A Précis of the Introduction to the Articles
by
Dean Gotcher
All bracketed information below, within the quotations or verses of this article, is not in the original quotation or verse.
It is information that has been added by me.
Preface
"And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15
The following précis is more like a rough draft, i.e. an article in the making, in that I keep inserting new information (making this précis extensive, i.e. not so précis) as time goes by, which also results in improper tense changes, repetition, typos, etc. (bear with me as I, over time, find and correct them). Yet its information is invaluable for anyone wanting to understand what the so called "new" world order is all about, as well as its effect upon them and their loved ones (in the home, in education, at work, in entertainment, news, etc, in government, and in the church―in the apostate church, known as "church growth," emergent church," "contemporary church," "contemplative church," ecumenicalism, liberation theology, etc.―all building upon "human nature," i.e. sensuousness, over and against, it can not be "equal" with, the righteousness of God, who is always "top-down." "Equality," when 'justified' through the use of dialectic 'reasoning' i.e. through self-social 'justification' ('justifying' sensuousness), always negates (places itself over and against) a "top-down" (righteousness) way of thinking and acting (paradigm). Sensuousness ("equality," plurality, diversity, spectrum, continuum, "Ours, not just yours," ever 'changing,' i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm of 'changingness') and righteousness ("top-down," duality, "I'm above, you are below," "Mine, not yours," never 'changing,' i.e. the patriarchal paradigm of "everlastingness") can never be (become) "equal." One must rule over (and against) the other (there is no plurality before God, i.e. their is no "diversity" or "tolerance of ambiguity," or consensus in righteousness). There is only God's way or man's way. There is no "third way." There can be no "partnership" with the world (sensuousness) when it comes to righteousness and no "partnership" with righteousness when it comes to the world (sensuousness). There is no public-private partnership, i.e. social-individual partnership (which negates private, i.e. the individual, inalienable rights, "Mine, not yours," private property by the way) which those of dialectic 'reasoning' propagate. The dialectic deception (the lie) being that there can be, deceiving all who participate in dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. "justifying themselves before men," thereby negating righteousness, negating the authority of the Father (which will be explained below) as the issue of life in their thoughts and in their actions. The following may be strange and difficult reading at first but will become clear if you persevere through. It will certainly change your life.
Some have responded that they wish they had never read it, now knowing the truth as they had never known it, becoming acquainted with grief, as Jesus was acquainted with grief, seeing a world willfully blind to the truth, with many of their own friends and loved ones refusing to hear them when the share it. Yet they have all responded in appreciation of knowing the truth, the following information having liberated them from the tyranny of the process of 'change' or confirming to them why they did not buy in to it, that is, fall for its lies.
It is not so much what I share in this article that is important, it is what is in God's Word (if you are not in the Word, reading, studying, and living by it, weighing from it what I or anyone else is doing, saying, or writing, it will be just some more information to dialogue about). This information is not just about exposing the dialectic process for what it is, abomination, it is also about encouraging you to do that which is right, walking on the pathway of righteousness, doing that which is pleasing to your Heavenly Father, living in His only begotten Son's righteousness, walking by faith, doing His will. "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6
We can not find "oneness" with God through the stimulates-response, "approach pleasure - avoid pain" spectrum of our "human nature," according to our sensuousness, according to our flesh (as we find oneness with the world). We can only be 'redeemed' from condemnation for our sins, i.e. from the Father's wrath upon "the children of disobedience," by His only begotten Son 'reconciling' us to God, walking in the Spirit. We can only come to know of and have faith in God through the hearing of His Word, i.e. God revealing Himself to us by His Word (by the preaching and teaching of His Word, the Holy Spirit bringing us under conviction, bearing witness with our spirit that we are "the children of God" as we repent of our sins―Ro 8:16) and not by sight (as the world reveals itself to us). "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17 Therefore it is only through His righteousness, i.e. through His commands and His chastening of us when we do not obey Him, as we repent of our sins, i.e. repent for our disobedience (confessing that we are not God), that we can be at-one-with God. (Man receives God's wrath when he rejects His chastening, 'justifying' himself in his disobedience―where dialectic 'reasoning' comes in. We can not be God, but can only come to know Him, in and through His righteousness―we can not be righteous in and of ourselves. We can be "like God" ("knowing good and evil," able to evaluate), but only according to our own sensuousness, i.e. according to our flesh, using dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' it, but we can not be "like God" (be righteous in and of ourselves). If we could we would not need God (need faith). We would be God (be only of sight).
Apart from our use of dialectic 'reasoning,' which deceives us into thinking that we are 'righteous' in and of ourselves, i.e. 'righteous' according to our "human nature," we know that we are unrighteous (wicked, in and of ourselves) when we hear the Word of God preached and taught as is. Therefore righteousness can only be imputed by God to us, according to our faith in Him, and can not be achieved through our works, i.e. according to our reasoning abilities (which are only opinions) and our actions, all of which are subject to sight, i.e. subject to sensuousness, i.e. subject to the world. While we, in our bodies of sin, either accept God, repenting of our sin's and accepting Him by faith, or reject him, yet still having a "guilty conscience," knowing that we are wrong, struggling to 'justify' our sinful nature yet unable to do so, those of dialectic 'reasoning,' 'justify their sinful nature ("human nature") as being "normal," and therefore praxis sin without having a "guilty conscience." They are of the way of abomination. The 'drive' and 'purpose' of dialectic 'reasoning is to negate the issue of righteousness by 'justifying' the praxis of abomination ('justifying' "human nature," sensuousness, the flesh as being "normal") in the mind, heart, and action of "all" men (if everyone is thinking it and doing it than it must be "normal," it must be 'right'). Leviticus 18-20 warns us of the praxis (practice) of dialectic 'reasoning.' For abomination to "come out of the closet" and be "tolerated" (accepted), righteousness must be negated (the word of God must no longer be preached and taught "as is," not only in the church but also in the public arena, being instead treated as an opinion amongst opinions in an environment of dialogue, thereby negating it as the word of God, making it an opinion of men).
With God there are only two ways, the way of righteousness (faith) and the way of unrighteousness (sight, sensuousness). The way of abomination deceives people into believing that there is a third way. A way of "acceptance" and "toleration" of abomination, deceiving the righteous into believing that they will also be "accepted" and "tolerated," when in truth, they already have been negated. The very act of "acceptance" and "toleration" of abomination negates righteousness (negates "right and wrong") in the thoughts and actions of men. This is the dialectic way.
Using education as an example: "Although these instruments [Bloom's Taxonomies] were derived from techniques developed from the Eight-Year Study, their application to the field of personal beliefs, where 'right' and 'wrong' is strongly emphasized, represented a new venture [the "new venture" being the negation of "right and wrong" as the only way of thinking and acting]." (Eugene R. Smith and R. W. Tyler, Appraising and Recording Student Progress) "Bloom's Taxonomies" are curriculum material all teachers must learn in college, i.e. learning how to apply them in their classroom, if they are to be certify. All schools, to be accredited, must also apply them. They were dedicated to Ralph Tyler. Bloom wrote in the first book, Taxonomy of Educational Outcomes: Book 1 Cognitive Domain, "The authors leaned heavily on the instruments of the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (1933-41)." Tyler's view of the school was: "In most schools, each student is respected as a human being without discrimination, the transactions in the classroom are guided by an attempt to be fair and dispense justice, and the class moral is a reflection of the fact that the members care about the welfare of others." (Ralph Tyler in Frank Brown, Education for Responsible Citizenship) Tyler wrote this in the mid 70's. I don't know what schools he was talking about. It was not one I attended. Therefore, according to Tyler (and dialectic 'reasoning') the classroom environment (the "feelings," "thoughts," and "actions" of the children) must be 'liberated' and then used to 'change' the present society, creating a "new" society ('liberating' the children from the restraints of the "old" world order, i.e. from the beliefs and values and the traditions and customs of their parents, with there absolute "right and wrong" way of thinking), negating the authority of the Father.
While an adulterous people sin with a "guilty conscience," being caught between their love of sensuousness and their recognition of (and their concern regarding) God's righteousness, fearing God's judgment upon their sins, a people of abomination sin without a "guilty conscience," having used dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' "human nature," i.e. 'justifying' their sin as being "normal," thereby negating God's judgment as having any relevance. An adulterous people, caught between their desire for righteousness and their love of sensuousness (their desire for approval from the Father and the world at the same time, engendering a condition of antithesis, a belief-action dichotomy, sinning but having a "guilty conscience" about it, not going beyond two, i.e. duality, in immoral relationship, sustaining a black and white, right and wrong way of thinking and acting) can be 'changed' into a people of abomination (unlimited, i.e. multiple, i.e. a plurality, a spectrum of varied immoral relationships, initiating and sustaining a gray, varied, adaptable to 'change,' "tolerant of ambiguity" way of thinking and acting) 'justifying' their praxis of "unity" through their use of dialectic 'reasoning,' through the synthesis of sensuousness and reasoning, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning' being used to justify, in the thoughts and actions (the "theory and practice") of "all" men the negation of righteousness ("self-restraint," "self-control" according to God the Father's will) as an issue of concern―abomination thereafter becoming the law of the land. "'... The conflict between civilization and sexuality is caused by the circumstance that sexual love is a relationship between two people,... whereas civilization is founded on relations between large groups of persons ["the village," the community, i.e. the "common" unity].... In no other case does Eros so plainly betray the core of his being, his aim of making one out of many; but when he has achieved it in the proverbial way through the love of two human beings, he is not willing to go further.'" (Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents)
The 'quest' of dialectic 'reasoning' is the uniting of the diversity (deviancy, 'changingness') of "humanity" into "oneness," uniting it into and upon a common "feeling" of "oneness," through consensus (sensual consent). Thus (using the Father-children relationship to explain the dialectic process), the condition of thesis (the Father's 'unchanging' position of restraint) and the condition of antithesis (the child's desire to relate unrestrained with that which the Father restrains him from, the child's desire to 'change' yet not being able to because of the Father's 'unchanging' way) is overcome through the negation of the Father's position to restrain the child (negating his condition of 'unchangingness' in the child's life), where synthesis with the object of desire (the object in and of the world, the "other") and the desire to unite with it (the subject being the child, his "natural inclination" to relate with the object which is in and of the world unrestrained) are 'justified' as being "normal," of "human nature," allowing and encouraging him to become "one" (unity) with the world, where both the one and the other, the child and the objects of the world are united or synthesized as "one," becoming the "new" thesis (a "new" position, a "new" order of the world based upon 'changingness,' readily adaptable to 'change'). With the dialectic cycle repeating itself, uniting ever larger groups into "oneness," the universe will eventual become "one." Which, according to dialectic 'reasoning' was there in the beginning (the desire for unity, for "oneness" with, in, and through the world), in, with, and through the child's "human nature"―the child's "nature" of 'changingness' (his "natural inclination" to keep up with the 'changing' world, i.e. the 'changing' times) having to be rescued, i.e. "redeemed" (through his use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. a 'reasoning' process of self-social-world-nature-environment-universe as "one" 'justification') from the Father's restraint (his "unnatural," "top-down," 'unchanging' way of thinking and acting), "reconciling" the child back to the world, as it was before the Father's first command and his threat of chastening for disobedience (which, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' engendered the "guilty conscience," i.e. created the feelings of "guilt" for being "normal," i.e. for being deviant).
Adultery and abomination, both find their common ground in the sensuousness of sexual pleasures, which according to dialectic 'reasoning,' begins in infancy. Hegel, with Marx and Freud following in suit, built his whole system upon the carnal nature of the child (the child unrestrained by the Father's authority). "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) "Freud, Hegel, and Nietzsche are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force [the Father's authority to give commands to his children and chasten them when they disobey Him] in order to explain repression." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
The so called "repressed," the sulking "children of disobedience," the "pushers" of abomination, the dialectic 'reasoner's of 'changingness,' the facilitators of 'change' (not intellectuals as they want all to believe but emotional's which they really are) perceive the Father as a Sadist and the children, who obey Him without question (following Him in faith), as Masochists, classifying all believers as Sadomasochists, i.e. classifying righteousness (as a filthy mind would) as a "sexual perversion" (thereby perpetuating a hate toward righteousness across a nation which once exonerated it, i.e. supplanting God's love, righteousness with man's love, sensuousness). "In Escape from Freedom, Fromm offered the sado-masochistic character as the core of the authoritarian personality [one honoring the Father, i.e. accepting His authority]." (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination) Fromm wrote: ". . . Definition of religious experience [a "top-down" system] as experience of absolute dependence is the definition of the masochistic experience in general." "Both the sadistic and the masochistic trends are caused by the inability of the isolated individual to stand alone and his need for a symbiotic relationship [turning to someone who is not of and/or greater than his sensuous 'moment,' who is not in agreement or alignment with his 'immediate' "experiencing" of the world, i.e. supernatural] to overcome this aloneness." (Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom) The idea being, by separating the child from God or his Father and then, in his state of aloneness, reattaching him to that which he has in common with all the world, i.e. his "natural inclination" to relate with the world in pleasure, thinking and acting according to his carnal "human nature," uniting with others going through the same dialectic "experience" (called consensus, i.e. uniting, i.e. becoming as "one" through sensuousness, thus negating righteousness), he can, through the dialectic process of 'change' (with his "guilty conscience," the Father's voice within, negated) be brought into the praxis (social action) of abomination―there is no "guilty conscience" in the praxis of dialoguing opinions to a consensus, i.e. to a "feeling" of "oneness" ("How do you feel," "What do you think" negating "Dad said ....," i.e. "It is written").
How we got to where we are today is though the praxis of "counseling," mediation, and facilitated meetings of 'change,' uniting us upon the "common ground" of our (read: collective, for the sake of unity) "feelings" and our "thoughts" and not upon the authority of God's (the Father's) words, with our "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. our carnal lusts 'driving' our lives instead of God, the Father, directing them. Those were removed in the 50's by the church (in its silence, in its apathy, and its "tolerance" of man's carnal "human nature," in its focus upon the youth via. youth groups instead of the Father's "top-down" authority, in its embracing of psychology, i.e. the study of hedonism for the 'purpose' of actualizing it, as a tool for "knowing oneself" instead of the Word of God alone) when prayer, scriptures, the Ten Commandments and chastening were removed from the public schools. When the classroom experience for the students moved ('shifted') from the teaching of truth and facts (with teachers up front inculcating truth, truth being established above and beyond the child's self cognition in the 'moment,' i.e. not being engendered in, of, and from his own "sense experience," therefore having to be accepted by faith, "memorized," and applied when called for, inculcating obedience to a higher authority than the child's own "human nature") to the sharing of students opinions (group grades based upon the praxis of consensus through the use of Bloom's Taxonomies, where truth is relative, i.e. not lasting "for all times and places" and therefore subject to the ever 'changing' "sense experiences" of the student, 'discovered' through the witness of their own common life experiences, 'discovered' through their use of dialectic 'reasoning') the nation was 'shifted' from a focus upon righteousness (obedience to and a respect for higher authority, God being the highest authority over the father) to a focus upon sensuousness (to the 'justification' of "human nature," man's carnal sensuous nature, as being "normal," i.e. the standard by which to establish the individual-social "norm"). "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 Having, in education, i.e. in the classroom, negated the Father as an issue of importance, with His "truth established for all time and all places," truth was no longer the way of life for the next generation, at least "establishment" truth. Man's (the student's) common "sense experiences" with others of like "feelings" and "thoughts" in the 'moment' became the way of 'discovering' the 'changing' truth of the 'moment.' We certainly saw the result of the use of Bloom's Taxonomies in the 60's. We are now living in the cesspool (abomination) of its actualization today, all in the name of 'change.'
Side note (but fits here): When the "church" puts, next to the name of Jesus, "in the name of 'change,'" you know you are going into Babylon. Only God, through His Word, i.e. "top-down," can change your heart. Any other 'change' is just a 'change' of scenery, leaving your heart in a state of "equality," i.e. in the hands of men, deceived, wicked, and condemned―where "counseling," mediation, and facilitated meetings of consensus, i.e. where experiences of dialectic 'reasoning,' leave you, whether at the workplace, in government, in the classroom, in the home, or in the "church." God wants' your flesh dead, not working "with Him" in "helping" Him building His kingdom through the praxis of consensus. God can not do anything "with you" until you are dead, dead to your dialectic 'reasoning,' dead to you 'justifying' your flesh, i.e. "how you feel and what you think," and alive in Him, doing what His Father says, living according to His Word and His Word alone.
According to those of dialectic 'reasoning' it is the sensuous pleasures of all the organs of the body, seeking oneness with the world, which is the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of life (although they, in denial or hoping to hid the truth of their agenda, would deny it, labeling it under the "building of human relationships," becoming "normal" through therapy, where pro-creation is not the necessary outcome but rather the uninhibited sensation of sensual "oneness," i.e. universal peace and harmony). Norman Brown, in his book Life Against Death, explained the reasoning behind merging Karl Marx (who built his ideology upon sensuousness, i.e. "sense experience") and Sigmund Freud, uniting the world upon "human nature" (sensuousness, "pleasure," what Hegel called "enjoyment," of self and the world as one) by 'liberating' the child's carnal nature ("human nature") from the Father's authority (using social-psychology to 'redeem' the child, and therefore society, from the influences of the Father's authority, undoing his dependence upon his Father for direction, thus 'reconciling' the child, and therefore mankind, back to his own nature and the world, engendering a perverse world, a world of abomination). Marx, by the way, was not "more right than wrong," as some "church" leaders and followers say. He was dead wrong. As dead wrong as Freud and all others who praxis dialectic 'reasoning.' Call it sociology or psychology or social psychology or any other name you want, it is all the same, the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e. the way of death.
Brown wrote, regarding the merging of psychology (the individual) with sociology (with society): "Sexual instincts seeks union with objects in the world." "Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world." "Infants have a richer sexual life than adults." "Infantile sexuality is the pursuit of pleasure obtained through the activity of any and all organs of the human body ['touching, seeing, muscular activity, pain, etc.']." "What the child knows consciously and the adult unconsciously, is that we are nothing but body." "In man, infantile sexuality is repressed and never outgrown;" "Normal adult sexuality, judged by the standard of infantile sexuality, is an unnatural restriction of the erotic potentialities of the human body." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." "Our repressed desires are the desires we had unrepressed, in childhood; and they are sexual desires." "Freud takes with absolute seriousness the proposition of Jesus: 'Except ye become as little children, ye can in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven." "Therefore the question confronting mankind is the abolition of repression - in traditional Christian language, the resurrection of the body." "Psychoanalysis declares the fundamental bisexual character of human nature;" "Eros is the foundation of morality." (ibid.) The only 'purpose' of psychology, sociology, philosophy (which those in the "practice," in denial, would deny) is to negate righteousness (negate the Father's authority, i.e. praxis patricide) through the praxis of abomination ('justified' "human nature," i.e. 'justify' the praxis of incest). Read Wilhelm Reich's take on the issue―that an abortion instantly kills the father structure of the traditional patriarchal home.
If private means "nobodies business" and public means "everybody's business" then to tax property means property is no longer "our property," private property, individual property, but "Our property," public property, socialist property to be used for the propagation of socialism, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning.' To license a car makes it public property. To force people to have health care (for their own, or rather for the public "good") makes our very own bodies public property, government property, socialist property. "Health" meaning not only physical health but mental and social health as well, with social-psychology, as described above in their very own words, setting the standard to determine our worth or value, as an individual "citizen," weighting our thoughts and our actions upon our "willful" participation in and contribution to socialist praxis, i.e. according to our "tolerance" of, if not embracing of, abomination.
Most people do not have the capability to think clearly today, having been under the influence of dialectic 'reasoning' for so long, i.e. having learned (been programmed) in dialectic 'reasoning' ("group think"). Having learned to think through or reason through their feelings (or the feelings of others), they can no longer receive the truth, the truth hurting their feelings (or the feeling of others), forcing (triggering) them to shut down their thinking to protect themselves from developing a "guilty conscience," becoming "abnormal," guilty of "neurosis," i.e. becoming a social misfit (not at-one-with the group) again. This is why you get that deer in the headlight look from people when you attempt to share the truth with them, warning them of where they are going, and taking the rest of us, i.e. supporting laws which (and people who) take away our inalienable rights, rights which come from God, from the Father (from the "top-down" system of righteousness) and not from man (from "human nature," from the nature of the "child within," from the "equality" system of sensuousness―with "human reasoning" being used to 'justify' sensuousness over and against the system of righteousness), as so many professors and teachers ("Christian" professors and teachers included) falsely, i.e. out of ignorance (having been deceived, which does not excuse them), propagandize in the classroom today, teaching "human rights" instead of inalienable rights, thereby legitimizing, i.e. "legalizing" abomination in the thoughts and actions (theory and practice) of the next generation.
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6 What has happened and is happening to the children of this nation (aborted, those not aborted living openly in sin and rebellion, exonerating, perpetrating, and participating in revolution, in dialectic 'reasoning' 'justifying' their actions) began when God (the authority of the Father, His law, His Word, prayer, and chastening) was removed from their parent's and now their education, i.e. those who were not killed by their parents for the love of pleasure sake. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 1:7 It is amazing how wise a child can become when he hears his father's belt passing through his belt loops. Dialectic 'reasoning' removes the fear of (judgment of) God and a love for Him and His Word (above all else), from the thoughts and actions of men (to receive God's mercy and grace you must first recognize your wickedness, confess your sin and rebellion against Him, and repent, asking Him for His forgiveness). But when man 'justifies' himself (his "human nature") before his own eyes, through his use of dialectic' reasoning,' then Romans 3:18 becomes the way of life (and death). "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:18 "The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful. The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good. He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil [is "toleration of ambiguity," i.e. is tolerant of abomination]." Psalms 36:1-4 When you "tolerate ambiguity" you "tolerating abomination." You then become a part of a culture which not only has no "guilty conscience" for its unrighteous thoughts and unrighteous actions but hates righteousness, i.e. is 'driven' by and 'purpose' in the negation of righteousness, negating that which engenders the "guilty conscience," the conscience thereafter not longer being subject to the Father's will (of righteousness) but of the child's will (of sensuousness) and therefore seared (the seared conscience being called the "super-ego" to deceive the world into believing that it still has a conscience―which can only be "top-down"). "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual comes to ask himself 'What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers, On Becoming a Person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)
While a man of dialectic 'reasoning' might say: "Man has only to understand himself, to take himself as the measure of all aspects of life, to judge according to his being, to organise the world in a truly human manner according to the demands of his own nature, and he will have solved the riddle of our time. But there is no other salvation for him, he cannot regain his humanity, his substance, other than by thoroughly overcoming all religious ideas and returning firmly and honestly, not to 'God', but to himself." (Frederick Engels, The Condition of England A review of Past and Present, by Thomas Carlyle) The scriptures warn us: "... but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise." "For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth." II Corinthians 10:12b, 18
It is not that God has rejected us (He sent His only begotten Son to 'redeem' us, by His blood, and 'reconcile' us back to Him) it is that we have rejected Him by making ourselves the measure of life and not Him. Martin Luther, the initiator of the Protestant Reformation, returning man to God and His word as the foundation for their life, and not man―where we got the modern age (and the strong middle class) with man (the "priesthood of all believers") doing his best to the glory of God, over excelling in whatever he put his hands to―wrote: "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." (Luther's Works. V. 32, p. 217) But make sure you are reading and studying from the Word of God and not the opinions of men.
It is not that God has rejected us (He sent His only begotten Son to 'redeem' us, by His blood, and 'reconcile' us back to Him) it is that we have rejected Him. Martin Luther, the initiator of the Protestant Reformation, returning man to God and His word as the foundation for their life, and not man―where we got the modern age (and the strong middle class) with man (the "priesthood of all believers") doing his best to the glory of God, over excelling in whatever he put his hands to―wrote: "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." (Luther's Works. V. 32, p. 217) But make sure you are reading and studying from the Word of God and not the opinions of men.
Without the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' all man can do is feel guilty for following after his "natural inclinations," i.e. for "doing his own thing" instead of obeying God or, as a child, obeying his father (as the Apostle Paul describes in Romans 7:14-25). But through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. through man's ability to 'justify his "human nature" as being "normal" (the standard by which to measure the worth or value of life), there is no need for a "guilty conscience" for disobeying God or the father, since the person is doing that which is "normal," i.e. doing that which is right in the eyes of men, i.e. thinking and acting according to nature. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' man's "fixations on perversions and obscenities, demonstrate[s] the refusal of the unconscious essence of [his] being to acquiesce in the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower." The praxis of incest ("perversions and obscenities"), i.e. becoming "one" with that which is of nature (in "enjoyment"), thus becomes right ('righteous'). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' any restraint against "human nature," i.e. inhibiting or blocking man's "natural inclination" to be at-one-with his own nature and nature itself―any act or threat of act "repressing" his "society of impulses, feelings, and thoughts," (Carl Rogers) which are common to all men, and thus perceived, i.e. "sense perceived" (Karl Marx) as being abnormal―engenders "neurosis" and needs to be negated (patricide) if man is to become normal again (before the Father's first command and threat of chastening, i.e. before man's first encounter with the system of righteousness in the garden in Eden). Brown wrote: "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, is a clear instance of repression; and therefore leads to neurosis." "Human consciousness [the body's natural "impulses and urges," called "mimesis"] can be liberated from the parental (Oedipal) complex only be being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." (ibid.) The use of dialectic 'reasoning' is therefore an infringement upon our religious freedoms, i.e. the freedom of religion (as in the soviet union, you can keep it as long as you don't share it, i.e. make it public, thereby re-engendering a "guilty conscience" in society).
