authorityresearch.com

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

The Institution for Authority Research
Exposing the Dialectic Process.
deangotcher@gmail.com 

About, Issues, Articles, Schedule, Material, Scheduling, Audios, Youtube, Radio, Archived, Textus Receptus, Class, Warnings, Thanks!  P.S.

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."  Jeremiah 6:16   "Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment. Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh: for childhood and youth are vanity."  Ecclesiastes 11:9, 10  "... and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death."  Mark 13:12  (Mark 13:5-13)

When children have no parental restraint in their lives, i.e. when they have no "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, doing what they "feel" like doing in the 'moment' instead (disobeying with impunity), they end up tolerating or doing unconscionable things, i.e. praxis-ing dialectic 'reasoning' (diaprax), i.e.  'justifying' their love of pleasure and their hate of parental restraint.  When children negate the father's authority (parental restraint) in their feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment,' and in their relationship with one another, i.e. when they refuse the father's chastening of them for doing wrong (to restore them to doing what is right), thinking that they can do wrong with impunity, i.e. doing what they think is right in their own eyes instead, i.e. evaluating themselves, the world, and their father's commands, rules, facts, and truth according to their "feelings," i.e. "desires," "lusts," "enjoyments," pleasures," i.e. their opinion of the 'moment,' they bring upon themselves the father's wrath in the end (being cast out of the home as a "child of disobedience").  What is true for the child is true for man.  Without Godly restraint, man (as a child who 'justifies' himself over and therefore against his father's authority, i.e. sinning with impunity) engenders a world of unrighteousness and abomination, bringing upon himself God's judgment (the Father's wrath) in the end (being cast into Hell as a "child of disobedience"). "Let no man deceive you with vain words [with words your fleshy/carnal mind wants (desires) to hear]: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience."  Ephesians 5:6 

It is why, when you attempt to share the truth with those around you today, i.e. warn them of what is happening to them and this nation, you get that "deer in the headlights look," with them excusing themselves, having something (more) important (they just remembered) they have to do, "having eyes which are human eyes, and ears which are human ears," interested only in that which makes them "feel" good in the 'moment.' (Karl Marx)  "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 in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."  Matthew 13:14-16

Karl Marx (as did Sigmund Freud) knew that how a child is taught (how he is educated, i.e. the way the child is instructed, i.e. either learning facts (denying, humbling, controlling, disciplining himself) or sharing his feelings and thoughts of the 'moment' (esteeming himself), i.e. either learning to reason didactically, i.e. evaluating himself (his feelings, thoughts, and actions), his relationship with others, and the world from an a prior,  i.e. evaluating from an established fact or truth or 'reason' dialectically, i.e. evaluating himself (his feelings, thoughts, and actions), his relationship with others, and the world from an opinion, i.e. evaluating from his "feelings" or desires and the "feelings" or desires of others of the 'moment') will have a direct affect upon how the child will think and act and relate with others, i.e. whether he will "trust in the Lord" (evaluate himself and the world from God's Word) or "lean to his own understanding," (evaluate himself, the world, and God's Word from his and others "feelings" of the 'moment'), i.e. whether he will walk by faith or walk by sight, i.e. whether (according to dialectic 'reasoning') he will be irrational (anti-social, i.e. resisting 'change') or rational (social, i.e. adapting to 'change'), i.e. whether his information (his input) will be irrelevant ("inappropriate," i.e. "negative") to the current situation or relevant ("appropriate," i.e. "positive") to the current situation.  Marx (as well as Freud) knew that the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted "as is," i.e. by faith produces a different child (culture) than the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus.  The difference in cultures is whether the child honors the father's authority, obeying his commands and rules without question and accepting his facts and truth as is (by faith) or negates the father's authority in his feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in his relationship with others—thus making it easier for him to not concern himself with what happens to the father (and those who follow and obey him) or to kill the father (along with those who follow and obey him) without having a "guilty conscience." 

The children (including those in "adult" bodies), following after Marx and Freud, i.e. following after "children of disobedience," i.e. learning how to 'justify' their urges and impulses of the 'moment' instead of trusting in and following after the Father's (God's) obedient Son, are now children of the world only, again, i.e. as they were before their father's first command, rule, fact, or truth—defending dialogue ('justifying' their opinions, i.e. the opinions of men) over and against preaching (the Word of God), justifying' their own 'righteousness,' i.e. that which is of the flesh, i.e. that which is in agreement with the world (made manifest through their own "sense perception," i.e. understood only by sight, satisfying their "sensuous needs," i.e. satisfying their "felt needs" of the 'moment') over and against that righteousness which can only come from God, i.e. which must be accepted by faith.  "For after that in the wisdom of God [His Word revealed by preaching, accepted by faith, confirmed by His Spirit] the world by wisdom [leaning to its own understanding, trusting in the flesh and sight] knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." 1 Corinthians 2:21   "Let no man deceive himself.  If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world ["leaning to his own understanding"], let him become a fool ["trusting in the Lord with all his heart"], that he may be wise.  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.  For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness."  1 Corinthians 3:18-19  "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14  "And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law [which condemns man], but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith [which redeems man]:" Philippians 3:9  "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

We are a nation of children (in adult bodies), as Marx and Freud, intolerant of those who preach and teach righteousness—turning a deaf ear to those warning man (not only in the "church" but in the public arena as well) of his wicked ways and his need to repent before a Holy, Pure, Gracious, Merciful, Just God lest he die in his sins and spend eternity in Hell, loving and serving Him with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, inheriting eternal life instead.  Facilitators of 'change', i.e. "wolves in sheepskin" have brought the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (Marx and Freud) into the "church, turning it against righteousness (which can only be imputed by faith in Christ Jesus alone—who was and is obedient to His Heavenly Father's will, calling us to follow him in doing the same), turning the church to polls, surveys, and feasibility studies (to men's opinions, i.e. to the "feelings" and "thoughts" of children in adult bodies) for direction instead.

