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

What Is Missing In Education.
(Personal note.)

Dean Gotcher

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

The gospel is all about the Father's authority. It is about the Son of God, Christ Jesus doing the Father's will, that is doing what he was told, even dying on a cross, by his shed blood covering our sins (propitiation), doing so in obedience to the Father. "O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." Matthew 26:42 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Romans 5:19 The Lord Jesus Christ asks all, denying their lusts, enduring the rejection of others for not affirming their lusts to follow Him, doing His Father's will. "And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels." Luke 9:23-26 "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" 2 Corinthians 10:5 Christ Jesus, the only begotten son of God said, "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." John 5:30 "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." John 12:47-50 "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 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9

Karl Marx, in his 4th Thesis on Feuerbach wrote, "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the Holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, that is annihilated, that is negated] in theory and in practice [criticized in theory and revolutionized in practice]." (Karl Marx, 4th Thesis on Feuerbach)

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

According to Karl Marx when the child submits to discussion (to letting the father having the final say) instead of insisting upon dialogue (insisting upon his having his way) he 'creates' the father's authority system. When it comes to behavior it is the roll of the therapist (the facilitator of 'change') to "help" the child overcome the restraints of life, that is to negate the effect the Father's authority has on him, that is to justify' his "Why?" (dialogue) in response to the father's commands and rules (discussion), that is to 'liberate' him from the Father's authority that prevents him from becoming himself, allowing him to instead think and act according to his carnal nature, to think and act for himself, to think and act according to "the world" only, known as "theory and practice." When you put your children or yourself in a place where "I feel" and "I think" is used to study the Word of God, they or you will become liberal, 'liberated' from the authority of God's Word, that is 'liberated' from God.

What does the "earthly family" and the "Holy family" have in common? The earthly father and Heavenly Father authoring commands and rules, facts and truth to be accepted as is and obeyed and-or applied, and enforcing them, that is holding those under their authority accountable to doing what they are told. While dad (the "earthly father") is not perfect, he may be (or may have been) a downright tyrant (or MIA, AWOL)—as a child lusting pleasure without restraint—his office of authority is perfect, having been given to him by God (the "Heavenly Father") who is perfect, in which to do His will. When it comes to behavior, as will be explained in greater detail below when you replace discussion, where the Father has the final say with dialogue, where the child has the final say, as is being done in the contemporary classroom the Father's authority is negated in the thoughts of the children or in this case in the thoughts of the students, directly effecting their actions.

While the Heavenly Father is Holy and the earthly father is born into sin both 1) preach commands and rules to be obeyed as given, teach facts and truth to be accepted as is (at first at least by faith) and applied, discuss with those under their authority any questions they might have regarding the commands, rules, facts, and truth being preached and taught, providing they deem it necessary, have time, those under their authority are able to understand, and are not questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking their authority, 2) reward those who do right and obey, 3) correct and-or chasten those who do wrong and-or disobey, that they might learn to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate their "self" in order to do right and not wrong according to the established commands, rules, facts, and truth they have been taught, that is that they have been told, in order to do the Father's will, and 4) cast out (expel or ground) those who question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack their authority, which restrains the Father's authority system in the children's thoughts, directing effecting their actions, resulting in their KNOWING right from wrong from being told (especially when it comes to behavior). Traditional education is based upon the Father's authority system, that is being told what is right and what is wrong behavior instead of 'discovering' it for their self via dialogue.

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

All educators are certified, and schools accredited today based upon their use of what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies" as their curriculum in the classroom. The "taxonomies" are treated as being scientific despite, forty years after their publication Benjamin Bloom admitting, "Certainly the Taxonomy was unproved at the time it was developed and may well be 'unprovable.'" (Benjamin Bloom, Forty Year Evaluation) In Benjamin S. Bloom's first "taxonomy," Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain Bloom wrote: "We recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places." This is the same ideology as expressed by Karl Marx, "In the eyes of the dialectic philosophy, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." In the second "taxonomy," Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain Benjamine Bloom along with David Krathwohl wrote that the "taxonomies" are "a psychological classification system" used "to develop attitudes and values ... which are not shaped by the parents." That they are to be used to 'change' the students paradigm, that is to 'change' the way the next generation of citizens are to feel, think, and act toward their self, others, the world, and authority. "To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in many ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed." "The effectiveness of this new set of environmental conditions is probably related to the extent to which the students are 'isolated' from the home during this period of time." "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." Bloom explained, "What we are classifying is the intended behavior of students—the ways in which individuals are to act, think, or feel as the result of participating in some unit of instruction." "… ordering and relating the different kinds of affective behavior." "… we need to provide the range of emotion from neutrality through mild to strong emotion, probably of a positive, but possibly also of a negative, kind." "… organized into value systems and philosophies of life …" Bloom then admitted that the "taxonomies" "Weltanschauung1" or world view or paradigm was Marxist, sighting two Marxists, "1Cf. Erich Fromm, 1941; T. W. Adorno et al., 1950."

