wauthorityresearch.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, Issues, Articles, Booklet, Schedule, Material, Scheduling, Audios, Radio, Sources, Textus Receptus, Class, Warnings, Thanks! P.S.

deangotcher@gmail.com.

Introduction: Part 1
(Part Two, Part Three)

   What you need to know about dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,'  i.e., "Reasoning" from your "feelings," i.e., your perception (aufheben), i.e.,  your desires and dissatisfactions of the ''moment' in response to the environment stimulating them—how its praxis is affecting ('changing') you, your loved ones, and the world you are living in. How can you resist the enemy of your soul (and why would you?) when he has your "best interest," i.e., your "self interest," i.e., your carnal desires of the 'moment' in mind? If you circumvent (negate) the restrainer of your life, i.e., the father/Father and his/His authority, who is to keep you from 'justifying' your "self," i.e., from satisfying your carnal desires of the 'moment,' who is to save you ("a child of disobedience") from dying in your sins? If you make the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., sensuousness, including the approval (affirmation) of men, then where you spend eternity (based upon righteousness, either God's righteousness, leading to eternal life, or your own 'righteousness,' leading to eternal death) is no longer an issue. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25
   With our flesh we "lust" for pleasure. With our eyes we "lust" after the things of the world which engender pleasure. With our pride we 'justify' our "self" before men—with their approval (affirmation) blinding us to the consequence of our carnal thoughts and carnal actions ("theory and practice"). When we refuse to "submit" our "self" to God (who warns us of where we are going and by whom we are being lead), i.e., when we, in consensus, 'justify' our "self" before men, i.e., when we trust in our "self" and the opinions of men, we end up perceiving God and His Word as being "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant" in a world of 'change,' i.e., in a world subject to our "feelings," i.e., to our carnal desires and dissatisfactions (opinion) of the 'moment,' deceiving ourselves and those who "trust" in us, making God and His Word subject to our (collective) "feelings" (opinions) of the 'moment,' thus making God in our own image, becoming as God ourselves instead. 
   The verse "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." (James 4:7) is as foreign to American's today (including "Christians" and the "church") as honoring and obeying authority is to children. As far as the "church" is concerned, instead of fighting against it, the devil has joined it. Through the department of administration, "cell groups," and facilitated meetings—the dialoguing of everyone's opinions to a consensus, which 'justifying' the deceitfulness and wickedness of men's hearts—he is "helping" it "grow," even doing so in the name of the Lord.
   Life has always been, and will always be about the father/Father and his/His authority, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will and the child's nature, i.e., the child "lusting" after the things of this world wanting to do his will instead. Through the child's use of dialectic 'reasoning' (Genesis 3:1-6), 'justifying' his carnal nature, the child is not only able to negate the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11) in his feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in his relationship with himself, others, and the world, he is also able to negate his having a "guilty conscience" (Romans 7:14-25) for disobeying the father/Father, i.e., for doing unconscionable things, i.e., for his praxis of unrighteousness and abomination—which is the hallmark of dialectic 'reasoning.' Dialectic 'reasoning, i.e., "higher order thinking skills" in morals and ethics (in personal-social issues), i.e., "critical thinking" is not academics. It is Genesis 3:1-6 being put into praxis, 'liberating' the children/man for the father's/Father's authority. It is the Karl Marx in us , i.e., our hate of the father's/Father's restraints, i.e., the child's nature in us being made the law of the land. It is why those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., those who focus upon the children and their "feelings" of the 'moment' have gained the upper hand, when we should be focusing upon the father/Father, upon doing his/His will, i.e., doing what is "right and not wrong" instead.
   Georg Hegel (as do all socialists-humanists-environmentalists-globalists) focused upon the child, i.e., the child's nature—making the family, the community, the church subject to it. Hegel wrote: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [as he learns, through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' how to 'liberate' himself (his "self") from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth which prevent him from being himself—"of and for" his carnal nature and the world only]." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) In establishing the child's nature ("human nature") over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, 'liberating' the child/man from Godly restraint, Hegel (sounding more like Karl Marx, than Karl Marx himself—who was not yet born), negated your right of private property (sovereignty), i.e., unalienable rights, under God, negating your right to say "My children, not yours," "My property, not yours," My business, not yours," "My wife (or husband), not yours"—as God said "My garden, not yours." Hegel, by establishing the child's carnal nature ("human nature"over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority ("doing right and not wrong" according to his/His will), could then write: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [their common "lust" for pleasure, including (and especially) their desire for approval from one another (affirmation)], where there is no antithesis [no "top-down," "right-wrong, "Mine, not yours" way of thinking and acting] of person to person or of subject to object, the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one." ibid.
   Those of dialectic 'reasoning' (of the consensus process) see your children as being their children, your property as being their property, your business as being their business, your wife as being their wife and therefore you as being theirs. What they see they own. You therefore must pay them taxes in order to take care of what is "theirs."

   I was amazed (actually horrified) at how many students (including home-schooled students) told me they already knew what I was going to teach in my class when I taught in the University (an upper 400 level class—American Institutions: abdicating their foundation—how dialectic, inductive 'Reasoning,' has 'changed' America, i.e., 'reasoning' from our "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., from our "sense experience," i.e., our "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment' (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3), i.e., our desires, i.e., our "self interest," dialoging our opinions to a consensus, initiating and sustaining 'change' instead of reasoning from the facts and truth, i.e., "right-wrong" that we have been taught, i.e., reasoning from established commands, rules, facts, and truth which we have learned in the "past," of the past, preached and taught to us by our parents, teachers, minister, history books, the Word of God, resulting in us using didactic, deductive reasoning in making decisions in the 'moment,' inhibiting or blocking 'change').
   From our short conversation I knew they did not know. They did not take the class (already knowing the subject) so they did not come to know (having already made up their mind they already knew). I was horrified knowing that they (the future "leaders" in this nation, in all professions, including the ministry), in their lack of knowledge (yet certain they knew, i.e., confident in their "self") were "sitting ducks," waiting to be seduced, deceived, and manipulated ('changed') in their classes, study groups, campus activities, as well as in their dorm life, putting their trust in and "building relationship" with those "of and for" dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "of and for" "self" 'justification,' i.e., "of and for" "self interest" only, as well—if they were not already "dead in the water," i.e., subjects of the process of 'change,' i.e., "thinking" through their "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., their desires, i.e., their "self interest," i.e., their opinion, "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." 2 Timothy 3:7 "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." " Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is." Jeremiah 17:5, 7 "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." Psalms 118:8
   The so called "shift" in education, i.e., in how to think and act has taken place, and few understand (much less care) what it is, how it has affected (and continues to affect) them, and the consequences of their participating in its deceitful and wicked ways. Convinced in themselves that they know what they are doing and where they are going (when the do not) they refuse to listen to anyone warning them of the consequences of their praxis—responding to their facts and truth as being "irrational," and therefore their warnings as being "irrelevant," i.e., out of touch with the times., i.e., not satisfying their "felt needs," i.e., carnal desires, i.e., "self interest" of the 'moment.'
   The same method of "re-education," i.e., seduction, deception, and manipulation is being used in our high schools (I know since I earned my teaching degree on the same process at a "Christian" college, having to repent of my teacher training at graduation, realizing I had to abandon faith if I was going to use the dialectic process, i.e., "Bloom's Taxonomies" in my classroom, teaching the students how to 'justify' themselves over and therefore against their parent's authority), grade schools, pre-schools, trade schools, colleges, and community colleges, as well as in in-service training (both public and private), even in some home-schooling material and co-ops (which is increasingly becoming the case as the process of 'change' is easily inserted into the material and methods being used)—businesses, military, police, government, churches, etc., can be added to this list —changing' how students think (reason) and act (behave), 'creating' a world of 'change,' with "leadership" i.e., facilitators of 'change' and "the people" (in consensus, i.e., in diversity in unity meetings) making policies and passing laws recognizing, tolerating, supporting, participating in, and promoting unrighteousness and abomination (deviancy), negating Godly restraint in the process.
   Years later, after attending seminary, taking classes at a university studying European history and philosophy (when my work schedule allowed it), I spent five years (on my own, i.e., not for a grade, a class, or a degree) reading and studying (researching) at the Universities reference library, over 600 social-psychology books—major works, foundational, even today, to earning a PhD in sociology and psychology. Weighing what I studied upon the Word of God, the Word of God exposed it for what it is, a process of seduction, deception, and manipulation being used by facilitators of 'change,' i.e., group psychotherapists in order (as in "new" world order) to 'change' you and the world you live in, 'liberating' you and it from Godly restraint. It was from this understanding of how the dialectic process is being used to initiate and sustain 'change' I was able to eventually teach at a University—until the administration 'discovered' I was exposing the process of 'change,' i.e., their agenda and became upset with me. I would expect as much as I studied many of the books administrators must read during their training and apply in selecting students (and professors) for the University. The students who understood what I was teaching, began questioning its use on campus, especially on themselves in their classes. I would love to teach in the university again, but universities today being "open minded" are "close minded" when it comes to their students knowing the truth, since truth makes students resistant toward the process of 'change,' i.e., "close minded" to "open mindedness" since they have already arrived at the truth. After all a theorists, i.e., anyone with an opinion, is someone who does not have all the facts, i.e., does not know the truth, i.e., can not say they know (while a believer can). Pushing their theory as a fact (demanding that everyone accept it and that no one question, challenge, or reject it, including professors) does not make it a fact, i.e., does not make it the truth. In brief, while Universities (including "Christian" Universities) claim they want their students to know the "truth," it is not the truth of the Word of God—which exposes the process of 'change'—they are interested in their student's knowing. As harsh as that might sound, it is unfortunately the truth.
   Over the last twenty years (plus) I have been speaking from coast to coast explaining (to those who have an ear to hear) what to look out for in a world of 'change.' Recently that has almost come to an end as the process of 'change,' i.e., "self 'justification' has become so entrenched in peoples minds few care to know what it is, i.e., few are willing to respond to it and face rejection. For example, correct, reprove, or rebuke someone on Facebook and see how quickly you become "un-friended," i.e., "un-liked," i.e., censored—"Make me 'feel good,' i.e., don't hurt my "feelings" and I'll keep you around as a 'friend.'" That is what "building relationships on self interest," i.e., the consensus process is all about.
   When people of influence, i.e., who are in influential positions in education, at work, in government, in the church, in the "community," etc., are bit by, i.e., become enamored with the dialectic 'bug,' i.e., their "feelings" of the 'moment,' including (and especially) the "feeling" which comes with being approved (affirmed) by others (consensus), it is impossible (except for a miracle) for them to hear, much less accept the truth—regarding the affect the process of 'change' has had (and continues to have) upon them, as well as the affect it is having upon those they influence. By their focusing (education, the workplace, government, the church, etc.,) upon the "building of relationships," i.e., "feelings," instead of upon "doing right and not wrong," they ensure that the child's/man's sinful nature  becomes the law of the land over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority
   If Karl Marx understood this (about the child's/man's nature and the father's/Father's authority, and the need to annihilate the father's/Father's authority if 'change' was to become a reality—as did Immanuel Kant, George Hegel, and Sigmund Freud), so should we—recognize the Father's authority, i.e., have faith in, honour, and obey (serve) the Father, doing His will (being rejected by men) instead of doing our will, i.e., living for the "feelings" of the 'moment' (being affirmed by men), spending eternity in ... (well in their mind it no longer exists, except for when and where they are kept from doing what they want to do, when they want to do it, i.e., kept from living "of and for self," i.e., living "of and for" the 'moment,' i.e., living "of and for" the "here-and-now"— distinguishing right from wrong based upon their carnal desires of the 'moment,' with getting what they want, when they want it being "right" and being prevented, i.e., inhibited or blocked from having it, when they want it, being "wrong"). Dialectic 'reasoning' is in essence the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6 ("self" 'justification'), negating Hebrews 12:5-11 (the father's/Father's authority), negating Romans 7:14-25 (the "guilty conscience" for doing "wrong," i.e., for sinning and our need to be saved). "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:3, 4 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" Romans 1:28 "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  "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."  1 John 2:15
   If somebody asked you to set aside your belief (or accept their belief as being equal with your belief, which is deceptive) before they would make a decision with you or work with you, you would more than likely complain, i.e., object, i.e., protest (from where we derive Protestant, i.e., "Thou doest protest to much."). But if they asked you not to be "negative," i.e., to be tolerant of their belief or unbelief, you would more than likely comply, i.e., co-operate. What do you think your belief is to someone who does not believe or disagrees with your belief? Are we really this stupid (gullible, i.e., "beguilable")? It appears we are.
