselves—socialism works only as long as it has someone else's money or time to get what it wants) if 'change' is to be initiated and sustained, where the focus is on man's (and the child's) desires or "felt" needs, i.e. the basis of "humanism," rather than on God's (or the Father's) authority.  'Change' is not the 'changing' of a man's heart from loving the world to loving God or the Father but rather the 'changing' of how a person thinks and acts to where only man, i.e. sensuousness (not God, i.e. righteousness) becomes the "issue" of life, i.e. even the gospel message (which it is not at this point) being used for the 'purpose' of "human relationship building."  Thus 'change' is "human relationship" transcending righteousness as the issue of life.

"Humanism asserts that the test of human conduct must be found in human experience (praxis); concern for man replaces concern about pleasing God.  Humanism elevates man [and children] to the rank of God.... God is man, mankind, humanity.... salvation is a symbol, a symbol for becoming ultimately concerned about humanity―salvation is an 'eternal' present [in the here-and-now pleasures of this life].  The answer to man's predicament lies in the realization by individual man, that all men are essentially one [carnal, of nature only] and that the one is God.  This self-realization is a 'return' to union: potential becomes actual.  Sin is the estrangement of man from man."  (Leonard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism)

An example of dialectic 'reasoning' (humanism) being used in the "church" is a recent e-mail I received from a missionary friend, who while visiting with some other missionaries (YWAM) asked them how they shared the gospel to the lost: When I asked how they received "the word" the leader of the group (a great young man) informed me that because they were only with the people one day they did not share the gospel with them.  He told me that they just shared "their love" and "their hearts" with the people and did "mercy ministry", rather than sharing the gospel.  I asked him how the sharing of "their hearts and love" would be of any benefit to the people with regard to being saved from the wrath of God and the power of sin and asked him why he didn't think that the gospel qualified as "mercy ministry."  I could tell by the look on the guy's face that he had not considered any of those things and had no doubt just accepted the pragmatic, humanistic, bumper sticker theology/missiology of some clever westerner.  (John Burwell)

While we might think of 'change' as having to do with science and technology (with the manipulation of nature), when 'change' is associated with dialectic 'reasoning, i.e. with Karl Marx, it has to do with human behavior, i.e. with morals and ethics as well (with the manipulation of man—you have to force men who have a "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, i.e. who are "negative" minded, if not negate, i.e. silence or kill them to advance the cause of 'change' while all you have to do is seduce, deceive, and manipulate men into participation, who are "feelings" based, i.e. who are "positive" minded).  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  is no longer convinced that there is an absolute "right" and "wrong," i.e. he no longer "represses" his or someone else's human nature to fulfill some non-human outcome], that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly and he is interested only in what they have done right [right being man living according to his own "sense perception," i.e. thinking and acting according to "human nature" only, with man augmenting "enjoyment," i.e. pleasure, i.e. "lust," not only for himself but for all others as well, i.e. being "positive" to others as long as they participate in or have the potential of augmenting the process of 'change'], then peace and affirmation have come to him ["affirmative action" is socialist approval for one's socialist action against individualism, against the soul of man being accountable to God alone]."  (G. F. W. Hegel, in one of the casual notes preserved at Widener; in Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel)  

'Change' has to do with negating the "do right and don't do wrong'" way of thinking and acting, where behavior is approved or disapproved according to standards established by a "higher authority" than human nature itself, i.e. higher than an individual's personal "feelings" and "thoughts" in the given 'moment' (above mankind himself and his given situation), i.e. engendering faith in and belief upon God's or the Father's authority, above all else, engendering a "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, i.e. for disobedience, replacing it (God or the Father's authority to establish, once and for all, what is right and what is wrong behavior) with "the approaching of pleasure and the avoiding of pain," i.e. with a persons "felt" needs, where behavior is approved or disapproved according to the persons adaptability to 'change,' i.e. his ability to think and act according to the given (changing) situation, i.e. engendering opinions or theories to augment the environment which engenders pleasure and attenuate the environment which engenders pain as the foundation from which to think and act from (where 'truth' becomes subject to the given situation and 'moment,' i.e. relative, i.e. 'changeable,' rather than established for all times and all places, i.e. absolute, i.e. unchanging—the difference between duality, i.e. where you are either right or wrong, and plurality, i.e. where there are many different ways of looking at things, i.e. according to the ever-changing pleasure-pain spectrum or continuum of  the nature of the child, mankind, and the world). 