Erick Fromm, in his book Escape from Freedom wrote, "We are proud that in his conduct of life man has become free from external authorities, which tell him what to do and what not to do." "All that matters is that the opportunity for genuine activity be restored to the individual; that the purposes of society and of his own become identical." "... to give up 'God' and to establish a concept of man as a being ... who can feel at home in it if he achieves union with his fellow man and with nature." Theodor Adorno, in his book The Authoritarian Personality wrote, "The power-relationship between the parents, the domination of the subject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem." equating traditional parents and God as fascist. He wrote, "Authoritarian submission was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." "Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the individual to the state, and so forth, have so frequently and, as it seems to us, correctly, been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed that a search for correlates of prejudice had naturally to take these attitudes into account." "Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them." The error in Adorno's "logic" is that all forms of socialism, including Fascism must negate the father's authority in the home and in the individual in order to initiate and sustain the socialist's control over the individual, that is "the people." Adorno added, "Our aim is not merely to describe prejudice but to explain it in order to help in its eradication. Eradication means re-education." The first communist dictator of the Russian people, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov declared "We must learn how to eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs, and traditions everywhere." (Vladimir Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks' Success May 12, 1920)

"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

Prior to the fifties College students were generally held accountable for their behavior, their behavior being subject to established commands, rules, facts, and truth. Today college is "party time." It did not happen by accident. Benjamin Bloom noted that the catalyst for the publication of his "taxonomies" was the "need" to 'change' the learning environment of college students in order to 'change' the world. "Perhaps one of the most dramatic events highlighting the need for progress in the affective domain ['liberation' of the student's carnal nature, that is lust out from under the Father's authority, that is 'liberation' of the college student from his or her parent's, former teacher's, and minister's standards] was the publication of Jacob's Changing Values in College (1957)." (Book 2: Affective Domain) Without 'change' in the method of teaching, 'change' in the student's values and beliefs would not become actualized. This required the aid of "change agents," that is facilitators of 'change.' A "change agent... should know about the process of change, how it takes place and the attitudes, values and behaviors that usually act as barriers.... He should know who in his system are the 'defenders' or resisters of innovations ['change']." (Ronald Havelock, A Change Agent's Guide to Innovation in Education) In a Federal Grant for education we read, "During the period of innovation, an environment is invisible. The present is always invisible because the whole field of attention is so saturated with it. It becomes visible only when is has been superseded by a new environment." (Federal Education Grant, Dec. 1969, Behavior Science in Teacher Education—BSTEP) All Federal Education Grants are subject to this Grant even today. The book "1984" was a result of it, exposing what is in it. One third of it is a "feasibility study," predicting where the world would be in the years 1984, 2000, 2100 (subject to the Grants application), one third of it is on how to develop psychological portfolios on all students in college (as well as all citizens of the nation and world), and one third of it is on how to track students, educators, staff, etc.,. This is all being done with he computer today.

All the sources Bloom used to develop his "taxonomies" had the same attitude and agenda. They held the traditional family, that is parental authority, especially the father's authority in the home in contempt, needing to be negated if Marxism, their way of thinking and acting was to become the new paradigm. James Coleman, in The Adolescent Society: the Social Life of the Teenager and its Impact on Education stated, "Parents are 'out of touch with the times,' and unable to understand, much less inculcate, the standards of a social order that has changed since they were young." "For equality of opportunity to exist the family as a unit must be weakened." Paul Dressell et al. in General Education: Explorations in Evaluation, American Council on Education stated, "Can the student accept the fact that the traditional family might be changed and might possibly disappear?" Carl Rogers, in on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy stated, "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual come to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" The objective of the contemporary classroom, as Wilfred Bion stated in his book A Memoir of the Future is to "prevent someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space." Herbert Marcuse, in Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud explained how psychology carries the same agenda. "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [that is the husband and father no longer exercises his authority in the home, over his wife and children]." He stated, "... the 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence.'" Norman O. Brown, in his book Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History stated, "Self-perfection of the human individual is fulfilled in union with the world in pleasure." "According to Freud, the ultimate essence of our being is erotic." "Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world." "Eros is the foundation of morality." He stated, "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;"

What does contemporary education, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud have in common? The rejection of the Father's authority when it comes to education, that is the rejection of the Father's authority when it comes to behavior.

