authorityresearch.com
Proverbs 3:5, 6 "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."
The Institution for Authority Research
|
About, |
Two Paradigms (two political systems):
Patriarch: Father authors established commands, rules, facts, truth and enforces them, preaching, teaching, and discussing, with the Father having the final say, rewarding for being or doing right, for applying or doing what you are told, correcting for being wrong, chastening for doing wrong, and casting out for questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking authority, objective truth, divides upon who is doing His will and who is not, right-wrong, above-below, either-or, absolute, fellowship, guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, requiring no compromise in order to do what is right, individualism under God.
Heresiarch: children author commands, rules, facts, and truth which are ever subject to 'change,' subject to their "feelings" of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, and enforces them, dialogue, with the children having the final say, subjective truth, divide upon who is siding with them, 'justifying' their feelings and who is siding with the Father, judging, condemning, casting them out for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, loving pleasure ("positive")-hating restraint ("negative"), along a spectrum from love on one side to outright hate on the other, relationship, super-ego, requiring compromise in order to "get along," socialism-Marxism-Globalism.
Matriarch: wife-mother submits to or authors commands, rules, facts, and truth, established or subject to 'change,' discussion or dialogue depending upon who she is submitting to in the 'moment,' confusion, seeks to unite the Father and the children for the sake of her feelings, having to submit to one or the other, cognitive dissonance.
Formula: If the Father is the Thesis, making the children the Antithesis then there can not be Synthesis as the children are subject to being told, to what the Father says instead of to their feelings of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating. If the children are the Thesis, making the Father the Antithesis then there can be Synthesis when the children come together, uniting as one based upon their "affective domain," their lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint—what they all have in common. When it comes to defining and establishing behavior, the facilitated meeting, using the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process removes the Father's authority from the outcome since there is no Father's authority in the facilitating of 'change,' in dialogue, in an opinion, or in the consensus process, there is only the children's lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint being 'justified.' This is the formula for the so called new world order, with teachers, as facilitator's of 'change' using "Bloom's Taxonomies" as their curriculum (political system) in the classroom. You can tell which system is being used in the classroom based upon how your children respond to your authority when they get home from school. "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." "Bloom's Taxonomies" are "a psychological classification system" used "to develop attitudes and values . . . which are not shaped by the parents." ("Bloom's Taxonomies") "Bloom's Taxonomies" is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, negating Hebrews 12:5-11, negating Romans 7:14-25, negating John 3:15-21, resulting in Romans 1:19-32; that is the praxis of self 'justification,' negating the Father's authority, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, negating the need of a savior, resulting in the damnation of the soul. 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12: "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
Contact: deangotcher@gmail.com
The Dialectic Process - What Is It? (Audio Part 1, Part 2; with me speaking.)
An Overview Of The Dialectic Process - Part 1 (pdf) (Audios Part 1, Part 2, Part 3; computer generated voice.)
An Overview Of The Dialectic Process - Part 2 (pdf) which is a repetition of Part 1 with more information (Audios Short intro to Intro, Intro to the Audios, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8; with me speaking.)
How children are being educated today establishes the political system of tomorrow. (Audio.)
While traditional education is based upon the Father's authority, with children humbling, dying to their self, denying their lusts in order to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, that is in order to do what they have been told, accepting the Father's authority, known as the Patriarchal paradigm as their political system where the Father not only authors the standards for behavior but also enforces them, creating a guilty conscience in the children when they do wrong, disobey, sin, carrying the Father's authority into society as they either fellowship with or refuse to fellowship with others, rewarding, correcting, or casting them out (that is refusing to hire, vote for, or relate with them) based upon their behavior in the light of the Father's standards wherever the children go, while contemporary education, on the other hand is based upon the children's carnal nature, their propensity or natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint, establishing doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, the Heresiarchal paradigm (of 'change') as its political system where children question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack the Father and His authority whenever it shows up in order to remove it from the environment, that is remove it from "the group" or from society in order for everyone to do wrong, disobey, sin without having a guilty conscience, with each others affirmation. In the first paradigm unity is based upon righteousness, doing right and not wrong according to what the Father says, causing division between those doing the Father's will and those who are not, with majority vote resolving the issue in society, while in the other it is based upon sensuousness, "self interest," lust, having to not only reject the Father's authority but also remove it from society in order for everyone to "get along." A paradigm is a political system, a particular way of feeling, thinking, and acting toward your self, others, the world, and authority. 1 John 2:16 "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world" clearly defines the difference between both political systems, traditional education, which is based upon doing what the Father says, doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, doing what you are told and contemporary education, which is based upon doing what you feel like doing instead, lusting after pleasure (which includes the praises of men) and hating restraint. These two paradigms correlate with two different ways of communication, discussion and dialogue (which are of major importance to understand, if you want to understand what is going on).
In brief, discussion is of both the laws of nature and the Law of God (both laws being established by God once and for all) while dialogue is of the law of the flesh (which, being stimulated by and responding to the current situation and-or object, people, or person present [imagined or real] is ever subject to 'change'). Which one you turn to, to the Law of God or to the law of the flesh when it comes to behavior has direct effect upon how you behave, either doing right and not wrong according to what you have been told (which, if there are any questions is made subject to discussion, what the Father says, with the "Father" having the final say) or lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, hating restraint, which includes hating the restrainer (which, if there are any questions is made subject to dialogue, to what the children want, with the "children" having the final say). There is a world of difference between the two paradigms and the two methods of communication, with the first one being of the "old" world order and the latter being of the so called "new," as "new" as what happened in the garden in Eden where the master facilitator of 'change' "helped" the woman decide for herself how to behave, using dialogue, with her having the final say, doing what she wanted to do according to her flesh and the world that was stimulating it instead of having a discussion with the Father, with the "Father" having the final say, doing what the Father said. The same applies to us today. Carl Rogers, in his book on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy explained the effect psychology, with its use of dialogue has upon behavior. Carl Rogers: "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual comes to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" The only agenda and purpose for the use of psychology is to 'liberate' children from the Father's authority. Karl Marx, likewise establishing behavior upon "human nature," upon man's carnal nature which the world stimulates saw the need to remove the Father's authority from the environment, that is from society if man was to become himself, only of the world. Karl Marx: "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the Holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed in theory and in practice." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4) The Marxist György Lukács (founder of the "Frankfurt School") explained what the Marxist had to overcome in order to rule over the world. ". . . the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its 'obedience to laws.'" (György Lukács, History and Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) As the Marxist Erick Fromm put it "We are proud that in his conduct of life man has become free from external authorities, which tell him what to do and what not to do." "All that matters is . . . to give up 'God'." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom)
Therefore if you base behavior upon dialogue, where you have the final say, you will do what you want (making behavior subject to sight). If you base behavior upon discussion, where the Father has the final say, you will do what you are told, you will do what He says (making behavior subject to faith). Which one you turn to, when it comes to behavior has direct effect upon where you will spend eternity, either with the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, His Holy Angels, and the redeemed in His Glory, providing you repent, deny your lusts and the lusts of others, enduring their rejection of you for doing so, and follow the Son, doing the Father's will or having been cast in the lake of fire (Revelation 10:15 "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire"), prepared for the master facilitator of 'change' and all who follow after him spending eternity there. Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Ephesians 2:8, 9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Romans 5:12 "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:" Timothy 4:3, 4 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." Excerpt from Romans 7:14-25 "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." While discussion can save no one, without it man can not hear from God, repent, and be saved, having through dialogue, 'justified' his self, his lusts instead, dying in his sins. John 2:18 "And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."
