"A plus negative A equals A"
(A + -A = A)
dialectical diabolical formula)
Forward and Introduction
Understanding "Hegel's" diabolical 'A plus negative A equals A' formula.
Note: all bracketed information inserted within quotations is added by me and is not from the original source. I am throwing you in, so struggle through (some of this, or maybe most of this article, may be hard to grasp at first reading but will become understandable if you press on through―think it through). This article is like a college course in itself, at least how they used to be taught: revealing, demanding, and life changing in doing what is right (good) and not doing what is wrong (evil). Part 1 and Part 2, how the formula (A plus -A equals A) is used to produce 'change,' will be more understandable as you read through this forward and the following introduction. This article explains the 'reasoning' behind the formula for the "new" world order, i.e. the 'drive' and the 'purpose' for 'change.'
I am writing this article more as a witness to what has happened than as an effort of stopping it from happening. It seems the more I hone in on the root cause and effect of the dialectical process (sensuousness and 'reasoning' superseding righteousness, 'reasoning' freed from the restrains of righteousness, that is to say reasoning freed from deductive reasoning, i.e. reasoning freed from facts and truth preached and taught "as is," "as given," i.e. reasoning freed from revelation truth―facts and truth are no longer ascertained through didactic reasoning, whereby a person is thus 'liberated' or freed to 'reason' by the means of sensuousness alone, freed to 'reason' by means of inductive reasoning, whereby he can 'reason' from his own feelings and thoughts, i.e. reason from his own "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," i.e. his own "sense experience," freed to 'reason' "from his own nature only"―'facts' and 'truth' are now 'discovered' through dialectic 'reasoning'), and its effect upon this country, fewer people want to hear what I have to say, come to me for answers, or want me around. People want to get rid of the "bad side" of the dialectic formula (totalitarianism) without dealing with the formula itself because of what they get from its "good side" (sensuousness freed from the restraints of righteousness). In other words, they might lose what they gain from their use of the formula, i.e. the sensuous (carnal) pleasures of this life. If you understand what I am saying and take it to heart and live accordingly it will increasingly cost you as well (in 'friends'). What even the church is preaching today is a "financially successful" ("enjoyable") Christianity, i.e. "If it is going to cost me in money and friends (cost me in the pleasures, i.e. cost me in the "enjoyment" of this life, especially the "approval of men"), I'm not interested." What they are saying in their thoughts and their actions is: "Without 'the approval of man' we can not be 'successful' in doing God's work."
"Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men [living according to his own sensuousness, i.e. lusting after the things of the world], but to the will of God [living according to God's imputed righteousness, i.e. lead by His spirit―Galatians 5:13-26]. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead." 1 Peter 4:1-5 bracketed information added While this verse applies to the worldly it unfortunately now also applies to the 'church,' i.e. the 'contemporary church,' i.e. the sensuous 'church,' the apostate 'church,' i.e. the dialectic 'church,' i.e. the 'church' which does not want to appear 'religious' or offend the 'natural' man,' i.e. the church which is 'driven' by the sensuousness of man for the 'purpose' of winning souls for their "Kingdom of God," i.e. a Kingdom which is built upon the sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities, i.e. "marketing skills" of man (supposedly along with the righteousness of God―an impossibility since the righteousness of the Lord, i.e. a gospel of "suffering" in the flesh where God rules over the persons thoughts and actions, the person having humbled his will―of the flesh―to God's will―of the spirit―can not be in harmony with a "gospel" of "sensuousness," a gospel of "pleasures" of the flesh whereby man, or rather the environment which stimulates pleasure, is in control over his thoughts and actions―engendering "the pride of life," i.e. a "gospel" glorifying the sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities of lustful men who are in control, i.e. think they are in control of their own lives.)
All men must die to themselves as well as die to the approval of their fellow man―die to "the lusts of men"―and follow after the Lord, giving him total authority over their lives, to be a witness of the true gospel, "living the rest of his time in the flesh ... to the will of God," i.e. living "in the world but not of it," i.e. living in the world of sensuousness below but thinking and acting according to that righteousness which can only come from God above―James 4:1-10. The dialectical question is: "How do you 'market' a gospel of pain, i.e. 'suffering.'" The dialectical answer is: "You transform it into a gospel of pleasure, i.e. 'enjoyment' in this life, and 'market' it. Define it as a gospel of sensuousness, built upon the pain-pleasure spectrum of the man, i.e. of man's needs, works, and solutions (concerned is about pleasing man, i.e. man has input in his salvation) and you can "grow" the church with "marketing skills" all day long. But if you identify it (according to the word of God) as a gospel of righteousness, built upon the redemptive work of God alone, (concern is about pleasing God, i.e. only the Lord can impute salvation to man) with the redeemed "suffering in the flesh" and only "the Lord add[ing] to the church daily"―"such as should be saved"―then "marketing" it is out of the question. "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." Acts 2: 47
The "pride of life" is the self-esteemed man (group esteemed man, i.e. of "man's approval") deceived into believing that he is in control of his own life, i.e. controlling the environment (or being at one with it) for the 'purpose' of augmenting pleasure, when in truth it is the environment (the "approval of men") which is in control of him. Since it, i.e. the environment of approving men, consists of that which is gratifying to him (dopamine emancipation, i.e. the chemical our body naturally produces which stimulates a craving, a wanting for the object which stimulated its emancipation within our body) it, i.e. the environment of approving men, is in reality 'driving' him into action to initiate and/or sustain its stimulation of pleasure in him. As I stated in an early article on the subject of dopamine (A Spiraling Process of "Changingness"), "The person is not in love with the object which stimulates Dopamine emancipation, he is in love with the emancipated Dopamine which the object stimulates. He just wants to control the gratifying object (the environment) for more Dopamine emancipation." Making it (the object in the environment) subject to his will makes him subject (servant) to its gratifying power (dopamine emancipation). Manipulating it for the augmentation of his own sensuous pleasures makes him seducible, deceivable, and manipulatable by those who control it, i.e. manipulate it and therefore him, for their own sensuous pleasures, making all participants servants to the "lusts of men." "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Luke 16:13
Whatever it is that is gratifying to a person, that the state or any institution which is under the influence and control of sensuousness, including the 'church,' has the potential of taking from him, has control of him because sensuousness (the things of this world, i.e. the world) has control of him. One of the most powerful controls over a person is the desire for "the approval of men." "The approval of man" is the means whereby they are able to attain or retain the other gratifying things of the world (engendering the "pride of life"). Thus when a man is "liberated" from the restraints of God, i.e. when sensuousness is liberated from the restraints of righteousness, a man is under the control of the world. But when a man is dead to himself and alive in Christ (humbling himself before the Lord and casting all his cares upon Him), i.e. when righteousness thwarts the seduction, deception, and manipulation which comes through sensuousness, he is liberated from the controlling nature of the world, i.e. he is "free indeed." "Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." John 8:34-36
While freedom, for fallen man, might be perceived as being found in the 'liberation' of sensuousness from the restraints of righteousness, it is only control that he finds. "We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled, though they are following a code much more scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system [the "old system" meaning the system of Righteousness as will be explained below], nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do. By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior―the motives, the desires, the wished [that which is of the system of sensuousness, i.e. of the flesh]. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) True freedom is found in righteousness. Freedom is negated in the praxis of sensuousness, i.e. the praxis of the "new" world order, i.e. the praxis of servitude to the flesh and sin. Man can only be freed from the controlling power of sensuousness by the righteousness of God. Freedom from the praxis of (servitude to) sensuousness, i.e. the praxis of (servitude to) sin, i.e. the praxis of (servitude to) the "new" world order can only be found in Christ Jesus, His righteousness being imputed to whosoever that believes upon him―whosever that walks by faith (lives in His righteousness) and not by sight (lives in servitude to their sensuousness). Those of the "new" world order, blinded by their "lust" for, thus being controlled by, the things of this world, can not comprehend this truth, their minds being darkened by the "pride of life."
