"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, Schedule, Material, Scheduling, Audios (New 12-8), Youtube, Radio (New 12-6), Archived, Textus Receptus, Class, Warnings, Thanks!  P.S.

When children negate the Father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment,' and in their relationship with one another, they bring upon themselves the Father's wrath in the end.

The following is an exposé on how and why America has become the nation it is today—why every parent should know how and why our education system functions the way it does today.  It is not by accident that we have arrived at this level of depravity, i.e. of abomination we find ourselves.  It is the result of a well orchestrated agenda, over a century in the making, to 'liberate' children from parental restraint, i.e. from the earthly father's "above-below," "right-wrong" authority system, in order to 'liberate' man from Godly restraint, i.e. from the Heavenly Father's "above-below," "right-wrong" authority system (Hebrews 12:5-11 and Romans 7:14-25)—done through the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning.'  Dialectic 'reasoning' is a formula (procedure or method) used for 'change.'  It was first used in the garden in Eden (Genesis 3:1-6) to 'justify' the woman's carnal nature over God's command (with Adam following after the woman instead of obeying God), thereby turning the woman and Adam against God's authority, 'liberating' themselves from Godly restraint (at least in their thoughts and actions, and in their "relationship" with one another, where their common "self interest" to have that which was not theirs to have made them the same, i.e. sinners, i.e. "of the world only").  There is no father's/Father's authority system (parental/Godly restraint) in the process of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, there is Only 'change,' i.e. instability, i.e. revolution, i.e. that which is of the world , i.e. that which is of "human nature," i.e. that which is of your "self interest," uniting with others of common "self interest," building "human relationship," i.e. building "worldly peace and socialist harmony."  (Two half hour audio presentations explaining the dialectic process and its negation of the father's/Father's authority: Part 1, Part 2.)  (Chart to follow along while reading the following material, plus two one hour audio presentations explaining the Chart: Part 1, Part 2.)   (YouTube, handout, & Power Point slides.)

The key to dialectic success ("Making the world safe for Democracy," i.e. "Building relationships upon self interest") is: if I can attain a position of authority where I can 'discover' your "ought," i.e. i.e. your "opinion," i.e. your dissatisfaction with the father's/Father's authority (who can be your parents holding you accountable to their standards, your constituents holding you accountable to their platform, the Lord God holding you accountable to His Word, i.e. "past" restraining you from living in the present, i.e. in the 'moment') and your desire of the 'moment' (your "child within" which is being restrained, i.e. prevented from becoming manifest, i.e. united with the world, in pleasure, in the 'moment'), and (gaining control over the environment, i.e. the situation) "help" you 'liberate' it, i.e. your "ought," i.e. your opinion, i.e. your "self-interest" of the 'moment' out from under the father's/Father's authority, I can use you (along with others with the same common "ought," i.e. the same common "self interest") to negate the father's/Father's authority (the restraints of the "past"), not only in your life but from the world as well, i.e. 'liberating' children and men (the flesh) from parental and Godly restraint. 

As long as I have the authority to test (assess) you to 'discover' (to "help" you 'discover,' i.e. aufgeklärte) your "ought" (your dialoguing with your "self" about your current desires as well as your current dissatisfactions of the 'moment'), i.e. to find out where your "ought" is in the 'moment' (which has no father's/Father's authority in it, i.e. making you, i.e. what you "want" to do in the 'moment,' who you "want" to relate with in the 'moment,' "good" in your own eyes) I can keep you in an environment of 'change' without you ever knowing (blind to the fact) that you are being used (seduced, deceived, and manipulated) by me, i.e. the facilitator of 'change' to acquire your father's/Father's property (gaining control not only over you but over your inheritance, i.e. the father's/Fathers land and business) and use it (and you as "human resource") for myself, i.e. for my own selfish gain, in the name of "the people."  "The dialectical method [global unity based upon common "self interest"] was overthrown, ... the parts [the children] were prevented from finding their definition within the whole [within "the group," i.e. within society because of their honoring of the father's/Father's authority]."  (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?According to Karl Marx, not until children or mankind can find their identity within "the group," i.e. within the facilitated "group," i.e. within society (uniting upon, i.e. putting into praxis or social action their common "self interest" of the 'moment' instead of submitting to the father's/Father's authority) they will remain subject to the father's/Father's authority, i.e. divided from one another, preventing world unity based upon "human nature" (the impulses and urges of the 'moment,' i.e. uninhibited spontaneity, i.e. awareness stimulated by nature, seeking "at-oneness-with" nature) and "human 'reasoning'" (consensual, i.e. universal, i.e. common 'thinking' which is in touch with the sensual, i.e. the "eternal" present, i.e. which is stimulated by and responding to the world of pleasure, of the 'moment') only, engendering "worldly peace and socialist harmony."

By starting with the child, i.e. with your "child" within, i.e. with your "self interest" of the 'moment,' i.e. with your "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e. with your opinion of the 'moment,' i.e. with your "ought" of the 'moment,' making it the thesis, i.e. the issue of interest, I am able to make the father's/Father's authority the antithesis, i.e. the source of conflict and tension of the 'moment,' 'liberating' you from his/His authority in your "feelings," "thoughts," and "actions," and in your relationship with others, i.e. uniting (synthesizing) you with others who are 'willing' to participant with you upon 'discovering' that which you have in common them (and them with you), i.e. the pleasure of satisfying your (and their) carnal desires of the 'moment' and your (and their) dissatisfaction with authority which prevents or inhibits you (and them) from apprehending it, i.e. forcing you (and them) to set aside (suspend) the gratification of the 'moment' to "get the job done," i.e. to do his/His will, with gratification in satisfying the father/Father (what Freud called a "substitute gratification" and Marx an "Opiate") superseding your desire to gratify yourself (and/or "the group") in the 'moment' instead.  If you start with the father's/Father's authority, i.e. make him/Him the thesis, synthesis is thwarted, with division (social disharmony), i.e. antithesis remaining, i.e. with "feelings," i.e. your carnal nature remaining subject to parentally/Godly restraint, preventing 'change.'