By first 1) observing and defining the attributes of the "earthy family" (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4), where the children do their father's will and 2) observing and defining the attributes of the "Holy Family" (ibid.) where the Son, and those who follow Him do His Heavenly Father's will (finding what attributes they both have in common, i.e. being "positive" in regard to doing the father's/Father's will while being "negative" in regard to the lusts of the flesh and eyes, and his pride of life), and 3) observing and defining the attributes of the child/man without a father's/Father's authority (being "positive" in regard to the lusts of the flesh and eyes and the pride of life), and then (classifying that which is negative to the "earthly/Holy family" as being "positive" to the children, making that which is "positive" to the "earthly/Holy family" "negative," i.e. turning good into evil and evil into good) by 4) removing the attributes of the "earthly family/Holy family" from the classroom environment, i.e. by discouraging "negativity" (the preaching and teaching of right and wrong) amongst the children as they work on a "group project" (working together as "one") and encouraging "positivity" instead (freedom to dialogue their carnal desires, i.e. their opinions amongst one another— including their resentment towards authority which restraints them), the children can be 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority as they unite with one anther (become as "one"), building "human relationship" upon their carnal nature, i.e. upon their lusts of the flesh and eyes and their pride of life, speaking against (mocking, spreading false accusations against, etc. to silence) anyone who restrains them, i.e. who supports the earthly/Holy family way of thinking and acting. 

The objective is to 'create' the 'right' environmental conditions—using "force field analysis," i.e. parental authority vs. the child's carnal desires of the 'moment' (where along the spectrum of 'change' the child resides in the 'moment') "group dynamics," i.e. the child's desire for approval from "the group," and "unfreezing, moving, and refreezing" i.e. the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus to 'change' the child's paradigm.  (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change).  By 'liberating' pleasure (encouraging the child to openly share his desires) and 'restraining' pain (negating chastening, i.e. removing parental restraint) the child will naturally move in the direction of pleasure, 'changing' his paradigm, i.e. his way of feeling, thinking, acting, and relating with others, i.e. choosing "group approval" ("sensuality," i.e. being at-one-with his nature and the world) over and against "parental authority" (righteousness, i.e. doing the father's/Father's will) in the process.  "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." (ibid.)  If it works on the child it will work on the adult as well.  Karl Marx wrote: "The unspeculative Christian [the Christian of faith] also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, i.e., of faith [in the Father and in His obedient Son], of true love, i.e., of love of God [the Son's love of the Father], of true will-power, i.e., of will in Christ [of the Son's will to obey to His Heavenly Father in all things commanded]." [Therefore, Marx understood that the Christian (of faith) lives] "Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply. [But, supporting the child's carnal nature, i.e. his propensity to sin, i.e. "human nature," i.e. the child's desire to have relationship (oneness) with the world over and against righteousness, i.e. doing the father's/Father's will, Marx declares]  It is not sensuality [the child's sinful nature] which is presented ..., but mysteries, adventures, obstacles, fears, dangers, and especially the attraction of what is forbidden ["human nature," i.e. the child's desire to become at-one-with his own nature and the world in pleasure, in the 'moment']." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)  Establish Christianity upon "human relationship" and you 'liberate' man from God, i.e. the child from the earthly father's authority (man from the Heavenly Father's authority).  "Are you a Marxists?"

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.  Some aids to help in understand the following information: two half-hour audios Part 1, Part 2, a chart, two one-hour audios explaining the chart: Part 1, Part 2, and two YouTube's, YouTube1, YouTube 2, plus a handout (Pdf) & Power Point slides I use in some of my meetings. 

A word of warning regarding false accusations made about me: while I have had liberals, i.e. those who do this process ('justifying' their carnal nature, placing themselves as being "equal" with, and therefore over/above, and therefore against God and His Word, treating it and those who believe in it as being irrational and therefore irrelevant), as well as those who have come out of this process (having, through faith in Christ Jesus, been liberated from its lie—that man will not be held accountable, before God, for his unrighteous thoughts and his unrighteous actions), confess privately to me as well as publicly (after meetings) that what I share here is factual (even liberals who dedicate their blog to mocking me have had their own reprimand them for not having done their "homework," confessing that what I write is factual, with them just not wanting to agree with me regarding the solution, i.e. Christ Jesus), it is "Christians" who, stirring up confusion and strife, falsely accuse me, for example, of being a member of the illuminati (Wow!  Anyone who knows me and understands what I write knows that that is slander), of "supporting" Vision Forum (to my knowledge I have never met Doug Phillips nor have I ever "supported" Vision Forum), of being "pro-Constitution," i.e. perceiving America as being a "Christian Nation," i.e. treating the Constitution as the Word of God—while I teach classes on the Constitution, there is not such thing as a "Christian Nation," there can only be a nation influenced by Christians recognizing and establishing laws which allow the preaching of the gospel in the public arena, i.e. promoting freedom of religion and speech, i.e. preaching the gospel in the public arena without restraint, and freedom of the conscience (not freedom from religion, speech, and the conscience which has been put into praxis today), i.e. Patrick Henry fought against the Constitution's potentially unlimited powers—we would not have had the Bill of Rights without men like him, which/who put the power of government back into the citizens hands, which is now nearly gone as those in government have replaced our "inalienable rights," under God, with "human rights," under facilitators of 'change'), of being King James only (which I am not. I am Textus Receptus only), and the list goes on.  So what is new.  Throughout history those who have spoken the truth have been "falsely accused."  There are many who have shared with me (publically and privately) their appreciation of my exposing the lie (the dialectic process of 'change') by the light of the truth (by the Word of God), having come out of the lie (the dialectic process) themselves (the lie being that man is basically "good" or has the potential of becoming "good" by doing "good" things for others, i.e. by making others "feel good"), this information encouraging them to continue to hold fast to the faith, i.e. to the truth (that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, needing salvation through Christ Jesus) in a world of lies (that man can sin with impunity).  It is for those who have come out of the lie (out of the process of 'change'), those who are in the process and do not know that it is a lie (still being deceived but knowing something is wrong), and those who are still in the process and want to come out, that I share this information.  At least they know that what I write about here is factual, pointing those who will listen (those who have ears to hear) to the way, to the truth, to life, i.e. to Christ Jesus, and to His Heavenly Father, i.e. for "truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."  1 John 3:1  