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' man's social freedom rests solely upon his ability to 'liberate' his carnal nature ("human nature") from the restraints of the Father (from the "guilty conscience"). "Universal Reconciliation relies on a reason that is before reason-mimesis or 'impulse.'" (Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action) It is here, in dialectic 'reasoning,' in man's ability to 'justify' his "human nature" as being "normal," that abomination finds its 'justification.' According to dialectic 'reasoning,' abomination isn't a sin, it is a "disease" which man can use to help himself evolve to "a higher state of being." Righteousness is a sin, preventing man from becoming himself, preventing the individual and society from becoming as one, according to what man has in common, his "human nature." "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 The "lust of the flesh" being man's "cognition" of the world around him, becoming aware of and wanting the sensually gratifying things in the world which draw him to it, i.e. his "human nature" wanting the things of pleasure, "lust of the eyes" being man's "affection" for the things of gratification of the world around him, locating, focusing upon, and thinking upon the things of pleasure, i.e. his "natural inclination" to approach them to apprehend them, and the "pride of life" being his "psychomotor" ability to "control" the world around him to initiate and sustain the pleasure he derives from the gratifying things of the world around him. This is the only platform upon which man can stand when he declares "human nature" as being "normal," if "unrestrained" in his thoughts and his actions abomination becoming the standard from which to determine right from wrong. Wrong being that which restrains "human nature," "repressing" man, preventing him from becoming "normal."
You can not see the dialectic process for what it is (abomination) without looking at it through the eyes of righteousness. Through the eyes of sensuousness, through the use of your "human eyes and human ears" ("having eyes which are human eyes, and ears which are human ears" Karl Marx), through your "human nature," you will support it, letting it take over your life, i.e. negating righteousness as having any relevance in your life and in the life of others. You can not understand what has happening to America without looking at it, as one author put it, through a "neo-Marxist lens." (Sheila Slaughter, The Higher Learning and High Technology : Dynamics of Higher Education Policy Formation) But first you must know that Marx considered faith in God an "opiate" as Freud considered it the cause of "neurosis," both blinded by their love of dialectic 'reasoning.' "And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." Matthew 13:14, 15
While the law can save no person (engendering legalism, with man attempting to silence his "guilty conscience" through his own works―with Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, being the only one capable of fulfilling the law and who did, who was and still is obedient to His Heavenly Father's will in all things commanded, even unto death), neither can lawlessness (engendering licentiousness and abomination, with man having no "guilty conscience" to silence, recognizing no Father's authority to be obeyed, His law no longer required, perceived as "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant" in the 'changing' times). But God, our Heavenly Father, has provided a way of salvation from our carnal "human nature" and His condemnation upon us for our following after it, i.e. for our sins, i.e. for our breaking of His law, by the righteousness (obedience) of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, by His word, by His grace, and by our faith in Him alone. "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" 2 Corinthians 10:5 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians. 2:8, 9 "What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace. God forbid." Romans 6:15
The following articles expose dialectic 'reasoning' ("human reasoning" 'justifying' "human nature" which our nation has embraced as its foundation for thinking and acting, i.e. for "doing business") for what it is: the praxis of abomination. "Freud noted that … patricide [negating righteousness, negating obedience to the father's will, i.e. obeying him above all things (without question), hostility towards the father and his way of thinking as the way of life] and incest [augmenting sensuousness, obeying (following after) "human nature" according to (being lead by) one's "natural inclinations" to relate (unite) with the world as "one," as the way of life] … are part of man's deepest nature." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) "On the basis of Kant's theory, the aesthetic function [sensuousness 'justifying' reasoning and reasoning 'justifying' sensuousness, i.e. the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning' over and against righteousness] becomes ... the philosophy of culture ... a non-repressive civilization, in which reason is sensuous and sensuousness rational ...." (Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)
Immanuel Kant (with Hegel, neo-Kant's, ... Transformational Marxists following in suit) put it this way: 'purposiveness without purpose,' 'lawfulness without law' in that aesthetic is the "enjoyment" of an object (according to the natural spontaneous laws of sensuousness, i.e. 'lawfulness' or reasoning based upon the "feelings" of the 'moment beyond the laws of cognition, beyond man's ability to analyze and control, yet within him and nature, drawing him to nature and nature to him in the 'moment,' fulfilling man's "natural inclination" to relate with (be-at-one with) something in the environment, in the world in the 'moment') without the object itself controlling the outcome (establishing laws which have to be followed), only one's sensuous experience with the 'moment' becoming reality (having any 'purpose' or meaning or 'reason'), with a "feeling" of 'law' and a "feeling" of 'purpose' (sensuous "freedom" and sensuous "beauty") becoming one in the sensuous 'moment' alone. In that 'moment,' the object has no value or worth in and of itself other than as an object of "enjoyment," i.e. its value or worth being based upon its engendering of spontaneity and sensuousness (united as one) in the 'moment.'
You had better not get old and grumpy (with money or using up money your children can inherit or the government needs) and be dependant upon a machine in a nursing home or hospital if you have children (or government leaders) who think like this. "We care about you" and "health care" take on new meaning in the 'light' of dialectic 'reasoning,' where the "health," i.e. "enjoyment" of the children (or the public) become "equal" to (read: over and against) the "health," i.e. the life of the aging parent (or unborn child) who engender (or have the potential of engendering) pain, i.e. adversely affecting the "health," i.e. the physical, mental, and social health, i.e. the "enjoyment" of the children (or "the people"). "We are not taking your life because we 'hate' you, we are encouraging you to "die with dignity" because we want to, and want others to (that will make it less selfish) 'enjoy' life" without pain, and that includes you." The art (aesthetics) of dialectic 'reasoning,' is to negate the authority (the rigidity of the laws) of the Father, the authority of God, in man's personal-social (both united as one in the praxis of consensus) "experience," where "freedom," i.e. 'lawfulness,' i.e. "liberty" (read: lawlessness) is the "beauty," i.e. 'purposiveness,' i.e. 'reality' (read: praxis) of life (negating righteousness as the issue of life. The dialectic idea being: "If, in 'changing' times, we no longer need to recognize laws (doctrines) which prevent us for 'changing' (condemn us for 'changing,' for practicing heresy), then we no longer need a savior to save us from the laws (read: lawlessness) of 'changingness.'"
The praxis of dialectic 'reasoning' in the church (used to supposedly "grow" it) is the praxis of "patricide and incest" (the negation of the Father's will by turning to the will of "the children of disobedience," building "human relationship," a "feeling" of "oneness," upon "human nature") in the church ("in the name of the Lord"). God has warned us not to participate in its praxis. "...that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness..." Jude 1: 3-4 (excerpt) "This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling [having no "guilty conscience"] have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." "But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." Ephesians 4:17-25 "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds [the word for "deeds" in the Greek is praxis]; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." Colossians 3:9, 10 The Soviet Union had a state church, a dialectic 'reasoning' church, just as we have today in America, so that carnal man could feel at home before a God of his own making (a God at-one-with, non-condemning of, man's feelings, thoughts, and actions), i.e. an unrighteous (dialectic) God made in the image of man, a God seeking oneness with man "as he is," a God at peace with man's carnal nature, "tolerant of ambiguity," i.e. tolerant of abomination.
You can not keep your faith and praxis dialectic 'reasoning.' The one will always set itself over and against the other. "No man 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." Matthew 6:24 Why then are "Christians" (church leadership) growing the "church" upon the shifting sands (paradigm 'shift') of dialectic 'reasoning,' walking by sight (taking polls, surveys, and feasibility studies, asking men for their opinions instead of turning to God and His Word "as is," and following Him―instead twisting it to fit with their dialectic, i.e. gnostic, i.e. "oneness," unity built upon "human nature" ideology), 'driven' by the flesh, 'purposed' in glorifying the works of men (doing it in the name of the Lord), 'justifying' themselves through "human reasoning," instead of letting God build His assembly of saints (the εκκλησια, the "called out ones") upon the solid rock of His Word, with believers walking by faith, justified in Christ, lead by the Holy Spirit, doing the Father's will in all things, glorifying God alone?
As the "church" goes, the nation goes, with man (in the home, in the workplace, in the neighborhood, city, county, state, and nation, in government, and even in the "church") having no "guilty conscience" for his dialectic praxis, 'justifying' himself ('justifying' his carnal theory and his carnal practice) because he has "the approval of men" (consensus), i.e. the carnality of man (that which is common to all men) as his witness. While we are in the world we are not to be of the world. We are to be a witness of God's work in us, living according to His will, not living according to the will of our "human nature." When the "church" makes "human nature" (the building of "human relationships," for and through the augmentation of "enjoyment," engendering "oneness" with the world) its 'drive' and its 'purpose,' then we as believers must "come out" of her (come back to our Heavenly Father, through Christ), at the market, on the street, in the home, etc. (wherever God leads us), having fellowship with those of like faith: "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20) for our souls sake. "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18
Jesus came not to get us out of the world but to get the world out of us (with us in Him, i.e. Him in us). When the world comes into the "church" and wants you to "tolerate" it, it is time to expose it for what it is, not of God (at God's leading), and if heard, restore the fellowship back to God and His Word, back to faith, but if not, be either "extruded" (excommunicated without or with writ) and leave or leave. Come out of her, i.e. the dialectic "church," i.e. the harlot church.
There is no Father's authority in the "dialoguing of opinions," only "equals." Therefore, in the "dialoguing of opinions," no one has a "guilty conscience" in disobeying the Father, since in the "dialoguing of opinions," there is not Father's authority to disobey. "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." Romans 1:21
The problem anyone faces, who attempts to explain the dialectic process, is its elusiveness, or better yet its commonality. Things can become so "common" that they are not noticeable ("too close to home to see, or if seen, wanted to be exposed"). What we all have in "common" is our tendency to resent things that prevent us from doing what "we" want to do, thinking that life would be "better" if they did not exist, not realizing that sometimes by getting rid of that which we resent, we can actually end up negating that which restrains us from destroying ourselves. Things that are pleasurable to us are "positive" because our nature is to "enjoy" things that are pleasurable to us physically, emotionally (mentally), and socially. Things that are painful to us are "negative" because our nature is to avoid that which is hurtful to us, physically, emotionally (mentally), and socially. If you base 'reality' upon "human nature" (the dialectic process) then you measure the worth of your day (the worth of life itself) upon how much pleasure vs. how much pain the day has brought your way. Therefore carnal man judges and values his life and the life of others only upon the pleasure-pain spectrum of "human nature," only upon the condition of 'changingness.'
It is not that we should seek after pain and avoid pleasure. It is that life is not based upon that which is of "nature" only, of "sense experience" only. Unless you have deceived yourself and think like a "humanist," i.e. like a "common-ist" aka a communists (a "communist with a smile"), a Transformational Marxist (a "user friendly" Marxist), a social-psychologist (Marx and Freud synthesized), a facilitator of 'change,' a "communitarianist" (all being the same), you know that there is more to life then Eros, i.e. more than the pleasure or "enjoyment" of this life only―being lovers of pleasure more than God (or in place of God, i.e. making pleasure or the "enjoyment" of this life God). 2 Timothy 3:1-8 With a world established upon the "approach pleasure - avoid pain" paradigm of 'change' only, with "human nature" subject only to the ever 'changing' conditions (temptations) of the world (living in and for the 'moment') and those who manipulate it (to their own end), i.e. seducing, deceiving, and manipulating man, i.e. "controlling" him through his own "natural inclination" to relate with the 'immediate' environment in the pursuit of pleasure and in the avoidance of pain only, there is no right of sovereignty, i.e. no right of a patriarch, no right of a Father, i.e. no right to protect (initiate and sustain) His "Mine not yours" way of thinking and acting.
In the consensus of "social harmony" and "world peace" (socialist harmony and worldly peace) "Mine not yours" (private) is negated, i.e. replaced with the "public-private" tyranny of "Ours, not just yours"―"We working for Us." While Jesus claimed "equality" with His Heavenly Father ("I and my Father are one." John 10:30) being "fashioned as a man," He humbled Himself under His Father's authority, to show us we are not to claim "equality" with God, be as God(s) ourselves. "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Philippians 2:8 "He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." Matthew 26:42 Then, when He ascended into Heaven, He did not take His Heavenly Father's place, demanding "equality" on His terms, i.e. "Father, Your seat is My seat, Not just Yours." He instead sat Himself down at His Heavenly Father's right hand, maintaining a "top-down" order. "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." Hebrews 12:2 It is His Father who placed all things in His only begotten Son's hands (the Son, who even today, is waiting for His Father's command to go get His bride). Not once has our Lord stepped out from under a "top-down" patriarchal order, out from under His Heavenly Father's commands. He has called us to be like Him, doing the same, even in our daily prayer to seek His will, regarding all things. "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." Matthew 6:9, 10 It is man, in consensus with himself (even in the "church" doing it in "the name of the Lord"), who refuses to humble himself before God, instead thinking and acting according to dialectic 'reasoning,' "leaning to his own understanding," 'justifying his carnal "human nature," who will be humbled on the day of judgment before both the Father and the Son. "The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day." Isaiah 2:11 "Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:" 1 Peter 5:6 This is something those of dialectic 'reasoning' can not do (humble themselves before God) and will not experience (being exalted by Him), instead (being exalted by men only) experiencing judgment and eternal damnation for their "pernicious" ways (2 Peter 2:1-22). See the article Facilitators - Wells Without Water. Bold added to verses above.
After all is said and done the thesis, antithesis, synthesis of the dialectic process (the words most people associate with it) is all about the Father-children relationship. The thesis (position) represents the condition of the Father's authority, His authority to author commands, commands which his children must obey rather than follow after their "natural inclinations" to relate with the world (the natural environment around them or in their imagination) in the 'moment,' as well as the Father's authority to chasten His children when His commands are not obeyed, thereby not only having the recognized right to author commands but also the recognized right to enforce them, initiating and sustaining his authority to rule over His children (rule over his home, his land, his business, where we get the right of property). His "Do what I say," His "Don't disobey or else," and His "Because I say so" represent his authority to author commands and his authority to enforce them, initiating and sustaining his position of authority over that which is His.
This way of thinking and acting is called a patriarchal paradigm, where right and wrong (good and evil) is determined not by the child's "natural inclination" to "approach pleasure and avoid pain" but according to the Father's will. This system (if I can call it that) is a system of righteousness in that God gives his children commands to be obeyed and chastens them when they disobey, with those children who refuse to accept His chastening (refusing to repent of their disobedience), i.e. the "children of disobedience" (refusing to be His children) receiving His wrath. (It is better to receive the Father's chastening and repent than His wrath and be condemned.) While the pattern or the system or the paradigm is the same for both the Heavenly Father and the earthly father the outcome is different in that the Heavenly Father chastens His children so that they "might be partakers of His holiness" while the earthly father chastens his children "after his own pleasure." "For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness." Hebrews 12:10 This thesis condition (not as those of dialectic 'reasoning' would define it) is defined in Hebrews 12:5-11.
Those of dialectic 'reasoning' set out to negate this "top-down" thesis of righteousness by replacing it with their own "thesis" of sensuousness, i.e. of the "approach pleasure - avoid pain" spectrum or continuum of "human nature," so that they can initiate and sustain the system of 'change,' i.e. a system of heresy (why their paradigm or way of thinking and acting is called a heresiarchal paradigm of 'change'). Have you heard the word 'change' recently.
Antithesis represents, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the condition of conflict or tension created by the desire of the child to obey his Father, receiving His approval and his natural inclination to relate with the environment, relate with the world in the 'moment,' in "enjoyment." For the child to obey the Father's will means that he can not do that which he "wants" to do or what he wills (do that which is "enjoyable" according to his "natural inclination" to relate with the world, in the 'moment') and yet to do that which he wants to do or wills to do (approach pleasure or "enjoy" the world) means that he will have to disobey the Father's will and "get into trouble," i.e. be chastened by the Father, i.e. experience pain, which he wants to avoid (why children scheme how they can avoid being caught and lie when they are―both manifestations of dialectic 'reasoning'). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' antithesis is only the condition of conflict or tension between approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, the child desiring to "enjoy" the pleasure which comes from relating with that which is gratifying to him in the environment and the pleasure which comes from the Father's approval, but "restrained" by the fear of pain he will receive from the Father if he fulfills that which is of his own "human nature." (I am explaining all the works of philosophy here, i.e. man's effort to know himself as he "is," according to his own nature and the world he finds himself in. Without the Father, i.e. God revealing Himself to the children, i.e. man, all man can know is what he "is," like children, carnal, which he can only "senses perceive" as being "normal," perceiving himself as being "good," i.e. righteous in his own eyes.) This is the trickery, trap, and tyranny of dialectic 'reasoning.'
By focusing upon the pleasure-pain spectrum or continuum ('changingness') of nature (plurality) rather than the Father's authority ('unchangingness,' rigidity, or "fixity") to restrain his children from thinking and acting according to it (duality), 'justifies,' to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' the potential of synthesis (explained below). The child, approaching pleasure (doing that which is natural, i.e. "doing his own thing") when it goes against his Father's will, incurs not only external pain from the Father (His chastening) but internal pain as well (not receiving the Father's approval). Yet, for the child, not being able to do that which is natural, i.e. approach pleasure, i.e. participate with the world in its "enjoyment" (receiving "its" approval), is to incur internal pain as well as external pain, i.e. the pain of alienation from his own "natural inclination" to relate with the world (not being able to be "himself") as well as the pain of alienation from the world itself (not being able to be with others of like mind, of common carnal desires). By embracing the Father's commands, and himself preaching and teaching them to others, he experiences alienation from those who do not hold to or do not want to hear of his Father's commands, incurring their rejection and wrath. While separating himself from others or others separating themselves from him, even doing harm to him he does not use force to bring others under his way of thinking and acting (which is according to the Father's will―it is the Father who is to judge, chastening His own children, having wrath upon those who are not, according to His time and place), the believer only using force to protect those who are under his authority.
Nowhere in the annals of history have true believers persecuted or killed others for their faith (you can not defend your faith, it defends you) while they have defended their families, their property, their business, i.e. their liberty and even their very own lives, with some choosing not to (as every man has that, God given, right to do). While "Christians," believing the world is their kingdom under God have used (and continue to use) violence to "help" God in creating His kingdom," believers of God's Word, who know Him and His Word, know that the work is the Lords, not theirs, His kingdom is not of man's making but of His own making alone, according to His power alone, for His glory alone. The standard of duality (or established right and wrong) is upon the Father, the children only being able to (in themselves) engender a world of plurality (of diversity), a world 'driven' by and 'purpose' in fulfilling their own "felt" needs of the 'moment.' That is why those of dialectic 'reasoning' focus upon the children (sensuousness), refusing to focus upon the authority of the Father (righteousness), other than to negate it. To synthesis it, i.e. to make righteousness "equal" with sensuousness, or rather sensuousness "equal" with righteousness i.e. to make the Father "equal" with the children and the children "equal" with the Father, making both subject only to "human nature" is to negate righteousness, is to negate the Father's authority to give commands and chasten those who are under His authority when they disobey, in the thoughts and actions of men.
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the duality condition of antithesis is engendered when the "top-down" condition of the patriarchal paradigm, where the Father's authority to give commands to his children and chasten them when they disobey Him supersedes and thereby "represses" the child's natural inclination to relate with the world in the 'moment,' preventing him from initiating and sustaining peace, unity, "oneness," harmony, not only with himself (becoming at-one-with his own nature) but with the the nature of the world as well, living according to his "human nature," doing that which is natural. Therefore the conflict condition of antithesis, according to dialectic 'reasoning' is not between righteousness and sensuousness (which would sustain a "top-down" order) but between the Father's unnatural use of commands and His unnatural use of chasten (pain) upon the child to initiate and sustain His position of authority (his "top-down" order) over and against nature, i.e. over and against the world and the child's nature to be-at-one with the world (his desire to approach the pleasures of the world, to naturally initiate and sustain "oneness" and "equality" with the world over and against the Father's authority), the Father preventing the child from becoming "normal." Normal meaning at-one-with or "equal" within the world. The father, who gives commands which restrain his child's natural inclination and chastens him when he carries them out, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. according to nature, is "irrational" because all fathers are only of the earth and are therefore themselves naturally inclined to approach the pleasures of the world, i.e. seeking to be at-one-with their own nature and the nature of the world they live within. By 'shifting' man's focus from righteousness ("top-down") to sensuousness ("equality," both the nature of the father and the children are the same), through the consensus process (the dialectic process), man has only sensuousness, his carnal "human nature," to stand upon. The trickery of dialectic 'reasoning' is to catch all the righteous in their trap of sensuousness, through their use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. through our "human nature" of self-'justification,' just as Satan did to two in a garden in Eden (Genesis 3:1-6).
With this "logic," by man (individually and collectively) focusing upon the errors (and therefore the "irrationality") of their earthly father's authority (which is the dialectic intent), he can 'justify' his "human nature" as being "normal," he can negate (treat as "irrelevant") in his thoughts and in his actions, the truth of our Heavenly Father, who is perfect. "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 The 'justification' of "human nature," man's "sense experience" (which is the bases of all philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc.) over and against (it can not be equal with) God the Father is the agenda of dialectic 'reasoning,' negating all the earthly father's their God given right of authority, under God. Hegel, Marx', Freud, Rousseau, and with those preceding and following (all following after the same pattern begun in Genesis 3:1-6) had this in common, the negation of the father's authority (as in God's authority) to declare "This is mine and not yours" and enforce it. The earthly father is not perfect, i.e. he is not 'justified' in his own carnal nature, but his office is justified, under God―God's desiring that he serve in his office of authority under Him, with him (the earthly father) and all under his authority coming to know Him (God) as their true and only Father (who is perfect) through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, who is also perfect (His righteousness manifested through His obedience to His Heavenly Father in all things commanded, unto death). "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48
Our "human nature," our "natural inclination" to relate with the world around us, over and against obeying God the Father, engenders our imperfect, that we are not God (that the the child is not "equal" with the father―which, if accepted, i.e. that the child is "equal" with the father, would negate the "top-down" authority of the father, i.e. negate the father, negate the system of righteousness and therefore negate righteousness itself, at least in the thoughts and actions of the child), the law of God simply exposing our sinful nature, i.e. our "human nature" as sinful. (Romans 7:14-25) The only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, loving and obeying His Heavenly Father, in all things commanded (even unto death), came to 'redeem' us from His Father's wrath upon us (because we are not perfect or righteous in and of ourselves, that we are only able to determine good from evil according to our love for the things of this world, i.e. according to own "human nature," according to sensuousness), and 'reconcile' us to His Heavenly Father (making us perfect in Himself), through His blood. This is the message of the gospel, a message of the Father's love for His children, a message of righteousness. Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' 'justifying' "human nature," negate this message, making man's love for himself (individually and collectedly) the focus of life, leaving him imperfect, unrighteous, and condemned. The same is true for all religions. While exonerating the father system (to a certain point), basing themselves upon the "top-down" system of righteousness, they do not know the Heavenly Father, who is only knowable through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, alone, obeying Him according to His Word―above all things created, whether on earth or in the heaven. "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12 (Matthew 7:21-23)
In all of this above I have not once step outside of exposing the dialectic process (dialectic 'reasoning') for what it is, the sinful praxis of man 'justifying' his "human nature" as being "normal," i.e. the method whereby he is able to establish his carnal nature as being the "norm." Yet not once (that I know of) is the dialectic process studied and exposed in our schools (including in the church―we are not to be ignorant of Satan's devices) for what it is, abomination, i.e. the establishing of "human relationship" (which is based upon our carnal sensuousness and our 'reasoning' abilities) over and against (it can not be "equal" with) our relationship with God (which is based only upon His righteousness, His righteousness alone). None would dare. They would lose their jobs and thereby lose not only their income but also their respect "in the eyes of men."
The thesis condition of the Father's authority is a condition of righteousness, in that right and wrong (good and evil) is determined by the Father, not by the child with his "natural inclination" to relate with the world in the 'moment,' living according to his own nature to approach pleasure and avoid pain, which is a spectrum of 'changingness," which is of sensuousness, of nature only. The Father's right - wrong is a condition of unchangingness, changing only according to what He wills alone, not 'changing' according to ("controlled" by) the natural inclinations of the child to relate with the world in the 'moment,' i.e. 'changing' according to the 'changing' world. Therefore, the conflict (duality) between the Father and His child is a conflict between righteousness and sensuousness, not a conflict between approach pleasure - avoid pain, as those of dialectic 'reasoning' would like you to believe (the crisis of the 'moment,' man's "felt" needs of the 'moment,' negating, in the minds of men, the crisis of judgment which is coming upon all men, for disobeying the Father's commands―those not in Christ "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 8:1). It is only in this 'shift' or 'change' from righteousness (the will of the Father) to sensuousness, ("human nature," the will of the child) that the spectrum (plurality, diversity, ambiguity) of 'changingness' can supersede the duality of righteousness and sensuousness, the duality of spirit and flesh, the duality of the Father and the children, the duality of God and man, the duality of right and wrong, negating the authority of the Father to author commands to His children and chasten them when they disobey, negating the right of the Father to initiate and sustain in His children His way of thinking and acting, as He wills, doing that which is right, i.e. of righteousness rather than doing that which is wrong, i.e. of sensuousness only, inhibiting or preventing that which is of the world (unrighteousness) from controlling their lives. I speak of our Heavenly Father although the pattern is represented in our earthly fathers as well. The consensus process is, in the end, only about removing the Father's will in the children (negate the issue of righteousness), as they work together to actualize their "common" "felt" needs.