When education or "academics" is made subject to dialogue, that is when it has been taken captive to the "children's" feelings (that is their lusts) of the 'moment,' to their "affective domain" (as it is today) there is an eternal consequence. The children can not hear and therefore heed any warning from the Father since the "eternal present," their lust for pleasure is standing in the way, preventing them from hearing what they are being told, that is the consequence of their thoughts and actions. There is no "fear of God" before their eyes. This is the condition of the unrepentant heart. Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" We can not see our heart as being "wicked," that is "desperately wicked" because our lust for pleasure is standing in the way, 'justifying' the hate. The more we focus upon what we are lusting after the more "desperately wicked" we become when we fear someone is going to take or is taking what we are lusting after away. This is the key catalyst for rebellion, anarchy, and revolution which those promoting revolution know of and utilize, creating what is know as the "tyranny of the masses." A room full of dialogue, full of lust being 'justified' when it comes to behavior will always turn and rend those who bring what the Father's says, that is discussion into the room. Jeremiah 6:16 "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Having made lust, their feelings of the 'moment,' their "affective domain" the medium through which to 'reason' they can not hear any warning of where they are going, the consequence of their carnal thoughts and carnal actions. As Wilfred Bion stated in his book, A Memoir of the Future the facilitator of 'change's' agenda is to "prevent someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space," that is to prevent anyone proclaiming the truth from speaking in and gaining control of the room. "The empty space" is where the children are deciding what they are going to do in the next 'moment,' either doing what they were told, what the Father said or to doing what you want, satisfying your lusts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating. Education or "academics" is now based upon the latter. Martin Luther warned us of such praxis. Martin Luther: "I greatly fear that the universities, unless they teach the Holy Scriptures diligently and impress them on the young students, are wide gates to hell. I would advise no one to send his child where the Holy Scriptures are not supreme. Every institution that does not unceasingly pursue the study of God's word becomes corrupt." (Luther's Works: Vol. 1, The Christian in Society) What Martin Luther stated is so foreign a thought to us today it is hard to comprehend that it once was how education used to be. Good riddance you say. That is what Karl Marx said. In his article Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right' Karl Marx wrote: "The only practically possible emancipation is the unique theory which holds that man is the supreme being for man." In his article The Holy Family he wrote: "Education as yet is unable and unwilling to bring all estates and distinctions into its circle. Only Christianity and morality are able to found universal kingdoms on earth." His hero was Heraclitus who wrote: "Every grown man of the Ephesians should hang himself and leave the city to the boys." His dream and agenda has now become actualized.
Having read over six hundred social-psychology books, taught classes in a University at a 480 level, and given over five thousands lectures across the nation from coast to coast on the dialectic process, even to State and Federal Legislators and Senators and Federal Judges, explaining the process being used in contemporary education to 'change' America (and the world) it is summed up best with the verse I sighted earlier, 1 John 2:16. If you do not start here you will not understand the process of 'change,' what it is all about. 1 John 2:16 "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." All of history is defined by this verse. While Kings (as fathers) might be tyrants, their office (given to them by God to do His will in) is not. Scriptures bare witness to this. It is not the office that is the problem. It is man's heart. Even George Washington understood that governmental abuse is a result of the human heart. George Washington in his Farewell Address made the following statement, "despotism . . . predominates in the human heart." Our Framing Fathers did not negate the office of the King (as all socialist countries do), they made the father of the home the King. The intent of the Constitution was to limit the power of those in government along with its "Bill of Rights" in order to protect the father's unalienable rights, that is to protect his God given right of authority over his family, property, and business, according to his convictions teaching the next generation of citizens (and elected officials) to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, willing to stand alone, that is hold their ground "in the face of a dissenting majority." (Irvin D. Yalom) This is the reason for majority vote, which, whether the person wins or loses establishes right and wrong behavior according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth as the outcome. The consensus process, on the other hand is based upon everyone compromising or suspending (as upon a cross) established commands, rules, facts, and truth that get in the way of their carnal desires, that is their "self interests" of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, bypassing the Father's authority system, using the office they occupy to "better" their self in the name of "the people," to "actualize" their lusts at the expense of the father and his children. that is the citizens. This is what Machiavelli, Bismarck, Robespierre, Lenin, Mao, and Alexander the Great did, along with countless others did down through history. Alexander's teacher, Aristotle (for example), knowing "human nature," stimulus-response (which is the foundation for psychology, grounded upon the opinion that "an 'unhealthy' person is the result of his having been raised up in an 'unhealthy' environment therefore if you can 'create' a 'healthy' environment for him to be raised up in, you can 'create' a 'healthy' person," which the Protestant Reformation rejected since only God can change the human heart, not anyone or anything in the creation; the Marxist Max Horkheimer wrote in his book Reasoning and Self Preservation, "Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism."), taught Alexander the Great to simply offer to the leaders of the nations he was about to conquer, that is he was about to take "ownership" of (as the UN does using the same method), to "help" them actualize their self interests if they would give him "the people" as his servants, which most leaders did (replacing principle, that is right-wrong with "self interest" or lust, as was done in the garden in Eden where the serpent took "ownership" of the garden as the woman, with Adam following after her made lust their foundation of thought instead of doing what the Father said, with God judging all for their wicked thoughts and wicked actions, for thinking they are God in defiance to Him—God told Noah's sons, for example to scatter, trusting in him instead of building a tower, making a name for themselves, thereby replacing individualism, under God with socialism, Marxism, Globalism, the so called "new world order" which is based upon lust, that is "self interest," "What can I get out of this situation, this object, these people, this person for my self?" which is "the pride of life," which can be "Look what I have done for the Lord" instead of "Look what the Lord has done."). Abraham Maslow wrote: "Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature) "In a democratic society a patriarchal culture should make us depressed instead of glad; a patriarchal culture is an argument against the higher possibilities of human nature, of self actualization." "In our democratic society, any enterprise—any individual—has its obligations to the whole." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management) "Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory to round it out. And of course, vice versa." "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, that is including the most basic scheme as true-good social conditions are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions stunt human nature, ... This is to say, one could reinterpret Marx into a self-actualization-fostering Third- and Fourth-Force psychology-philosophy." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow) Karl Marx, rejecting God, the Son of God, the Holy Spirit, and the soul of man made in the image of God, recognizing only that which all men have in common, their lust for pleasure and the world that stimulates it, hating restraint wrote: "It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx)
The Marxist Ervin Laszlo (the father of "climate change") explained the consensus process, the method being used to rebuild the "tower of Babel." He wrote: "Bypassing the traditional channels of 'top-down' decision making, our objective center's upon transforming public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests, transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps." (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy For The Future: The Systems Approach to World Order) "Human Rights" and the consensus process are antithetical to the "Bill of Rights" and limited government since it 'justifies' the child's carnal nature, negating the office of the Father over his children, property, and business. As the Marxist Kenneth Benne in Human Relations in Curriculum Change stated: we "must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." Those "of and for the world" seek to destroy the office of the Father itself believing the office of the Heavenly Father or God is 'created' when children accept and honor the office of the earthly father. Their 'reasoning' is, without authority above their carnal nature they can do wrong, disobey, sin, that is lust without having a guilty conscience. It is the guilty conscience that carries the Father's authority into society. In their mind when there is no Father's authority, there is no law above "human nature," there is no sin, thus there is no right to fire someone or not hire them or not relate with them because they are immoral or sinning. This is the belief of those pushing the religion of evolution and climate change (which only exist in man's effort to negate, that is remove from man's conversation with himself and others the issue of sin). Question these theories treated as facts and you will be silenced, censored, and cast out, that is rejected, preventing you from holding any position of influence. In Thomas Kuhn's words you will "cease" to be. Thomas Kuhn was the student of Ralph Tyler (who Benjamin Bloom, the author of "Bloom's Taxonomies" dedicated his first "Taxonomy" to, by which all teachers are certified and schools accredited today, based upon their acceptance of and use of it as the curriculum, their political system in the classroom). Thomas Kuhn, explaining his "'paradigm shift' concept of 'Pre- and Post-paradigm periods,'" where facts-based science is replaced with feelings-based science (what the Bible calls "science falsely so called," 1 Timothy 6:20, 21 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith."), quoting Max Planck wrote: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." whereupon "the man who continues to resist after his whole profession has been converted is ipso facto ceased to be a scientist." (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution) In other words established commands, rules, facts, and truth, two times two equals four and can not be any other number, the XX chromosome is a girl the XY chromosome is a body, right-wrong is out and man's opinion, I feel like - I do not feel like or I like - I do not like (and everything in between and beyond) is in. The real intent of those "of and for the world" is to 'justify' their carnal nature, that is human nature, that is lust in order to do wrong, disobey, sin, that is lust without being judged, condemned, or cast out, that is so they can sin with impunity, with the affirmation of men. In contemporary education righteousness, having to do the Father's will is out and sin, that is lust is in. Doing what you are told is out and stimulus-response is in. Faith is out and sensuousness is in. Use "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom makes lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, the law of the flesh, sin the outcome of education. Despite what you might think or say there is no other purpose or agenda. While with animals, when it comes to behavior stimulus-response is not sin, with man, made in the image of God it is sin when man disobeys God. By making man subject to stimulus-response, behavior subject to dialogue, those "of and for the world" seek to remove sin, the Father's authority as an issue.
Romans 5:13 "For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." Romans 7:7 "I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Romans 3:23 and 4:19 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Karl Marx, 'justifying' sin, that is "human nature" wrote: "Not feeling at home in the sinful world, Critical Criticism must set up a sinful world in its own home." "Critical Criticism is a spiritualistic lord, pure spontaneity, actus purus, intolerant of any influence from without." In other words, if all are sinners then what gives anyone the right to judge, condemn, and cast another person out (that is not to hire them or to fire them or not to relate with them) for sinning, for doing wrong or disobeying. "Critical Criticism" is simply the level of resentment where a person, dialoguing with his self, 'justifying' his lust is willing to attack and remove (even kill or have killed) the person who is standing in his way, what the Bible calls being "desperately wicked." Which is the human heart, void of Godly restraint. Luke 16:15 "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." This is why David "hid God's Word in his heart." Psalms 119:11 "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee."
By man 'justifying' his heart, his lusts, which dialectic 'reasoning,' that is his use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" does, refusing to recognize and accept Godly restraint God simply turns him over to his own demise. Romans 1:28-32 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Jeremiah 6:10, 13-19 "Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12: "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." Hosea 4:6 "seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Psalms 81:12 "So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: and they walked in their own counsels." Proverbs 1:26-30 "I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof." Psalms 36:1-4 "The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful. The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good. He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil." Psalms 10:3, 4 "For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth. The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts." This describes any "teacher," acting as a facilitator of 'change,' using "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom and anyone following after them participating in the process of 'change' themselves.