The dialectic 'logic' is: if the material world, i.e. nature (our "feelings" and "thoughts" in the "light" of the given situation, i.e. our "felt" need)    is 'ever-changing,' then morals and ethics must be subject to 'change' as well if we are to maintain harmony (hegemony) with the world.  If you focus on your "felt" needs (as well as the "felt" needs of others) only, then all that you and the other person are is of the world only, i.e. Godless.  Marx wrote: "Laws must not fetter [block] human life ["human nature"]; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities of the people change." "The critique of religion [the child's questioning of his Father's commands, i.e. man's questioning of God's commands] ends with the categorical imperative to overthrow all conditions [laws are passed negating the Father (God) and His authority over his children, property, and business] in which man is a debased, enslaved, neglected, contemptible being [is weighed as a sinner, i.e. condemned to judgment and eternal death]." "Criticism [questioning authority] proceeds on to praxis [social action removing the Father's authority from the face of the land]." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right,  ed. Joseph O'Malley)   Hegel's statements "Lawfulness without law" and "Purposiveness without purpose," reflect this same dialectic ideology, that man's carnal sinful nature is the only law from which man is to find identity, all other laws, i.e. from the father, from the teacher, from God have no other 'purpose' in life other than preventing man from becoming himself, as he is, i.e. carnal, i.e. of the world only.  But (if we follow this 'logic' to its end) if it is wrong for a father to chasten his children for ignoring his established laws, then it is wrong for gravity to chasten a pilot for ignoring the established laws of drag, thrust, and lift while flying, gravity needing to be, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' subject to, adaptable to, and "tolerant of" 'change,' i.e. subject to, adaptable to, and "tolerant of" man's "felt" needs of the 'moment.'

While the father (man) is not perfect, God, who created both man and nature, establishing laws for both to follow without 'change,' is perfect.  To 'justify' an imperfect world, a world of sin, you must first negate the perfect God, in the thoughts and actions of imperfect man.  What better way to do this than to start with imperfect man (the carnal child), making him, i.e. his "felt" needs, the standard from whereby right and wrong is determined, i.e. making human nature, man's sinful nature, i.e. his deviancy and depravity the "norm."  This is what Marx meant when he wrote: "Not feeling at home in the sinful world [having to obey my Father's (God's) commands which are not adaptable to 'change' with the world, which prevents me from satisfying my "felt" needs of the 'moment'], Critical Criticism ["Questioning Authority," i.e. the children questioning, challenging, and negating their Father's authority in their thoughts and actions, i.e. man questioning, challenging, and negating God's authority in their thoughts and actions] must set up a sinful world in its own home [negate the Father's (God's) authority in the home so they can be "normal," i.e. behave as the world again, thinking and acting according to "human nature," i.e. thinking and acting according to their "felt" needs in the 'moment,' as they were before their Father's first command and threat of punishment for disobedience]."  (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) 

It is not that man does not have needs, i.e. the need for bread.  He does.  But that God's Word (the Father's authority) must come first.  Christ Jesus, responding to the first temptation in the wilderness, quoting Deuteronomy 8:3, stated this truth (in essence His Father's command): "It is written, Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of the God."   Matthew 4:4

'Change' is replacing (negating) the Father's "Not" (the Father's authority) with the child's "ought," i.e. making both the child and Father one ("equal") in the social action (praxis) of the Father abdicating His office of authority as His child revolts against and overthrows it, with both thinking and acting as one, i.e. thinking and acting according to "human nature" only, making pleasure ("lust," i.e. the child's carnal nature) the highest "good" of all.  In this way, the mediator, i.e. the facilitator of 'change' controls both the Father and child in the end, i.e. living off the child's inheritance (which the child was to receive from His Father).  He is therefore able to continue his 'quest' to "help" all children "discover" their "real nature," 'realize' their "felt" needs (what "Is") by 'liberating' themselves from their Father's authority, i.e. from their Father's "Not"—showing the children how they can 'liberate' themselves from their Father's authority, i.e. negate their Father's authority, through their use of "ought." 