The 'church' which markets "the gospel" (using polls, surveys, feasibility studies, and synergistic programming, i.e. guided by the environmentally seduced, deceived, and manipulated opinions of men) so that the world can understand it and join with it and it can understand the world and join with it―both becoming or 'emerging' as one―is a sensuous 'driven' 'church' and a sensuous 'purposed' 'church,.' i.e. a purpose driven 'church' which is in, of, and for the world―'emerging' at-one-with the world in the praxis of controlling the world, i.e. being controlled by the world, for its own pleasure. While convinced in itself (through dialectical 'reasoning') it is doing wonderful things "in the name of the Lord" it is instead a 'church' where iniquity abounds, it is a 'church' which excommunicates (with and without writ) any and all who hold it accountable to that righteousness which can only come from God above, it is a 'church' which can not comprehend living according to the "will of God" (righteousness) alone without tolerating and incorporating "the lust of men" (sensuousness, i.e. "enjoyment") as well, below. It is an apostate, adulterous, and whorish (wicked) 'church,' lusting after the things of the world "in the name of the Lord." Any redeemed within it must "come out" from it for their souls sake. The "approval of man" (the "group hug") is intoxicating and will drag all who embrace it into damnation.
The "separation of church and state" debate made it where today the church (of righteousness) is not in the world because the world (of sensuousness) is in the church. While the church is to be in the world the church is not to be of the world. Put another way, while the church is to be in the state, the state is not to be in the church. When the church―the herald of righteousness, is no longer preaching and teaching righteousness in the state (now 'driven' with the 'purpose' of "getting along," i.e. being "respected" in the eyes of the world, i.e. making Christianity "enjoyable" to both lost and saved) then the state―the herald of sensuousness (the "approval of man") is in control of the church. Therefore, when the state (of sensuousness) is in the church (of righteousness), both state and church become Godless with only man, i.e. "human relationship" becoming god ("godliness without God"). A person from then on, while being allowed to worship God in private (keeping God out of the state), can no longer preach and teach righteousness ("propagandize" God, i.e. promote "hate") in the state―a major platform of the "former" USSR constitution. A 'moment' of silent pray (for the sake of social unity, i.e. "getting along" with everyone else) in a room full of 'diverse' gods, is a 'moment' of Godlessness, with man, i.e. "human relationship" becoming god.
This is what "Education Nation" is all about: education (and this nation) no longer being about righteousness, i.e. God and His creation, but rather being about sensuousness, i.e. man and his world. "Education Nation" is of the "new" world order, with the "old" world order of "top-down" (with God above judging man below, i.e. righteousness judging sensuousness) being replaced with the "new" world order of "equality of opportunity" (with God and man becoming as one as "God" takes on the "image of man," i.e. as "God" becomes progressively more "tolerant of deviancy," i.e. more in "tune" with sensuousness, i.e. more "enjoyment" oriented) with more "equality of opportunity" for the "educated" (those "tolerant of deviancy") than for the righteous―those, i.e. the righteous that is, who for righteousness sake, can not participate in the "special opportunity" of becoming (along with the world) at-one-with "God," i.e. the "God" of man's making that is, i.e. made in his sensuous image. In this way, "Education Nation" removes righteousness as an issue of life, making it only an option (an "unhealthy" option) of the "uneducated." The sad thing is, the "contemporary" church is proselytizing (prostituting) the true church with the same 'driving purpose,' that 'purpose' being, that both church and state might 'emerge' as one under the banner of "human relationship building." Instead of building upon the foundation of the righteousness of Christ it is now building upon the foundation of the sensuous relationship of man with man.
I realize few will struggle to read all the way through this article, wading through it's 'redundancies' (for it is painfully redundant―the redundancy is like breathing though, i.e. enduring to the last breath in this life, living in the Lords righteousness no matter what comes your way, constantly being confronted by and warned of the ways of the world, while the pain comes in the awareness of how wicked your wickedness really is and the increasing awareness of how it, i.e. wickedness, pervades the world you love and live within, and how deceivable you really are when left to your wicked ways and the wicked ways of the world), but for those who endure reading through this article, it will confirm the 'madness,' rather the evilness of the days to come as being simply the 'purification' of the dialectical process, a process being put into social praxis not only in government, but also in the workplace, education, and even the church. It is a process which was first put into practice or action (over and against righteousness) in the garden in Eden. That first dialectical experience ended (or rather was restrained for a time) with a flood, then again restrained at a tower called Babel, the next time it will end in fire. All men will stand (or rather kneel) before the Lord and be held accountable (except the redeemed) for their participation in its agenda which is the negation of that righteousness which can only come from God above.
Most people want me to speak on how the dialectical process is being used to 'change' education, the workplace, government, and even the church and how to respond to it (emotionally and intellectually in a way so as not to loose the "respect of men"), but they do not want me to speak on the real reason for the use of the process and the only solution to overcoming its use, righteousness. From the response that I receive from most "conservatives," i.e. "Christians" wanting to talk about anything under the sun except righteousness (after having just heard me speak on the dialectic process and its agenda to negate righteousness in education, in the workplace, in government and even in the church) those who have used the dialectical process to produce 'change' (the negation of righteousness) seem to have been very successful. By treating my teaching on righteousness as being 'irrelevant,' when it comes to solving social-political problems (giving it lip service at the most), they reveal that they perceive those who preach and teach righteousness as the only solution to social-political problems as being 'irrational,' which is the way people think when they have been dialectically processed ("educated")―that is wanting the "approval" of men (sensuousness) more than the approval of God (righteousness), i.e. "educated" in dialectical 'reasoning,' trying to make that which is above, God's will (which is righteousness) subject to (in servitude to) to that which is below, man's will, thus making both man and God in hegemony to sensuousness (making that righteousness, which is God alone, 'irrational' to the mind of man and thus 'irrelevant' in man's actions to 'change' world).
What they never teach you in the university is that the dialectical process has only one 'purpose,' righteousness, that is, how to negate it in the life of the individual and annihilate it in the actions (praxis) of the community. Those who praxis the dialectic process must exclude (negate-annihilate) righteousness as the only solution to personal-social problems because it is righteousness which prevents them from using the dialectic process in initiating and sustaining control over the people who are within their sphere of influence (for their own sensuous gain). Throughout this article I provide many quotations from dialectic thinkers, Hegel, Marx, Maslow, Rogers, et cetera, which will make their agenda, i.e. the negation and annihilation of righteousness, very clear.
You can not explain, much less understand the dialectical process, without first knowing that it "moves and has its being" for only one 'purpose,' the negation of righteousness. Why bring it up, recognize it, or exonerate it as being a solution, much less the only solution (righteousness that is), when it is the very thing you have to negate to be "normal," i.e. to be "human"? (This is the reason inalienable rights―rights which society, i.e. socialists can not change, and 'human rights'―rights which are adaptable to 'change' as socialists perceive how societies, i.e. socialists needs are 'changing,' are anathema to one another.) By not making righteousness the foundation for your communication, i.e. not bringing it up when it can cause personal-social disharmony, you have negated it in your mind (personal) and annihilated it in your actions (social), you have done diaprax, i.e. you have put the dialectical process ("theory and practice") into social action (praxis). We do it ("Hegel's" A plus -A = A formula, i.e. diaprax) every time we don't share the truth (especially when the Lord is leading us to do so) because we might lose something "enjoyable" by doing so. For example: we fear suffering the loss of relationship with others we "enjoy" being around, i.e. losing their "respect" by "damaging" their "enjoyment" of being around us because we hurt their feelings, causing contention over something they naturally (sensually) want to do or have (something they had 'rationally justified' in themselves in doing or having until we made them "feel guilty," i.e. "judged" them). Righteousness has a way of doing this in an environment of sensuousness and human 'reasoning,' that is, "messing up" human relationships.
Righteousness is a matter of eternal importance to you and to God (God being eternally righteous and eternal life). Righteousness and eternal life can only be imputed by God to you (through Christ). It can not be "self-actualized" by you or any man (although the unrighteous man might not agree). Righteousness can not be "experientially" known (come into being through "cosmic" consciousness), i.e. through sensuousness and human 'reasoning,' i.e. through "sense experience" (other than by hearing the word of God in faith), it can only be known through faith, belief, obedience, and chastening―righteousness is not of the creation, of man, of human nature, it is only of the creator, of God. If you seek to attain and maintain 'righteousness' and 'life' in the "here-and-now," by basing 'righteousness' (which correlates with having a "guiltless" or "readily adaptable to change" 'conscience,' i.e. a super-ego―a "seared conscience") upon your ability to determine 'good' and 'evil' between yourself and your fellow man and the world, you can not receive righteousness from God, righteousness based upon His eternal nature, i.e. spiritual, perfect, and holy (which he requires of you, which condemns you, creating within you a "guilty conscience"). Basing 'righteousness' upon your own sensuousness, i.e. your nature, your 'reasoning' abilities will always 'drive' you into using the dialectical process (using inductive 'reasoning') for "self-environmental 'justification.'" Sensuousness 'justified' by human 'reasoning' is 'righteousness' without (thus establishing itself over and against) the righteousness of God. You can only receive the Lord's righteousness by having faith in Him, through His revealed Word―using the didactic procedure (deductive reasoning), where justification can only be found in a higher authority not influenced by, controlled by, or of the "self-environmental," sensuousness based 'moment.'