God is perfect and demands perfection (reflected in the traditional teacher demanding you to get all the answers right on the test in order to receive a score of 100). Matthew 5:48 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." The very laws of nature, established once and for all, not being a "respecter of person" reveal His nature. Colossians 3:25, 1 Peter 1:17, Romans 2:11, 2 Chronicles 19:7, and James 2:9 all say the same. "But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons." "And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: " "For there is no respect of persons with God." "Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts." "But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors." Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" No matter where you go in the universe the laws of nature are the same, not being a "respecter of person" they are established once and for all. Despite what we might think a tornado is pure order. Every splintered board and piece of glass landed exactly where the laws of nature sent it. Every atom, quark, guon, up-down, top-bottom did exactly what is was designed to do. The only thing out of order is the law of the flesh, "human nature," which is subject to "feelings," which are ever subject to 'change.' James 1:17 "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Luke 11:35 "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Proverbs 16:25 "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Romans 7:19 "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing." Establishing the law of the flesh, "human nature" as the foundation for thought and action those "of and for the world" reject the Word of God because it condemns them, that is their carnal thoughts and their carnal actions. It is only in perfection man can be saved, something he can not do in and of himself. It has to be an act of God Himself. The only way those "of and for the world" can remove from their mind their having to be perfect, engendering a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, for not doing the Father's will is to reject judgment, condemnation, being cast out for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, for not doing what the Father says. The Marxist Kurt Lewin, in his book A Dynamic Theory of Personality explained in two sentences how the guilty conscience, what he called a "negative valence" is 'created' and how it can be destroyed, that is replaced with the "super-ego," which is the moral standards of society, which requires compromise in order to build relationship with others, necessitating the suspension (as upon a cross) anyone insisting that everyone abide by the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, doing the Father's will instead of their own. Kurt Lewin: "The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child [the guilty conscience] thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult." "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (that is, if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." By following the pattern of Genesis 3:1-6, drawing what the person is lusting after to the surface of his communication with himself and with others (this is where dialogue, when it comes to behavior comes in, where we dialogue our "feelings," our lusts and resentments, from love to hate and everything in between, with "like" being the most common word we hear everywhere you go these days), then telling him he can do or have what he wants, what he is lusting after without being judged, condemned, cast out, "Ye shalt not surely die" (with everyone being "positive" and not "negative") he is 'liberated' from the Father's authority and therefore 'liberated' from the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning. Lust is in and sin is out. By 'justifying' the law of the flesh the law of God is negated, making man subject to the flesh, damning the soul. By making "feelings," the "affective domain," that is the "building of relationship upon self interest" a part of "academics" God's Word, the authority of God the Father is replaced with the lusts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, leaving the facilitator of 'change' in control, buying and selling the souls of all who come under his influence. This is where the world is today with the citizens increasingly coming under control of government contractors, the "military establishment" President Eisenhower warned us of, now taking over all establishments be it education, the workplace, the medical field, and so forth, controlling the lawmakers, who with their support and encouragement change laws not only regarding property and business but of morals as well (the supreme court being at the forefront, which President Eisenhower, when he was asked if he had made any mistakes while in office, responding, "Yes. Two. They are both sitting in the Supreme Court": Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justice William Brannen, who instead of abiding by the restraints of the Constitution, protecting the father's authority in the home "made" laws (that is usurped the legislative branch of government) in order to destroy the father's authority in the home. George Washington warned us of such men, stating in his farewell address: "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation [by those in one branch of government usurping authority over another]; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
While traditional education can save no one it establishes or reinforces a way of thinking that seeks after righteousness, that is doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, for lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating instead of doing what you are told, leading to repentance, doing the Father's will. Jeremiah 10:23 "... it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." We can not become righteous on our own. It can only be imputed by God to us, by our faith in Him, which requires our willingness to have discussion with Him, with Him having the final say, which requires faith. Ephesians 2:8, 9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." "Academics" having rejected (excluded from the classroom) righteousness, discussion, doing what the Fathers says, with the Father having the final say has made sin, dialogue, the children doing their will, lusting after pleasure without fear of judgment and eternal death the political system of today. Karl Marx made it clear. Karl Marx: "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') In other words it is "enjoying the present," which includes lust that "reconciles" man to the world, rejecting reconciliation with the Heavenly Father, which requires perfection, which is only made possible through His Son's, Jesus Christ's obedience to Him in all things commanded, covering our sin by His shed blood on the cross, redeeming us from eternal death, the Lake of Fire that is never quenched prepared for the master facilitator of 'change,' the lawless one and all who doing their will instead of God's follow after him. György Lukács (a Marxist) explained what had to be removed from the environment, that is from the classroom, the workplace, government, the home, even the "church" if man was to become "self-actualize," his self, thinking and acting according to his carnal nature. György Lukács (the founder of the "Frankfurt School," a group of Marxists, who, fleeing Fascist Germany came to America in the early 30's spreading Marxism throughout our Universities, businesses, and government) wrote: ". . . the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its 'obedience to laws.'" (György Lukács, History and Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) This follows in suet Immanuel Kant's "lawfulness without law" where the law of the flesh reigns without the law of God the Father getting in the way and Karl Marx's "Laws must not fetter human life; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities of the people change," where laws must be readily adaptable to 'change,' according to the persons lusts of the 'moment' that the current situation and-or object, person, or people are stimulating. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment; Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')
Marxism is children lusting after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating without having a guilty conscience, with "the people's" affirmation, hating God the Father and anyone believing in and obeying Him. This is the contemporary "be positive, not negative," "group grade" classroom which uses "Bloom's Taxonomies," Marxist indoctrination as its curriculum, with the students dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, silencing, censoring, casting any student out (refusing to recognize them) who insists upon everyone doing the Father's will. Abraham Maslow expressed the attitude of those who make the "affective domain," that is lust a part of "academics." Abraham Maslow: "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students [that is those who adhere to the Father's authority] that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management) It is the same attitude as expressed by Carl Rogers "Experience is, for me, the highest authority." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) When you exclude the Father, what the Father says from academics all you have is "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," human nature, that is only that which is "of the world." Even in our "Christian" Universities, with professors claiming to be believers separate God from academics and academics from God, making man subject to stimulus-response. While God established all the laws of nature according to stimulus-response, including man's flesh he created man with an eternal soul to do what he is told instead. Romans 10:17 "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." The soul KNOW by being told. The flesh by stimulus-response. By asking you how you feel and what you think when it comes to behavior, the flesh is in and the soul is out, The "eternal present," which is passing away is in and where you will spend eternity, eternal life or eternal death is out.