   Belief ties us to the "right and wrong" which are established by authority, which are "negative" to us when they get in the way of us doing what we want to do, when we want to do it. "Positive" ties us to our own and others "feelings" (desires) of the 'moment.' "Doing right and not wrong," according to our parent's, teacher's, ... God's commands and rules (belief) is a totally different paradigm, i.e., totally different way of looking at things, i.e., of thinking and acting than deciding what is right and what is wrong upon whether we are being "positive" or "negative" ("negative" being "wrong," i.e., hurting our own and/or others "feelings" and "positive" being "right," i.e., making us and/or others "feel good" about ourselves and/or themselves), i.e., according to our own and their "feelings (desires and dissatisfactions) of the 'moment.'" One ties us to authority (objectivity, i.e.., the Patriarchal Paradigm), making decisions according to their standards, the other to our carnal desires of the 'moment' (subjectivity, i.e., the Heresiarchal Paradigm), making decisions according to our "feelings" and "perception" of the 'moment.'
   A maturity person has learned to humble, deny, control, discipline himself, i.e., his "self" in order to do what is right and not wrong while an immature person is "self- ish," basing right upon what he can get out of the situation for himself, i.e., for his "self " in the 'moment,' with wrong being whatever or whoever is preventing him from having whatever it is he wants (right now). While a father can be mature or immature and children the same, the tendency is for the child to be immature, i.e., to be "self-ish," i.e., to center life around his "feeling," i.e., his "self interest" of the 'moment,' while the father tends to center his life around doing what is right and not wrong, disciplining and controlling himself, i.e., his "self," i.e., his "feelings" of the 'moment." Thus the mature father does not hate the child for doing wrong but hates the fact that he has done what was wrong, disciplining him that he might learn to discipline himself, i.e., his "self" instead, in order that he might do what is right (and not wrong) on his own in the future. The immature child on the other hand hates the father for preventing him from having what it is that he wants in the 'moment.' Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., those who 'justify' themselves, i.e., their "self," i.e., their "feelings" of the 'moment' hate the father/Father and his/His authority, killing the father if and when necessary, while those of the father's/Father's authority reward those who obey them, discipline, control, humble, and/or deny (chasten) those who disobey them (that they might learn to do what is right and not wrong), and cast out (remove) those who disrespect and/or defy their authority, with the hope they might change their ways. 
   Those of dialectic 'reasoning' make man's/the child's carnal nature the foundation from which to think and act, thus they depend upon man's/the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., the affective domain in order to initiate and sustain the 'change' process. While the father judges the child based upon the child's performance, he does not pry into the child's "feelings," he just deals with them (at his discretion) when they are expressed. On the other hand those of dialectic 'reasoning' must know (must gain access to) the child's/man's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., the child's/man's "private convictions" in order to initiate and sustain the process of  'change,' i..e, in order to turn the child/man into Pavlov's dog, one of Skinner's rats or one of Thorndike's chickens, i.e., into an animal, subject to stimulus-response only, i.e., manipulatable—only in this case, because man/the child "lusts" after the approval (affirmation) of others, turning him into a "socialist" animal. Our desire for approval (affirmation) from others (especially from those we like, have something to gain in initiating and/or sustaining the relationship, or have something to lose in losing the relationship) and our effort to avoid the pain which comes from being rejected) is so strong in us we are more than likely willing to 'justify' compromising our position or belief for the sake of attaining "group consensus," i.e.,  in a meeting seeking a "feeling" of "oneness." One meeting alone can have a long lasting (if not permanent) affect upon anyone participating, 'changing' how they perceive and respond to themselves, others, and the world around them, including how they perceive and respond to authority. By adding the affective domain, i.e., our "feelings" of the 'moment' (our desire for approval, i.e., affirmation) to the cognitive domain, i.e., to knowledge, i.e., to deciding what is right and what is wrong, knowledge, i.e., right and wrong become subject to our "feelings" of the 'moment,' the environment or situation stimulating them, and whoever is manipulating the environment or situation, i.e., whoever is "helping" us decide what is important and what is not, i.e., "helping" us choose the "appropriate information" in our making a decision—with approval from others (affirmation) and approving (affirming) others being the key ingredient—making being "positive" and not "negative" the foundation from which to determine right from wrong in our thoughts and actions, negating belief and faith, i.e., respect for the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth in the process.
   By "shifting" communication from the preaching, teaching, and discussing of facts and truth (belief) to the dialoguing of our "feelings" and "perception" (opinion) of the 'moment' we are easily manipulated into leaving belief (our parents, ... God) behind in making decisions and "building relationships," making right and wrong (good and evil) subject to our "feelings" (desires) of the 'moment' instead of subject to authority, i.e., to our parent's, teacher's, boss', leader's, and/or God's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., replacing being persuaded with being manipulated, negating faith in the process. When you got up this morning did you say to yourself "I want to be manipulated."? Personally I would rather be persuaded.
   While knowledge (of this world) does come from "sense experience," we acquire much of the knowledge we know (of the world) at first, as children, from the facts and truths we are taught, accepting them by faith, i.e., having faith in the person(s) preaching and teaching them, learning their credibility (both the facts and truths and the one or ones preaching and teaching them) later on in life as we put them into practice. Our belief in God and His Word is dependent upon the same act of faith in the person(s) preaching His Word and teaching us about Him, discussing the truth of His Word with us when we have questions—until we acquire faith in God and His Word alone. It is this knowledge of, i.e., faith in God and His Word, who/which directs our steps, that the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., the so called "scientific" method, i.e., "higher order thinking" or "critical thinking," which are dependent upon our "sense experience," i.e., our "feelings" of the 'moment' in determining "right" from "wrong" on personal-social issues, negates. Knowledge based upon "sense experience," i.e., based upon opinion only, ties us to the world, i.e., to nature only, making ourselves, others, the world, and God's Word subject to our "sense experience," i.e., our "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," i.e., our opinion, i.e., our "feelings" (desires) of the 'moment' only. While "sense experience" is important in, i.e., is foundational to science, i.e., to the study of that which is of the material (temporal) world only, i.e., to that which is observable (of sight) and repeatable, when applied to the soul of man, faith is negated (in parents, teachers, etc., and their commands, rules, facts, and truth and/or God and His Word), making the soul and "right and wrong" subject to the children's own "feelings" of the 'moment,' the environment stimulating them, and whoever might be manipulating the environment, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' or "group psychotherapist."
   If we love doing what is right, we hate ourselves when we do wrong. If we love doing what we want to do, when we want to do, making our "feelings" (desires) of the 'moment' the standard for "right," we hate those who insist that we do what is right according to their standards—which make our "right," i.e., our "feelings" (desires) of the 'moment' wrong. Simply because a parent does wrong—who insists upon their children doing right and not wrong according to their (the parent's) standards—does not make their wrong (behavior) right.
   In this "shift" from basing "right" and "wrong" upon what authority says to where "right" and "wrong" are based upon our "feelings," i.e., our desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' our conscience is replaced with the so called "super-ego," i.e., is negated (seared). The difference between the conscience and the "super-ego" is the conscience ties us to "right-wrong" thinking and behaving, making us "feel bad" when we do wrong, and the "super-ego" ties us to our "feelings" (desires) of the 'moment,' the environment stimulating them, and anyone manipulating it, making "right and wrong," i.e., our conscience subject to our "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., making us seducible, deceivable, and manipulatable, i.e., readily adaptable to 'change.' This is why psychotherapists, i.e., 'change' agents (facilitators of 'change'), i.e., those who seduce, deceive, and manipulate others for a living focus upon their client(s) "feelings," developing the "super-ego," initiating and sustaining 'change' and fathers—(f)authors with authority—focus upon their children doing right and not wrong, developing their conscience, inhibiting or blocking 'change.' Negate the father and his authority in the thoughts and actions of the child, by developing the "super-ego" in the child, and you negate the Father and His authority over the father and the child, in the child's thoughts and actions as well. This is the plan. "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;" 2 Timothy 3:13, 14
   "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers [authorities, in the Greek]. For there is no power [authority] but of God: the powers [authorities] that be are ordained of God [under and therefore subject to God's authority]." Romans 13:1, 2 King James wanted the word "power" used instead of "authority" in his bible, thus keeping the Catholic Churches structure of control over the "church" in place, only with himself at its head (instead of the pope). By making the Greek word ὑπερέχω (which is the Greek word for authority) "power" instead (which is the Greek word δύναμις), he would make his sword (power) equal to God's Word (authority), keeping the "church" (ἐκκλησία, i.e., the "called out ones") under his control, subject to him as the final "authority." Because of these scriptures themselves alone, everyone, in good conscience, has the right to refuse to accept and obey an authorities order which goes against God's Word, i.e., when it is "wrong"—from where we derive "freedom of the conscience"—despite possibly paying the price for disobedience at the "king's" hands. Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., facilitator's of 'change' hate this since "freedom of the conscience" prevents "freedom from the conscience," preventing them from attaining dictatorship over "the people" by consent, i.e., government "of and for themselves" in the name of "the people."
   There is a lot in the next few paragraphs (which may require you to read them more than once), which explain how your child's experience in the consensus process (the "group grade" classroom) 'changes' the way they think and act. Substitute yourself, in the child's position in the following paragraph, and you will see how the same process 'changes' the way you think and act. The same applies to your spouse, your friends, your parents, your neighbors, your legislators, your minister, etc.,.
   Faith in their parent(s) leads to children obeying (or at least attempted to obey) their parent(s) commands and rules, believing in their facts and truth, accepting them as is, by faith. Faith inhibits or blocks resentment in children—when they are missing out on what others are doing or are being chastised by their parent(s) for disobeying—providing the parent(s) provide forgiveness and/or grace when their children repent (truly repent) after failing. If obedience comes first, without faith, resentment is engendered in children—since the parent(s) commands and rules get in the way of, i.e., inhibit or block them from satisfying their desire(s) of the 'moment.' Resentment is then accentuated within children (who have no faith) when they are chastened (physically and/or verbally corrected, reproved, or rebuked) by their parent(s) for their disobedience. The "grievous" part of chastisement comes when children loose (break off) relationship with their sulking, i.e., pity party partner, resentment, humbling and denying themselves, i.e., choosing relationship with their parents instead, resulting in a "peaceful fruit of righteousness" in the home and in themselves when their former "friend," resentment is gone.
   When the parent(s) commands and rules exceed reason, i.e., without any hope of their children being able to satisfy their commands and rules, i.e., without the parent(s) either providing grace, based upon their children's faith in them, or asking their children to forgive them for establishing commands and rules above their capabilities (and then punishing and/or rejecting them when they failed), frustrating them, wrath builds up in their children, with resentment from then on becoming their children's best friend, i.e., who they fellowship with daily. It is this element of resentment or dissatisfaction within children (toward their parent's authority, i.e., toward their parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth which inhabit or block them from satisfying their desires of the 'moment'), those of dialectic 'reasoning' rely (depend) upon, using it in order (as in "new" world order) to engender, i.e., initiate and sustain 'change,' i.e., 'creating' a "new" world order of children, i.e., "children of disobedience" who resent being told what they can and can not do.