Our "ought" is our blind spot.  It is our dissatisfaction with our Father's authority, which always looks "good," i.e. is 'justified' in our own eyes.  It is the "natural" (flesh) part of us, 'driving' us to be at-one-with the world over and against the Father's authority.  It is that part of us which is always ready to be used (seduced) for the 'purpose' of 'change.'  "Ought" is the language of "the children of disobedience" (of sight), i.e. of those who travel down the broad pathway of the deviant, perverse, and depraved.  It is not the language of the children of obedience (of faith), i.e. of those who travel down the strait and narrow pathway of the righteous, doing their Father's will.

Abraham Maslow wrote: "Discovering one's real nature [freed from Godly restraint, i.e. freed from His "Is," i.e. "I Am that I Am," i.e. "Do as I say or else"] is simultaneously an ought quest [how the world 'ought' to be, according to "one's" nature, according to "one's" desires or "felt" needs] and an is quest [how the world 'is,' according to everybody else's nature, according to everybody else's desires or "felt" needs].... Is becomes the same as ought [where how the world 'is' and how it 'ought' to be become the same, i.e. when we begin with human nature and end with human nature, i.e. with everybody's desires or "felt" needs only]." "Here the fusion [synthesis or consensus] comes not so much from an improvement of actuality, the 'is,' [from the making of my 'ought,' i.e. my opinion, the preeminence over everybody else's 'ought' or opinion, turning it into an absolute, a belief, requiring faith, engendering a "guilty conscience" in those who disobey] but from a scaling down of the 'ought,' from a redefining of expectations so that they come closer and closer to actuality [not just having my desires and needs met only, retaining the Father's "top-down" way of thinking and acting, but having everybody else's desires and needs met as well at the same time, incorporating their 'ought' with my 'ought' i.e. their opinion with my opinion and vice versa to find a common, i.e. common-ist AKA communist, i.e. consensus 'ought'] and therefore to attainability [where "We working for Us" can free our "selves" from Godly restraint, from that which inhibits 'change'—the trickery here is to treat all beliefs, facts, and truth as theories and opinions so that 'change' can readily be 'justified' and put into praxis, i.e. put in social action.  By 'discovering' what 'is' and 'ought' have in common, 'is' and 'ought' can become "one" according to what we all have in common, i.e. our human nature of approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, where right and wrong are subject to the situation, subject to 'change,' i.e. with the augmentation (increasing) of pleasure and the attenuating (decreasing) of pain become the only way of thinking and acting,  i.e. as in the garden in Eden, if "God's tree" 'is' like ('is' common to) all the other trees, then we 'ought' to be able to eat from His tree, i.e. his tree is therefore our tree, i.e. as Karl Marx stated it: "the king's horse is the people horse"  (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')]."  (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature) 

Karl Marx wrote: "In short, philosophy as theory [where man's position or belief is treated as an opinion or theory, i.e. subject to evaluation and validation by others to become 'true'] finds the 'ought' [his opinion] implied within the 'is' [within the world of human nature only—when 'ought' is united with "Is" then only human nature Is," i.e. God or the Father no longer has the 'right' to rule over man or the child], and as praxis [social action, engendered through consensus, where all participants find commonality in human nature (hum-man is man of the "hum," i.e. of the earth) and, building upon it, put it into community action, i.e. with man's temporal (carnal) desires and needs becoming the main if not only focus of life] seeks to make the two coincide [making man and nature one, freed of Godly, unnatural restraints, i.e. freed of unchangingness, of absolutes, of "rigidity," of "prejudice," etc.]."  (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')