While righteousness itself can only be found in the Lord God Almighty it is replicated as a system within the world, i.e. a system of Righteousness or a paradigm―more specifically a patriarchal paradigm (a right-wrong, top-down way of thinking and acting) where the patriarchal parent, teacher, boss, etc establish what is right and what is wrong (in thought and in action) for those under their authority. As long as you are under authority which requires of you faith, belief, obedience, and uses chastening when necessary, or you are in a position of authority, demanding the same of those under you as is demanded of you (all under God), the system of Righteousness prevails within your life. Interestingly humanism as well as evolution is recognized as being a religion for this very same reason, their god being man, i.e. human nature or nature itself, requiring faith (the 'facts' aren't in, what they have won't support their opinions, i.e. the formula just isn't working the way they had hoped―or maybe it is―i.e. why they have to lie, i.e. deny or distort the truth, i.e. manipulate the facts to support their desired outcome―the manipulation of people, i.e. "human resources," that is what you do with "natural resources," isn't it, i.e. manipulate them―didn't you wake up this morning saying "I just can't wait to be manipulated."), belief, obedience, and chastening (chastening you through your lose of job or promotion or recognition if you don't agree with them).
Evolution-humanism is all about sin, that is the negation of it (by redefining it). God's judgment upon sin, i.e. man's disobedience to His will, is no longer an issue in the thoughts and actions of men. But rather man's judgment is upon his own sin (sin being the alienation of man with man and nature). Man's will to 'emerge' at-one-with the universe, via. the pleasures of this world, is now the 'driving purpose' of life. Bring righteousness into the 'discussion' and you will be "invited" out. You will be chastened for not obeying the rules of godlessness or rather "godliness without God."
A good example of the system of Righteousness is Jesus requesting that John the Baptist "suffer" him to be baptized of him "to fulfil all righteousness," fulfilled all the conditions of the system of Righteousness: faith, belief, obedience, as well as the chastening of the flesh, the flesh being made subject to faith, belief, obedience, in the death, burial, and resurrection of baptism. In this same way we are to take captive every thought to "the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5) who could do nothing apart from His Father's will, making himself subject to all of the Father's commands. "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." (John 5:30) "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak." (John 12:49) The same system, under God, i.e. under our Heavenly Father, is required of us. "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50
While all religions carry a semblance of the systems of Righteousness it can only be fulfilled in Christ (be in right order, no longer engendered and controlled by the systems of sensuousness and human 'reasoning'), with His Heavenly Father being the highest authority. "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 The semblance of the system of Righteousness, the earthly family or religious group still being 'driven' by sensuousness, i.e. 'purposed' in the augmentation of pleasure (Hebrews 12:5-11, vs. 10), is thus divided only for one reason, for righteousness sake, i.e. accepting the Father of Christ as being their only Father (with Christ being the Fathers only begotten son), the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit being righteousness alone (righteousness not being of man therefore having to be imputed to man, i.e. only being attainable through faith in Christ). Since righteousness is not of the creation, of sensuousness, of sight, of man, of his opinions, of human 'reasoning' God must divide or separate a man from earthly institutions by adopting him into His heavenly institution, i.e. transforming him from being controlled by his sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities, i.e. being controlled by the creation, which condemns him, into finding life in His righteousness, i.e. being directed by the Lord, which redeems him. "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross [the cross being social rejection], and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. " Matthew 10:34-37, 32-33 bracketed information added In none of this does Jesus disparage the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the system of Righteousness.
Man uses the dialectical process to 'liberate' himself from the authority of the patriarchal parent, teacher, boss, etc. (negating the system of Righteousness), replacing "thy will be done" with "my will be done" transforming into "our will be done." "What would my parents [or God] say" is replaced with "what does it mean to me [or what does what I am thinking or doing mean to "the group," "the village," the community, society, etc.]?" (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) (The "Do as I say." "Because I said so." preaching and teaching of the parents is replaced with the "I feel ...." and "I think ...." dialoguing of the children, where human approval, i.e. the approval of being 'human,' i.e. "the pride of life" now controls life, controls mans thoughts and actions―called "theory and practice.") By 'justifying' his 'rebellious' nature, his sensuousness, as being 'righteous' ('normal' human behavior, common to all men as being 'good') in his own eyes, he 'liberates' himself not only from the authority of the patriarchal parent, teacher, and boss, but also 'liberates' himself from the authority of God (His righteousness) and negates, in his thoughts and in his actions any fear of God's judgment upon him for his sins, for his 'normal' (wicked) human behavior―behavior which is based upon sensuousness (of a yin-yang, Taoistic nature, i.e. adaptable to 'change' in 'changing' times, i.e. man subject to the whims of the situation or to the ways of man rather than to the established ways of the Lord).
While the system of Righteousness applies to both the secular and the sacred realms (both realms being subject to higher authority, under God), righteousness itself can only be imputed by God. Dialectical thought and action (theory and practice) is the praxis of negating the latter (righteousness) by negating the former (the system of Righteousness). When 'reasoning' makes sensuousness equal with (but separate from) righteousness (Kant―"Hegel would never have found his dialectical method without the transcendental dialectic delineated in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason." Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel), 'reasoning' will always sides with sensuousness therefore justifying sensuousness as being 'righteousness,' i.e. positioning sensuousness over and against righteousness (Hegel), thus 'justifying' the negation-annihilation of righteousness through sensuous-'rational' social action―praxis (Marx), i.e. consensus put into action (where 'truth' and "the approval of men" become synonymous). This is the dialectical pathway down which our dialectic minded legislators, executors, and judiciary (and worst of all dialectically minded ministers) have taken us.
When 'reasoning' makes the child (of the system of sensuousness) equal with the parent (of the system of Righteousness), 'reasoning' justifies the child's "felt needs" (man above law) over and against parental authority (law above man), thus 'justifying' the negation-annihilation of parental authority over the child through social action (through common-unity, i.e. community participation, i.e. communitarianism―lawlessness ruling as law). As the Pope usurps the authority of God (circumvent the system of Righteousness under the righteousness of God, i.e. having a form of the system of Righteousness but denying the power of righteousness which is of God only) by having his priests (through 'confessionals') attain the sensuous needs of the 'religious' community (with the bishops then compiling this information attained from the region) wherewithal he is able to address the "felt" needs of the 'church' in the 'changing' times, thus being perceived as the "all knowing," i.e. being in "touch" with God and the people, guaranteeing the satisfaction of his own "felt" needs―control over the masses to sustain his own sensuous pleasures, so 'contemporary ministers' do the same through their polls, surveys, feasibility studies, and synergistic (soviet style) organizations. The same dialectic (soviet―facilitated, diverse group, dialoguing to consensus) method (turning principles and beliefs into opinions and theories, i.e. where all "truth," even "truth" preached and taught as revelation truth when it is not, is in actuality "truth" engendered from the dialoguing of men's opinions engendered from their sensuous desires, to initiate and sustain the process of 'change') is being used today in government to influence and control the citizens and their duly elected representatives.
