authorityresearch.com

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

The Institution for Authority Research

About, Introduction, Issues, Articles, Schedule, Material, Scheduling, Audios (New), Radio, Archived, Textus Receptus, Class, Warnings, Thanks!

While children of disobedience, seeking after the pleasures of the 'moment,' negate the Father's authority in their thoughts and actions, they bring upon themselves the Father's wrath in the end.

A brief overview (Pdf), outline, and chart might be helpful as you read the following information on dialectic 'reasoning' and its use in 'creating' a so called "New World Order."  The article Higher Order Thinking Skills (still in draft form) explains the process being used in the classroom today, i.e. Common Core and its use of "Bloom's (Marzano's) Taxonomies," to turn all educational institutions into global (environmentalist-socialist) training centers (called "Training Laboratories"), i.e. 'changing' how the next generation of children (future citizens, i.e. future workers of the world) feel, think, and act toward parental authority, i.e. toward the father's/Father's authority (which engenders private property and private business, i.e. individualism, under God), i.e. toward Godly restraint.  For more on the subject of 'change,' i.e. the dialectic process, i.e. the 'liberation' of children from parental authority, i.e. the "new" world order, i.e. "Making the world safe for Democracy," read the issues The Key to 'Change' and The Dialectic Process.  See the issue It's all about your Father and His authority. Period! for the briefest overview of all—there is no Father's authority (and therefore no "guilty conscience" for disobedience, i.e. for being unrighteous and abominable) in dialogue, i.e. through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, the Father's authority and the "guilty conscience" are negated in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of all 'willing' participants, who therefore have no "guilty conscience" in the social action (praxis) of negating the Father (along with all who honour his office and obey him) from society, in this way crime can be used in the advancement of socialism, i.e. "community."  Any comments or questions can be emailed to me at deangotcher@gmail.comP.S. 

I know teachers who have been "fired," i.e. "right-sized" for knowing and sharing the following information.  The educational establishment (including "Christian" schools) are doing all they can do to prevent teachers from gaining access to it, i.e. even censoring this website, labeling it as being "offensive" material.


DIAPRAX EXPOSED
The dialectic process being put into praxis, negating the Father's authority.
(revised 8-23-2014)

by

Dean Gotcher

Preface
(of a fourteen part series: Preface (complete), 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
 

According to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' not until the child can accomplish two things: 1) 'liberate' himself from the father's authority, i.e. negate in his feelings, in his thoughts, and in his actions the father's "top-down" ("above-below"), i.e. "Do what I say or else," "right-wrong" ("good-evil"), i.e. "prejudiced" ("repressing," "alienating," "neurosis" engendering) authority structure and 2) initiate and sustain "equality" with and amongst other children of like feelings, thoughts, and actions, basing 'reality' upon what they have in common with one another and the world, i.e. their carnal "human nature," i.e. their urges and impulses of the 'moment,' i.e. how they are "feeling" and what they are "thinking" (subject to their "feelings," i.e. their "lust" for pleasure and fear of pain), in the "light" of the situation of the 'moment (sight),' i.e. making the approaching/augmentation of pleasure and the avoiding/attenuation of pain, i.e. sensuousness the issue of life instead of the father's/Father's authority (faith), i.e. doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e. righteousness, can a "new" world order be 'created' (be initiated and sustained), i.e. a world where children (mankind), 'liberated' from the Father's authority, i.e. from Godly restraint, can become as "one," i.e. carnal, i.e. of and for the world only—where all are 'liberated' from having a "guilty conscience" for thinking and acting "normal," i.e. for being unrighteous and abominable. 

While the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11) makes the child's carnal nature "wicked" (Jeremiah 17:9), i.e. because of the child's "lust" for pleasure (1 John 2:15-18) which is exposed by his disobedience to the father's/Father's rules, commands, facts, and truth (Romans 7:14-25), those of dialectic 'reasoning' (beginning with the child being a "blank tablet"), make the child good or evil based upon his upbringing, i.e. whether he was allowed to be "normal," i.e. "permissive" ('justifying' his carnal "human nature" over and against the father's/Father's authority) or restrained, i.e. "forced" to do right and not wrong, i.e. "forced" to go against his carnal nature, i.e. "forced" to think and act according to the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, expecting and demanding that others feel, think, and act the same way, i.e. honor the father/Father and his/His authority and obey him/Him instead of "doing their own thing"—either the law (being good) exposes the wickedness of man's heart, or according to dialectic 'reasoning,' it (being evil) prevents man from becoming "normal,"  i.e. from becoming "good" (Genesis 3:1-6—the first praxis of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the 'justification' of "human nature" over and against the Father's authority). 

Dialectic 'reasoning' negates the law of the father/Father in the thoughts and the actions of the children/man—which condemns the child/man for his sinful thoughts and actions.  It 'liberates' the child from it instead, 'liberating' the child not only from the father's/Father's authority but also from the need of a "savior"—from Christ Jesus 'redeeming' him from the Father's wrath (for his sinning against the Father, i.e. disobeying His commands, rules, facts, and truth) and 'reconciling' him to the Father.  Dialectic 'reasoning' negates the need for a savior (other than the facilitate of 'change' who first showed up in the garden in Eden, "redeeming" two "children" from the Father's authority, "reconciling" them to becoming at-one-with their carnal nature and the world).  George Hegel explained it as "lawfulness without law" where the "feeling" of law (of pleasure and pain), natural law that is, the law of the flesh, which is ever 'changing' in response to the ever 'changing' environment (situation) of the 'moment,' is to reign "without" the law of the Father, which inhibits or blocks 'change,' creating a "new" world order where the law of pleasure, i.e. including the pleasure which comes from the approval of men, negates the law of the father/Father, i.e. doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's authority which inhibits and blocks 'change,' keeping the child from 'changing' (compromising) in the 'changing' situation..

Karl Marx wrote: "Laws [which proceed not from the father's/Father's authority (which are 'unchanging,' i.e. which are not in harmony with nature) but which proceed from nature] must not fetter human life [prevent the child from being "himself"]; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities [the carnal "needs," i.e. the opinions] of the people change."  (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')  Only when the child finds commonality (of his carnal nature, i.e. the "lust" of the flesh and eyes and the "pride" of life, i.e. the perception that he can sin, i.e. disobey the father's/Father's commands and rules with impunity) with others (with "community") and 'willingly' works (with "the group," i.e. with the "community") to 'liberate' all children from the father's/Father's authority (from evil), does he become "good," i.e. have no "guilty conscience" for being evil (wicked), i.e. for being "normal."  If laws are to be readily 'adaptable to 'change,' i.e. 'changeable' to the felt "needs" of the children in the 'moment,' then they can only proceed from nature which stimulates the child's feelings, thoughts and actions of the 'moment,' and can not proceed from the father's/Father's authority which restrains or blocks the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment.'  This way of thinking, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. "lawfulness without law," i.e. man creating laws which do not "fetter human life," i.e. laws which do not inhibit or block man's carnal nature (his carnal desires of the 'moment') has major political ramifications for you and your children when put into praxis, i.e. when put into social action. "Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules to best suit the state ["the community"]." (R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law)  If the father/Father defines what is good and what is evil, then the way of the "community," i.e. the way of the world, i.e. "compromise" is evil.  In other words, if we are to think and act according to the father's/Father's authority, while we are in the world, i.e. in the "community," we are not to be of the community, i.e. "compromising" our principles, i.e. setting aside, even for the 'moment,' the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth to "get along" or to "get ahead."   Good does not come from man's heart (which is deceitful and wicked), even when he comes to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness") with others on what is "good" for the 'moment.' "Every one that is proud in heart [deciding what is "good" and what is not according to his carnal desires of the 'moment'] is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand [men uniting with one another in consensus], he shall not be unpunished."   Proverbs 16:5   Good comes from God alone, who created every good thing, according to His will.  "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."  James 1:17

The Marxist Jürgen Habermas explained the breaking down of the father's/Father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the children (through their use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, i.e. 'justifying' their propensity to sin as being "normal," i.e. 'justifying' sinning with impunity), this way: "Then both parties recognize their rigidified position [their fathers differing commands, rules, facts, and truth ] in relation to each other as the result of detachment and abstraction from their common life context [where they are "forced" to think and act according to their Fathers standards, which differ from one another, dividing family from family (setting walls of division within the "community"), thus dividing the children from one another, rather than thinking and acting according to their carnal nature, i.e. their worldly desires, which they have in common with one another (thus "tearing down walls"—as I say "The Berlin wall did not come down because common-ism was defeated.  It came down because common-ism succeeded")].  And in the latter, the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)  If the "community" defines what is good and what is evil, then the way of the father/Father ("do right and don't do wrong according to my commands, rules, facts, and truth," i.e. do not compromise, i.e. "Don't be readily adaptable to 'change but instead hold firmly to your principles no matter what.'") becomes evil.  According to the foundational work for all government agencies, including (and especial) the schools: We "must develop persons [citizens (children)] who see non-influencability of private convictions [honoring the Father's unchanging, "top-down" authority] in joint deliberations [in the consensus process of "equality" and 'change'] as a vice rather than a virtue." "How to convert ... dogmas [the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth] to 'hypotheses' [from being the only right thing to do to being just an opinion amongst opinions] remains a central problem for democratic social engineers."  "The rights of private judgment [right and wrong] can be defensibly defined and enforced on a democratic basis only by processes of collaborative planning [through the consensus process only, which 'liberates' the child's carnal nature out from under the father's/Father's authority].  They [right and wrong] cannot be guaranteed by dogmas concerning the nature of man."    (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change