   By asking children to share (dialogue) their "feelings" (their opinion, based upon their "feelings," i.e., their desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., their "self interest") of the 'moment' regarding "right and wrong," the "right and wrong" taught by their parents, teachers, etc., and/or God's Word become open to question—because of their resentment toward their parent's and/or God's restraints. Any time a child desires something which is restrained by the parent, resentment (dissatisfaction) is initiated in the child (whether voiced, i.e., expressed or not), unless he humbles and denies himself, controls and disciplines himself, doing the parent's will, i.e., doing what is right and not wrong according to the parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth, out of love for them and the truth. Because parent's and/or God's "right and wrong," "good and evil" get in the way of the child's desires, i.e., "lusts" of the 'moment,' including their desire, i.e., "lust" for approval, i.e., affirmation from other children, especially those who they like, who's thoughts and behavior do not fit in with or conflict with their parent's and/or God's "right and wrong," "good and evil," when the child is put into this situation or condition (temptation), called "cognitive dissonance" (where their desire for approval from their parent(s) and/or God, who restrains their "feelings" of the 'moment,' which requires faith and belief, and their desire for the approval of other children, who identify with and approve of, i.e., affirm their "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., their desire for pleasure, including their desire for approval and dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., their resentment toward the restrainer and the "feeling," i.e., fear they have of being rejected by them for disobeying—which are made manifest through dialogue), they are more likely to choose "building relationship" with other children over and therefore against sustaining 'loyalty' to their parent's and/or God and their/His authority, i.e., restraints.
   Kurt Lewin labeled this internal tension within the child—between the parent's/God's authority and the child's desires—as "barrier behavior," i.e., obeying parents and/ or God and "play behavior," i.e., having fun with, i.e., "building relationship" with other children, including those who's thoughts and actions, i.e., behavior ("theory and practice") their parents and/or God would not approve of. In the consensus process (seeking group harmony based upon "feelings") children are pressured into either going with "the group" i.e., going with "play behavior," setting aside, compromising, denying, or turning against their parents and/or God, i.e., questioning and challenging their and/or His authority, or, holding on to their parent's and/or God's authority, i.e., going with "barrier behavior," experiencing rejection by "the group" instead (with "the group" labeling them as being "negative," divisive, i.e., the cause of conflict and dissention, hateful, intolerant, prejudiced, judgmental, a lower order thinker, irrational, unadaptable to 'change, a resister to 'change,' a barrier to 'change,' not a "team player," etc.).
   Knowledge (knowing right from wrong) from then on (if they go with "the group") is based upon the child's own "sense experience" (desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., resentments of the 'moment') rather than upon faith in their parents, teachers, etc., and their facts and truth, and/or faith in God and His Word, resulting in the child questioning and challenging their parent's and/or God's authority from then on. This condition (conflict or tension) is created in the child by what Kurt Lewin called "group dynamics," where the child's desire for approval from other children, in a diverse group of children, is so strong in them that they are more than likely willing to 'change' the way they think, i.e., how they determine right from wrong, making right and wrong subject to their "feelings," i.e., their desires of the 'moment,' for the sake of "group approval" instead of subject to the standards they had when they first came into the room, with their parent's and/or God's standards, i.e., position, i.e., "prejudices," causing division, i.e., group disharmony—knowing that if they held to their parent's and/or God's standards, they would be rejected by the group (including those who they liked and/or wanted to get to know, i.e., who they wanted to "build relationship" with). By 'shifting' communication in the classroom from facts and truth (preaching and teaching) to feelings (dialogue) engenders these conditions, pressuring the children, putting them under stress, forcing them to choose between restraint, i.e., honoring their parent's and/or God's authority or satisfying their desires of the 'moment,' going with "the group," making themselves readily adaptable to 'change.''
   Being "rational," "reasonable," "understanding," or "practical" from then on, to the child, means the other person is "thinking" through their (the child's) "feelings" of the 'moment,' which can only be made clear through dialogue—which is often cut off by the parent's and/or God's "Because I said so," "It is written" response to the child's "Why?," which is asked by the child in response to the parent's and/or God's commands and rules, i.e., their "right and wrong" which inhibit or block the child's desire of the 'moment,' the "Why?" being the child's attempt to get the parent into dialogue., i.e., into "thinking" through their (both the child's and their) "feelings" of the 'moment,' with the parent's, wanting to keep harmonious "relationship" with their children, 'compromising,' i.e., becoming "rational," "reasonably," etc., themselves in the process, making knowledge subject to "sense experience" instead of to commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., "right and wrong," which where taught to them (the parents) in the past to be accepted as is, by faith, and obeyed. The father (in the office of authority he occupies) can be either legalistic, i.e., dictatorial or benevolent, i.e., loving and caring (yet still holding the child accountable to doing right and not wrong) or anywhere in between. To the child who wants to do what he wants to do, when he wants to do it, "Right Now!" even the benevolent father is seen as being dictatorial when he says "No" to his desires of the 'moment.' It is here that dialectic 'reasoning' resides, rejecting the father's "top-down," "do right-not wrong" authority system outright.
   It all boils down to the child's nature and the father's authority, which are antithetical to one another, the child desiring what he wants in the 'moment' and the father establishing rules, restraining him, with professors "helping" college students (children in adult bodies) overcome differences (antithesis) between themselves (the differences between themselves being their beliefs and attitudes, i.e., "prejudices," etc., which are a carryover of their father's influence, i.e., his authority in their lives), creating synthesis instead by negating the father's authority, i.e., 'liberating' the children/students (and the father, if he is willing to cooperate, i.e., willing to dialogue instead of preach, teach, and discuss) from the father/Father's "top-down," "do right-not wrong" authority system, with themselves and the father becoming "children of disobedience" (desiring pleasure and resenting restraint), "'justifying' themselves," i.e., 'justifying' their carnal thoughts and actions, learning how to work together as one ("building relationship on self interest") in order to 'create' a "new" world order void of the father/Father's authority system, i.e., void of parental/Godly restraint—where children/men formerly learned to humble and deny, control and disciple their "self" in order to do what is right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's standards/will, i.e., his commands, rules, facts, and truth—'creating' a "new" world order established upon unrighteousness and abomination instead, i.e., of human nature only, spreading dialectic 'reasoning' i.e., "self" 'justification' into all walks of life (professions), working to negate the father's/Father's authority in every consensus (synthesis, i.e., "team building," "relationship building") meeting they facilitate or participate in, ad nauseum. In this way sin, i.e., estrangement between man and God (because of man's disobedience to God) is redefined as estrangement of man to man (because of man's faith in and obedience to God, engendered by the child's faith in and obedience to his father). This is something our Facebook mentality culture can not comprehend or is not willing to accept or admit, i.e., the father's/Father's authority (just see how they respond when the father tells them to put the iPhone up or takes it away—like trying to talk to a child who can not communicate without a lollipop in his mouth. Take it out in order to communicate and he won't listen to you, having a fit instead). Even the "church" is actively negating the "old" world order of the father's/Father's authority, 'changing' the gospel message into the "building of relationships" in order to 'create a world of "peace and affirmation" (Georg Hegel in Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel), that man may boast, i.e., "Look at what we can do or 'nothing is impossible to us' if we just learn to work together as one, i.e., as a 'team.'"), negating the gospel message of "grace and peace.," i.e., of God's work alone (that no man may boast of himself, saying instead, "See what God has done."), instead of praying to the Father, praying with themselves, no longer cognizant that the gospel message is all about the Father and His love for us—sending His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ to obey Him in all things commanded, who has called us to do the same, 'redeeming' us from His Father's judgment and wrath (damnation) upon us for our sins, 'imputing' His righteousness unto us that we might stand in the His Father's presence, i.e., participate in His Holiness, with His Father 'reconciling' us to Himself in raising His only begotten Son from the grave, filling us with His Spirit, guiding us and empowering us in doing His will, that we might spend eternity with Him, i.e., with "the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 "[A]nd truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 1:3 Without the Father, the Son "withers away." i.e., he becomes an agent of socialist 'change,' giving the glory of God to man, with man praising the works of his own hands, i.e., worshiping the creation and his own creations (done as a "team"), i.e., worshiping the "experience" (feeling) of worship itself (as a group), instead of worshiping the Lord alone—for His mighty works and Love toward him. (J. L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive) "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." Isaiah 42:8
   The only way to overcome antithesis is to die to your "self," submitting yourself to the Father, being 'redeemed' by His Son, 'reconciled' to the Father, doing the Father's will, inheriting eternal life. Antithesis (torment) remains forever for those who, using dialectic 'reasoning,' attempt to 'justify' themselves, killing (negating) the Father and His authority in your feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in your relationship with one another and the world, doing what you want to do, when you want to do it, according to your carnal nature, dying in your sins, inheriting the torments of eternal death, knowing forever where they could have been if they would have only believed in the truth. There is no synthesis. Synthesis is a product of man's imagination—where man, believing a lie, i.e., that he is "good" or can become "good" by doing "good" works, tries to 'justify' (satisfy) his deceitful and wicked heart. "And for this cause [because men love themselves and the world, i.e., pleasure more than God] God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth [in the Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ], but had pleasure in unrighteousness [in themselves]." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12
   The following is a small part of what I taught in that class (of fourteen, three hour class periods). It explains the 'drive' and the 'purpose,' i.e., the "spirit" of dialectic 'reasoning' without getting bogged down in the rhetoric, history, men, institutions, and methods (Immanuel Kant, Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, György Lukács, Theodore Adorno and the "Frankfurt School," Antonio Gramsci, Kurt Lewin, Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, Benjamin Bloom, Ralph Tyler, James Coleman, etc., plus the National Training Laboratories/Tavistock, Roleplaying, Group Dynamics, Force Field Analysis, group psychotherapy, etc.—some very tedious and boring, i.e., complex and subtle information, but which is essential to initiating and sustaining the process of 'change'), which are covered in other parts of this website. If but for the quotes alone (bolded and italicized)—of those possessed with dialectic 'reasoning' (I give you an example)—I encourage you to at least peruse this and other articles and issues. They explain how dialectic 'reasoning' 'changes' the way children think and act, turning them against authority, i.e., their parent's and God's. Here is the diaprax chart—dialectic 'reasoning' in praxis or "self" 'justification' in social action chart I used in that class.