Those of dialectic 'reasoning' understand that by negating the pattern of the earthly ('liberating' the children from the father's authority, i.e. 'liberating' them to have the 'right' to "question authority," with impunity, getting them to focus upon their own sensuousness, their own "human nature," how they "feel" and what they "think," over and against righteousness, over and against the Father's will) they can negate, in the thoughts and actions of men, the Heavenly Father (the words may be spoken but their heart is not there). This 'shift' in focus, from righteousness to sensuousness, i.e. from God's will to man's will (correlated, by those of dialectic 'reasoning,' with a 'shift' in focus from the Father's will to the child's will―the child's "natural inclination" to relate with the world in the 'moment, i.e. his "human nature" 'justifying,' according to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' the "need" to negate the Father's right to author commands and chasten His children when they disobey Him if man is to become united as one, in consensus), affects every part of our lives today (common "human nature" by sight negating "common salvation" by faith). "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." Jude 1:3-4 This 'shift' in focus makes synthesis, which is an illusion, which is a deception, a "reality" to sensuous man. Take note: while on the day of judgment there are many (plurality, i.e. many people with different points of view or opinions), in truth what matters to you (and to each one of them) is that there is only one, you before God (duality, i.e. with his "point of view," like a Father, being all that matters, yours not counting). Plurality (your opinion amongst opinions, engendered from your "approach pleasure - avoid pain" continuum, i.e. your "human nature" and your 'reasoning' abilities to 'justify it, i.e. lusting after the things of the world) is not going to save you. It will only leave you condemned, in your sin. "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 3:19-21 See also 2 Peter 2:1-22. "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." John 3:17-18
The "plurality" or diversity of the pleasure-pain spectrum of sensuousness (the "ground" upon which synthesis, i.e. "oneness" is built), when it becomes the focus of life, negates the duality (the antithesis) of righteousness-unrighteousness (the Father's will) as the issue of life and death, i.e. when the plurality of the children (the diversity of "felt" needs) become the focus of life (social issues), the issue of obedience to authority, of the "top-down" duality of the Father's authority and the children's obedience is negated as the issue of life (individual issue), other than as an issue to be negated, that is individual rights under God's authority (reflected in the child's obedience to parental authority) is to be negated through the "right of the child." With a world established upon the "pleasure-pain spectrum" of "human nature" there are no inalienable rights to protect the citizens, i.e. no right of the Father to protect his family―to protect his wife, his daughters, his sons, his property, his business, and even his very own life―from the tyranny of "human rights," i.e. from "the children of disobedience," from the heresiarchal paradigm of 'change,' from abomination (as in Sodom), i.e. that for which those of dialectic 'reasoning' stand. The antithesis of "Mine, not yours," which is of God, i.e. of the Father, the dualism (antithesis) of "I'm above, Your are below," the conflict (antithesis) between Spirit and flesh, i.e. the tension between the Father's will ("Obey my commands or else," "Because I said so"―of the "top-down" system of righteousness, where we get "inalienable rights" from, which no man, singularly or collectively, can put a lien upon) and the child's will (following after his "natural inclination" to relate with the world in pleasure, living in the 'moment,' trying to get what he "wants" by getting the Father into dialogue with the question "Why?" in response to the Father's command, i.e. attempting to negate the duality of righteousness-unrighteousness, "obey me or else," through the use of "human reasoning," i.e. through getting the Father into the dialoguing of opinions, into the synthesis of dialectic 'reasoning, the "plurality" of "Their are many different ways of looking at the issue" circumventing i.e. cutting off, i.e. negating his "Because I said so"―engendering the "equality" system of sensuousness, i.e. that which is "common" to all men aka "common-ism," which 'justifies' communism, socialism, democracy, communitarianism, democratization, conscietization, synergism, etc, "Ours, not just yours," all being the same, all engendered through the use of dialectic 'reasoning'), can only be negated, according to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' by making the child's will (through the use of dialogue) "equal" to, and thereby greater than (over and against) the Father's will, i.e. 'liberating' the child and his carnal nature from the Father's authority, 'liberating' sensuousness from the restraints of righteousness.
The tension between the child and the Father (duality, antithesis) is thus thus 'shifted' to the tension between the children caused by the spectrum or diversity or continuum of tensions between those who are totally loyal to the Father (the bourgeoisie) to those who are totally loyal to the children (the proletariat). In the church this would correlate to the tension between God and man (the issue of righteousness, based upon God's word preached and taught as is) being 'shifted' to the tension between the leadership doing 'change' (based upon the issue of sensuousness, upon men's opinions dialogued) and those in the fellowship not wanting it (based upon the issue of righteousness), those not wanting 'change' deceived in thinking that by resolving the tension between them and the leadership, between men (based upon "feelings," i.e. sensuousness, thinking that the leaderships reasoning is tied to the issue of righteousness, i.e. subject to the word of God when in fact it is tied to the issue of sensuousness, subject to the opinions of men), they can then focus upon the tension between God and man (the issue of righteousness), not realizing that they have negating righteousness as the issue of life by simply setting it aside for the 'moment,' for the sake of maintaining the "respect of men" (initiating and sustaining human relationship with the leadership for the sake of unity, based upon sensuousness), therefore making sensuousness, not righteousness the issue not only for the 'moment,' but for life, i.e. for the sake of "growing" the "church," resolving the tension between men through the use of dialectic 'reasoning.'
An illustration (which I don't like doing, but since this is heady stuff and people ask me to make it easier to understand here goes): Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' are like alligators telling frogs that it is safe to cross the river on their back, that they are there to "help" them with there "felt" needs. Trusting in alligators, frogs soon discovered that alligators, like wolves in sheep skin, lie when they say "Trust us. We care about you," having their own "felt" needs (their own "best" interests) in mind. Like alligators and wolves, those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. facilitators of 'change' have their own meaning for "a 'consumer' driven society"―the seduced, deceived, and manipulated only coming to realize that when it is to late. The story of the spider and the fly was required memorization in the public schools some 60 plus years ago to warn the children of those of dialectic 'reasoning.' It was removed from the classroom by those of dialectic 'reasoning' so that they could do their dialectic 'thing,' i.e. "convert" the children to dialectic 'reasoning,' so that they could "participate" in "a consumer driven society," i.e. "pay the pig," the wolf, the alligator, the spider, etc. These are only secular responses to a spiritual problem and therefore do not resolve the issue of "Who are we to trust?"
The duality (antithesis) of trust is negated with the plurality (synthesis) of trust. We are to trust in the Lord (above, holy, righteous, not of the world) and not in man (below, common, unrighteous, of the world) "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding" Proverb. 3: 5 Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' those who push "plurality," simply deceiving us into thinking that we can do both at the same time, when in truth it is still only trusting in man, i.e. trusting in our own reasoning ("leaning to our own understanding"), 'justifying' ourselves and are carnal, sensuous, approach pleasure - avoid pain, consume it unto ourselves, unrighteous "human nature." "Cursed is the man who trust in man." Jeremiah 17:5
History, for those of dialectic 'reasoning,' is not about lessons of the "past" learned (memorized) by those in the present, so they can doing what is right and not doing wrong, i.e. not repeating the wrongs of the "past," i.e. not repeating history. History, for those of dialectic 'reasoning' is the past experiences (the home experiences) of those in the present, those in the present having been made subject to those of the "past" (having learned obedience to their Father's will in all things), thus preventing them from 'changing' with the present, i.e. 'changing' with the 'changing times,' so that they can, with the "help" of facilitators of 'change,' create a "new" and "better" future, a future void of the restraints (warnings) of those of the "past." The same can be said for the "church." The doctrines of the "past" preventing the "church" from fitting in with the 'changing' times of the present. For those of dialectic 'reasoning, the issue of "history" is a person's life experience (their condition or environment of upbringing which engenders dissatisfaction), i.e. their dissatisfaction with the conditions of the "past," their dissatisfaction with the Father's commands, commands which sustain the "past," thereby 'justifying,' according to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' the need for 'change,' the need to negate (treat as "irrational" and therefore as "irrelevant") the lessons of the past which initiate and sustain, i.e. which justify the Father's authority. The only meaning of "history" for those of dialectic reasoning,' is to study your life history (your upbringing, i.e. your home life experience) to be better able to undo the effects of history (the "negative" effects of your parents, their heritage) upon your life, thereby being able to undoing the "negative" effects your life has upon society, i.e. preventing 'change.'
It is the negation of history, the lessons of the past which restrain the present (which prevent 'change'), for which dialectic 'reasoning' struggles. "By dialectic, I mean an activity of conscious [the child "rationally" (dialectically), through his 'reasoning' ability, 'discovering' (becoming aware of his dissatisfaction with his Father's authority) that he has another 'choice,' the "right" to "do his own thing," to disobey his Father's commands with impunity (with the "help" of the "councilor," i.e. the facilitator of 'change'), 'justifying" not only his "feelings" of dissatisfaction with the Father's authority but also 'justifying' "human nature" over and against the Father's "top-down" authority, 'justifying' 'changingness' over and against unchangingness], struggling to circumvent, the limitations imposed by the formal-logical law of contradiction ["struggling" to overcome the "guilty conscience," i.e. overcome the Father's voice of "Obey me or else" within himself]." (Norman A. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) Bracketed information and bolding added. The "limitations imposed by the formal-logical law of contradiction" are the standards of the parents, inculcated into the hearts and minds of the next generation, engendering a guilty conscience when they do wrong. Consider this: you can not have a truly representative form of government when your representatives do not how have a "guilty conscience" when they vote counter to their constitutes position (who voted them into office to "re-present" their position). Their participation in dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. in the consensus process, undermines the voice and the liberties of their constituents. Those of dialectic 'reasoning' want it that way, desiring that all would perceive those with a strong conscience as "holding up the ship of progress." "We must develop persons who see non-influenceability of private convictions [those of strong conscience] in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
The lessons of history teach us that once dialectic 'reasoning' becomes the basis for deciding and carrying out governmental policies, anyone exposing it as treasonous will be first treated as a "conspiracy nut" (portrayed by those in the media, in education, at the work place, in the neighborhood, in government, and even in the church as being "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant") and then, if they persist, accused of being a "patriot extremist," i.e. stirring upon discontent (potentially inciting "riots"), and then, if they persist, regarded as a potential "terrorist," and then, if they persist, tried (if they are tried at all) and punished for treason. (I've taken lots of history classes in college, all having clearly exposed this pattern although many of my professors did not see it as clearly). For example: The Federal government was set up to be limited, to allow states rights, with the greatest right being of the family, under God (which engenders the conscience), restraining the hearts of the next generation, teaching them to evaluate their heart (their affections) from the Father's commands (from God's word) and not to evaluate the Father's commands (God's word) from their deceitful and wicked heart (something neither the State nor the Federal government could do in and of itself). The issue of the "freedom of the conscience" (engendered by the Father's authority) initiated the need to limit the power of Federal (National) government (prevent its encroachment upon the right of the Father and his authority to engender the conscience―I know what I am speaking of, with quotations by dialectic thinkers backing me up, given in following articles). George Washington, understanding this, warned us: "The spirit of encroachment [of "oneness"] tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal [welt, sting, wound, mark, etc. from chastening] against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them." (George Washington in his Farwell Address) Bold added. "Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example, where rulers overcharged with power, willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly?" "Shew me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty?" (Patrick Henry, Of the Virginia Convention of 1788) Bold added. The force of government must be in the Father's hands (and thereby in the citizens hands) or force will be used by the government to negate the right of the Father, under God, to develop the conscience in the next generation, thereby negating "freedom of the conscience" and liberty (making it "freedom from the conscience" and liberty of abomination).
Those of dialectic 'reasoning' know that for them to succeed they must divide the family (come between the children and the Father, negating the Father's authority) and conquer "the people" (gather the children) and make them theirs (of one carnal mind, via. the consensus process), i.e. if they are to control the world. "Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon .... transform public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests [thereby] transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps..." Ervin Laszlo A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order. Bold and bracketed information added. The "group grade" experience in the classroom imprints (programs) this pattern in the next generation's mind, shaping their present and future actions (praxis). The "top-down decision making" system, Laszlo wrote of is the traditional family system which Lenin also sought to eliminate (what he labeled as the bourgeois). He stated: "We must learn how to eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs and traditions everywhere." (Vladimir Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks' Success May 12, 1920) According to György Lukács, it is only through "The workers' council" [the consensus process] that "the people" would be able to "eliminate the bourgeois separation of the legislature, administration, and judiciary." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) Working through the departments under each branch of government, uniting as one through the consensus process, i.e. united upon "common cause," the process of 'change' would be able to circumvent the checks and balances of the separate branches of government. The spectrum of 'change' (augmenting pleasure, that is 'liberating' abomination by attenuating pain―negating the restraint of righteousness) for those of dialectic 'reasoning' (who progressively take position of government as the people progressively abdicate it into their hands) is a progression from simply being irritated (but "patient") with those who refuse to 'change' to eventually the outright heavy hand of oppression, i.e. of despotism and abomination.
By 'discovering,' through dialogue, from where we get the word dialectic, where two or more can come together and agree upon what they have in common, for the 'moment' putting aside what they disagree on so as to maintain dialogue, i.e. coming to a consensus, i.e. to a "feeling" of "oneness" by focusing upon only that which unites, putting aside, i.e. negating that which they do not hold in common (negating that which inhibits or prevents "common-ism"), i.e. negating that which prevents the "sensuous experience" of oneness of the 'moment' and therefore is not common to all men, negating by putting aside that which causes division, dissention, discrimination, duality, conflict, controversy, etc., by 'discovering,' through dialogue, what both the Father and the child have in common, i.e. their "human nature" (that which is of the flesh, the desire to be at-one-with the world in pleasure), makes "human nature" the "new" thesis, negating antithesis (the conflict or tension, which is engendered by the "top-down" system of the Father). Through dialectic 'reasoning' (by man 'rationally justifying' his own "human nature," i.e. his carnal nature, i.e. his "natural inclination" to be at-one-with the world, as being "normal," i.e. as being "common" to all men and therefore 'justifiable,' 'rational'), man establishes "human nature," i.e. the "child nature," i.e. "the child within" over and against the authority of the Father, men's opinions over and against the preaching and teaching of doctrine ("equal with" means over and against the Word of God), sensuousness over and against righteousness. Dialectic 'reasoning' finds what men and God have in "common," i.e. "love" (ours, a feeling of "oneness," a "feeling" of acceptance and approval, i.e. a "feeling" of "affirmation," in man) and negates that which makes them different (antithesis, "Mine, not yours," "I'm above, you are below," according to Karl Marx that which engenders a "feeling" of repression and alienation, that which creates division between men, separating man from man, i.e. separating man from nature, according to Sigmund Freud that which engenders "neurosis," that which creates division within man, separating him from his own nature―by merging Marx and Freud, social-psychologist were able to take control of the next generations thoughts and actions, getting them to focus upon the cause of social discord, i.e. the traditional family system. Through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' they were able to negate "neurosis," repression, and alienation, by negating it's source, the traditional family system; "If society imposes repression, and repression causes the universal neurosis of man, . . . there is an intrinsic connection between social organization and neurosis." (Normal O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History).
Redefining God (righteousness), i.e. reinterpreting His Word through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. through "human reasoning," i.e. through the "sense perception" of man (defining God through man's eyes, i.e. according to his "feelings" and his "thoughts," according to his collectivized opinion―consensus) makes God and man both the same, i.e. "common" (through synthesis making Jesus "Green," i.e. "positive," i.e. at-one-with nature, with the "Greens," like Jesus, coming to save the world), thereafter making the nature of man ("human nature," i.e. approach pleasure - avoid pain) the standard whereby to measure both man and God, making "human nature," i.e. man's "felt" needs (sensuousness), the "new" thesis (the "new" 'righteousness'), engendering the "new" world order of "equality," negating the "old" "top-down" world order of righteousness, thus making the world a "better" (a more "enjoyable") place for "all" to live within (that is "all" who are dissatisfied with righteousness, including, i.e. and especially the perverse, i.e. those of abomination), according to the "feelings" and "thoughts" of "the children of disobedience" that is. "Tolerance of ambiguity" (tolerance of abomination) engenders a culture of abomination (a culture of hate against righteousness, classifying those preaching and teaching the righteousness of God and the unrighteousness of man as being "hateful," as committing a "hate crime"), with abomination becoming the standard by which the culture (as all in Sodom) must abide. The scriptures warn us!
While those who hate sin and love righteousness, i.e. those made righteous in Christ, preach and teach the righteousness of God and the unrighteousness of man, that man might repent of his sin, those who love sin and hate righteousness, i.e. those of dialectic 'reasoning' must prevent the preaching and teaching of the righteousness of God and the unrighteousness of man (labeling it as being "hateful"), so that they can 'justify' ("feel" comfortable in) their sin, i.e. in their "human nature." It is only through dialectic 'reasoning' (self-'justification,' i.e. "boys will be boys") that man can negate the antithesis of the righteousness of God and the unrighteousness of man. It is only through the praxis of synthesis (through dialogue, man 'rationally discovering' that which he has in common with all men through dialogue, that is his "human nature," thereby 'justifying' his "human nature" as being "normal" and then acting upon it only) that antithesis is negated, i.e. that unrighteousness ("negativity") is negated by making sensuousness 'righteousness' ("human nature" becoming "positive," the 'driving' force behind life) and 'righteousness' sensuousness (the 'purpose' of life being the augmentation of the "positive," of "human nature," liberating' "human nature" from the restraints, i.e. from the "negativity" of righteousness), i.e. making both God and man the same, i.e. "positive," i.e. affirmative of "human nature." As George Hegel put it: "When a man has finally reached the point where he does not think he knows it better than others, that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly and he is interested only in what they have done right, then peace and affirmation have come to him." (G. F. W. Hegel, in one of the casual notes preserved at Widener)
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' if you can get rid of the "negative" (the "guilty conscience" for "doing your own thing"), in regards to "human nature," you can get rid of the issue of the righteousness of God and the unrighteousness of man, the approaching pleasure and avoiding pain spectrum of "human nature, i.e. the augmentation of pleasure and the attenuation of pain, i.e. the individual and social issues of life thereafter becoming the only issues of concern for the day. By making "human nature" right ('righteous' or "positive"), then anyone who restrains or inhibits it (judges it as being unrighteous) is wrong (is "negative"). As Elvis Presley, who died of a drug overdose, sang: "'Cause baby, if it feels so right How can it be wrong?" in his pop song of the 60's, "If it feels so right." as the Transformational Marxist, Herbart Marcuse wrote: "If it feels good, just do it," in his pop book of the 60's, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud (one of the two bibles for the liberals in the 60's), dialectic 'reasoning' has taken over the thoughts and actions of the American public. The leadership it puts into office reflecting its use of dialectic 'reasoning,' being "positive" (read being "human," i.e. being "normal," i.e. being unrighteous) as the only way of life.
The tyranny of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. of synthesis negating antithesis (by synthesis becoming thesis itself) goes like this: the thesis of the Father's authority (position) to give commands and, through the use of chastening (for disobedience), restrain the child from following after his "human nature," i.e. to relate with the world, and the antithesis of the child's "guilty conscience" (the feeling of guilt) for disobeying the Father (disobey His command), having done "his own thing" according to his own nature (approach pleasure - avoid pain), i.e. followed after his "natural inclination" to be "at-one-with" the world, are both negated as the synthesis of 'justified' "human nature" takes the place of the Father's authority (takes over the Father's position of authority, becomes thesis itself, i.e. the child's' "natural inclination" to relate with the world, his own "feeling" and "thoughts," his opinion becoming the thesis, the subject of importance, rather than the Father's commands), i.e. 'rationally justifying' disobedience thereby negates the "guilty conscience," i.e. negates the Father's authority to give commands along with his right to chasten his children when they disobey―"human nature" (approach pleasure - avoid pain―sensuousness), through the use of "human reasoning" (dialectic 'reasoning'), having replacing the Father's authority (do what I command or else) as the way of life. An adulterous generation sins with a "guilty conscience," i.e. with a sense of guilt (antithesis―righteousness restraining sensuousness on an individual bases) while a culture of abomination sins without a "guilty conscience," i.e. with no sense of guilt (synthesis), dialectic 'reasoning' (consensus―collective sinning) having liberated "human nature" (sensuousness) from the restraints of the Father's authority to give commands and chasten those who disobey (righteousness) by negating righteousness (the right of the Father to have authority―the awareness of the Father and His authority) in the thoughts and actions of carnal man as he "does his own thing" (as in the days of Noah).
We are instead to deny ourselves (set aside the seeking after pleasure as the 'purpose' of life, being 'driven' by our "lusts," i.e. the physical, mental, and social pleasures of this world), and pick up our cross (endure the pain of rejection―physical, mental, and social pain―which comes from the world because of our faith), and follow after Jesus Christ, who obeyed His (in Christ our) Heavenly Father in all things unto death (Titus 2:11-14; Luke 9:23). We are to put on the whole armour of God and stand (Ephesians 6:10-18). To put on the whole armour of God and stand, means not to run from pain (compromise when pain comes our way because of our faith) or run after pleasure (compromise when pleasure temps us to be at peace, i.e. to be at one with the world) but instead to stand, i.e. to remain steadfast, unchanging, faithful in the Lord, obedient to His (in Christ our) Heavenly Father above all things, no matter what comes our way.
"No class of civil society can play this role [facilitators of 'change,' i.e. "stakeholders" taking "ownership" of the earth when the earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof (like Karl Marx, who encouraged people, who foolishly listened to him, to take "ownership" of that which was not theirs to take, saying the kings horses were the peoples horses, like a woman in a garden in Eden took "ownership" of that which was not hers to take, eating of "the tree of knowledge of good and evil"―Genesis 3:1-6), emancipating society from the Father's "top-down" authority] unless it arouses in itself and in the masses a moment of enthusiasm, a moment in which it associates, fuses, and identifies itself with society in general [experiences consensus with man and nature alone, i.e. according to "human nature." i.e. sensuousness, along with dialectic 'reasoning ("human reasoning") being able to 'justify' "human nature" over and against the restraints of righteousness, negating the system of righteousness, negating those who are patriarchal in paradigm, negating the resistors of 'change' (those obedient to their Father's will in all things, maintaining the "past")], and is felt and recognized to be society's general representative [possessed by a spirit (a sensation or "feeling") of "one-ness," "whole-ness," "all-ness," etc. perceived by "the people" to have its "best" interest, i.e. its "wellbeing" in mind], a moment in which its demands and rights are truly those of society itself [of the collective, i.e. of the commonality, i.e. of the "community," of the "world" ('discovered' through the use of polls, surveys, etc. i.e. through opinions being exposed through dialogue), where righteousness is no longer of God only (above) but is only of man (below), i.e. of man working for, i.e. 'liberating' the "goodness" (the 'righteousness') of man], of which it is the social [sacred] head and heart ["Without 'We working for Us,' i.e. working together for 'change,' a 'better' life for all of mankind, i.e. a life freed from the restraints and the divisiveness of and the "guilty conscience" engendered by righteousness, a "new" world order can not be actualized, can not come into fruition"]." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right) Bracketed information added for clarity. This is the platform upon which those of dialectic 'reasoning' stand―abomination.
Having merged Marx (sociology) with Freud (psychology), both of which were dialectic in 'reasoning,' Transformational Marxists, i.e. i.e. social-psychologists, i.e. facilitators of 'change' have made the pleasure-pain spectrum, i.e. the sensuousness of man (the augmentation of pleasure and the attenuation of pain) the measuring stick for the worth or value of life. They have rejecting the Father's need to train up his children in His image, doing that which is right (righteous) and not doing that which is wrong (unrighteous), according to His will. They, as "children of disobedience," 'driven' by the "approach pleasure - avoid pain" spectrum of "human nature," have negating righteousness as the way of life, perceiving it, i.e. the Father's restraint of man's (or the child's) carnal "human nature" as engendering "neurosis"―those of the "past" engendering "neurosis" in those in the "present," i.e. in the 'moment' (initiating and sustaining a tension between sensuousness, i.e. "human nature" and righteousness, i.e. the commands of the Father restraining sensuousness, restraining "human nature" from 'discovering its "full potential," from "actualizing" itself according to nature), i.e. the "past" restraining the "present," (the Father restraining the child's "natural inclination" to relate with the environment, i.e. with nature, i.e. with the world in the 'moment') preventing the "present," i.e. the next generation, from creating its own "future" in its own image (according to it own nature seeking and actualizing unity, i.e. "oneness" with "nature"), i.e. from creating a "new" world order built upon "human nature," established upon man's own sensuousness, 'purposed' in the augmentation of pleasure (augmenting the "enjoyment" of this life for "all," i.e. augmenting the system of sensuousness, i.e. which is "approach pleasure-avoid pain," through the use of dialectic 'reasoning', i.e. by self-social-environmental 'justification,' i.e. through human reasoning) and the attenuation of pain (including negating the pain of a "guilty conscience," which is augmented by the system of righteousness, which is faith in, belief upon, obedience toward, and acceptance of chastening for disobedience by a higher authority than "human nature," i.e. greater and higher than nature itself). Without dialectic 'reasoning' being used to 'justify' the augmentation of "human nature" (focusing man upon the way of the "present," i.e. man's "lusting" after the pleasure or "enjoyment" of the 'moment'), i.e. the 'justification' for the negation of righteousness (the way of the "past"), the way of the "future" would remain subject to the way of the "past," i.e. subject to the conditions of righteousness (man would remain subject to the authority of God, children to the authority of their Fathers). Therefore those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. facilitators of 'change' have made man's carnal "human behavior," his "natural inclination" to relate with the world, i.e. his deceitful and wicked heart, his propensity to sin, the standard of life. "Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic." "The bondage of all cultures to their cultural heritage is a neurotic construction." "Neurotic symptoms, with their fixations on perversions and obscenities, demonstrate the refusal of the unconscious essence of our being to acquiesce in the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
The scriptures tell us of a different battle, of the true battle between our sensuousness, doing what we "want" to do, following after our "human nature," walking in the flesh (living by sight), and the righteousness of Christ, doing the Father's will, walking in the spirit (living by faith). As the Apostle Paul wrote (given below): it is not that the law of God, i.e. the commands of the Father, can save us from our "natural inclination" to "lust" after the things of this world, i.e. from our "human nature," to love the world more than Him. The law of God can only expose our propensity toward sensuousness, i.e. our love of this world, i.e. our sinful "human nature," i.e. our being "sold under sin," which is only overcome "through" the righteousness of "Jesus Christ our Lord," i.e. the obedience of Jesus Christ to His Heavenly Father, even unto death, 'redeeming' us from judgment, through his blood, which was shed for us because of our "captivity to the law of sin which is in (our) members," 'redeeming' us from our propensity to follow after "the flesh," i.e. that which makes us captive to "the law of sin," delivering us from "the body of this death," 'reconciling' us, through His righteousness, to inherit eternal life, spending it with Himself and His Heavenly Father along with all the saints (according to His Grace, i.e. His love for us, His Word, i.e. revealing Himself to us, His Work, 'redeeming' us from condemnation, and our Faith, trusting in Him with all our heart, no longer leaning to our own understanding, i.e. no longer 'justifying' ourselves, which leads to eternal death, being instead 'justified' in Him, who is eternal life). "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." Romans 7:14-25.
