A Quick Overview of Dialectic 'Reasoning:'
The Process of 'Change'
(in pdf formatlinks or endnotesin pdf format)


Dean Gotcher

You will not get the truth about dialectic 'reasoning' (diaprax) in any college class (or for that matter any class) you attend these days, despite it being more than likely used on you (and everyone else) in the class, i.e., gaining access to your personal (private) feelings of the 'moment' (your opinion) in order to 'change' the way you feel, think, and act toward others as well as toward authority, i.e., 'changing' you from being "right-wrong" based to being "feelings" based in your decision making. It is not that those who think "right-wrong" (facts and truth based) do not have "feelings," they do, it is that those who make "right-wrong" subject to the "feelings" of the 'moment, make "right-wrong" ('facts' and 'truth') adaptable to 'change,' i.e., ever subject to the current situation—from where we get situation ethics—making themselves subject to whoever is manipulating the situation in the 'moment.'  The grading system in education has 'changed' from being "right-wrong," i.e., facts and truth based (didactic, deductive, persuasive) to "feelings" based (dialectical, inductivemanipulative), grading you upon your ability (and 'willingness') to seduce, deceive, and manipulate others into participating in and promoting dialectic 'reasoning,' as you are being seduced, deceived, and manipulated into using and promoting it yourself.  It is a pandemic that is not only spreading across this nation but around the world as we make it "safe for democracy."

"But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived."  2 Timothy 3:13

I do not know of anyone who enjoys being deceived and manipulated. Yet we have agencies and organizations, such as The Department of Human Resource, whose job it is to facilitate 'change,' i.e., to manipulate people, like natural resource, i.e., to 'change' their way of thinking and acting so that they can become "at-one-with" themselves and the world only, i.e., thinking and acting according to "human nature," losing their soul in the process.

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?  Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?  Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."  Mark 8:36-38

This "group think" ("consensus") grading systems ("what will 'the group' or 'community' think" instead of "what will my father or parents think") is based upon the students ability to use dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' their "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., their desire to relate with the object(s) of pleasure of the 'moment' and their dissatisfaction with authority that restraints or prevents it (uniting the two pleasures, i.e. the personal and the social pleasure(s) of the 'moment,' i.e. 1) the pleasure of the 'moment' and 2) the pleasure which comes from the approval of others approving the pleasure of the 'moment'), 'liberating' themselves, "the group," and society from the father's authority1 (negating the father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions and in their relationship with others), thus 'liberating' themselves, "the group," and society from having a "guilty conscience" for doing wrong2—'liberating' themselves, "the group," and society from God, the Heavenly Father's authority3 (negating the Father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions and in their relationship with others), thus 'liberating' themselves, "the group," and society from having a "guilty conscience" for sinning.  Dialectic 'reasoning' is based upon the belief (the ideology) that since the student's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., his desire to relate with the object(s) of pleasure of the 'moment' ("lusting" after the pleasures of the world only) and his dissatisfaction with authority that restraints or prevents it are universal to all (to all that is of the world that is), any belief or ideology that refuses to recognize, identify with, and 'justify' their "feelings" (their "lusts") of the 'moment,' i.e. is not "in and for" the universal, i.e. is not of the world, is irrational and therefore irrelevant.  Dialectic 'reasoning' needs the students to dialogue their opinions to a consensus in order to 'discover' the "truth" (the common "feeling," i.e. direction, i.e. course of action) of the 'moment,' therefore it must treat belief as an opinion, i.e. facts and truth as a theory.  It rejects the preaching and teaching of commands and rules to be obeyed as given and facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith).

"Any time we teach a child something, we keep him from discovering it himself," (Jean Piaget) "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself  'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual comes to ask himself 'What does it mean to me?'"  (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy"There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children."  (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. "self" 'justification' ("'self' actualization4," i.e., "thing in and for itself") is spiritual (Gnostic in structure—"as above, so below," "all is 'one'").  Those claiming that dialectic 'reasoning' is academics, i.e. "scientific5," i.e., calling it "higher order thinking skills" (basing reality upon sight, i.e., upon all that is of the world6, i.e., upon sensuousness and not faith7, i.e., upon God and His Word8, i.e., upon righteousness) reveal that it is working, i.e., man deceiving9, i.e., esteeming, i.e., 'justifying'10 himself (taking pleasure in deceiving, i.e. 'justifying' others), believing in the pleasures, enjoyments, "lusts" of the world only, living in and for the 'moment,' thinking and acting according to the laws of the flesh ("human nature"), i.e. the law of sin (what Immanuel Kant called "lawfulness without law," or the law of the flesh and sin 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. with man feeling, thinking, and acting, and relating with one another without Godly restraint), thinking and acting according to the nature of the child11 (instead of doing the father's/Father's will, i.e., trusting in the Lord and walking in the Spirit) believing that he can disobey (sin) with impunity, i.e. believing that he will not stand before God, the Heavenly Father (as a child before his earthly father) and be personally held accountable for his thoughts and actions.  Man, who is carnal, 'justifies' himself (Hegel's "thing in and for itself") by evaluating from his carnal nature (which is dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. 'reasoning' according to the "feelings" or "sense perception" of the 'moment,' i.e. according to sight), while God, who is holy, pure, and righteous in and of Himself, evaluates all things according to His nature (which is didactic reasoning, i.e. reasoning from established/unchanging facts and truth, i.e. Spirit, requiring man to reason according to faith).   "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8, 9   "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon." Isaiah 55:7 

"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." Matthew 12:36  "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them." Colossians 3:5-7

Despite it being a subtle and complex process, it should not take long for you to recognize the pattern12 of dialectic 'reasoning.'  Bear with me as I explain the different aspects of the pattern, repeating the pattern over and over again, since it is the only pattern being used for 'change.'13  I know most children will recognize the pattern.  It is their "group grade," i.e. their approving of the other children as the other children approve of them, i.e. all becoming as "one,' i.e., "equal," "tolerant of deviance," "adaptable to 'change,'" in the process negating the father's/Father's authority system (his/His "inégalitarian," "discriminatory," "prejudiced" authority system, as those of dialectic 'reasoning' perceive it).

While children grow up, leaving their father behind, creating a new life for themselves, i.e. having a family of their own, they carry with them their father's "top-down" (above-below, i.e. "inégalitarian"), "right-wrong" ("discriminatory," "prejudiced") authority system, maintaining it within their own homes and businesses, sustaining the father's authority system within society.  To 'liberate' society from the affects of the father's authority system (considered by those who 'reason' dialectically to be the cause of neurosis)14 the child's honoring of the father's authority has to be negated as the child "grows up," placing his thoughts and actions upon "feelings" (pleasure, enjoyment, "lust," dopamine emancipation15), i.e., upon what is common to and therefore important to society ("Ours") instead of upon what he feelings and things is important to himself, his family, property, and business only ("Mine not yours")—which engenders a political system known as parochialism/statism/nationalism, i.e. "ausländer - inländer."  This 'change' in pattern, system, or way of thinking and acting (called a paradigm 'shift,' which, in actuality, is a paradigm 'change'—from Patriarchal to Heresiarchal, through Matriarchal, i.e. through "feelings") directly affects how the next generation will feel, think, and act toward themselves (toward their carnal feelings and thoughts), others, and the father's authority, including the authority of God, i.e., the Heavenly Father and His authority.

"Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5

Karl Marx explained the dialectic process as 'change.' "The philosophers have interpreted the world in different ways, the objective is change itself ." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11)   Have you heard the word 'change' recently?  In other words: 1) without dissatisfaction with the way things are, i.e. dissatisfaction with the way the world "is," 'change' can not take place, 2) without you having your "opinion" on how the world "ought" to be, insisting that everyone else do it your way, and 3) without your being facilitated in the use of dialectic 'reasoning' to 'change' yourself and the world, i.e. never letting any one persons position, including yours, i.e. like a father's/Father's authority with his commands, rules, facts, and truth ("belief" and "faith") rule over anyone else's life (come between them, i.e. their nature and the world), but only letting your "sense experience" (your "sensuous needs" and your "sense perception") of the 'moment' and the situation ("Nature") that stimulated it (in the 'light' of others "sense experience"), direct your steps, can a "new" order of the world (a "new" world order) be 'created,' i.e. initiating and sustaining a world of continuous 'change,' i.e., a world 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. a world 'liberated' not only from parental restraint but from Godly restraint as well, i.e., a world of unrighteousness and abomination (all being the same).  In other word, it is not you that is important, it is your use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., your 'justifying' of your "self" and others carnal nature, i.e. "human nature" over and therefore against the Father's authority, i.e. the Word of God, i.e., that which is not of and for man's carnal nature, i.e., 'liberating' yourself and the world from a "guilty conscience" (making everyone feel "good," including yourself) that makes you important, of worth, or of value.  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' without your use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., becoming at-one-with the world in pleasure (so that the world can become at-one-with you in pleasure), you are irrational and therefore irrelevant, i.e. expendable.  It is not that you learn dialectic 'reasoning' as a formula alone (like A plus -A equals A or Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis, etc.).  It is that you embrace it as a lifestyle, as a way of thinking and acting.  It is a process, i.e. a repeated procedure of 'change,' like pealing an onion, where every 'moment' of desired pleasure which requires 'compromise,' reveals a new resistance, i.e. the desire to have it for yourself alone, i.e. to resist 'compromise,' which then must be overcome (negated), so that everyone's pleasure of the 'moment' can be 'justified' in order that all can participate in the next 'compromise,' i.e., the next 'moment' of pleasure with the world.  It is progressive, unending motion with man becoming at-one-with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment,' 'liberating' himself from Godly restraint.

"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps."  Jeremiah 10:23  "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

The power of "the group," i.e. "group dynamics," i.e. your desire for the approval of others is being used to 'change' the way you think and act.  Kurt Lewin recognized that "it is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately." (Kurt Lewin, in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change16); see also Laboratories in Human Relations Training17)  "Group dynamics" is your desire for approval from "the group" (from others who offer you an opportunity to attain the pleasures that your parents and/or God prevent—who inhibit or block you from having your desired pleasure of the 'moment,'  having to suspend your will for the 'moment' or deny it to do their will instead, where pleasure is found in them, i.e. in obeying them, i.e., in doing their will, not in yourself and the world in the 'moment'). When your "self interest" is involved, "group approval" (the group's approving of your desired pleasures of the 'moment') is stronger than your desire for approval from your parents and/or God, since "the group" offers you a greater opportunity to attain your desired pleasures of the 'moment' then your parents and/or God.  It is easier for you to place pleasure, i.e. "the group" on a higher plain than doing right and not wrong, i.e. your parent's and/or God, the force of pleasure being stronger than the force of restraint—especially when the force of restraint, i.e. "right-wrong" thinking, i.e., "negativity" has been removed or lost approval or support in the immediate situation. 

If the facilitator of 'change' is to initiate and sustain the 'change' process it is essential that he learns how to use "force field analysis" ("Power analysis"18) to control (manipulate) the situation, i.e. that he knows how to identify the strength of forces which reside within the individuals in the group (in any given 'moment' or situation).  It is essential that he knows how to identify19 those forces which are for parental approval (doing right and not wrong) and those which are for group approval (pleasure) within each individual member, accentuating the positive, i.e. the force of "equality," i.e. pleasure (a "driving force") over (and against) the negative, i.e. the force of authority, i.e. restraint (a "restraining force").  By creating an environment favorable to the "unfreezing"20 of the individual members of the group, i.e., by getting everyone to focus upon their own and every one else's "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e., their opinion (their "self interest") of the 'moment,' rather than focusing upon their parent's or God's position (the source of division amongst them) he can initiate the process of 'change.'  "Change" of the individual's way of thinking and acting and relating with others must be initiated and sustained through dialoguenegating (circumventing or bypassing, i.e. silencing) the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth which cause division ("negativity").  Resisting the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth while encouraging dialogue will produce resistance from those who are traditional thinkers, thus the need to keep control of the "temperature" of the room, to stay in the room, i.e. to keep the process progressing.  You can only go as fast as the room is willing to participate, thus the Marxist waltz: take two steps forward until potential breakup then one step back and everyone will participate thinking they have gotten their way, doing it again and again until all, learning the Marxist waltz, have traveled across the room of 'change.'  

We all carry within us the desire to 'compromise,' i.e. our opinion, which is influenced by the environment around us (the world).  For example, parent's associate with family and friends who's behavior counters or goes against the standards they place upon their own children, yet keep the relationship, getting pleasure from it.  It is here, in 'compromise,' that community ('change') is initiated and sustained, where "human relationship" transcends our individual beliefs and differences.   Where there is 'compromise' their is crime.  It is this use of crime (crisis) that facilitator's of 'change' are able to gain access to the community for the purpose of initiating and sustaining  the 'change' process.

"... once you can identify a community [where people are willing to 'compromise' in order to initiate and sustain relationship], you have discovered the primary unity of society above the individual and the family that can be mobilized ... to bring about positive social change."  "The community of interest generated by crime, disorder and fear of crime becomes the goal to allow community policing officer an entree into the geographic community."  (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing)

Through the groups dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e. to a "feeling" of "oneness," group identity within the individuals of the group can be 'created.'  Thereby unity out of the diversity of individuals within the group can be initiated and sustained, 'liberating' all the members of the group from their parent's or God's position, i.e. negating the source of division amongst them.  By the use of group projects, putting their consensus into social action (praxis), each member of the group is "refrozen," not to "right-wrong" thinking but to "thinking" through their "feelings" of the 'moment,' regarding the "feelings" of "the group" (the "community") as their source of identity ("right") instead of their parent's or God's commands, rules, facts, or truth.  In this way, loyalty to parents and their authority, i.e. doing right and not wrong has been supplanted by loyalty to "self interest" and "the group," i.e. to society.

"The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs [evaluating themselves, "the group," and society from their opinion (from how they are feeling and what they are thinking in the 'moment,' being influenced or manipulated by the current setting, condition, environment, or situation and their immediate desires) rather than from their parent's and/or God's standards (doing right and not wrong)] by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin, in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)  From then on, group opinion, i.e., consensus, i.e. what everyone can agree on as being the right response to the given situation becomes the thought and the action of all individuals, with all working together to 'change' the world, ridding it of parental and Godly restraint along with the "guilty conscience," i.e. "the negative valance"21 (Kurt Lewin), leaving everyone confident (esteemed in themselves) that they are directing their own his steps, i.e. responding to the current situation according to their carnal nature and 'reasoning' abilities, i.e., taking pride in themselves that they have control over their own lives and the world they live in (when in truth the world, which is passing away, has control over their lives, leaving them with death, i.e., eternal death in the end).  Instead of esteeming Himself in the flesh, seeking men's ("the groups") approval, Jesus humbled Himself before His Heavenly Father, doing His Father's will in all things commanded, obeying Him even unto death, in His death on the cross 'redeeming' us from our sins, i.e. from eternal death, in His resurrection from the grave  'reconciling' us to His Heavenly Father, giving us eternal life.