  When you allow your children to be 'changed' in the way they think and act—when through dialectic 'reasoning, i.e., "self" 'justification,' (with the "help" of a facilitator of 'change') children are taught how to 'liberate' themselves, i.e., human nature from their parent's and God's authority, i.e., from the father/Father's authority system—your life is directly affected, with God turning you over to your demise at their hands. "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, 12 "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken." Jeremiah 6:16, 17 "... and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death." Mark 13:12 While "the children of disobedience" may reign for a season, their days of 'liberation' from the Father's authority will come to an end. But until then the world will experience oppression and death at their hands—done in the name of liberté, égalité, fraternité, "Making the world safe for democracy," even being done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
   When, through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification'—Genesis 3:1-6—the earthly father's authority system is rejected by children (including those in adult bodies), the Heavenly Father's authority system is rejected as well (both being the same "top-down," "do right and not wrong" authority system, despite one being temporal, the other Holy—Hebrews 12:5-11). It is not that the earthly father's authority can save any man (or child)—the earthly father could be a tyrant in the office. It is that his office of authority is from God, with God's authority being above his authority, with those in authority and those under authority (all individuals) establishing the Heavenly Father's authority above all authority (to be obeyed above all—from where we get "freedom of the conscience"—with those negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e., individualism, under God, engendering "freedom from the conscience" instead). It should be noted that those of dialectic 'reasoning' incorrectly (yet deliberately) correlate the father's/Father's authority to fascism—which is socialist in structure. As "National socialism," which is national, i.e., subject to one, is to "Global socialism," i.e., globalism, which is international, i.e., subject to the many, all forms of socialism destroy the father's authority, usurping it in the name of "the people." The American Revolution and Constitution removed the father's authority from government (limiting the power of government), but left it in tact in the home, i.e., in private property, business, and unalienable rights, under God, which few seem to understand today. By coming between the father and his family the very concept of sovereignty and unalienable rights is negated. "Any non-family-based collectivity [that which does not support the father's authority over his family] that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a democratizing [liberalizing] impact on that relationship." "Once uncertainty is created in the parent how best to prepare the child for the future, the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)
   The Heavenly Father's authority system (reflected in the earthly father's authority system, as explained in Hebrews 12:5-11) is all about us being 'reconciled' to our Heavenly Father, His Son's obedience 'redeeming' us from His wrath upon us for our disobedience, i.e., for our propensity to sin—Romans 7:14-25. Negate the father's/Father's authority system and repentance, forgiveness, salvation, and reconciliation, i.e., sin no longer remains an issue in man's (and the child's) life, resulting in man and child being "free" to sin with impunity, i.e., "liberated' to think and act "normally" with no sense of guilt (guilty conscience) or accountability before the father/Father for doing wrong. According to dialectic 'logic,' by the child/man accepting the earthly father's authority system over the child's thoughts and actions, the Heavenly Father's authority system is engendered in the child's/man's thoughts and actions. Therefore, by negating the earthly father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the child, the Heavenly Father's authority is negated in the thoughts and actions of men, 'liberating' man from God's authority, the citizens from the King's authority, the worker(s) from the boss's authority, the wife from the husband's authority, the children from the father's authority, engendering socialism (globalism) in its place. Hegel, Marx, and Freud had this in mind.
   As a child turns a broomstick into a horse and rides it, the "group grade" turns a group of children into a horde of riders (Marxists), riding out (as one) to conquer the world, making it safe for them to play in, i.e., to have their way in without parental or Godly restraint. Some call it a "paradigm" 'change' or 'shift' from "faith-action" (dichotomy) to "theory-practice" (unity)—'changing' the youth from respecting authority to where they question and challenge (disrespect/disregard) authority, doing what they "feel" like doing instead, putting their theory (their opinion), which means they do not have all the facts, into practice, demanding that you put your "trust" in them, wagering your life (and your children's life) on the hope that they "might" be right. "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." " Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is." Jeremiah 17:5, 7 "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." Psalms 118:8
   In the end it is children (including children in adult bodies) making their "feelings" of the 'moment' equal to, i.e., greater than facts and truth of the 'past.' Thus they are unable "to come to the knowledge of the truth" since they have already made up their minds as to what the truth is, which, to them, is ever subject to 'change,' according to their "feelings" (desires) of the 'moment,' resulting in any fact or truth which inhibits or blocks their "self interest" (desire) of the 'moment,' i.e., which judges and condemns their "truth" as being wrong, i.e., which hurts their "feelings," as being irrational ("You just don't understand." i.e., "You are not thinking through my 'feelings.'") and therefore any person(s) espousing absolute truth as being irrelevant (not worth listening to) in the 'changing' times. "We recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places." (Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain, p. 32) "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 2: Affective Domain, p. 83) These are statements (in "Bloom's Taxonomies") by which all teachers are "certified" and schools are "accredited" today, including "Christian."
   Since dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' (the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process) has now become the way we think as a culture, we should at least know what it is and how it has 'changed' and continues to 'change' us, our children, our spouse, our friends, our neighbors, our nation, the world, and even the "church." Despite all their clamber for secular (humanist) "rights," i.e., the separating of secularism from "religion," i.e., the separation of man from God (making man God), those who use dialectic 'reasoning' in their classroom, use it in order to seduce, deceive, and manipulate their students into joining them in their praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, negating Hebrews 12:5-11, negating Romans 7:14-21, negating faith in God in their lives, 'changing' the culture from the inside out—the idea (agenda) being, negate the children's (the next generation's) faith in parental authority (a system or way of thinking and acting called a Patriarchal Paradigm), under God, in the classroom and you negate mans' faith in God, the source of "controversy," i.e., conflict and tension (division) in society. There is no other 'purpose' for its use in the classroom.
    The child, isolated by himself, still under parental authority, has a guilty conscience for doing wrong. But when doing wrong is approved by the group as being "normal," the guilty conscience is abated. The same is true for man, under God's authority, sinning, being approved by man. All it takes is the replacing of the father/Father and his/His authority system with the facilitator of 'change,' 'liberating' the children/man from the father's/Father's restraints. "Human consciousness [the child] can be liberated from the parental (Oedipal) complex [the father's/Father's authority] only be being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state [the traditional classroom] and the patriarchal God [the traditional educator]." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "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)

Don't go after the parents and their traditional way of thinking in the classroom. The children will defend them, telling on you when they get home, getting you fired. 'Liberate' the children's desire for pleasure and their resentment toward restraint, i.e., encourage them to openly share (dialogue) their opinions (their desires and dissatisfactions) with one another in your classroom (uniting on those they can all agree, i.e., come to a consensus on) and when they get home they will put what they have learned in the classroom into practice (praxis), going after their parents and their traditional way of thinking, defending you instead (not telling on you). It only takes one classroom or "youth group" experience for it to take affect, i.e., for 'change' to take place.

   'Changing' the classroom curriculum from the professor preaching and teaching facts and truth to where the students dialogue their opinions to a consensus accomplishes the deed. We are persuaded (and persuade others) with facts and truth, manipulated (and manipulate others) with our (and their) "feelings" of the 'moment.' By 'changing' communication from the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth (which we can privately agree or disagree with, making our decision based upon our "private convictions") to where we are seduced and/or pressured (via. "group dynamics," i.e., our desire for group approval, i.e., affirmation) into dialoguing our opinions to a consensus, we negate "private convictions," i.e., having a guilty conscience for doing wrong. In order to initiate and sustain common ground with others, by basing right and wrong upon "feelings," i.e., upon their and our common desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' instead of upon commands, rules, facts, and truth established by authority, we make ourselves and them both subject to the process of 'change.' When we "building relationships" upon our and others "feelings," i.e., upon our and their common carnal desires and dissatisfactions ("self interest") of the 'moment' we end up sacrificing respect for authority as well as faith in facts and truth—which are intolerant of our (and our "friend's") deviant feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment'—in order to initiate and sustain our "relationship" with them, i.e., affirmation, making "human relationship," i.e., humanism the bases of our thoughts and actions instead of doing right and not wrong, i.e., righteousness, according to our parent's and/or God's will.
   The mantra of "education," i.e., curriculum is no longer the "three R's" but is now: "We must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions [those holding to principles i.e., their parent's, teacher's, constituent's, or God's commands, rules, facts, and truth, refusing to compromise] in joint deliberations [in a consensus meeting] as a vice rather than a virtue." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum) The dialoguing of opinions to a consensus , i.e., "group grade" classroom does just that, turns the traditional minded student into the enemy, i.e., into the barrier to 'change.'
   Interestingly Kant's, Hegel's, Marx's, Freud's dialectic 'reasoning' (including Socrates, i.e., critical thinking) boils down to two things, authority in the home and faith in God, i.e., the negation of them both—no matter where it is used, even in the home and/or in the "church." The 'moment' you are asked to put aside "right and wrong" to "get along" you are in the process of 'change.' The child's desire for approval (affirmation) by his peers is so powerful (especially in "adolescents" where the child readily identifies with and desires to associate with other children, whose desires and behavior conflict with family life, i.e., the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth) he will set aside "doing right and not wrong" in order to "belong." The same is true for men/women—our desire for the approval of others is so strong in us, if we do not seek the approval of God first and foremost, we will succumb to it). "Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [their belief in parent, nation, or God] in the face of apparent group unanimity [acceptance, i.e., affirmation by the group]." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) Thus the need to include the "deviant" in the consensus process, pressuring the "judgmental" to "tolerate deviancy," i.e., to set aside "right and wrong" in order to participate, i.e., in order to be approved by "the group." "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs [tolerating and participating in deviancy ("self interest")] by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin, in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "Part of the dialectics of the process of winning independence from parental authority lies in using the extrafamilial peer group as a foil to parental authority, particularly in the period of adolescence." (Bradford, Gibb, Benne, T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method: Innovation in Re-education) "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other [dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., authority which inhibits or blocks, i.e., "stands in the way" of having or enjoying the things desired in the 'moment'], they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory) "Only by bringing out the child's own ideas [desires and dissatisfactions] in the dialogical and dialectic [dialogue] settings can the child begin to reconstruct and progressively transcend [the teacher's, their parents, etc.] concepts [belief—in dialectic 'reasoning' belief is treated as an opinion or theory]. We must learn . . . to identify not with the content of our beliefs [commands, rules, facts, and truth engendering a "right-wrong," "judgmental" attitude] but with the process by which we arrived at them [by replacing the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is, by faith with the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, thus making commands, rules, facts, and truth subject to (adaptable to) the situation of the 'moment,' i.e., every subject to 'change']. We must come to define ourselves . . . as people who reason their way into, and can be reasoned out of, beliefs. To do this we must learn how to reason dialogically and dialectically [according to our "feelings," i.e., our "sense perception" of the 'moment,' making all things subject to what "seems" to be, i.e., what is relevant to or practical to us in the 'moment']." (Richard Paul, Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs To Survive In A Rapidly Changing World) The scriptures warn us of consequence of this way of thinking: "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25
   It is in dialogue that 'change,' i.e., 'liberation' from parental authority—in order to be "of and for self," individually and collectively—takes place. 'Change' according to dialectic 'reasoning' is not that children grow up not believing in their parent's belief, i.e., changing their belief, but that they grow up having no belief (faith) at all—except in themselves, their relationship with others, and the world, i.e., only in that which they can feel and see (which is not faith). "Belief" is tolerated as long as it is adaptable to 'change,' i.e., tolerant of deviance. God is patient, that we might repent, not tolerant of deviancy, justifying sin. True belief (fundamentalism) is considered "extremism," even in the "church" today, since "building relationships" ("fellowship") is based upon the dialoguing of opinions ("self interests") to a consensus, for the sake of unity, i.e., piece and affirmation, instead of upon sound doctrine, i.e., the Word of God alone—un-tampered with men's opinions and traditions, making all men subject to God and His Word first and foremost.
   Three elements are essential for 'change.' 1) the child's desire for 'change,' i.e., his desire for the pleasures of the 'moment,' including his desire for affirmation, i.e., approval by "the group," and his dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., parental authority, 2) others who desire 'change,' i.e., who desire the pleasures of the 'moment,' including the desire for affirmation, i.e., approval by "the group," and their dissatisfied with restraint, i.e., parental authority, and 3) a facilitator of 'change' to "help" them, i.e., the children "discover" and focus upon common desires and dissatisfactions, making the students "feelings," i.e., their desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' not only a part of their classroom experience of the day, but a part of their everyday life outside the classroom as well. "Persons will not come into full partnership in the process until they register dissatisfaction." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
   The scriptures instruct us instead: "And having food and raiment let us be therewith content." 1 Timothy 6:8 "Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me." Hebrews 13:5, 6 It is in "covetousness," i.e., our carnal desires, i.e., our "self interests" of the 'moment' that resentment and hate, i.e., dissatisfaction with restraint (the father's/Father's authority) resides. It is here that those who seduce, deceive, and manipulate for a living, facilitator's of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapist's" gain control over you, using you for their own pleasure and gain. "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you [turn you into "human resource" to be used for their own pleasure and gain—turning the children against their parent's authority, the citizens, including the "church," against Godly restraint]." 2 Peter 2:3 While the "church" might "grow" itself using polls, surveys, feasibility studies and consensus meetings, it does it in vain, i.e., for its own pleasure and gain, coveting the praises of men, loosing everything in the end. "Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." Psalms 127:1
   By generalizing the children's "feelings," i.e., their desires and dissatisfactions within the political arena, with the children evaluating the social "crisis'" around them (in the world) from their own "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment,' i.e., according to their own "sense experience" they will readily identify with those resisting authority, i.e., attempting to 'liberate' themselves from authority, 'justifying' (with group affirmation, i.e., the consensus process) their own resentment toward authority, becoming socialists in the process. Instead of addressing the heart of those in authority (from caring or being benevolent to being uncaring or heartless), the children, using dialectic 'reasoning,' reject the authority system itself.