Identity with the father/Father (the one above) is replaced with (negated through) the child's newly 'discovered' identity (commonality) with "the group," ,i.e. the "community," i.e. society, with his 'willing' participation in the advancement of the socialist cause of worldly peace and socialist harmony, with him personally benefiting in both (negating the father's/Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of all the children of the world) becoming the standard for "good."   "In fact, a large part of what we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives ['liberating' the child's carnal nature] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs [getting them to question the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth] and getting them to discuss issues [discuss personal-social (socialist) issues, thereby getting them to challenge the father's/Father's authority, not only in their personal thoughts but in their social actions as well (not only in the classroom but when they get home as well)]."  "There are many stores of the conflict and tension that these new practices [the use of dialectic 'reasoning' (the use of Higher Order Thinking Skills on morals and ethics, i.e. the use of "Bloom's-Marzano's Taxonomies") in the classroom, i.e. 'liberating' the children's feelings, thoughts, and actions from the father's/Father's authority—so that the children can become at-one-with their carnal nature while becoming at-one-with "the carnal (consensus) group"] are producing between parents and children."  (Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 2: Affective Domain)  The "norm" (the level of "deviancy") of the group is based upon the silence, i.e. the compromise, the children have (regarding the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in the 'moment' of deviancy of "the group") for the sake of initiating and sustaining relationship within "the group."

Sin is no longer the estrangement of man from God (because of man's sins, i.e. his disobedience against God as a child disobeying his father, i.e. questioning his/His commands and challenging his/His authority). "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23  "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."  Isaiah 64:6  Due to dialectic 'reasoning' (which exonerates the child's/man's flesh and the world over and against the father's/Father's authority) "sin" is now the estrangement of man from man (because of man's faith in, belief upon, and obedience toward the Father and His authority, i.e. preaching and teaching His Word in public, producing a "guilty conscience" in others, dividing them from and turning them against their own carnal nature and the carnal nature of others, "alienating" themselves and others from society).  Concern for pleasing God, i.e. the father/Father is now replaced with concern for pleasing man, i.e. the "child within," i.e. the flesh and the world, i.e. society, i.e. the "group," i.e. the "community."

Karl Marx wrote: "The life which he [the child/man] has given to the object [to the father/Father, i.e. by the child/man obeying the father/Father, i.e. doing his/His will instead of satisfying his own carnal desires of the 'moment,' he not only "represses" that which is of nature only, he "creates" the father's/Father's authority which then] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)  For Marx, the only way to overcome the effect the "alien and hostile force" has upon society (what he saw as man's obedience to "the Holy Family," i.e. to the Father's authority, i.e. religion, i.e. belief in God) was to negate the effect the "early family," i.e. the father's authority in the traditional family had upon the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions.  Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically."  (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4 According to dialectic 'reasoning' the Father's authority (God) is 'created' when the child (man) submits his will to His will, i.e. 'abdicates' his natural inclination to become at-one-with nature (his own and the world's), in pleasure, in the 'moment,' to an a-natural (above-nature/super-natural) person or thing, making it/Him his source for identity and purpose, i.e. propagating his/His way of thinking and acting around the world.  The only way to 'liberate' the child (and the world) from the Father's authority, i.e. from Godly restraint, is to 'reconcile' the child back to his nature, 'redeeming' him (through group identity and purpose) from the Father's authority.  The only way to create a "new" world order is to turn the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions to "human nature" only, negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e. the "old" world order in the process.

The Marxist Theodor Adorno wrote: "God [the Heavenly Father's authority] is conceived more directly after a parental image [the earthly father's authority] and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority."  "Authoritarian submission [the child submitting himself to the father's/Father's authority] 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."  (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)  Abraham Maslow remarked: "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students ["top-down," "right-wrong" thinking and acting 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."  "In a democratic society a patriarchal culture [the Father's authority and all who submit to it] should make us depressed instead of glad; it is an argument against the higher possibilities of human nature, of self actualization [the 'liberation' of the child's carnal nature from the father's/Father's authority, not only in his thoughts but also in his actions]."   (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)   Instead of life being found in God, i.e. in the Father's authority, i.e. in "It is written," i.e. "My dad says," according to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is found in man, i.e. in the child's carnal impulses and urges of the 'moment,' i.e. in the opinions of men, making the Father and His authority the initiator and sustainer of death.  The scriptures tell us instead: "Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.  Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.  For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.  What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.  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 6:11-16

"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?'"  "Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity, though such a process is indeed possible. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process." (Carl Rogers on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)  Since children, in and of themselves, are not able to 1) negate the father's "top-down" authority structure ("My dad says." i.e. "fixity") in their feelings, thoughts, and actions and 2) develop "equality" amongst themselves ("What do/did you 'think?'" "Well, I 'think'/'thought' ...."  and/or "How do/did you 'feel?'"  "Well, I 'feel'/'felt' ..." i.e. "flow"), facilitators of 'change' (therapists) are required ("necessary") to provide (initiate and sustain) a "safe zone" ("an experiential chasm") in which they can "help" the children 'discover,' 'develop,' and put into practice (praxis) the dialectic process of 'change,' i.e. 'changing' their way of feeling, thinking, and acting (their paradigm) from 'loyalty' to the "top-down," individualist-nationalist-sovereignty "old" world order, where they are subject to the Patriarchal Paradigm of "fixity," i.e. subject to the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is to 'loyalty' to the "equality," socialist-globalist-environmentalist "new" world order where all are subject to the Heresiarchal Paradigm ("children of disobedience") of 'change,' i.e. subject to the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e. united (as Abraham Maslow put it) in an "orgiastic Dionysian" "feeling" of "oneness," putting 'change' into social action, i.e. into practice (praxis), negating the father's/Father's authority, not only in the children's individual thoughts but also in their social actions (with compassion for, companionship with, and participating in immorality and abomination becoming their way of life).  Romans 1:16-32

In the process not only is pleasure (and the "hope" for more of it) 'liberated,' so is hate, now turned against the father/Father and his/His authority which stands in the way.  Hate is animosity against someone or something which stands in the way of, takes away, or is perceived as having the potential of taking away that which the child/man intensely desires or believes he deserves.  It is in this, i.e. in hate (and the fear of it) and in pleasure (and the hope for more of it) that 'change' is initiated and sustained.  While those of dialectic 'reasoning' may publicly put down violence (hate) they know deep down that 'change' can not be advanced (initiated and sustained) without it.  The child's love of pleasure and hate of the father's/Father's authority (which restrains, i.e. inhibits or blocks the 'actualization' of the pleasures of the 'moment') are the two 'driving' forces of 'change.'  Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the child/man 'driven' to augment the pleasures of life (from, for, and with the child, i.e. incest) makes negating the father's/Father's authority (in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the child, i.e. turning the children against the father/Father and his/His authority, i.e. patricide is) the 'purpose' of life.  "The Communist Manifesto makes the point that the bourgeoisie [the father/Father and his/His authority, along with those children who honour it] produces its own grave-diggers [the children (with the "help" of facilitator's of 'change,' disguised as teachers, ministers, etc.) who are 'liberated' from, turned against, and united as "one" (in consensus) in the social action (praxis) of negating (hating and "removing") the father/Father and his/His authority (along with those who honour his/His office and obey him/Him) from the face of the earth, "Making the world 'safe' for Democracy"]."  (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness)  

If fear of the Father (the "guilty conscience" for disobedient) is replaced by approval by the "the group" (the "super-ego's" "lust" for pleasure) then approval by the Father is replaced with fear of "the group," i.e. what "the group" will or might do if the child does not cooperate.  For approval by "the group" (which approves of, i.e. 'justifies' his carnal "nature nature") the child will 'willingly' negate the Father and His authority, with no "guilty conscience."  Hate of the Father (having to do right and not wrong according to His will) is veiled by love for "the group" (the approval of the group towards the child's carnal "human nature").  "During the period of innovation [during the process of 'change,' i.e. the consensus process], an environment is invisible [what is happening to the child is not noticed by the child, i.e. his being seduced, deceived, and manipulated]. The present is always invisible because the whole field of attention is so saturated with it [the child's fear of "group rejection" and the pleasure of "group approval," i.e. approval of his carnal "human nature," i.e. the excitement of getting what he wants (or the hope of it) blinds him to what is going on around him and happening to him]. It becomes visible only when it has been superseded by a new environment [only when he has 'willingly' participated in the process of 'change,' i.e., in the consensus process—then he is more then likely 'willing' to 'justify,' participate in, and support 'change' in order to sustain his pleasure, i.e. the pleasure of others, i.e. negating the Father's authority not only in his thoughts but in his socialist actions, i.e. in society as will]."  (Federal Education Grant, Dec. 1969, i.e. benchmark for all Federal Grants to education, Behavior Science in Teacher Education Program)  The facilitator of 'change' not only receives financial reward for his "services," i.e. via grants, payments, etc. he also receives the "reward" of pleasure, i.e. the pleasure of the 'moment' in which the child is 'liberating' himself from the Father's authority, i.e.  becoming "himself," i.e. carnal, i.e. sensuous, i.e. of the world only, knowing that he had a part in it (becoming at-one-with the child, i.e. in the child's experience of the 'moment,' himself).