Both the state and the 'church' today necessitate the negation-annihilation of the patriarchal system (the patriarchal paradigm) of the traditional family to initiate and sustain their control over the "masses" (only giving the family lip service as a form, when beneficial to the 'cause,' but taking from the parents their power of authority to demand from their children faith, belief, and obedience, with the authority to chasten them when they are disobedient, all under God's authority). All dialectic thinking and acting institutions, as you will see, are contemptuous and hostile toward the traditional home (despite their facade of "support"). The dialectical objective is to accomplish this trickery (the negation-annihilation of the traditional family through social programs and social actions disguised as protecting the family, while, in reality protecting, i.e. 'liberating' the individuals within it, i.e. the wife and the children from the fathers authority to rule) without being detected and blocked. By focusing upon the "felt needs" of the children, i.e. their "felt needs" which are common with the parents "felt needs," the parents will abdicate their position of authority and follow after the now liberated will of the child, i.e. both parents and children thereafter following after those who now direct (manipulate) the child's liberated thoughts and actions. Socialism, in any form (including "democracy"), is as much an act against righteousness as it is an act against the traditional family, with 'justification' from above being supplanted by self-justification and social-justification becoming united below (it is, in the end, not about your will or "our" will, it is all about the Father's will, that is, the negation of it). The dialectic process is all about destroying the father's authority over the family. When the child's will is emancipated from the father's will, made equal with (and thus over and against) the father's will, the traditional (patriarchal) family is moribund, the dialectically liberated child now being "unfit for the obedient role of the child in the family." (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society)
Those who use the dialectical process, making the child's will "equal" with the father's will, use their "newly" gained power over and against the office of the father (an office promoting "honesty and industry," of the system of righteousness) to initiate and sustain control of his assets. Money represents stored up (potential) pleasure (lovers of pleasure are lovers of money and lovers of money are lovers of pleasure, controlling money augments the potential for pleasure)―the "pride of life" is man's ability to control the environment for his own pleasure, thus the "pride if life," the "love of money," and the "love of pleasure" are all united within the human 'moment' of 'self-environment' justification. Therefore by "the children of disobedience" (both young and old) gaining access to and control over the father's money (over and against the fathers will―who is now under duress, forced to pay his taxes which are then used to undermine his authority via federal-state regulations, offices, and departments anathema of the patriarchal family system, i.e. hostel towards the system of Righteousness), the initiators and sustainers of 'change' ('change' agents 'liberating' the children from the father's authority) gain access to and control over the fathers money as well (and thus gain control over the family, the "village," the state, the nation, and the world) through the children, guaranteeing to themselves a life of worldly pleasures (something traditional, patriarchal fathers would not support or "finance," i.e. would instead fight and chasten against if not now 'fearful' of losing their families in doing so).
Socio-psychologists initiate and sustain their livelihood (a life of sensuous pleasures) by initiating and sustaining contention and misery within the traditional family. "Meyers in his study emphasizing group think, Higher Horizons 1961, stated that 'to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents' produces 'conflict and tension between parents and children ... who are not participating in the special opportunities." "… objectives can best be attained where the individual is separated from earlier environmental conditions and when he is in association with a group of peers who are changing in much the same direction and who thus tend to reinforce each other." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book II Affective Domain―a popular book used in training teachers) By their praxis of 'liberating' children from parental authority, i.e. 'liberating' the child's will from the father's will, i.e. making them equal in praxis, they engender a "new" world order (out of the "will" of the children, out of the system of sensuousness), over and against the "old" world order (which was subject to the will of the fathers, of the system of Righteousness―dad and mom are not perfect but their office is), they guarantee themselves ("the children of disobedience," both young and old) a life of worldly pleasures, freed of a 'guilty' conscience―a "new" world order dialectically 'liberated' from the restraints of the system of Righteousness.
While God says "rule," "occupy," "endure," and "stand, having done all to continue standing" in His righteousness―a patriarchal construct or paradigm or way of feeling, thinking, and acting of 'everlastingness' (standing upon a solid rock)―sensuous man "takes control over," conquers," 'changes' the environment for the 'goodness' of himself and others (to augment his sensuousness of pleasure) not realizing that it is the environment, i.e. his lust for it, which has taken control of him, resulting in a heresiarchal construct or paradigm or way of feeling, thinking, and acting of 'changingness' (where man is continuously wandering about upon the ever 'shifting' sands of his "felt" needs, ever 'driven' by the environment). The peace that passes understanding, which is of God's righteousness (unchanging, established forever), can only come through the chastening of that 'peace' which comes through human 'reasoning,' which is of man's sensuousness (ever changing, never satisfied―ever seeking after those things of the world which stimulate dopamine emancipation, i.e. the wanting of gratifying objects of the world).
While contentment and peace are established in righteousness they are never truly initiated or sustained in sensuousness, although to fallen man they might "seem to" be for the 'moment.' "There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked." "The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace." Isaiah 48:22; 59:8 "Wherefore doth the wicked contemn God? he hath said in his heart, Thou wilt not require it ["He will never see it," vs. 11]." Psalms 10:13 Thus man, in order to "rule" over the world in his own sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities (blinded by―thus blind to―his own wickedness) must, through the process of 'change,' remove (negate) the righteousness of God from his thoughts and his actions (remove the righteousness of God from his "sense perception:" internally, by imagining what he can be "if only...," and externally, by focusing upon only that which the 'natural' environment provides) in order to create a "new" world order where he can perceive himself as being, like God, 'righteous' in and of himself―freeing himself from any guilt (from having a "guilty conscience") for his praxis of disobedience toward God, which to him, is no longer an issue of importance (being no longer "relevant" to man's praxis of individual-social-environmental unity).
While God is glorified in His creation (ruling over it in His righteousness) man glorifies himself in his ability to 'change' it ('changing' it through his own 'reasoning' abilities so that he can control it for his own sensuous pleasures). Only when man becomes conscious of himself (self-conscious), cognizant of his dissatisfaction with righteousness restraining sensuousness, does he have the potential for 'change,' does he have the potential for taking control of his own life and the lives of others (the world in actuality taking control of him). By using his own 'reasoning' abilities (by dialectical 'reasoning') he can liberate his sensuousness from the restraints of righteousness and then in his 'rational'-sensual action (revolution and evolution) liberate himself from the consciousness of God (negating righteousness, fixity, by the theory and practice of sensuousness, 'changingness'), glorifying himself as being 'creator,' rather than God.
This is the diabolical pathway of dialectical thinking and acting (theory and practice) where man, in his "wisdom" and his strength (in his own sensuousness and 'reasoning' ability), initiates and sustains his own kingdom, a kingdom of his own nature, perceiving his unrighteousness as being 'righteousness' ("sensuous-'felt' needs" satisfied through social action, initiating and sustaining social unity―the way of Antichrist), thus 'necessitating' the negation-annihilation of God's kingdom, that kingdom which is only of His righteousness (Christ), negating-annihilating the kingdom (of righteousness) which is the source of alienation and social disharmony. For example: while God says: "And what concord [harmony] hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" (2 Corinthians 6:15), man says: "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, Critical Theorists and their Theory). Thus man, glorifying himself in his own works, i.e. in his own 'reasoning' abilities, chooses Caesar (man―sensuousness) rather than the Lord (God―righteousness). "We have no king but Caesar." John 19:15 When man rules over sin, i.e. when he tries to control the world, he becomes a servant to sin, i.e. he is controlled by the world, and, like Cane, must kill the righteous, to 'justify' his newly created kingdom built upon "self-esteem."
While God divides between sensuousness and righteousness man unites 'righteousness' with sensuousness, making them one through human 'reasoning,' via. his use of the dialectical process. " But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." 2 Corinthians 3:18 By looking upon man and his 'glory' we remain in his image (sensuous and wicked) but by looking upon "the glory of the Lord" we are changed "by the Spirit of the Lord" into his image (righteous and holy).
To mingle the two, God's righteousness (that which is above) with man's sensuousness (that which is below) creates confusion, thus making it easier for 'change' agents,' the seducers, deceivers, and manipulates of 'change,' to facilitate their diabolical process of 'change' negating-annihilating righteousness. It is only by means of dialectical 'reasoning' that the antithesis of righteousness and sensuousness, the duality of (and conflict between) consciousness and self-consciousness can be overcome (synthesized), according to dialectical thinkers (humanists―where the essence of man is found in man alone, i.e. in human nature alone). The tension between righteousness and sensuousness can only be negated-annihilated through human 'reasoning,' influenced and guided by sensuousness, and sensuousness, influenced and guided by human 'reasoning,' both being put into social action (praxis)―social action over and against righteousness. Diaprax is Kant's equalization of righteousness and sensuousness (with 'reasoning' on the side of sensuousness), sensuousness and 'reasoning' synthesized by Hegel, being put into Marx's social action (praxis) negating righteousness ("equality of opportunity" in the garden in Eden was man become as gods―becoming 'righteous' in his own eyes he negated righteousness)―with man becoming himself as he progressively, collectively, 'rationally,' 'liberates' himself from that which is not of his nature, i.e. God―resulting in "godliness without God." "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; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." 2 Timothy 3:1-4 emphasis added As will be explained, the negation of righteousness through dialectal 'reasoning' (human reasoning) leads to a people who are no longer guided by their conscience, resulting in a people who are easily seduced, deceived, and manipulated (through their sensuous 'reasoning' abilities) into doing unconscionable things, a people of "consciousness without the conscience," a people "ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
I am, not because I think, but, because God says I AM. To think otherwise, i.e. to think "I am because I think" (Descartes), i.e. to question what is, is to negate-annihilate righteousness. It is God, the creator, who gives us validation, not our awareness of ourselves in the light of His creation and our reasoning-physical (psycho-motor) ability to 'change' it for our own 'good,' for our own 'purpose,' for our own pleasure. (While the "light" of the creation, i.e. the creation and its order, i.e. its laws, might make me aware that there is a God, it is only by the light of the gospel that I can come to know Him as He IS.) It is His righteousness (that which is from above), not my sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities (that which is of the world below), which gives me life. All mankind, all who are of the world below, i.e. who remain in their unrighteousness, i.e. without Christ, are simply the "dead walking." Every breath that a man takes is a temporary gift of life from God to man for his time on the earth, only to end with his last breath, his eternal life whether it be in heaven, in the Lords peace, joy, and love or in hell, in torment and anguish, being determined by God, judging him according to his thoughts and actions, whether they were in servitude to the sensuousness of the world (uniting him with the world through sight) or directed by the will of the Father (made possible by the righteousness of Christ being imputed by Christ to men of faith in Him), while in this earthy, sensuous world. To attempt to validate God through my thoughts and my actions (through sensuousness) is to invalidate the righteousness of God, which can only be known through hearing His word and having faith in Him (in His Word alone). In such an attempt, my feeling and thoughts, guided by my "sense perception," will negate-annihilate the righteousness of God as being the only way of life. To confuse the two, making both righteousness and sensuousness equally good, of equal value (which only makes them appear to be equal but separate since righteousness―God, can never consider itself―Himself, as being equal with sensuousness―with man), is to negate-annihilate the righteousness of God (who alone is good) and exonerate the sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities of man. Thus in the group experience (the "youth group" included), where feelings and thoughts are 'liberated' (focused upon as being common to all) for the purpose of building social harmony/unity, building human relationships, the righteousness of God (which condemns all men as being wicked, that is, all men who are not living under His authority, not walking according to "His will," i.e. living and walking in His Word and by the power of His Spirit only) is (must be) negated-annihilated.