   It is not that the traditional system of thinking and acting can save anybody. It can not. It is that it allowed all the freedom of conscience and the freedom to be saved, i.e., to recognize and accept the authority of the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ over their life, i.e., over their thoughts and actions, and be recognized and accepted in the home, at work, as well as in government and in the "church."
   Money (the exchanging of and storing up of pleasure) is at the heart of the issue, with the children themselves, i.e., their future labor being money ("human resource," i.e., pleasure in the hands of the facilitator of 'change') with their inheritance, i.e., their father's money, being heavily taxed and spent in the "here-and-now," with the nation going into debt satisfying the facilitator of 'changes' desires, i.e., his pleasures and gain. This is why new victims most continuously be brought under the "influence" of facilitators of change, i.e., "group psychotherapists," " i.e., their seduction, deception, and manipulation (as women and men, girls and boys are brought under the "influence" of pimps and children are brought under the "influence" of pedophiles), perpetuating their pleasures and gain, i.e., the process of 'change.'
   "Freud noted that patricide and incest [the children killing the father so they could have sensual (sexual) relationship with the mother and with one another, i.e., abomination without having a guilty conscience] are part of man's deepest nature." (Irvin Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy) Freud believed in incest, i.e., that it was natural, and therefore normal for children to have sexual relationship with one another and their mother, hating their father,' who, setting up rules, prevented it, creating "neurosis." "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother—culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan," (Sigmund Freud's history of "civilization" in Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)
   Psychology would not (and can not) exist except for Freud's interpretation of history, i.e., the 'liberation' of children, men, and women from the father's/Father's authority, so they can have sex (sensual pleasure) with one another without having a "guilty conscience." The laws of abomination we are encountering today have their origin in the "group psychotherapy," i.e., consensus meetings going on around us, which 'justify' the deceitful and wicked heart of men, women, and children, making it, i.e., man's heart (his carnal desires of the 'moment') the law of the land, void of Godly restraint. The moment' you hear someone say to you "don't be negative," your are being "asked" to leave Godly restraint out of the conversation, affecting any (and every) decision you and they make.
   Father's do not ask their children how they "feel" or what they "think," i.e., for their opinion, when giving them a command. They may discuss things with their children, at their (the father's/Father's) discretion, when they (their children) have questions regarding how to do things or why they work the way they do. The father/Father say "Because I said so."/"I Am" or "Thus saith the Lord" when his/His commands and rules are questioned or challenged, i.e., when asked "Why?" or his/His commands (and authority) would have no lasting value, i.e., would be ever subject to the child "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., ever subject to 'change.' Again, this does not mean that fathers do not discuss things with their children, at the father's discretion, retaining their authority in the process.
   What are the two questions psychotherapists ask everyone? Without their "How did or do you feel?" and "What did or do you think?" questions (neutering the father, negating his authority) their profession would (could) not exist.
   It is not how far down the road of psychology you have traveled, it is that you are on the road that leads to abomination and damnation in the first place. Anyone interested in taking psychology (which is required for all professions today, including ministry) should know where Sigmund Freud is leading them, i.e., where they are going. Norman O. Brown wrote of Freud: "The entry into Freud cannot avoid being a plunge into a strange world and a strange language―a world of sick men, ....It is a shattering experience for anyone seriously committed to the Western traditions of morality and rationality to take a steadfast, unflinching look at what Freud has to say. To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;..." "Our real choice is between holy and unholy madness: open your eyes and look around you―madness is in the saddle anyhow." "It is possible to be mad and to be unblest, but it is not possible to get the blessing without the madness; it is not possible to get the illuminations without the derangement," "I wagered my intellectual life on the idea of finding in Freud what was missing in Marx." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) Freud noted, as Karl Marx, that the father's/Father's authority in the home was the "problem," that without its removal the child (and society) could not become "normal." Freud wrote: "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [the father no longer has authority in the home]." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)
   Karl Marx, noting the same for society, wrote: "Thus, for instance, 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, Feuerbach Thesis #4) It is no wonder that after all Marxist revolutions (violent or velvet) so many orphaned children are left (in the millions), the children themselves being "encouraged" to kill their own father's in the process—following after Fyodor Dostoevsky's, The Brothers Karamazov. Georg Hegel simply dropped the father's authority out of the picture outright, starting with the child (human nature void of Godly restraint) as the bases for society, thus—sounding more like Karl Marx than Karl Marx himself (who was not yet born)—making all things "equal": "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality." "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [all of human nature only, desiring pleasure and resenting restraint], where there is no antithesis of person to person or of subject to object [husband over the wife, father and mother over the children, God over man, i.e., King over the people, boss over the worker, etc.,], the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)
   Preaching and teaching what "is"—to be accepted and obeyed as is (by faith)—establishes authority. Dialoguing what "ought" to be, makes all "equal" in thought, desiring 'change.' Uniting thought (opinion or theory) with action (practice) makes all "one" in "theory and practice," negating the "one" in authority demanding his/His way—which divides. Thus "theory and practice," i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "group psychotherapy" negates the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "doing right and not wrong" according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, and the right to say "Mine. Not your." as in "My wife. Not yours." "My children, Not yours." "My property. Not yours." "My business. Not yours." i.e., "My garden. Not yours." making your wife, your children, your property, your business and even you the property of (pleasure for) all, negating "right" of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness apart from "the group," i.e., "the collective," i.e., "the community," i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' who is now in "authority," seducing, deceiving, and manipulating all into doing it his way, i.e., what "can" be, with no accountability for failure (on his part, in his mind), you did it, he just suggested, i.e., gave you (and others) his opinion, and you followed him (and them) in his (and your) deceitful and wicked way, giving all that God has given you over to him, including your soul.
   Thus, instead of, according to God, "the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." (1 Corinthians 10:26) with man having "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26), according to Rousseau "the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody" (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality), negating God's right to say, regarding His garden in Eden, "My garden. Not yours." driving Adam and the woman out for disobedience, 'justifying' man's carnal nature (sins), driving God out instead. Do not let the facilitator's of 'change,' i.e., the psychotherapist's "sweet," "caring" demeanor fool you. Jesus spoke of facilitators of 'change,' i.e., psychotherapists, i.e., wolves in sheep skin. (Matthew 7:15)
   When a facilitator of 'change,' i.e., a psychotherapists, i.e., a Transformational Marxist walks into the room, you are not his enemy, the way you think is. You are just his next victim. If you come in thinking your parent's or God's way, preaching and teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, he is out to 'change' you, i.e., the way you think so that he can do what he wants without having a guilty conscience (for doing wrong), i.e., so that he can sin with impunity. The consensus process is all about him. If he can get you to agree with him, i.e., set aside your parent's or God's authority (commands, rules, facts, and truth) in order to "get along," he is "free," making you "at-one-with" him, 'creating' a "new" world order, with him, in his image.
   Karl Marx is in your children—they can "feel" (and you can see) his presence in their resentment/hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority. If he was not there, in their "feelings" of the 'moment,' the "new" world order would not be an issue, i.e., could not exist. If they hate your and/or God's restraints, i.e., the father's/Father's authority in their life—directing their steps—desiring the world and the approval of their "peers" instead, who needs Karl Marx in person. They will do. The same is true for you. Karl Marx wrote: "Every class [group of children] lacks the breadth of soul [human reaction] which identifies it with the soul of the people [love of pleasure and hate of restraint], that revolutionary boldness which flings at its adversary [the father's/Father's authority] the defiant phrase; I am nothing and I should be everything." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') "The life which he has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) In other words, when children obey their parent's commands and rules, which inhibit or block their nature, i.e., which prevent them from satisfying their carnal desires of the 'moment,' they abdicate their "rights." Only by negating parental authority can they regain their "rights" again. When a man rejects God, the Father's authority, as a child rejects his father's authority, directing his own steps instead, selfishness, hatred, violence, and death become his path, i.e., his way of "life." "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23 "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 dialectic method is "overthrown" when children/professors retain 'loyalty' to their parent's/God's authority, i.e., continue to preach and teach their parent's/God's commands, rules, facts, and truth—to be accepted as is, by faith—in a "peer group" environment, i.e., in an environment where the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus is being put into social action (praxis). The facilitator of 'change' is forced to shut down any meeting where "authoritarianism," i.e., "doing right and not wrong," i.e., "judgmentalism," i.e., parental authority gains control, "disrupting" the meeting—putting the meeting off to another time when he can initiate and sustain control—guarantee the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process. "The dialectical method was overthrown―the parts [the children/the professors] were prevented from finding their definition within the whole [within "the group"]." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness; What is Orthodox Marxism?) "All that matters is that the opportunity for genuine activity ["self interest"] be restored to the individual [to the child/to the professor]; that the purposes of society ["the group"] and of his own become identical." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom) That "purpose of society" and "the individual" being the augmentation of pleasure (including the pleasure of affirmation) and the attenuation of pain (including the pain of being rejected by others or missing out on the pleasure of the 'moment' in order to do right and not wrong, according to their parent's/God's standards, i.e., according to their commands, rules, facts, and truth—their "prejudices"). It is in the child's actualization of his "self," i.e., "self actualization" that he "transcends" the restraints of the "past," i.e., the father/Father's authority system. "Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species [humanists, socialist, globalists, environmentalists] first and foremost." (Abraham Maslow, The Further Reaches of Human Nature)
   It is in the child's desire for pleasure and approval, i.e. peace and affirmation, i.e., "self interest" that dialectic 'reasoning' resides. All the professor has to do is 'create' a "safe" ("healthy") environment (haven) where "self interest" (the child's desire for pleasure and dissatisfaction with restraint) can "arise" without fear of reprimand, i.e., parental authority, and children will "willingly" (for approval) make it their "new" way of thinking from then on—creating conflict and tension (disrespect for authority) in the home. Man's "peace" is of this world, subject to the fleeting pleasure of the 'moment' and the approval of men (which is fickle), approving his carnal nature. True peace comes only through God's grace, man then having peace of soul and mind, knowing that, through Christ Jesus, i.e., 'redemption,' he is 'reconciled' to God the Father. "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Romans 5:10 "Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." (the Apostles Paul, Peter, and John—first and second John—starting their letters this way to the believers) Without the grace (leading to repentance) there is not true and lasting peace, only "self" 'justification,' i.e., unrighteousness, abomination, and "group hug" on the way to death—God's statement that "You are not God."
   Truth is sacrificed on the altar of "self 'justification,'" where you make knowledge (regarding "good" and "evil," "right" and "wrong") subject to your "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., your "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment,' as the woman and Adam did in the garden in Eden (Genesis 3:1-6 ), making "sense experience," i.e., aufheben, dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "feelings" based reasoning, inductive reasoning , i.e., "Reasoning" from their carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., their "self interest," "human nature," i.e., their lust of the flesh and eyes and the pride of life, not the commands, rules, facts, and truth of the father/Father (Hebrews 12:5-11), i.e., the Word of God, i.e., "Thou shalt not ...," "It is written ....," "Because I said so," didactic (facts/truth based) reasoning, deductive reasoning , i.e., reasoning from an established fact or truth the foundation from which to determine "good" and "evil," "right" and "wrong" from—being deceived, taking pleasure in deceiving others, making pleasure "good" and restraint "evil"—exonerating the flesh, i.e., that which is of the world, i.e., approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e., that which is temporal, over and therefore against the soul, i.e., that which is created by and for God, the Word, i.e., that which is of God, i.e., God breathed, doing right and not wrong according to His will, i.e., that which is eternal, and God himself, from whom all good things proceed. One leads to eternal life (heaven) the other to eternal death (hell).