In dialectic 'reasoning' synthesis is the praxis (social or group action) of 'creating' unity, i.e. uniting the children upon their nature (what they all have in common, i.e. their intense desire for pleasure, including the pleasure of approve from others) through negation, i.e. negating the Father's authority, i.e. negating (in the thoughts and actions of the children) that which causes "repression" and "neurosis," i.e. that which inhibits or blocks them from the pleasures, "lusts," enjoyments of the 'moment'—that which is of their nature and nature itself, as well as negating (in their thoughts and actions) that which divides them from one another (that which causes "alienation" and social disharmony), i.e. uniting the children instead by focusing them upon sight (focusing upon their "feelings" of the 'moment' and the world around them which stimulates them, i.e. sensuousness) negating faith (the children's faith in the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth and His authority, i.e. righteousness which divides [separates or "alienates" them from their own urges and impulses of the 'moment,' as well as the impulses and urges of the 'moment' of others) in the process—so that the children can synthesize (use dialectic 'reasoning' to "rationally" justify) their carnal thoughts and their carnal actions (what they have in common with all the children around the world), so that they can become at-one-with one another, i.e. with the world in thought and in action (without the Father's restraint, i.e. without having a "guilty conscience" for being carnal, i.e. for being of the world only). 

"In order to effect rapid change, . . . [one] must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved.  It is necessary, in other words, artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children―One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant."  ". . . any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy ["equalization" of the parents to the children and the children to the parents] regardless of its intent." "The consequence of family democratization ['liberation' of the children from parental authority, i.e. from the Father's "top-down" authority] take a long time to make themselves felt―but it would be difficult to reverse the process one begun." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)  We find this observation in the curriculum material all "educators" are trained to apply in the classroom, i.e. regarding the effect it has upon the parents-child relationship when the students apply "these new practices" in the home.  "There are many stores of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children."  (Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 2 Affective Domain)  All "educators" are trained on how to use "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom, i.e. how to 'change' the children, i.e. the next generation of citizens, i.e. of workers, etc. way of thinking and acting regarding parental authority, i.e. no longer recognizing and honoring the father's/Father's "top-down" authority structure (correlated to dictatorship in politics in the classroom).  All certified "teachers" and accredited "schools" are Federally approved and funded based upon their application of "Bloom's-Marzano's Taxonomies" in the classroom (portfolioing, i.e. "taxonomizing" and tracking all students—see BSTEP—making sure they are "politically correct," i.e. willing to participate in and promote, i.e. be a "team player" in and for social-ist 'change,' i.e. demonstrating "grit.").  To solve the problem of social 'change,' you need to first get inside the mind of the 'student' (grade school, high school, college, and beyond) and find out what is inhibiting his willingness to 'change' (mentally).  According to dialectic 'reasoning' you will find the father's/Father's authority with its "can not's" standing in the student's way.

"To study something means to study it in the process of change [putting pressure on the students ('encouraging' them) to set aside, for the 'moment,' the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, questioning, challenging, and eventually negating the father's/Father's "top-down" authority structure in their thoughts and actions in the process]; that is the dialectical method's basic demand."  (L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society)  If you start with the Father's authority (making Him, i.e. His position, i.e. doing right and not wrong according to His rules, commands, facts and truth, "top-down" thinking and acting the thesis, i.e. the starting point) the children's thoughts and actions remain subject to the Father's authority, i.e. unchanging, i.e. the children can never overcome the antithesis between the Father's authority (and the "guilty conscience" for disobedience) and their own carnal feelings of the 'moment' (ever 'changing' with the ever 'changing' situations of life).  But if you start with the child, as Hegel does: "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." you 'change' the world from "top-down" to "equality," negating private property, replacing it with private-public partnership: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, ... the surplus is not the property of one of them ... all contracts regarding property or service and the like fall away ... the surplus, labour, and property are absolutely common to all, inherently and explicitly." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)  If you start with the children's own carnal feelings of the 'moment,' through the use of dialogue, i.e. making their opinion, i.e. their "feelings," and their "thoughts" which are taken captive to their "feelings" of the 'moment,' the thesis, you make the Father's authority (his/His position, i.e. which is "unadaptable to 'change,'" "intolerant of ambiguity") the antithesis, you can "rationally" 'justify' negating the Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the children, i.e. making all the children's thoughts (subject to their feelings of the 'moment,' in the "light" of the current situation) and actions (subject to their feelings of the 'moment,' in the "light" of the current situation) one and the same, i.e. of the world only—uniting them as "one" in the name of and for the cause of unity, uniting them as one (in consensus), in the praxis of (in the social or group action of) negating the Father's authority in their (collective) thoughts and in their (collective) actions, 'creating' "worldly peace and socialist harmony," i.e. "Making the world safe for Democracy" in the process.

Dialectic 'reasoning' does not directly fight against the Father and His authority, it negates the Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the children (who then regard the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth as being "irrational," and therefore His authority as being "irrelevant"), 'justifying' their questioning of His commands, rules, facts, and truth and their challenging of His authority, i.e. negating Him (if necessary, i.e. if he does not convert, i.e. if he refuses to abdicate His authority) and His authority in their thoughts and actions without having a "guilty conscience."  Listen to the two half hour audios on Dialectic 'reasoning:'  Part One, Part Two.  While Karl Marx encouraged men to fight against the Father's authority and its affect upon society, i.e. attempting to negate the father's/Father's authority through the use of force, Sigmund Freud fought against it's affect upon the individual through counseling (psychology), i.e. 'changing' how the child/person felt, thought, and acted toward it individually. "'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 [whether the father is alive (present) or not in the home, all that matters is that the father's authority no longer resides within the children's' feelings, thoughts, and actions within the home]." (Sigmund Freud as quoted in Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)  As you will see it was through the merging of Marx with Freud (or Freud with Marx), i.e. hiding Marxism within psychology (bringing Marxism into the classroom through the use of counseling, i.e. psychology, i.e. "therapy"), that dialectic 'reasoning' has become the mainstay of 'reasoning' in America today, even within the "church."

The dialectic process is not successful until no one can escape.  The totality (totalitarianism) of dialectic 'reasoning' is that all must 'willingly' participate.  It is just some academics (someone else's problem) until you realize that that includes you and your children.  "Obamacare" (the "National Health Care Package," which not only covers your physical health but also covers your mental and social health—your 'loyalty' to, i.e. your defense and advancing of socialism—with your social healthy being the criterion for the first two) and "Common Core" (the universal use of  "re-education" to initiate and sustain the process of 'change') is based upon dialectic 'reasoning.'  It does matter what someone means when they say they will "take care of you."

The following information explains the system, paradigm, or structure of thought which is being used to produce 'change.'  Because we tend to focus upon content (what a person is saying) it is easy for us to miss the structure of thought being used (how and why they are saying it the way they are, i.e. leaving out information we would include or adding information we would not include, i.e. sharing information which would initiate and sustain relationship, i.e. being "positive," while refusing to share any information which would inhibit or block relationship, i.e. being "negative," 'encouraging' you to do the same—referred to as "appropriate information").  Structure of thought affects how a word is being used, i.e. is being defined (revealing a persons intent—Whoever defines terms for you controls your life).  You can be seduced with content (with half truth), deceived with definition (refusal of it for evil intent), and thereby manipulated for someone else's 'purpose.'  What Leonard Wheat had to say about Paul Tillich is true for all who praxis dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. who facilitate 'change.'  "Tillich’s elusiveness reflects a calculated effort to remain esoteric.  He keeps his deepest meanings hidden from all but a few who are prepared to receive it."  "By redefining terms, Tillich cultivates a 'double-speak' designed to convey opposing messages to different groups.  He refuses to define terms to which he obviously attaches definite meanings." "One reason Tillich is unwilling to openly disavow religion is that he must be accepted as a theologian in order to formulate and gain acceptance of an imaginative Grand Synthesis of theology and philosophy [using the office of authority in order to 'liberate' his audience from authority, i.e. from religion, i.e. from the Father's authority]." Tillich taught: "A stranger, even if his name were God, who imposes commands upon us must be resisted, he must be killed because nobody can stand him."  (Leonard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism)   All facilitators of 'change' are trained in how to seduce, deceive, and manipulate those they come to "help," neutralizing (by getting everybody's opinion), marginalizing (anyone who keeps holding on to their position, i.e. resisting 'change'), and negating (through group or social action, i.e. praxis) any who persist in getting in the way of 'change.'  If you 'change' the structure of thought of a child, i.e. change his paradigm, i.e. how he feels, thinks, and acts from honoring the Father's authority, i.e. which engenders individualism under God, to becoming at-one-with "the group," i.e. with the "community," i.e. with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment,' you not only 'change' the child, you 'change' the world as well.  It is what the process of 'change,' i.e. the dialectic process ("Obamacare" and "Common Core") is all about. 