"And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:  That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;  And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."  Philippians 2:8-1  "Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:"  1 Peter 5:6

Individuality is a persons ability to stand alone, refusing to compromise their values and belief in the face of "group disapproval," i.e. holding onto their parent's and/or God's position, i.e. values and beliefs (and approval) rather than going along with "the group" (a condition called neurosis22 when the "group's approval" is in line with the child's carnal desires of the 'moment'). Our desire for approval is a major influence in our decision making.  When we make pleasure (feelings) our desired outcome, rather than doing right and not wrong (facts and truth), we will naturally seek after "the group's" approval (when they approve of our pleasure, i.e. identify with our feelings) over and against our parent's and/or God's approval (when their standards, i.e. commands, rules, facts and truth prevent us from having the pleasures we desire in the 'moment').  To loose out on the hope of attaining such pleasure (including "group approval") would be devastating to a child who's heart is set upon the things of the world, much less to an adult.  "Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [their individuality, i.e. holding onto their parent's and/or God's position] in the face of apparent group unanimity." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)

"And he [Jesus] said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself [doing His Father's will instead of his own will], and take up his cross daily [endure the rejection of "the group"], and follow me."  Luke 9:23

The role of education, as stated by Kenneth Benne, is to 'liberate' the children (and therefore society) not only from the ridged standards established by their parent's and/or God but also the parent's and/or God's way of thinking, i.e. the children doing the father's/Father's will23 despite what the world is saying or doing, which prevents 'change,' i.e. classifying (labeling) such behavior as being "negative," counterproductive, prejudiced, intolerant, hateful, anti-social, isolationist, neurotic, repressive, alienating, etc.  "We must develop persons [students] who see non-influencability of private convictions [any student holding everyone accountable to their belief, i.e. to their father's/Father's authority] in joint deliberations [in a consensus meeting] as a vice rather than a virtue."  (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)  The "group grade" process (the consensus process) is used in the classroom to pressure the students into abandoning their dependence upon their parent's or God's position and authority, placing their dependence upon themselves, i.e. their feelings and thoughts of the 'moment,' which makes them subject to "group approval," in order to get what they want.  If you want your child to be a witness in the classroom (the word "witness" means martyr in the Greek) your child will be martyred in the "group grade" classroom if he, resisting 'change,' holds onto his values and belief, i.e. your (and/or God's) position regarding right and wrong.

Dialectic 'reasoning' is "the negation of negation."  It is your ability to negate the father's/Father's authority, i.e. to negate his/His "negative" commands, rules, facts, and truth that gets in the way of your desires of the 'moment,' i.e. to negate the father's/Father's standards in your feelings, thoughts, and actions, thereby negating his/His values and belief system that interferes with your "building relationship" with "the group," i.e. negating his/His values and belief system that prevents "the group" from "building relationship" with you, i.e. "the group" finding pleasure in (approval by) and therefore "equality" with you and you finding pleasure in (approval by) and therefore "equality" with "the group."

Exposing and/or resisting the dialectic process of 'change' will cost you your job (or promotion) as a professor or cost you your good grade (or career) as a student, classifying you as not being a "team player."  Not being a "team player" is a mental condition that, in the "former" Soviet Union, is called "psychological," guaranteeing you unemployment and isolation from the community until you, through psychotherapy24, i.e. through group-community participation, i.e. through "group therapy" become "normal" again, i.e. 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, 'liberating' others from it as well.

"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

Dialectic 'reasoning' is recognized and explained in the scriptures. The Apostle Paul warned Timothy to avoid it: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." 1 Timothy 6:20-21  Dialectic 'reasoning' is your use of Genesis 3:1-625('justifying' your "self," i.e. 'justifying' your interests of the 'moment'), 'changing' how you feel, think, and act and relate with your "self" and with others (resulting in you becoming what George Hegel called "the thing in and for itself"), negating the father's/Father's authority in your feelings, thoughts, and actions and in your relationship with others and the world around you in the process.  Negate the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-1126), through your use of "self" 'justification,' and your "lusts" or "sins" simply become "human nature," i.e. making you "normal" again, negating the "guilty conscience" (Romans 7:14-2527) for disobedience in the process, i.e. negating your awareness of your depravity and your need for a savior.

"Protestantism [every individual doing their best (as unto the Lord); the church recognizing and promoting the priesthood of all believers (before God); children obeying their parent's (in the Lord), where everyone is personally held accountable for their thoughts and actions before God, first and foremost] was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." (Max Horkheimer, Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung)

Individualism is the result of you holding on to your father's/Father's position (authority) in a 'changing' environment (making you unadaptable to 'change,' i.e. a resistor of 'change'), with the "guilty conscience" keeping you subject to his/His authority (position), preventing you from becoming at-one-with your nature and society, i.e. 'compromising' for the sake of initiating and sustaining "human relationships" (along with the pleasure or promise of pleasure that it engenders).  Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [where the child is personally held accountable for his actions by his earthly father as a man is personally held accountable for this thoughts and actions by the Heavenly Father)] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him.  Society [which is based upon what all children (including parents28) have in common, i.e. their carnal nature, i.e. "human nature," i.e. their propensity to love pleasure, i.e., the pleasures of the world, i.e. 'living' in the 'moment,' including the pleasure which comes from the approval of others, along with their hate of pain, i.e. including the pain which comes from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., to miss out on the pleasures of the 'moment' in order to do his/His will, as well as the pain of being rejected by others for preaching and teaching the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e. judging others according to the father's/Father's standards, while they pursue the pleasures the child himself desires—engendering a society based upon the child's nature, i.e., upon children "building relationship" with one upon their common "self interests" of the 'moment,' working together as "one," in the 'moment,' i.e. in consensus29, putting into community action (praxis30) the augmentation of pleasure and attenuation of pain, not only for themselves, but for all the children of the world, not only hating but also negating the father's/Father's authority and the "guilty conscience" (which restrains and divides the community from one another) in the process] is the necessary framework through which freedom [freedom from the father's authority] and individuality [with each child being himself, i.e. "Only of Nature," i.e. carnal, not having a "guilty conscience" for being "normal," i.e. for negating the father's/Father's authority in himself and in society, as he becomes at-one-with the world, in pleasure, in the 'moment,' i.e. the conditions of "common-ism"] are made realities."  (Karl Marx in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl MarxHegel, Marx, and Freud31 had this one thing in common, i.e. dialectic' reasoning,' i.e. their love of pleasure and their hate of the father's/Father's authority, i.e. the "building of relationships upon self interest."

"So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God."  Romans 14:12

Through your use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. 'justifying' your "self," i.e. 'justifying' the pleasures of the 'moment' (or the 'compromise' taken to keep or attain them—which seem "right" in your eyes in the 'moment'), i.e. living in the "eternal present," evaluating, i.e. questioning the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth and challenging his/His authority in the 'light' of your feelings of the 'moment,' the issue of eternal death, along with the Father's authority and the "guilty conscience' for disobedience becomes moribund (irrational and therefore irrelevant) in your feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in your relationship with others.  Build your children's lives upon pleasure and they will abort (kill) their unborn children and/or refuse to help you (kill you) in your old age if they can not get (or perceive that they can not get) pleasure or money (which is stored up pleasure, i.e. "surplus capital") out of the child or you, 'justifying' their behavior (their selfish-ness) by claiming that the child would have become or you have become a "burden" on society.  The "welfare" of a society which is built upon the augmentation of pleasure thereby takes precedence over the life of the individual (a soul) created in the image of God.

"There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."  Proverbs 14:12; 16:25

Dialectic 'reasoning' is the foundation of Common Core32.  It is a cultural revolution (a "velvet" revolution), negating the "old" world order of the father's/Father's authority by 'creating' a "new" world order based upon your carnal nature, i.e. the nature of the child, replacing established facts and truth with your feelings and thoughts of the 'moment,' i.e. the father's position with the child's feelings and thoughts of the 'moment,' i.e. the preaching and teaching of commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith) with the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e. top-down authority with "equality," i.e. God's will with your will (your desires and interests of the 'moment').  It is your "self," i.e. your "child within" finding synthesis with nature, i.e. with you finding "common ground" with the world around you, i.e. with "the group" and "the group" finding "common ground" with you in the 'moment.'  It is the uniting of your impulses and urges of the 'moment' with nature, i.e. it is the uniting of you with "the group," i.e. it is you uniting with that in "the group" which stimulates pleasure within you and it is "the group" uniting with you, with that which stimulates pleasure within it, i.e. it is "group approval"—where your natural inclination to be at-one-with "the group," in  pleasure, i.e. your desire to enjoy the pleasures (or imagined pleasures) which "the group" stimulates within you (without the fear of condemnation and/or judgment) and "the group" desire to enjoy the pleasures (or imagined pleasures) which you stimulate within it, i.e. with everyone having pleasure (uniting upon that which stimulates everyone to relate with one another, i.e. naturally drawing everyone together as one, in the 'moment') becomes the thesis, i.e. becomes the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of life.