The two, sensuousness and righteousness, i.e. man's will of sensuousness (depending on his "sense perception" and reasoning 'ability' to know how to think and act, with man 'justifying' himself according to his own "human nature" and nature itself, i.e. only by sight) and God's will of righteousness (with man depending upon His Word and His Holy Spirit to know how to think and act, with man being 'justified' only through the works of God, i.e. according to His word, of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, and by His grace, i.e. only through faith) can never be synthesized, i.e. made as "one", as is deceitfully being marketed in the "post-modern church" today ("church growth," "emergent church," "contemplative church," etc.), making man 'righteous' in his own eyes, i.e. following after the law of sin and death (even doing so in the name of the Lord, not only deceiving himself but taking pleasure in deceiving all who follow after him in his deceitful ways). The question to be asked of all who propose a program of 'change' is: by what authority are you proposing this program of 'change.' It if is not of God, that is, if it is not according to His Word and by His Spirit, i.e. according to the will of the Heavenly Father only, then it is of the world. If it is of both God and man, it is of the wolf and is the worst of all (it is of the seducer, deceiver, and manipulator of men, i.e. it is of the father of lies).
The hallmark of dialectic 'reasoning,' in its corrupting of the fellowship, is in the "fellowship" trusting men ("human relationship," i.e. "the approval of men" over and against the Word of God (putting aside the Word of God, when it interferes with the "feeling" of unity in the church, for the 'purpose' of "growth"). Instead of the leadership's thoughts and actions being weighed by the Word of God, according to their love of the Scriptures (above all things) and their fear of God (above of things), they are instead followed by "the people" because of their "positive" attitude towards (and expertise in and association with others who are "successful" in) programs of 'change,' "programs" that can be used to "grow" the "church," i.e. with man putting his hope in his own work, which is temporal, rather then the work of God, which is spiritual (deceiving himself by perceiving his work for man, peace and unity, as being the same as God's work for man, peace and 'reconciliation'―"Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you." John 14:26). Instead of change being the heart of man toward God, through conviction, contrition, and repentance (through the hearing of the Word), i.e. the focus being upon the righteousness of God and the wickedness of man's heart, it has 'shifted' to the 'changing' of the church and its "programs" ("how it does business") for the 'purpose' of so called "evangelization," i.e. "growing the church," i.e. 'changing' (humanizing) the "church" to keep it in step (contemporary) with the 'changing' (carnal) world i.e. "concern for man [who seeks 'change'] replaces concern about pleasing God [who is unchanging]." (Lenard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectic Humanism: Unmasking the God above God) 'Change' being the operative word, i.e. following after the doctrine of Karl Marx: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways [in other words, there is no one right way of looking at or doing things]; the point is to change it [so lets put aside our differences, i.e. our battles over doctrine, and unite upon a common cause, upon what we have in common, i.e. our "human nature" and our desire for acceptance, working together in the augmentation of pleasure and the attenuation of pain for all mankind]." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach #11) Bracketed information added. When "ministers" take "ownership" of the word of God, redefinition it to relate it to the carnal nature of man, that is taking that which is not theirs to take and using it for their own carnal end, they are no longer ministers of the Word of God but rather ministers of the words (opinions) of men.
To 'change' the environment from the preaching and teaching of the Word of God, i.e. from what God' commands (from what He wills), to the dialoguing of men's opinions, i.e. how he "feels" and what he "thinks," that is, to 'change' from building the church upon sound biblical doctrine (according to the righteousness of God) to "growing" the church upon human relationship building skills (according to the sensuousness of man)―to 'change' the thoughts and actions of man through programs which seek to build uniting upon what man has in common with the world―is of Marxist ideology, i.e. of dialectic 'reasoning' being put into social action (called praxis). But to change the heart of man, through the preaching and teaching of the Word of God ("as given by God," i.e. refusing to 'change' it, i.e. refusing to compromise it or set it aside, i.e. refusing to bring the world into the church or 'justify' the world in the church, i.e. refusing to 'change' God and His Word so He and it will no longer "offend" the world) changes the environment, that is, the Word being preached and taught "as is" (only), bringing man under conviction, into contrition, and to repentance before God, changes the world, and is of God. While "church growth" type ministers will usually or occasionally preach a "traditional" sermon from the pulpit (to silence any resisters to 'change') they will move the church into a social 'agenda' (socialism), i.e. "human relationship" building (socialist) type activities, i.e. "How do you feel" and "What do you think," displacing the teaching of sound doctrine (putting aside or reinterpreting scripture, i.e. using heresy sources, i.e. translations based upon Metzger, Aland, and Nestle sources, i.e. Origin and Alexandrian, i.e. Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus אּ and Codex X Greek sources that cause confusion, i.e. engender uncertainty in regards to the Word of God, thereby engendering the dialoguing of men's opinions and 'change' in the church) or not bringing up doctrine or not recognizing it or chaffing at it when it is brought up, i.e. any "Thus saith the Lord," or "The word of God says" which causes division) with the building of social networking in and through church functions, as well as joining (networking) with other churches who are doing the same. (more below)
Instead of fighting against the "church," Satan (via Marx and Freud, i.e. sociology and psychology, society and man, social needs and individual needs, united as one upon dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the process of 'change') decided to join it, i.e. join the department of administration to "help" it "grow the church" through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. through the process of 'change.' The dialectic ideology being, instead of the "church" dividing (separating, i.e. alienating) itself from the world (and thus causing division, separation, and alienation in the world) because of doctrine (basing itself upon the righteousness of Christ, i.e. the "church" being build upon the authority of God and His Word alone, preached and taught as is) let it instead unite with the world, using dialectic 'reasoning' (focusing upon human relationship building skills, via. youth groups, cells groups, teamwork, humanitarian works, community activities, etc. with people dialoguing their opinions to a common agreed upon solution regarding social and environmental concerns―consensus) to resolving common "felt" needs (basing 'change' upon sensuousness, that is: 1) uniting the "church" upon the dialoguing of opinions, with the opinions of men being used to help the "church" 'discover' and then unit upon the "common ground" of "human nature," 2) through the use of polls, serves, and feasibility studies "discover" the "right path" to take and then 3) through the use of "human reasoning"―called "enlightenment"― "light" its pathway to "growth"), all the while not "offending" the unbeliever so that he to can, without a sense of guilt, work within the fellowship for the cause of humanity, i.e. work with all members for the "common good" AKA "common"-ism. The Word of God declares that we "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 There is no "let's agree to disagree" or "tolerance of ambiguity" in these verses, i.e. with God, or in the fellowship of the saints. Patience yes (that one would repent of their sins), tolerance no (we are not to approve of sin, i.e. look the other way to "save" face, i.e. so as not to "offend" the sinner, i.e. hurt his "feelings"―in the act of chastening, if he repents of his sins, a soul has been won to eternal life, righteousness prevails, but if not, he has chosen death, deciding to remain in the way of the world, sensuousness having prevailed). Satan creates controversy (focusing upon the issues of sensuousness, i.e. upon man's "felt" needs of the 'moment') to negate controversy (negate righteousness, perceiving it as the source of controversy as in "We would not have a problem here if it weren't for those who refuse to see things in a different 'light,' i.e. who refuse to 'change'). "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Luke 11:35
As we, as a nation, become more dialectic in 'reasoning,' including and especially in the "church," this verse and other like it will become (have become) a hate crime. To hate sin (God hates sin), to expose it, and to separate yourself from those who praxis it (those who 'justify' it individually and socially) is now a hate crime. "Human nature," man's sinful nature, has now become the foundation upon which the world (and the church) "grows" itself (creating itself in its own image), creating a "new" world order of abomination, treating man's carnal nature as though it were 'righteous.' Even the "church" is now building itself upon men 'justifying' themselves before themselves, though their use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. through their use of the consensus process, i.e. being seduced, deceived, and manipulated by facilitators of 'change.' At the end of the day it is not about whether we got what we or others wanted (based upon our own sensuousness and reasoning 'abilities,' i.e. 'justifying abilities') but whether we did what was right before God (according to His will, i.e. in His righteousness).
Abomination is now upon us, not because of the government, but because of the "contemporary church" engendering "Christians" who are ashamed of the gospel, refusing to unceasingly proclaim the truth of the gospel, in love Love is not tolerant of unrighteousness (it is not "tolerant of ambiguity") but calls sin what it is, sin. God chastens those He loves and if a person refuses to accept His chastening then he is not a child of God. To proclaim the truth of the gospel is to warn man of the "wrath" of God upon "the children of disobedience," upon those who refuse His chastening, upon those who refuse to repent of their sin's, i.e. repent of their love of pleasure (the "approval of men" being one of the most intoxicating of all pleasures, why so many "minster" are blind to where they are going, taking those who admire and follow them into the process of 'change'), i.e. repent of their love of this world, who, because of their love of the broad path of the pleasures of this life, which leads to death, refuse to even seek after the straight and narrow path that leads to eternal life, who refuse to humble themselves before God and seek His face, who refuse to be redeemed from judgment and eternal death, i.e. redeemed by the blood of "the Lamb of God," i.e. by Christ who obeyed His Heavenly Father in all things, even unto death, i.e. 'reconciling' us to the Father and bringing us into eternal life. The "contemporary 'Christian'" is not only not capable of preaching and teaching (proclaiming) the truth of the gospel at home, in the "village," in the classroom, at work, in government, he is not even able to do it in the "church," because it would condemn him (the gospel exposing and condemning his deceitful and wicked heart and the "church" condemning him for exposing its deceitful and wicked heart, if he tried). "In all your ways to acknowledge him and he will direct your paths." Proverbs 3:6 It is not that God has called anyone to pull up the tares in the wheat field, He warned us against it, but that we are to proclaim the truth of the gospel till the time of harvest, that those who will hear the voice of the Lord (His sheep hear his voice) will be harvested into His glory, the tares cast out and burned. God has not called us to 'change' the world so that the hearts of man can be changed, it is to the changing of hearts, by the hearing of the word, that the world is changed (turned upside down). Satan knows that if the word is 'changed' (to be in harmony with "human nature") then the world will not be changed, glorifying God for His works, but will instead glorify itself, in its works for Him. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:21-23
What is being preached and dialogued today is a user-friendly, non-offensive, readily adaptable to 'change,' humanized (dialectic) Christ, a "positive" Christ, a Christ of man's own making, i.e. made in the image of "human nature," therefore acceptable to unrepentant man, leaving him in his sin. The same can be said of those who seek to fulfill the kingdom of God according to their own cunning and strength. Changing the gospel message into the works of men, working "for" or "with" God in building His Kingdom, even using (twisting) scriptures (the gospel message) to 'justify' themselves, i.e. 'justify' their thoughts and their actions, i.e. 'justify' their "pride of life." In the end it is God's work and His work alone that fulfills His Kingdom: it is His Kingdom, His Power, and His Glory, that no man can boast "Lord look what we have done for you, in your name," thinking that he fulfilled it "with" God's help and God fulfilled it "with" his help. If you think God can not fulfill His will without your "help," consider the next breath you take. Where did it come from? It is not that the Lord needs you. It is that you need Him. There is no "We" (man's pride of life) in God's Kingdom, only "He" (Christ) and the redeemed, made righteous because of Him and Him alone. His Kingdom is made up of those who are dead to themselves, who have been made alive, not in their will (not in their pride), not in their works, but in Him and His will (in Him and His will alone), in His works alone, doing the Father's will. It is when we can do nothing to change the world, to rescue ourselves from the "situation" in our own strength and "wisdom," that we turn to the Lord, giving Him our lives to do with as He wills, that He receives the glory.
What rescues us from our use of dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' our carnal nature (which leads to abomination and condemnation), is faith in God, belief in His Word, obedience to His will, and acceptance of His chastening when we do wrong, i.e. when we sin. "Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." Hebrew 12:11 When it comes to what I want to do, 'driven' by my carnal nature, and what my Father wants me to do, i.e. to think and act according to His will (both earthly and Heavenly Father's), dialectic 'reasoning' sides with me, sides with my carnal nature over and against my Father's will. As we progress more and more onto the side of dialectic 'reasoning, i.e. seeking after the "approval of men" (consensus), which engenders sensuousness, i.e. which is our "lusting" after the pleasures and "enjoyments" of this life, i.e. living for the 'moment,' we move away from the "approval of God" (righteousness), who is our hope of eternal life. When the "there-and-then" (the Father, his commands, his chastening, and his promises, all according to His righteousness) conflict with our desire for the "here-and-now" (our "lust" for the things of this life, seeking after the pleasures of this world, i.e. all according to our sensuousness), dialectic 'reasoning' ("human reasoning") comes to our aid, i.e. negating the "there-and-then" so that we can "enjoy" the "here-and-now." "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" Mark 8:36
The key to understanding the dialectic process (the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' "human reasoning," i.e. self-'justification,' i.e. the 'justification' of "human nature") is the issue of chastening, i.e. negating the acceptance of it as a means for man to know right from wrong, initiating and sustaining a "top-down" system known as a Patriarchal Paradigm, with one, i.e. the Father as the final authority, above, i.e. ruling over man's personal "feelings" and "thoughts" below, directing his steps, i.e. 'restraining' his "natural inclinations," i.e. preventing him from fulfilling his carnal desires, that is, finding "oneness" (unity) with the world in pleasure (through what all men have in common, their "lust" for pleasure, i.e. the "human nature" of approaching pleasure and avoiding pain). "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23b With God it (His chastening of us) is essential. "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth." Hebrews 12:6 Since God is Spirit, and determines what is right and wrong according to His righteousness, and we are sensual, i.e. of the flesh, and, left to ourselves, determine what is right and wrong according to our "human nature" (approaching pleasure and avoiding pain), chastening is imperative if we are to be "sons" of His (as adopted sons) and not "bastards." "If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons." Hebrews 12:7, 8
Without our Father giving commands and chastening us when we disobey, there is no condition of righteousness, i.e. we just do what comes "naturally." Get rid of the Father's right to give commands and chasten and the issue of righteousness (and of sin) is negated. That is dialectic 'reasoning.' While hard line communists killed the father, along with those who believed in his way of thinking and acting, the consensus process is more "human," encouraging him to do it himself (to abdicate his God given position of authority for the sake of the world). Whether the father is dead or he is still alive―but no longer functioning as a father figure―in the end it is the same, the negation of the Patriarchal Paradigm and the way of righteousness. While the Father chastens His children, i.e. chastens those who submit to His authority, those who refuse to accept his chastening, those who refuse to submit to His authority, those who refuse to be His children, being instead "the children of disobedience," He condemns. Jesus came to redeem us, 'reconcile' us to His Father for two reasons: 1) so that we would be no longer condemned and 2) so that we could come to know His Father as He knows His Father, a Father of love, mercy, grace, and forgiveness―that is, to all who repent of their sins, i.e. repent of their dialectic, self-'justifying' way of thinking and acting, i.e. repentant of their disobedience to the Father. Like the hymn Praise the Lord (which, like so many other hymns, is no longer sung in the church today, for obvious reasons) says "Come to the Father, through Jesus the Son." Without the Father's commands and His chastening there would be no Father-son ("above-below") relationship. There would be no issue of righteousness.
Our "human nature" is to get up in the morning looking for pleasure. We, by nature do not get up thinking that we need restraint from pleasure, i.e. restraint of our "human nature," i.e. chastening. Therefore by focusing upon pleasure, i.e. the "enjoyment" of life, not only for ourselves but for all others (in other words being "positive"), the issue of righteousness and therefore the need for chastening, i.e. restraint of our "human nature" is negated. If the communists (those of dialectic 'reasoning') understand this (getting rid of the Father's threat of chastening, i.e. getting rid of that which is "negative," gets rid of the Father's command, gets rid of the Father and His authority, gets rid of the issue of righteousness in the persons private as well as his public life, i.e. in his thoughts and in his actions), what is wrong with the American people. "Where have all the fathers gone. Off to consensus every one. When will they ever learn. When will they ever learn." They have all sacrificed their children to the fires of Moloch, given them over to the beast, i.e. to the ways of the world, for their own "good" pleasure (for the "enjoyment" of the 'moment'), i.e. for "the approval of men." What is of concern is that while the Father chastens (but does not destroy) those who are His, that they might partake of His glory, Moloch, the beast, the world (those of dialectic 'reasoning,' like a child having a tantrum), kills, tears down, and destroys all that which is its at the end of the day, for its own "glory," for the sensation of 'control' and 'power,' for "the 'moment.'" For that which is of the world, unlike God, must destroy whenever it wants to "create." This is why every institution, including the "church," which builds or "grows" itself upon dialectic 'reasoning, negate its history, destroy that which is of the "past," so that none can go back to the way it was, since there is nothing to go back to. All they have is the sensuousness of the present, being now servants to a future based only upon "human nature," i.e. slaves to a world of 'change,' i.e. surrounded by a world of abomination, a "new" world order of man's (of their) own making.
If you think this process has no relevance to your life, the life of your children, and the world you live in, then consider this, kindergarten was designed to give the children their first experience of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. an experience of social life without the authority of the Father (a collective life experienced by the children, being "themselves," freed from the commands of a voice of authority above them as well as freed from the fear of chastening and judgment which comes from disobeying that voice of authority above them, for being "themselves"). Kindergarten was and is built upon the foundation of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. for the augmentation of "human relationships," i.e. for "democracy," i.e. socialism, i.e. "common"-ism AKA communism, as most of education is today.
"Education Nation" is the culmination of decades of dialectic 'reasoning' infiltrating the education system of this nation (through the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies") and is now in total control, all based upon dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the 'justification' of sensuousness ("human nature" and the will of "the people") over and against righteousness (the will of the Father). It is the foundation, i.e. the 'drive' behind and the 'purpose' for counseling (the facilitated meeting), used not only in education but in all areas of life today. "What better way to help the patient [the student, the teacher, the parent, the worker, the civil authority, the minister, etc.] recapture the past than to allow him to re-experience and reenact ancient feelings [his frustration with and resentment] toward parents in his current relationship to the therapist? The therapist is the living personification of all parental images. Group therapists refuse to fill the traditional authority role: they do not lead in the ordinary manner, they do not provide answers and solutions [they do no preach and teach right from wrong], they urge the group to explore and to employ its own resources [to employ it's own "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. its own opinions]. The group [must] feel free to confront the therapist [to question and challenge authority], who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation. He [the student, the teacher, the parent, the worker, the civil authority, the minister, etc.] reenacts early family scripts in the group [role-plays] and, if therapy is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role he once occupied [negate his obedience to higher authority, i.e. negate a "top-down" way of thinking and acting]. … the patient changes the past ['changes' his paradigm] by reconstituting it." (Ervin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) Bracketed information added for clarity.
Even the "church" is now built upon this foundation, placing "human relationship" and the environment "equal" with God, which makes them over and against God the Father, His Word, i.e. His only begotten son, i.e. the Lord, and His true bride, i.e. the εκκλησια, ekklhsia, i.e. the "called out ones," i.e. called out of the world of darkness, i.e. called out of a world of the flesh, i.e. a world based upon the "wisdom" (dialectic 'reasoning') of men 'justifying' their flesh ('justifying' "human nature"), into the light of His glory. "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." Titus 2:11-14 The "good works" being the result of a changed heart, seeking to do the will of the Father, not the works of the flesh, i.e. of and for self and the world, seeking after "the approval of men." The word "church" coming from the world, meaning a meeting of people in a circle in a "cave," in a building of some kind, therefore subject to the state, while εκκλησια "the called out ones" means an assembly, a congregating separated from the world, i.e. man separated from the will of the flesh by the Spirit of God, subject only to the will of the Father, though Jesus Christ His only begotten Son. "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20
Dialectic 'reasoning' rejects "chastening" (classifying it as not only engendering physical pain but also engendering the mental pain of "repression" and especially engendering the social pain of "alienation," which are to be identified, confronted, and negated through human reasoning, i.e. through "counseling") which therefore places everyone who uses it (dialectic 'reasoning' that is) on the "bastard" side of God's scale. As Abraham Maslow stated it, (reversing the order, i.e. referring to those who accept faith, belief, obedience, and chastening as the way of life as "authoritarians" and therefore as "bastards"): "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards." "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management) This kind of statement makes it very clear where those who use dialectic 'reasoning' stand on the Father's authority and the issue of righteousness.
Dialectic 'reasoning' unites man upon what he has in common with the world, sensuousness. The righteousness of Christ, i.e. his obedience to His Heavenly Father, even unto death, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' makes a man who trusts in Him, i.e. having faith in, believing upon, obeying, and accepting His chastening, peculiar―no longer at-one-with the world, i.e. separated from the "whole"―a person no longer fit for social participation, especially for a position in leadership, i.e. making him and his way of thinking a barrier to (an enemy of) the "new" world order. When Immanuel Kant made reason (Critique of Pure Reason) equal with faith, he in essence set "human reasoning" (which is bound to "human nature") over and against the righteousness of God, which for man requires faith. He set the course for man to hate righteousness, disguising it as being love for humanity. Statements (given below) by Hegel, Marx, Freud, and others confirm this dialectic attitude of contempt for and hatred of righteousness (against faith, belief, obedience, and chastening), disguised as "caring," i.e. "caring" for humanity.
What gets lost in all this "caring for humanity" is the consequences of following after and 'justifying' "human nature," i.e. sin―hell. Jesus explained "caring for humanity" with the rich man, in the torments of hell, wanting someone to go back and warn his brothers of the consequences of sin. The response being, even if one rose from the dead they would not believe. That is the power of the pleasures of this life, of sensuousness, of the approval of men, of the approach pleasure-avoid pain spectrum of "human nature" and the 'reasoning' ability of man to "control" his own life, i.e. to augment pleasure and attenuate pain, to 'change' the world so that all can live the "good life," thereby negating righteousness (the will of the Father) and eternal life (blessing and eternal glory) and unrighteousness (the will of "the children of disobedience") and eternal death (damnation and eternal torment) as the issue of life and death. It is not that we are not to "care," it is that there is more to life than "caring" about the flesh and the pleasures of this life. "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the God." Jesus quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 redeeming man from "And when the woman saw that it was good for food, ... she did eat." Through "human reasoning," i.e. dialectic 'reasoning,' she 'justified' her "natural inclination" to relate with the world, Genesis 3:6, bringing all who followed, i.e. Adam, and all since, into sin. She was deceived, Adam was not, placing the guilt of sin upon him, who knew better. Therefore the issue before all mankind is the issue of the soul of man and eternity, i.e. where he will spend it. In heaven or in hell. The gospel (the "good news") is negated in the thoughts and actions of men without chastening and judgment, only becoming a social gospel, a tool of and for the augmentation of dialectic 'reasoning' and abomination.
Dialectic 'reasoning' goes like this: "If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man can ever be redeemed by freedom, then the ‘original sin' must be committed again: ‘We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence." (Marcuse) "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit." (Brown) "In the process of history man gives birth to himself. He becomes what he potentially is, and he attains what the serpent—the symbol of wisdom and rebellion—promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself." (Fromm) When church leadership brings dialectic 'reasoning' into the fellowship to "grow" the "church," it brings this spirit into the church. Beware of smiling lizards (wolves) who cover themselves with sheep skin, saying they "care about you." Beware of those of dialectic 'reasoning,' who are two faced, promoting what you perceive to be the right path, because of their occasional preaching and teaching of scripture (deceiving you), when in truth, for the sake of "unity," are promoting the wrong path, 'justifying' man's fallen "human nature through the dialoguing of men's opinions to consensus.