First of all, philosophy is not that hard to understand.  We have all done it.  Have you ever been dissatisfied with the way things are ("Is") and thought about (reflected upon, i.e. talked to your "self" about, dreamed of or imagined) how they "ought" to be ("ought" implies the desire or "felt" need to 'change' what "is" to make it 'change' to come into harmony with your flesh, i.e. your carnal nature, i.e. your carnal desires or "felt" needs)?  You have philosophized.  Therefore if you accept the fact that two plus two equals ("is") four and can not be any other number you are not able to philosophize, accepting things as they are ("Is") instead, i.e. that there is only one right answer (while the "is" might allow 'change,' the "Not" prevents it, i.e. therefore if you accept the "Not" as you accept the "Is" you can not philosophize, that is, think about 'changing' what "Is," 'liberating' is from "Not").  Only when you come to a situation where the absolute, i.e. unchanging answer (one answer only) two plus two ... can not be any other number keeps you from having what you want (prevents you from relating with or becoming at-one-with the gratifying thing or things of the world, prevents the 'emancipation' or 'liberation' of dopamine) are you motivated to "think outside the box," i.e. try to come up with some other answer, i.e. are you able to negate (overcome) the "Not," i.e. philosophize.  This is why philosophy is sometimes referred to as the "negation of negation," i.e. negating the barriers to life, i.e. overcoming the "negatives" of life, i.e. rising above God's or the Father's authority which keeps you from doing what you want to do. It is not God or the Father who prevents 'change,' it is His authority, i.e. His use of  force to reinforce His "Can Not," restraining ("repressing") your carnal human nature.

Say for example: someone else, who you like, i.e. who you want to initiate and sustain a relationship with, does not accept that two plus two can only be four. You now have a problem with the "Is" and "Not" answer. But you do have some options.  You can either say nothing in response to their rejection of the right answer, deciding relationship with them was more important than arguing over facts and truth, or correct them by insisting that two plus two can only be four, and face possible rejection, or try to 'reason' (dialogue) with them (making the "ought' more important than the "Not") to 'discover' another answer, i.e. see if there might be some other solution to the problem.  Facts and truth interfere with relationship when they cause disagreement, i.e. engender a "can not."  After all, it is not the "Is" that is the problem (we can all have "our opinion"), it is the "Not" that is the problem (making the "Is" right and the other person's answer "Not right," i.e. wrong, hurting their feelings).  The desire for relationship with the other person, i.e. your heart's desire, pressures you to think that there "ought" to be another answer to this problem, i.e. the problem not being two plus two equaling four but that it is the only right answer, causing conflict, tension, and division ("alienation") in relationship (controversy).  If you think it through, 'logically' you can not have an "ought" without a "Not" inhibiting or blocking you from having your heart's desire to relate with a gratifying thing of the world.  It does not make sense to be complaining about your father telling you that you could not go out, i.e. "I ought to be able to go out," if your father never told you could not go out.  You can not have an "ought" without the "not."   Therefore, key to understanding dialectic 'reasoning' and 'change' is the problem (the Father's authority) engendered with the word "Not," especially when it comes to the matter of "human relationships," and the power to overcome (negate) the problem (the Father's authority) with the 'liberation' of the "ought."

"Not," as in "Can not" or "Thou shalt not" is "negative" language when it comes to human relationship.  It is not favorable to human relationship building.  Therefore, if you want to 'reason' dialectically, which is based upon human relationship building, you have to overcome the "negative" language of absolutes, i.e. the "Can not's," the "Thou shalt not's" of life.  We have all done this. 