"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." James 1:14, 15

Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. "self" 'justification' is the praxis (social action) of you becoming "at-one-with" yourself and the world around you, i.e. with nature, i.e. with the "community," i.e. with "the group" or "the team" (with you discovering and building common ground with those around you who are feeling, thinking, and acting, and desiring to relate with you as you desire to relate with them, basing 'reality' upon your and their "lusting" after and desiring to augment pleasure and attenuate pain, including the pain of missing out on—and therefore, like an child full of rage33, hating anyone who causes you and them to miss out on—the pleasure of the 'moment,' with "the approval of others," i.e. with those who approve of your "lusting" after pleasure, being pleasure itself, which is the power of "group dynamics," i.e. the key to the dialectic processes' influence and control over you).  According to dialectic 'reasoning' pleasure is the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life, where life and pleasure becoming one and the same in the 'moment' (aufheben—where thought and action towards pleasure, i.e. where beauty and justice become one in the 'moment'), 'creating' a "new" world void of external or unnatural restraints or limitations, i.e. creating' a "new" world order 'liberated' from the father's/Father's right and wrong, i.e. 'creating' a "new" world order 'liberated' from the father's/Fathers authority which inhibits or blocks you and others from participating in the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e. initiating and sustaining a "new" world order of abomination instead.  It is not that the father/Father wants his children/man to live a life without pleasure.  It is that doing right and not wrong, according to the father's/Father's will, must come first, where pleasure is the result of doing what is right instead of pleasure being right in and of itself.  By placing the child's nature, i.e. his desire for the pleasures of the 'moment' ("lust") first, the father's/Father's authority is negated in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions and in his relationship with others.  The "right" of the child, i.e. the right of pleasure over and against the father's authority, i.e. over and against established right and wrong, negates the father's authority, i.e. negates the father's right to determine right and wrong for his children.

"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 2:17

Dialectic 'reasoning' is the negation of doing right and not wrong according to the standards of the parent, the teacher, the boss, the .... and/or God—where you have to think and act according to the earthly father's, teacher's, bosses',.... and/or the Heavenly Father's, i.e. God's will (in order to get ahead).  It is nature (the environment, i.e. the "sense experience" of the 'moment') stimulating ('driving') you to negate (remove) anything that is not of nature, not natural, not "normal," not of your "self," not 'real,' or sensual to you (and to "the group") in the 'moment,' with you perceiving the father's/Father's authority, i.e. the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (which restrains you, i.e. which "represses" you, i.e. which divides or separates you from your nature, i.e. which prevents you from fulfilling your desires or interests of the 'moment' and which "alienates" you, i.e. which divides or separates you from having relationship with others and others from having relationship with you, who are of the same nature, i.e., who have the same desires and interests as you) as being irrational and therefore responding to the father/Father authority as being irrelevant, negating it in your feelings, thoughts, and actions and in your relationship with others in the 'moment,' for the sake of initiating and sustaining "community," i.e. "worldly peace and socialist harmony."   For example: parent's fleeing to the suburbs to escape the crisis of the inner city34, claiming that they are doing it for the children, is, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' not for the children, who want 'liberation' from parental authority, but for the parent's to maintain control over their children, retaining their power of authority.  If the parent's try to flee the crisis, then, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the crisis must come to the parents, housing projects by the government bringing the crisis into suburbia, forcing the parent's into consensus meetings, participating in the process of 'change,' working with the "community" to 'create' "worldly peace and socialist harmony."

"Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished."  Proverbs 16:5

Dialectic 'reasoning' bases 'reality' upon your carnal desires and the carnal desires of others (that which you have in common with them and they have in common with you)where you and the world ("the group") can become as one (at-one-with one another) in "consensus," feeling, thinking, and acting and relating with one another according to nature, void of the father's/Father's restraints and judgment ('liberated' from condemnation and a "guilty conscience" for disobedience, i.e. for doing wrong).  Nobody has to teach you how to sin (how to be "normal").  All they have to do is "help" you become "normal" ("help" you 'justify' yourself, i.e. "help" you to 'liberate' your "self," i.e. your feelings, thoughts, and actions and relationship with others from the father's/Father's authority) so that you can sin, i.e. be "normal," without having a "guilty conscience."   There are psychotherapists, i.e. facilitators of 'change' who's job it is to 'create' a "new" world order based upon the nature of the child, "helping" children 'liberate' themselves from the father's/Father's authority and the "guilty conscience," showing the next generation of citizens how to 'justify' themselves, so that they can doing abominable (wicked) things, i.e. remove parental and/or Godly restraint from the face of the world so that they can live in disobedience and/or sin without having a "guilty conscience."

    "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?  And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18
    "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;"  Romans 1:18

Dialectic 'reasoning' is what the "group grade" is all about, i.e. who is a "team player" and who is not, i.e. who is anti-social (a resistor of 'change'), i.e. who is worldly and who is not, i.e. who is feeling, thinking, and acting and relating with others "normally," i.e. "lusting" after the pleasures of the world (including the pleasure which comes from the approval of others, approving their carnal desires, i.e. thereby negating the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong) and who is not (who is resisting or refusing to 'change,' i.e. still seeking after the approval of their parents, i.e. the earthly father and/or God, i.e. the Heavenly Father, evaluating themselves and the world around them according to their parent's and/or God's standards, i.e. still living with a "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, engendering a "guilty conscience," i.e., initiating and sustaining the "old" world order in others as they preach and teach their parent's and/or God's commands, rules, facts, and truth to them).  The 'moment' you are asked how you "feel" and what you "think" (asked to share or dialogue your opinion with others) regarding your personal interests in the "light" of the social issues of the 'moment,' in "the group" environment, you are in the garden of Eden, doing Genesis 3:1-6, being seduced, deceived, and manipulated to 'justify' "human nature" over and against the parent's, i.e. the earthly fathers and/or God's, i.e. the Heavenly Father's will.  It is what dialectic 'reasoning' (the dialectic process) is all about, "helping" you 'justify' your carnal nature, i.e. 'liberate' you self (and the world) from Godly restraint, going about your daily chores and activities without having a "guilty conscience," i.e. no longer preaching and teaching the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e. no longer producing a "guilty conscience" in others for doing wrong, i.e. for doing unconscionable things.

"When a man has finally reached the point where he does not think he knows it better than others, that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly and he is interested only in what they have done right, then peace and affirmation have come to him."  (G. F. W. Hegel, in one of the casual notes preserved at Widener)

When you are silent in the midst of unrighteousness (abomination), no longer reproving, correcting, or rebuking it, unrighteousness (abomination) becomes the "norm."  "And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.  Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.  Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."  Luke 17:26-30

Dialectic 'reasoning (Genesis 3:1-6) is the negation of Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e. it is the negation of the Father's authority, i.e. it is the negation of faith in God as thesis (first cause), i.e. negating His ruling over all things, restraining "human nature," i.e. inhibiting or blocking your relationship with the world and its relationship with you.   Dialectic 'reasoning' is therefore your effort to negate Romans 7:14-25, i.e. the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong (according to the father's/Father's standards) as well as negate your need for a savior 1) to 'redeem' you from condemnation and judgment—for your carnal feelings, thoughts, and actions and relationship with those of the same nature, i.e. 'justifying' your "self" and the world in the process—and 2) to 'reconcile' you to God, i.e. the Father, i.e. doing His will instead of yours, i.e. making His will, your will.  It is the negation of the conditions of antithesis, i.e. it is the negation of the duality (and conflict) between the parent's (or the father's authority) and the child's nature, i.e. the spirit (the law of God and righteousness) and nature (the law of the flesh and sensuousness), i.e. it is the negation of "do right and don't do wrong 'or else'" (according to the father's/Father's standards) which engenders the "guilty conscience" for disobedience. i.e. for feeling guilty for being "natural" or "normal" (according to the world standards, i.e. according to "human nature"). It is the praxis (social action) of  'liberating' children from parental authority (restraint).