If "force," which is the summation of government, is 'shifted' from the Father (with God or the Father ruling over what is His, directing the steps of His children) to the children (to "the children of disobedience," i.e. with man or child "controlling" the environment, i.e. seducing, deceiving, and manipulating "the people" for their "good" pleasure) then the children, who now perceive themselves as being over (equal to, therefore greater than) the Father, will use force against the Father and anyone who supports His way of thinking and acting, negating the system of righteousness (faith in, belief upon, obedience toward the Father, and acceptance of His chastening), classifying and treating it, i.e. the preaching and teaching of righteousness in a dialectic world seeking 'change,' i.e. in a world seeking after a "feeling" of "oneness" (acceptance), as "inappropriate" behavior (psychological, "neurotic," maladjusted, negative, divisive, hateful, "lower order thinking," etc). This is how believers are treated in a consensus environment: neutralized by everyone's input, i.e. their position therefore being perceived as just another opinion amongst opinions, marginalized when their 'unchangingness' is perceived as being hateful, intolerant, maladjusted behavior. Therefore believers (fundamentalists) are perceived as being "irrational" and thus "irrelevant" when it comes to matters of importance, even in the church, i.e. they must either be converted, i.e. succumb to dialectic 'reasoning' or be removed from the environment for the sake of the institution, especially if and when they persist in their "old fashioned" way of thinking and acting. This effects every area of government, from the home, where parent's set policies, to the nations of the world, who seek to resolve conflicts. It includes the "church," i.e. who and what it turns to for identity, as well as for direction in resolving differences.
Because we all come into this world based upon a system of sensuousness (approaching pleasure and avoiding pain), i.e. our carnal nature, and dialectic 'reasoning' is based upon what all men have in common, i.e. our "human nature," it is referred to a Heresiarchal Paradigm, i.e. an "equality" paradigm of 'change,' in that every person's "feeling" and "thoughts" naturally moves in the direction of 'change,' i.e. 'changing' with the 'changing' environment ('changing' with the 'changing' times), as the world pulls us into "oneness" with it. As children following after their "natural inclinations," we are, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' to all be "adaptable to 'change.'" When we are prevented from relating with the environment, i.e. prevented from becoming at-one-with the world "in the 'moment,'" 'changing' with it as it 'changes,' we "naturally" become frustrated with and resentful towards, i.e. even strike out against, that which goes against our nature, if we are able. When an authority (an "authoritarian," according to dialectic 'reasoning), who is not sympathetic with our "feelings" and our "thoughts" of the 'moment' (our opinion of the 'moment'), keeps us from relating with the world according to our "natural inclinations," doing so through the use of commands, threats of chastening, and/or of judgment, that system of believing and acting (a system of righteousness) is called a Patriarchal Paradigm, i.e. a "top-down" paradigm of "fixity" (as Carl Roger's called it). "Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity [a Patriarchal Paradigm of "fixity"], though such a process is indeed possible. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process [a Heresiarchal Paradigm of "changingness"]." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) Bracketed information added Dialectic 'reasoning' is not about changing a persons belief. It is about 'changing' a persons paradigm, his way of thinking and acting. It is about negating the system of belief itself, treating it as a theory or an opinion amongst opinions (where all behavior is subject to the environment of a persons upbringing, i.e. his "history") where man is 'driven' by the 'changingness' of his own nature, i.e. his own sensuousness, and the environment he finds himself in, 'purposed' in the praxis of 'change,' i.e. in the augmentation of his own "human nature" (permissiveness and pleasure) over and against the righteousness of God (the source of restraint, i.e. of physical, mental, and social pain).
What dialectic 'reasoning' does not include, in regards to what we come into this world with, is the conscience. Even in young children there is a sense of wrong in doing certain things, without being told so. It is called the conscience. Without faith, i.e. trusting in someone other than one's own approach pleasure-avoid pain spectrum of sensuousness of the 'moment,' there would be no conscience, i.e. a "feeling" of "guilt" for disobeying someone greater then the approach pleasure -avoid pain spectrum of the sensuousness of the 'moment.' In other words, man is made up of more than the stimulus-response, approach pleasure-avoid pain spectrum, materialistic ideologues preach and teach, i.e. cram down everyone's throat. God has given us all a "measure of faith," so that we would be aware of a higher authority than our own carnal nature and the temporal world around him. "For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." Romans 12:3 While the Patriarchal Paradigm augments, through chastening, the development of the conscience ("fixity," i.e. faith), for the sake of doing right and not doing wrong, dialectic 'reasoning' seeks to negate it, supplanting it with the "super-ego" ("changingness," i.e. sight), for the sake of "equality" (basing 'reality' upon man's carnal nature only). "If the individual complies merely from fear of punishment [where the will of the Father restrains the child's will, i.e. restrains his natural inclination to follow after his own sensuousness] rather than through the dictates of his free will and conscience [where the will of the child, to follow after his own sensuousness, superseding the will of the Father], the new set of values he is expected to accept does not assume in him the position of super-ego, and his re-education [socialist indoctrination] therefore remains unrealized." (Kurt Lewin as quoted in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) Bracketed information added. "What we call 'conscience" perpetuates inside of us our bondage to past objects now part of ourselves [the will of the Father ruling over our will, i.e. our will is to do his will, to have faith in Him]: the super-ego 'unites in itself the influences of the present and of the past [the sensuousness of the 'moment' determines the worth or value of the standards of the "past," i.e. the commands of the Father, i.e. faith is based upon sight which negates faith, i.e. man only having a semblance of faith, i.e. faith in himself].'" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) Bracketed information added. While the Father, with his use of chastening, engenders the conscience, initiating and sustaining a "top-down" system of righteousness (augments faith), dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the "voice of the 'village' of diversity" with its "tolerance of ambiguity," i.e. its love of sensuousness, engenders the permissive, adaptable to 'change,' "equality" system of the super-ego (augmenting sight over and against faith). "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." Romans 1:17 "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." 1 John 5:4 "And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:" Philippians 3:9 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6 "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." 1 Corinthians 2:5 "... nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8b The implied answer is NO. The reason being: man's use of dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' himself as being 'righteous' in his own "human nature," i.e. 'justifying' himself according his own works, having put faith in his own 'reasoning' abilities, i.e. in the wisdom of men rather than in God, thereby negating faith and the issue of righteousness (in his thoughts and in his actions).
Dialectic 'reasoning' is used to negate the one (the Patriarchal Paradigm, i.e. the "top-down," "I'm above, your below" way of thinking and acting, i.e. the Father's authority to give commands and enforce them by chastening or threat of chastening, thus augmenting the conscience, i.e. developing the "guilty conscience," i.e. initiating and sustaining a system of righteousness in that the Father determines what is right and what is wrong, not basing right and wrong upon what is right and what is wrong according to the child's "feeling" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' but according to himself, according to his nature, according to his knowledge) while 'liberating' the other (the Heresiarchal Paradigm, i.e. the child along with his "natural inclination" to do what comes "naturally," i.e. to be himself, i.e. of his own sensuousness and 'reasoning,' i.e. self-'justifying' ability (determining for himself, i.e. determining according to the pleasure-pain spectrum of nature, according to that which is common to all men, what is good and what is not, what is right and what is wrong, in the 'moment'). Dialectic 'reasoning' therefore is a system of patricide (in that the Father's authority, along with the Father if necessary, is negated) and incest (in that the child's "natural inclinations" are 'liberated,' freed to relate with all that is of the world, uninhibited by anything other than the need to initiate and sustain that which is of nature itself). Dialectic 'reasoning' negates righteousness as it 'liberates' sensuousness. It destroys the "old" "top-down" world order, based upon righteousness, i.e. the Father's authority, as it "creates" the "new" world order of "equality," based upon sensuousness, i.e. the nature of "the children of disobedience" and human reasoning―dialectic 'reasoning' being used to 'liberate' it. It is a system of abomination, which we now see manifesting itself ("emerging") all around us. It has now come to the point that even "Christians" will avoid the issue of righteousness (or redefine it, i.e. make it an opinion amongst opinions, so that it won't offend carnal man, i.e. including themselves) so that they can maintain a semblance of "relevance" in a "'rapidly changing' world." Even the Scriptures themselves have come under such attack, i.e. redefined by "enlightened scholars" so that they can "growing" the "church" upon the foundation of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. upon "changingness," i.e. upon the opinions (the "feelings" and "thoughts") of men.
The nature of the world (sensuousness, and reasoning used to 'justify' it, i.e. self 'justification'―dialectic 'reasoning' is the 'justification' of sensuousness, i.e. "human nature" over and against righteousness, i.e. negating the authority of the father to restrain his children, i.e. "forcing" the children to think and act according to his will, i.e. according to his "top-down" way of thinking and acting) is to resent chastening since it can only be understand from a carnal perspective (via. "sense perception"), with the child easily finding fault in the earthly father who expects a behavior of righteousness from the child, i.e. obedience, i.e. the father is right (righteous) and the child is wrong (sensuous), so do what the father says (or else). The truth being, the earthly (carnal) father chastens for "his own pleasure" (for the 'purpose' of his own sensuousness), i.e. so that he can do what he wants to do (since he is 'driven' by sensuousness as well)―(I describe the earthly father who has not subjected his will to our Heavenly Father's will). While the system of righteousness (demanding faith, belief, obedience, and using chastening) is the same for both the earthly father and our Heavenly Father, the latter chastens us "for our profit," so that we might partake "of His holiness," in His righteousness which has to be imputed by Him to us according to faith. "For they [our earthly father's] verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he [our Heavenly Father] for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness." Hebrews 12:10 Bracketed information added. Through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' by negating the former, i.e. negating the authority of the earthly father, the latter, the authority of the Heavenly Father, is likewise negated, 'liberating' man ("the child within") so that he can be "himself" again, living only according to his own carnal nature―'liberating' the children so that they can be "themselves," living only according to their carnal nature―subject only to the pleasure-pain spectrum of "human nature," and therefore subject to those who can manipulate man (the children), manipulating him to become at-one-with the environment so that they can then manipulate the environment (and therefore man) for their own sensuous pleasures.
There is more to life then just the pleasure-pain spectrum of "human nature," i.e. engendering men's opinions. There is right and wrong, established by God (who is greater than, i.e. not bound by our "human nature," i.e. not taken captive by our sensuousness of the 'moment' and "human reasoning"―reasoning we use to 'justify' our carnal "human nature"). God, unlike man, is righteousness in and of himself. When man takes on the role of God, he becomes 'righteous' in and of himself, deceiving himself that he is God, when all he is is carnal man being controlled by "human nature," i.e. controlled by the pleasure-pain spectrum of the world, 'justifying' himself, i.e. 'justifying' his carnal "nature" through his use of dialectic 'reasoning.' It is what every child tries to do when caught "doing his own thing" (doing that which comes "naturally") in disobeying his father's will, that is 'justify' himself. While you thought philosophy and the dialectic process was something just studied in ivy covered halls of "higher learning," it is closer to home than you think, or maybe even want to know. It is what is 'driving' the "new" world order, the "contemporary church," and maybe even 'driving' you today.
"It may be said that Philosophy first commences when ... a gulf has arisen between inward strivings [sensuous desires, i.e. the child's natural inclination to relate with that which, at or in the 'moment,' is gratifying to him in the environment] and external reality [external authority, i.e. the Father's restraint, i.e. commands and threat of chastening for doing wrong, i.e. for disobedience, i.e. for relating with that which, at or in the 'moment,' is gratifying to the child in the environment instead of obeying the father's command "not" to relate with it], and the old forms of Religion [to do what is right and not do what is wrong, according to a higher authorities standards], &c., are no longer satisfying; when Mind manifests indifference to its living existence or rests unsatisfied therein [manifests contempt for higher authority and its restraint], and moral life becomes dissolved [the desire to obey the Father's will becomes disengaged from the child's will]." "Philosophy is a free and not self-seeking activity, … This activity [dialectic 'reasoning'] contains the essential element of a negation, because to produce is also to destroy; … as Mind passes on from its natural form, it also proceeds from its exact code of morals and the robustness [rigidity] of life to reflection and conception ['changingness']. The result of this is that it lays hold of and troubles this real, substantial kind of existence, this morality and faith [the Father's authority], and thus the period of destruction commences [the negation of righteousness, i.e. no longer obeying the Father as a way of life]." (Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philosophy, Introduction B. Relation of Philosophy to Other Departments of Knowledge) Bracketed information added.
When you become dissatisfied with the way things are ("is") and "commence" to thinking about how they "ought" to be, you become a "philosopher." According to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is not the "is" that is the problem (the parent's authority, regarding what you "can" do), it is the "not" (the parents' authority, regarding what you "can not" do, i.e. the "Thou shalt not"), the parent's command, restraining you on what you "can" do, using force to prevent you from doing it, restraining you from being "normal," preventing you from discovering your true nature. "Discovering one's real nature is simultaneously an ought quest and an is quest [void the "not"]." "We have to study the conditions which maximize ought-perceptiveness [an environment where the child is freed of the Father's authority, i.e. 'liberated' from the voice and force of "negativity"]." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature) Bracketed information added.
Dialectic 'reasoning' is an object, i.e. you (an "is," "I am") moving in the direction of another object, something in the environment (of the world) which is desired (an "ought"), using reasoning to overcome (to circumvent or negate) any barrier (negate any "not" as in "Thou shalt not," i.e. negate the Father, his command, and use of chastening) which attempts to prevent the two (you and the world) from becoming united as one in "pleasure." Dialectic 'reasoning' is the way of the world, a way that is antithetical to the Father, it is man (and child) 'justifying' his carnal nature, i.e. 'justifying' his carnal "human nature" being drawn to and seeking unity with the world, i.e. his "natural inclination" to "lust" after the things that are of the world, it is the way of sin and death. "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 "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." James 1:14, 15 It is where the "is" (man or child) and the "ought" (the world, the object of gratification) are unite as "one" that dialectic 'reasoning' manifests itself, in the act, i.e. the praxis of negating the Father and His authority, negating righteousness. It is where unrighteousness and abomination abound. You may not realize this but when, in a meeting striving for consensus, (a room full of people being "encouraged" to dialogue their opinions to a common consensus―to a "feeling" of "oneness") you insistence upon doing things a particular way (preaching and teaching you and your Father's way of thinking and doing things), and only that way (since according to you it is the only right way), you are forcing your parent's values, i.e. their "old" way of thinking, i.e. that right is right and wrong is wrong, with there being eternal consequence for doing wrong, upon the "group," you are propagating "negativity" upon "society." You are sustaining the "old" world order, i.e. preventing the "new" world order ("human nature," i.e. "human relationship") from becoming actualized, from becoming recognized as the "new" way, i.e. the only way of "doing business" from here on out.
While it may appear benign, "the people" supporting the child in his quest to be at one with the world around him, it is not. It is "the people" reporting the parent to the "authorities," for chastening his (according to their "feelings" and their "thoughts," i.e. according to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' their) child at the restaurant, where dialectic 'reasoning' manifests itself in social (public) action. The child striking out at the parent, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' is the precursor of humanity 'liberating' itself from the restraints of the Father and His authority, i.e. humanity 'actualizing' itself, i.e. negating the restraints of righteousness. While the child is too weak to carry out the deed, with government support, i.e. with "the mass," i.e. "the people" indoctrinated in dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. 'justifying' "human nature" over and against the righteousness of God, the traditional authority structure, i.e. the authority of the Father to train up His children in His image, will, by force, through intimidation, or in abdication, be removed from the environment for the sake, i.e. the "safety," i.e. the "health" of "the people." This is what the "health care package" is all about, creating "healthy" families, "healthy" communities, "healthy" churches, "healthy" schools, "healthy" nations, with "the masses," the "grass roots" creating, through consensus with themselves (voiding the Father's authority and a "guilty conscience"), a "healthy" world, a world void of the restraints of righteousness, a "healthy" world "tolerating ambiguity," i.e. 'justifying' unrighteousness as an acceptable (the only) way of life, a "healthy" world of abomination (a world "purged" of the issue of righteousness and of a "guilty conscience").
It is what "counseling" or "therapy for 'normal's,'" i.e. psychology and sociology, is all about―with "psychologist, sociologists, and anthropologists, i.e. the facilitators of 'change,' being the "high priests" of the "new" world order, with none dare questioning their "authority" if they want to remain "rational" and "relevant" in the eyes of "the people," including in the "church." Psychology in the church is the confessional in the Catholic Church, helping "the people" feel "good" about themselves so that they will come back for more, i.e. supporting the institution which helped them 'discover' their "potential," i.e. helped them actualize their "goodness" through their participation in working as "one," i.e. united with the brotherhood of humanity working for the "common good."
When two or more people come together and dialogue their opinions, i.e. how they "feel" and what they "think," theorizing how things "ought" to be, the direction of action is over and against that which is (whatever it is they are dissatisfied with that engendered the event, i.e. the event being the coming together and the internally reasoning, i.e. opinion now being outwardly expressed for the 'purpose' of 'change'). What began inside you (we can dialogue with ourselves our dissatisfaction with the way things are that go against our "natural inclinations," restraining our "human nature") is now materialized in social expression (self is actualized), with another or others of the same dissatisfaction or dissatisfactions ('discovered' through dialogue), with the potential for social action being taken to negate that condition which is (or person who is) engendering the dissatisfaction (who is inhibiting "human nature"). This is dialectic 'reasoning' (philosophy) being put into social action, known as praxis. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' since 'liberty' from higher authority is begun in internal social action, i.e. with "me talking to myself," it must end in external social action, with "We working for us," overcoming any condition which inhibits "human nature" and dialectic 'reasoning.' Therefore, discontentment (man's love of pleasure more than God) is the dynamo which 'drives' dialectic 'reasoning.' Dialectic 'reasoning' is thus antithetical to faith in, belief upon, and obedience toward God. With carnal man's contentment being in himself (with his flesh, which is never satisfied, always wanting "more," demanding 'change') rather than the Lord (who satisfies the soul), dialectic 'reasoning' sets man over and against the righteousness of Christ. Discontentment (carnality, i.e. sensuousness) must negate contentment (righteousness) if those of dialectic 'reasoning' are to 'justify' themselves, i.e. 'justify' their carnal thoughts and carnal actions. The focus of dialectic 'reasoning' can only be upon the "feelings" and "thoughts" of men. It can not be upon the righteousness of Christ and the wickedness and deceitfulness of men's hearts―why man can not fulfill God's demand for righteousness, i.e. why righteousness is only imputed by God to men of faith in Him alone. As the gospel songs says "Only Jesus can satisfy your soul." "Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need." Philippians 4:11, 12 If there is any discontentment in a believer it is in his disappointing the Lord because of his carnal thoughts and carnal actions, i.e. in his yielding to the "human behavior" of unrighteousness. "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me." Psalms 51:10
Philosophy, i.e. which is our "ought," i.e. is of our flesh, our mind and the world being drawn to "oneness," ties us to a generalized sensation of universality with that which is not of the particular, not of the specific, i.e. not of the Father and his commands regarding right and wrong, i.e. not of our soul and of our conscience. For instance the Ten commandments are specific, dealing with the soul of man (dealing with every man on an individual bases). To lie has no age discrimination (or location discrimination). Whether three, thirty-three, or ninety-three (or in "communist" China, "democratic" America, or "socialist" England―all three being the same, i.e. dialectic in structure or order), the awareness of "wrong" (conviction) is associated with lying (as long as the person is not a product of dialectic 'reasoning' where lying, renamed "appropriate information," is considered "good" when used for the 'purpose' of social 'change,' a generalized perception of life which is necessary for the procedure of "mediation," i.e. finding "common" ground through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus). What Karl Marx called the "ether of the brain" (The Holy Family) allows us to generalize things ("tolerate ambiguity") so that we can circumvent the specifics (the conscience) which brings judgment upon our thoughts and actions, dividing us from ourselves (from our carnal nature) and from others (from the world) according to established rights and wrongs (established for all times and for all places), i.e. rules and commands which we have embraced as the right way of thinking and acting, according to dialectic 'reasoning, the "negative" condition of righteousness which is engendered through the Father's authority to use "chastening," used to initiate and sustain His "top-down" order, his "old fashioned" way of "doing business."
"To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it. For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.
They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.
Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken. Therefore hear, ye nations, and know, O congregation, what is among them. Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it." Jeremiah 6:10, 13-19
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is in the action of philosophy, i.e. in our "oughtiness" that we can circumvent, i.e. "negate" the "negativity" of our conscience, i.e. negate the voice of the Father and His authority within us―His speaking to our soul, dividing us from our "human nature" and the world, using chastening to inhibit or block (cut off) our generalizing (and generalized) sensuousness of the 'moment.' Feelings, like "repression" or "alienation," are generalized sensations we experience as the result of specific conditions, like commands and rules, which "restrain" our carnal desires, i.e. our "natural inclinations," i.e. our "human nature," i.e. our "child within." The dialectic theme is: sensuousness (generalization, that which we all have in common) unites, righteousness (specificity, that which is of our Father's) divides. The Lord would agree, admitting he came not to bring peace, i.e. unite the world upon it's nature, i.e. according to its own sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities, but rather he came to bring a sword, i.e. His Word, dividing the world between the condemned and the redeemed, according to His Father's will and His righteousness. Our Lord came, not to negate His Heavenly Father's authority but rather to 'reconcile' man back to it, i.e. not circumventing or negating the law (making God equal with man) but fulfilling it (making man "equal" with Christ, that is as a son of God, i.e. dead to himself and alive in Christ, i.e. an adopted son) in His righteousness, in His name only, "to the glory of God the Father." "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:9-11 "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 10:32 "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." Romans 8:13-17 With the individualization of man, i.e. each soul being personally accountable before God, the dialectic process is "overthrown." This is why righteousness is at the heart of the dialectic process, that is the negation of it. The Transformational Marxists György Lukács wrote: "The dialectical method was overthrown ...; the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole ...." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) Dialectic 'reasoning', for the 'purpose' of unity, must circumvent the specific, i.e. circumvent focusing upon right and wrong based upon the conscience, i.e. circumvent the voice of the father within (circumvent the issue of righteousness). It must get man to focus upon himself through the use of generalization, through focusing upon his thoughts (his opinions, i.e. reasoning) which are engendered by his feelings (sensuousness) of dissatisfaction with the restraints of righteousness upon his "natural inclinations." Man's (the child's) dissatisfaction with the conditions of righteousness, i.e. faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, restraining "human nature," is the dynamo of dialectic 'reasoning,' is the engenderer of reasoning and the "new" world order.
Thus, through dialectic 'reasoning,' man is 'liberated' from any authority who is higher than his "human nature," including his conscience. All must be generalized (made "ambiguous," theoretical, an opinion) if man (the flesh of man) is to be 'liberated' from the specifics of right and wrong, "redeeming" man from having to deal with his soul, God's law, i.e. revealing his sin and his condemnation, God's Grace alone, i.e. redeeming him from condemnation through Christ Jesus only, 'reconciling' him to the Father, and eternity―"The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul:" Psalms 19:7. "By 'dialectical' I mean an activity of consciousness ["human reasoning" or "sensuous reasoning," i.e. "how do you feel" and "what do you think"] struggling to circumvent the limitations imposed by the formal-logical law of contradiction [the commands regarding good and evil, right and wrong accepted and obeyed "as given" by the Father]." "Formal logic and the law of contradiction [right and wrong established by the Father, initiating and sustain the conscience] are the rules whereby the mind submits to operate under general conditions of repression ["feelings" of "negativity" experienced by "the child within"]." "Human consciousness ["human nature" and "human reasoning" become united as one, i.e. "positivity"] can be liberated from the parental (Oedipal) complex [from the Father authority restraining the child's sensuous urge to be at-one with the mother, i.e. "mother earth," i.e. incest―abomination] only be being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God [local and national recognition of the father's authority to rule over his children, under God's authority]." "The abolition of repression [read "incest"] would only threaten patriarchal domination [read "patricide"]." "Freud, Hegel, and Nietzsche are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) Bracketed information added.
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' by negating (getting rid of) the "negative" and augmenting (accentuating) the "positive" man can have the "good" life. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' he can either accept the conditions of the "negative," i.e. submit himself to a higher authority than "human nature," i.e. an authority who restraints his "natural inclinations," and remain "repressed" (how the carnal man can only perceive it), or he can attempt to run away from that which is "negative" in his effort to find and "enjoy" the "positive" (but get caught and be punished or fear getting caught, i.e. ending up with a "guilty conscience"), or he can accumulate things (or people) to fight against the "negative," so that he can do that which is "positive," or he can find ways to "rationally" overcome the "negative" by 'changing' (manipulating and controlling) the environment in such a way so as to attenuate (reduce) the conditions which engender the "negative" (pain), by augmenting (increasing) the conditions which engender the "positive" (pleasure). This entails the "willful' participation of the "negative" in the process of 'change,' "willfully" 'changing' themselves from being "negative" to being "positive," i.e. no longer making righteousness, i.e. the Father's will the issue of life, i.e. the only issue of life.
Anyone who has studied the dialectic process, i.e. Hegel, Marx, Freud, etc. have heard the words thesis, antithesis, and synthesis and have no doubt learned may other philosophical words, stretching the brain to the limit of its abilities. Yet it is all very simple when explained correctly. Synthesis is the negation of the thesis position, i.e. the Father's authority, which caused the condition of antithesis, i.e. conflict between the child's "natural inclination" to relate with the environment (by the child having to obey the Father or be chastened) and the child's desire to relate with the Father (restraining his "natural inclinations" to relate with the Father). The Father's authority is negated and synthesis ("human nature" and only "human nature") is actualized through the praxis of reasoning, where both Father and child finding "common ground" (create together a new thesis position, which is now based upon "human nature," which is therefore adaptable to 'change'), based upon their common desire for unity (the "feeling" of peace between the two), which is achieved through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e. to a "feeling" of "oneness" discovered by sharing how they "feel" and what they "think" in the 'moment.' In truth, 'reconciliation' is not an issue of there being peace between the Father and the child at the expense of the Father's authority, i.e. because the Father abdicated His office of authority, it is an issue of there being peace between the Father and the child because the child remained faithful to the Father's authority. Dialectic 'reasoning' makes harmony (synthesis) between the Father and the child an issue of sensuousness by focusing upon "feelings," thereby superseding the issue of righteousness, which focuses upon the child obeying the Father, i.e. doing right and not wrong according to Father's will.