I realize that the following information (being more than two pages long) will be read by only a few people.  But it will be life changing to those few who take the time, i.e. who make the effort to do so.   It is liberating (joyous) to know the truth.  It is painful (grievous) to know it in a world which does not want to hear it (Isaiah 53:3-11). 

Though being somewhat difficult to grasp in the beginning, as you read through the following information explaining the correlation of dialectic 'reasoning' to the negation of the father's/Father's authority, it becomes clearly understood, yet difficult to explain to others unless they are willing to take the time (make the effort) to understand themselves.  In essence you have to be concerned (upset) with what is going on around you, i.e. what is happening to you and/or those you love if you are to get through the following information, i.e. come to an understanding of the effect dialectic 'reasoning' is having upon America, i.e. upon you, your family, your business, your neighbors and friends, etc.  Dialectic 'reasoning' (the negation of the Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the children, i.e. the negation of Godly restrain in the thoughts and actions of mankind) is synonymous with (according to those of dialectic 'reasoning') Globalism synthesizing with Nationalism (which in actuality negates, i.e. replaces or nullifies Nationalism with Globalism), with collectivism or socialism negating individualism (negating "isolationism," under God), with public-private partnership negating private-public separation, i.e. with environmentalism negating sovereignty, with theory negating belief, with opinions negating facts and truth, with "human rights" negating inalienable rights, with the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness") negating the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted "as given" (dialogue destroys faith, i.e. dialogue destroys the Father's authority and the "guilty conscience" for disobedience, i.e. there is no Father's authority, i.e. established position in the dialoguing of opinions), with trust in man negating faith in God, with sensuousness (doing what feelings right in the 'moment') negating righteousness (doing what the Father says is right—for all times and in all places), with the child's feelings negating parental authority, etc.

All of history is being re-written around the ideology of dialectic 'reasoning' (the commonality of the individual to the many, i.e. "equality," and therefore the accountability of the individual to the many, engendering socialism negating the uniqueness of the individual below under the authority of the one above and therefore the accountability of the individual below to the one above, i.e. the child below to the parent's authority above, the student below to the teacher's authority above, the worker below to the boss' authority above, man below to God's authority above, engendering individualism, under parent ... God, i.e. the individual capitulating their will to the parent, to the teacher, to the boss, to God—with God, i.e. the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ being the highest authority, with all being answerable to them), i.e. around the progressive unifying of the world via. the praxis or the social action of 'liberating' the children ("the people," i.e. the proletariat, i.e. the many) from the Father's, i.e. from the King's, i.e. from the bourgeoisies', i.e. from the parent's, i.e. from God's, i.e. from the one's authority above), i.e. via the need of the "community" (the children, i.e. the many) negating the electorate's, i.e. the parent's, i.e. the father's/Father's, i.e. the one's authority—correlated to socialism-environmentalism-globalism, where all "the people" are becoming uniting as "one" under a soviet system—the consensus process, i.e. "a diverse group of people (some more advanced in the process of 'change,' i.e. more 'liberalized,' i.e. more 'liberated' from the one's authority, i.e. the Father's authority than others), dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, over socialist issues, in a facilitated meeting, to a predetermined outcome that no public policy is to be made without the just stated procedure," replacing (negating) individualism/nationalism, i.e. representative, constitutional, limited government, under God.  In your commonality with man (common-ism) you lose your individuality before God (your soul).  "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world [gain the approval of men, i.e. the approval of "the group," i.e. the approval of the many], and lose his own soul [lose the approval of God, i.e. the approval of the Father (and the Son), i.e. the approval of the one ("I and my Father are one" John 10:30)]? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" Matthew 16:26

If you find your identity in society then you are a socialist, i.e. an individual accountable to society (to "the group," to the "community," to the earth, etc. i.e. even to the "institution" or the "ingroup"), purging, i.e. "detoxing" society of individualism, i.e. of individuals accountable to God alone.  But if you find your identity in God, i.e. in the Father and in His Son Jesus Christ, then you a believer, i.e. an individual soul amongst individual souls, preaching and teaching that everyone will personally be held accountable, before God, for their thoughts and actions.  Do not be deceived. You can not have it both ways.   You can only have it one way or the other.  "No servant 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."  Luke 16:13  While Karl Marx believed: "It is not individualism [the child under the Father's authority, man under God's authority] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him.  Society [the children 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, man 'liberated' from God's authority so that they can become as "one," i.e. according to Nature only] is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities. "  (Karl Marx)  "The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in each particular individual."  "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations."  (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 6 ) "Only within a social context individual man is able to realize his own potential as a rational being."  (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's)  "The individual is emancipated [from the Father's authority] in the social group."  (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs [socialism] by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin  Human Relations in Curriculum Change  ed. by Kenneth Benne) "One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group." (Irvine D. Yalom Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) the Word of God and the Lord Jesus Christ say: "For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."  "Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment."  Ecclesiastes 12:14, 9  "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.  For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."  Matthew 12:36, 37  Anyone who asks you about your or your children's "social life" ("What about your children's social life?") instead asking how you and your children are doing before the Lord, i.e. encouraging you in your walk before the Lord (encouraging your children in their walk before the Lord), is a socialist, i.e. a Marxist.  Your only response to anyone (including those in "the church") asking you about your (or your children's) "social life" is: "Oh. I did not know you were a Marxists?"

"If the school does not [if facilitators of 'change,' acting as teachers, administrators, superintendents, principles, and school board members, do not] claim the authority [initiate and sustain control over teachers, the school board, and the parents, as well as usurp authority over state and national laws (infiltrate, and therefore negate, representative, limited government, under God, through the use of the consensus process) redefining the "purpose" of education] to distinguish between science and religion [to 'liberate' (protect) the child's carnal nature, i.e. "human nature" from the father's/Father's (the parent's) authority—correlated to 'liberating' "human nature" from religion], it loses control of the curriculum [it looses control of the classroom environment which shapes how the next generation will feel, think, and act toward parental authority (positively, i.e. the students continue to support parental authority or negatively, i.e. the students are willing and able to overthrow parental authority) or feel, think, and act toward socialism (positively, i.e. the students are willing and able to overthrow parental authority or negatively, i.e. the students resist 'change,' i.e. refuse to overthrow parental authority] and surrenders it to the will of the electorate [to the traditional minded teachers, administrators, principles, and superintendents (and school board), surrendering the children to the parent's authority, i.e. to religion, with local control, i.e. parochialism and nationalism prevailing over and therefore preventing socialism-environmentalism-globalism (the "new" world order) from becoming 'reality']."  (Society as Educator in an Age of Transition, Ed. Kenneth Benne, Eighty-sixth Year of the National Society for the Study of Education)  Substituting (replacing) the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is (according to the parent's authority) with the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (for the "group grade," i.e. for "group approval") accomplishes the praxis of 'changing' the child's loyalty from parental authority (to the one above which engenders individualism, under the one above) to socialism (to the many below which engenders socialism, i.e. the individual subject the many below, united as "one" in negating the one above), with history no longer being the lessons of the past being passed on to the next generation but rather the "history" of the child's upbringing being evaluated and corrected through "therapeutic" methods ("group therapy," i.e. the "group grade") in the classroom.  After all Bloom considered his "taxonomy" (explained below) a "psychological classification system"  where "truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places [with parental authority, i.e. the Father's authority getting in the way of 'change']."  (Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 1 Cognitive Domain)

The use of dialectic 'reasoning' is a bigger part of your life than you might realize.  Dialectic 'reasoning' affects ('changes') how you relate with yourself, with others, and with the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ (your Heavenly Father and His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ), i.e. why you feel, think, and act the way you do.  It 'changes' the way (how) you (your children, friends, neighbors, etc.) feel, think, and act toward the Patriarchal Paradigm, i.e. towards the Father's authority, i.e. towards Godly restraint (and those who hold onto it and continue to preach and teach it).  The following information explains why things are going the way they are in America today (in education, in the workplace, in the home, in government, in "entertainment," and even in the "church").  It is going to be meat, chewable only by those who know that something is wrong and want to know what it is and how to respond to it.  Part seven (7) is the heart of the information so read it at least.