It is not by accident that we have arrived at this level of depravity, i.e. of abomination we find ourselves these days.  It is the result of a well orchestrated agenda over a century in the making, using the classroom (as a "laboratory") to 'liberate' children from parental authority (parental restraint), i.e. from the earthly father's "above-below," "right-wrong" authority system (the Patriarchal Paradigm), 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), along with the "guilty conscience" which ensues (Romans 7:14-25)—done through the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning' (Genesis 3:1-6).   If you doubt me, link to the following websites: ntl.org (noting especially its history), ed.gov/pubs/TeachersGuide, and read the Transformational Marxist training manuals Human Relations in Curriculum Change, and Laboratory in Human Relations Training (Transformational Marxist's are Marxist's who came to America in the early 30's, who merged (synthesized) Marx and Freud, i.e. used psychology to bring Marxism into the classroom, the workplace, government, the church, and the home)—built upon the works of Marxist's such as Kurt Lewin (known for his work on "group dynamics," "unfreezing, moving or changing, and refreezing," and "force field analysis"), J. L. Moreno, (known for his creation and utilization of role-playing and socio-grams to initiate, analyze, and sustain 'change'), etc. as well as other training manuals such as The Planning Of Change written by Warren Bennis, and Bloom's/Marzano's/Webb's Taxonomies which are used by teachers today to develop their classroom curriculum—for the purpose of 'changing' their students paradigm, i.e. changing the way they feel, think, act, and relating with one another, i.e. relate with the world as well as relate with their parents, i.e. the children regarding themselves and their parent's as being "equals," i.e. thereby questioning and challenging their parent's authority, i.e. their rules, commands, facts, and truth when it gets in the way of their and other's carnal desires of the 'moment.'  "There are many stores of the conflict and tension that these new practices [being applied in the classroom] are producing between parents and children [with the children learning in the classroom how to apply dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. "self" 'justification,' to all areas of their lives (through the curriculum being using in the classroom), returning home to question their parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth, and challenge their authority]."  (Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 2: Affective DomainHow you think directly affects how you "feel" regarding your behavior, i.e. feeling guilty for doing wrong or 'justifying' your "self" instead.  Changing a person from "feeling guilty" for doing wrong to not "feeling guilty" for doing wrong requires practice (praxis).  The "Taxonomy" continues: "To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values, the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment  [what Warren Bennis, in The Temporary Society calls an "experiential chasm"] which in many ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed."  "...many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern [the father's authority] is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized."  

Through his use of dialectic 'reasoning,' the child is able to 'reconcile' himself to his carnal nature and the world, i.e. to be at-one-with himself and "the group" (what he has in common with it and it has in common with him—the heart and soul of common-ism), 'redeeming' himself from parental restraint (from the father's authority) in the process.  In this way of feeling, thinking, and acting and relating with "the group," he is able to 'liberate' himself, "the group," the "community," and the world from Godly restraint (from the Father's authority).  Instead of being 'redeemed' by the obedient Son of God and 'reconciled' to His Heavenly Father, the child/man, through his use of dialectic 'reasoning,' 'justifies' his carnal nature, 'reconciling' himself to himself and the world, 'redeeming' himself and the world from the Father and His only begotten Son's authority (from Godly restraint) in the process, so that he can be himself again, as he was before the Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth, i.e. "of [human] nature Only," i.e. feeling, thinking, and acting and relating with himself and with others without having a "guilty conscience" for his and their unrighteous thoughts and unrighteous actions.  (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)

How "dumbed down" we have become as a nation (becoming a nation of 'children,' i.e. 'disobedient children' in adult bodies, 'justifying' our carnal feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment') is made manifest by our inability to suspend (set aside) the pleasures of the 'moment' to take the time to think (to wade, i.e. to "endure") through material such as the following (regarding how and why dialectic 'reasoning' is being used in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, and even in the church to 'change' how we feel, think, and act, and relate with one another) in order to understand what is happening to us and our children and how it is being done.  It appears that most people do not want to know the truth, desiring the pleasures of the 'moment' instead (making them incapable of of knowing the truth because they are no longer able to think apart from their carnal feelings of the 'moment'), being "lovers of their own selves,"  "lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God."  2 Timothy 3:2, 4 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:3, 4 

It is bad enough to have a people (forty year old men) playing with "toys" ("lusting" after the carnal pleasures of life with no Godly restraint, i.e. with no fear of judgment by God for their carnal thoughts and carnal actions), but the hate and violence that comes from them when their "toys" are taken away (or they fear they might be taken away) will destroy a nation. You can see this happening all around us today with government becoming a "police state," encroaching upon every aspect of our lives for the "good" of "the people," i.e. for a people who no longer have a "guilty conscience" for their carnal feelings, thoughts, and action and their abominable relationship with one another, i.e. following after facilitators of 'change' who initiate and sustain government which serves and protects ('justifies') their praxis of sinning with impunity.  George Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud were desires of it, i.e. living in a world of children/men doing what they want to do in the 'moment' (doing what comes naturally), receiving approval from one another, approving one another, silencing any resistor(s) of 'change.'  