While an "ought" (setting aside or suspending, for the 'moment,' a prior established fact or truth, i.e. established law to see if there is another way of doing things—called "higher order thinking"—to see if your opinion or theory, i.e. your "feeling" of the 'moment' might be right, i.e. observable and universal or might be wrong, i.e. unobservable and inconsistent or not universal) is essential in true science, i.e. when dealing with material objects, when applied to morals and ethics it destroys established standards of right and wrong regarding (restraining) your carnal nature, i.e. it negates the father's/Father's authority to restrain your behavior, making you and him/Him subject to the material/carnal world only, making your and his/His thoughts and actions, and your and his/His relationship with one another and others subject to the "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e. subject to your, his/His, and others opinions and theories of the 'moment' only, i.e. making all things subject to 'change,' negating faith.

What started in the Garden in Eden, with the master facilitator of 'change' "helping" two "children" 'liberate' themselves from the Father's authority, has now become the law of the land.  A room full of "oughtiness," i.e. of children/people sharing their "ought's" (dialoguing their opinions) with one another to 'discover' a common "ought"—to come to a consensus on—so that they can put it into social action (praxis) negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e. removing it, not only from the public domain but from the private domain as well, is a room full of common-ists.  Our "ought," which is "good" in our own eyes, hides (blinds) us from God, i.e. from what we "must" do, replacing knowing with thinking, belief with opinion, faith with sight, facts and truth with theory, "Thy will be done" with "My (our) will be done," stability with 'change,' 'justifying' our opinion over and against the Word of God, thereby making us (collectively) god, i.e. righteous in and of ourselves, i.e. free to sin with impunity, i.e. thinking and acting according to "human nature," i.e. according to the pleasures (carnal "lusts") of the 'moment' only.

While researching our education system (my teacher training, the method which is now being used for Common Core or whatever new title they give it), I learned more about George Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud (dialectic 'reasoning'), i.e. their hate of the father's/Father's authority system, i.e. their hate of parental/Godly restraint, than all the European philosophy classes I took.  As strange as it might sound at first hearing, Hegel's, Marx's, and Freud's agenda was to "help" children 'liberate' themselves from parental restraint (from the earthly father's authority system), which they deemed as necessary if man was to be 'liberated' from Godly restraint (from the Heavenly Father's authority system).  Since the introduction of the "affective domain" in the classroom (in the 60's), the 'liberation' of the children's "feelings," i.e. their desire for approval by "the group" and their resentment toward parental restraint, have turned them against their parents (contesting their authority), with Hegel's, Marx's, and Freud's ideology (dialectic 'reasoning') taking their place.  "There are many stores of the conflict and tension that these new practices [the children learning (in the classroom) how to apply dialectic 'reasoning' to all areas of their life] are producing between parents and children."  (Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 2: Affective Domain

By simply changing the classroom environment (curriculum) from the preaching and teaching of facts and truth (to be accepted as is, i.e. believed via. didactic reasoning—reasoning deductively from an established position, fact, or truth, i.e. with the intent of instilling morality—to be applied) to the dialoguing of opinions (to 'discover' 'truth,' i.e. theory via. dialectic 'reasoning'—reasoning inductively from "self" perception, where the children "rationally" 'justify' to themselves their "feeling" of the 'moment' over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, with the intent of negating the father's/Father's authority—and then put it into practice, i.e. into "group action," i.e. praxis) the father's/Father's authority was replaced with (negated by/in) the children's "feelings," "thoughts," and "actions" ("self interest") of the 'moment,' and their "relationship" with one another,' initiating and sustaining 'change,' not only in the children, but in the "community" as well, including the "church."  The difference in "Educational Objectives" between discussion and dialogue, according to David Bohm (known for his work regarding quantum physics) is: "A dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals [there is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue]." "A key difference between a dialogue and an ordinary discussion is that, within the latter [in a discussion] people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favour of their views as they try to convince others to change [to come to their position]."  (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity)  

While father's/traditional teachers discuss issues with their children/students, holding firmly to their position of authority, inhibit, resist, or block 'change,' facilitators of 'change,' dialoguing with their students, i.e. being "open ended" and "non-directive" (which is antithetical to the father's/traditional teacher's authority) initiate and sustain 'change.'  To be "open-ended" ("We can talk about anything without fear of being judged") and "non-directive" ("I'm not going to tell you what is right and what is wrong") might seem "fair" to the simple minded but the very act negates the father's/Father's authority, i.e. right-wrong thinking, i.e. lasting truth, with anyone who holds to the father's/Father's authority (does the father's/Father's will by faith) being judged (as being 'irrational,' i.e. not able to think for himself in 'changing' times) and condemned (as not being "a team player," i.e. not being trustworthy, as being anti-social, i.e. 'irrelevant').  In this way, educating the children in dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. 'justifying' the flesh ("human nature") over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, the facilitator of 'change' does not have to kill the father/Father, i.e. negate his/His authority, the 'liberated' children will do that for him instead, without having a "guilty conscience" while doing so.  "By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior―the motives, the desires, the wishes."  "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors will follow." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy

What was considered reprobate (unthinkable or repugnant) to most Americans a hundred years ago has now become the way (how) we are to feel, think, and act, and relate with one another today.  Change how relationships are initiated and sustained (how "relationships are built") and you 'change' the world.  Instead of preaching and teaching what "is" good and what "is not" good, i.e. inculcating facts and truth so that the next generation might know right from wrong (according to the father's/Father's standards) and do what is right (righteousness—feeling, thinking, and acting, and relating with others according to what the father/Father commands, i.e. where relationship is built upon "common faith," i.e. upon the father's/Father's position, i.e. the child/man desiring the father's/Father's approval, maintaining the father's/Father's authority in their lives) and not do what is wrong (unrighteousness—feeling, thinking, and acting, and relating with others according to their opinions of the 'moment,' i.e. according to how they "feel" and what they "think" in the 'moment,' i.e. according to their urges and impulses of the 'moment, i.e. where relationships are built upon "common desires," i.e. upon "self interest," i.e. the child/man desiring "the group's" approval, maintaining group unanimity"—the space shuttle "accident" being an example), their agenda was to get the next generation to focus upon their own (and others) "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' (sensuousness"sense experience," i.e. "sensuous needs" and "sense perception"—Karl Marx, The Holy Family—where 'knowledge' comes from their "relationship," i.e. their experiences within the world only and not from any authority above it, restraining them from what is of nature, i.e. of themselves, i.e. of their "self interest"), i.e. to dialogue their opinions and theories (their "self interests") of the 'moment' with one another to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness") to 'discover' the 'truth' of the 'moment,' and thereby 'liberate' themselves from right-wrong ("prejudiced," i.e. "judgmental," i.e. "uncompromising," i.e. "restraining") thinking, i.e. from the father's/Father's authority system (ruling over children/men instead of uniting with them for the "common good"), resulting in: What matters is not whether people are right or wrong (good or evil) but that they are contributing to the social cause of augmenting pleasure ("peace and affirmation") for everybody.  "The philosopher Hegel said that truth is not found in the thesis nor the antithesis [in "fixed" positions of right and wrong, good and evil, etc.] but in an emerging synthesis [in common 'self interest'] which reconciles the two [which builds relationships]." (Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to LoveSynthesis is only antithesis (the child's "feelings") negating thesis (the father's/Father's authority).  Synthesis, i.e. "equality" negates the father's authority, turning the child's inheritance (private business and property) over to the facilitators of 'change' control. 