This is information (regarding the 'drive' and 'purpose' of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the Heresiarchal Paradigm of 'change,' i.e. of the so called "'New' World Order," i.e. a world of children 'liberating' themselves from the father's/Father's authority, uniting themselves as "one," according to the use of "human 'reasoning'" to 'justify' "human nature," i.e. making all people subject to their own as well as others feelings and thoughts of the 'moment,' i.e. subject to their own and others urges and impulses which are stimulated by the immediate world or environment which surrounds them only, that is now affecting the way you are feeling, thinking, and acting) that none of my Education, European History, and Philosophy professors taught me about (but should have).  My understanding came not from the over 600 social-psychology books I read on the subject (150 of which are listed here), but from the Lord revealing to me (from the light of His Word and by His Holy Spirit) what those books were all about, i.e. initiating and sustaining dialectic 'reasoning' around the world—the replacing of faith with sight (the replacing of the father's/Father's authority with the impulses and urges of the child), i.e. negating the Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the children by exonerating the child's feelings of the 'moment' (in the "light" of the world) over (and therefore against) the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e. rationally (dialectically) 'justifying' "human nature" over and against the will of God (revealed by His Word and confirmed by the Holy Spirit), i.e. the Father's authority.  Hegel, Marx, and Freud believed that negating the Father's authority (in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of "the people") was the only logical (rational) solution to the world's problems.  When we reject the Father's authority, making ourselves (our opinions, i.e. our "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment') the standard from which to determine right from wrong (good from evil), the only conclusion that we can come to is that they were right (as two in a garden in Eden perceived that a serpent, i.e. the first facilitator of 'change' was right).  "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12 

"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.  Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin [disobedience to the Father]: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death [judgment by the Father]." James 1:14, 15  "Beware lest any man spoil [destroy] you through philosophy and vain deceit [through dialectic 'reasoning' 'justifying' your carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e. "human 'reasoning'" 'justifying' "human nature"], after the tradition of men [after that which is common to all men], after the rudiments of the world [after all that is of the world, i.e. "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life"], and not after Christ [the obedient Son of the Father]."  Colossians 2:8   Dialectic 'reasoning' sets man's (the child's) affections upon "the child within," i.e. upon the carnal 'moment,' i.e. upon "human nature," i.e. upon the gratifying things of the world, turning man against God (turning the child against the Father) and His authority.  "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth."  Colossians 3:2  

The scriptures warn us that "the love of money is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6:10).  Money is simply stored up pleasure.  While adults use it to buy land to work, children use it to buy toys to play with. When it is in the father's hands, the children are subject to him for the pleasures of life (according to his values).  For them to gain access to it they must either do as the father says, missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment,' steal it from him, having a "guilty conscience," or negate his authority in their thoughts and actions, spending it as they please (according to their carnal desires of the 'moment'), with no "guilty conscience."  It is the latter which dialectic 'reasoning' 'justifies.'  Socialist can not survive without someone else's (the father's or the father's children's, i.e. the individuals) money supporting them in their pleasures.  According to socialists it's not the the individual's money anyway, it is simply the socialists money the individual is selfishly using for his own pleasures.  Thus the power to tax (to gain access to the father's or the father's children's money) is the power to destroy (negate the father's authority over his children—allowing the children to 'actualize' their impulses and urges of the 'moment' with his, i.e. "their" money).  This is the meaning behind Marxist economics, i.e. the negation of private anything, unless it is shared with (in partnership with) "the people," i.e. supporting the socialists and their carnal pleasures, i.e. unrighteousness and abomination.

In the end, dialectic 'reasoning' is all (only) about the Father's authority, i.e. the negation of it in the thoughts and actions of all men and children around .the world (the 'drive' and 'purpose' of Common Core), all for the sake of 'creating' "worldly peace and socialist harmony," "Making the world safe for Democracy." i.e. living a life of unrighteousness and abomination without having a "guilty conscience"—without the voice of the Father restraining man (restraining the child) from 'actualizing' his carnal (natural) desires, i.e. preventing him from doing that which is common with all men (with all children), keeping him (separating or dividing him) from that which "world unity" (the "new" world order) can only be initiated and sustained with, i.e. that which is of the world only, i.e. "human nature," i.e. how he (the child) is "feeling" and what he is "thinking" in the "light" of the 'moment,' in the "light" of (influenced by) the immediate world (or environment) around him, i.e. doing his will (in "harmony" with or in "consent" with the will of "the group") instead of (as Christ Jesus has called us to do) doing the will of the Father. 

"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  "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." John 14:6  "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."  John 5:30  "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak." John 12:49  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   "No servant 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."  Luke 16:13 

Dialectic 'reasoning,'  though being used to "grow" the "church," is antithetical to the gospel.  The key to understanding dialectic 'reasoning' is wrapped up in these verses, i.e. in the negation of the Father's authority in them (in the thoughts and actions of men).  Without the Father and His authority there is no need for the gospel message, i.e. no need for man to be 'redeemed' from the Father's wrath and 'reconciled' to the Father via. his obedient Son's death on the cross and resurrection.  While our earthly father is not perfect (for all have sinned) our Heavenly Father is perfect (demanding perfection in His "children").  Apart from God (the Father) sending His obedient Son to die upon the cross for our disobedience (for our imperfection), i.e. 'redeeming' us from Eternal death because of our sins (imputing His righteousness unto us according to our faith in Him) and His resurrecting Him from the grave, we could not be 'reconciled' to (be made perfect before) our Heavenly Father, know His Holiness and Glory, and inherit Eternal life.

George Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud understood the effect the Father's authority has upon the way His children feel, think, and act—to their "advantage"—in order to negate the effect the Father's authority has upon the them, to accomplish their 'purpose' of creating a "new" world order where all the children of the world ('liberated' from the Father's authority, i.e. 'liberated' from having a "guilty conscience") can become as they were before the Father's first command and threat of punishment for disobedience, i.e. carnal, i.e. of the world only, i.e. where all of mankind (united as "one," in consensus) can think and act according to "human nature" only, i.e. 'liberated' from Godly restraint.  Hegel's, Marx's, and Freud's dialectic 'reasoning' "redeems" man from the Father's authority, "reconciling" him to the world only

By 'changing' the "church," i.e. bringing dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the consensus process, i.e. 'change' into the "church," the nation has been 'changed' (as the "church" goes the nation goes).  The nation, no longer exposed to (confronted by) the Word of God—condemning man's carnal thoughts and actions, has now become 'liberated' to be unrighteous and abominable without having a "guilty conscience."

Do you understand the importance of the Father's authority and His obedient Son, in your life?  If you don't, you can not overcome the power and control dialectic 'reasoning' (self 'justification,' i.e. the law of the flesh) has upon you.  It is such a subtle and seductive process.  The reason being we do not naturally get up in the morning thinking of the Father's authority (as Jesus did), i.e. asking Him what he wants us to do for the day, i.e. guided by His Word and empowered by His Holy Spirit to do His will, doing right and not wrong according to His commands, rules, facts, and truth (making us subject to His righteousness).  We tend to instead feel, think, and act according to our own hearts desires, making the approaching of pleasure and the the avoiding of pain ("human nature") the standard from which we appraise the value or worth of the day, i.e. 'justifying' our and/or other people's behavior based upon our feelings (making us subject to our own and the world's sensuousness)—replacing righteousness (the Father's nature) with "human morality" (where excessive individualism does not or fundamentalism is not allowed to undermine group cohesiveness—Hegel), i.e. replacing (altering, perverting) God's Word with "human 'reasoning,'" i.e. making it subject to men's opinions, i.e. man's "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. as children who manipulate their Father's words to 'justify' their disobedience, i.e. so they can fulfill their carnal desires without having a "guilty conscience."   "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

While Satan came between the Father and the "children" in the garden, they still retained some semblance of parental authority (and therefore initiated and sustained in their children's thoughts and actions) the father's "top-down" authority structure, engendering a "guilty conscience" in their children for disobedience (until dialectic 'reasoning' took over the world, with God flooding it, leaving Noah, i.e. the father's authority, to start over, with his children eventually going into disobedience on the other side, until today we have become, as in the day's of Noah, dialectic in 'reasoning' again).  And while Jesus Christ comes between (divides) the earthly father and his children, establishing His Heavenly Father as the absolute authority, He still retains the Father's "top-down" authority and the "guilty conscience" for disobedience in the children.  In both cases, in the earthly family and Heavenly family structure, the "top-down" authority is retained.

But those of dialectic 'reasoning' (as facilitators of 'change') seek to negate the Father's authority (keep it from having influence over the world) by coming between the earthly father and his children (through the use of dialoguing opinions, 'liberating' the children's feelings and thoughts from parental restraint, turning the children's thoughts and actions against parental authority instead—"There are many stores of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children."  Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 2 Affective Domain).  Thus the children, as adults (as parents), no longer recognize (honour) the earthly father's, as well as the Heavenly Father's "top-down" authority structure (supporting His influence in and ruling over them and society, establishing morality upon right-wrong thinking, established by the Father instead of according to their feelings and thoughts, along with the feelings and thoughts of others, in the 'moment').  In this way they no longer retain (in themselves and in their children) a "guilty conscience" for disobedience, i.e. for thinking about and doing unrighteous and abominable things, i.e. for being "human," for being of  "human nature" only, for being of and for the flesh and the world only.