Next time you hear the word 'change,' remember this: Marx was all (only) about 'change.'  Marx wrote: "The philosophers [the children (including those in adult bodies), dissatisfied with the way the world "is," i.e. still subject to parental/Godly restraint (with the children still having a "guilty conscience" for disobeying their parents/God, i.e. feeling "guilty" for thinking and acting as "human beings," i.e. for being carnal), thinking about how the world "ought" to be, i.e. a world with children free to think and act according to their carnal desire(s) of the 'moment' with no "guilty conscience"—the "ought" has no parental/Godly authority (restraint) in it and therefore no "guilty conscience" in it] have only interpreted the world in different ways [insisting that their opinion is the right one, forcing all others to accept their opinion as given, and obey and follow them—a "forced" opinion is a position, restoring the father's/Father's authority and the "guilty conscience" for disobedience], the objective however, is change [never letting one child's opinion (position) control the others, i.e. control the individual, "the group," the 'community,' the state, the nation, the world, i.e. society, but letting all children, through the dialoguing of their opinions to a consensus, 'discover' and then put into group or social action the right (common) behavior for the 'moment,' which, being subject to the present situation only, is ever 'changing,' i.e. subject to everyone's "'felt' needs" of the 'moment,' i.e. of the world (of "human nature") only]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11)  According to Marx, "Laws must not fetter human life [inhibit or block the child's/man's carnal desires, i.e. pleasures, "lusts," enjoyments of the 'moment']; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities of the people change." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right)  'Change' requires that the past and the future be understood only according to the child's (man's) "sensuous needs" (Karl Marx) or "felt needs" (Abraham Maslow) and "sense perception" of the 'moment,' where the law of the flesh (human nature) and the carnal situation (the world) coincide (where the child's/man's carnal nature, i.e. his "lust" for pleasure, and the carnal nature of the world, its stimulating of pleasure unite).  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' in that 'moment' the father's/Father's authority (faith in God, i.e. the individual before God) is negated (no longer resides) in the child's (man's) feelings, thoughts, and actions and in his relationship with others—with "the self" (the child/man) and "the group" (the world) becoming "one," i.e. 'justified' in the sensuous need/sense perceived 'moment' of the "feeling" of "oneness."  A "self-actualized" person is a person who is 'liberated' from the father's authority, committed to 'liberating' the world from Godly restraint.

Karl Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family [where the children are obedient to their father] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [where the Son is obedient to His Father], the former [the traditional family] must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically  [in the "thoughts" and "actions" of the children, which are subject to their "feelings" of the 'moment'] and practically [in the laws of nature, i.e. in the laws of society, which, through the use of the consensus process, are readily adaptable to 'change']."  (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4)   G. Brock Chisholm (Deputy Minster of Health, of the Department of National Health and Welfare of Canada), the founder of the modern Health and Welfare Department (speaking in Washington D.C. on October 25th, 1945), sounding like the first facilitator of 'change' in the garden in Eden, stated: "For many generations we have bowed our necks to the yoke of the conviction of sin. We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents, our Sunday and day care school teachers, our politicians, our priests, our newspapers, and others in a vested interest in controlling us."  "'Thou shalt not become as gods, knowing good and evil,' good and evil with which to keep children under control, with which to prevent free thinking, with which to impose local [familial] and national loyalties, and with which to blind children to their glorious intellectual heritage." "The mature person ... has the qualities of adaptability and compromise."  "Is the family, the school, or the church teaching in that direction?"  "The re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainty of the old people, these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy."  "Would it not be sensible to stop imposing our local prejudices and faiths on children and give them all sides of every question so that in their own good time they may have the ability to size things up, and make their own decisions."  "If the race is to be freed from its crippling burden of good and evil it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility."  "The fact is that most psychiatrists and psychologists and many other respectable people have escaped from these moral chains and are able to observe and think freely."  "Psychiatry must now decide what is to be the immediate future of the human race.  No one else can."  (G. B. Chisholm, Reestablishment of Peacetime Society: The Responsibility of Psychiatry)  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 [once 'liberated' from the father's authority]." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)   Without the father's authority, children are under the influence of the seduction, deception, and manipulation of facilitators of 'change.'  Carl Rogers boasted: "We know how to influence the behavior of individuals by setting up conditions which provide satisfaction for needs of which they are unconscious, but which we have been able to determine."  "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)

The earthly father's system or paradigm (a paradigm is the way a person feels, thinks, and acts and relates with others) is the same as the Heavenly Father's system (Hebrews 12:5-11—the difference being the earthly father's "above-below," "right-wrong" system is subject to the flesh, i.e. sensuous, i.e. tempted by the pleasures of the world, and the Heavenly Father's "above-below," "right-wrong" system is Spirit, i.e. Holy, i.e. righteous in and of Himself), yet both produce individualism, i.e. rewarding, chastening, or casting out each child according to his personal behavior toward his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth.  Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning' (rejecting the Heavenly Father's authority, believing instead that man will not be held accountable by God for his thoughts and actions, i.e. the dialectic lie), if you can negate the earthly father's system (the Patriarchal Paradigm, i.e. the father's authority, i.e. the fear of being chastened for disobedience or for doing things wrong or being cast out for disrespecting, i.e. questioning and challenging the father's authority) in the thoughts and actions of the child (thereby negating individualism, under the earthy father), you can negate the Heavenly Father's system (the Patriarchal Paradigm, i.e. the fear of being chastened in this life or being cast out for eternity) in the thoughts and actions of men (thereby negating individualism, under God or the Heavenly Father, from which we derive our "inalienable rights"), 'liberating' man (society) from Godly restraint, i.e. replacing the "guilty conscience" for sinning (Romans 7:14-25—man's need for a savior) with the "super-ego," i.e. with the child's/man's "feelings" of the 'moment,' 'justifying' the carnal pleasure of the 'moment,' you can engender a Heresiarchal Paradigm of 'change,' i.e. a world of children/men "lusting" after the flesh, finding approval from one another and approving one another for their wicked ways, 'justifying' their "selves," i.e. exonerating their "human nature," hating the father/Father and his/His authority for his restraint of their carnal desires (their "felt needs") of the 'moment.'   While in the Patriarch Paradigm the father/Father cast the "children of disobedience" out of the home/garden for their disrespect towards/disobedience against his/His authority, in the Heresiarchal Paradigm of 'change,' the "children of disobedience" cast the father/Father out of the the home/the world instead, i.e. silencing any and all children/men who believe in, have faith in, and obey the father/Father, i.e. who proclaim his position/His Word in public, engendering a "guilty conscience" in the other children/man for their/his disobedience/sins.