Instead of humbling and denying our "self" under the father's/Father's authority, we now esteem and exalt ("justify") our "self" in our own eyes.  "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  Instead of the heart being wicked and deceitful it is now "good" (when it makes us "feel good") or has the potential of becoming "good" (augmenting pleasure for "self" and others) through proper education—if the child is raised in the right environment, i.e. under the right social conditions.  We have replaced "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9) with a "blank tablet" theory, which makes us all "feel good." 

Dialectic 'reasoning' is simply man's effort to rescue the flesh from Godly restraint (to rescue the carnal nature of the child/man from the father's/Father's authority), 'liberating' man and child from having a "guilty conscience" for being "normal," i.e. for being carnal, i.e. for loving the things of the world only "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) has now been replaced with "In the process of history man gives birth to himself ['delivers' himself from the Father's authority].  He becomes what he potentially is [a child of the world only], and he attains what the serpent [the first facilitator of 'change']―the symbol of wisdom and rebellion―promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam [mandating that the "children" honor His, i.e. "the Father's" authority] did not wish: that man would become like God himself [that the children would considered themselves righteous in and of themselves alone, i.e. deciding for themselves what is good and what is evil according to their "self interest" of the 'moment']." (Erick Fromm, You shall be as gods: A radical interpretation of the old testament and its tradition

"'I deserve' recognition, a pat on the back, and a reward for who 'I am' or for what I have done (or am doing) for others" ("the pride of life") blinds us to "'I deserve' eternal death for what I have done against the Father" ("lusting" after the pleasures of this life over and therefore against loving and obeying Him).  Through dialectic 'reasoning, i.e. the wisdom of men, i.e. "the pride of life," we 'justify' those things of the world that please (satisfy) our flesh and eyes (imagined or real) over and therefore against the Father's authority.   Instead of knowledge (wisdom) beginning with the "fear of God," i.e. doing right and not wrong according to the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, it now begins with "sense experience," i.e. "sensuous needs," and "sense perception,", i.e. living according to "nature Only," i.e. according to our "lusting" after the pleasures of the world, i.e. living in the 'moment.'  (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)   Living in and for the 'moment' binds us to the eternal consequences of our thoughts and actions—"the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."  1 John 2:17

According to dialectic 'reasoning' 'truth' can only be 'discovered' through reflection upon the experiences of the 'moment,' i.e. making 'truth' ever 'changing,' i.e. sensuous, i.e. subject to the 'moment.' i.e. subject to the situation at hand.  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' truth can not be revealed through revelation, established forever.  Dialectic 'reasoning' has now taken over the classroom, wanting your child to participate, 'justifying' unrighteousness and abomination, i.e. the child's/mans carnal nature 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. from parental/Godly restraint.  The training manual from which all "educators" are certified and "schools" are accredited today 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 Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1, Cognitive Domain)  It simply inculcates in the thoughts and actions of the children the ideology of Karl Marx, who wrote: "In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for all time, nothing is absolute or sacred [there are no eternal consequences for our feelings, thoughts, and actions against the Father's authority]." (Karl Marx)

Instead of graded your child upon whether they got the answer right or not (facts and truth based, i.e. faith based according to the parent's or the teacher's desires, where the parent or the teacher is dissatisfied when their child or student does not perform according to their expected standards, i.e. gives the wrong answer), the current "grading system" (sight or experienced based according to dialectic 'reasoning') is now concerned with how your child "feels" (and makes other children "feel"), i.e. their opinion of the 'moment' ("relationships" based, i.e. sight based according to the child's desires, i.e. the child is dissatisfied with being told what he can or can not do in the 'moment,' i.e. for being chastened when his feelings, thoughts, and actions are "not right" according to the parent's or teachers commands, rules, facts, and truth—determining, i.e. 'reasoning' for himself instead, in the "light" of his "feelings" and the "feelings" of others,' how to act in the 'moment,' rather than acting according to the commands, rules, facts, and truth of the father/Father).   

Moving education from being faith based (where the child is subject to his parent's or the teacher's authority) to sight based (where the child is subject to "sense experience," i.e. to his "feelings" only, i.e. subject to "science") makes the children subject to the material things of the world only, i.e. subject to the facilitator's of 'change.'  "If the school does [if the facilitator of 'change' does] not claim the authority to distinguish between science and religion [if they are not able to 'liberate' the child's "feelings" from parental/Godly restraint—dialogue (theory or opinion) negates preaching and teaching (belief or religion)], it loses control of the curriculum [they lose control of the classroom environment] and surrenders it to the will of the electorate [losing the children to the will of the parents, i.e. keeping the parent's in authority, instead of 'loosing' them from their authority, i.e. preventing the facilitators of 'change' from placing themselves in control over the children and their parents, "helping" the children 'liberate' themselves from the father's/Father's authority]."  (Kenneth Benne, Society as Educator in an Age of Transition, Eighty-sixth Year of the National Society for the Study of Education)   Socrates, noted for "critical thinking," i.e. dialectic 'reasoning' was found guilty of two things, corrupting the morals of the youth and negating their faith in the authority of the father/Father, i.e. in their case, faith in the gods.  "Only by bringing out the child's own ideas in dialogical and dialectical settings [dialoguing their opinions to a consensus] can the child begin to reconstruct and progressively transcend concepts ['liberate' themselves, i.e. their "feelings" and "thoughts" from parental and/or Godly restraint, negating the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong or evil, i.e. for living in sin]." (Richard Paul, Critical Thinking Handbook