Say you want to go out and play with your friends, i.e. your heart's desire, but as you head towards the door your father says "You can not go out."  Although you might know why he made such a statement, i.e. he does not approve of your friends or he has some chores for you to do, the former being the more likely choice, you try to get him out of his "Can not" language, i.e. his "negative" language, through the language of dialogue (which is "positive" language in that there is no "Can not," i.e. no father's authority, i.e. no absolutes in dialogue, only "I feel," and "I think," making dialogue situational, relativistic, adaptable to 'change' language, "positive" to your heart's desire).  Without knowing it, you are attempting to change your father's paradigm, i.e. his way of thinking and acting, from a "top-down" paradigm of absolute right and wrong, i.e. "Is" and "Not" ("negativity") to an "equality" paradigm of "feelings" and "thoughts" ("positivity") so that you can have "your way" (pleasure) and he can "feel good" (have pleasure) about it to. 

You ask him "Why?"  In this case it is not to know his facts and truths, so that you can fulfill his will (and stay in or do your chores), but to 'change' him from holding to his position of authority, i.e. getting him to 'change' from his "Can not," "negative," "top-down" "right-wrong" language which is keeping you from your "hearts desires," to the "positive" "I feel," "I think" language of "equality," thereby making him equal with you and you equal with him through the dialoguing of  opinions, basing 'right and wrong' upon the "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e. subject to the given (but 'changeable') situation rather than upon the preaching and teaching of  "facts" and "truths" to be accepted as given, which are to be accepted as "is," i.e. established for all times and places.

If you manage to get your father to respond to your "Why?" with "Well I feel ...." or "I think ...,"  i.e. with opinion language, you have the opportunity to 'reason' with him, to get him to see the world through "your eyes," to see it according to how you "feel" and what you "think," and thereby get him to agree with you, allowing you to fulfill your heart's desires, i.e. allowing you to go out and play with your friends.  He can not chasten you for not obeying his opinion (which does not make sense since chastening somebody for not "obeying" an opinion would make the opinion giver a sadist and the one accepting the chastening a masochist—the dialectic 'logic' being, if all positions and beliefs are regarded as opinions and theories, absolute obedience to, belief and faith in God or in your father becomes sadomasochistic in nature), i.e. he can only chasten you for disobeying his commands (not his opinion).  But, if he instead holds to his "Can not" command, responding to your "Why?" with "Because I said so!" meaning, "I cause to be," i.e. "I am the creator and you are the created, therefore I give you commands which you are to obey, without question," i.e. "Don't challenge my authority,"  "This is the way  it is," "Do what I say or else" attitude, with chastening becoming the outcome for disobedience, He maintains his "top-down" position of authority over you (His child).  This is why the Father's authority becomes the focal point of dialectic 'reasoning, i.e. the negation if it (the Father's authority) that is.

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."  James 1:17   It is here, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' that the "I am right and you are wrong."  "I am from above and you are from below."  "Is and not." "Either-Or," "top-down," duality way of thinking and acting (Patriarchal Paradigm of "fixity," i.e. "no shadow of turning") is "created" in the life of the child, where the Father's position, his "Can" and "Can not" becomes the thesis and any of the child's "feelings" (impulses and urges) and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' which differ from or are counter to his Father's position, becomes the antithesis.  If you begin with human nature as the foundation of life, as those who propagate dialectic 'reasoning' and 'change' do, then God or the father (the restrainer of human nature) is 'created' through the person's life experience, i.e. when he, as a child, abdicated his desires and needs to that which is not of or not in agreement with his human nature, i.e. his Father (or God), which prevented him from satisfying his carnal desires and needs of the 'moment.'  According to dialectic 'reasoning, by the child taking on the image of his father, doing his Father's will over and against his own will, he is prevented from becoming himself, from being carnal, of the world only.  Karl Marx wrote: "The more of himself man attributes to God, the less he has left in himself."  "The life which he has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force."  (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)  "The only practically possible emancipation is the unique theory which holds that man is the supreme being for man."  (Karl Marx,  Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right)   Therefore, according to Marx, Freud, and Hegel, i.e. according to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' the child's nature, unrestrained by parental authority, is the supreme being for man.