By simply 'shifting' ('changing') the classroom environment (changing the system or paradigm, i.e. the curriculum or method of instruction being used in the classroom) from the father's/Father's authority system, i.e. from the teacher preaching and teaching rules and commands to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as is ("as given"), i.e. to be accepted by faith (which requires the children to disciple, control, deny, humble their "self") and the honoring of the teacher's position of authority in the classroom, to the teacher, as a facilitator of 'change,' 'liberating' the children from the father's/Father's authority system by promoting the dialoguing of opinions (which carries no father's/Father's authority/restraint in it, only the children's "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' thus requiring the children to liberate, exalt, esteem, 'justify' their "self," i.e. to share with one another what they are talking to their "self" about, encouraging them to not only 1) share what they want or desire in the 'moment,' but also 2) share their resentment towards that which inhibits or restrains them from having it), 'change' can be initiated and sustained in the children.  In this way the children can be 'liberated' from parental/Godly authority while coming to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness"), i.e. "building relationship" with one another, uniting upon that which they all have in common (what they are talking to their "self" about), i.e. their "self interest," i.e. 'justifying' their "lust" for the pleasures of the 'moment' (which includes their desire for approve from one another—the pleasure of someone else having pleasure in their having pleasure) and their resentment toward parental/Godly restraint/authority which inhibits or blocks them from enjoying the pleasures ("lusts") of the 'moment.'  This applies as well in business where the family business, i.e. subject to the father's morals and standards, becomes a "community" business, serving the "interests" of the community, i.e. with the employs no longer being subject to, i.e. being 'liberated' from the original owners morals and standards.

The child's/man's nature of approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, as well as his desire for approval from his parent's or the father/Father, results in his "talking to his 'self'" regarding his desire to attain the pleasure of the 'moment' and his resentment toward his parent's or the father's/Father's commands and rules, facts and truth which prevent him from attaining it (who does not receive pleasure in his pleasure of the 'moment,' creating conditions which prevent it instead).  The child's/man's "talking to his 'self,'" i.e. 'justifying' his carnal desires while seeking approval (and not getting it if he disobeys) from his parents, leaves him in a state or condition known as neurosis, i.e. behaving in a way (obeying his parent's to gain and retain their approval, i.e. receiving pleasure in their having pleasure in him obeying them, while not having the pleasure of the 'moment' which the world offers, i.e. pleasure being therefore found in the one above nature, restraining nature, i.e. spiritual, and not in nature itself, i.e. temporal) which goes counter to his carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e. which goes counter to "human nature."  Neurosis is a condition where the child's practice or behavior, i.e. obeying his parents in order to sustain the pleasure of their approval (what Sigmund Freud called a "substitute gratification" and Karl Marx called an "opiate") not only "represses" him, not being able to satisfy his carnal urges and impulses of the 'moment' but also divides (alienates) him from theory , i.e. from his ability to dialogue with them regarding ('justifying') his desired pleasure of the 'moment,' i.e. the parent's "Because I said so," in response to his "Why?" (his effort to draw his parent into dialogue with him) preventing it, having to dialogue with his "self" instead, in secret.  Dialectic 'reasoning' unites theory and practice, i.e. restores the child's carnal thoughts (talking to his "self," 'justifying' his "feelings" of the 'moment') and his carnal actions (initiating and sustaining relationship with, i.e. approval from others who participate in or at least tolerate his urges and impulses of the 'moment,' receiving pleasure in his having pleasure).  Dialectic 'reasoning' negates, in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions, and relationship with others, the parent's (the father's) authority, i.e. the source of neurosis in the child.  When a father (or whoever is in authority) acts like a child without a father's restraint, the child will act like a child without a father's restraint. The dialectic idea is: if, according to the Father, the conflict between law of the flesh ("human nature," i.e. the child's carnal desires of the 'moment') and the law of God (that which is spiritual, i.e. of the Father's authority which is established for all times) can not be resolved (except through Christ Jesus, the obedient Son), by making the child's nature, i.e. his "lust" for pleasure (his "self interest," i.e. his "feelings" of approaching/augmenting pleasure and avoiding/attenuating pain) and his desire for approval from others (of the same nature, "lusts," "self interests," "feelings") the "drive" and "purpose" of life, the law of the flesh (the child's carnal desires of the 'moment') can be 'justified,' negating the law of God (the father's/Father's authority) in the process.

By adding the "affective domain," i.e. the deceitful and wicked heart of the child/man, i.e. the child's "feelings" of the 'moment' (what the child is talking to his "self" about in the 'moment,' i.e. approving/'justifying' his carnal desires over and against the parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth) to the "cognitive domain," i.e. to the information which is to be learned in the classroom, the child's desire for approval from his parents (his loyalty to, i.e. relationship with his parents) can be replaced (displaced) with his desire for approval from "the group" ('shifting'/'changing' his loyalty, i.e. his relationship from his parents, who restrain his carnal desires of the 'moment' to "the group" which is in agreement with, i.e. in consensus with his carnal desires of the 'moment,' at least in their silence not judging it, as his parents would, as being "wrong," 'justifying' it in the mind of the child).  "The affective domain [the heart of the child] is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box [a box full of evil which, once opened, can not be closed]." (Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook 2, Affective Domain)  If Hegel, Marx, and Freud understood how dialectic 'reasoning' (the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e. 'liberating' the child's heart from parental restraint) worked, i.e. how it initiated and sustained 'change,' i.e. 'liberated' children/man from parental/Godly restraint, should not you know how it works as well—so that you can understand why you should not put your children under its influence, retaining your God given authority over your children, your property, and your business, under God, instead?  Once the parent's question their position of authority over their children, i.e. become "uncertain" regarding "how best to prepare their children for the future," the father's authority (the traditional family) is "moribund."  (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)