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

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

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

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

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

Karl Marx, in his article Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right' wrote: "The only practically possible emancipation [from the Father's authority] is the unique theory which holds that man is the supreme being for man." In other words you have to make man's or the child's carnal nature the foundation from which to 'reason' instead of the Father's authority. The famous philosopher Georg Hegel wrote, "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [and I would add for clarity once he is 'liberated' from the Father's authority to become as he was before the Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life (separating him from his "self" and the world), "of and for self" and the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life

What is missing in education. The Father.

When it comes to behavior, without the Father (the Father's authority system, known as the Patriarchal paradigm, where what the Father says influences the person's feelings, thoughts, actions, directly effecting how he responds to his self, others, the world, and authority) there is no law (that is "rule of law"), there is no established right and wrong behavior. It is the Father who authors commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is (by faith—at least at first until understood) and obeyed or applied and enforces them. Without the law there is no disobedience. Without disobedience there is no sin. Without sin there is no need for a savior. If you exclude the Father from education (or just give him lip service) all you have is the "affective domain," that is "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," that is "sense experience," that is only that which is "of the world" as your outcome. You cannot have "behavior science," that which is only "of the world" and the Father as your outcome. When it comes to defining and establishing behavior you cannot have both. Even once. You can only have one or the other. Which one you choose (from beginning to end) determines the outcome. This applies to the classroom, that is education.

Karl Marx, in his article Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right stated, "For one class [that is the child's carnal nature] to stand for the whole of society, another [that is the Father's authority] must be the class of universal offense and the embodiment of universal limits. A particular social sphere must stand for the notorious crime of the whole society, so that liberation from this sphere appears to be universal liberation. For one class to be the class par excellence of liberation, another class must, on the other hand, be openly the subjugating class." "The only practically possible emancipation is the unique theory which holds that man is the supreme being for man." In other words, not until children can find their identity in one another can they unite as one in overcoming the effect the Father's authority has on their lives, affecting not only them but society, that is the world they live in as well. This requires the use of what all children have in common, that is their carnal nature as the means of communication, finding their identity in themselves, that is in their carnal nature, that is in that which is only "of the world" which requires the "scientific method" known as "behavior science." Karl Marx wrote,"Sense experience must be the basis of all science." "Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception and sensuous need, that is, only when it proceeds from Nature." (Karl Marx, MEGA I, 3) Even the famous psychotherapist Carl Rogers, in his book on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy agreed, "Experience is, for me, the highest authority." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience." "In this process the individual becomes more open to his experience. It is the opposite of defensiveness or rigidity. His beliefs are not rigid, he can tolerate ambiguity." The Marxist, György Lukács in his article History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism? wrote, "a scientifically acceptable solution does exist … For to accept that solution, even in theory would be tantamount to observing society from a class standpoint [that is from the children's carnal nature] other than that of the bourgeoisie [that is from the Father's authority]. And no class can do that-unless it is willing to abdicate its power freely." By parent's, especially the father going into dialogue with their children when it comes to behavior the father's authority is negated in the thought of the child, directly effecting his actions. Warren Bennis, in his book The Temporary Society wrote, "In order to effect rapid change, . . . [one] must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved. It is necessary, in other words, artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children." "The consequences of family democratization take a long time to make themselves felt—but it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun. . . . once the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in the world approaching." ". . . Once uncertainty is created in the parent how best to prepare the child for the future, the authoritarian family is moribund, 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." "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."

"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

Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformation-ist warned us regarding the removal of the Father's authority in education, "Here [Luther is referring to the verse: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:8] it is clear that Paul wants Christ alone to be taught and heard. Who does not see how the universities read the Bible? ... it has been so bothersome to read and respond to this filth." "Miserable Christians, whose words and faith still depend on the interpretations of men and who expect clarification from them! This is frivolous and ungodly. The Scriptures are common to all, and are clear enough in respect to what is necessary for salvation and are also obscure enough for inquiring minds ... let us reject the word of man." "I greatly fear that the universities, unless they teach the Holy Scriptures diligently and impress them on the young students, are wide gates to hell. I would advise no one to send his child where the Holy Scriptures are not supreme. Every institution that does not unceasingly pursue the study of God's word becomes corrupt." (Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer: II, p. 259, p.217; Vol. 1, The Christian in Society: p. 207)

The Marxist Max Horkheimer, who was for a time director of the Institute of Social Research ("The Frankfurt School") in his book Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung; in English. Reasoning and Self Preservation wrote: "Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." It is the effect of Protestantism, that is individualism, under God that the Marxist is most dedicated in order to 'create' a world of his own making, void of Godly restraint (which requires faith).