In order for those "of and for the world" to live off of the labor of man (that is what this is all about), with man serving, protecting, defending, praising, worshiping, and willingly dying for them, they have to seduce, deceive, and manipulate him into believing that stimulus-response, lust for pleasure is all there is to life. In the praxis of "behavioral science," man's lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint they are able to use him, as natural resource for their own pleasure and gain. Gaining access to what he is lusting after, say via "public-private partnership" and other government programs, promoted to "help" him get ahead (with his permission now seeing what he has they can gain access to, what they see they own) those "of and for the world" are able to use him for their own gain. Karl Marx wrote of the necessity of removing the Father's authority in order for stimulus-response, "What can I get out of this for me?" to be all there is. Karl Marx : "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways, the objective however, is change." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) Imprinted on Marx's tomb so it must be important. In other words since all earthly fathers differ in their standards regarding right and wrong behavior it is "human nature," man's natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint, stimulus-response, what all children have in common that must be used to establish what is right and what is wrong behavior, with lust being right and the Father and His authority, which judges, condemns, and cast those out who lust after pleasure instead of doing what they are told being wrong. Thus Mao Zedong, the Communist Chinese dictator could say: "Words and actions should help to unite, and not divide, the people" and Vladimir Lenin, the Communist Russian dictator could say: "The peasantry [that is the traditional family] constantly regenerates the bourgeoisie [the Father's authority system, insisting their children do right and not wrong according to what they have been told]—in positively every sphere of activity and life." "We must learn how to eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs, and traditions everywhere." (Vladimir Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks' Success May 12, 1920) Eradication is the "name of the game." When dialogue is used to define and establish behavior, since there is no Father's authority in dialogue the deed is done, eradication is completed, self is "actualized," lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint is all there is. Regarding the 'purpose' of contemporary education, the Marxist Theodor Adorno, who, in his second "Taxonomy," Benjamin Bloom identified as his "Weltanschauung" or world view wrote: "Our aim is not merely to describe prejudice [prejudice being the children holding onto their Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, insisting others accept and obey them as well] but to explain it in order to help in its eradication. Eradication means re-education [re-education meaning discussion, where what the Father says, with the Father having the final say is replaced with dialogue, with how the children feel and what they think, when it comes to behavior in their classroom experience]." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
2 Timothy 3:13 "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." Since, according to the Marxist the Father's authority is always the result of parents teaching their children right from wrong behavior according to their standards the facilitator of 'change' is needed to undue the "damage" parents have done to their children The facilitator of 'change's' agenda is to seduce children (including those in adult bodies) into 'justifying' their carnal nature so he can do wrong, disobey, sin, that is so he can lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating with their affirmation, without their judging, condemning, and casting him out (not hiring him, voting for him, or building relationship with him) when they grow up. The facilitator of 'change,' perceiving his self as being the personification of "the people," who, like him lust after the carnal pleasures of the moment the world stimulates, hating restraint, sees it as his duty to 'justify' "the people's" natural inclination to lust after pleasure in order to 'justify' his natural inclination to lust after pleasure. When you question the facilitator of 'change's' actions he will respond with "It is not just about you," really meaning "It is all about me, so I can lust after pleasure without having a guilty conscience, with your affirmation. If you refuse to affirm me, that is my lusts or get in my way 'the people' will remove (negate) you (since having 'justified' their lusts I now 'own' them). It appears I must keep an eye on you from now on for the 'good' of 'the people,' that is for my 'good.'" The role of the facilitator of 'change' is to make behavior subject to dialogue, how you feel and what you think instead of discussion, what the Father says in order for him to do wrong, disobey, sin, that is lust after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world stimulates without having a guilty conscience, with your affirmation. By the facilitator of 'change' 'creating' an environment (a "positive," safe place-zone-space) which removes the Father's threat of judgment, condemnation, and being cast out for immoral behavior, you are now free to "be yourself." From then on the facilitator of 'change' "owns" you. It is all the serpent, the master facilitator of 'change' did with the woman in the garden in Eden, replacing "thou shalt surely die," what the Father says with "ye shalt not surely die," that is "We can talk about anything here without being judged, condemned, or cast out" and he "owned" her—with Adam, following after her. All he did was use "Bloom's Taxonomies" so the woman could define and establish what is right and what is wrong behavior from her carnal nature, without the Father's authority, what the Father says getting in the way. Destroy the father's authority in the home and you destroy the nation. Destroy the Father's authority in the mind of man and you destroy his soul. That is the facilitator of 'change's,' the "wolf in sheepskin's" agenda. They can deny it but they can not refute it. It is what they are doing. The lake of fire that is never quenched is waiting for them, prepared for the master facilitator of 'change' and all who listened to and followed after him, lusting after pleasure, refusing not only to do what they are told, refusing to do what the Father says but refusing to recognize the Father's authority at all, thus refusing to recognize their need of a savior. 1 John 2:22 "He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."
The dialectic process is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, of self or lust 'justification,' negating (in the mind of the children, including those in adult bodies) Hebrews 12:5-11, the Father's authority, doing what the Father said, thereby negating Romans 7:14-25, the guilty conscience for sinning, thereby negating John 3:15-21, the need of a savior. It is man selling his soul for the pleasures of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating. Why is it of concern? It is the formula being used in "contemporary" education, using dialogue, that is dialectic 'reasoning,' where, when it comes to behavior the classroom is used to 'justify' your children's natural inclination to lust after pleasure and hate restraint (hate missing out on pleasure) instead of using discussion, with your children doing what you say, with you having the final say, doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, doing what they are told, thus 'liberating' your children from your authority. Those "of and for the world" cannot "own" your children (that is turn them into "human resource") while they are doing your will (discussing with their self what you said, with you having the final say). Kenneth Benne (a Marxist): "Persons will not come into full partnership in the process until they register dissatisfaction." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) Those "of and for the world" need your children's natural inclination to lust after pleasure (dialoguing with their self regarding what they are lusting after, upset with you for getting in their way) in order to seduce, deceive, and manipulate them, in order to use them for their own pleasure, casting them aside when they no longer bring them pleasure, someone or something else brings them more pleasure, or they get in their way (doing to them what they did to you for getting in the way of their lusts, selling their soul for the pleasures of the 'moment'— dying in their sins, facing Revelation 10:15 when it comes to their soul). This also applies to you. 2 Peter 2:3 "And through covetousness [your lusting after pleasure] shall they with feigned words ['justifying' your lusts] make merchandise of you." All I have to do is find what you are dialoguing with yourself about, regarding what you want (or want to do) that you have been told you can not have (or do), 'justify' your having (or doing) it, and I "own" you. That includes your children in the classroom. I would not do that to you or your children (as those in contemporary education do), but you get the point. It is a lethal formula with eternal consequence. It not only destroys a family and a nation, it damns the person's soul.
The deception of the heart is that while you think you are in control of your life when you are doing what you want that comes naturally to you you are under the control of it, with stimulus-response, all that is of the world in control of you and anyone controlling it. It is your lust for pleasure that controls your carnal life thus anything that comes between you and what you are lusting after, the more you sense it threatening to take what you are lusting after away progressively moves from being disliked, resented, to being hated while the more it offers to help you "actualize" it, the more it comes between you and what you are lusting after the more it takes "ownership" of you. nyone gaining access to what you are lusting after, what you are dialoguing with yourself about, offering to help you "actualize" it, gaining control of your access to it, like a drug pusher ends up controlling you. Carl Rogers: "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors [our potential ability to influence or control the behavior of groups] will follow." "We can choose to use our growing knowledge to enslave people in ways never dreamed of before, depersonalizing them, controlling them by means so carefully selected that they will perhaps never be aware of their loss of personhood." "We know how to change the opinions of an individual in a selected direction, without his ever becoming aware of the stimuli which changed his opinion." "We know how to influence the ... behavior of individuals by setting up conditions which provide satisfaction for needs of which they are unconscious, but which we have been able to determine." We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled though they are following a code much more scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do." "By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior—the motives, the desires, the wishes. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises." You are only in control when you humble and die to your self, deny your lusts and do what is right and not wrong according to what you are told, when you are no longer under the control of others who depend upon your 'justification' of their lusts in order to have relationship with them, turning on you for following after the Son of God, doing the Father's will instead. Freedom is found in discussion, where the Father has the final say not in your lusts which control your thoughts and actions, making you a drug addict, looking for the next fix, hating anyone who gets in your way—the reason all those who are "of and for the world" are never happy but full of hate. John 8:36 "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." While lust makes you subject to the "eternal present," facing eternal death, repenting of your sins, not yielding to the lusts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, doing the Father's will instead leads to eternal life. Romans 6:16 "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" 1 "Academics" void of doing God's will leads to eternal death. It is the difference between Proverbs 3:6 "In all thy ways acknowledge him." Luke 9:23-26 "And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels."