Dialectic 'reasoning' is a formula (procedure or method) being used in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, and even in the church to initiate and sustain (facilitate) 'change.'  The dialectic process of 'change' is so hard to see (until the deed is done, i.e. until it is to late to respond to it, i.e. to stop it—"it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun," ibid.) because it is such a big part of our thought process, i.e. because of our desiring for 'change,' i.e. desiring 'liberation' from our parent's restraints, i.e. "lusting" after the pleasures of the world (all three being the same).  It simply means 'liberating' the child/man (his "lust" for pleasure, i.e. his "self-interest") out from under the earthly father's/the Heavenly Father's restraints, negating the earthly father's/the Heavenly Father's authority (removing his hand of protection) in the process.  Since both the earthly father and the Heavenly Father are the same in system (in pattern), i.e. "top-down," "right-wrong" in structure, i.e. where the father's/Father's commands and rules are to be obeyed and his/His facts and truth to be believed (accepted "as given") by faith, "or else" (you will be chastened or, if necessary, cast out), the dialectic idea is (the "democratic" ideal is): if you can negate the earthly father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the children (in the classroom, and therefore in the home) you can negate the Heavenly Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of man (in society, i.e. in the workplace, in government, and even in the church), 'liberating' the child/man to be himself again, i.e. as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth, i.e. carnal, i.e. of the world only—making it possible for him to "build relationships" upon that which he has in common with all other children/mankind, i.e. his carnal (worldly) nature only.  This requires the belief that man was not created by God (having a soul which is eternal, i.e. created by the breath of God, therefore subject to God the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, which are eternal, i.e. unchanging) but is a product of evolution, of 'change' (of the world only, i.e. temporary, i.e. becoming "at-one-with" himself and the world, i.e. 'liberating' himself from the Father's authority through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. through the process of 'change'—a secularized form of Gnosticism, where the parts, i.e. the "divine sparks," through dialectic 'reasoning,' through the "rational" process of "self" 'justification,' 'liberate' themselves from Demiurge, i.e. from the Father's (God's) control over their lives, who divided them from themselves, from their nature, i.e. from Eros or "love," from their godliness in the first place, becoming "one," i.e. god again, i.e. god now knowing {gnosis} his "self" experientially-collectively as one, as he was and again is, i.e. "good," i.e. in, of, and for himself only).

The dialectic process was first used by the woman in the garden in Eden to "rationally" 'justify' her carnal nature (her carnal desire of the 'moment') 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" of the 'moment,' to have that which was not theirs to have, made them the same, "children of disobedience," i.e. sinners, "walking according to the course of this world," i.e. "stimulated" by and "responding" to "nature Only"Karl Marx, The Holy Family).  "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."  Ephesians 2:2, 3

Dialectic 'reasoning' establishes the child/man as being "equal" with the father/Father but in doing so establishes the child/man (the carnal nature of the child/man, i.e. the "lusts" of the child/man) as being greater than (over and therefore against) the father's/Father's authority system, i.e. the overt "above-below," "top-down," "right-wrong" way of feeling, thinking, and acting and relating with others with the father's/Father's standards determining "right" and "wrong" behavior—the facilitator of 'change,' promoting dialectic 'reasoning,' uses the same "above-below," "top-down" system, only being covert in doing so, basing "right" and "wrong" on how a person is thinking, i.e. whether he is 'justifying' his carnal nature and "helping" others to 'justify their carnal nature (being "right") or, as God, inculcating his/His standards, restraining their impulses and urges, i.e. their carnal desires of the 'moment' (being "wrong"), turning good, that which is of the Father, i.e. righteousness into evil and evil, that which is of man and the world, i.e. sensuousness into "good."  There is no father's/Father's authority system (parental/Godly restraint, i.e. "negation") in the process of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, there is Only the temporal (sensual) 'moment,' i.e. '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" in the praxis of negating the father's/Father's authority in your feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in your relationship with one another.

"Negation of negation," i.e. 'liberating' the child's nature (that which is "positive") from the father's restraint (from that which is "negative"), 'liberates' "affirmation," i.e. negates denial.  Negating wrong (established by the father/Father—the "lid" to "Pandora's Box") 'liberates' wrong ('emancipates' the child's/man's carnal nature—opens "Pandora's Box," i.e. the child's/man's deceitful and wicked heart) from right, i.e. from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. his rules, commands, facts, and truth, making wrong (the child's/man's carnal nature, i.e. his impulses and urges of the 'moment,' stimulated by and responding to the carnal 'moment') right and right (the father's/Father's authority, restraining/blocking the the child/man from becoming "at-one-with" the carnal 'moment') wrong, i.e. negating the father's/Father's authority in the child's/man's feelings, thoughts, and actions, and relationship with one another, turning wrong into right and right into wrong, good into evil and evil into good.  "The ideas of the Enlightenment [dialectic 'reasoning' ("rationally" 'justifying' feeling, thinking, and acting and relating with others in and according to the "positive" carnal pleasures (sensations or "sense experiences") of the 'moment'] taught man that he could trust his own reason [making all things subject to (responding to) the sensation (the natural stimulation of the pain or pleasure of the world, including the pain of rejection and the pleasure of approval by others) of the 'moment' (the affective domain) as the only way to know 'reality,' i.e. making 'reasoning' (being "practical") subject to man's "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment' Only] as a guide to establishing valid ethical norms and that he could rely on himself [his "self" interest, i.e. "human nature"], needing neither revelation [the father/Father telling him how he is to live his life, i.e. "It is written ...," i.e. "My Father says ..."] nor that authority of the church [His obedient Son] in order to know good and evil ["good" thereafter becoming man living in harmony with himself, i.e. transparent, i.e. living in the "permanent/eternal present/'moment,'" i.e.  feeling, thinking, and acting and relating with one another according to his carnal nature (urges and impulses) of the 'moment' (approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e. augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain) and "evil" becoming anything which or anyone who inhibits or blocks his 'quest' to attain natural-social harmony, i.e. the "positive," i.e. "human nature," thereafter being 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. with the children's/man's thoughts and actions united in the praxis of negating the "negative," i.e. negating the father's authority and restraints, i.e. negating anything or anyone who hides himself from (sets himself above) transparency, resisting/restraining "human nature" and the sensuous, carnal 'moment']."  (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)