While traditional education (didactic education, i.e. "in loco parentis" education where the teacher takes on the role of the parent, reflecting the father's authority) is concerned with morals and competence, i.e. the child's ability to do the job right the first time, transformational education (dialectic education, i.e. "public education" which transcends and therefore negates parental authority) is concerned with how the child came to his "opinion or theory" of the 'moment.'  By responding to all positions (belief) as being an opinion or theory amongst opinions or theories, the father's/Father's position (authority) is equalizing with all things (negated), making all things (morals) which are "ridged" (absolute) subject to 'change' (relative, i.e. situational).  When parent's go into partnership with an education system using dialectic 'reasoning,' they turn themselves and their children over to the dialectic process, negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e. negating parental authority in the process, i.e. negating faith (faith in God and His Word) by turning to sight (to men's opinions) instead.  By turning education over to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. over to "so called science" (true science dealing with material things, i.e. things of the material world only), the child's carnal nature, i.e. the law of the flesh, i.e. the law of sin, i.e. his "lusts" of the flesh and eyes, and the pride of life (self-social 'justification') are made the law of the land, making "natural" (spontaneous, uninhibited, consenting) pleasure, i.e. adultery and abomination the way of life, with none daring to question or condemn it for fearing of being accused of and punished for committing a "hate" crime.  While God, through His Word, reveals his hate of sin, condemning those who live according to it, i.e. who 'justify' it through dialectic 'reasoning,' those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. who 'justify' sin, hate and condemn those who preach and teach the Word of God in the public arena, with children being considered as public property, i.e. part of the public arena.

The scriptures instruct us to "avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called [pseudoscience, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning,' where knowledge is subject to the carnal opinions or "feelings" and "thoughts" (theories) of the children (of the 'moment'), i.e. subject to the created world only (with 'truth' coming from the children, with the children learning to put their trust in their own "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e. thereby putting their trust in the facilitator of 'change' who helps them 'liberate' their "feelings" and "thoughts" from parental/Godly restraint) rather than being subject to the established facts and truth of the parents and/or God (with truth being revealed by the creator, i.e. by the parents, teacher, and/or God, , i.e. with the children putting their trust in their parents, their teacher, and/or God)]:"  1 Timothy 6:20   You can not keep your faith in God (or trust in parental authority) and praxis dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. 'justifying' "human nature."  They are anathema to one another.  "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood ["human nature"] cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." 1 Corinthians 15:50   A father can never know a father's love (protecting his children from the world, i.e. protecting them from corruption) while still acting like a child, i.e. "vain," self-ish, "profane."

Book 2, i.e. the Affective Domain, boldly claims that its "weltanschauung" (its world view) is that of two Marxists, i.e. Theodor Adorno and Erick Fromm.  Adorno wrote in his book—The Authoritarian Personality (the book which is sighted by Book 2 as its world view): "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority."  "Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them."  "The power‑relationship between the parents, the domination of the subject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem."  Adorno's agenda, as Marx's agenda, was to use "social-environmental forces [the pressure of (desire for) "community" approval] to change the parent's behavior toward the child [as they, using the pressure of (desire for) "group" approval, changed the child's behavior toward the parent in the classroom]."   Fromm wrote in his book—Escape from Freedom (sited by Book 2 as well, as its world view): "We are proud that in his conduct of life man has become free from external authorities, which tell him what to do and what not to do."  In Book 2, The Affective Domain we read: "In fact, a large part of what we call "good teaching" is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives  [to 'liberate' the child's "feelings" from parental restrain] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs [who gave those children those "fixed beliefs" and who gave "educators" the right to give children the 'right' to question and challenge those "fixed beliefs?"] and getting them to discuss issues ['liberating' the children from parental authority (Godly restraint), fulfilling Marx's, Hegel's, and Freud's agenda in the process]."  (Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 2: Affective Domain)  Carl Rogers, advocating the child's affective domain over and against parental authority, wrote: "Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity, though such a process is indeed possible. But [through a] continuum from fixity [away from parental authority] to changingness [toward the "felt needs" of the 'moment'], from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process."  "The good life is not any fixed state. The good life is a process. The direction which constitutes the good life is psychological freedom to move in any direction [where] the general qualities of this selected direction appear to have a certain universality [is in common with the "community," i.e. the world]."  (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

I realize that my exposing the dialectic process is falling on mostly deaf ears (with people having hardened their hearts against the truth because of their love for the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e. using dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. "leaning to their own understanding" to 'justify' themselves and their pleasures, i.e. their "self interests" of the 'moment' over and therefore against "trusting in the Lord with all their heart") but to be silent in the midst of unrighteousness is to condone it, making abomination the "norm."  Carl Rogers explained the agenda (the grading system) this way: "Prior to therapy [before dialoging their opinion—how they "feel" and what they "think" in the 'moment,' and coming to a consensus with others on what is "right" for the 'moment,' negating the father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions and in their relationship with one another in the process] the person [the child] is prone to ask himself  'What would my parents [my father/Father] want me to do ?'  During the process of therapy the individual [the child] comes to ask himself 'What does it mean to me?'" [creating a nation of children (and adults) who praxis "Make me 'feel' good and I will listen to you".]  (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)   

If you are not weighing your feelings, thoughts, and actions, and relationship with others, from the Father's authority (from His position, evaluating yourself and the world from His Word), you are on the dialectic "[path]way."  The issue is not how far down the "the way" you have gone, it is the "the way" you are on.  "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."  Proverbs 14:12  One leads to, the other away from the Father.  You can only be on one "way" or the other.  You can not be on both.  "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:13, 14  Jesus (the obedient Son) is the "way" to the Father.  He did not come to 'redeem' us from His Father's authority but to 'reconcile' us to it.  Without the Father sending His obedient Son, i.e. the only "way" to the Father, there is no gospel message. "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  