When "ministers" bring up the agenda of 'change' they know that it will create tension in the "church," causing those who resist, i.e. those who are Word based, i.e. the "fundamentalists," to focus upon maintaining relationship with the "minister" (and thereby maintain respect in the eyes of the fellowship) in hopes of the "minister" (and the congregation) hearing their "complaints," and "stopping" the 'change' process. But in doing so, the issue of sensuousness supersedes the issue of righteousness―maintaining "human relationship," i.e. focusing upon "feelings" (to stop the process of "feelings") supplants doing God's will, i.e. focusing upon His Word. God's word (thesis) is therefore sacrificed for the sake of unity and "growth" (synthesis), with unity and "growth" becoming the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of the "church." With "man's" effort to remove the tension between men, especially when that tension is caused by the issue of righteousness, by man resolving the tension between man, the tension between God and man is resolved―negated . Righteousness is negated through the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning.' "Human relationship," i.e. sensuousness having superseded man's relationship with God, i.e. righteousness as the issue at hand. All "ministers" of 'change' must convert (consume) or scatter the sheep (chase off the resisters of 'change'), if they are to maintain their position of "control" over the "church." By getting the congregation focusing upon (hoping in) "growth," resisters to 'change' (those focusing upon the Word) are perceived as being divisive, i.e. disloyal to the minister and the fellowship, i.e. causing church disunity―the 'justification' of "human relationship" from then on supplanting 'justification' in Christ alone, as the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of the "church."
"Ministers" of 'change' will do the Marxist waltz with the congregation. By presenting 'change' (taking two steps forward) to the point where "traditionalists" (fundamentalists) will resist (go to the "minister" in private first, to convince him, through the use of scriptures, the error of his way), the "minister" will be able to know the source and strength of resistance within the congregation, regarding the program of 'change' With him, calmly "listening" to their "felt" needs, promising to "consider" their concerns, he gives them the appearance that he is willing to back up (take one step back), to where they will "feel" they might be listened to, i.e. with him dropping the 'change' agenda. Then he will present more programs for 'change' (take two more steps forward), until there is resistance again (this time "fundamentalists," in private, sharing their concerns with the "membership," with those who they think they can trust or they think will listen to their "complaint"), but this time those desiring 'change' will put pressure on the "fundamentalists," with the "minister" expressing concern about divisiveness, i.e. that "some people" are causing dissention within the church." They will from then on be treating as being uncaring, "irrational," and/or misinformed, being influenced by "outsiders." The desire for unity in the church will from now outweighing the authority of God's word. It is now the "fundamentalists" who will take one step back, hoping that they have shared enough (or will be able to share in the future) for the "church" to wake up and return to its "old" ways. With unity now being based upon compromise, no longer based upon the authority of God's word, 'change' (compromise of the Word of God for the sake of unity in the church) becomes not only the 'drive' but also the 'purpose' of the church. The "old" way of doing things (unity based upon doctrine, "fixity") is now negated with the "new" way of doing things (unity based upon "human relationship building," upon programs of 'changingness'). Synthesis negates antithesis by becoming thesis itself―"human relationship" negates the conflict between doctrine (the Word of God, with the Lord adding to the church) and unity (the quest for approval and the "growth" of the church) by "human relationship building skills" becoming itself the 'drive' and 'purpose' of the church. "The children of disobedience" negate the conflict between the authority of the Father and the "felt" needs of the children, because the "felt" need for unity, i.e. "can't we all just get along," has taken over the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of the family, i.e. the facilitators of 'change' having now taken over the fellowship by resolving the conflict between the authority of God's Word and "the approval of men," by making "human relationship" (humanism) the gospel message itself. "Why are you doing what you are doing?" is not longer "Because my Father told me to." but "For the sake of unity." In other words sensuousness, doing the will of man (seeking "the approval of man"), has supplanted righteousness, doing the Father's will (having "the approval of God," through Christ, according to His Word), as the issue of life. The tension between man and God (flesh and spirit) which is resolved in Christ, i.e. the gospel message, i.e. 'reconciling' us to the Father, has been 'shifted' to the tension between man and man (flesh and flesh), which is resolved in compromise, i.e. in the process of 'change,' for the sake of unity in the church.
The use of 'crisis,' i.e. concern for "preserving" self, family, and business (as well as the church), seems to be the easiest way of baiting the father, his family, and his business (as well as the fellowship), etc., i.e. the "negative," into "willful" participation in the process of 'change' (changing his paradigm, i.e. his way of thinking and acting). "The eclipse of a way thinking cannot take place without a crisis." (Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks) Thus through the father's (and his family's and business's) participation in resolving the "crises," he (along with them) becomes subject to the process of dialectic 'reasoning' ("positivity," i.e. "civic participation and social interaction" engendering an "egalitarian" way of thinking and acting), not knowing the crisis was his way of thinking ("negativity," parental authority engendering a "top-down" way of thinking and acting in the next generation) rather than the issues he thought was at hand (a natural or man made crisis). "A new emphasis on civic participation and social interaction alone seemed capable of confronting the crisis. And, that is precisely what Fromm provided in his notion of 'communitarian socialism.'" (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory And Its Theorists) Fromm was a Transformational Marxist, whose writings were popular with the "new left" in the 60's in America―now the democratic and much, if not most, of the republican party today. The dialectic agenda is not to stop crisis (to stop crime, to stop conflicts, to stop fires, to stop disasters, to stop divorce, to stop wars, etc. as it might claim) but rather to "control" the crisis, i.e. to use the crisis to initiate and sustain the use of dialectic 'reasoning' to maintain in its encroachment upon, i.e. its "control" of the affairs of men.
The problem that man faces in his use of dialectic 'reasoning' (self-'justification') is that in his use of it, to "liberate" himself from the "repression" of the "negative," he becomes a slave to the "positive," a slave to his own carnal "nature" and those who can manipulate the environment to control it and use it to manipulate, control, and use him to their own end. "We can choose to use our growing knowledge to enslave people in ways never dreamed of before, depersonalizing them, controlling them by means so carefully selected that they will perhaps never be aware of their loss of personhood." (Carl Rogers, quoted in Vance Parker, People Shapers) "‘Now that we know how positive reinforcement works, and why negative doesn't' … ‘we can be more deliberate and hence more successful in our cultural design.'" "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, nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do. That's the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement—there's no restraint and no revolt. By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior—the motives, the desires, the wishes. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises. . . .we will inevitably find ourselves moving toward the chosen goal, and probably thinking that we ourselves desired it. …it appears that some form of completely controlled society … is coming." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)
Carl Roger's and those of dialectic 'reasoning' were concerned about a "totalitarian" takeover of the country, with families turning to government to save the family from communism (socialism, democracy, i.e. globalism), i.e. how they perceived (incorrectly) Hitler came into power. Any resistant to 'change' is therefore correlated with the "potentially" of Fascism, cutting off globalism and the "new" world order. Therefore, in their effort to bring the world into globalism, the traditional family and its influence upon society had to be undermined and negated (through its 'willful' participation in the process of 'change') if Fascism was to be prevented "What The Authoritarian Personality was really studying was the character type of a totalitarian rather than an authoritarian society ─ fostered by a familial crisis in which traditional parental authority was under fire." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) Again: the dialectic fear being that traditional minded parents would react to any encroachment upon their right's as parents to rule over their families by seeking government help (turn to nationalism) to stop the government of 'change' (globalism) from destroying their "way of life," falsely equated (by those of dialectic 'reasoning') as "fascism."
How a meeting was being handled in solving a crisis (including in the home) was critical to the outcome. In the public realm, Robert's Rules of Order and an honest chairman, along with a majority vote and a representative form of government (a constitutional republic form of government, limiting the power of government, retaining most power in the family) would initiate and sustain an "authoritarian" outcome (individual right's, i.e. inalienable rights), while the consensus process, lead by a facilitator of 'change,' i.e. a "democratic" form of government (bipartisanship), would initiate and sustain totalitarian, Oops! globalism (one for all and all for one) outcome (social rights, i.e. "human rights"). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' it was therefore imperative that government involve (invest) itself in the life of the children (take "ownership" of the family, via. "women's rights," "children rights," "abomination rights," etc.), thus negating (cutting off) the power structure of the "old" world order, negating the authority structure of the traditional home, i.e. the authority of the Father in setting private policy and therefore influencing public policy. ". . . any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy regardless of its intent." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)
According to dialectic 'reasoning' (according to the "spirit of the world"), the Father, His law, and His use of chastening to restrain "human nature," restrain "normal" human behavior, i.e. restrain that which is "positive," can only be "negative." Carnal man, because he does not have the Spirit of God, can not comprehend a higher authority than his "human nature" (restraining his "carnal nature") as being anything but "negative." Thus, in "negating" that which is "negative," i.e. "negating" his attachment to the Father, His law, and His use of chastening to restrain his carnal "nature," man becomes addicted to and therefore subject to only that which is of his own carnal "nature," he becomes a slave to "the spirit of the world," i.e. at-one-with the "new" world order of Godlessness, Fatherlessness, lawlessness, i.e. unrighteousness―abomination.
Any talk of "faith" (by those of dialectic 'reasoning') is in a Son without the Father, i.e. a son delivering man from the Father, creating a so called "faith" in the "positive," refusing to recognize and accept the "negative," the depravity (deceitfulness and wickedness) of man's own sinful carnal nature and therefore his need for a savior to 'reconcile' (reunite) him to the Father, delivering him from judgment and eternal damnation―"the world by wisdom [by dialectic 'reasoning'] knew not God" having only "the wisdom of this world" which is "foolishness with God." "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:12-14 "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." 1 Corinthians 1:21 "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." 1 Corinthians 3:18-20
Since dialectic 'reasoning' deals with "human relationship" (with "human nature" only) that means a process has to be used which 'changes' a person who is "negative" (who engenders pain upon others, not just physical pain, i.e. chastisement for doing that which is "normal," but emotional pain, i.e. engendering the fear of judgment or fear of chastisement for wanting to do or doing that which is "normal," i.e. wanting to do what other's are getting to do or wanting to have what other's are having," and social pain, i.e. engendering "estrangement," "alienation," or "the rejection of men" for holding to a "negative" way of thinking and acting and demanding others do what you are doing―or rather not doing, i.e. not being "normal"―as well) into a person who is "positive" (who engenders pleasure upon others, not just physical pleasure, freedom to "enjoy" the 'moment,' but emotional pleasure, i.e. engendering approval, "esteem," and a sense of "wellness," and social pleasure, i.e. "the approval of men" for "helping" others become "normal," doing what they want to do as well, "as long as it does not hurt others," whatever that means in the 'moment'). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' those conditions in a person's life which engender "negativity" must be 'changed' into conditions which engender "positivity," thus "negating the negative." (Remember that dialectic 'reasoning' initiates and sustains itself upon the premise that man is basically "good," or that he can become "good," "good" being based upon his "natural," i.e. carnal way of thinking and acting.) "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 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" Romans 3:23; 5:12 "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God." Luke 18:19
The dialectic objective is therefore to 'rationally' (scientifically) identify those conditions which are "negative" (the attributes of the Father―who requires faith, belief, and obedience and uses chastisement or threat thereof to initiate and sustain a "top-down," patriarchal order of stability, i.e. the "old" world order of "fixity," of righteousness, where the Father is righteous in and of himself, i.e. to be obeyed without anyone questioning his authority) and those conditions which are "positive" (the attributes of carnal man―which requires permissiveness, freedom to question "authoritarians" and their commands, "tolerance of ambiguity," etc. to initiate and sustain an "egalitarian," i.e. "equality," heresiarchal order of instability, i.e. the "new" world order of 'change,' of sensuousness, where man is 'righteous' in and of himself, according to his own nature) in "human relationships," i.e. in man seeking "the approval of men" (being "'open ended' and 'non-directive'") instead of "the approval of the Father" (being "'closed minded' and 'directive'"). The idea being: if the "right" environmental conditions can be scientifically 'discovered' and then initiated and sustained whereby the "negative" person can be seduced, deceived, and then manipulated, i.e. like "natural resource," in such a way that he is "willing" to embrace the "positive" (accept himself as being "human resource," i.e. needing to be manipulated to become "good," i.e. to become something of value, of worth, useful for the 'moment'), "negativity" can be "negated" within the person who was "negative," without having to "negate" the person himself―this is the difference between Traditional Marxist's, who use bullets and blood to 'change' the world, i.e. to "negate the negative," and Transformational Marxists, who use facilitated meetings of diverse people dialoguing to consensus over social issues to a pre-determined outcome to 'change' the world, i.e. the pre-determined outcome being that all policies (private and public) must be made through the use of the consensus (soviet) process―through the use of dialectic 'reasoning' being put into praxis (action) by all "the people," "negating the negative." "The institutions in socialist society which act as the facilitators between the public and private realms are the Soviets." (Norman Levine, in prefect to György Lukács, Process of Democratization) The soviet (the consensus process) is used to "purge" the policy making environment and its outcome of righteousness, i.e. negate, i.e. neutralize, marginalize, and remove that which is not of "human nature."
According to dialectic 'reasoning' the greatest engenderer of "negativity" is found within the traditional patriarchal home environment. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the initiator and sustainer of "negativity" is the patriarchal Father who gives commands to those under this authority, to be obeyed without question, preaching and teaching categorical imperatives, i.e. "Because I said so," commands which go against or counter to "human nature"―his position not being based upon the child's "feelings" or "thoughts" of the 'moment,' revealed by the Father's refusal to respond "positively" to the child's "Why?" used by the child to get the Father into the dialoguing of opinions, i.e. both sharing how they "feel" and what they "think," making both "equal," i.e. "positive" in nature. Instead, the Father "restrains" the child's natural inclinations, using chastisement (pain) when his will is not obeyed (engendering "negativity" in those under his authority, i.e. training them up in "negativity" as they learn to accept his way of "doing business"). "Authoritarian submission was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures―parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
As you will come to understand, all of Hegel's, Marx's', Freud's, etc. 'drive' and 'purpose' was upon the negation of the traditional patriarchal family environment (an environment or system or structure or order which was first rebelled against in a garden in Eden). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' four conditions must therefore be "negated" if the world (and the "contemporary church") is to become a "positive" place, i.e. a "good" or "better" place to live within: 1) the Father's threat, 2) His authority and commands which are to be obeyed and not to be questioned, 3) the "guilty conscience," and 4) the people accepting and respecting the father's authority to give commands without question (which engenders faith and belief) and his use of chastening (pain) to create and maintain (initiate and sustain) obedience, i.e. initiate and sustain his position of authority (known, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' as the "top-down," "authoritarian," patriarchal, "old" world order). In all of this, i.e. through the use of reasoning, i.e. dialectic reasoning' (the dialoguing of opinions of the 'moment' to a common agreed upon position for the 'moment,' i.e. the consensus process, i.e. "common-ism" AKA communism―now called by different names, i.e. communitarianism, conscietization, democratization, synergism, etc.), righteousness (the Father's will, i.e. "negativity," according to dialectic 'reasoning') is negated, sensuousness ("human nature," i.e. the child's will or in this case "the children of disobedience" will, i.e. "positivity") and reasoning ("human reasoning," i.e. 'self-justification') having taken its place. Blinded by his use of dialectic 'reasoning' (self-'justification'), man is not able to understand that the Father's law exposes man as not being capable of being or becoming as God, righteous in and of himself. Not being able to fulfill the law, it is therefore necessary for a savior to fulfill the law in man's stead, providing a way back to the Father, a way back, i.e. 'reconciliation,' by faith and not by works, that no man (of carnality, of "human nature") could boast. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8, 9
Our Lord responded to dialectic 'reasoning' (attempts to circumvent and negate the Father's will) not only in the temptations in the wilderness, with "It is written ..." but also to Peter when Peter wanted to "glorify" God through the methods or works of men, i.e. according to "human reasoning," according to sight (sensuousness) rather than according to faith (righteousness): "But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Matthew 16:23 As you will come to understand, if you don't already, that the Lord's ministry was all about the Father, i.e. His Heavenly Father, reconciling man to His Father, not "negating" His authority. "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 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 (As Hebrews 12:5-11 makes clear: while all earthly fathers, biological or figurative, born of the flesh, chasten us for their own pleasure, our Heavenly Father does it so that we might partake of His glory, which no man can impart, i.e. that no man is to come between God the Father and man except Jesus Christ alone, who redeems us of from our condemnation, covering our sins through His atoning blood, 'reconciling' us to His Heavenly Father alone―which is made clear, for those who have ears and can hear, in Matthew 23:9 sited above.) "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 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21
Dialectic 'reasoning' is the "negation of negation:" 1) the "negation" of the father's threat―"You will die" or "You will be chastened if you disobey MY commands," 2) thereby the "negation" of the fathers commands―"Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not," 3) thereby the "negation" of the "guilty conscience"―the fear of punishment, i.e. judgment for disobeying or wanting to disobey the father's commands, 4) thereby the "negation" of the father's authority to give commands―his authority to say "Because 'I' say said," and support it with force. Dialectic 'reasoning' is the negation of that which stands in the way of man becoming "himself," thinking and acting according to his own carnal nature. Dialectic 'reasoning,' (man's ability to 'rationally' "justify" his carnal feelings, his carnal thoughts, and his carnal actions in his own eyes―making his opinion, i.e. how "he" feels and what "he" thinks in the 'moment,' the basis for 'reality', determining what is right and what is wrong in the 'moment' according to "his" perception of the world, according to the "situation" he finds himself in) put into social action (praxis), is man re-experiencing ("re-inventing") himself (re-'discovering' his "human nature") as being at-one-with the world "again," before the first command and threat of punishment (or punishment) came from the father―chastening him for disobeying "His" command, i.e. according to dialectic 'reasoning,' chastening him for being "normal." The biggest "bully" in a dialectic world (in the so called "new" world order) is the patriarchal Father, i.e. the Father who chastens his children when they (doing what is "normal," doing that which comes "naturally") disobey his will.
Dialectic 'reasoning' is the use of reason ("human reasoning") to 'justify' the child's carnal nature (sensuousness, i.e. his natural inclinations), 'liberating' him out from under the Father's authority (righteousness), placing sensuousness ("human nature") over and against righteousness ("parental restraint"), negating the Father's authority in the thoughts and the actions of the next generation. Just to give you a taste of dialectic 'reasoning I will give you a few quotations from a major source for teacher education. James Coleman, who was a major source for education research in the 50's and 60's (Paul Lazersfeld, a Marxist professor at Columbia, was his advisor for his doctorate), who's research was a major source for Supreme Court decisions regarding education, who's material is still heavily used in the undergraduate, masters, and doctorate level's of Education today, wrote: "Parents are 'out of touch with the times,' and unable to understand, much less inculcate, the standards of a social order that has changed since they were young." "The family has little to offer the child in the way of training for his place in the community." "In the traditional society each child is at the mercy of his parents. The ‘natural processes' by which they socialize him makes him a replica of them." "Mass media, and an ever-increasing range of personal experiences, gives an adolescent social sophistication at an early age, making him unfit for the obedient role of the child in the family." "One of the consequence of the increasing social liberation of adolescents is the increasing inability of parents to enforce norms, a greater and greater tendency for the adolescent community to disregard adult dictates, and to consider itself no longer subject to the demands of parents and teachers." "Rather than bringing the father back to play with his son, this strategy would recognize that society has changed, and attempt to improve those institutions designed to educate the adolescent toward adulthood." "In the industrial society, committed to equality of opportunity, adults cannot afford to shape their children in their own image." "Equality of Opportunity becomes ever greater with the weakening of family power." (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society: the Social Life of the Teenager and its Impact on Education) Anyone can see what direction James Coleman was taking the children in the classroom, away from the family and the father's authority towards a "new" world order of lawlessness and abomination. Regarding the Marxist takeover of Education in the 60's, i.e. how to prevent the public from becoming awareness of it, Coleman wrote: "In school controversies, the issue of Communist subversion in the schools is one-sided; as long as it occupies the attention of the community, it is to the advantage of school critics. In contrast, the issue 'progressive education vs. traditional education' offers no differential advantage to either side (unless, of course, progressive education can be identified by its opponents as 'Communistic' [which was not successfully done because the Traditional and Transformational Marxist differences were not recognized by the conservatives until recently, i.e. the Traditional Marxist shoot you if you say "Get off 'My' land," the Transformational Marxist, i.e. social-psychologists, i.e. facilitators of 'change,' convince you, through the consensus process, that it is "Our land" instead])…" (James Coleman, Community Conflict) Bracketed information added. Maximilien Francois Robespierre, head of the directorate of the French Revolution, made the following statement: "On ne peut pas faire d'omelette sans casser des oeufs," i.e. "Omelettes are not made without breaking eggs." He understood the principles of dialectic 'reasoning': the "omelette" being society unified, the unified family system being the individual "eggs" which had to be broken up and assimilated. Otto Von Bismarck unified Germany on this principle. The European nations are unified on this principle. World unity is based upon this principle.
The principles of dialectic 'reasoning' are explained in the scriptures. Dialectic 'reasoning' is Genesis 3:1-6 (reasoning, i.e. "human reasoning," which was first put into praxis, i.e. into action in a garden in Eden) being used to overcome Romans 7:14-25 (overcome the conflict between the child's will, i.e. "human nature," i.e. sensuousness and the Father's will, i.e. righteousness―a child doing what he does not want to do, i.e. disobey his parents, and not doing what he wants to do, obey his parents, all because of his "human nature," i.e. doing that which is natural, i.e. being "normal" is, through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' a child doing what is right, i.e. being "normal," and not doing what is wrong, i.e. obeying his parent's when it goes against being "normal") by negating Hebrews 12:5-11 (negate the Father's right to chasten―which engenders righteousness―forcing the Father to be tolerant of the child's carnal nature, forcing him to tolerate unrighteousness, i.e. forcing the Father's will to now be subject to the child's will). The "forbidden" tree (God's tree, i.e. "Mine not yours," the basis of private property, i.e. "My land. Not your land.") became everybody's tree ("Our tree," "Our property," "Our land") through the use of dialectic 'reasoning. Dialectic 'reasoning' negates respect for other peoples private property, i.e. "There land, Not my land," "Their children, Not my children," etc., making all property social, i.e. i.e. "Our land," "Our children," etc. thus property rights and sovereignty are negated. Dialectic 'reasoning' is synthesis negating antithesis by making thesis subject to synthesis (reasoning negating the righteousness-sensuousness conflict by making 'righteousness' subject to sensuousness―negating the Father over child, God over man, i.e. "above-below" conflict by making the Father's will subject to the child's will, the Father's thoughts and actions subject to the child's feelings and the child's' thoughts, God's will subject to man's will, God's Word subject to man's feelings, thoughts, and actions, i.e. subject to men's opinions and behavior, engendering "equality"). By accentuating (focusing upon) the general, the nature of children to approach pleasure and avoid pain, i.e. being drawn by the environment to "know themselves" (to be at-one-with nature), i.e. "human nature" (man's propensity to "be himself" i.e. to "be normal"), the issue of sensuousness ("felt" needs), you negate the specific, the child's disobedience to the Father's command (man's propensity to "sin"), the issue of righteousness.
Dialectic 'reasoning,' does not recognize "sin" as being the result of man in disobedience to God's will (the children in disobedience to the Father's commands), but instead as being the result of man in disobedience to his own nature (the child in denial of his own true nature, i.e. still living according to his Father's will, thus alienating himself not only from his own nature but from nature itself, i.e. from the way of the world itself). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' "'Sin' is the estrangement of man from man." (Leonard F. Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism) According to dialectic 'reasoning,' sin is not the estrangement of man from God but instead it is the preaching and teaching of the estrangement of man from God―causing alienation, i.e. causing division between a man and his own nature as well as causing division between the man of sensuousness ("human nature," i.e. the will of the child) and the man of righteousness (Godliness, i.e. doing the will of the Father). Dialectic 'logic' is: if "[a]lienation is the experience of ‘estrangement,'" then "[a]lienation has a long history. Its most radical sense already appear[ing] in the biblical expulsion from Eden." Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' God, i.e. the Father's authority, i.e. righteousness is "the anthropological source of alienation." (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory And Its Theorists) If man is to overcome the cause of alienation and attain "world peace," then the Father's authority and the issue of righteousness must be dealt with, i.e. negated in the thoughts and actions of mankind (no longer ruling over "human nature").