   With everyone these days correlating the enjoyment of the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' as to being in "heaven" and the missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment' as to being in hell, who is concerned about being "cast into the lake of fire," i.e., the consequence of 'living' for the pleasures of the 'moment,' anymore. It is not that pleasure itself is evil, it is that we become evil when we establish pleasure, i.e., our desires of the 'moment' over (and therefore against) doing right and not wrong according to God's will. Dialectic 'reasoning' establishes the child's desire for the pleasures of the 'moment' over and therefore against doing right and not wrong according to their parent's will, thereby establishing man's desire for the pleasures of the 'moment' over and therefore against doing right and not wrong, according to God's will, making truth and knowledge subject to the child's (your and everyone else's) "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., ever subject to 'change.' In this way of thinking, anyone who refuses to become "adaptable to 'change" is perceived as being the initiator and sustainer of "evil," needing counseling, i.e., "group psychotherapy" in order to become "normal," i.e. "healthy," i.e., "of and for self" and society.
   By using dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "higher order thinking skills" in morals and ethics, i.e., "enlightenment," i.e., "illumination" in the classroom, calling it academics, "educators" become aletheiaphobic, i.e., hostile towards the truth, skotophilic, i.e., lovers of darkness, deniers of their wicked ways and their need for salvation (Romans 7:14-25), followers after the master facilitator of 'change' (Genesis 3:1-6 ), i.e., the master psychotherapistseducing, deceiving, and manipulating all who come under their influence—establishing "self" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11), blaming someone else, i.e., their parents, their teachers, their boss, the government, God and/or the environment, i.e., the situation of the 'moment' for their (and everyone else's) problems, i.e., for their sins. Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' negates the "educator's" as well as the student's guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying the father/Father, so they can sin with impunity, i.e., sin without having a sense of guilt—its intended 'purpose.'
   Students carry their parents standards ("judgmentalism") into class, judging one another and the professors ideas and conduct by them. By 'changing' the class curriculum, "encouraging" the students—pressuring (bullying) the students, who desire approve from someone they like or someone they want to get to know, i.e., who they want to "build relationship" with in "the group," i.e., who fear being rejected by "the group" for judging "the group" or members of "the group" for their thoughts and actions (by their parent's standards), thus offending them—to openly dialogue their opinions with one another (to a consensus) without fear of reprisal ("judgmentalism," i.e., being reprimanded by authority for saying something wrong or questioning or challenging their authority), "willingly" revealing to "the group" their own personal feelings and thoughts on social issues, which include their desire for pleasure (peace and affirmation) and dissatisfaction with restrain (resentment or hatred toward authority), the professor is able to "help" the students "circumvent" their parents position ("judgmentalism"), 'liberating' not only themselves, but himself as well, from their parents/God's authority and therefore from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong. Changing the classroom curriculum from the teacher preaching commands and rules to be obeyed, teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith), and discussing (at the teachers discretion) any misunderstandings, corrections, disagreements, etc., to where students are "encouraged" to dialogue their opinions to a consensus, moves the students away from using facts and truth in order to make decisions to making decisions based upon their "feelings" (opinion) of the 'moment,' 'liberating' themselves from parental authority, uniting themselves as "one" in though and in action, i.e., in theory and practice, engendering liberté, égalité, fraternité, 'creating' a so called "new" world order of unrighteousness and abomination.
   According to professors ("educators") who reason dialectically (from and for their "feelings"), parental authority and/or God's authority (authoritarianism) is the cause of tension and conflict not only in the students lives but in society as well. Therefore, instead of professors instructing their students, like traditional parents, demanding students set their "feelings," i.e., their desires ("self interest") of the 'moment' aside, in order to learn the truth—in order to do what is right and not wrong, according to what they have been taught—they are indoctrinating their students in the ideology that their "feelings" of the 'moment' are (through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., higher order thinking skills in morals and ethics) the pathway to knowing the 'truth,' guiding them in doing what is right and not wrong in the 'moment,' in the "light" of the current situation (being manipulated by the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the professor), making truth subject to their "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., ever 'changing.'
   It is not that the students simply learn how to 'change' (morph) in order to fit into any "group" they come in contact with, i.e., "When in Rome do as the Romans do." It is that they also learn how to seduce, deceive, and manipulate others, indoctrinating them in how to advance the process of 'change' itself, making the propagation of it their way of life, i.e., their way of thinking and acting as well.
   "Higher order thinking skills" are essential in science—used to 'discover' the laws of nature (which are established by God) and then used to build things by applying them. But when they are applied to the thoughts and actions of man himself, they materialize him, making him subject to nature only—'justifying' his carnal impulses and urges ("lusts") of the 'moment,' making him "normal" in his own eyes, resulting in him "building relationships" with himself, others, and the world according to his carnal nature, i.e., according to his "self interest" of the 'moment.' Instead of repenting of their sins, "educators," using dialectic 'reasoning' in the classroom, are able to 'justify' their sins and the sins of their students, calling it "human nature," i.e., "boys will be boys" so they can, with "group approval," i.e., with affirmation, sin with impunity.
    When children make pleasure the standard for "good"—making those who inhibit or block it "evil"—they will not have a guilty conscience doing evil, i.e., doing unconscionable things to those who get in their way, i.e., who attempt to stop them from enjoying the pleasures they desire in the 'moment.' When children learn (as a class) that it is their parent's authority (the father's/Father's authority system) that stands in their way, the parent's children become their "gravediggers." (Karl Marx, Das Capital, in György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness, March, 1920) "For one class to stand for the whole of society [a child centered society], another must be the class of universal offense and the embodiment of universal limits [parental authority]. A particular social sphere [traditional parents preventing 'change,' "repressing" their children, "alienating" them from having relationship with the other children of the community] must stand for the notorious crime of the whole society, so that liberation from this sphere appears to be universal liberation. For one class to be the class par excellence of liberation, another class must, on the other hand, be openly the subjugating class." "The only practically possible emancipation [for children] is the unique theory which holds that man is the supreme being for man [children are the supreme being for children]." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') Bracketed added. Seen any "adults" thinking and acting like children lately? Like forty year old men playing with "toys." "Estrangement is a phase of the dialectical process, and that by experiencing and overcoming it [children 'discovering' their commonalty and uniting as one in overcoming parental authority, i.e., separating themselves from that which divides them] man creates his own self and then fulfills himself as a man [the child creates and fulfills his "self" in 'liberating' his "self" from the parental authority system itself, finding his identity in the collective, i.e., in the children of the community instead]." (Karl Marx in John Lewis, The life and Teaching of Karl Marx) The praxis of children dialoguing their opinions to a consensus over social issues initiates and sustains their 'liberation' from parental authority, i.e., from the authority system itself.
   A handbook all "certified" teachers are trained in and schools are "accredited" by states: "We recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places." (Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain, p. 32) This is simply a paraphrase of Karl Marx's statement: "In the eyes of the dialectical process, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx)
   In the second handbook ("taxonomy" for teacher and school curriculum, the affective domain, i.e., the student's "feelings" domain, which makes the dialectic process "work," 'liberating' the students from their parent's authority) we read: "The affective domain [the carnal desires of the child's heart, which the parents restrain with their commands and rules] is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box' [a mythological box (jar) full of evil, which, once opened, i.e., once respect for their parents authority is removed in the students feelings and thoughts, can not be closed]." "The affective domain contains the forces that determine the nature of an individual's life and ultimately the life of an entire people." "It is in this 'box' that the most influential controls are to be found." "We are not entirely sure that opening our 'box' is necessarily a good thing;" (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 2: Affective Domain) According to the "taxonomy," the role of the teacher is "'to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents," i.e., the teachers agenda is to base education upon their students "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., upon their affective domain, i.e., upon their opinions and their desire for affirmation from one another, i.e., "the group," in the process engendering 'change,' i.e., 'liberating' themselves and the world from the father/Father's authority system.
    The father's/Father's authority system, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth engenders the guilty conscience for doing wrong while the super-ego is "developed" from the affective domain, i.e., from the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' in the "light" of the situation which is "stimulating" them, influencing what the child has learned in the past, 'changing' it in order to make it fit in (make it relevant to) the present—according to the child's "felt needs," i.e., the child's "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment.' Normal O. Brown wrote: "What we call 'conscience' perpetuates inside of us our bondage to past objects [making us loyal to our parent's and their commands, rules, facts, and truth] now part of ourselves: the super-ego 'unites in itself the influences [our carnal desires (for pleasure) and dissatisfactions (with restraint)] of the present and of the past.'" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) The "taxonomies" establish the "super-ego," the child's "feelings" of the 'moment' over (and therefore against) the conscience, i.e., the father's/Father's authority. The second "taxonomy" state: "Superego development is conceived as the incorporation of the moral standards of society [requiring 'compromise,' i.e., setting aside the father's/Father's (established) commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to get along with others (including the deviant), i.e., in order to affirm and be affirmed by them]. Therefore the levels of the Taxonomy should describe successive levels of goal setting appropriate to superego development." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) Emphasis added. They simply reflect (propagate) the thinking (ideology) of Karl Marx. "It is not individualism [the child being personally held accountable for his actions (by his father) as a man is personally held accountable for this thoughts and actions (by God, the Heavenly Father)] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society [based upon what all children have in common, i.e. their carnal nature, i.e. "human nature," i.e. their love of pleasure and their hate of missing out on the pleasure of the 'moment,' engendering a society based upon children "building relationship" upon their "self interest" of the 'moment,' working together as "one" in the 'moment,' to augment pleasure and attenuate pain, not only for themselves, but for all the children of the world (the meaning of "class consciousness")] is the necessary framework through which freedom [freedom from the father's/Father's authority system] and individuality [with each child being himself, i.e. of nature "Only," i.e. carnal, not having a sense of "guilty" (a guilty conscience) for being "normal," i.e., for removing that which is not "normal," i.e., not "good," i.e., not "of and for" from society, the father and his authority system] are made realities." (Karl Marx in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx) "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs [socialism, globalism, environmentalism, humanism, common-ism, etc.,] by accepting belongingness to [affirmation by] the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) Emphasis added. While the Lord Jesus Christ had a "group" (if you want to call it that) they were all subject to His authority, which was subject to His Heavenly Father's authority. "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 23:9 "... every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12

Today, in line with Marx's ideology, "educators" are training their students in the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning,' "encouraging" them to 1) dialogue their opinions to a consensus, 2) put their collective opinion into praxis (into social action)—overcoming the restraints (ideologies) of the past—and 3) create a so called "new" world of 'change,' i.e., of children 'liberating' themselves from parental authority and man 'liberating' himself from God's.

   I learned more about Marxism studying contemporary American education than I did from all the College and University classes I took on Marxism. My formal classes on Marxism covered only Traditional Marxism, i.e., "dialectical materialism," i.e., hard line Marxism, which killed the father (the King) and anyone who supported him outright. What we have now is Transformational Marxism, i.e., "historical materialism"—which added Sigmund Freud, i.e., psychology to the mix, engendering "group psychotherapy," i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, using the "group grade" to reveal where along the spectrum of 'change' the student resides at any given moment in any given situation, i.e., identifying where he is on the spectrum, continuum, or scale of adaptability to 'change' in order to more easily seduce, deceive, and manipulate him into becoming "at-one-with," i.e., "of and for" "the group," i.e., the "community, i.e., the collective, i.e., society over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority. "As the Frankfurt School wrestled with how to 'reinvigorate Marx', they 'found the missing link in Freud.'" (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950) With everybody's thought controlled by their "feelings" of the 'moment,' we are now a culture of anarchy and revolution, ever 'changing.'