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 "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e. your dissatisfaction with the father's/Father's authority (which can be your parents, your teacher, your boss holding you accountable to their/her/his standards, your constituents holding you accountable to their platform, the Lord God holding you accountable to His Word, i.e. the "past" restraining you from living in the "present," i.e. in the carnal 'moment') and your carnal desire of the 'moment' (your "child within" which is being restrained, i.e. prevented from becoming manifest, i.e. uniting with the world, in pleasure, in the 'moment'), and (gaining control over the environment, i.e. facilitating the situation) "help" you 'liberate' it, i.e. your "ought," i.e. your opinion, i.e. your "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e. your "self-interest" 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, i.e. 'liberating' sensuousness (that which is below) from the restraints of righteousness (from he/He who is from above, directing, restraining, and judging that which is below). 

Karl Marx wrote: "Not feeling at home in the sinful world [in a world where parents/God preach and teach righteousness], Critical Criticism [questioning authority, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. "higher order thinking skills" in morals and ethics] must set up a sinful world in its own home ['rationally' make sensuousness , i.e. the child's/man's "feelings" of the 'moment' the only way ("drive" and "purpose") of life]."  "Critical Criticism [children questioning parental authority, i.e. 'justifying' their carnal feelings, i.e. desires of the 'moment'] is a spiritualistic lord, pure spontaneity, actus purus, intolerant of any influence from without."   (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)  Not only was Karl Marx interested in initiating and sustaining dialectic 'reasoning' (Genesis 3:1-6) in the child/man, so was Sigmund Freud.  The American Marxist, i.e. Transformational Marxist, Norman Brown (explaining Freud's dialectic 'reasoning') wrote: "Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world.  Eros ["at-one-ness" with the world in pleasure in the 'moment'] is the foundation of morality."  "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 American Marxist (Transformational Marxists) Herbert Marcuse, wrote:  "If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man can ever be redeemed by freedom, then the 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge [determine what is "good" and what is "evil" based upon our "feelings" of the 'moment' rather than from our parent's/God's commands, rules, facts, and truth] in order to fall back into the state of innocence.'"  (Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)  Dialectic 'reasoning,' in essence, 'redeems' us from the father's/Father's authority, 'reconciling' us to the world only, i.e. to the 'carnal' 'moment' of pleasure instead, negating the gospel message, i.e. the obedient Son of God 'redeeming' us from His (in Christ, our) Father's judgment upon us for our disobedience, i.e. 'redeeming' us from eternal death, 'reconciling' us to His Father instead, i.e. to partake in His Holiness and eternal life.  If you leave the Father's authority out of the gospel, i.e. leave out the Son's obedience to His Father's authority in all things, calling us to do the same, i.e. living by faith and not by sight, i.e. living by the Spirit and not by the flesh, i.e. living by every Word which proceeds from the "mouth of God" and not according to the opinions of men, then all you have is the spirit of Antichrist, i.e. the "children of disobedience," i.e. the facilitators of 'change,' 'liberating' you from the Father's authority, i.e. making sure that you join with them in the pleasures of the 'moment' of this life, spending the rest of your time with them in eternal death.

While didactic reasoning bases reality upon established facts or truth, dialectic 'reasoning' basis it upon the sensation ("sense experience") of the 'moment only,  While deductive 'reasoning' depends upon an a priori, inductive 'reasoning' requires only that information which is relevant to (relatable to), i.e. understandable in the carnal 'moment,' i.e. of the world only.  By changing the learning environment from deductive, didactic reasoning, i.e. reasoning from established facts and truth, to inductive, dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. reasoning' from the common temporal experiences of life, i.e. from "feelings," i.e. from that which all can relate with in the 'moment,' faith is negated, i.e. replaced with sight, i.e. the child/mankind is 'liberated' from parental/Godly restraint, freed to be himself again, as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth—restraining his carnal desires, i.e. his "self interests," i.e. that which he has that is common with all of mankind.

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."  Hegel's use of  aufgeheben or sublimation is simply the child/man given the right to examine (picking up to examine) the father's/Father's position, in the "light" of the child's/man's own sense experience ("sensuous needs" and "sense perception") of the 'moment,' negating (displacing, overcoming, transcending) the father's/Father's authority in the process, allowing the child/man to become at one with all children/all men, i.e. the whole, i.e. that which he has in common with the world in the 'moment.'  Unless this "equality of opportunity" is provided for the child/man, he will not be able to "find his definition within the whole," i.e. within "the group," i.e. within society.  "The dialectical method [global unity based upon common "self interest"] was overthrown, ... the parts [the children] were prevented [by the father's/Father's position of authority] 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 irritation, i.e. the source of conflict and tension (controversy) 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 with 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. authority which forces 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 ("repressed" by) parentally/Godly restraint, preventing 'change.' 