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' without man's use of Genesis 3:-16 (dialectic 'reasoning' being put into social action―praxis), i.e. "human reasoning" 'liberating' the "child" out from under the Father's authority, placing him (his feelings and his thoughts, i.e. his opinion) over the Father's authority, and then uniting his opinion with the opinions of others of like feelings and thoughts (like opinions, united in consensus) against the "Father's authority," all man has is Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e. the child's nature ("human nature") being "repressed" by the Father's authority (carnality being restrained by righteousness), with man remaining subject to Romans 7:14-25, i.e. the children remaining subject to the Father's will, alienated from his own nature and the nature of the world. The dialectic ideology is: through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. "human reasoning" (Genesis 3:1-6), man can 'justify' himself in his own eyes ('justify' sensuousness, i.e. 'justify' his "felt" needs) and thereby negate Hebrews 12:5-11 (negate righteousness), resolving the antithesis condition of Romans 7:14-15 (negate the belief-action dichotomy, i.e. spirit-flesh conflict and overcome "neurosis" where man is caught between doing either his will and having a "guilty conscience" or doing his Father's will and not "enjoying" life). Through man's use of dialectic 'reasoning,' his conscience is seared (the Father's authority is negated), thus making all things that come to his imagination (the imagination of his heart) possible―abomination. In this way, through man's use of dialectic 'reasoning,' "the pursuit of happiness" (carnality) determines the value or worth of "life," defining the meaning of "liberty."
Dialectic 'reasoning,' put into praxis (social action is made the "law" of the land, i.e. the way "business is done"), is mankind having no "guilty conscience" in negating the father and his authority to have and enforce his commands, restraining the child's sensuous and spontaneous 'moment,' restraining "human nature." The difference between the American and the French revolutions was that the American revolution was over the freedom of the conscience, the French was freedom from the conscience. One limited the power of government so that the father could rule over his family "well," under God, which engenders the "guilty conscience," and thereby engenders "civil government." The other empowered the government to negate the father's authority to rule over his family "well," under God, which negates the "guilty conscience," and thereby negates "civil government," instead, engendering "totalitarian government." "We must develop persons who see non-influenceability of private convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) In other words, we must "develop" (re-educate) the "citizens" to perceive candidates who hold to principles of absolutes, i.e. who are therefore subject to a "guilty conscience" (when they abandon or vote counter to the platform their constituents put them into office to represent, i.e. "re-present" in their stead―warning: there is no "re-presentation" or "guilty conscience" in the consensus process), as being barriers to social 'change,' i.e. obstacles to progress. "We must return to Freud and say that incest guilt created the familial organization." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) In other words, not until the government has the authority, and the power, to negate the traditional family, with its patriarchal father figure who engenders a "guilty conscience," can we have a nation of abomination. "Freud noted that … patricide and incest … are part of man's deepest nature." (Irvin D. Yalom Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) In other words, government "guided" by departments using the consensus process (facilitated by social-psychology) must engender a "new" world order based upon "human nature," 'justifying' "patricide" (the negation of the father's authority to give commands restraining "human nature" and chasten those under this authority when they disobey him) and "incest" (propagating "tolerance of ambiguity," 'justifying' abomination). As the family is 'changed,' the heart of the people are 'changed,' the nation is 'changed,' i.e. as the family goes the nation goes. If those of dialectic 'reasoning' understand this, what is wrong with the American public? Are they blinded by dialectic 'reasoning,' 'justifying their deceitful and wicked hearts as well? The leadership of the nation reflect the heart of the people. God looks at the heart of the people to determine what to do with the nation, judging them and their nation accordingly.
It was through dialogue, i.e. two coming together as "equals," i.e. man and the world (in this case the woman, "the prince of the power of the air," and "all" the trees in a garden in Eden, the "Father's" tree being the focal point) coming together as "one" in sensual understanding (through "human reasoning," i.e. through "self-justification"), that Satan was able to seduce, deceive, and manipulate the woman in a garden in Eden, and thereby every man since (all have since followed the same pattern of dialectic 'reasoning,' justifying themselves, i.e. 'justifying' their carnal desires over and against the Father's will). Genesis 3:1-6 In dialogue you negate the threat, you negate the command, you negate the "guilty conscience," and you negate the Father and His authority. (Dialogue is not the same as discussion, which is explained later on, i.e. in the continuation of this article.)
Jesus would not dialogue with the devil, instead he preached and taught the words of His Father, "It is written ...." ("as given" by His Heavenly Father).
He calls all who are His to do the same: to deny themselves (to quit dialoguing with themselves to 'justify' their carnal thoughts and carnal actions), to pick up their cross (to quick dialoguing with others to find what carnal thoughts they have in common with others and others with them, thereby 'justifying' their carnal nature with men, i.e. seeking after "the approval of men" but instead, having received "the approval of God" through faith in His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, they are to preach and teach the truth as is, even unto death), and follow Him (preaching and teaching the truth in His righteousness, in His obedience to His Heavenly Father, even unto death). If you 'change' the Word of God, to make it understandable (reasonable) to the world, it is no longer the Word of God, it is your opinion of God's Word, having no convicting power, having circumvented the conscience. "Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." "For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us." "We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh." 2 Corinthians 4:1-11
Although dialectic 'reasoning' focuses upon the negation of negation, i.e. the negation of the father and his authority, it also affects the husband wife relationship. While Jesus himself said he came not to bring peace but rather to bring a sword, dividing the family ('reconciling' individual souls to His Heavenly Father, above their earthly father, mother, siblings, other, etc. i.e. all that is of the world), he did not include the husband wife relationship in that division. Instead the scriptures are clear that the husband's body is the wife's and the wife's body is the husband's, that the two become one, with the husband as the head and the desire of the heart of the wife being to her husband (maintaining a top-down authority structure in the family, under God). Through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' that relationship is negated as well. It is clear that the husband wife relationship must be strong if the father's authority over the home is to properly function, under God. It is clear as well (or will become clear) why both the husband wife relationship and the father (parent) children relationship is destroyed through their use of dialectic 'reasoning.' This will be explained later on in this article, explained according to the scriptures.
A short example might help make this easier to understand. When an atom is divided (as in a nuclear explosion or in a nuclear reactor) it is not because an electron, proton, or neutron comes in and knocks the atom apart, as a billiard ball (cue ball) does to a rack of balls, it is because it attaches itself to the atom, making the atom unstable (atomically out of balance) and thereby causes it to fly apart. The "nuclear family" is made unstable and will fall apart when the husband brings another woman into the relationship or the wife brings another man into the relationship or the children bring another child or relative (who is deviant, divisive, not respectful of the authority of the father or parents) into the relationship (or the desire of the wife's heart is to herself or to the children instead of to her husband, etc.). In this way, through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' the heart grows cold towards the one in authority. Dialectic 'reasoning' brings the world into the family (or 'liberates' the world in the members of the family), making all "equal" (with everyone "lusting" after the things of the world), negating the authority structure of the traditional family. Or as Karl Marx put it, annihilates it (which was his intent). Statements by Hegel, Marx, Freud, quoted below, will make this very clear.
If you don't understand the above, you don't understand the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of those possessed by ("blinded by") dialectic 'reasoning,' (including those 'driven' by and 'purposed' in propagating the "purpose driven church," "emergent church," "contemplative church," etc), i.e. men "emerging" out from under ('liberated' themselves from) the restraints of righteousness, becoming themselves "as they are," 'righteous' in their own eyes―Abomination. Those of dialectic 'reasoning' are not intellectuals, they are emotionalists, and will do whatever it takes to keep that which is theirs, i.e. their carnal nature.
While dad is not perfect, the office of authority he serves in is.
It is an office given to him by God, to serve in, under His authority.
It is an office given for the sake of the children,
blessing them, not only by providing for their physical needs but also
by directing them in the ways of righteousness
and restraining them from their own demise.
If the "the people" negate the office, they negate themselves,
having given themselves over to tyrants, who will use them for their own pleasures.
Abomination.
"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." Proverb. 3: 5-6
"Casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." 2 Corinthians 10:3-5
"And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:5
The dialectic process is now being accepted and used in almost all areas of our lives: in education, in the workplace, in government, in entertainment, in the media, and even in the church (all for the 'purpose' of 'change'). It is the backbone (mindset) of the so called "new" world order. In that "new" order of the world, no one can leave home (buy, sell, or have a home) without it. It is all about 'change,' i.e. 'changing' the order of things. If you 'change' the "order" you 'change' the paradigm. If you 'change' the paradigm you 'change' the way people think and act. All three are the same. How you "think and act" is a paradigm, and your paradigm is revealed in how you order things, i.e. how you prioritize things―either according to your own feelings of the 'moment (impulsive), according to "human reasoning" (a subtle and complex process of self 'justifying' of your feelings), or according to faith in God, i.e. according to the righteousness of Christ, i.e. the Word of God (in the simplicity of faith in Christ and in obedience to His Father). "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." 2 Corinthians 11:3 "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." Colossians 3:1 "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." Galatians 5:24; 6:8 "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." "And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:25-32 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; ..." 2 Corinthians 5:10-11 "For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." 2 Corinthians 4:16-18
The following paragraphs are the formula for dialectic 'reasoning.' They give a general overview of how those of dialectic 'reasoning' see the world and you, as well as why they want to 'change' it and you, and how they are able to 'change' it and you. Though it may take some mental "wading through" to get to the other side of the swamp of dialectic 'reasoning,' once through you should be able to look back and see from where you have come, being able to better understand where the process wants to take you, is taking you, and has taken you.
According to dialectic 'reasoning': since feelings are ever 'changing,' with man's natural inclinations being to respond according to the 'changing' 'moments' of life, then for man to keep in harmony with his feelings (to be at peace with himself and the 'changing' world) the position he holds must be ever 'changing,' i.e. adaptable to 'change' as well. Truth and knowledge are therefore relative to a persons situation, i.e. to his life experience, i.e. to his feelings and thoughts in any given 'moment.' That is why we read such statements, as the following, in education material, material teachers must learn and apply not only on themselves but also in their classrooms, i.e. upon their students as well. ".... we recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places." (Benjamin S. Bloom Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 1: Cognitive Domain) Man's ever 'changing' position being therefore his praxis (act) of spontaneity, his natural responding to the 'moment' in the 'moment,' and his praxis of sensuousness being his "affections" or feelings (nervous system) stimulated by something in the environment (the world), engendered his awareness of the world in the 'moment' as well. Man's nature therefore is to respond to the natural stimulations (situations) of life, responding according to his own nature, approaching that which engenders pleasure (approving the "positive") and avoiding that which engenders pain (disapproving the "negative"), with reasoning being used to augment that which engenders pleasure, i.e. promoting that which is "positive," and attenuate that which engenders pain, i.e. negating that which is "negative."
According to dialectic 'reasoning' there are three paradigms or ways of thinking and acting: thesis or "fixed" position, antithesis or feelings (which are changing) that conflict with the thesis or "fixed" position (which is unchanging), and synthesis, where, through reasoning, a person's position and feelings can be united, i.e. making position feelings and feelings position (making position, "your" position in the 'moment'), i.e. uniting your feelings with your thoughts and uniting your thoughts with your feelings. The dialectic idea being: if you "can not" attach your feelings and your thoughts to your position, it is not your position, it is someone else's position, you have embraced by faith. And then put your feelings and thoughts, united as "one," i.e. as your position, into action. Uniting your feelings and thoughts, making them "one," creates your position, a position which is adaptable to 'change,' 'changeable' to the 'changing' environment, i.e. 'changeable' to the 'changing' situations of life. "Your" opinion (how you feel and what you think in the 'moment'), and therefore the opinions of men, becomes the basis for 'reality.'
Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' 'reality' is only found in a person's own feelings (what the scriptures call "the lust of the flesh," what social-psychologist call consciousness or the "cognitive domain," or Karl Marx called "sensuous needs"), in a person's own thoughts (what the scriptures call "the lust of the eyes," i.e. the "imagination of the heart," what social-psychologists call self-consciousness or the "affective domain," or as Marx called "sense perception"), and in his own actions (his ability to control his own life according to reason, what the scriptures call "the pride of life," what social-psychologist call praxis or human behavior or "psycho-motor domain," i.e. his ability to make decisions or thinking for himself, all according to his own nature and nature itself, and act upon it, or as Marx called "sense experience"), all united as "one" (a persons own nature and nature itself united as one, as the scriptures state "all that is of the world," or as Marx stated "only when it proceeds from Nature"), removing from his feelings, his thoughts, and his actions anything which (or anyone who) is not of "human nature," i.e. what Marx called "praxis" (therapy or counseling put into social action called the "consensus" process).
By seducing those of a thesis position (people with a fixed position) into participating in a synthesis engendering environment (an environment of ever 'changing' "positions," where "positions" are "readily adaptable to 'change'"), an environment supposedly (which "seems to be") used to "help" them overcome an antithesis condition (a crisis or a conflict between positions, whether man made or from nature), then by deceiving them into believing that the synthesis engendering environment (an environment of mediation―not representation) is being used to solve their crisis (when in fact it is being used to negate their thesis position, i.e. 'change' their paradigm), those of a thesis position can be manipulated into a synthesis outcome simply by their 'willful' participation within the synthesis engendering environment. Thereby synthesis based laws or conditions ("ambiguous" laws, readily adaptable to 'change' laws, laws which serve social interests over and against personal values, i.e. "mission statements") can thereby be engendered from "the people," i.e. initiated and sustained by "the people," 'changing' how the people of the world are to "do business," i.e. how they are to feel, thinks, and act according to 'changing' times. The worth or value of a person (his having a "family," being in business, in government, in education, in the church, etc) is thereafter weighted according to his participation (or his refusal to participate) in dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. his "adaptability to 'change'" in a so called "rapidly changing world" being the hallmark (or benchmark) of his worth or value in a so called "new" world order. The consensus meeting is being sold (marketed) as a meeting to "help" you fix a problem, when in truth it is a meeting being used to "fix" you instead, i.e. being used to 'change' your paradigm. It is what 'change' (the 'change' process, i.e. the dialectic process) is all about.
I am not making this up. I have a bibliography of over 200 books, major publications (out of 600 plus) which I have read and studied on the subject. With the Lord revealing to me, through His Word and by His Holy Spirit, the seductive, deceptive, and manipulative ways of social-psychologists ('change' agents or Transformational Marxists), used to "get an advantage of us," I write these articles to expose the "devices" used by the enemy of our souls (and our children's souls). "... Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices." 2 Corinthians 2:11
Thesis: If you prioritize things (order or organize things) according to a patriarchal paradigm of absolutes or established facts and truth (having to learn and follow rules and commands given by a higher authority, without questioning, obeying them out of fear of judgment and/or chastisement), you prioritize the "past" over (and against) your present experiencing―according to dialectic 'reasoning,' since "life" is only known in the 'moment,' commands given by God or the Father are of the "past" holding man to the "past," inhibiting him from the "enjoyment" of the present―that the standards and rules of the "past," guiding you in your present thoughts and actions, are actually restraining you from becoming "yourself," living according to your carnal nature. Reality is therefore determined by someone outside of your present experience. Reality is objective, in an object independent of and greater than your present feelings and thoughts, i.e. outside of your understanding of the 'moment.' Reality is in a sovereign, i.e. in someone greater than (stronger than) or above (higher than) your "sensuous experiences" of the 'moment,' determining for you what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil, therefore ruling over your thoughts and your actions (directing your behavior). This is a condition (system or environment) known as righteousness, in that the higher authority is right, i.e. is reality, i.e. is first cause ("Because I said so.") in and of himself, determining what is right and wrong, what is good and what is evil for all who are under his authority. The patriarchal paradigm is a father initiating and sustaining authority over his children.
Although there are many father's today (biological fathers, i.e. many with dead children, who they allowed or encouraged their wife to abort), few are patriarchal in paradigm, more are acting like children in men's bodies (self-seeking, chasing after the "toys" of the world) then men (self-controlled, ruling over their families well, under God). Most are simply following after their feelings of the 'moment' (matriarchal in paradigm) or 'driven' and 'purpose' in getting rid of the father's authority (negating the patriarchal paradigm), removing it from the face of the earth in the name of "world peace," "social harmony," and "equality," engendering a "new" world order of 'change' (initiating and sustaining the heresiarchal paradigm of 'change').
Antithesis: If you prioritize things according to a matriarchal paradigm of "feelings" or of sensuousness (your thoughts and your actions are guided by your own nature to approach pleasure and the avoid pain), you prioritize your present experiencing over (and against) the "past" and the future, i.e. the "past" and the future having no relevance to your present thoughts and actions unless they contribute to your present pleasure or "enjoyment." 'Reality' is therefore subjective, only in you living in and for the 'moment,' i.e. avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure, determining what is right or wrong, what is good or evil according to the pleasure or the pain it brings you in the 'moment.' This is a condition (system or environment) known as sensuousness in that your feelings of the 'moment' are right, i.e. your feelings of the 'moment' are "reality" in and of themselves, telling you what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil (for the 'moment'). The antithesis condition comes into play because of the influence of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. his chastening, or threat of it, thus engendering a "guilty conscience" when the children remember the father (and his threat) or see the father approaching as they are "doing their own thing."
Synthesis (Take a big breath, paragraph sentences coming): But if you prioritize things according to a heresiarchal paradigm of 'change' (where your thoughts and actions are adaptable to 'change,' are subject to the 'changing' conditions or environment around you, where your feelings and your thoughts, which are subjective, are ever 'changing' to initiate and sustain relationship with the ever 'changing' world of the feelings and thoughts of others around you―which are objective when detached from your feelings and thoughts―synthesizing the two, your feelings with their feeling and their feelings with your feelings and your thoughts with their thoughts and their thoughts with your thoughts) 'reality' is in the 'moment' where you are uniting with others who are doing the same evaluation as you, getting on the "same page" with you, i.e. with you uniting with them and them uniting with you upon what you and they have in common, i.e. the sensuousness of "your" present feelings and thoughts of the 'moment' and the sensuousness of "their" present feelings and thoughts of the 'moment' (to approach pleasure and avoid pain), becoming "one" in the 'moment.' 'Reality' is where all individuals, dialectically detached from the controlling influences of their families, i.e. 'liberated' from their father's patriarchal authority which "alienates" them from their own nature and from the nature of others (from nature itself), are now becoming united as "one," in a society or community of "feelings" and "thoughts," "impulses and urges," becoming united through their use of reasoning or human reasoning, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning. 'Reality' is everyone prioritize their present experience of the 'moment' as being there in past (consciousness), of the present being 'discovered' (self-consciousness), and for the future being created through dialectic 'reasoning.'
'Reality' is in the 'moment' (in pleasure or in the pleasure of augmenting pleasure, i.e. in the affirmation of the "positive," and in the negation of pain or the attenuation of pain, i.e. in the negation of the "negative"―where the phrase "negation of negation" comes from, i.e. the negation of the father's authority) with man uniting with man, with human relationship ("the approval of men," i.e. the pleasure of social approval) being now the highest priority, thus moving all men, united in the 'moment' as "one" in sensuousness and reasoning (in consensus), into the future, into a 'reality' which was there in the "past," (the desire or "sensuous need" to relate with that which is of the world of pleasure in the 'moment,' as a child) but "repressed," i.e. restrained by the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. by the father, now being 'discover' and 'liberated' through everyone's use of dialectic 'reasoning' (overcome the crisis created by the father-children conflict). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' reasoning which is now being used to 'liberate' sensuousness (the pleasure, love―Eros of the 'moment') from the restraints of righteousness (from the pain, "non-sensuous" love―agape of the "past") was always there in the 'past," only now being 'discovered' and 'liberated' (known or experienced, i.e. as Gnosis) and now being used to negate the restraints of the "past" in the present, for the sake of the future, i.e. a future of "love," i.e. experiential love, sensual love, i.e. the sensation of being 'loved,' receiving pleasure, in the 'moment.' Therefore, reasoning (the reasoning of "Why," which was silenced by the father's authority, "Because I said so.", i.e. the fear of judgment and chastening, causing you to obey his reasoning in the "past") instead of "repressing" you ("What is the reason you do what you do? Because my Father said to do it His way 'or else.'"), i.e. fighting against your present feelings, thoughts, and actions, i.e. "repressing" your natural inclination to relate with the world around you, preventing you from thinking and acting according to your own carnal nature, i.e. your own sensuousness, is now re-attached to your feelings, your sensuousness, your carnal human nature, your understanding ("enlightenment") is now being used to 'liberate' your thoughts and your action from the restraints of the Father and His authority, from obeying His commands and rules through the fear of His chastening. Dialectic 'reasoning' 'liberates' man from the "past," from the Father's authority.
Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning:' the "old" world order of reasoning was: "The reason you think and act the way you do (unnaturally, not according to your own nature) is because God or your Father told you to think and act His way 'or else' He would bring pain into our life." Cause and effect are therefore established above you, above your natural impulses and urges of the 'moment,' judging and restraining them, i.e. keeping you from becoming at-one-with the world in pleasure, in sensuousness. Thus the standards of God or your Father are "repressing" your present thoughts and actions through His use of, or threat of use of pain, i.e. chastening (engendering a "guilty conscience"). And the "new" world order of reasoning is: By negating the conditions of the "past," i.e. by negating God's or the Father' effect upon you, His restraining of your thoughts upon and your pursuit of pleasure in the 'moment,' i.e. "repressing" your natural inclinations to be at-one-with the world of pleasure in the present, by uniting your natural feelings, thoughts, and actions with the natural feelings, thoughts, and actions of the others (with others of like feelings, thoughts, and actions which are, by nature, common to all men), the world around you, within you, and now with you, can create a "new" future, a "new" world order void of the restrains and the restrainers of the "past," restraining the present, i.e. a "new" world order void the "guilty conscience" (engendered by the father) now replaced with the "super-ego" (engendered by "the village"). Explained further down in this article.
Thus mankind, united in the praxis of consensus, rationally 'discovering' and building upon the ground which they have in common, i.e. the common ground of "human nature," can collectively void the "old" world order, the patriarchal paradigm or top-down way of thinking and acting which prevented the "new" world order from becoming. Therefore 'reality' is: you in the world and the world in you, united in the 'moment,' united as "one" in the praxis of augmenting pleasure, i.e. the foundation for a "new" world, with all men 'driven' by human nature, united as one, 'purposed' in creating a world of peace built upon human nature (unrighteousness 'liberated' from the "guilty conscience"). 'Reality' is only in the present world of "sense experience" (Karl Marx), i.e. in the 'moment,' with (and this is the key difference between the matriarchal and the heresiarchal paradigms) all men of like feelings, thoughts, and actions, feeling, thinking, and acting together, i.e. sensuously and rationally working together as "one," for a "better" future (in a 'moment' of uninhibited pleasure―not that the future will ever arrive, since it is all about the present 'moment' of pleasure in which a person, or in this case, the collective experiences the pleasure of augmenting pleasure for all of mankind, creating a "new" environment, a "new" order for the world, i.e. an order of so called "equality" whereby every man can 'discover' and put dialectic 'reasoning' into practice, i.e. into social action (praxis) 'justifying' his carnal nature―abomination―uniting all mankind as "one" through putting man's carnal nature into action, acting as "one" negating all that is not of the "one," i.e. negating that which is not of human nature―this is the praxis of Sodom and the Tower of Babel synthesized , i.e. "theory and practice" united upon "human nature" only.
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' 'reality' has three aspects. 1) 'Reality' is the praxis of negating the restraints (restrainers) of the "past," negating the fear of the "restrainer" in man's mind and removing any social heritage of His that is left in the present ("recycling" what is of the "past" so that it can be recreated according to the "sensuous needs" of the present, for the "sense perceived needs" or imagined needs of the "future"). 2) 'Reality' is also the praxis of you along with the world negating the restraints (restrainers) in the present, those of the "past" in your presence in the present. 3) And 'reality' is "We working for Us." negating the condition (system, environment, or paradigm) which might engender (recreate) the restraints (restrainers) in the "future." In a "new" world order there can be no restraints (restrainers) of the "past," inhibiting the present, or in the present, preventing the future. Thus in a "new" world order there must be continuous "counseling" of all its "citizens" through the consensus process, i.e. through their participation in dialectic 'reasoning,' if the world is to be freed of righteousness, i.e. "purged" of the "old" world order of the patriarchal paradigm maintaining its affects upon present, and the future world. "It is necessary, in other words, artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children—to insulate the children in order that they can more easily be indoctrinated with new ideas. If one wishes to mold children in order to achieve some future goal, one must begin to view them as superior. One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)
I placed quotation marks around the word past since according to dialectic 'reasoning' there is no "living God," Spirit or Father of authority, who's position of authority is never changing, outside of the human "experience" of the 'moment' (outside the human spirit of "sensation"), who's standards apply to all times and places, i.e. not only in the past, but also in the present and the future―which is a condition of righteousness. According to dialectical 'reasoning' there is no reality outside of the "here-and-now," i.e. beyond the child with his natural inclinations, responds to the current situation (approaching whatever in nature engenders pleasure and avoiding whatever in nature engenders pain). Reality is in the 'moment,' in the sensation of being and becoming, where man is ever 'changing' in his response to the ever 'changing' environment which he lives within, where man, in the 'moment' is doing what comes natural, getting to know, i.e. unite with the things of the world. Anything or anyone outside of this experience―outside of man's common desire to known himself as being at-one-with the world (man seeking pleasure from the world) and the world being at-one-with him (man receiving pleasure from the world)―restraining or blocking his 'moment' of experiencing, i.e. his 'moment' of pleasure, i.e. preventing him from knowing, i.e. being at-one-with his own nature and the nature of the world in the 'moment,' is an illusion, and according to dialectic 'reason' is a condition that must be treated as reality (to the person under the Father's authority a reality of "neurosis") and overcome though proper "health care" methods. Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' "good" health resides in man's adaptability to 'change, i.e. to his ability to rationally 'change' with the 'changing' times in the "present." It does not reside in his faith in what or who is of the "past," unchangeable in the "past" and/or the future. The scriptures declare that dialectic 'reasoning' as anathema, as the spirit of antichrist, as abomination, for "[e]very good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:17 We serve a living God (and a living savior) who is in the world today. He is not of the world. That is the god of the world, "the prince of the power of the air" "helping" man unite his carnal nature with the carnal world he lives within, like a drug addict, living only in and only for the sensuous 'moment,', his thoughts and his actions 'driven' by and 'purposed' in the augmentation of pleasure (the 'liberation' of licentiousness and abomination in the present) and the attenuation of pain (the negation of the restraints of righteousness of the "past").