To suspend righteousness, even for a 'moment' is to negate it. When the suspension of righteousness is 'justified,' negation annihilates it. To set aside, suspend, righteousness in the social human 'moment,' in the praxis of 'discovering' common feelings and common thoughts (common-ism), for the 'purpose' of initiating and sustaining social unity (common-ism), is to praxis the negation-annihilation of righteousness as being the only way of life (why Billy Graham and others of like mind end up saying that there are many different ways to God―to believe that there are many different ways is to negate-annihilate belief in the only way). Thus that unity, which is a byproduct of righteousness, which is of God (from above alone) is replaced with that unity which is of, by, and for man, that which it is of his sensuousness, from below. The fruit of the Spirit, God's love, can only come from above, is eternal, is of the creator, pure, holy, righteous. The fruit of the flesh, man's love, can only come from below, is temporal, is of the creation, sensuous. To mingle the two, as being equal in value, is to create chaos and confusion, leading to a dialectical outcome of humanism, socialism, i.e. the negation of that which is from above (righteousness: of the right-wrong, i.e. either-or duality) by that which is from below (sensuousness: of the pain-pleasure, i.e. more-less spectrum/continuum/plurality). Unless a person repents before God, i.e. repents before He who is from above, repents for his praxis, i.e. repents for his participation within the dialectical process, i.e. repents for 'justifying' himself, i.e. 'justifying' that which is below over and against that which is above, he can not know the righteousness of God and eternal life, both of which are imputed to men of faith in Christ alone, through Christ alone ("before Abraham was, I AM" John 8:38-59―restoring man to His Father, the "I AM that I AM"). To separate the Son from the Father ("Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.") is to separate righteousness from God, making man (sensuousness without the law, i.e. man's will) equal with God (righteousness in law, i.e. God's will)―this is the great deception and the great falling away. Jesus came to 'fulfill' the law of the Father to restore man to the Father (to do the Fathers will in the Lords righteousness alone) not negate it to free man from the Father (so that man can to do his own will of sensuousness, in the name of the Lord). The law is still in effect, doing what it is supposed to do, condemning all who reject that righteousness which can only come through Christ Jesus. The law of righteousness―the law fulfilled in Christ alone and its righteousness imputed by Christ to men of faith in Him alone―makes available to all men (who are willing to believe in Him alone) being the only way to the Father (restoring man to the will of the Father, i.e. to "Thy will be done ...").
Sensuous man is deceived in his believing that the dialectical process has a 'good' side (a "positive" side). That it can be used to acquire contentment and peace (leisure and guaranteed sustenance, beauty and 'liberty'). He only sees the 'bad' side (the "negative" side) of the dialectical process, i.e. seeing the 'bad side of being 'emancipated,' 'liberated,' 'self-environmental justified' from the restraints of righteousness, that is ugliness and bondage (the fruit of wickedness) when it is too late. By 'justifying' his "new" paradigm (sensuousness and 'reasoning' united in social action) as being 'right' (or more 'right' than 'wrong') man classifies the "old" paradigm (righteousness restraining sensuousness and 'reasoning') as being 'wrong,' irrational, unreal, out of touch with the 'changing' times, out of touch with "human needs" etc. What happened in the garden in Eden (Genesis 3) was the first praxis of 'emancipation,' 'liberation,', 'self justification' of man, the first praxis of man 'rationally' (dialectically) 'justifying' his sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities, over and against the righteousness of God. By making his sensuous feelings and his sensuous thoughts the foundation for defining 'reality,' his sense based opinions became the measure of what is good and what is evil, thus placing him over and against God and His Word, over and against His will, over and against His righteousness.
While 'liberty,' for the carnal man, is found in the 'liberation' of sensuousness from the restraints of righteousness (where "wishy-washy" man will sell his soul and all that is right, i.e. all that is his to rule over under God, for the temporary-'changing,' more or less, i.e. "more pleasure-less pain" of the 'moment'), true liberty can only be found in the permanent either-or of righteousness (where man is freed from the confusion, fear, manipulation, and control which sensuousness engenders, and which those of the system of 'reasoning' perpetrate). Only in the system of Righteousness does "give me liberty or give me death" have any true and lasting meaning. While revolutionaries (of the dialectic variety) might use the phrase, they are not really defending that which is theirs to defend, including life (although they may claim that as their 'purpose'), but rather they are taking that which is not theirs to take, including life (which they may claim is their 'right,' since they perceive that all the world, and all its pleasures, is theirs to take, i.e. theirs to control, i.e. theirs to 'liberate'―that man might no longer be under the authority of a God who judges man eternally for "doing his own thing" in the "here-and-now."
In dialectical 'reasoning' there are no personal, individual rights apart from universal, social 'rights.' Liberty is only found in social life (in the "universal"), not in individual life (in the "particular") alone. 'Liberty,' for the unrighteous man, is being 'free' to pursue that which is of his own nature and nature alone (which is individual-social in nature only), i.e. freed from having to have faith in, believe upon, obey and be chastened by that which is not of his own nature and nature alone (where the individual, and thus the world, is to be under God's authority alone). According to dialectical 'reasoning,' when man's nature (and nature itself) is freed from the restraints of righteousness, i.e. when he is 'free' to pursue the sensuousness of the pleasure of this world only (along with, i.e. in consensus with all men), he is 'uninhibited,' 'rational,' 'educated,' and 'healthy.' Liberty, for the righteous man, is being free to pursue God alone, i.e. freed from the controlling attributes of his own nature and thus freed from those who would use them (by controlling, i.e. manipulating the environment) to seduce, deceive, and manipulate him (use him) for theirs (and his) worldly pleasures only. According to dialectical 'reasoning,' when man's nature (and nature itself) is restrained by righteousness, i.e. when man is no longer 'free' to pursue the sensuousness of the pleasure of this world only (along with, i.e. in consensus with all men), he is 'repressed,' 'neurotic,' 'uneducated,' and 'unhealthy.'