The results are in regarding its use in the classroom.  "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children."  (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain35)  Bloom built his so called "taxonomies" upon the ideology of men such as Theodor Adorno36.  His taxonomies are used by all "certified" educators in the classroom and all "accredited" schools, including private.

"... and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death."  Mark 13:12

You would not see it, i.e. the dialectic process and its affect upon you if somebody did not explain it to you (expose it) and even then you might not see it, loving the world and its pleasures over and against the father/Father and his/His authority already, i.e. feeling, thinking, and acting and relating with those around you according to "human nature" (desiring the approval of men, according to the pleasure of the world) instead of desiring to do the father's/Father's will (desiring to have his/His approval, i.e. desiring to do right and not wrong according to his/His will).  The dialectic 'logic' is: without the father's/Father's authority the child/man is "normal," i.e. of nature only, as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, and truth came into his life.  Negate the father's/Father's authority in the child's/man's feelings, thoughts, and actions and in his relationship with others and the world around him (the 'purpose' of the "group grade," i.e. Goals 2000, No Child Left Behind [still under parental authority], School to Work [working for the "team," i.e. the many below, not "as unto the Lord," i.e. the one above], All Children Are At Risk [of remaining under and retaining parental authority], Common Core, etc., i.e. or any other tile or label you want to give it) and he can find peace with himself and the world, i.e. the "community" again. 

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.  For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;" 2 Timothy 3:1-4

Dialectic 'reasoning' correlates the child's obedience to the father, i.e. his honoring of the father's authority as "creating" an unnatural, "alien and hostile force,37" i.e. the Heavenly Father.  In other words, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the child "creates" the Heavenly Father's authority (the Patriarchal Paradigm) by his obedience to his earthly father's authority (the Patriarchal Paradigm), i.e. submitting to that which is not of his nature, i.e. "repressing" that which is of his nature—that which is universal to all the children of the world, "alienating" himself from that which world unity can be built, i.e. from other children (by judging them according to the father's/Father's standards).  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' when the child obeys the earthly father, i.e. honors his authority in his feelings, thoughts, and actions and in his relationship with others and the world, he establishes a pattern of thinking (called a Patriarchal Paradigm) which "creates" the Heavenly Father, i.e. honoring His authority in his feelings, thoughts, and actions as well as in his relationship with others and the world (causing division, not only within himself but with others and the world as well).  Therefore, by the child using dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. negating the earthly father's authority (the Patriarchal Paradigm) in his feelings, thoughts, and actions and in his relationship with others and the world, by the child questioning the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth and challenging his authority (in the "light" of his "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment') he negates the Heavenly Father's authority in his feelings, thoughts, and actions and in his relationship with others and the world, i.e. questioning His commands, rules, facts, and truth and challenging his authority, 'changing' not only how he relates with himself but how he relates with others and the world as well, i.e. in the process.

Dialectic 'reasoning' 'justifies' sensuousness ('justifies' "human nature," with the child 'justifying' his "natural inclination," i.e. his desire,  i.e. his "self-interest," i.e. his "lust" of the 'moment' to relate with the world, in pleasure, i.e. responding to the stimulus or the environment of the 'moment which engenders pleasure'—with the approaching of pleasure and the avoiding of pain becoming the 'drive' and the augmentation of pleasure and attenuation of pain becoming the 'purpose' of life, where the 'purpose' of life is his "self" becoming "at-one-with" that which is of Nature Only, i.e. to become "at-one-with" that which 'drives' or stimulates him toward pleasure, engendering "changingness," i.e. the "eternal present," i.e. living in the 'moment') over and against righteousness (doing right and not wrong according to the Father's will, which requires faith and obedience, i.e. engendering "fixity," i.e. the standards and promises of the past influencing, i.e. directing, i.e. restraining the present and the future).  In dialectic 'reasoning,' good is no longer found above man, i.e. in God, restraining "human nature" but is found in man, i.e. in "human nature" being 'liberated' from Godly restraint.  By replacing the preaching and teaching of commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith) with the dialoguing of opinions, i.e. with the child freely sharing his feelings and thoughts of the 'moment'  (without fear of reproof, correction, or rebuke), the father's authority system (the Patriarchal Paradigm) is negated in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in his relationship with others and the world.

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9

You are never deceived because somebody lied to you.  You are deceived because you trusted them, i.e. that they could help you satisfy your hearts carnal desires.  "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD."  Jeremiah 17:5  When you declare the pleasures of the 'moment' (your desires or "self-interests" of the 'moment') as being good, Godly restraint becomes evil.

"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 [are only of nature, i.e. of the world only]."  "When the individual is inwardly free, he chooses as the good life this process of becoming."  "The whole emphasis is upon process, not upon end states of being … to value certain qualitative elements of the process of becoming, that we can find a pathway toward the open society."  "Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity, though such a process is indeed possible. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process."  "At one end of the continuum the individual avoids close relationships, which are perceived as being dangerous. At the other end he lives openly and freely in relation to the therapist and to others, guiding his behavior on the basis of his immediate experiencing – he has become an integrated process of changingness."  (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' who consider themselves "intellectuals," i.e. "enlightened," having tied "emotions" ("felt" needs) to the outcome of life, are in actuality non-emotionalist's, i.e. like lab technicians, classifying or taxonomizing people according to a spectrum or continuum of emotional responses to a "given situation" ("positive," "negative," or non-emotional), i.e. along an individual-social, i.e. "authoritarian"-socialist, i.e. child under the father's authority-child in himself-child in and for himself continuum or spectrum, treating everyone like lab rats, something to gather information on..  By creating a situation or an environment, i.e. a crisis, i.e. like a lab experiment, only in this case putting children and adults (their 'willing' participants) under pressure and heat and exposing them to different or opposing elements in order to evaluate38 their response, then manipulating the environment to get them to 'change' their "emotional" or "actual" responses, they are able to move them from obedience to an "alien force," i.e. out from under the traditional "authoritarian" or patriarchal parent's, teacher's, bosses, king's, or God's authority to a natural force, i.e. to their emotions and the motion ("changingness") of nature, with both becoming one in the 'moment,' i.e., only of nature.  As Benjamin Bloom wrote: "... ordering and relating the different kinds of affective [emotional] behavior."  "… we need to provide the range of emotion from neutrality through mild to strong emotion, probably of a positive, but possibly also of a negative, kind."  "… organized into value systems and philosophies of life."  (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom; Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book II Affective Domain)  The objective is "'to expose the patient, under more favorable circumstances, to emotional situations which he could not handle in the past [in order for him to] undergo a corrective emotional experience suitable to repair the traumatic influence of pervious experience.'" (Franz Alexander in Irwin Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy"The only valuable things in psychic life are the emotions." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