George 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."  (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)   According to dialectic 'reasoning,' if the Father's authority can not be negated in the life of the child, the child (and therefore man) can not become himself, thinking and acting according to his own nature, freed of Godly restraint.  Therefore it is imperative, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. according to Karl Marx (sited above), as well as Sigmund Freud, that the Father's authority be negated (become of no worth or value, i.e. "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant") to the child (or man) if the child (or man) is to know himself as he "Is," carnal, i.e. of the earth only, not only in his thoughts but also and in his actions.  Sigmund Freud wrote: "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict [the father no longer has authority over his children] and its consequences [the children are 'liberated' from their father's authority] are the same." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization)

In the dialectic 'reasoning' of 'change,' synthesis is the name of the game: "My will" joined with "Our will" negates "Thy will be done."   Synthesis (the consensus process) is your child uniting with the children of the world, engendering socialism, negating the Father's authority, which engenders individualism.  Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [the child being accountable to, i.e. submitting his will to his father's will] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him.  Society [the group grade, i.e. the "community," i.e. "human relationship," i.e. democratization, communitization, conscietization, i.e. the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus] is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities."  Therefore, for Marx, freedom and individuality is found in the flesh, in the carnality of "human nature," which is of the world only, i.e. common to all men.  It is not found in the Father's authority, which restrains the child's carnal "human nature."  Since "human relationship," not truth or facts, is the basis of dialectic 'reasoning,' "feelings and thoughts," i.e. the nature of the child, i.e. his urges and impulses, i.e. his carnal desires to relate with the world in the 'moment,' i.e. his opinion becomes the focus of life, not the parent's "Is and Not," i.e. the authority of the Father (or parents), inhibiting or blocking 'change.'   While "Is and Not" inhibit or block 'change,'  "feelings" and "thoughts" (opinions) initiate and sustain it.  Therefore 'change,' dialectic 'reasoning,' "feelings and thoughts," i.e. opinions, and "human relationship building" go hand in hand.  Without the "ought," "thought" (outside of the father's "Not") can not become a 'reality.'  You can not strike the hand of the one who has 'liberated' you from your Father's authority, for you have no authority to do so, having abdicated it to him.  If you don't rule over the flesh, making it subject to God's authority, the flesh rules over (controls) you.

It is therefore the language of 'change,' initiated by a person's dissatisfaction with "Is and Not" (dissatisfaction with parental authority), where world unity ("We working for Us," i.e. common-ism AKA communism) is initiated and sustained.  Without finding a person's (or child's) dissatisfaction with the way things are, 'change' can not be initiated and sustained.  Therefore the language of 'change' must be found, i.e. 'discovered' if 'change' is to become the way of life.  This means that the language of "Ought," as in "I ought to be able to go out," 'liberated' through the dialoguing of opinions, must become the language of the child and adult.  Preaching and teaching keeps the "ought" in place, i.e. "repressed."  Even the preaching and teaching of 'liberating' it "represses" it.  Therefore, if the language of 'change' is to be 'discovered' and 'liberated,' the environment of language must be 'changed.'   By 'changing' the environment from the preaching and teaching of truth and facts (of "Is" and "Not"), to be accepted "as given," to an environment where the dialoguing of opinions or theories (of "Ought's") to a consensus becomes the 'right' way to "think" and "act," 'change' becomes the way of life.

The "Ought's" of our life are engendered through the "Is, Not's" of authority restraining our carnal desires to relate with the world, engendering our "Why?" in response to authority, to get authority into the language of dialogue, i.e. 'change,' which they then "repress" (cutting off 'change') with their "Because I said so," which carries with it the threat of force, i.e. pain.  Therefore, when dialogue is blocked in the external world we turn to the internal world, to self, where dialogue is the "name of the game."  While you can not talk to my "self," I can.  I can only share with you, through dialogue, what I am talking to my "self" about (my opinion, i.e. my "feelings" and "thoughts").  You can not listen in to me talking to my "self," you can only listen to my sharing with you what I am talking to my "self" about.  Self is always in agreement with my "Ought," my carnal desires to be at-one-with the gratifying things of the world in the 'moment.'  Therefore self is always in agreement with "me," i.e. always "positive."  Yet "self" can not 'change' the external world.  It can only give me escape from it in my mind for the 'moment.'  (This is why Marx opposed Hegel in that Hegel kept the dialectic process, the child's dissatisfaction with his Father's authority, in his mind, Marx insisting that it had to be put into social action, i.e. into praxis, killing the Father along with His authority.) This is the "imagination of the heart," the lusting after the things of the world, in defiance to authority, for which reason God judged the world with a flood and will again judge the world, this time with fire.