"The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in each particular individual." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 6) Marx declared that there is no eternal soul in man, that man is not created in the image of God and therefore is not accountable to Him for his thoughts and actions. "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." ibid. Marx therefore declared that: as man 're-creates' himself in the image of society (by participating with it in the praxis of negating the image of God within himself, i.e. negating that which is not of his own nature, which is common to all nature, i.e. all mankind), he is, from then on, only accountable to society (to nature) for his thoughts and his actions. "It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities." (Karl Marx) He declares that: without the aid of social intervention the individual will remain isolated ("destroyed"), and therefore remain subject to that which is not of nature, i.e. subject to that which is not in common with his own nature (subject to sensuous only). "Only within a social context individual man is able to realize his own potential as a rational being." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right) Only within the realm of "education" (re-education)―"Education Nation―where the individual is subjected to dialectical 'reasoning' in a social setting (not in a group of individuals but rather in a "social" group environment void of the restraints of righteousness), does man have the "potential" of become a "rational being." "The individual is emancipated in the social group." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) Freud, although he worked on individuals outside the group setting, did not perceive of man as being an isolated individual subject to something or someone not of "the species." "Individual psychology is thus in itself group psychology ... the individual ... is an archaic identity with the species." "This archaic heritage bridges the ‘gap between individual and mass psychology.'" (Freud, Moses and Monotheism in Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: a philosophical inquiry into Freud) "Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost." (Abraham Maslow, The Further Reaches of Human Nature) "One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group." (Irvine D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) Only within the "social" group setting (in a dialectical environment) can man 'discover,' 'emancipate,' and 'actualize' his true identity ('discover,' 'emancipate' and 'actualize' his "social" image, thereby freeing himself from the "image of God"). "The more of himself man attributes to God, the less he has left in himself." "The only practically possible emancipation is the unique theory which holds that man is the supreme being for man." (Karl Marx, Selected Reading in Sociology and Social Philosophy by T. B. Bottomore) "The life which he has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) Without the 'help' of the master facilitator in the garden in Eden, man would have forever remained in the image of God, unable to 'rationally' discover his sensuous identity with the world and therefore 'rationally' justify his nature as being at-one-with it. This is the praxis of Marx, of Diaprax, of Genesis 3:1-6, of Lucifer, man liberating himself from "an alien and hostile force," i.e. dialectically liberating himself from God, to be god himself, i.e. a god of his own sensuous nature, made in his own image. "A logical connection emerges with the anthropological perspective of the young Marx wherein ‘the eye becomes the human eye, the ear the human ear.'" (Erich Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man)
Man is therefore, in dialectical 'reasoning,' not created in the image of God (subject to His righteousness) but rather is to be 'recreated' in the image of society (subject to his and its ways of sensuousness and 'reasoning' united as one). Without becoming aware of the restraining nature of the first image (the antithesis between righteousness and sensuousness) and 'rationally' transcending it ('rationally' going beyond the antithesis condition caused by righteousness) he can not be transformed into the latter image (of sensuousness and 'reasoning' united), i.e. become as he really is, carnal (sensual, 'rational') only. Therefore, if it is so natural for man to sin, why fight that which is natural? "Not feeling at home in the sinful world [in a world preaching and teaching righteousness], Critical Criticism [the dialectical thinker, i.e. the "higher order thinker" in morals and ethics] must set up a sinful world in its own home ['rationally' make sensuousness the only way of life]." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) By 'rationally,' "intellectually" finding consensus (at-oneness) with nature, i.e. using his own 'reasoning' abilities ("higher order thinking skills) to identify and thus transcend that which is not of his nature, he can 'rationally' transcend the issue of sin itself. "I'm OK." "Your OK." "If it feels good, just do it." "Can't we all just get along?" "Boys will be boys." "No Fear." "Make love, not war." etc. therefore becomes the language of society. This is where Hegel, Marx, Freud, and all who like them, i.e. thinking dialectically, join "hand in hand," that is, join sensually and 'rationally' together in the negation, within the individual, and the annihilation, within society, of righteousness having anything to do with the issues of life and death―other than being perceived and responded to as an 'unhealthy' condition from which man is to collectively and 'rationally' "emancipate," "liberate," "change" himself and society from, via. social praxis.
When man removes God's hedge of protection (His righteousness), he, through his 'reasoning' abilities, falls victim to the wolves of unrighteousness, falls victim to their agenda of 'change'―their agenda of 'changing' him into their own image of seduction, deception, and manipulation, 'changing' him into becoming a facilitator of 'change,' a "minister of righteousness" himself―which is really unrighteousness. "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 I remember, during the Vietnam War, seeing many young men go into ministry to avoid being drafted, thereby carrying their wicked (unrepentant) ways with them into church leadership whereby they were able to victimize the innocent and unwary with their dialectical sensuous 'reasoning' abilities (self-social justification). This was about the time that church "youth groups" exploded upon the scene.
Justification is either founded upon God's righteousness (which is life) or man's sensuousness and 'reasoning' (the end thereof being death). There is no in-between the two. There is no spectrum, continuum, or gradient between righteousness and sensuousness, as many would deceive you into believing, only to betray you in the end. The spectrum is only found within sensuousness (of the flesh), subject to a gradation between pain and pleasure with man approaching pleasure and avoiding pain being the highest 'good,' making 'good' (and thus 'evil') subject to sensuousness, i.e. the 'good' day being of more pleasure than pain. Righteousness instead is only of God, i.e. to break one part of the law is to break all of it (which is the same rule applied to the laws of nature, i.e. to ignore a law of nature, for example gravity, can kill you even if you get the rest, i.e. drag, thrust, lift, right, i.e. being more 'right' than 'wrong' in the field of science can kill you). That which is of God, righteousness, is not of man, sensuousness. Apart from God's righteousness man is unrighteous, his 'reasoning' therefore being only subject to his sensuousness (basing 'righteousness,' good and evil, right and wrong, upon the spectrum of sensuousness, thus deceiving himself and taking pleasure while doing it to others, i.e. 'justifying' his deception by basing righteousness upon a pain-pleasure spectrum). Thus reasoning must be made subject of righteousness (absolutes) or it will be used to 'justify' sensuousness (relativism). God's love and righteousness require the chastening of man's flesh (reprimanding sensuousness), i.e. restraining it, making sensuousness subject to righteousness (where opinions are made subject to truth which is preached and taught), while man's love and 'righteousness' require the liberation of man's flesh (augmenting sensuousness), i.e. encouraging it, making 'righteousness' subject to sensuousness (where truth is made subject to opinions which are dialogued).
What wolves in sheep skin, hirelings, the prodigal son's friends, councilors, facilitators, 'change' agents, philosophers, psychiatrists, socialists, contemporary "ministries," etc. all have in common is that they will all help you in satisfying your "felt needs" (sensuousness), i.e. they "care" about you, until they run out of your money or you are no longer beneficial or satisfying to their sensuous "need" (serve the perception of others of their being beneficial to them), whereupon, unlike family, they will leave you to your own hopeless, miserable demise. Like the scriptural account of the prodigal son, it's not about you or your friends' "love" for you and the things or people of this world―sensuousness, it is about the Father's love for you―righteousness).
Most people, when they don't like (or don't have anything to "gain" from) the 'bad' side of the dialectical process (which is totalitarian control―the consequence of dialectical praxis), only want to stop its 'bad' side from oppressing them, wanting to keep the sensuous pleasures of its 'good' side in place, not knowing it is the 'good' side ("the justification of self" and "the approval of man," both based upon the sensuousness of dialectical 'reasoning,' i.e. man 'reasoning' from his own sensuousness, 'reasoning' from that which is of his nature only, i.e. to "approach pleasure and avoid pain," with the augmentation of pleasure―the controlling of the environment to satiate the wanting of gratifying objects which lie within it, which is never satisfied―"Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied." Proverbs 27:20―which includes not only the desire to "survive," placing hope in this world of sensuousness, but also the desire for "the approval of men," placing hope in sensuous man himself―both being the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of life) which is the catalyst for the 'bad' side, i.e. (totalitarianism). Being indifferent to the effect which the "bad" side of the process has upon others, because of the benefits the "good" side has for you, is just as much an act of violence as the act of hate itself. Like Esau, man has sold his birth-right of righteousness and eternal life (both given by God, who desires that none be lost, making both, i.e. righteousness and eternal life now attainable, through faith in Him, through believing upon and trusting in His only begotten Son), rejected them (and Him) for the pleasures ('momentary' sensuousness) of this world (man leaning instead upon his own sense based 'reasoning' for understanding―cursing God and his blessing of eternal life, because of his love for the pleasures of this life, which ends in eternal death). By dialectical 'reasoning' man has rejected that which can only come from God (righteousness and life) and has therefore embraced that which is only of his own nature (sensuousness and death), that which is of the world, that which man can commonly, collectively relate with―his knowledge and his understanding being darkened, void of the knowledge and understanding of righteousness which can only begin with the fear of the Lord.