It is here, and only here, i.e. through the use of dialectic 'reasoning' (through the opening up "Pandora's Box," i.e. negating the father's/Father's authority which keeps it shut) that "human nature," i.e. the child's carnal nature, can be 'liberated' from parental restraint, and "worldly peace and socialist harmony" (society, i.e. "community" 'liberated' from Godly restraint) can be initiated and sustained.  "The affective domain [the child's feelings 'liberated' from the Father's authority] is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box [a box full of evils, which, once opened, can not be closed]."  ibid.  Every "certified" teacher is trained in the use of and every "accredited" school is authorized upon their use of Bloom's (Marzano's) Taxonomies in the classroom, i.e. 'changing' the student's paradigm from loyalty to parental authority to loyalty to socialist causes (teaching them to use dialectic 'reasoning,' "Higher Order Thinking Skills" in their thoughts and actions). "In fact, a large part of what we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the student's fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues."  ibid.  If you want to 'change' the world, take over nations, start with the children's feelings.  If you can gain access to them you can eventually gain control of the world.  "It is in this 'box' [the carnal desires of the child] that the most influential controls are to be found.  The affective domain [the child's carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e. to have the gratifying things of the world, i.e. the child's "lust" for pleasure, and his resentment toward parental authority when it prevents him from attaining it] contains the forces that determine the nature of an individual’s life and ultimately the life of an entire people." ibid.

If you make the child's nature of approaching pleasure—including (especially) the pleasure which comes from the "approval of men," i.e. from the approval of the other children in "the group"—and avoiding pain—including (especially) the pain that comes from the fear of the "disapproval of men,", i.e. the fear of disapproval by the other children in the group, i.e. "What will happen to me?"—the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of life (over and against doing right and not wrong according to the Father's will) you also have to include the child's hatred toward (desire and willingness to kill, i.e. annihilate, i.e. negate) anyone who attempts to restrain or block him from 'actualizing' his carnal desires.  As Freud pointed out incest (the 'liberation' of the flesh) engenders (necessitates) patricide (the negation the Father's authority).  This is why those who follow down the pathway of dialectic 'reasoning,' while beginning with the proclamation of "peace and love," end up creating a world of hate, immorality, destruction, and violence.  Negate the "guilty conscience" (self-control, self-discipline, humbling and denying your self) and you end up with a police state, i.e. with cameras on every street corner, i.e. with government surveying (collecting information on, categorizing, i.e. "taxonomizing," and tracking) "its people" for their (for those in government and their agenda's) own "good," sustaining a world of 'change,' i.e. creating a world 'liberated' from Godly restraint—neutralizing, marginalizing, and removing (negating) any person or group of people who might publically "propagate" righteousness—making those of the world feel guilty for their wicked ways.  While we, in the American Revolution, removed the father's (the King's) authority over the states (over the nation, i.e. thereby limiting the power of government), we did not do as the French Revolution, remove the father's authority in the home (thereby empowering the government to have unlimited power over "the people," i.e. for the "good" of "the people").

"He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."  "... and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."  1 John 3:22, 1  Negate the Father's authority over the Son (leave the father/Father out of the picture, i.e. 'justify' to yourself and to others that you can determine right from wrong, good from evil according to your own 'reasoning' abilities, i.e. through polls, surveys, and feasibility studies, i.e. through opinions, i.e. through how you are "feeling" and what you are "thinking" in the 'moment,' i.e. Genesis 3:1-6) and all you have is a socialist gospel of 'change,' a gospel message subject to "human 'reasoning'" (dialectic 'reasoning') 'justifying' "human nature" ("human relationship"), i.e. man's carnal nature (negating the "guilty conscience" for sinning against God, i.e. for disobeying the Father, i.e. Romans 7:14-25), i.e. creating a "gospel" message subject to man's carnal 'reasoning' instead, 'justifying' unrighteousness and abomination.  When you are silent, i.e. when you do not speak out and expose (preach and teach) that unrighteousness and abomination is wicked, in the midst of unrighteousness and abomination, unrighteousness and abomination become the "norm."   While fathers and mothers (parents) are not perfect, some are down right tyrants, the office they serve in is perfect (their office given to them by God to serve in under His authority, instructing their children in righteousness, i.e. Hebrews 12:5-11).  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' if you destroy (negate) the father's "top-down" authority in the home, in the thoughts and actions of the children, you negate the Father's "top-down" authority in the world, i.e. you negate Godly restraint over "human nature," i.e. you 'change' the world, creating a world of 'change,' i.e. a world of "human nature" 'discovering' (experiencing) itself, 'creating' "oneness" with the world only.  While all authority is of God, when man uses the office of authority, void Godly restraint, he uses it as a tyrant, for his own gain.  (Audios by James Borchart regarding Government authority and Romans 13, part 1, part 2, and part 3.)  

This is the dialectic dream (the 'drive' and 'purpose' of dialectic 'reasoning): to 'create' "worldly peace and socialist harmony," i.e. to "Make the world safe for Democracy."  As the song could read:  "Where have all the father's gone, ... off to consensus* every one, when will we ever learn, when will we ever learn."  (*to become as children again, united as "one," as 'children of disobedience,' soon to experience the Father's wrath.)   If you reject (negate in your thoughts and actions) the Father's authority 1) to give commands, rules, facts, and truth to be obeyed and accepted "as given," i.e. by faith, 2) to bless those who obey, 3) to chasten those who disobey (the Father chastens those He loves, which produced "a peaceful fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby") and 4) to cast out those who reject (question and challenge) His authority and His commands, rules, facts, and truth, so that you can become at-one-with the world in pleasure, you turn yourself over to the Father's wrath, which destroys.

"Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is."  Ephesians 5:1-17

As strange as this may sound, it is what 'change'—the consensus process ('compromising,' i.e. setting aside for the 'moment' one's principles, i.e. the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, for the sake of 'creating' unity, for the sake of 'creating' "community"), i.e. where public policy is being made (in the home, in the workplace, in government, and even in the "church") without Godly restraint, i.e. without having a "guilty conscience" for thinking and doing unrighteous and abominable things, i.e. without the Father directing the steps of the children—is all about.  (To have freedom of the conscience you must have the right to have a "guilty conscience," i.e. the Father's authority, or else you simply have "human rights," i.e. freedom from the conscience, i.e. freedom from the "guilty conscience," i.e. freedom to do unconscionable things.)  Apart from the Father, we have no hope of salvation and eternal life—the only begotten Son of God, i.e. Jesus Christ was sent by His Father (to obey His Father in all things, even to die on the cross, i.e. his shed blood covering our sins) to 'redeem' us from His wrath (eternal damnation) upon us for our sins (for our disobedience against Him), i.e. the Father imputing His Son's righteousness upon us for our faith in Him (repenting of our sins and giving our lives to Him and following Him, i.e. not of works, i.e. not of anything we have done, that no man can boast), the Father raising His Son from the grave and setting Him at His right hand to 'reconcile' us to Himself, both the Father and the Son sending the Holy Spirit to "comfort us," and some day the Father informing His Son that it is time for Him to go and get His bride, that we (those who believe in Him) might partake in His Holiness and Glory.  The gospel message is not only about the Son, it is about the Father as well.  It is about "Our Father which art in Heaven ..."

According to dialectic 'reasoning' (dialectic "logic"), if the father's/Father's authority (his/His "top-down" authority of right-wrong, i.e. of "prejudice," determining for the children under his/His authority what is right and what is wrong behavior) engenders division amongst the children of the world, i.e. divides the child (his thoughts and actions) from his own carnal nature (from his natural impulses and urges of the 'moment,' preventing him from responding to the 'immediate' world around him according to his own carnal nature—seeking after, i.e. approaching pleasure and avoiding pain) and therefore divides the child from the carnal nature of others as well (with the same attributes), i.e. if the father's/Father's authority engenders the "guilty conscience" (the father's/Father's voice in the child judging/condemning the child's carnal thoughts and actions of the 'moment,' as well as the carnal thoughts and actions of others in the given situation,' i.e. inhibiting or blocking his natural desires of the 'moment') for being carnal, i.e. for being "human," i.e. for thinking and acting according to "human nature," i.e. for wanting to become at-one-with the world, in pleasure, in the 'immediate' 'moment' (in the current situation), i.e. if the father's/Father's authority engenders "repression" (of self) and "alienation" (from others), then (if the children of the world are ever to become united as "one people," i.e. as "equals" in an ever 'changing' world) the father's/Father's authority must be negate (neutralized, marginalized, and removed), not only in their thoughts but also in their actions.  If a dialectic world, i.e. a "new" world order of "equality" ("Making the world safe for Democracy") is ever to become 'reality,' all the children around the world must be 'liberated' from the father's/Father's "top-down" authority, not only in "theory" (in their personal thoughts, i.e. in their relationship with themselves) but also in "practice" (in their social actions, i.e. in their relationship with others).  All personal and social order is now following after this dialectic pattern, i.e. this dialectic system, i.e. this dialectic paradigm, i.e. this way of "feeling," thinking," and "acting," basing 'reality' upon the child's carnal nature ("human nature") instead of upon the father's/Father's authority (starting with the child's desires—through the dialoguing of opinion , i.e. how the child is "feeling" and what he is thinking" in the current situation, i.e. according to his perception, i.e. according to sight, to a consensus, i.e. to a "feeling" of "oneness" with others, which engenders 'change'—instead of starting with the father's/Father's authority— preaching and teaching commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted "as given," i.e. to be accepted by faith, which prevents 'change'), negating the "old" 'top-down' order of the Patriarchal Paradigm (of "unchangingness")—with the fathers/Father directing the steps of their/His children, engendering a world of "fixity," i.e. of absolutes—replacing it with the "new" 'equality' world order of the Heresiarchal Paradigm (of "change")—with facilitator's of 'change' "helping" the children 'liberate' themselves, i.e. 'emancipate' their carnal nature from the father's/Father's authority ("prejudicing" them against the father's/Father's authority), with all children (united as "one," i.e. in consensus) creating a "new" world order of relativity, i.e. a world 'liberated' from Godly restraint, i.e. a world of unrighteousness and abomination.