Our body naturally produces a chemical called dopamine, a neurotransmitter that is "emancipated" or "liberated" into a small gap called a synaptic gap between two nerve endings, the posterior of the first nerve "emancipating" it, the anterior of the second receiving it. Dopamine engenders the sensation of pleasure. All habitual drugs are tied to it (emancipating it, imitating it, preventing its re-uptake). The child is not in love with the toy. He is in love with the dopamine the toy stimulates in him. Man is not in love with the situation and-or the object, people, or person. He is in love with the pleasure (dopamine emancipation) the situation and-or object, people, or person (whether imagined or real) is stimulating, that is "emancipating" in him. Lust is tied to dopamine. So is money. The more money we have the more dopamine or pleasure we can experience. Even thinking about it stimulates dopamine. Those "of and for the world," while they say they are working for "the people" are in actually working for the sensation of dopamine. Thus they work to place themselves between "the people" and their "needs," since if the people have control of money, they do not have access to it. Money, in their mind, when "the people" have control over it is simply stored up dopamine, stored up drug money they do not have access. In offering to "help" "the people" with their "needs" they are able to come between them and their access to money, guaranteeing perpetual dopamine emancipation for themselves, with fancy houses, fancy cars, fancy boats, fancy trips, and hanging around fancy women and fancy men dancing around in their heads. They are not in love with "the people." They are in love with the sensation of dopamine which gaining access to "the people's" money stimulates. Like children in control of their parents credit card money is simply a tool to control in order to control "the people" in order to guarantee their daily supply of dopamine emancipation (the true meaning of the phrase, "human resource," contemporary slaves). Just thinking about what they are lusting after stimulates dopamine. While the Father gets you off the drug, having to humble your self, deny your lusts in order to get the job done, do what you are told, those "of and for the world" keep you on it, being then able to guarantee their access to it. Like a drug addict once they have control of "the people," their access to drug money, try coming between them and their control of "the people" and see what happens. The will do whatever it takes to get rid of you or anyone else who gets in their way, including the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, the righteous. Like Genesis 3:1-6, what they see they "own," resulting in Genesis 6:5; 8:21. "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." "... the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;" Luke 17:26, 27 "And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all." There is nothing wrong with dopamine. God created it in us in order for us to enjoy His creation and give Him thanks and praise. Thanking Him for our daily bread. It is when we lust after it instead of doing His will it becomes sin.
Moving focus from the one above to the many below, starting with "the group" instead of with the Father makes the child's carnal nature the moral of society. Pay attention to the following observations made by the Marxist, Kurt Lewin, the father of "group dynamics," "force field analysis," and the "unfreezing, moving, and refreezing" of the individual, regarding the effect "the group" has upon the individual. By moving the focus of attention of the individual from the one above to the many below when it came to behavior, he noted that the individual is 'changed.' Kurt Lewin: "The group to which an individual belongs is the ground for his perceptions, his feelings, and his actions." "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." "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." "Change in methods of leadership [I add, replacing the father with the facilitator of 'change'] 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." (Quotations by Kurt Lewin from varied sources) "Group members must be able to synthesize individual 'felt' needs with common group 'felt' needs." (Warren Bennis) ". . . few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity 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." (Irvin D. Yalom) Cognitive dissonance—"The lack of harmony between what one does and what one believes." "The pressure to change either one’s behavior or ones belief" (Ernest R. Hilgard)
"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 [paradigm] of an individual or a group." (Benne) When, in the classroom you replace the traditional teacher, as a Father telling children what they can and can not do, holding them accountable for their thoughts and actions with the facilitator of 'change,' who 'justifies' the children's carnal thoughts and carnal actions, their "affective domain" you 'change' the world (as Karl Marx would say you "turn the world upside down"). That is what the 'change' process, the dialectic process is all about, negating the Father's authority in the mind of the children so they can sin, that is lust without having a guilty conscience, with "the groups" affirmation, since everyone is doing the same thing, dialoguing their opinions to a consensus (which does not recognize nor accept the Father's authority). Instead of having one despot ruling over "the people" we now have a "group despot," the "tyranny of the masses" with a facilitator of 'change' in "ownership," in control over all. Like the woman in the garden in Eden, with Adam following, what she saw she "owned." As was pointed out before and will be pointed out later the framers of the Constitution, with its "Bill of Rights," did not get rid of the King, they make the father of the home King, limiting the power of those in government so he could rule over his family, his property, and his business according to his convictions, training up his children to know right from wrong according to what they are told. While he might be wrong, his children knowing what is right still retain the right-wrong way of thinking. This, those "of and for the world" have worked from the Federal level down, using the classroom to undermine and negate the Father's authority in the mind of children (other than to hate it) so they can rule the world without being judged, condemned, and cast out for their wicked thoughts and wicked actions, removing anyone who gets in their way, including the unborn, the elderly, the innocent, and the righteous without having a guilty conscience (which is a product of the Father's authority).
When it comes to behavior, dialogue, that is 'justifying' the child's carnal nature negates discussion, negates the Father's authority. As stated above, all teachers are certified and schools accredited today based upon the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" as their curriculum in the classroom. Benjamin Bloom, the author of "Bloom's Taxonomies" admitted forty years after the publication of his first "taxonomy" that it was "unproven at the time it was published and may well be unprovable." In the second "taxonomy" he admitted that his "taxonomies" were the ideology of the "Frankfurt School," a group of Marxists who (merging Marxism with psychology and psychology with Marxism, both of which negate the Father's authority) came to America in the early 30's, sighting two members, Theodor Adorno and Erick Fromm as his "taxonomies" "Weltanschauung" or world view and that his "taxonomies" were designed to open up "Pandora's box" (which is the human heart), a box full of evil which once opened (that is once the Father's authority is no longer respected by the students) can not be closed. They are designed to turn students against their parent's authority and therefore man against God's (since according to Karl Marx belief in God is the result of children accepting and honoring their parents authority, doing what their parents told them to do) Karl Marx never worked a day of his life, thinking himself "entitled," with people owing him homage and no one else. He addressed the abuses of capitalism with hate and violence, as Dale Owen's son who's father tried socialism here in America and failed said of his father's project, all he produced was a culture of lazy, incompetent, and vicious people.