"For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops. And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, fear him." Luke 12:2-5
Fallen man, for the sake of sustaining the 'good' side of the process, i.e. "the pleasures of this world" (controlling his own life in the augmentation of pleasure) refuses to recognize that his participation within the process (controlling the environment for the 'purpose' of initiating and sustaining worldly pleasures) is itself evil (letting the environment control, i.e. influence him into 'rationally' determining what is 'good' and what is 'evil' based upon his own carnal nature). Thus, refusing to recognize his participation within the process (using it for 'good') as being evil, he refuse to see himself as being wicked (having sensuous eyes he can not see himself for what he is, wicked). It is only when a person comes to see the wickedness of his own heart (in the light of God's Word, in the light of His righteousness) that he can come to understand the wickedness of the dialectical process and its diabolical effect upon himself and the world he lives within.
Today no university professor (or university) can expose the dialectical process for what it is―wicked―and be recognized by his pears and the university as being right. Martin Luther noted in his day that universities had become wide gates to Hell because "... they teach not Christ but human reasoning. . . Woe to these lost and dreadful men of Sodom and Gomorrah!" "Miserable Christians, whose words and faith still depend on the interpretations of men and who expect clarification from them! This is frivolous and ungodly. The Scriptures are common to all, and are clear enough in respect to what is necessary for salvation and are also obscure enough for inquiring minds. . . let us reject the word of man." (Martin Luther, Luther's Works) "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities." Jude 7, 8
An understanding of the dialectical process can not come through an academic exercise in the "reasoning's" of Socrates, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Lenin, Lukács, Gramsci, Freud, Adorno, Moreno, Lewin (having taught in a university―lecturing on the subject of the dialectical process and its effect upon the American culture―I dedicating one three hour class on Kurt Lewin alone because his work on "group dynamics," "force fields," and "unfreezing, moving, and refreezing" and their use by 'teachers' in the American classroom has been that influential in the 'changing' of our culture), Maslow, Rogers, Bloom, Drucker, etc. (all, and more, have had their input in the 'changing' of the world we live within), any way I digress, as I was saying, an understanding of the dialectical process and its effect upon you and the world you live in can not come from an academic exercise in 'discovering' who you are before man, through philosophy (including psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc.), it can only come through a spiritual understanding of who you are before God, by His Word and His Holy Spirit―something which the 'contemporary' church has abdicated (and fights against), because of its participation within the dialectical process, i.e. 'driven' by and 'purposed' in 'growing,' 'emerging,' etc. its sensuous, love of this world, self (where the feeling of "'righteousness' without righteousness" pervades, i.e. man sensually and 'rationally' 'driven' with the 'purpose' of augmenting an environment which engenders sensuousness over and against righteousness―choosing the unrighteousness of mankind (being "positive," non-judgmental) over and against the righteousness of God (being "negative," judgmental) in his effort to unit mankind in 'peace and justice,' sensuous 'beauty' and sensuous 'freedom'―the aesthetic dream becoming 'reality' as dialectical thought is put into social action―praxis). "It is Satan, the god of all dissension, who stirs up daily new sects, and last of all, which of all others I should not have foreseen or once suspected, he has raised up a sect such as teaches that man should not be terrified by the law but be gently exalted by the grace of Christ." Martin Luther Without the law, man can not know he is a sinner. Without his knowledge that he is a sinner he can not know of judgment. Without having a fear of judgment he would not look for a redeemer. Without knowing the redeemer he can not know God's mercy and grace. An academic understanding of the dialectical process alone circumvents the issue of the wickedness of man's heart by making the righteousness of God irrelevant, which is the intent of the process in the first place.
As the children of Israel (on their way to the promised land), remained (in their hearts) lovers of pleasure―worshipers of the creation―and thus wanted to return to the pleasures of Egypt (or at least have the pleasures of Egypt with them, while in the desert) instead of being lovers of God―worshiping the creator―trusting in the Lord (the manna of life) while walking through the wilderness, Christians, who murmur against righteousness (trying to 'circumvent' or negate, by the use of dialectical 'reasoning' and action, God's restraints against and chastening for lusting after the pleasures of this life, including the "approval of men") reject the restraints and chastening which come with following the Lord (2 Corinthians 10:5), in their hearts. Having never left the sensuousness (the lusts of the flesh) of Egypt, they, as the children of Israel who quickly fell victim to the sensuousness of Canaan―whoring after their unrighteous ways, not only sin but 'rationally' 'justify' it by calling it 'normal human behavior.' When the opportunity of sensuousness affords itself (their heart not being right, i.e. righteous, in the Lord) they quickly join in. Thus negating God's judgment upon sin, through their justification of human nature through their use of polls, surveys, feasibility studies, i.e. depending upon the sensuousness and 'reasoning' (opinions) of man, they reject the mercy and grace of God, not only in their lives but also in the lives of others who look up to them for guidance.
Psychology, sociology, anthropology, and philosophy (the "wisdom" of man) are all anathema to the gospel for they (those who praxis them) can not make themselves subject to the will of the Father (under the righteousness of God) and still remain in control over their lives and the lives of others (for the 'purpose' of augmenting the sensuousness of pleasure). Not being righteous in and of himself, man is only able to pursue the augmentation of the pleasures (and the attenuation of the pain and grief) of this world, perceiving that (doing 'good' to others) is an act of 'righteousness' in and of itself―doing good is not bad, it is just that it is not righteousness in and of itself―thus dialectically redefining righteousness, that which restrains, chastens, and condemns human nature, as being evil itself. Man, in his sensuousness, 'rationally' perceives the way of righteousness as being the initiator and sustainer of physical, mental, and social pain and grief, as being the cause of alienation, repression, and reification. 2 Corinthians 10:3-6 Thus, contemporary "ministers," trained in the profession of dialectical thought and action, as scribes and Pharisees, love the seat of Moses, i.e. love the accolades of men, but reject the spirit of Moses (who chose to suffer with the children of Israel in the wilderness, living in the righteousness of God, rather than live in the pleasures of Egypt, living in the pleasures of this life, in sensuousness) and use dialectical trickery to seduce, deceive, and manipulate believers, i.e. the "called out ones," into thinking that they can synchronize, "synergistically," the sensuousness of Egypt and the righteousness of God and call it the church. Dialectically deceived into believing that they are 'leading' the 'church' into the promised land they are instead leading (taking pleasure in deceiving) those who follow them into Babylon.
Only those who trust in the Lord with all their heart, who do not lean to their own understanding (dialectical thinking, 'reasoning' based upon sensuousness over, and therefore against, righteousness), who acknowledge Him in all their ways (letting the Lord direct their thoughts and their actions), who are not wise in their own eyes, i.e. who fear the lord, love His Word rather than this world, including their very own lives, and depart from evil (Proverbs 3:5-7), only those who are redeemed by the Lamb of God, whose sins are covered by His blood, his righteousness being imputed to them by their faith in and belief upon Him, will not spend eternity in Hell, in torment, in sorrow for their participation in the dialectic process, but instead will spend it in Heaven (in the new earth, in the new Jerusalem), in the Love, Joy and Peace of the Holy Spirit, Glorifying God our Heavenly Father and His only begotten Son. "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled; In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:" Colossians 1:19-22
It is all about man's 'reasoning' ability (man's ability to evaluate what is 'good' and what is 'evil' for himself) being used to 'justify' sensuousness over and against righteousness, 'justifying' that which is in and of man (sensuousness―of nature) over and against that which is not in and of man (refuting, denouncing, and condemning righteousness, that which is not in or of man, i.e. which is foreign or alien to human nature, being only of God), which (man's 'dissatisfaction' with righteousness) can therefore be used to unite man with man. When man and his fallen nature (sensuousness) are 'rationally' (dialectically) liberated from the restraints of righteousness, human nature (sensuousness and human 'reasoning') becomes the foundation of 'humanity.' That which man has in common with all of mankind, "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," thus, dialectically, becomes the "ground of being" for 'common-ism' and "world unity," i.e. "social justice" and "world peace," since it is sensuousness (man's "lust" for the things of this world and his 'rational' ability to control, i.e. 'change' the world, the environment, to initiate and sustain the augmentation of them) which all of society has in common. When sensuousness is 'rationally' liberated from the restraints of righteousness it is 'rationally' 'justified' in the negating of righteousness. While God, through his Word, declares: "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." (1 John 2:16) man, (worshiping the creation rather than the creator), in his "wisdom," declares: "Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world. Eros is the foundation of morality." (Brown, Norman O, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "... the aesthetic dimension and the corresponding feeling of pleasure ... is the center of the mind .... link the ‘lower' faculties of sensuousness, (Sinnlichkeit) to morality ... – the two poles of human existence" (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: a philosophical inquiry into Freud) There is no in-between heaven and hell, no escaping the Heavenly Father and his condemnation of sinful man (condemnation for his fallen nature, condemnation for his lusting after his own sensuousness over and against God's righteousness), except a temporary, illusionary 'escape,' initiated and sustained ('momentarily') in the imagination of men's hearts. Other through faith in, believing upon, and following after the only begotten Son of God, in obeying His Heavenly Father's will, can man escape the condemnation of hell. There is no "third" (or "forth") force or way, though those who are possessed with dialectical 'reasoning,' i.e. seducers, deceivers, and manipulators, would like you to believe that there is another way, another 'truth,' another life, another gospel. For the sensuous man, an hour in heaven (living in righteousness alone, glorifying God alone) would be (according to his feelings, thoughts, and actions) an hour in hell. Even "Rock" songs declare as much, although it won't happen, i.e. a carnal man being in heaven that is.