Psychoanalysis is based upon the evaluation and 'changing' of a persons perception of life; from obedience to the father's/Father's authority to responding to their own nature, i.e. their internal nature, i.e. their impulses and urges of the 'moment,' stimulated by the external environment or world around them, with their thoughts (theory), which are stimulated by nature, and their response to nature (practice) becoming one and the same in the process, excluding (negating) any foreign elements (commands, rules, facts, or truth of parents or God) which inhibit or block them from "actualizing" themselves, i.e. which prevent them from becoming at-one-with themselves and the world in the 'moment.'  In psychoanalysis, patterns or systems of thought and action (paradigms) are evaluated and 'changed,' if necessary.  In psychoanalysis the old pattern of preaching and teaching (inculcating) commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as is, i.e. as given, i.e. by faith are replaced with the new pattern of dialoguing opinions, 'discovering' where the individuals personal feelings and thoughts are in the 'moment' (in the "light" of the "given moment," i.e. stimulated by the current environment) and 'liberating' them from the old pattern, i.e. 'liberating' the child/man from the father's/Father's authority ('liberating' the Heresiarchal paradigm of 'change' within the child).  The old pattern or paradigm (the Patriarchal paradigm) is where the thesis is the father's/Father's authority, with his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth making the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment' (the child's nature which conflicts with the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth) the antithesis, i.e. the source of conflict and tension between the father/Father and the child/man, preventing synthesis, i.e. preventing "oneness" between the children of the world, i.e. feeling, thinking, and acting and relating with one another only according to nature.  By 'changing' the pattern, i.e. the paradigm or order (as in from the "old" Patriarchal world order to the "new" Heresiarchal world order), i.e. by making the child's nature ("human nature," i.e. the individuals feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment') the thesis, which engenders the dialoguing of opinions, the father's/Father's authority (preaching and teaching commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as is, i.e. by faith) becomes the antithesis (the source of conflict and tension), thereby making synthesis, oneness with "self" and the world, i.e. feeling, thinking, acting and relating only according to nature possible.  Through counseling, i.e. through psychotherapy, i.e. through the child sharing (dialoguing) his feelings and thoughts (his opinion) of the 'moment' with others freely dialoging their feelings and thoughts of the 'moment' (without parental or Godly restraint, i.e. reproof, correction, or rebuke) the child can become "at-one-with" himself, others, and nature again, i.e. as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth, negating the father's/Father's authority (faith) in the process.

"The philosopher Hegel said that truth is not found in the thesis nor the antithesis but in an emerging synthesis which reconciles the two." (Martin Luther King Jr.,  Strength to Love)  The "civil rights" movement engendered synthesis based upon race, negating the father's authority ("prejudice") in the family through the process.  No matter whether it is a cultural, economic, environmental, or race issue, the father's authority is what is always sacrificed (negated) at the alter of "social cause."

Blooms' Taxonomies 39(or Marzano's or Webb's taxonomies), which all certified teachers are required to use in the classroom and all accredited schools are required to use in their system, states its "testing" and "grading" system as a "psychological classification system."   It is the same classification system and procedure (pattern) as is used in a "soviet" where a diverse group of people (in this case students)—inclusive of deviant (perverse) students (who are antithetical to patriarchal authority), dialoguing their opinions to a consensus (to a feeling of "oneness")—there is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue and in an opinion, only the child's feelings and thoughts of the 'moment (with their thoughts being subject to their feelings of the 'moment—with their feelings of the 'moment' being subject to the situation or environment of the 'moment' which is being manipulated by the facilitator of 'change'—i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e., their love of the world, which includes the love of approval from others who approve their love of the world, and their hate of the father's/Father's authority which inhibits or blocks them from becoming at-one-with it, as well inhibits or blocks them from building relationship with those who are in love with it, in the 'moment'), over social issues—where "relationship" with self and others (according to their natural impulses and urges of the 'moment' or "self interest") becomes the focus of life (instead of doing things right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, or truth), in a facilitated meeting—since according to all the training manuals this process (globalism/universalism based upon dialectic 'reasoning') does not come naturally but needs an "expert" trained in how to seduce, deceive, and manipulate all 'willing' participants into "right praxis," i.e., into right social action—not only negating the father's/Father's authority in themselves but in others, i.e., in society as well, to a pre-determined outcome—that no decision is to be made without the forgoing procedure (inducting40 from personal feelings and thoughts of the 'moment' rather than deducting41 from the father's/Father's authority, i.e. thinking and acting, i.e. responding to the given situation according to his own feelings and thoughts of the 'moment,' i.e. living in the 'moment' rather than thinking and acting, i.e. responding to the given situation according to the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e. according to dialectic 'reasoning,' living in the "past").  The soviet, i.e. the consensus process (with its emphasis upon regionalizing, i.e. generalizing) is used by all departments of government, such as the "department of human resource," to network of all branches of government (from the national, as well as the international level, all the way down to the local "community")—circumventing the separations of power (the limiting of government granted us by the Constitution)—making sure that the different branches of government are all on the same page in regards to social 'change,' manipulating the "feelings" and "thoughts" of the people in order to initiate and sustain the process of 'change.'

Hegel's or rather Kant's "lawfulness without law" (the law of the flesh, i.e. pleasure unrestrained by the law of God, i.e. the child's nature uninhibited or blocked by parental restraints) and "purposiveness without purpose" (where the purpose of life is for mankind to initiate and sustain "human relationships" without Godly restraint) has now become the "drive" and "purpose" of life, negating the father's/Father's authority (and the "guilty conscience" for disobedience) in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, in the home, and even in the "church," in the process.  Marx believed that "the justice of state constitutions is to be decided not on the basis of Christianity, not from the nature of Christian society but from the nature of human society."  [Read roe v wade] "The state arises out of the exigencies of man's nature." "Laws must not fetter human life; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities of the people change." "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual . . ." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right').  His pattern or system of 'change' is now producing 'changing' laws, i.e. mission statements in this nation today, which makes the citizens subject to a system of terror, i.e. subject to a system of government where elected 'representatives' are, through the consensus process, serving and protecting socialist causes instead of the citizens they were voted into office to 'represent,' i.e. to serve and protect.   "Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules to best suit the state." (R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law)

Dialectic 'reasoning' is the use of Genesis 3:1-6 ("self" 'justification') to 'justify' "human nature" over and against the authority of God, 'liberating' the child's' (man's) "natural inclination" to relate with "all" that is in the world in the 'moment' over and against the Father's will (where their emotions or affections were attending to the Father, i.e. to the super-natural rather than to the world, i.e. to that which is natural, i.e. only of nature).  "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."  "For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting."  Galatians 5:24; 6:8

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." "And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."  Romans 1:26-32.

Dialectic 'reasoning,' is claiming for one's self (and for those of like mind in the 'moment') that which is not theirs to take, i.e. which is not of or for one's self (but is "naturally" desired).  Karl Marx, as did Hegel, believed that the Kings horses were the peoples horses, following the same dialectic pattern of Genesis 3:1-6 where the woman 'justified' to herself that "God's tree was her tree," i.e. that God's garden was "their" or "Our garden" (when Adam joined in), which correlates with "'Your' property is 'Our' property," "'Your' business is 'Our' business," "'Your' children are 'Our' children," "'Your' body (as in 'health care') is 'Our' body (as in 'money),'" all the preceding being the same in structure, system, paradigm, or way of thinking and acting, that is, of dialectic 'reasoning'.  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the pattern (paradigm or way of thinking and acting) of Genesis 3:1-6 ('justifying' unity, i.e. "oneness" with self and nature over and against God and His command, law, or will) must be used by man if he is to negate the condition of Romans 7:14-25, i.e. the "guilty conscience" for disobedience, i.e. with man loving God and His law over nature, i.e. over "human nature," yet failing God by disobeying the law, i.e. followed after his own "natural inclination" to relate with or unite with the world, i.e. with nature as "one," in the pursuit of gratifying his "lust" ("natural desire") for "pleasure."  Romans 7:14-25 is the condition of antithesis or tension, with man doing that which he does not want to do, that is, following after his own "human nature" to approach pleasure and avoid pain (pain being also the missing out on pleasure), and thereby disobeying (and thus disappointing) God or the Father, and not doing that which he wants to do, that is obeying God or the Father and pleasing Him (instead of following after his "natural inclination" to relate with the world).  His failure to obey (his disobedience) is all due to his "natural inclination" to relate with the world, "doing his own thing," following after his "human nature" to sin (disobey God or the Father in his pursuit of "enjoyment," i.e. happiness, i.e. pleasure, , i.e. "lust," i.e. "oneness" with the world).  Negate the Father's authority and you negate the "guilty conscience" and the need of a savior to 'redeem' you from judgment (from the Father wrath against you for your disobedience, i.e. covering your sins for you) and 'reconcile' you to the Father (to be at-one-with Him).