By children obeying their parents, according to Karl Marx they 'created' their parents authority; "The life which he has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." Benjamin Bloom, explaining what effect his "taxonomies" have upon the traditional family wrote: "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." Even Christian schools and Universities (Oral Roberts University, Pensacola Christian University, Liberty University amongst others) are using "Bloom's Taxonomies" for their curriculum. Marxism is based upon the negation (removal) of the Father's authority in the individual's thoughts, directly effecting his actions, turning him against the Father's authority in the home, in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, in the nation, even in the "church." When it comes to behavior, what the Father says no longer enters his mind; Psalms 36:4 ". . . there is no fear of God before his eyes," Psalms 10:4 ". . . God is not in all his thoughts." In his first "taxonomy" Bloom wrote: "We recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places." Bloom simply expressed Marxist ideology as explained by Fredrick Engels "In the eyes of the dialectic philosophy [that is when you use dialogue, "I feel" and "I think" to establish right and wrong behavior], nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." Discussion and dialogue are two different political systems. While we have both, one of the flesh, the other of the soul they can not be used at the same time. If they are confusion ensues. What God "formed from the dust of the ground," that which is "of the earth" uses dialogue to establish right and wrong behavior. What God breathed His breath of life into (becoming a "living soul") uses discussion, where the Father establishes right and wrong behavior, with the Father having the final say.
The flesh knows from "sense experience," stimulus-response. The soul KNOWS from being told. 1 Corinthians 1:18 and 21 "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." The agenda of those who are "of and for the world" is to "prevent someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space [where you are dialoguing with yourself]." (Wilfred Bion, A Memoir of the Future) When you replace discussion, what the Father says with dialogue, what you are lusting after when it comes to behavior, you can not receive what God says (your receiver is broken). After God created man with both the ability to discuss and dialogue (something He did with nothing else in the creation) He "told" him what he could and could not do, which requires discussion only. Only man can read or write a book, tell or be told what is right and what is wrong behavior, everything else is based upon instinct, impulse, and stimulus-response. As long as man did what he was told he could do he could dialogue with himself and with others what he liked and what he did not like. He could not dialogue regarding what he was told he could not do (that would be rebellion). It was the woman who took dialogue where only discussion should have been. By 'justifying' her lust of the 'moment' that the world was stimulating (the desire to "touch" the "forbidden tree," perceiving it was like all the other trees, "I think" it is OK to eat), doing what she wanted to do in disobedience to God (the Father) she entered into sin, with Adam, abdicating his office of authority, following after her (following his "feelings," which was dialogue, with him having the final say) instead of God (doing right and not wrong according to what he was told, which is discussion, with God the Father having the final say).
Dialogue is of the carnal heart, making the person subject to his feelings of the 'moment,' that the world is stimulating (the spectrum from love to hate with "I like" and "I do not like" in between). Discussion is of the regenerated heart, making it subject to what the Father says (an either-or condition of being either right or wrong). Bohm and Peat explained the difference between discussion, where right and wrong behavior is established by the Father, making children subject to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, with Him having the final say, causing division amongst the children based upon who is doing right, what the Father says (making God, God) and who is doing wrong, what they want to do instead (making themselves God) and dialogue, where right and wrong behavior is established upon what all children have in common, their lust for pleasure and dissatisfaction, resentment, or hatred toward restraint, with the children having the final say (at least in their mind, thinking they are God). "In an ordinary discussion people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favor of their views as they try to convince others to change." "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." Karl Marx called dialogue, when pushed to its extreme "Critical Criticism" (what the Word of God calls "desperately wicked"), where the person is fearful that what he is lusting after is going to be taken away or is being taken away forever, making him willing to respond with violence no matter the cost to him, made manifest in the child's grabbing for the item, his raised fist, and his glare of hate toward the parent who is taking what he is lusting after away, being to weak to accomplish the deed of removing the parent (only being able to think about how he can get the item of lust back in his mind, lust blinding him to his wicked thoughts and actions). The idea being since all lust, that is sin, that is are immoral what gives one person the right to restrain or punish another for lusting, for sinning, for being immoral, for doing what is common to all mankind.
Karl Marx, in his article The Holy Family defined the Christian according to his understanding. Karl Marx: "The unspeculative Christian also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, that is of faith, of true love, that is of love of God, of true will-power, that is of will in Christ. Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply." He then explained what it was that could be used to negate the Christians faith in God. "It is not sensuality which is presented . . ., but the attraction of what is forbidden." By the use of generalization, he used fruit trees as an example (as was the same issue in the garden in Eden) he found he could draw the believer into participation with that which would destroy his faith, lust, which includes lust for the approval of men. Making all subject to science, that is stimulus-response, with living organisms that being the approaching of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, which with man includes the pain of missing out on pleasure, when applied to man, replaces the law of God, with God telling man how he is to behave with the law of the flesh, stimulus-response, he was able to make man subject only to that which is "of the world." "Behavior science," making behavior subject to man's lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint, stimulus-response is Marxism. Karl Marx: "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) Embedding "the lust of the flesh" in "sensuous needs" and "the lust of the eyes" in "sense perception," and "the pride of life" in "sense experience" "behavior science" (what the Holy Bible calls "so called science") 'justifies' man's carnal nature, 'justifying' his rejection of the Father's authority, making the law of the flesh, the child's carnal nature and the world that stimulates it all there is. Georg Hegel identified it for Karl Marx. Georg Hegel: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) Karl Marx, based his ideology off of Heraclitus. Heraclitus stated: "Every grown man of the Ephesians should hang himself and leave the city to the boys." By starting with the child's carnal nature, the child's lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint those "of and for the world" are able to remove the Father's authority from the outcome of any decision made. Why is this relevant? In ROE V. WADE our highest court turned to the "belief" of the stoics, which is based upon Heraclitus, rejecting the Christian faith: "there has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics." In 1941 our highest court in Strauss Vs. Strauss wrote as its decision: "Every system of law known to civilized society generated from or had as its component one of two well-known systems of ethics, stoic or Christian. The COMMON LAW draws its subsistence from the latter, its roots go deep into that system, the Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic frictions and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled." What I am share here is not some idol talk. Karl Marx stated: "The justice of state constitutions is to be decided not on the basis of Christianity, not from the nature of Christian society but from the nature of human society." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') This has now become the law of the land. Any time you are in a "be 'positive,' not 'negative,'" facilitated, dialoguing of opinions to a consensus meeting or classroom you are in Marxist training camp.