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

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

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4

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

"Virtually the entire Ethics of Aristotle is the worst enemy of grace." (Luther's Works: Vol. 31, Career of the Reformer: I, p.12)

What is wrong with Aristotle's ethics? It is based upon "stimulus-response," that is it is based upon "behavior science." The idea being if you can create a healthy environment, you can create a healthy person. This is antithetical to the Word of God. Only God is good. Nothing in the creation can make man good. The use of Aristotle (create a healthy environment and you can create a healthy person), that is stimulus-response was what the Protestant Reformation rejected. Nothing in the creation can change a man's heart. Only the work of Christ, and Christ alone can change a man's heart. Without the law from above, that is above that which is "of the world" man would not know he needed a savior. Negate that law, according to those "of (and for) the world" only and man no longer needs a savior.

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

"... the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its 'obedience to laws.'" (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)

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

When God created man He did something which he did with nothing else in the creation, He made him a "living soul." "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7). He then did something which He did with nothing else in the creation, He told him what was right and what was wrong behavior and the consequence for disobedience. "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:16, 17). Only man can be told or tell others what is right and what is wrong behavior. Only man can read or write a book. All the rest of the creation is based upon stimulus-response—for living organisms, approach pleasure and avoid pain.

Language comes into play here, that is the difference between discussion and dialogue, especially when it comes to behavior.

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

Discussion divides upon being or doing right and not wrong, that is KNOWING from being told, which is formal, judgmental with the Father retaining his authority, that is having the final say. "Because I said so," "Nevertheless," "It is written."

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

Dialogue, on the other hand unites upon "feelings," that is upon "I feel" and-or "I think," which is an opinion, which is informal, non-judgmental, with the child retaining his carnal nature, having the final say (against absolutes, against the Father's authority). There is no Father's authority in dialogue, or in an opinion, or in the consensus process. There is only the child's natural inclination to lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating being 'justified.' Dialogue moves opinions to a consensus, negating the Father's authority and the guilty conscience it engenders in the process. Replacing discussion with dialogue, when it comes to behavior, negates the Father's authority in the outcome.

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

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

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

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

What the woman and Adam did was a "land grab," with the master facilitator of 'change' in control. What was God's garden (He set the standards) was now the facilitator of 'change's' (he now set the standards). What those "of (and for) the world" see, like the woman in the garden in Eden they "own," giving control of the land, along with their self to the master facilitator of 'change.' By 'discovering' what you covet (what you are lusting after), and offering to "help" you attain it, the facilitator of 'change' not only "own" you, he "own" it as well, with you (as "human resource") maintaining it for him. The replacing of discussion with dialogue when it comes to behavior is Jean-Jacques Rousseau world where, in defiance to "the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof," that is rejecting the Father's authority, with the Father having the final say, he stated "The fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody [except to the one making this statement who, in his thoughts and actions "owns" whatever he sees (as did the woman in the garden in Eden), that is as Karl Marx declared "The proletariat (Karl Marx and all who think like him) thus has the same right as has the German king (the Father) when he calls, the people his people and a horse his horse."]." (sources, 1 Corinthians 10:26; Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality; Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')

It is the woman's propensity to dialogue, man's to discuss. This is why 'liberals' push dialogue, in order to neuter the men, that is discussion. The following is "politically incorrect" as the result of dialectic 'reasoning' having taken over the minds of men.

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

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

Who told you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4 Man is not to live by dialogue alone, but by discussion, where the Father has the final say. Curriculum establishes the procedure used in education. When discussion is replaced with dialogue regarding behavior, the student's paradigm is 'changed.'

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

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

Kenneth Benne, in his book Human Relations in Curriculum Change wrote, "Persons will not come into full partnership in the process until they register dissatisfaction," that is dissatisfaction with restraint, that is with the Father's authority.