According to dialectic 'reasoning'turning Romans 7:14-25 "upside down"― it is the Father's law which is "sin" (alienating man from himself and the world) and the flesh, "human nature," which is "righteous" (uniting man with himself and the world). "Alienation has a long history.  Its most radical sense already appears in the biblical expulsion from Eden." "God is thus the anthropological source of alienation." (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists"Sin is the estrangement of man from man." (Leonard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism)  According to this way of thinking, "human reasoning" and "action" united ("human reasoning' not only being used to 'justify' "human nature," but also used to 'justify' putting it into action) in negating the condition of righteousness, i.e. negating having to do the Father's will, where man has to do that which is not according to (goes counter to) his own nature, i.e. having to do that which is not of "nature," not of his own "natural inclination" to relate with the world in pleasure, not allowing him to follow after his urges and impulses of the 'moment,' as well as not allowing him to do that which he wants to do in the 'moment,' i.e. not allow him to do that which will fulfill his own nature, preventing him from "discover his full potential," cutting off his 'drive,' his natural impulses and urges of the 'moment' to become "at-one-with" the world in pleasure.

We are to weigh our thoughts and our actions according to our Father's commands (according to the Word of God) not according to our feelings and thoughts of the sensuous 'moment' (according to the opinions of men), as dialectic 'reasoning' requires. "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." Colossians 3:2   Karl Marx, building upon dialectic 'reasoning,' demanded that man sets his affection only upon the things of the world, according to his carnal nature.  That when man thinks and acts otherwise ("creating" a world of righteousness, subject to the will of the Father), he creates" a world which is "alien and hostel" to his carnal nature and the carnal nature of others, "creating" a world which inhibits and blocks him from "creating" and sustaining a world from and for his own carnal "human nature," cutting off his "naturally inclination" to become at-one-with the world in and for the augmentation of pleasure.  "The life which he has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)  The word of God instructs us to put to death the "lusts" of our "human nature" "for which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience."  Our affections to this world ('justified' by our use of dialectic 'reasoning') does not lead us to "life," as those of dialectic 'reasoning' falsely claim, but instead leads us to death.  It is not how far down the dialectic pathway (of compromise) you have gone, it is the pathway you are on.  One step onto the dialectic pathway and you have stepped in it ('justifying' "self " over and against the father's/Father's will).

According to dialectic 'reasoning, to negate the condition of Romans 7:14-25 (the conflict between spirit and flesh, i.e. God and man, i.e. the Father and the child, i.e. righteousness and sensuousness) the condition of Hebrews 12:5-11 (the authority of the Father) must be negated.   That is, the Father's authority to give commands to His children, commands to be obeyed without question, and his chastening of them when they disobey Him must be negated if  the condition which engenderers a "guilty conscience" (and thus sustains a "top-down" way of thinking and acting, i.e. the Patriarchal Paradigm, preventing 'change') is to be negated.  By negating the condition which justifies the authority of the Father (Hebrews 12:5-11), the condition which engenders the "guilty conscience" (Romans 7:14-15) is negated.  Man (and child) is then free ('liberated') to "be himself," thinking and acting according to his own "human nature."  Without man's ability to evaluate the world according to his own "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. 'justifying' himself as being the standard from which to determine what is right and what is wrong, what is "good" and what is "evil," synthesizing himself with nature (Genesis 3:1-6), i.e. making "human nature" the "new" thesis, the condition of the "old" thesis, i.e. the Father's authority over "human nature" (Hebrews 12:5-11) would continue to initiate and sustain the condition of antithesis (Romans 7:14-25), i.e. man caught between that which is of his own nature and that which is not (super-natural), in his life.

According to dialectic 'reasoning,' without the use of Genesis 3:1-6 (the self-'justification' of "human nature" and "human reasoning," the ability of man to evaluate and judge for himself, according to his carnal desires of the 'moment,' which make sense to him, what is good and what is evil, negating that which is spiritual, the Father's command by evaluating the Father's command through "human reasoning," 'justifying' to themselves that there was nothing wrong regarding the "forbidden tree," it was physically "good" for food, "pleasing" to the eyes, and "desirable" to make one wise, i.e. like God) the child (man) would forever remain subject to Hebrews 12:51 (to the Father's commands) and thereby always remain in a state of Romans 7:14-25 (in conflict between obeying his own human nature, his flesh, subjective truth, which is of the creation, which is of sight, or obeying God, objective truth, who is the creator, spirit, requiring faith).  By getting man to focus upon sensuousness (man and his desire for pleasure, i.e. to eat of "God's tree," to become "like Him," in this case man creating himself in "his own image," creating a "new" world ordered after his own nature, according to the nature of man) as being equal with righteousness (doing God or the Father's will), righteousness becomes circumvented and is negated in the thoughts and actions of man, sensuousness becomes 'justified' over and against righteousness (it can never be equal).  Jesus Christ then only becomes a figure in history fighting the establishment of his day, a social savior (a social worker), a Fatherless Christ, and not the savior of the world, who by his own blood, 'redeemed' man from the wrath of the Father, 'reconciling' him to the Father.  How you can tell the Christ and the anti-Christ from one another is that one obeys His Heavenly Father even unto death and the other is Fatherless, taking the Father's authority for himself (worshiping himself). We are to be like Christ (in Christ), subject to the will of our Heavenly Father in all things, not subject to the will of our flesh seeking after the things of this world, including the "approval of or 'justification' by men."

"Casting 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 10:3-5  underline added.

Those of dialectic 'reasoning' not only can not accept the Father and His authority, they can not accept the Son who obeys His Heavenly Father in all things, and the Holy Spirit who reveals to man the will of the Father and His obedient Son, Jesus Christ.  God, all three as one, must "progressively" be redefined in man's mind (in his imagination, according to his own opinion, according to how he "feels" and what he "thinks" in the 'moment') as being a God of "human nature" (of "human compassion") and of nature itself, if man is to become God himself (to become "at-one-with" the world, i.e. 'justified' in himself, individually and collectively, and with all of nature as well).  It is our Heavenly Father (His commands which require faith, belief, and obedience, and His chastening when we disobey) who is anathema (antithetical) to dialectic 'reasoning.'  It is the Father's only begotten Son who, by his shed blood for our sins—in obedience to His Heavenly Father, can save us ('redeem' us from judgment and eternal death) and who, in His resurrection, 'reconcile' us to the Father (to partake in His glory).  The Holy Spirit bearing witness with our spirit of both our Heavenly Father and His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, confirms the Word of God (not the opinions of men).  There is no other 'purpose' and 'drive' of dialectic 'reasoning' other than to negate the Father and His authority over His creation―like two in a garden in Eden did, Genesis 3:1-6, taking that which was not theirs to take, i.e. taking for their own pleasure (consuming it unto themselves) that which God created for His own glory (for His glory alone).  Those of dialectic 'reasoning' seek to negate "This is mine, not yours." replacing it with "This is Ours, not just yours." making man "equal" with (over and against) God, making man God himself ('righteous' in his own eyes, worshiping the works of his own hands rather than God alone).

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:  Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing themselves to be wise [not needing God, able to 'reason' for themselves], they became fools,  And changed the glory of the uncorruptible [unchangeable, righteous] God into an image made like to corruptible [changeable, sensuous] man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1:20-25

The dialectic "formula" is the child (man) using Genesis 3:1-6 (the 'justification' of his "human nature" as being "normal," i.e. rational) to negate Hebrews 12:5-11 (the right of the Father to give commands to and chasten his children when they disobey) to negate Romans 7:14-25, i.e. negate the antithesis condition between righteousness and sensuousness, negate the belief-action dichotomy between the spirit and the flesh, negate the duality of "I'm above, you are below" (negating the condition which engenders the "guilty conscience" for disobedience), thereby creating a purely human (child centered, "feelings" based, sensuousness seeking) world.  It is the dialoguing of opinions (dialogic and dialectic thinking to oneself or to others what "seems" to be and what "ought" to be―there is no "guilty conscience" in the dialoguing of opinions) that is basic to the process of 'change,' where a person is no longer guided by faith, by the Father's directions, but by sight, by his own "sense perception" (Karl Marx) and 'reasoning' ability (George Hegel).  "Social action no less than physical action is steered by perception." (Kurt Lewin)  "The words ‘seem to' are significant; it is the perception which functions in guiding behavior." (Carl Rogers)  The scriptures warn us of dialectic 'reasoning' and its outcome:  "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."  Proverbs 16:25