By the trickery of generalization, making lust a part of "human nature" (disregarding the issue of the soul), "human rights" becomes the "right" to lust without being restrained, requiring the removal of the Father's authority so all can think and act according to what they have in common, their lust for pleasure and their dissatisfaction with, resentment or hatred toward the restrainer, the Father. Lusting after pleasure and hatred toward the Father and His authority for getting in the way is the foundation of "human nature," of "human rights," of common-ism. Doing it in a group makes the reaction more extreme, dying for the group has more honor. Through the use of dialogue, treating the student's lust for pleasure and hatred toward restraint, their opinion when it comes to behavior as a "fact" instead of discussion, where what the Father says, with the Father having the final say the classroom is being used to establish lust, the students "affective domain," subjective "truth" over and therefore against the Father's authority, resulting in the students refusing to be told what is right and what is wrong behavior afterwards. Rejecting objective truth when it comes to behavior the students are turned against their parents and therefore God's authority, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, for lusting in the process. "Bloom's Taxonomies" have no other purpose. Any teacher questioning or challenging there use in the classroom faces loss of job (on the spot).
The stealth (trickery) of the so called "taxonomies" is through the "teacher's" use of dialogue (that is therapy), finding what the students feelings and thoughts are regarding their parents commands, rules, facts, and truth, which get in the way of what they want to do, making the students "affective domain," what Bloom called "Pandora's box" a part of the curriculum, allowing them to share their lusts of the 'moment' and resentment toward authority in a Genesis 3:1-6, "Thou shalt not surely die" or "We can share our opinions here without fear of being judged, condemned, or cast out," "be 'positive,' not 'negative,'" safe place-space-zone environment, garnishing "the groups" affirmation (resulting in what "the group thinks" becoming more important than what their parents say) the teacher "owns" the students, turning them against parental authority. It is the same pattern that was used in the garden in Eden, the removal of the fear of judgment, condemnation, being cast out for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, for lusting in order for everyone to do wrong, disobey, sin, that is lust without having a guilty conscience, with each others affirmation. Romans 7:7 Norman Brown, explaining psychology, its origin wrote: "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" Carl Rogers, explaining the use of psychology to 'liberate' the person from the Father's authority wrote: "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual comes to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'"
Benjamin Bloom, explaining what his "taxonomies" were all about wrote: "Bloom's Taxonomies" are "a psychological classification system" used "to develop attitudes and values . . . which are not shaped by the parents." Once parental authority (and therefore God's authority) is rejected by the students, that is once the students lusts are 'justified,' the children's rejection of and attack upon their parents (and therefore God's authority) for getting in their way, for preventing them from having or doing what they want is 'justified' (in their mind). Jürgen Habermas, explaining the use of dialogue, when it came to behavior wrote: "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." The indoctrination of students with Marxism has been going on in education, unabated since the 50's and 60's with the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom.
Marten Luther warned us of what happens when we leave what the Father says out of academics: "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." Benjamin Bloom noted in his "taxonomy" "Perhaps one of the most dramatic events highlighting the need for progress in the affective domain was the publication of Jacob's Changing Values in College (1957)" removing God and His Word from academics so "those of and for the world" could use "the students," with their participation and affirmation for their own carnal pleasures instead, not caring where they spend eternity after death. (Book 2: Affective Domain)
When you leave what God, the Father and His Son say out of "academics" it becomes "only of the world," that is Marxist, what most "Christian" institutions have become with their use of "Bloom's Taxonomies"—replacing discussion, where the Father establishes right and wrong behavior according to His commands, rules, facts, and truth and has the final say with dialogue, where children establish right and wrong behavior according to their lusts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating, having the final say. It is one or the other. It can not be both. Isaiah 55:8, 9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Matthew 6:24 "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Romans 6:16 "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" John 12:47-50 "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." Matthew 12:50 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Even the Marxist, Max Horkheimer recognized the effect Protestantism, the priesthood of all believers, the individual doing the Heavenly Father's will despite what man might say or do to him had upon America. "Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." Marxism is grounded upon the negation of individualism. According to Karl Marx "It is not individualism [the child having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline, capitulate his "self" in order to do the Father's will] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society [the child's desire for approval from others, requiring him to compromise in order to "build relationship" with them] is the necessary framework through which freedom [that is "freedom" from the Father's authority] and individuality [that is "freedom" to "lust" after pleasure] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx)
When you turn "academics" over to the Marxist, to the facilitator of 'change' where dialogue, the children's carnal nature is used to establish right and wrong behavior instead of discussion, where the Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth are accepted, applied, and obeyed the nation becomes Marxist. What few American's realize is that the framers of the nation, instead of getting rid of the King, as socialist countries do, they, with the 'limiting' of the power of those in government and the "Bill of Rights" made the father of the home the King, granting him (or rather recognizing his God give) power of private convictions, property, and business training up his children to know right from wrong from being told, having a guilty conscience when they did wrong, being able to stand alone in the midst of those doing wrong, telling them to do right instead. This was all undone as Marxists, through the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom took over education, influencing those in government, working from the Federal level down to pass laws destroying the father's authority in the home so they could rule over the nation without being judged, condemned, and cast out for their immoral thoughts and immoral actions, with "the people's," that is the next generation of students affirmation.
The dialectic formula of "Bloom's Taxonomies."
(Replacing discussion, what the Father says, with the Father having the final say with dialogue, your feelings of the 'moment' that the current situation and-or object, people, or person is stimulating, with you having the final say.)
2 Peter 2:3 "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you."
The facilitator of 'change,' through dialogue finds out what you covet.
He 'creates' a "safe" place where you can talk about what you covet without fear of being judged, condemned, and-or cast out.
You 'reason' from your feelings, 'justifying' your lusts of the 'moment' that the world is stimulating.
The facilitator of 'change' "owns" you.
When you die (and you will) you will be cast into the lake of fire that is never quenched, prepared for the master facilitator of 'change' and all who believed in and followed him, never to be heard from or cared about again.
Norman Brown, explaining psychology: "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;"
Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 1997 - 2024 (10/11/2024)