It is up to you to ascertain where and how dialectic 'reasoning' is influencing you (seducing you with your "felt needs" or "self interests") or has taken control over your life (has deceived and manipulated you, as natural resource, i.e. as "human resource," into traveling down its "way" for the "good" of the "community," for the "common good," for the "greater good," for the "good" of "mankind").  All that is good, including your next breath, comes from God the Father, all you can do is either use it to praise, thank, and serve Him or use it to praise, thank, and serve yourself and the world, "lusting" after the pleasures of the world. "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."  James 1:17

Not until you become a father (a parent) yourself, looking down at your own child (that is of you), do you realize that you have produced something that is of yourself (and your wife) only.   In fact your child is the only thing that you can produce that is of you, i.e. "Mine (ours), not yours."—making the man and woman, i.e. the husband and wife one in marriage.  It changes everything, including your opinion on parents.  Words you hated hearing your parents say, you now hear coming out of your mouth to your children.  Abraham Maslow (known for his hierarchy of "felt needs," used to 'liberate' children from parental authority) encountered this same "problem" when he had children of his own.  "... my children got me into conflict with my theory."   "Who should teach whom?"  (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)  Children consume.  Parent's produce.  We have become a society of consumers, i.e. a nation of children (managed/manipulated by "big brother," i.e. facilitators of 'change').  Not understanding the father's/Father's authority, we are consuming all things as unto ourselves.  'Justifying' ourselves, i.e. our "self interest," i.e. our "lusts," we are now destroying all who resist 'change,' i.e. all who get in the way of our "lusts," i.e. our "self interests," negating the father's/Father's authority without having a "guilty conscience" while doing so.   "Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts."  James 4:2, 3

As crazy as it may sound, education has always been about the Father's authority—with you either being subordinate to it or 'liberated' (or being 'liberated') from it.  It is either about the garden experience, where the master facilitator of 'change' "helped" two children 'liberate' themselves from the Father's (God's) authority, establishing life upon their "self interest" of the 'moment,' i.e. upon how they felt and what they thought in the 'moment,' i.e. upon their opinions, i.e. upon their "sensuous needs" and "senses perception" of the 'moment,' i.e. upon "sense experience" (Karl Marx) rather than upon the commands, rules, facts, and truth of the Father—rejecting faith in the Father's authority they engendered disobedience, estrangement from the Father, and eternal death, or about the gospel, where the only begotten Son of God (Jesus Christ) accepted the Father's authority, who (humbling and denying himself) obeyed His Father in all things, i.e. did what His Father commanded—His righteousness imputed to men of faith in Him, i.e. who repent of their sins (their lack of faith which engenders disobedience) against the Father and follow after Christ (in faith engendered obedience to His Father), who 'redeemed' man from His Father's wrath, 'reconciling' him to His Father and eternal life instead.  While Christ Jesus 'redeems' man from His Heavenly Father's wrath upon him, and 'reconciles' him to His Heavenly Father, dialectic 'reasoning' 'redeems' man from His Heavenly Father and 'reconciles' him to himself, i.e. 'justifies' his "lusting" after the things of the world, negating the Father's authority in his feelings, thoughts and actions, and in his relationship with others instead. 

While the earthly father, i.e. being of the flesh, i.e. subject to the pleasures of the world is not perfect, the Heavenly Father, being not of the flesh, i.e. not subject to the temptations of this world, is perfect—His only begotten Son, coming in the flesh, i.e. coming in the form of a man, was tempted in all things yet without sinning (without disobedience), fulfilled his Father's will in all things, even unto death. While the earthly father is not perfect, his office of authority, given to him by God, is perfect.  Our nation was founded upon having no earthly father's authority (King) over the nation, the states, the counties, townships, or cities but leaving it in place in the home, in the father's authority over the family—the engenderer of the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, i.e. the underpinning of "civil government."  It is this "above-below," "top-down," "right-wrong" pattern (the engenderer of the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong), of both the earthly father and the Heavenly Father that dialectic 'reasoning' seeks to negate.  The dialectic idea being: if you can negate the earthly father's authority (which is affected by the flesh) in the feelings, thoughts, actions, and in the relationships children have with one another, you can negate the Heavenly Father's authority (of the spirit) in the feelings, thoughts, actions, and in the relationships men have with one another. 

To negate the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong/for sinning, the father's/Father's authority, the engender of the "guilty conscience" must be negated, i.e. must be replaced with "the group," the engenderer of the "super-ego," which is subject to the "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e. which necessitates 'change.'  Without 'crisis in some form, i.e. real or imagined, natural or created, being used by facilitators of 'change' to advance their agenda of controlling the "masses," the engender of stability, i.e. the father's/Father's authority reappears, as the people, realizing that 'change,' i.e. the pleasure of being 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority is only temporary, i.e. is eventually hollow, i.e. without lasting promise or hope (realize that they are being seduced, deceived, and manipulated , i.e. neutralized, marginalized, and converted or silenced for the facilitators of 'change' pleasure), return to "the old ways" again, preventing the facilitators of 'change' from having control over their lives. 

While men have used the father's authority to rule over men, nations, and the "church," the gospel (not being subject to the nations and religions of the world) does not—something those who propagate dialectic 'reasoning' (including within the "church") have overlooked for their own carnal gain.  No minister is to come between the believer and the Heavenly Father and His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, only to come along side them, encouraging them in their walk with the Lord, i.e. preaching and teaching the Word of God (uncompromised) to encourage them to keep looking to "the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ" for fellowship and direction, chastening, i.e. reproving, correcting, or rebuking (out of a humble and pure heart before the Lord) those who go astray from "the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ" and casting out those who, turning to the world for fellowship, i.e. 'justifying' the wisdom of men (dialectic 'reasoning'), become apostate (casting out, not killing those who reject the "way," leaving that up to God, i.e. not doing as those of dialectic 'reasoning' do, killing those, i.e. the unborn, the elderly, etc. who get in their "way" of pleasure, making themselves god).  "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven."  Matthew 23:9  "and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."  1 John 3:1  "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 