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

Warren Bennis, along with Edgar H. Schein, David E. Berlew, and Fred I. Steele in their book Interpersonal Dynamics: Essays in Readings on Human Interaction, ed. describe the method used by the Communist Chinese to brainwash our soldiers during the Korean and the Vietnam War. Hunter's book only describes the results not the method. Bennis described the method itself. The same method, as will become apparent as I go along, that teachers, using "Bloom Taxonomies" are using on American students in the classroom—replacing physical torture with the torture of being 'rejected' by "the group" (if the student does not participate with the process of 'change'). Irvin Yalom explained it this way: "few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [their loyalty to the Father's authority] in the face of apparent group unanimity; and the individual rejects critical feelings toward the group at this time to avoid a state of cognitive dissonance. To question the value or activities of the group, would be to thrust himself into a state of dissonance. Long cherished but self-defeating beliefs and attitudes may waver and decompose in the face of a dissenting majority." Now to the method used on our solders to wash nationalism from their brain, that is to wash respect for the father's authority from their brain. Having read from "Bloom's Taxonomies" it should sound familiar. "The manner in which the prisoner came to be influenced to accept the Communist's definition of his guilt can best be described by distinguishing two broad phases—(1) a process of 'unfreezing,' in which the prisoner's physical resistance, social and emotional supports, self-image and sense of integrity, and basic values and personality were undermined, thereby creating a state of 'readiness' to be influence; and (2) a process of 'change,' in which the prisoner discovered how the adoption of 'the people's standpoint' and a reevaluation of himself from this perspective would provide him with a solution to the problems created by the prison pressure." "Most were put into a cell containing several who were further along in reforming themselves and who saw it as their primary duty to 'help' their most backward member to see the truth about himself in order that the whole cell might advance. Each such cell had a leader who was in close contact with the authorities for purposes of reporting on the cell's progress and getting advice on how to handle the Western member . . . the environment undermined the (clients) self-image." ". . . Once this process of self of self re-evaluation began, the (client) received all kinds of help and support from the cell mates and once again was able to enter into meaningful emotional relationships with others."

In his book Maslow on Management Abraham Maslow, who is noted for his "Hierarchy of 'Felt' Needs" (which is void of the Father's authority) wrote: "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards."

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

Bloom, in the second "taxonomy" wrote, "In fact, a large part of what we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the student's fixed beliefs . . .." "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box.'" "Pandora's Box" is a mythological story of a "box" (originally a jar) full of evils, which once opened, can not be closed—once parental authority, that is the father's authority, that is fear of judgment, that is "the lid" is removed it is difficult if not impossible to put it back on again. He stated, "It is in this 'box' that the most influential controls are to be found." The "affective domain" Bloom is after is that of the unregenerate heart.

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

The unregenerate (carnal) heart (the Karl Marx in you) can not see its hatred toward the Father's authority as being evil, that is "wicked," that is "desperately wicked" because its lust for pleasure is standing in the way, 'justifying' the hate. (Mark 7:21-23) Karl Marx described the human heart (his heart). "Not feeling at home in the sinful world, Critical Criticism [dialogue, which is subject to the human (carnal) heart] must set up a sinful world in its own home." "Critical Criticism is a spiritualistic lord, pure spontaneity, actus purus, intolerant of any influence from without." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) "Criticism is now simply a means. Indignation is its essential pathos, denunciation its principal task. Criticism is criticism in hand-to-hand combat. Criticism proceeds on to praxis [action]." "The critique of religion [hatred toward the Father's authority] ends with the categorical imperative to overthrow all conditions in which man is a debased, enslaved, neglected, contemptible being [being called a sinner, thus being judged, condemned, cast out for his carnal thoughts and carnal actions]." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right)

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

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

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

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

"The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach #6)

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

In other words, according to Karl Marx the child having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate his "self" in order to do the Father's will is not what "fulfills" the child. "On the contrary" it is the Father's authority, that is the child having to do right and not wrong according to the Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth that "destroys him," that is that prevents him from becoming his self, thinking and acting according to his carnal nature, that is according to what he has in common with all the children of the world. The child's desire for approval from others, requiring him to compromise in order to "get along," that is in order to build relationship "is the necessary framework through which freedom" from the Father's authority and "freedom" to lust after pleasure, that is to do what he wants without having a guilty conscience (which the Father's authority engenders) "are made reality."

"The individual is emancipated in the social group." "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt be assuaged." "Self-perfection of the human individual is fulfilled in union with the world in pleasure." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

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

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

"It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately." "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Benne)

"The child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group." (Kurt Lewin in Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education)

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

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

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

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

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

"The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child [the guilty conscience] thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult." "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality)

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

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

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

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

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

Abraham Maslow, in his journals, The Journals of Abraham Maslow explained that the agenda was to merge Marxism and psychology: "Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory to round it out. And of course, vice versa." "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, that is including the most basic scheme as true-good social conditions are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions stunt human nature,... This is to say, one could reinterpret Marx into a self-actualization-fostering Third- and Fourth-Force psychology-philosophy. And my impression is anyway that this is the direction in which they are going now."

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

By bringing students together and having them dialogue their opinions to a consensus, regarding behavior their paradigm is 'changed.' "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)

This is a political system. It is the basis of Marxism.

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

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways, the objective however, is change." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) Inscribed on Karl Marx's tomb so it must be important.

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

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

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

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

"For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." 1 Timothy 3:2-5

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

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16

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

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

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2024 (4/20/2024)