"We have to study the conditions which maximize ought-perceptiveness." "Oughtiness is itself a fact to be perceived." "If we wish to permit the facts to tell us their oughtiness, we must learn to listen to them in a very specific way which can be called Taoistic." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature)

For 'change,' i.e. Marxism, i.e. the 'liberation' of the child from his father's authority and man from God's authority, to become a 'reality' in American and around the world, the classroom environment has to be 'changed.'  It has to be 'changed' from the preaching and teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is, to the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e. to a "feeling" of "oneness," where truth is found in the 'moment' of 'change,' i.e. in the "building of human relationship" upon compromise, 'liberating' the children and the world from the idea (belief) that truth has to be established for all times and places, causing division amongst children and men.  When you start with God (or the Father's authority), i.e. with doing right and not doing wrong according to his definition, change is tied to the changing of a person's (the child's) heart from doing his will to doing God's (or the Father's) will.  When you start with "human nature," i.e. with the approaching of pleasure and the avoiding of pain, 'change' is tied to the 'liberating' of the person's (or the child's) heart from God's (or the Father's) will, to where right and wrong is defined by how the person (or the child) "feels" and/or what he "thinks" regarding the given situation.  It is not that God (or the Father) is for pain and against pleasure.  It is that He wants man (or the child) to do that which is right despite the temptation to avoid the pain or lust after the pleasures of the situation (with the missing out on the pleasures being a pain as well, possibly the greatest pain of all).

All certified teachers (in your community and around the world) are trained to apply "Bloom's Taxonomies" in their classroom.   Bloom propagated Marxist ideology.  He wrote in his first Taxonomy: "We recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places."  (Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book 1 Cognitive Domain)   Bloom simply paraphrased the philosophical view of Karl Marx, making Marx's paradigm of 'change' the desired paradigm for all the children (and adults) of the world.  Marx wrote: "In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for all time, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx)  In fact, in his second book, mentioning two Marxists as his world view, as his "Weltanschauung,"  i.e. Theodor Adorno and Erick Fromm, Bloom wrote: "There are many stores of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children."  "The major impact of the new program is to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents."  "In fact, a large part of what we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives [the teachers ability to 'liberate' the students "feels" of dissatisfaction toward parental authority] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues."  (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives:  The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook 2, Affective Domain)  Marx's "class consciousness" and "class struggle" is simply the praxis of children 'discovering' themselves and 'liberating' themselves from their Father's authority.  Bloom simply extended this agenda into the American classroom and culture.

The key to 'change' is your dissatisfaction with having to live according to someone else's will (God's or the Father's will), desiring to live according to your will and the world's will instead, where all are united upon the "feeling" of "oneness" (consensus), i.e. united upon the desire for 'liberty' from restraint, i.e. freedom from "top-down" authority, united in "Making the world Safe for Democracy."  The dialectic plan is to (through the use of facilitated meetings) help your child, legislator, minister, spouse, etc. 'discover' their dissatisfaction with "top-down restraints" and then (with the help of the facilitator of 'change') 'liberate' themselves, along with all the children and adults of the world, from Godly restraint.  "Persons satisfied with things as they are must be helped to acquire convictions for change and arrive at that state of dissatisfaction."  "Persons will not come into full partnership in the process until they register dissatisfaction."  (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)  Dissatisfaction here is not that of the person's dissatisfaction regarding his lack of knowledge of the subject at hand, i.e. math, grammar, etc. but his dissatisfaction with the restraints of authority, which he will not "reveal to anyone else if he can help it," out of fear of "reprisal."  It is up to the facilitator of 'change' to create a non-hostile environment so that the person can bring this dissatisfaction (against authority) out into the open. "The individual may have ‘secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it.  To gain access is particularly important, for here may lie the individual's potential."  (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