   Karl Marx wrote: "The philosophers have interpreted the world in many different ways [how they think the world "ought" to be, according to commands, rules, facts, and truth which they have 'discovered' and intend to establish as the standard for everybody else to live by], the objective however, is change itself [with children/men being stimulated by and responding to "only that which proceeds from nature itself," i.e., from "sense experience," i.e., from their "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment,' i.e., from their "feelings" of the 'moment' (in the "light" of, i.e., stimulated by and responding to the current situation, according to their carnal nature, i.e., according to their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment') which they all have in common with one another—the basis of "common-ism"]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) Bracketed added—Karl Marx, MEGA I/3. "'Capital' … is, according to Marx, 'not a thing but a social relation between persons,'" "Eliminate these relations and you abolish the whole of society;" (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness) By adding "social" to capital, Marx 'changed' the world. It is only in society, according to Marx (and all who reason dialectically) that the individual can find his identity, not in the father's/Father's authority, i.e., in that which alienates him from himself, i.e., his carnal nature and society, i.e., that which is of the world only. By adding "social capital" (your need of "the village" and "the village's" need of you) to "physical capital" (money in the bank, property, and talents) and "mental capital" (education and skills), "human relationship" becomes the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of life. It is not that relationships are not important, they are. It is that they can not come before doing right and not wrong or else the approval of man (not the Lord) directs your steps. Have you heard the word 'change' recently—with everyone concerned about their (and supposedly everybody else's) "feelings" of the 'moment?' 'Change,' i.e., compromise for the sake of initiating and sustaining relationships is the name of the game being played in our homes, streets, neighborhoods, states, nation, and even in the "church" today, negating faith—the intended 'purpose.' Are you a Marxist?
   Do not be deceived, what "seems to be" academics is not. Dialectic 'reasoning' is the same system, pattern, paradigm, or way of feeling, thinking, and acting, and relating with "self," others, and the world, as well as responding to authority as was first put into praxis in the garden in Eden, 'liberating' two "children" from the "Father's authority." "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Luke 11:35 "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." 2 Corinthians 11:14 "And this is the condemnation, that light [the true light, the Son of God] is come into the world, and men loved darkness [their "self"] rather than light [doing the Father's will], because their deeds were evil ["of and for self"]." John 3:19 Bracketed added. God has warned us: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6
   Dialectic 'reasoning' is all about children (almost everything around us is focused upon children, i.e., pedophilic)—'liberating' them from the father's/Father's authority, with facilitators' of 'change' making them in their image, i.e., questioning, challenging, disobeying, defying authority, i.e., turning them into "children of disobedience." College/University students (you can add high school students, i.e., adolescent age and up as well), addicted to estrogen, testosterone, endorphins, and dopamine (plus the artificial drugs of today) are like "silly women laden with sins, lead away with divers lusts." (2 Timothy 3:1-7) Thinking through their "feelings," i.e., their "lusts" of the 'moment,' they call you unreasonable (irrational) when you refuse to reason from their "feelings," i.e., from their "lusts" of the 'moment' as well, i.e., "You just don't understand." "Your being unreasonable, hateful, etc.," refusing to 'justify' their carnal way. Being seduced, deceived, and manipulated, i.e., taken "captive" by facilitators of 'change,' 'justifying' their carnal thoughts and actions, they are being used to 'create' a "new" world order based upon unrighteousness and abomination, i.e., a "new world order based upon the child's/man's carnal nature, void of parental/Godly restraint. The scriptures warn us of the consequence of such praxis and how we are to respond. "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them." Colossians 3:5-7 "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." "Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." Ephesians 2:2, 3; 5:6
  Without the law (of God) revealing our deceitful and wicked hearts, i.e., condemning us, we would not know of our sinful nature, i.e., our propensity to disobey the father/Father when his commands and rules get in the way of our pleasure. The Lord Jesus Christ did not negate the law, he fulfilled it, obeying His Heavenly Father in all things commanded, becoming our propitiation, saving us by faith in Him and His Heavenly Father: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast [exalt his "self"]." Ephesians 2:8, 9 Bracketed added. "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23 "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25 "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." " Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is." Jeremiah 17:5, 7
   The 'drive' and 'purpose' of dialectic 'reasoning' (the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus) is to negate the father's/Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of children/men, making "feelings" (their carnal desires, i.e., "lusts," including the desire for affirmation) the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of life. When you make academics (knowledge) subject to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., to "self" 'justification, i.e., to the deceitfulness and wickedness of the child's/man's heart, i.e., to the affective domain you make the 'drive' and 'purpose' of academics the 'liberation' of the child/man from the father's/Father's authority—negating the father's/Father's authority in the child's/man's thoughts and actions, thus negating the guilty conscience for questioning, challenging, disobeying, and defying the father/Father and his/His authority. There is no other 'drive' or 'purpose' for its use in academics. We are to instead, "avoid" "oppositions of science falsely so called," i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "so called knowledge," i.e., knowledge which is not (but "seems to be"). 1 Timothy 6:20
   Martin Luther warned us: "... the universities, unless they teach the Holy Scriptures diligently and impress them on the young students, are wide gates to hell." (Luther's Works: Vol. 1, The Christian in Society: p. 207) "The sophists [those using dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., psychotherapists, i.e., Jesuits, making 'reasoning' subject to the student's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., to their affective domain in order to know 'truth,' 'liberating' them (their "self") from the father's/Father's authority], nevertheless, rise proudly up, hold their ears, close their eyes, and turn away their heart just so that they may fill all ears with their human words, and alone may occupy the stage so that no one will bark against their assertion[s]." "Miserable Christians, whose words and faith still depend on the interpretations [opinion] of men and who expect clarification from them! This is frivolous and ungodly. The Scriptures are common to all, and are clear enough in respect to what is necessary for salvation and are also obscure enough for inquiring minds ... let us reject the word of man." (Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer: II, p.217, 216) Anyone defining (re-defining) the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth—so that the child/man can "feel" better about his "self" [esteem his "self"] and be less offensive to others—is coming between them and the father'/Father, establishing "self" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority. "Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you." 1 Peter 5:6, 7
   Abraham Maslow, sharing how he taught in his University classes (confirming Luther's accusation/condemnation of his type of teaching, dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "critical thinking," what in theology would be called "textual criticism"), wrote: "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students [those who humble and deny themselves as the Lord Jesus Christ did in order to do His Heavenly Father's will—as Theodor Adorno defined the "authoritarian," i.e., traditional minded student: "Authoritarian submission was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)] that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards."(Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)
   Welcome to your child's College/University (as well as grade school and high school) "group grade," "team building," "Can't we all just get along?" classroom experience, 'liberating' them (their "self") from your authority as a parent, turning them against you by turning them against the father's/Father's authority system itself. "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 2: Affective Domain, p. 83—"Bloom's Taxonomies" are the foundation for teacher/Professor certification and school/University accreditation, "Christian" included.) When "feelings" become the foundation of life, those who's "feelings" get hurt by the truth, sulking and murmuring (amongst themselves against authority), become vindictive, resulting in, as J. L. Moreno put it, "200 million midgets in control," i.e., the tyranny of the masses. (J. L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive) Is there tyranny (against the father/Father and his/His authority) taking place in your home, "community," "church," the nation? Are you turning (returning) to the Father for the answer (for the solution)? If you are not, there in is the problem.
   In a "nutshell," if that is possible, the process of dialectic 'reasoning' (dialoguing with your "self" and with others your desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment'—your and their desire for pleasure and dissatisfaction with restraint) is your ability to 'justify' your "self," i.e., to 'justify' your carnal desires (your "self interest") of the 'moment' (along with them) over (and therefore against) the father's/Father's authority (the father's/Father's restraints), negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for sinning in the process—creating a "new" world order of unrighteousness and abomination, where your "feelings," i.e., the carnal desires and dissatisfactions of "the child within" you rules instead of the father/Father, with his commands, rules, facts, and truth (to be accepted as is, by faith, and obeyed), i.e., creating, as Immanuel Kant stated, a world of "lawfulness without law" and "purposiveness without purpose" where the 'drive' of life is your love of pleasure—unrestrained by the law of parents/God, i.e., the father's/Father's authority—"lust," i.e., the law of sin, and the 'purpose' of life is the augmentation of pleasure and the attenuation of pain, where your thoughts and actions—"theory and practice"—are dedicated to doing "good" for your "self" and society ("good sense")—pleasure being the standard for "good" and pain, including the pain of being chastened and/or missing out on pleasure for doing wrong and/or the pain of missing out on pleasure in order to do what is right (according to the parents/God's, i.e., the father's/Father's will) being the standard for "evil." (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment)
   While the earthly father is not perfect, he can be a downright tyrant (or absent), his office is given to him by God to do right and not wrong in, under God. It is the element of faith, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' that is the problem. While the earthly father's rules and facts can be wrong, i.e., 'discovered' by or revealed to the child to be wrong later on in life and rejected, they are accepted by the child at first by faith, initiating and sustaining respect for the father's authority in the child's thoughts and actions, which he carries with him throughout life, expecting the same from his children. The same is true for the Heavenly Father's commands and truth, only in regard to their having to be accepted by faith, they being eternally true, only being rejected by man through his praxis of "self" 'justification,' i.e., dialectic 'reasoning.' "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6
   According to those who reason dialectically, while dialectic 'reasoning' negates faith (in God) in man and therefore in society, without it also being applied in the life of the child, i.e., in the child's "education," the child's faith in his parents, i.e., faith in the father and his authority has the potential of initiating and sustaining faith in God and His authority in the child—with the child then, when he grows up, restoring faith in God (the Father's authority) back into society, thus initiating and sustain "Nationalism" AKA Fascism. It is therefore imperative, to those 'reasoning' dialectically, that "educators" be trained in how to identify and then cut off, i.e., negate the cycle of faith, i.e., the child's respect for the father's authority if mankind is to be 'liberated' from Godly restraint, i.e., if "worldly peace and socialist harmony," i.e., globalism, i.e., the "new" world order is to become a reality. "Concerning the changing of circumstances by men, the educator must himself be educated." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 3) "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)
   Sigmund Freud 'reasoned' the same way: "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [that is, the father, along with his wife, children, and the community no longer recognize his authority in the home]." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization) Freud was promoting the 'liberation' of children from the father's/Father's authority so they could praxis incest with their mother and with one another, which required the negation of the father's/Father's authority (patricide) in the life of the children. "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the motherculminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan," (Herbart Marcuse explaining Freud's historiography in his book, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud) "Freud noted that patricide and incest are part of man's deepest nature." (Irvin Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy) "The basic structure of Freud's thought is committed to dialectics." "His finest insights are incurably 'dialectical.'" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) The child is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority in the praxis of dialogue—revealing his carnal desires of the 'moment' and his dissatisfaction with the father's/Father's restraints, i.e., his resentment toward the father's/Father's authority.
   Georg Hegel established the child over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority. "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [as he 'liberates' his "self" from the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., as he becomes as he was before the father's first command, rule, fact, and truth came into his life, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only, negating the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong in the process]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) Hegel, sounding more like Karl Marx than Karl Marx himself (who was not yet born), then wrote: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [since the father's authority is no longer recognized in the home and in the community], ... 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," i.e., his property, business, and family, i.e., his wife and children (including himself) are no longer his but from then on belong to the "community." (ibid.)