Without the father's/Father's authority and the child's/man's propensity to "lust" after the pleasures of the world/sin (the antithesis between spirit and flesh) dialectic 'reasoning' (the child/man "rationally" 'justifying' himself over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority) would not exist.  Uniting children, man, and all that is of the world as one, i.e. as "equals," i.e. as god ('righteous' in and of themselves) makes all things subject to the carnal desires of the flesh.  If you can negate the one ("religious" differences) you can negate the other (alienation between men, i.e. "civil society," nationalism, individualism, private property, private business, etc.).  Karl Marx explained the dialectic agenda this way: "The immediate task is to unmask human alienation [man ruling over man as a father rules over his children, restraining, i.e. "repressing" "human nature," getting in the way of the pleasures of the 'moment'—according to Freud, uninhibited, spontaneous, consensual sexual pleasure being the greatest pleasure of all, i.e. with and between men, women, children, animals, etc.] in its secular form, now that it has been unmasked in the sacred form [God ruling over man, judging man's love of "human nature," i.e. his unrighteousness and abominations as being wicked]." (T. B. Bottomore and M. Rubel, eds, Karl Marx: Selected writing in Sociology and Social Philosophy

Thus, if you can 'liberate' the child from having faith in his parent's authority, i.e. faith in his father's authority (by putting his trust in himself and "the group" instead) you can 'liberate' man from having faith in God's authority, i.e. faith in the Heavenly Father's and His Son's authority (by putting his trust in the facilitator of 'change' and "the group," i.e. "the community," i.e. society instead). "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  "Every one that is proud in heart [is sufficient (righteous) in and of himself] is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished. By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil."  Proverbs 16:5, 6 

By placing the child in a classroom environment which engenders "cognitive dissonance," where the child is caught between his belief (his father's/Father's position) and his desires (his "self interests") of the 'moment,' the pressure of the group (his desire for the approval of the group so that he can fulfill his "self interest")—"hand joining in hand" or group consensus—will force him to 'change' (abandon) his belief. "Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [faith in the father's/Father's position] in the face of apparent group unanimity; ..." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy "There is evidence in our data that once a change in behavior [once the child sets aside (for the 'moment') his father's/Father's position for the sake of group approval] has occurred, a change in beliefs is likely to follow." "It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately." "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

The dialectic process is known for its three stages or conditions, i.e. thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.   According to dialectic 'reasoning' the Father's position is regarded as an opinion amongst opinions and His facts and truth are regarded as a theory (making all things relative, i.e. situational, i.e. subject to the 'moment') but to expose the deception of the process I will treat thesis as a position or an established fact or truth, the three conditions therefore being paradigms, or ways of feeling, thinking, acting, and relating with others rather than a cyclical process of 'change' (until no antithesis, i.e. no Father's authority remains), the three conditions being: position, conflict, and compromise, or facts and truth, feelings, and 'justification' (where 'justification' is found in the need to compromise rather than in the Father's unchanging position), or Patriarch, Matriarch, and Heresiarch (the father's/Father's position, the mother's heart, i.e. relationship, and the child's nature, i.e. 'change'; tradition, transition, and transformation; facts, feelings, and 'justification' of feelings over and therefore against facts, i.e. treating feelings or opinions or theories as fact and putting them into action; etc.).  The conflict or tension (antithesis) between the father's authority or position (thesis) and the child's (man's) feelings, i.e. his desires ("lusts," "pleasures," "enjoyments") of the 'moment' has been the catalyst for dialectic 'reasoning' (for synthesis, i.e. the child 'justifying' his "feelings" and 'thoughts" over and therefore against his father's authority, i.e. for 'change,' i.e. for the philosophy of "Critical Theory"—critical thoughts against parental authority, i.e. "questioning authority," which is indicative of the desire for 'change') down through the ages, with either the father's authority and the "guilty conscience" for disobedience (the "old" world order, i.e. Hebrews 12:5-11 and Romans 7:14-25) prevailing or the child's "self interests" of the 'moment' (the "new" world order, i.e. Genesis 3:1-6—the first praxis of dialectic 'reasoning') taking its place (either by forcing 'change,' i.e. killing the father, along with those who honour and submit to his authority, i.e. who resist 'change,' or by the father, along those who honour and submit to his authority, abdicating his position of authority, i.e. being silent in the midst of unrighteousness which is indicative of the desire for 'change,' or by circumventing his authority instead, i.e. trivializing the father's authority, treating it, in the "light" of changing 'times,' i.e. according to the "felt needs" of the 'moment' as being 'irrational' and therefore 'irrelevant,' thus establishing, for the sake of "self interest," the necessity/urgency for 'change'). "Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon .... transform public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests.... transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps..."  (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order)

Building community ("building relationships") depends upon synthesis, i.e. upon compromise, i.e. upon 'self justification,' i.e. 'liberating' one's self from the father's authority.  Compromise is necessary if one wants to initiate and sustain community.  Yet the father's authority is negated in the praxis of compromise.  Philosophy (Genesis 3:1-6) is simply the child, dissatisfied with the way thing are, i.e. the way the world is (antithesis), i.e. subject to the father's authority (thesis), thinking about (reflecting upon) how the world "ought" to be, i.e. in harmony with his "feelings" of the 'moment' (synthesis), i.e. 'justifying' himself, i.e. 'justifying' his urges and impulses of the 'moment.'  Putting philosophy into social action (praxis) establishes the child's feelings and thoughts, i.e. his opinion over and therefore against the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, negating the father's authority in the process, negating God as the source of life.  Rejecting God the Father, i.e. the giver of life, all that the child or man can do is worship the creation, i.e. the fountain of pleasure.   Since there is no eternity or absolute in an opinion, only that which is temporary and 'changeable,' i.e. that which is being experienced in the pleasure and/or the pain of the 'moment,' in dialectic 'reasoning' it is not the creator or even the creation that is the source of '"life" but man's opinion of it, which is ever subject to ('changing' according to) the conditions of the 'moment.'  As Karl Marx explained it: "The philosophers [the children] have only interpreted the world in different ways [how they believe the world "ought" to be], the objective however, is change [is to initiate and sustain the 'change' process itself, keeping 'change' (the dialectic process and the facilitators of 'change') in place forever, through praxis (community action, i.e. sight) preventing parental restraint (the father's/Father's authority, i.e. faith) from reappearing]."  (Karl Marx, Feuerbach #11)