According to dialectic 'reasoning,' without man's participation in dialectic 'reasoning,' without his participation in the "scientific method" of 'change' (which is "so called science" 1 Timothy 6:20, which is "observable and definable"―true science being "observable and repeatable") the "guilty conscience" will continue to prevent him from 'liberating' himself from the Father' authority, preventing him from being adaptable to the so called 'changing' times.  While technology changes, according to man's wisdom, man's heart is not changed, being only changeable by the wisdom of God (by the preaching and teaching of His word), which dialectic 'reasoning' seeks to negate in the thoughts and actions, in the "theory and practice" of every man and child.  "All children are at risk." and "We will leave no child behind." is all about 'liberating' the children from the Father's authority to give commands to his children, commands and therefore his authority which they are not to question, and chasten them when they disobey them, thus engendering a "guilty conscience," thus making the next generation inadaptable to 'change' (not easily giving in to the voice of the many).  The conscience is of the one (tying man to the voice of the Father, to the spirit above, to "the approval of God"), the so called "super-ego" is of the many (tying man to "the village," to the collective "one," to the spirit of community, to "the approval of men").

Hegel wrote, regarding his use of dialectic 'reasoning': "It is clear that no expositions can be regarded as scientific which do not follow the course of this method [first put into praxis in a garden in Eden, i.e. Genesis 3:1-6, where men's opinions or theories first superseded faith in, belief upon, and obedience to the Father and His command], and which are not conformable to its simple rhythm, for that is the course of the thing itself." (Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel)  Carl Rogers, recognizing it's use in the 'changing' of culture (the 'changing' of "cultural patterns" or paradigms), wrote:  "Environmental changes [changes in leadership styles, from "top-down" to "equality," from "negative" to "positive," that is, "positive" according to the flesh, according to "human nature"] have always been the condition for the improvement of [the 'changing' of] cultural patterns, and we can hardly use the more effective methods of science [the dialectic method 'justifying' "human nature," i.e. sensuousness, over and against the Father's will, i.e. righteousness] without making changes on a grander scale ['changes' in all institutions of society]." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)  Have you heard the word 'change' recently.  While God changes our heart according to His righteousness (initiating and sustaining "top-down" authority under Him), we can only 'change' the environment, "improve" it (through dialectic 'reasoning') to augment the sensuousness of pleasure and the "enjoyment" of this life, initiating and sustaining "equality," leaving our deceitful and wicked heart in place.

    The Marxist Erick Fromm wrote: "Work done by Horkheimer in the thirties identified 'neurosis [people accepting a "top-down" (patriarchal) system of authority which is not in harmony with "human nature"] as a social product, in which the family was seen as a primary agent of repressive socialization.'"  (Erich Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man, in Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists)
"Freud, Hegel, ... are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." (Normal O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
    Hegel wrote: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality."  (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)
    Marx wrote: "Thus, for instance, once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically."  (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4, Translated: by Cyril Smith 2002, based on work done jointly with Don Cuckson)
    Freud wrote: "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization
: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)
   Theodor Adorno wrote: "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority."  "The conception of the ideal family situation for the child: 1) uncritical obedience to the father and elders, 2) pressures directed unilaterally from above to below, 3) inhibition of spontaneity, and 4) emphasis on conformity to externally imposed values." "Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them."  "Authoritarian submission [the child submitting himself to the father's authority] was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth."   "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 [the socialization of America and the world]."  Therefore, according to Adorno, all government institutions and agencies (departments) must use "social environmental forces to change the parent's behavior toward the child."  (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
    "A new emphasis on civic participation and social interaction alone seemed capable of confronting the crisis. And, that is precisely what Fromm provided in his notion of ‘communitarian socialism.'" (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)  The consequence of such praxis is expressed, not by Marx, but by Hegel himself, sounding more like Marx than Marx himself: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, ... the surplus is not the property of one of them ... all contracts regarding property or service and the like fall away ... the surplus, labour, and property are absolutely common to all, inherently and explicitly." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)
    "…… a scientifically acceptable solution does exist … For to accept that solution [where all citizens, including parents, must participate in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus], even in theory, would be tantamount to observing society from a class standpoint [from the child's perspective, from his carnal nature] other than that of the bourgeoisie [from the parent's authority]. And no class can do that-unless it is willing to abdicate its power freely. ' '... the ideological history of the bourgeoisie was nothing but a desperate resistance to every insight into the true nature of the society it had created and thus to a real understanding of its class situation.… the Communist Manifesto makes the point that the bourgeoisie produces its own grave-diggers [when the children's love of pleasure and hate of parental restraint is 'liberated' from parental restraint (in their mind), the children will turn and kill the parents, negating their authority structure in society, 'creating' a world of unrighteousness and abomination instead, with no "guilty conscience" to bother them].'"  (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness)
    "Once the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in the world approaching the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken."  "Any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy [equalization of all members of the family, negating the father's authority] regardless of its intent." "The consequence of family democratization take a long time to make themselves felt―but it would be difficult to reverse the process one begun." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)

Dialectic 'reasoning' depends upon the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus ('discoveirng' "common ground" with one another's carnal desires and building relationship upon them) to negate "repression," i.e. the effect of the Father's preaching and teaching of commands  and rules to be obeyed without question (requiring faith, belief, and chastening, which engenders the "guilty conscience").  Without a "guilty conscience" the child can do as he wills, without having a fear of God.  This is the meaning of 'change,' of "paradigm 'shift'," where sensuousness and "human 'reasoning'" (the will of the child) supersede the righteousness of God (the will of the Father) as the standard or paradigm from which to determine "good and evil" from, i.e. from which to determine the worth and value of life (your own and others), from which to live by.  With the sensuousness of pleasure, i.e. the "enjoyment" or "lusts" of this life being the measurement from which to determine what is "good," the righteousness of God (His restraining and judging of "human nature") becomes "evil" (treated as being "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant," the source of  "controversy" when it gets in the way of "human nature," being then perceived and treated as "hateful" or "evil").  "Mine, not yours," the nature of God (where we get the right of private property) is negated through the praxis (social action) of dialectic 'reasoning,' "Ours, not just yours." "Contemporary social science, especially in America, bears the impact of Hegelian thinking to an extraordinary degree. Cultural anthropology and social psychology, especially of the psychoanalytic and Gestalt variety, and much of present day sociology… are more Hegelian than they would like to admit, or do acknowledge." (Carl Friedrich The Philosophy of Hegel, 1953)  I would even go so far to say that we are now "more Marxist than we would like to admit, or do acknowledge."  Even ministers today say that "Marx was more right than wrong," when in truth he, along with Hegel, Freud, etc, (all dialectic thinkers and doers) was dead wrong.   All ministers advocating 'change' are dialectic thinkers.  They are, as Karl Marx, dead wrong. 

While some ministers of 'change' might not know what they are doing, the big boys of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the master facilitations of 'change' do: "If the 'restoring of life' of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation, then Marx must collapse into a bottomless abyss."  (Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice)   "And he [Jesus Christ] said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels."  Luke 9:23-26  Those of the contemporary church have chosen the way of Karl Marx (dialectic 'reasoning': seducing, deceiving, and manipulating man through the praxis of social unity for the 'purpose' of "growth") and rejected the way of the Lord (which is faith in, belief upon, obedience toward, and chastening by our Heavenly Father, i.e. trusting in the Lord with all our heart), instead, leaning unto its own understanding, even doing so in the name of the Lord, they deceive the many.   When righteousness comes into the "contemporary" church it causes controversy.  Therefore righteousness ("right-wrong" thinking) has to be removed from the church because controversy is bad for "business," i.e. is bad for "growing customers."

Don't be deceived: "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. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil."  Proverbs 3:5-7

Links (Endnotes) to "A Quick Overview of the Dialectic Process" (41 pages).  In pdf format.

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2012-2015