   Norman O. Brown summed it up best:
"Freud and Hegel are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination [the father's/Father's authority] and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination [the father's/Father's authority]." "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, is a clear instance of that subordination of the pleasure-principle [the child's nature, loving pleasure - resenting restraint] to the reality principle [the father's authority, doing right and not wrong according to his standards] which is repression; and therefore leads to neurosis [the child doing the father's/Father's will while wanting to do his own instead, having a guilty conscience when he does his own thing, i.e., when he disobeys]." "According to Freud, the ultimate essence of our being is erotic, and demands activity according to the pleasure-principle [the child's nature]. The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious [in the child's nature, i.e., in his desire for the pleasures of the 'moment' and his dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority]; the foundation has to be recovered [through dialogue, i.e., by putting theory (opinion) into practice, i.e., into social action (praxis)]." "In the words of Thoreau: 'We need pray for no higher heaven than the pure senses can furnish, a purely sensuous life. Our present senses are but rudiments of what they are destined to become.'" "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
   The gospel is all about a Son's faith in His Heavenly Father, i.e., accepting His authority, i.e., obeying Him in all things commanded. All of philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc., is about 'liberating' the son, i.e., the child from having faith in the father, i.e., rejecting the father's authority, i.e., questioning, challenging, and disobeying him in all things commanded, so that he can be "of and for self," i.e., "of and for" the world only, instead. In essence the gospel message is Jesus Christ, the only begotten, obedient son of God, saying I want you to meet my Father. I want you to know my Father's (and my) love for you. All other love is vain ("self" seeking). When children 'liberate' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority, they replace the father's/Father's love for them with the "self" seeking love of the facilitator of 'change.'
   Psychotherapy is based upon the same dialectic procedure, 'liberating' the child from the parent's authority and man from God's. There is no father's/Father's "top-down," "do right and not wrong," "Mine. Not yours." authority in dialogue, i.e., in how you "feel" and what you "think" in the 'moment,' i.e., in your opinion—where "self" ("of and for self") has taken the father's/Father's position, i.e. where love of "self" and the world has taken the place of "the love of the Father." The dialoguing of opinions only allows the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the psychotherapist to displace (usurp) the father's/Father's position in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the children, with the children, i.e. "the group" affirming him, i.e., their "self." All conflicts (controversies) from then on are caused by the father's/Father's authority reappearing in the child's thoughts and actions, requiring the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus in order the restore the "'change' agent's," i.e., the psychotherapist's "authority" over the children, with their affirmation of him—themselves in him and him in themselves—making him/themselves "God" in their own eyes. Carl Rogers, explaining psychotherapy, wrote: "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy [dialogue] the individual comes to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist's View of Psychotherapy) "Group psychotherapy" is about 'changing' the "He," i.e., the father/Father in the child to the "Me," i.e., the "self" in the child, to the "We," i.e., "the group" in the child. Our current "Make me feel 'good' or I won't listen to you," or rather (being "positive") "Make me feel 'good' and I will listen to you" generation, using dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' themselves, can be summed up in this way: "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:18
   Psychology, based upon the carnal nature of the child/man, i.e., "human nature," i.e., ego ("of and for self") is antithetical to the Word of God, i.e., is hostile toward the child/man doing the father's/Father's will. A socialists (a so called socio-centric person) is in actuality an egocentric person affirming and being affirmed by those of like mind. Thinking that everybody else should affirm him, i.e., them as well, he reacts with indifference or hostility toward anyone who questions and/or challenges, i.e., "judges" him, i.e., them as being wrong. Doing right and not wrong (the father/Father) is now replaced with affirmation (the group). When you make "feelings" (affirmation) your foundation for right and wrong, the chastening of the father/Father can only be perceived as his/His rejection of you, when in actuality he/He, loving you, is only rejecting your flesh, i.e., your carnal impulses and urges of the 'moment,' i.e., that which is of the world, and not you, that you might learn to restrain (humble, deny, control, discipline) your "self," doing what is right and not wrong in the future instead.
   The "new" world order is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., "self" 'justification,' negating Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's "top-down." "do right and not wrong." "Mine. Not yours." authority in the child's/man's feelings, thoughts, and actions as well as in his relationship with himself and with others, negating Romans 7:14-25, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for sinning, so that he can sin with impunity. Take a look around you. What is happing in/to the world around you is not happening by accident.
   The major issue you face today is not economic, environmental, or social (as those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapist" would like you to believe, seducing you into following them for the answer), but your heart, i.e., sin. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 When you 'justifies' yourself, i.e., your heart(s desires, i.e., your "lust of the flesh and eyes") before others, thus engendering "the pride of life," you blind yourself to the consequences of your carnal thoughts and carnal actions ("theory and practice")—God's judgment upon you, i.e., damnation. "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 "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5
   "And through covetousness [your carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., your "self interest"] shall they [facilitators of 'change,' i.e., psychotherapists] with feigned words [using generalized words, i.e., "plastic words" (Greek), saying one thing while meaning another] make merchandise of you [turn you into "human resource" to be used for their own pleasure, i.e., gain]: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." 2 Peter 2:3 Bracketed added. Through your "covetousness," i.e., your "self interest" of the 'moment' you are seduced. With "feigned words" ["I (We) care about you."] you are deceived. Thus, with the art-craft (witchcraft) of the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the group psychotherapist you are seduced, deceived, and manipulated into "merchandise," i.e., "human resource," to be used for his own pleasure and gain—taking that which was created by God (for God) and using it for himself, getting you to treat (use) others (seducing, deceiving, and manipulating them) in the same way, casting them aside as some useless toy if they do not give you/him pleasure, refuse to give you/him pleasure, or no longer give you/him pleasure, being untrustworthy in the end—as the wedding vows could now read "For better or for worse, or until something better comes along."
   The "new" world order has only one 'purpose,' 'redeeming' the child/man (and therefore society) from the father's/Father's authority, 'reconciling' him to the world, to be "himself" again, as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, and truth (to be accepted by faith and obeyed) came into his life, engendering "repression," alienation," and "neurosis"—according to those who merge Karl Marx (society, i.e., our desire for the pleasure which comes from the approval, i.e., affirmation of others) and Sigmund Freud (the individual, i.e., our desire for the pleasures which the world stimulates), i.e., "group psychotherapists," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., Transformational Marxists, i.e., those who, by praxis, are antithetical to God, the Father, loving all that is of the world only, instead (some, saying they love the Lord, in praxis—refusing to die to themselves, i.e., humble themselves before God—refusing to do the Father's will, taking that which is the Lord's, using it for themselves, i.e., for their pleasure and gain instead). "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16 "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:15 "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9, 12:50 There is no inheritance or posterity in the process of 'change,' only, like a beast, living for the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., loving that which is of the world, hating the father's/Father's restraint, consuming all it sees, like an avalanche, which is a bunch of snowflakes, in consensus, traveling in the same direction, removing all that gets in its way.
  The following (presented, at first and periodically later on, in German paragraph sentence form, i.e., sentences which are like paragraphs—requiring some concentration, i.e., "thinking it through," with the material getting easier to understand as you read on [I really do not want to chase you away, knowing you will be greatly rewarded once you get through it—concentrate on the first few paragraphs and the rest—being reworded differently with new information added—will become easier to understand]) explains the process that is being used today to manipulate you, i.e., to 'change' you without you even knowing it, i.e., the dialectic process, i.e., the process of "self" 'justification,' i.e., the dialoguing of opinions (dialogue requires you and others to set aside your and their commands, rules, facts, and truth for the 'moment' in order for you and them to get in touch with their and your 'feelings,' i.e., opinion of the 'moment' while discussion requires you and them to set aside your and their 'feelings,' i.e., opinion of the 'moment' in order for you and them to hear and attempt to understand their and your commands, rules, facts, and truth) to a consensusthe same process being used by the UN, Communist China, as well as by all other socialist governments (including, increasingly ours) to "solve" personal, family, local, national, international, social, economic, and environmental "crises." It exposes the process of seduction, deception, and manipulation that is being deliberately used on you (and your children, spouse, friends, neighbors, leaders, minister, etc.,) in order to make you (and them) a part of a so called "new" world order—the praxis of replacing the preaching and teaching of facts and truth, and discussion (in order to clarify any misunderstanding—at the parent's, teacher's, bosses', God's discretion), engendering faith in and obedience to the father/Father and respect toward his "top-down," "right-wrong," "Mine. Not yours" authority, i.e., engendering individualism, under God, i.e., accountability to the Father (for your thoughts and actions) and a guilty conscience for doing wrong (or, according to Georg Hegel, for doing things "badly"—what he wanted all to be "indifferent to," advocating that man is not bad, evil, or wicked by nature, just misinformed and/or uneducated, needing affirmation when he does things right, i.e., when he is in harmony with nature), i.e., for sinning (getting back to subject, where the preaching, teaching, and discussion [at one's discretion] of commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is [by faith] and obeyed must take place, with a guilty conscience for doing wrong, proceeding from the father, i.e., the head of the home, if limited, representative, majority vote government is to work, i.e., if "unalienable rights" is to have any meaning), with the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (the children/people sharing their "feelings," i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., their opinion of the 'moment'—identifying with what they all have in common with one another and uniting upon it, coming to a consensus, i.e., to a "feeling" of "oneness"), engendering a sense of "equality," i.e., 'creating' a "new" world order based upon "self interest" and "human relationship" only, instead—being put into social action, i.e., the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6 (dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification'"self" loves pleasure, i.e., the pleasure of the 'moment' and therefore when we 'justify' the pleasure of the 'moment' we 'justify' our "self" and when we 'justify' our "self" we 'justify' the pleasure of the 'moment,' making our love of pleasure "just," i.e., "good," i.e., "right" in our own eyes, thereby making our "self" God, i.e., "righteous" in our own eyes, making those who prevent, i.e., who inhibit or block us from enjoying it, "evil," 'justifying' our hatred toward them and their restraint, making their removal, i.e., negation "just," i.e., "good," i.e., "right" in our own eyes—when done in a group setting, i.e., the social act or praxis of "self-other" 'justification,' all children/mankind collectively become god, i.e., "community," "society," with god 'discovering' himself as he 'liberates' himself from individualism, i.e., from isolationism, as everyone, in consensus, comes "out of the closet," i.e., 'liberates' themselves out from under the father's/Father's authority so they can be "of and for" the world only, i.e., sin with impunity in a world of unrighteousness and abomination [the "ology's" of man, i.e., psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc., define the soul of man as being subject to the flesh and the world, which stimulates it, and for which it responds, i.e., "sense experience" based upon man's "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment,' i.e., 'driven' by man's desire for pleasure and resentment toward pain, including the pain which comes with restraint, i.e., missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment,' making the 'purpose' of life the augmentation of pleasure and the attenuation, i.e., negation of pain, while the soul of man is actually subject to God, who created it, making it subject to doing right and not wrong according to the Father's will, as well as making it eternal, requiring faith in and obedience toward God in order to inherit eternal life and not be cast into eternal death—after all, one of Sigmund Freud's mythological heroes was Orpheus, a man who made love to young boys, actualizing himself in "innocence," in pleasure, without unnatural, i.e., Godly restraints getting in the way, Narcissus being the other, loving his "self," reflected in nature]), negating Hebrews 12:5-11 (the father's/Father's "top-down," "right-wrong," "Mine. Not yours" authority system), thus negating Romans 7:14-25 (the guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for sinning) so that children can be "of and for human nature," i.e., "of and for self" only, i.e., so that man can sin with impunity (at least in their thoughts and actions of the 'moment'), with the facilitator of 'change' (the psychotherapist), i.e., the 'liberator' of children/mankind from the father's/Father's authority in control, seducing, deceiving, and manipulation all who come under his influence—for the "common-ist/social-ist good" of all "the people," i.e., for the "community," i.e., for "society," i.e., for himself.
  Without the facilitator of 'change,' ... continued

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 1997-2017