Thus man finds himself, in his theory and his practice (in his thinking and in his actions), 'living' and thinking over and against righteousness (perfection)―that which is not in, nor of man, which is only of God, who demands perfection (righteousness) in man. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) Perfection and righteousness is what man can not do in and of himself, which therefore separates God, who is perfect, righteous, and eternal, from man, who is imperfect, unrighteous, and temporal, which thus divides men who are made righteous, i.e. perfect in Christ, "Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." (Hebrews 13:21), from men who remain in their sin, who willfully remain in their unrighteousness, justifying their carnal thoughts and actions as being 'normal' human behavior.
Others seek to 'justify' themselves before themselves, others, and God by attempting to fulfill the law of God to fulfill God's demand for perfection and righteousness. Yet all men, not redeemed through Jesus Christ (not redeemed through His blood), not "perfect in every good work to do his will," continue to love this world (sensuousness) and their own unrighteous impulses, desires, and deeds (sensuousness) in it, including those who live according to the law rather than living in Christ―who fulfilled the law in Himself―living in His righteousness.
"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Romans 3: 20-29
"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." "And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." I John 2:15, 17
It is here (in man's love of this world and his own sensuous nature, which is stimulated by the things of the world) that dialectical 'reasoning,' i.e. the use of "Hegel's" 'A plus negative A equals A' formula comes into 'play' (comes into praxis or practice). In man's effort to 'justify' himself, 'justify' his carnal lustful desires, he redefines his sin (his sensuous nature) as simply being 'normal' human behavior (via. the use of "behavior 'science'"), i.e. comparing himself with himself ('justifying' his sensuousness) rather than comparing himself with God (where justification can only be found in God's righteousness, imputed through faith in Jesus Christ, for it is impossible for man to be righteous in and of himself for "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"), he therefore rejects justification, and therefore salvation, which can only come by that righteousness which is not of his nature, that righteousness which is from above, from the will of the Father, from the obedience of His only begotten Son, and from the power of the Holy Spirit.
"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
God's thoughts are upon (emanate from) His righteousness (Spirit, i.e. "light" with "no shadow of turning"). Man's thoughts are upon (emanate from) his sensuousness (flesh, i.e. "darkness," which to man, "seems to be 'light'"; "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Luke 11:35). God's ways are patriarchal in paradigm, i.e. from above, unchanging, i.e. established, i.e. perfect, i.e. righteous and spiritual (something which has not escaped the attention of those who think dialectically). Man's ways are heresiarchal in paradigm, i.e. from below, ever changing, i.e. imperfect, i.e. as "children of disobedience" ever seeking after the pleasures of this life, ever learning through the ways of sensuousness therefore never able to comprehend the true meaning of life―righteousness, "never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" which can only come from He who is above man's sensuous nature. Man's nature being unrighteous and sensual, i.e. not being righteous in and of itself, makes man in and of himself, incapable of being righteous, his sensuousness always taking him captive to the sensuous 'moment'―2 Timothy 3:1-8. Apart from God and His righteousness all man has to lean upon is his own understanding, i.e. his own sensuousness and 'reasoning.' Therefore, being blind to the truth, man is, in and of himself, incapable of knowing himself as he really is―wicked.
"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." Isaiah 64:6
"There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace have they not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." Romans 3:10-19
This article is about "Hegel's" 'A plus -A equals A' formula which is the praxis of human 'reasoning' (man's 'rational' mind) being used to 'justify' the liberation of man's sensuousness from the restraints (and judgment) of God's righteousness, i.e. man perceiving (and deceiving) himself as being 'righteous,' in and of himself, in his praxis of negating righteousness, i.e. negating that righteousness which is not of his nature. If you understand this article you understand the "new world order" (which is as "new" as Genesis 3:1-6, which is the replacing of our Heavenly Father and His will with man and his will, replacing God's way of thinking and acting, based upon His righteousness, with man's way of thinking and acting, based upon his sensuousness) and its affect upon you and the world you live within.
"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
To obey (do) the will of His Heavenly Father is the reason why Jesus came. Our Heavenly Father and His love for us, is the 'justification' for Christ's virgin birth, death on the cross, and resurrection from the grave―His virgin birth and resurrection from the grave (by the will of the Father and an act of the Holy Spirit) being incomprehensible to, as well as condemning of, those who think and act dialectically. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." 1 John 4:14 Dialectical thinkers, having rejected the father (who sent his only begotten son so that man can come to know the father of life) and thus rejecting the son (who obeyed the father in all things and has called us to do the same), have rejected salvation, i.e. salvation from the fathers wrath upon them. By 'chosen' their sensuousness over and against His righteousness, they have chosen eternal death instead of eternal live.
The negation of the Father (the father figure) is the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of "Hegel's" 'A plus -A equals A' formula, and thus the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of the "new" world order. The Antichrist is "another" Christ, a dialectic Christ, one not sent by the Father, one who places himself over and against the will of the Father, speaking Agape but only able to produce Eros, promising salvation but only able to sustain condemnation and guarantee damnation.
Chart: The taxonomizing of people (the student in the classroom, the worker in the workplace, the legislature in the sub-committee, the citizen at the town hall meeting, the minister at the ministers alliance, etc.) for the sake of 'change' is required if the facilitator (as a 'scientist') is to know what needs to be 'changed,' who needs to be 'changed,' and how 'change' is to be accomplished. When preaching and teaching is used to justify an established position, with chastening being used to reinforce the established position and thus restrain the person from the praxis of 'change,' a thesis position or a patriarchal paradigm or a traditional way of thinking and acting is maintained. But because the nature of 'change,' the influences of "felt needs," impulses, or "sensuous needs" of the flesh, stimulated by the sensuous 'moment' (the worldly environment stimulating the system of sensuousness) produces an antithesis condition it thus challenges the categorical imperatives of the thesis position. Dialoguing one's feelings and thoughts thus brings into question the commands and rules of righteousness, which restrain 'change.'
The 'purpose' of the dialectical way of thinking and acting (theory and practice), is to 'change' the environment from being one which initiates and sustains a thesis position (a formal-logical environment created by preaching and teaching) to one which synthesizes a person's "sensuous need" with his "sense perceptions" (an informal-imaginative environment created by dialoguing to consensus). Thus by creating an environment which makes 'reasoning' subject to sensuousness (subject to human "sense experience," subject to the imagination of the heart) rather than subject to the righteousness of God (subject to the Spirit of God, subject to His thesis position, i.e. His every word) a person's dependence upon an established thesis position is called into question, thus is perceived as being impractical and is thus irrational, thus is irrelevant in the 'light' of the 'moment,' thus is negated, thus 'liberating' him (and the group) from the patriarchal paradigm. Through the 'justification,' i.e. emancipation of his sensuousness through 'reasoning' and putting them (his feelings conjoined with his thoughts) into social action (praxis), man is liberated (emotionally and mentally) from being under the control of the patriarchal paradigm, thereby negating the patriarchal paradigm (the system of Righteousness) as a way of thinking and acting, not only for the individual but for society as well. Justification for 'life' is thereby (dialectically) founded and established (initiated and sustained) upon human sensuous social action (praxis) rather than upon Righteousness (rather than upon the patriarchal paradigm of the traditional home, workplace, and government, all limited by Godly restraint).
The "new" world order and the Antichrist have their foundation upon "Hegel's" diabolical process which has become the way of thinking and acting for Americans today. "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." (Friedrich)
Our government is now being directed (seduced, deceived, and manipulated by facilitators of 'change,' and thus is seducing, deceiving, and manipulating the American public) through the praxis of dialectical thought and dialectical action (theory and practice). If you understand this article you will also understand how you must respond if you do not want to be (remain) a part of the "'new' world order"―"Education Nation."
"Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear." Isaiah 59:1, 2
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;" Acts 3:19
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." John 3:16-21
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2010-2015