As stated above, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' God did not create man, man created God by accepting a Father's authority in his life as a child.   The Marxist, Theodor Adorno, who's work The Authoritarian Personality is foundational to our education system today (Bloom built his classroom curriculum, the foundation of Common Core, i.e. Communist Curriculum being used in education today, upon Adorno's book), wrote:  "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority."  Therefore it is imperative that the environment in which the child is raised up in be 'changed' if the world is to be 'changed.' "Kurt Lewin emphasized that 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."  "Any real change of the culture of a group is, therefore, interwoven with the changes of the power constellation within the group."  (Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education)  "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs [socialism] by accepting belongingness to the group."   From then on "the new system of values and beliefs [group identity, i.e. socialism] dominates the individual's perception." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group." (Irvin Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy)  "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence."  (Jürgen Habermas Knowledge & Human Interest, 1968, publ. Polity Press, 1987. Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)  While Jesus had a "group," he preached to them and taught them, giving glory to His Heavenly Father, he did not dialogue opinions with them to engender a consensus, i.e. to create a "feeling" of "oneness," in defiance to His Heavenly Father's authority.

Freedom of religion, i.e. freedom to preach and teach the truth to your family and the world is negated through the dialoging of opinions, which initiates and sustains freedom from religion, which was Karl Marx's dream, where, in the thoughts and actions of men (and children), the love of the Father (love of God and His Word) is replaced with the love of the world (love of human nature and men's opinions).  This is why you must deny, humble, and die to yourselves daily before the Lord, accepting self control and self discipline as the way of life or else self-esteem, the approval of the world, will win the day.  There is no Father's inheritance in democracy, socialism, communism, humanism, etc. only equality in the carnal ways of the child and slavery to those who 'liberate' and sustain' it, i.e. the facilitator of 'change,' using the children's inheritance for their own gain.  An avalanche is like socialism, i.e. it is like a bunch of people going in the same direction.  Don't get in their way if you don't want to get hurt.

According to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. according to the way of 'change,' the world wins as you win and you win as the world wins (the so called "win-win" situation), freeing yourself and the world from Godly restraint, i.e. from the Father's authority.  This is the only 'drive' and 'purpose' of Common Core (and education programs like it), i.e. the negation of "the earthly family," i.e. negating the Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the children of the world, creating a "new" world order of "equality," a world founded upon the unrestrained impulses and urges of the child, a world now subject to 'change,' seduced, deceived, and manipulated by the master facilitator's of 'change who themselves are seduced, deceived, and manipulated by the master facilitator of 'change.'  The formula for 'change' is to praxis Genesis 3:1-6, i.e. the dialoguing of opinions to an agreement with self, to know the "truth" determining right and wrong according to the flesh, i.e. according to human nature only, so as to negate the Father's authority, i.e. Hebrews 12:5-11, and thereby negate the "guilty conscience" and the need for repentance, forgiveness, and salvation, i.e. Romans 7:14-25.

The Word of God instructs us that our earthly father give us a pattern of thinking and acting which is of God:  "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." Ephesians 6:1-3 "And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven."  Matthew 18:2-4
    Jesus lived that same pattern: "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 who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak." John 12:49 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6
    He has instructed us to live according to His Heavenly Father's will: "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 "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
    We are to put no man (except Christ Jesus, the only begotten Son of God who 'redeems' us from His Heavenly Father's wrath upon us, 'reconciling' us to His Heavenly Father) between us and our Heavenly Father: "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven,"  Matthew 23:9  

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2013-2015