What started in the garden in Eden—the use of dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' our human nature ("the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride of life," i.e. our desire to relate with and control the gratifying objects or things, observed or imagined, of the world which stimulate pleasure within us), i.e. using our 'reasoning' ability to 'justify' to ourselves and to others our carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e. our "lusting" after the gratifying things around us (or that we imagine) over (and therefore against) the Father's authority, thereby negating the Father's authority (Godly restraint) in our thoughts and actions, i.e. Genesis 3:1-6has now become the law of the land.  The key to this 'change,'  the negation of the father's/Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the children lies within the earthly fathers behavior itself.  While holding the children accountable to his commands, rules, facts, and truth (with no or little compromise) he does not practice the same with relatives, neighbors, and the "community," instead compromising (not reproving, rebuking, or correcting them when they behave contrary to the standards he hold his children to in the home—to a degree) in order to maintain relationship. While our Heavenly Father does not praxis compromise our earthly father does (especially outside the home).  It is in this area of compromise (for the sake of maintaining relationship with others) that dialectic 'reasoning' resides.  The mental activity of 'justifying' the compromise for the sake of relationship is the key to 'change.'  "The individual may have 'secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it.  To gain access is particularly important, for precisely here may lie the individual’s potential for democratic or antidemocratic thought and action in crucial situations." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)  While the parent's "Is" and "Not" ("You can NOT go out." "Because I said so." in response to the child's "Why?") prevents dialogue, the parent, as the child, also has "ought's," i.e. personal dissatisfaction regarding the way things are, thinking about (dialoguing within himself) how the world "ought" to be (according to his own personal carnal desires).  While fellowship with the saints demands no compromise (requiring patience instead), "community" does.  As the serpent in the garden worked to gain access to the "'secret' thoughts" of the woman (to engender 'change'), so those of dialectic 'reasoning' work to gain access today. "Oughtiness is itself a fact to be perceived."  (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature

The key to dialectic success is the creating of an environment of "oughtiness" (through the dialoguing of opinions, i.e. so that everybody can "safely" get their "ought's" ought) so that all can 'willingly' participate in the praxis of 'change,' i.e. can participate in unrighteousness and abomination without having a "guilty conscience," i.e. without having a fear (or knowledge) of condemnation and death for their wicked thoughts and actions.  In a dialectic world man can sin (do unrighteous and abominable things) with impunity as long as it does not get in the way of (or it advances) the process of 'change,' i.e. dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. self-social 'justification.'  The "oughtiness" in us is the questioning and challenging of the father's/Father's authority (in us) which does not contain a "guilty conscience."  It is here, in the dialogue we have with ourselves, that we possess the potential for progressiveness, i.e. for 'change.'  At the two ends of our "ought" are the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth which we accept and the ones' we reject, with the "guilty conscience" (fear of judgment) keeping us from doing the one's we reject, i.e. keeping us from "doing our own thing."  The secret of dialectic success is to gain access to this "safe zone" in the child (i.e. his imagination of how the world "ought" to be, according to his carnal desires) and allow the child to join with others in sharing it, i.e. 'liberating' it.  Two tests are required, i.e. a pre-test to find out where the child is and a post-test to see how much he has 'changed,' i.e. exposed, participated in, lived out, and 'rationally' compromised his "ought" for others, i.e. set aside his propensity to control "human nature" for his own "ought," i.e. 'willingly' 'compromising' his "ought" for the sake of others, finding commonality upon the portions of "ought" which do not carry out, i.e. further the father's/Father's authority.  Since our "ought" is always 'changing' (according to the 'changing' situations of the present as well as our "hopes" of the future) they can be used to seduces us (allowing others to deceive and manipulate us for their own end).  If social control is to be sustained it is essential that material (experiences) be provided which allows the child 'freedom' to 'liberate' himself from the things which hold him to the "past," including his "ought's" which are being expressed in the present.  The objective of 'change' is to bring the child into the spontaneous expressing of 'change' itself, i.e. learning to ever 'changing' in concord with the ever 'changing' situations of life.  It is here, in "safely" sharing of his "ought's," which are in harmony with the laws of the flesh and the world (over and against the father's/Father's authority, i.e. the law of God) that the 'change' process is not only initiated but sustained as well in the thoughts and actions of the child, i.e. the future citizen of the "new" world order.

George Hegel called it "lawfulness without law"—exonerating the law of the flesh (according to "human nature" i.e. according to our natural inclination to be at-one-with the pleasurable things or objects of the world in the 'moment,' being "positive,") over (and therefore) against the law of God (according to the "human nature," i.e. the law of the flesh, being "negative," i.e. allowing the Father's authority, i.e. His commands and rules to "repress" us from our nature, to "alienate" us for the nature of others, i.e. to separate us, i.e. to divide our thoughts from our own actions, i.e. to divide our carnal desires and our ability to fulfill them, i.e. preventing us from openly relating with the things of the world, turning us against the pleasures of the 'moment,' turning us against our nature and the nature of others, turning against those who think and act according to the pleasures of the world, i.e. living in and for the 'moment'), thereby negating in our thoughts and actions the wickedness and deceitfulness of our heart, making the law of the flesh the law of the 'moment,' i.e. making us subject to the law of emotion-motion (stimulus-response) only, i.e. ever 'changing' according to the 'changing' situations of life—negating the necessity of salvation through Christ Jesus only.  George Hegel also called it "purposiveness without purpose"exonerating the will of the child (according to "human nature" being "positive") over and against the will of the Father (according to "human nature" being "negative," dividing us from one another, i.e. alienating us from "the community").  The will of mankind to create "community," i.e. to build unity based upon that which he has in common with others, i.e. "human nature" (the root of common-ism AKA communism) requires 'compromise' (setting aside the Father's will, i.e. suspending God's Word in the current carnal situation—as Adam and the women did in the garden in Eden).  For man to get what he wants, to "get along," to 'justify' himself over and against the will of God he must negate individuality (sovereignty) under God, where each person is personally held accountable to God for his thoughts and actions, engendering a "guilty conscience" for disobedience—which requires no compromise (no setting aside of the Father's will, i.e. no suspending of God's Word in the current 'changing' situation—following after Christ Jesus, who obeyed his Heavenly Father, i.e. who did what His Heavenly Father commanded in all things). Dialectic 'reasoning' ("lawfulness without law" and "purposiveness without purpose") is initiated and sustained in the child's praxis of not only 'liberating' himself, i.e. 'liberating' his thoughts from the Father's authority, but also in 'liberating' society, i.e. 'liberating' his actions ('liberating' others thoughts and actions) from the Father's authority as well (uniting thought and action, i.e. "theory and practice," based upon "human nature" only—with man's thoughts and actions and mankind's thoughts and actions, united as "one," i.e. in consensus, 'liberating' themselves from the Father's authority).   

Hegel's "lawfulness" and "purposiveness," i.e. the making of "human nature" (the carnal desires of the flesh) the standard from which to measure "human behavior," is better know as unrighteousness and abomination, i.e. where man's natural inclination to become at-one-with nature (uniting his own nature with the nature of the world), becomes his only focus, i.e. where his focus is only upon himself, others, and the world instead of upon God, i.e. the Father (doing right and not wrong according to the Father's will), where man's concern for pleasing God is superseded with his concern for pleasing himself as well as all of mankind—thus making the approaching (augmentation) of pleasure and the avoiding (attenuation) of pain the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of life, resulting in his evaluating of God's Word (determining its relevance in the current situation) according to the "light" of his own "human nature," i.e. 'justifying' "human nature" over (and therefore against) God's Word, instead of man evaluating his own "human nature" in the light of God's Word, i.e. repenting of his sins (of his unrighteousness and abominations) before God.  We are made in the image of God in that we are able to evaluate what is right and what is wrong (what is "good" and what is "evil").  The only problem being, when the woman and Adam in the garden in Eden evaluated "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" from their own "human nature" (from their own carnal desires), instead of evaluating themselves, i.e. evaluating (and restraining) their carnal desires according to God's Word ("Thou shalt not ...," i.e. "Because I said so," i.e. the Father's authority), sin (alienation from God, i.e. the children 'liberated' from and in rebellion against the Father's authority, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning') entered the world.  Hegel's "lawfulness" and "purposiveness" negates sovereignty, under God—from which we derive inalienable rights, under God.  