If you start with the father/Father (preaching and teaching commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as given, i.e. by faith), the child/mankind remains subject to the father's/Father's authority.  But if you start with the child/mankind (dialoguing their opinions, how they "feel" and what they "think" in the 'moment' with one another, arriving at a consensus, i.e. a "feeling" of "oneness"), all are 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. freed to become united upon their common carnal nature,  i.e. their common "self interest," i.e. their common "ought," i.e. their common "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' that which they have all been talking (dialoguing) with their "self" about all along.  If you love the father/Father, his/His restraints are a source of peace to your soul.  But if you love the world, the father's/Father's restraints are a source of irritation to the flesh.  Synthesis (the dialectic process) is the negation of the father's/Father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the child, including in his relationship with others.  It is the process of negating antithesis, the tension or conflict between the father/Father and the child/man, 'liberating' the child/man from parental/Godly restraint (from that which is of the "past" who establishes the "future" by restraining the "present'), so that he can be of the world only (living in the present, i.e. in the 'moment' 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 

You can only have one or the other, the father/Father ruling over the children/man or the children/man resisting the father's/Father's authority.  There is no synthesis, i.e. the children living as one (in "peace"), void of the father's/Father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in their relationship with one another (which is only an illusion of the mind, i.e. the child's "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' being put into social action, i.e. praxis). "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD."  Jeremiah 17:5  There is only thesis (the father's/Father's authority) and antithesis (the child's carnal feelings of the 'moment,' i.e. that which is of the world), which is in opposition to it.  While with man authority is subject to the flesh, temporal (subject to the temptations of the child, i.e. of the flesh—and therefore subject to serving the flesh only, i.e. serving the carnal desires of the 'moment' only, if void of Godly restraint), with God it is eternal, of the Spirit, making all men (and children) subject to His authority in the end.  Those of the flesh, of sight will spend eternity in Hell, along with the master facilitator of 'change,' while those of faith, of the Spirit, will spend it in Heaven, along with the Heavenly Father, and His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, having made that decision here on the earth, determined according to their way of thinking and acting—trusting in the Lord (above, of the Spirit, eternal) or trusting in man (below, of the flesh, temporal)—"the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."  1 John 2:17  "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."  "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."   John 5:19, 24

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 ('justification' in the Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ) with thinking ('justification' of the flesh), 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

The prerequisite for 'change' is simply the act or praxis of 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 "as given" by the teacher or parent) 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 as well as in 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" (producing children/students, i.e. future citizens who either honor parental authority, engendering individualism and nationalism, or question and challenge parental authority, engendering socialism and globalism) is the difference between the use of discussion or dialogue in the classroom environment.  According to David Bohm (known for his work regarding quantum physics) "A key difference between a dialogue [sharing opinions] and an ordinary discussion [presenting and defending positions] 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]." "A dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals [there is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue]."   (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity)  The 'shift' in procedure, from the father/the teacher/God discussing with his son/his students/man, the son's/the student's/man's behavior, in the light of the father's/teacher's/God's position—the father/teacher/God retaining his "above-below" position of authority over the son/the student's/man, to the father and his son/the teacher and his students/God and man dialoguing their opinions with one another—making them "equals" in the 'moment,' 'changes' the way (how) the son/the students/man will feel, think, and act, and relate with one another regarding the father's/teacher's/God's authority in the present and the future.  Changing the learning environment from discussion to dialogue 'changes' how the child/the student/man perceives himself, others, the world, and God.  Discussion maintains a top-down (right-wrong) authority structure in the child's/the student's/man's feelings, thoughts, and actions and relationship with others, dialogue negates it.  

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" (Karl Marx, The Holy Family), i.e. according to our "lusting" after the pleasures of the world, i.e. living in the 'moment,' satisfying our carnal desires. When we live in and for the 'moment,' i.e. when our thoughts are taken captive to our carnal desires of the 'moment,' we are blinded to the eternal consequences of our thoughts and actions.  We are instead to "Cast down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;"  (2 Corinthians 10:5 7) for "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,' i.e. where his "thoughts" or cognition domain is taken captive to his desire for the things parental authority inhibits or blocks as well as his desire for approval by "the group" and his fear of not being able to attain his "heart's desires" as well as his fear of disapproval by "the group," both going hand in hand), by my encouraging the use of "appropriate information," i.e. dialoguing opinions, i.e. uniting the students upon their common desires, i.e. being "positive," while discouraging the use of "inappropriate information," i.e. preaching and teaching what is right and what is wrong behavior, i.e. being "negative," 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 (their) "feelings," values," or "self interests" from parental restraint, i.e. from "prejudice," through the use of "group dynamics," i.e. the desire for approval by "the group," and "cognitive dissonance," i.e. the fear of rejection by either the father or "the group," having to choose between the two, i.e. choosing one over and therefore against the other, establishing his "feelings," "thoughts," "actions," and "relationship" with "the group" over and therefore against parental authority, neutralizing him (by getting all the children to freely share their opinions of the 'moment,' with no fear of "reprisal," his belief, i.e. his parent's position is perceived as just being an opinion amongst opinions), marginalizing him (because most children, including his "friends," having now been 'liberated' from parental restraint, distance themselves from him, because he continues to hold onto parental authority, i.e. continues to insist that his, i.e. his parent's position is right) and either converting him (getting him to side with "the group" over and therefore against parental authority) or removing him (if he continues to resist 'change'—if he refused to be a "team player," i.e. if he persisted in bringing "inappropriate information," i.e. parental/Godly authority or restraint, i.e. his parent's "prejudiced" position, which he has accepted as his own, into the "group discussion," i.e. if he "judges" other students thoughts and actions according to his parent's standards, regenerating a "guilty conscience" within "the group"), thereby, by following the above procedure, making him, along with all the other students, subject to the 'changing' situations of the 'moment,' thus making him seducible (by getting him to focus upon his and other's "feelings" instead of upon his parents or God's position), deceivable (believing that he will not be held accountable for his disobedience), and thereby, like natural resource, manipulatable (used for material, i.e. carnal, i.e. worldly "purposes," i.e. pleasures) 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 of the Word of God rather than the Word of God being truth 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