By starting with the child (that he is "good" or has the potential of becoming "good" through proper upbringing and education, i.e. the "blank table" theory), i.e. by making the child's nature, i.e. his "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. his opinion, i.e. his "self interest" of the 'moment,' his "lust" for pleasure the thesis, the father's authority or position (that the child by nature is wicked or evil if left to his own desires and deeds, therefore needing direction and correction), restraining the child's nature, becomes the antithesis, i.e. the source of tension, controversy, or conflict.  While dialectic 'reasoning' (self consciousness) is conceived within the conflict or tension (the antithesis) between the father's authority and the child's desires of the 'moment,' i.e. the child only being able to dialogue within himself his pique toward the father's authority, it can only be given birth when the child 'discovers' common identity with other children of like "self interest," 'justifying' himself (along with them) over and therefore against the father's authority.  With the children now being able to "rationally" unite with one another (through the dialoguing of their opinions to a synthesis or consensus) upon what they have in common with one another, i.e. their carnal nature (their "self interest" of the 'moment') and their resentment toward parental authority which restrains it, and putting their newly 'discovered' 'liberty' into action, i.e. into social action (praxis) 'liberating' other children from the father's authority, the father's authority is negated in their feelings, thoughts, actions, and relationship with others, i.e. a "new" world order is 'created' within the children themselves—now "equal" in thought and in action (in theory and in practice), not only within themselves but also amongst themselves.  The problem, according to dialectic 'reasoning' is that once the children, 'liberated' from the father's authority, become parent's themselves (have children of their own) they revert back to the father's authority, restoring the father's authority again, ruling over their children as their fathers ruled over them.  How to break this return to the father's/Father's authority, i.e. how to negate the "guilty conscience" for disobedience/sinning against (for not having faith in) the father/Father—which "creates" the father's/Father's authority within the child—is the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of dialectic 'reasoning' (there is no "guilty conscience" in dialogue, only 'justification').  As Karl Marx explained it: "The life which he [the child] has given to the object [to the father/Father, by honoring his authority, i.e. having faith in him/Him and obeying his commands and rules and accepting his facts and truth as give] sets itself [the father's/Father's authority] against him [against his carnal nature] as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)

Negating the father's authority within the feelings, thoughts, and actions, and the relationship children have with one another and the world, i.e. 'changing' the way the children think (how they decide what is right and what is wrong for the 'moment,' i.e. from knowing by faith, i.e. because the father, the teacher, etc. said so, to knowing by sight, i.e. "sense experience") is therefore the goal of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. 'liberating' not only the children from the father's authority but the world from the Father's authority in the process.  For centuries, colleges and Universities (as well as all learning institutions) held their students accountable to learning the commands, rules, facts, and truths of the "past," i.e. recognizing and honoring the office of the father/the Father (the parent, the teacher, the employer, the landowner, the legislator, the minister, etc. correlated with recognizing and honoring God's authority, i.e. His Word) and obeying his/His commands and rules and accepting his/His facts and truth as given (by faith).  They have now become institutions of 'change,' i.e. of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. of questioning the commands, rules, facts, and truth of the father/Father and challenging his/His authority.  No longer holding to the traditions of the past, i.e. recognizing and honoring the father's authority, educational institutions are now 'purposed' in 'liberating' the next generation from the father's authority, 'creating' a "new" world order of 'change' in the process, 'liberating' man and child from Godly restraint.  As you will see, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the father's authority and Godly restraint are the same in pattern or structure (engendering individualism, parochialism, nationalism, i.e. correlated to fascism, and religion, under God, i.e. that which "represses" man and "alienates" man from man, i.e. separates man from his carnal nature, turning him against that which he has in common with all men—unrighteousness and abomination).

Dialectic 'reasoning' (synthesis) is children (including those in adult bodies), with the "help" (the expertise and cunning) of facilitator's of 'change,' "rationally" 'justifying' their feelings, thoughts, actions, and relationships with one another and the world over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority.  By 'liberating' themselves from the father's authority, i.e. from parental restraint, they 'liberate themselves from the Father's authority, i.e. from Godly restraint.  The synthesis of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. children dialoguing their opinions with one another, 'discovering' what they have in common with one another, and building relationship (consensus, i.e. a "feeling" of "oneness," i.e. "community") upon it, negates the thesis-antithesis , i.e. the father-child conflict of the father's authority ruling over the child, restraining the child, dividing the child's thoughts (thinking about and desiring to fulfill his own "self interests") from his actions (obeying the father, doing the father's will instead, i.e. capitulating to the father's authority—engendering private property and private business, i.e. "Mine. Not yours," "Do what I say or else," i.e. capitalism, i.e. "neurosis"—where the child obeys yet having doubts, {faith engendered obedience has no doubts}).  Instead of killing the father, i.e. the capitalist (the private property and private business owner), as Traditional Marxist (Communists) do, the "new" world order draws him into participation within the process of 'change' itself, making him subject to socialism (to socialists).  By getting him to focus upon "community," i.e. upon public causes (through tax breaks, voluntarism, community pressure, i.e. shaming, etc.), as Transformational Marxist (social-psychologists, facilitators of 'change') do, and by his 'willing' participation in public-private partnerships, i.e. working for the "good" of the "community," i.e. for the "common" or "greater good," he will negate (abdicate) the private in property and business, i.e. making "the peoples 'felt needs,'" i.e. "the groups 'felt needs'" (or "self interests"), i.e. the children's "felt" needs (their "self interests") his own "felt" needs (his "self interests") in the process, and visa versa. 

In this way of 'reasoning' (evaluating life from the child's "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e. from his "self interests" of the 'moment,' instead of from the father's commands, rules, facts, and truths of the "past"), and putting them into "group," "community," social action (into praxis), i.e. working with other's of like "self interest," the child (man) is able to negate the father's (the Father's, i.e. God's) authority within his feelings, thoughts, actions, and relationship with others, i.e. he is able to reunite his feelings, thoughts, actions, and relationship with the world again, i.e. become as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth and threat of chastening, "whole," i.e. "normal" again, i.e. finding his identity within himself and society, no longer finding it in an authority figure external to his "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' blocking or restraining him from actualizing himself, becoming at-one-with the world, according to "human nature."  Karl Marx put it this way: "It is not individualism [the child being personally held accountable for his actions (before the father) as a man is personally held accountable for this thoughts and actions (before God)] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him.  Society [man's carnal nature, i.e. "human nature," i.e. man's "self interests" of the 'moment' (that which all men have in common)] is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities."  (Karl Marx in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx)