To arrive at a world of "lawfulness" and "purposiveness," to 'create' a world of 'change,' i.e. a world without the Father's "law" and "purpose," i.e. without the Father's authority, i.e. without Godly restraint, all must participate (none can escape).   Thinking and doing unconscionable things is therefore 'justified' in the thoughts and actions of all who participate because the "guilty conscience" (for thinking and doing unconscionable things) is negated along the way—during the process of "making the world a 'better' place" for all (for those of the world only, i.e. for those of the flesh only, i.e. for those of nature only) to live within.  While promising you "peace and harmony" (your heart's desire) the process turns the world vile and bloody and takes your soul and/or your life instead.  God warns us: "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness."  Luke 11:35  

"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12  The famous social-psychologist Carl Rogers wrote: "The words 'seem to' are significant; it is the perception [theory or opinion] which functions in guiding behavior." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience."  "The individual in such a moment, is coming to be what he is [of the world only].  He has experienced himself  ['liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. 'liberated' from Godly restraint]."  (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)  Therefore, according to Carl Rogers (according to dialectic 'reasoning'), "In all thy ways experience life to the fullest," must replace (negate) "In all thy ways acknowledge Him" (letting the father/Father direct the child's/man's path, i.e. his thoughts and actions—"It is not in man to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23) if the child/man is to discover his identity, potential, and purpose in the world before him.  By not attacking the child's/man's belief (his father/Father authority) but rather "helping" him focus upon (attend to) the things of the world only, the father's/Father's authority is negated in the child's/man's thoughts and actions and the world is 'changed.'

While most of us look at content, evaluating it as being "good" or "evil" according to standards and rules we learned in the past from a "higher authority" than our "human nature," i.e. from our father and/or mother, our teachers, or God's Word, etc. restraining our "human nature" (making us "unadaptable to 'change,'" inhibiting or restraining 'change' in the present situation), those of dialectic 'reasoning' look at structure of thought, i.e. at paradigms, i.e. how we feel, think, and act in a "given situation," to determine "good" or "evil," basing increasing value or worth upon how far we have moved away from absolute right-wrong ("evil") to accepting no absolute right-wrong, i.e. 'change' as the only "right" ("good") way to think and act, negating (in the thoughts and actions of "the people") not only the sovereignty of the Father's authority over the home, i.e. private property and private business, but the sovereignty of states and nations as well.

Since the traditional family, with its "top-down" authority system (the Patriarchal Paradigm where the husband is to rule his home well, the desire of the heart of the wife is to be to her husband, and the children are to obey their parents, i.e. the father's authority 1) to give commands and rules to be obeyed, facts and truth, to be accepted as is, by faith, 2) to bless those who obey, 3) to chasten those who disobey, and 4) to cast out those who question and challenge his authority, all in the Lord) introduces the children (the future citizens) to the same "top-down" authority system of the Lord (who obeys His Heavenly Father in all things—engendering the system of "fundamental" religion), and the father's of the "community" (differing in their beliefs) divide society between the lost and the saved (in the family structure, those who agree with their position and those who do no—thus, as a result of honoring the Father's authority, producing a "guilty conscience" in the lost, i.e. in the disobedient child who wants to be saved, i.e. who wants to obey his father's/Father's commands and rules, receiving his father's/Father's approval, preaching and teaching his father's/Father's facts and truth to others who might disagree, i.e. who are not willing to believe, thus initiating and sustaining social division in the "community"), the only way to have social unity and world peace ("socialist unity and worldly peace") is to use dialectic 'reasoning' to 'liberate' the children from the father's/Father's authority, "helping" the children 'justify' their carnal nature over and against their father's/Father's authority in the home, thereby negating the father's/Father's authority in the home, in the "community," in the state, in the nation, and in the world in the process. 

According to dialectic 'reasoning,' through the method, system, or paradigm of dialoging opinions to a consensus (there is no father's/Father's authority in dialoging or in an opinion, i.e. dialogue turns belief into a theory, facts and truth into an opinion) children are 'liberated' from the father's authority in the home, becoming unity as "one," i.e. with themselves and the world (in the 'moment'), through the consensus process.  In this way (through dialectic 'reasoning' being put into social action, i.e. into praxis in the the classroom, in the workplace, in the marketplace, in entertainment, in government, in the church, and in the home, the world can be made "Safe for Democracy," i.e. changed, i.e. made adaptable to 'change') citizens are 'liberated' from the Father's authority, i.e. from Godly restraint, not only in the "community," but also in the state, in the nation, and in the world as well, allowing the citizens to negate (neutralize, marginalize, and remove) the father/Father and his authority (along with those who follow his/His way of thinking and acting) without having a "guilty conscience."

Karl Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically."  (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4)   Those following after Marx came to realize that it was not enough to initiating 'change' by killing the fathers, i.e. negating the father/Father and his/His authority in the "community" only.  If 'change' was to be sustained it was also necessary to negate the father's/Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the children as well, though the use of psychology, i.e. engendering social-psychology.  "Kurt Lewin emphasized that the child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group."  (Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education)  While the earthly father is not perfect, the office he serves in is perfect—with it being given to him by God, who is perfect.  It is the imperfection of the father in his office of authority which 'justifies' in the mind of the child his "right" to 'liberate' himself from the father's authority.  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the problem is, the child of disobedience tends to restore the father's office of "top-down" authority when he has children of his own, thus perpetuating the "top-down" system in society, i.e. in education, in the workplace, in government, in the church, etc.  Without 'changing' the child's (the future "father's") way of thinking (how he feels, thinks, and acts in 'changing' situations) 'change' can not be sustained.  Without 'liberating' the children's thought process from the father's thought process (through their classroom experience), 'change,' though initiated, can not be sustained.

 Marx understood that both the "earthly family" and the "holy family" engender the same "top-down" pattern (system or paradigm) of thinking and acting into the world (with the children honoring their father's authority as the Son of God honors His Heavenly Father's authority).  Therefore the dialectic idea is: if you can negate the earthly father's authority over the family (over "the 'family' group," i.e. over the child's thoughts and actions) below, you can negate the Heavenly Father's authority over the world below, 'liberating' the child's thoughts and actions (and therefore "the groups" thoughts and actions, the "communities" thoughts and actions, the nation's thoughts and actions, the world's thoughts and actions) from Godly restraint, creating a "new" world order where only the children are ("human nature" 'liberated' from Godly restraint is) in control—actually those seducing, deceiving, and manipulating us as "human resource," i.e. facilitating 'change' are in control—engendering a world of oppression and abomination. "And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable."  "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 3:4-5, 1  "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand [men unite with one another in consensus], he shall not be unpunished."   Proverbs 16:5 

Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." John 14:6    Christ Jesus came to 'redeem' us from His Father's wrath upon us for our sins against Him (through His shed blood upon the cross), to 'reconciling' us to His Heavenly Father (through His resurrection from the grave).  In the end it has always been about the Father's authority.  The gospel message is, in essence, the Son saying "I want you to meet my Father.  I want you to know my Father's love for you."  Those of dialectic 'reasoning' seek to 'liberate' man from the Father's authority, 'reconciling' him to become at-one-with his own carnal nature and the world only, instead.  While we are to honour the father's authority, we are to serve only one Father "which art in Heaven."  "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9  Those of dialectic 'reasoning' seek to negate the Father's authority in Heaven by negating the father's authority in the home, calling it a paradigm 'shift' where the children of disobedience "rule" instead.  "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  Without the Father's authority there is no gospel message.  Karl Marx understood this.  Do you? 

Marx wrote: "The unspeculative Christian [the believer, i.e. the Christian of faith] also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, i.e., of faith, of true love, i.e., of love of God, of true will-power, i.e., 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 [grow in faith, in love of God, in will in Christ and spread the faith, the love of God, and the will in Christ]."  (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)  Karl Marx knew the gospel message (better than most ministers) and what was required to negate it in the hearts of men.  Any true "scientist" has to know all about the object he wants to 'change' (destroy) and how to 'change' it if he is to accomplish 'change' successfully, i.e. accomplish his objective (as in objectives based education). 

Some are deceived into believing that man can have it both ways, i.e. loving the Father and the world at the same time.  This is the great deception.  The Word of God warns us:  "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.  If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.  For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.  And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."  1 John 2:15-17  "No servant 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."  Luke 16:13 

While the world offers you 'choice' regarding the level (spectrum or continuum) of worldly pleasures (carnality and depravity) you want to participate in, it is only God, i.e. the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, who offers you the choice of eternal life or eternal death.  Choose Him that you might have life (no longer walking on the broad pathway of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. of self-justification, which leads to eternal death).  "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" Matthew 16:26

Despite what you might be told or think, there are really only two paradigms: ... Continued

Preface continued,  Part OnePart TwoPart ThreePart FourPart FivePart SixPart SevenPart EightPart NinePart TenPart  ElevenPart TwelvePart Thirteen Part Fourteen.

© Institution for Authority Research  Dean Gotcher 1997-2014