In dialectic 'reasoning' identity is found within the commonality of "the group," i.e. within society, not in the singularity (uniqueness) of the father/Father and his/His authority. "All that matters is that the opportunity for genuine activity ["self interest"] be restored to the individual; that the purposes of society and of his own become identical." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom) "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, 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)  "A tendency to transmit mainly a set of conventional rules and customs, may be considered as interfering with the development of a clear-cut personal identity in the growing child." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

By "helping" children compare themselves with themselves they are able to become "reconciled" to themselves, i.e. reunited with their flesh and the world, i.e. they are able to become as they were before the father's first command, rule, fact, or truth and threat of chastening (or condemnation) for disobedience or doing things wrong.  'Esteeming' themselves, i.e. their carnal thoughts and actions of the 'moment' they are able to "redeem" themselves from the Father's authority.  Working together as "equals," i.e. united as "one" they are not only able to negate the father's authority within themselves (individually), they are also able to negate the father's authority within "the group," within the "community," within the nation, and within the world, 'creating' a "new" world order of and for themselves (of and for "human nature") Only.  'Liberated' from the Father's authority all they have left is a world of abomination—calling evil (the child's carnal nature, i.e. "human nature") "good" (or potentially becoming "good" through dialectic 'reasoning') and good (the Father's authority) evil.  The obedient Son of God defined us in our use of dialectic 'reasoning.' 

After earning a teaching degree based upon the use of "Bloom's/Marzano's/ Webb's Taxonomies," i.e. the dialectic process in the classroom (the basis of Common Core), using the affective domain, i.e. the student's "feelings" or "self interest" (where the student's "thoughts" are taken captive to his "feelings" of the 'moment'), by my encouraging the use of "appropriate information," i.e. discouraging the use of "inappropriate information" in the classroom to guarantee my desired outcome, to "facilitate" the 'changing' of his values, "helping" him (along with the rest of the class) 'liberate' his "feelings," values," or "self interests" from parental restraint, i.e. from "prejudice," through the use of "group dynamics," i.e. the desire for the approval of "the group," and "cognitive dissonance," i.e. the fear of rejection by either the father or the "group," having to choose one over and therefore against the other, establishing his "feelings," "thoughts," "actions," and "relationship" with "the group" over and therefore against parental authority, neutralizing, marginalizing, and either converting or removing him if he resisted 'change,' i.e. if he refused to be a "team player," i.e. if he persisted in bringing "inappropriate information" into the "group discussion," i.e. if he initiated or sustained parental authority, i.e. if he "judged" other students thoughts and actions according to his parent's standards, thereby making him (along with all the other students) subject to the 'changing' situations of the 'moment,' thus making him seducible, deceivable, and therefore, like natural resource, manipulatable by facilitators of 'change'—which I had to repent of; then attending seminary (which was based upon the same process, i.e. basing 'truth' upon men's opinions rather than the Word of God itself); then taking years of classes on European history (while raising my family and running my construction company); then spending five years reading over six hundred social-psychology books (with the Holy Spirit bringing to my remembrance, in the midst of my research, God's Word, exposing the process for what it is, i.e. the negation of God's authority from the hearts and souls of men by negating the father's authority in the hearts of the children); then teaching in a University, and now, having spent the past eighteen years traveling across America speaking on (exposing) our education system and its agenda of 'liberating' children from parental (the father's) restraint, thereby 'liberating' man from Godly (the Father's) restraint (finding it more difficult to get speaking engagements, i.e. being censored by the "churches" and "Christian Universities" and turned away by conservative group, because of my preaching the gospel, i.e. speaking on righteousness), it all boils down to this:

The purpose of life is either (according to God) honoring the father's authority, restraining the child's nature (above all honoring the Father's, i.e. God's authority, restraining man's nature, i.e. "human nature") or (according to facilitators of 'change,' i.e. dialectic 'reasoning') honoring the child's nature, negating the father's authority (honoring man's nature, i.e. "human nature," negating the Father's, i.e. God's authority).  According to Hegel, Marx, and Freud man must honor his own nature ("human nature") if he is to negate the Father's authority (Godly restraint) in his life.  Thus, instead of "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),  "the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality).  If you do not evaluate your feelings, thoughts and actions, and your relationship with others in the light of the father's/Father's authority, then you are dialectic in your 'reasoning,' i.e. 'justifying' your self over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority.  The dialectic agenda is: don't fight against the father's/Father's authority directly (and lose), 'justify' the child's carnal nature instead, and the father's/Father's authority will become irrational and therefore irrelevant to the child in the process. 

Dialectic 'reasoning' negates private family, property, and business, under the father, along with inalienable rights, under God, i.e. the "old" world order (where the father has authority over his children, as God, i.e. the Father has authority over man, engendering individualism, under the father and/or under God/the Father), replacing it with public-private partnership and "humanist" rights, i.e. the "new" world order (where the children are 'liberated' from the father's authority, thereby 'liberating' man from the Father's authority, i.e. 'liberating' "human nature," i.e. man's "self interest" from Godly restraint, engendering common-ism, i.e. socialism-globalism-environmentalism, with the student becoming accountable to "the group" and the citizen becoming accountable to the "community" Only, "tolerating" deviancy (abomination) along the way.  While the father's/Father's authority reprimands 'compromise,' "community" necessitates it.  What you "tolerate" (when you are silent when confronted with what you know is wrong, for the sake of initiating or sustaining "self interest") becomes the "norm"—when you are silent in the midst of unrighteousness, i.e. not reproving, correcting, or rebuking it, unrighteousness becomes the "norm."  The right of religious freedom is the right to preach and teach righteousness in the public domain, i.e. from the classroom to the highest offices of the land.  "Tolerance" negates that right, negating freedom of speech in the process.  God does not tolerate unrighteousness as a father does not tolerate disobedience, condemning (chastening) it instead.  God the Father is patient in the hope that man will receive the truth being preached and taught and, through fear of judgment and eternal death, repent and be saved to spend eternity with Him instead, as the father is patient in the hope that the child will receive the truth that is being preached and taught and, through chastening be restored to his authority, receiving his blessing again.  Continued

© Institution for Authority Research  Dean Gotcher 1997-2014