The dialectic trickery of the facilitator of 'change' is not to attack the restrainer ("the resistor of 'change,'" the father and his authority) outright, but rather to try to "convert" him first, i.e. seduce, deceive, and manipulate him and those who follow him (as he did his children) into participation in the process first. But, if that does not work, if he maintains his faith in the "'old' way of doing things," then "the people," i.e. the "grass roots," i.e. his children who have become "converted," those addicted to the pleasures (their "new" found "freedom") engendered through their participation in the process, those addicted to the "here-and-now" unencumbered by the rules and commands of the "past," will remove him (consider him "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant")―deriving pleasure, like "scientists" do when they work on projects that are personal to them, in negating the "barriers" that gets in the way of pleasure, i.e. negating the "pain" of righteousness (which comes through chastening), i.e. negating the father's authority, not only in themselves, i.e. in their thoughts and actions but also in the thoughts and actions of all "the people" of the world. "The people" thus derive pleasure through the laws of the land they "helped" pass, i.e. the laws of lawlessness, i.e. laws of ambiguity (tolerating ambiguity), laws which are engendered through the consensus process, where "all" "the people," or so it seems, 'willingly' participated in the dialectic process of 'change,' i.e. in the praxis of negating righteousness in their private thoughts and in their public actions―what "public-private partnership" is really all about. History has warned us of such praxis. But then, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' history does not repeat itself, it just progressively negates the father's authority, so that man can move ever closer to a "new" world order, a world of "loosely defined rules" and "spontaneous changes in rules to best" serve the process of 'change.' "Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules to best suit the state [to best serve the interest of 'change'] ." (R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law) Bracketed information added. "The movement of the progressive societies has been uniform in one respect. Through all its course it has been distinguished by the gradual dissolution of family dependency and the growth of individual obligations in its place. The individual is steadily substituted for the family as the unit for which civil laws take account." (Sir Henry Sumner Main, Freedom of Expression and Dissent in the Soviet Union) You must detach "the people" (the children) from their conscience (from their fathers) and remove the conscience (the fathers) from "the people" (from the children) if you are to use them for social cause, i.e. for social 'change.'
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' sensuousness, i.e. time and space―approach pleasure-avoid pain―is the only domain (the "affective domain") that man can comprehend, that righteousness ("I'm above, ruling over you below, directing your steps, with you obeying me whether I make sense (it is pleasurable) to you or not in the 'moment.' Whether you like it or not, you are to walk in faith, i.e. according to My righteousness"), i.e. that righteousness (being told what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil), i.e. that which is only in and of God alone, i.e. is outside of man's reasoning (dialectic 'reasoning') abilities, who can only reason according to his own sensuousness, according to his own nature, according to his own "life experiences," thinking and acting according to sight, i.e. according to his own "sensuous needs" and "sense perception." (Karl Marx) As you will see, by using the dialectic process, by using dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the so called "scientific method" on man (as in "behavior science"), you can only define man according to his own carnal nature, i.e. according to "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride of life," according to the law of sin―where his reasoning ability, i.e. his "wisdom" is wrapped around the augmentation of pleasure (and the attenuation of pain), i.e. "wisdom" being man's ability to initiate and sustain a world of pleasure, according to dialectic 'reasoning', not only for himself but for all of mankind. The praxis of using "science" (the dialectic process) on man, defining him according to his own nature, negates anything outside of his "sense experience" of the 'moment,' negates faith (the preaching and teaching, i.e. the inculcating of truth). "Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception and sensuous need, that is, only when it proceeds from Nature." Karl Marx MEGA I/3 By defining man, prioritizing his life, according to the "scientific" method, man is materialized, made at-one-with the creation only, i.e. negating the creator, i.e. negating God, i.e. negating the Father's authority.
If you 'change' the way people think and act, if you 'change' the "order" from the "old" to the so called "new," if you 'change' the paradigm from a patriarchal pattern, where the Father rules, i.e. a Father centered environment where the children say "What will dad (or God) say?" i.e. a "top-down," "above-below" system, to a heresiarchal pattern, where the children (their feelings and their thoughts) rule, i.e. child centered, "If it feels good, do it.", i.e. an "equality" system, you 'change' the world―you 'change' the condition or standard whereby not only the worth or value of your home or business is determined but also the worth or value of your very own life is determined. In other word, if you don't participate in the process of 'change,' if you don't 'change' your paradigm, if you don't change the way you think and act, since "everyone else is doing it," you will be classified as being "irrational." Therefore you will be treated as being "irrelevant" if you keep holding onto your "old fashioned" way of thinking and acting, your "old" paradigm, your "old" unchangingness, your faith, i.e. you will become worthless and of no value. Once you get past all the philosophers philosophical verbiage, used to cover their tracks (to remove the conscience from the mind), it all comes down to the Father-children relationship, either the Father is in authority, restraining the children, the Father is absent for a while (and the children are "doing their own thing" hoping not to get caught, i.e. still having a "guilty conscience"), or the children rule, unrestrained except by their hope for more carnal pleasure, ruling in anarchy, i.e. in lawlessness, living according to their ever-changing "felt" needs of the 'moment.'
Carl Rogers believed in and propagated a dialectical "new" world order. He wrote: "Life, at its best, is a flowing, changing process in which nothing is fixed." "The good life is not any fixed state. The good life is a process. The direction which constitutes the good life is psychological freedom to move in any direction [where] the general qualities of this selected direction appears to have a certain universality." "Consciousness, instead of being the watchman over a dangerous and unpredictable lot of impulses, becomes the comfortable inhabitant of a society of impulses and feelings and thoughts." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) We paid him well (with our tax dollars), and others like him, so that he could show our teachers and ministers how to use the dialectic process on us and on our children.
As you will come to understand, psychology serves only one purpose, and one purpose only, the negation of the father's authority in the lives of the children. When the opinions of the children, i.e. expressed in the language of "I feel," and "I think," become the foundation of communication in the home, then the father's authority to give commands without question (to preach and teach), i.e. expressed in the language "You can" and "You can not," "Because I said so" and the use chastising when he is disobeyed or his command is not carried out, is negated. Language is a product of culture, i.e. culture engenders a particular language. Thus the language of a patriarchal culture (where the father rules) is a language of preaching and teaching, a language of "Thou shalt not ... or else." But the language of a heresiarchal culture (where the children rule) is a language of dialogue, a language of "Well, I feel ...." and "Well, I think ...." While both cultures (and languages) can intermingle for a period, only one can maintain a position of authority or influence, i.e. one culture having to submit or succumb to the other. For example: when the child responds with a "Why?" (to engender dialogue, to free himself from the father's authority) and the father responds with "Because I said so." to retain his position of authority, two cultures have become manifest, the culture of permissiveness and the culture of authority. If the culture of authority goes into dialogue, in response to the "Why?" it must abdicate the "Because I say so." And if the other culture accepts the "Because I said so" it must accept the authority of the father and abdicate its "Why?" All I have to do is bring both cultures together over a "crisis" and move the language in the meeting from preaching and teaching ("Because I say so") to dialogue ("Why?") and I will negate the one culture, replacing it with the other.
The answers (the paradigm) is in the questions. By asking "How did you feel ...?" and "How do your feel ...?" or "What did you thing ...?" or "What do you think ...?" type questions, you engender a world of dialogue and opinions, you negate a world of "It is written." and "Because I said so.", i.e. a world of the preaching and teaching of facts and truths to be learned, memorized, and obeyed without question, you negate a patriarchal paradigm engendering environment. The 'preaching and teaching' done in a dialectic world (the "new" world order) is done to 'encourage' all to participate in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, so as to negate the world of the preaching and teaching of truth (the "old" world order of the patriarchal paradigm).
Psychology, based upon dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. based upon the language of the child, i.e. the language of sensuousness and 'self-justification' for the child's carnal behavior, i.e. the language of "I feel" and "I think," negates the language of the father, negates the fathers authority over the child, negates the language of righteousness, i.e. negates the language of God ("It is written"), i.e. "I am above you, i.e. the creator in authority, and you are below me, i.e. the created subject to my will, therefore do what I say or else, ... because I said so." Just reading that makes the flesh, i.e. the carnal "child within," rise up in rebellion, wanting his way. That spirit of the "child within" is the spirit of "the children of disobedience," it is the stirring of dialectic 'reasoning' waiting to be "birthed," i.e. 'discovered,' 'liberated,' and used , i.e. it is "the way" of the so called "new" world order, negating the authority of the father and "redeeming" the child so that man can be himself "again." I write "again" because according to Gnostic 'reasoning,' i.e. dialectic 'reasoning,' knowing is not being told to do something you are not able to understand, i.e. not sensually relate with yourself, yet doing it in obedience, it is experiencing something in life for yourself and then deciding (like a scientist) whether it is a good thing to do or not, approach pleasure-avoid pain being the tool of measurement (with pleasure and pain meaning different things to different people). That is why "tolerance of ambiguity" is such a popular phrase today. It means accepting uncertain, i.e. 'change,' as a way of life, with no one "directing your steps" (no father or "standard bearer"), with only the "sense experience" of the 'moment' to guide you, i.e. man experiencing himself as he is in the 'moment,' in the 'situation,' This is the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of psychology. It has had more effect upon the families of this nation than any other "ology," i.e. negating the father's authority in the home, in the name of "family harmony," for the 'purpose' of "social harmony," for the 'purpose' of a "new" world order.
According to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' to have the "new" you must negate (get rid of) the "old." When the father's rule over the children (the "old" paradigm), the children "can not" do what they want to do, that which comes naturally. If the children are to do what comes naturally, they must unite as one upon what they have in common, i.e. what they do naturally (the "new" paradigm) and negate the father and his authority (negate the "old" paradigm), i.e. doing a so called "paradigm 'shift.'" Run that through the history books, i.e. all the communist, socialist, and democratic revolutions, and see if that doesn't "jell." The proletariat being the children and the bourgeoisie being the parent or those who support them in their way of thinking and acting. The American Revolution was a revolution to establish authority in the conscience of the people, a product, as you will come to understand if you don't already, that can only come from a father's authority. The Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights) presented us with a "Constitutional Republic." It established the father, the head of the home, as king, limiting the power of government, giving him the power and authority to develop a conscience in the next generation of citizens. A Constitutional Republic form of government, which limits the power of government, serves and protects the traditional family, and thereby perpetuates the patriarchal paradigm which initiates and sustains the "old" way of thinking and acting within the next generation, keeping the next generation of children subject to their father's authority. A direct attack upon the family, by an outside force or from the child within, would fail because of the determination and strength of the fathers, united as one to maintain their position of authority. Therefore the "old" world order, where the fathers who rule, preventing the children from doing what comes naturally, must be negated by the children, united as "one," united with a "can to" attitude against their fathers "can not" position, creating within themselves and eventually all the world the "new" world order. Without the authorization of laws and the power of government to "serve and protect the children" in their negating of the Father's authority, there can be no "new" world order, for the very act (praxis) of negating the father's authority, so that the children (man's carnal nature unrestrained by righteousness) can rule, is the "new" world order itself. It is the theme of counseling: "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual comes to ask himself 'What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers, On Becoming a Person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) It is the theme of psychology: "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [the father no longer 'rules' over his family]." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) It is the theme of Sociology: "Thus, for instance, once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach #4) And it was the theme used in a garden in Eden: Genesis 3:1-6
Without the Father and his authority (a top-down system), all you have are the children (an "equality" system), evaluation themselves, the world, and the father, from their own perspective, from their carnal (Fatherless, i.e. Godless) nature. Thus, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' only through the children can all become "equal" (read totalitarianism). According to George Hegel, equality can only come through the children negating the authority of the Father, i.e. that it is only through the child (void the Father's unquestioned direction or restraint) that "rationality" resides. Hegel wrote: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality." "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, where there is no antithesis of person to person or of subject to object, the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) This is the foundation of dialectic 'reasoning,' "the child within" being freed from the image (the authority structure) of the Father, so that all that is, can become the property of "all" mankind (read communism, i.e. globalism, i.e. the so called "new" world order). The role of the facilitator, during a consensus meeting, is to neutralize, marginalize, and remove, if necessary, the father's authority from the policy setting environment, preventing him from maintaining a patriarchal paradigm within the community, affecting "the peoples" thoughts and their actions―preventing 'change,' preventing the praxis of the dialectic process, preventing "the children of disobedience" from negating his authority over his family, his property, and his life, preventing social-psychologist, i.e. Transformational Marxists―Marx, sociology and Freud, psychology synthesized―from taking control over the development of the citizens of the future, preventing 'change agents' from destroying "civil society."
You read me right, "civil society" is the enemy of dialectic 'reasoning.' Jean-Jacques Rousseau put it this way: "The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine,' and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality) Emphasis added. Freud, along the same line of thought as Rousseau, believed that the "guilty conscience," the residue of the Father's authority within the child, was the main cause for the "neurosis of civilization," i.e. that a "civil society," a citizenry under the influence of their Father's commands and treat of punishment for disobedience (thus subject to a "guilty conscience," i.e. wanting to take that which is "not theirs" to take but not being able to because the Father told them it was "not theirs" to take, i.e. "It is mine," or "someone else's" property, or wanting to do that which is natural, but is wrong according to the Father's standards, i.e. standards which restrain their natural inclinations of the 'moment') is a society of "neurotics" (not being able to do what "they" want to do in the 'moment,' That is, satisfying their "felt" needs, i.e. satisfy the "lust" of their "flesh" and their "eyes"). According to dialectic 'reasoning' (the method of reasoning which both Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud had in mind), man can only get rid of the "neurosis," (according to Marx the "repression" and "alienation") and become "normal" again (as he was before the Father's first command and threat of judgment) is by getting rid of the Father's (God's) authority (in their mind and in their behavior, i.e. in their thoughts and in their actions―"theory and practice," where men's opinions, i.e. reasoning, and their natural inclinations, i.e. human nature, are re-united as "one," making mankind God and the earth theirs, collectively). The scriptures declare it otherwise, i.e. that the earth is the Lords and that we, likewise, are under His (and His Heavenly Father's) authority: "For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." 1 Corinthians 10:26 Regarding our biological fathers, the Lord goes even further by declaring that they are also under His Heavenly Father's authority, making His Heavenly Father our Father, first and foremost. "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 "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 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21 Therefore, a "society" under the "influence" of the Father, i.e. under God, is a "civil society" and, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' must be negated if man is to become "normal."
The transformational Marxist, Erick Fromm, clearly explained the 'drive' (the "driver") behind and the 'purpose' (his intended outcome) of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the negation of God (the Father figure) so that "man would become like God himself" (become like the Father himself), 'righteous' in and of himself (with no one above him "bossing" him around, i.e. directing his steps). He wrote: "In the process of history man gives birth to himself [through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' he delivers himself from God, from the Father, creating himself in his own image]. He becomes what he potentially is [a human being, i.e. only man], and he attains what the serpent―the symbol of wisdom and rebellion―promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself ['righteous' in and of himself]." (Erick Fromm, You shall be as gods:) Bracketed information added. Genesis 3:1-6 is how "new" the so called "new" world order is. The only difference being, other than the time of the Tower Babel, which was local, but still with mankind united as one, without God, i.e. without the Father directing their steps, i.e. "make a name for 'ourselves,'" "ourselves" being plural, i.e. collective being the operative word), it is now, for the first time global―"Think local, act global." being the dialectic theme of the day.
Without man's ability to 'justify' himself before man (through his use of dialectic 'reasoning' being able to 'justify' his human nature as being "normal"), all he has is faith in God (the Father) and a "guilty conscience" (for being "normal," i.e. for doing his will, i.e. following after his own sensuousness, doing that which is "natural,' according to "human nature," that which is of the world, instead of doing the Father's will, i.e. following after His righteousness, obeying God, who is not of the world). "Salvation" for the "humanist" is through man's ability to 'justify' himself before the world, comparing himself with that which is of nature, i.e. his ability to think dialectically. We are all born with this ability. But not until a facilitator of 'change,' i.e. like the serpent in a garden in Eden, comes along and (in a "non-hostile," "non-judgmental," "You will not die," environment) shows us how to use it (the dialectic process, i.e. human reasoning , i.e. self justification, by comparing ourselves with the world, coming to know the world which lies within us) can we 'discover' and know (Gnosis) a "new" world order and 'liberate' ourselves from the "old" world order, where we were subject to faith in and obedience to our fathers, i.e. especially our Heavenly Father.
The seeds of our own condemnation lie within us. As the Apostle Paul wrote: "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Romans 7: 25a The thesis-antithesis of life and death is between the flesh and the Spirit, life and death determined upon where or whom our mind is established. "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." (Romans 8:5-8) Through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' through man's ability to deceive himself and 'justify' his wicked heart by synthesizing the two, i.e. synthesis the Spirit and the flesh (through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. through "human understanding," i.e. through man's carnal perception, observing and defining what he and God have in common as attributes, i.e. "love," which is the praxis of sensitizing righteousness, i.e. humanizing God), the mind after the Spirit is negated (the Spirit being redefined as a "cosmic spirit," i.e. the mind of man 'discovering' that he is "one," i.e. becoming "one" with himself and the "community," i.e. through dialogue becoming at-one-with the world outside himself, 'discovering' what he has in common with all men, and then through community service, through communitization, becoming "one," i.e. one spirit in praxis with the world, negating the Father who commands, His laws which condemn, the Son of God who redeems, and the Spirit who brings us life and peace, all who only work alone together, i.e. not in need of human partnership and understanding to 'discover' and know, i.e. Gnosis themselves). Paul continued in Romans 7:25b and 26 with the only right response: "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." He then went on to explain that the law can not save us, that it can only expose our carnal nature, i.e. condemning us as sinners. That it is through the law of faith, through faith in Christ alone, that we are freed from condemnation, that we are redeemed, our mind then, being after the Spirit, being set upon things above, being led by the Spirit, overcoming our carnal nature (daily).
Where then can we go, or to whom can we turn, to get away from our use of dialectic 'reasoning? "But to the Lord," the only begotten Son of God―who was, and is, obedient to His Heavenly Father in all things, even unto death, and has called us to do the same, i.e. to follow him, thereby walking in his way, thinking and acting according to His paradigm (in obedience to His Heavenly Father in all things), denying ourselves, accepting the rejection of men, i.e. rejecting "the approval of men": "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" 2 Corinthians 10:5, i.e. refusing to participate in dialectic 'reasoning,' refusing to go the way of the so called "new" world order, refusing to follow after the way of "the children of disobedience," refusing to participating in the heresiarchal paradigm of 'change.' We are to instead, "put on the whole armour of God" and "stand" in Him, "withstand[ing] in the evil day," i.e. standing with Him in the evil day. Ephesians 6:10-18. With the "church" having embraced dialectic 'reasoning' to "grow itself" (becoming "one" with the world) the believer has only the Lord Jesus Christ to turn to for direction (as it should be, i.e. turning to His Word, lead by the Holy Spirit, making his requests be known unto His Heavenly Father) during these evil days, i.e. days of abomination.
The following information, while possibly being hard to understand by a "traditionalist" (a "fundamentalist," i.e. one who always believed that right is always right and wrong is always wrong) will sound familiar to anyone involved in the "contemporary," i.e. so called "rapidly changing" social setting. Yet it is the "traditionalist" I hope to inform on what is happening around us (as well as to us and our loved ones). I will get into the "academics" of the process (statements by Hegel, Marx, Freud, Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, Theodor Adorno, etc.) but first some scriptures to expose the so called "new" world order, i.e. a world initiated by and sustained through the use of dialectic 'reasoning.' I realize that by doing so, i.e. turning to the scriptures to expose the dialectic process, the "enlightened," those of dialectic 'reasoning' (be they "Christian" or not) will dismiss the following articles as being "irrational," and therefore "irrelevant," especially when it comes to their lives. But without the Word of God all we have is our opinions, theories, speculations, and conjectures, i.e. that which is the basis of dialectic 'reasoning'. All I have to do is convince you (seduce, deceive, and manipulate you) into believing that the Word of God is "your opinion," and I have succeeded in taking you captive to dialectic 'reasoning.'
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' before man can be himself, he must first negate the "top-down" system which engenders a thesis-antitheist condition (I'm above, You're below, system). Without the dialectic process, i.e. without the concept of synthesis, man can not overcome the thesis-antithesis conflict (and the "guilty conscience"). With God there is only thesis (His love of righteousness) and antithesis (our love of sensuousness, i.e. unrighteousness). There is no synthesis, i.e. no merging of the two, i.e. no merging of righteousness with sensuousness and sensuousness with righteousness to make them one, i.e. the same, or equal. Without dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. without reasoning negating the differences between the two (overcoming that which separates man from God and God from man), the "new" world order can not be actualized. Therefore, reasoning must be "realized" and "liberated" (accomplished through the use of a 'crisis,' i.e. through the "need" to resolve a thesis-antithesis―deadlocked―conflict), so that man can observe and define what man and God, what the Father and the children, have in "common." Without negating the "top-down" way of thinking and acting (the preaching and teaching of pre-established, i.e. unchanging and unchangeable positions), without dialectically 'discovering' (through the dialoguing of opinions) that man is in God and God is in man (the universal and the particular 'discovering' that they are "one," i.e. both wanting to be restored to an at-one-ness with the other), world unity is not possible. Only through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' the theory goes, can both God and man 'discovering' themselves as always having been "one," only for a time separated by the demands of righteousness (according to the Marxist, Theodor Adorno, under the rule of an "the authoritarian personality," i.e. the earthly father, who according to Adorno, engenders the Heavenly Father). But now, through 'dialectic' reasoning, i.e. mankind, reasoning together, 'discovering' and uniting upon what he has in common, as God, can become "one" again, 'righteous' in and of himself, i.e. collectively speaking. Since, according to dialectic 'reasoning, there is no "one" above him, setting standards that restrain his nature, i.e. sensuousness and 'righteousness, mankind and God, 'driven' by the desire for and 'purposed' in the sharing of "love," can be reunited as "one." 'Righteousness' is man now "purified" of all that is not of his nature, now able to "love" others as he desires to be "loved" ("love" based upon human nature being "approved" i.e. tolerated by men), i.e. his 'righteousness' (his desire for "oneness," based upon human nature only, that which is common to all men) now "observable" to all human eyes, "understandable" to all human ears, and "definable" through human reasoning. This is the number of "a man" (measurable), the "mark of the beast" (definable and classifiable) which all must have if they are to be a part of the "community" (common-unity, as in, "It is only in what we all have in common, i.e. our carnal human nature, i.e. that which we can all 'discover' and 'liberate' through our use of dialectic 'reasoning,' we can build world unite upon."). Therefore, every one must develop "human relationship building skills," i.e. learn how to use "higher order thinking skills" in initiating and sustaining morals and ethics ("democratic ethics"), if mankind is to become a "community," i.e. if he is to be of any worth or have any value in the "new" world order.
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is only in the "experiencing" of common-ism ('discovering,' focusing upon, and uniting upon that which we all have in common―sensuousness, with reasoning 'liberating' it from the restraints of righteousness, the children no longer having to do the Father's will when it goes against their nature), that the divisiveness of righteousness (the thesis-antithesis condition) can be overcome and man and God (God loving the world and man loving the world) can be united as one again, i.e. with the God above, ruling over and judging man below "withering away" in the thoughts and actions of men. As the Father "withers away," the Son "withers way," and then all you have is man as God. Without the reasoning, without the synthesis, without focusing upon what we have in common, i.e. being "positive," i.e. "loving," and no longer focusing upon what makes us different, i.e. being "negative," i.e. being "hateful," without the children of sensuousness uniting as "one" through the consensus process (consensus means "with sensuousness"), apprehending through reasoning and 'changing' the world according to their own "human nature," the "new" world order of "equality" can not negate the "old" world order of "higher authority," i.e. of righteousness, i.e. of the Father ruling over His creation, i.e. of the father's ruling over their families, their properties, and their businesses, causing division amongst men. Without the reasoning, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning, i.e. without the ability and the opportunity to 'justify' your carnal human thoughts and your carnal human actions before men, a world of unity built upon "human nature" can not become actualized.
Some might want you to accept the idea that this process is "academics." But in truth it is spiritual. "Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;" Ephesians 6:10-18 Emphasis added.
The Apostle Paul warned Timothy of the effects of the dialectic process, i.e. the effects of the consensus process upon faith (negating it), a process of sensuousness and reasoning (of human reasoning being used to 'justify human nature, i.e. 'justifying' our sensuousness over and against the righteousness of God), i.e. a process of "questioning authority," i.e. of "questioning everything," a process of "profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called," a process of 'change' and instability, a process of unrighteousness, lawlessness, and abomination, a process of seduction, deception, and manipulation, a process of sight, i.e. of men's opinions negating faith, i.e. negating God's Word, by making faith subject to sight, i.e. righteousness subject to sensuousness, His Word subject to human experience and understanding (subject to human "wisdom"), a process being used by man to make the world a "better" place for him to live within, i.e. creating a "new" world order uninhibited by the demands of righteousness, freeing man from a "guilty conscience," 'liberated' him from the fear of judgment carried out by a higher authority than nature, a process negating God's condemnation of man for his willful disobedience, i.e. for his sin, i.e. for being "human." The same warning Paul gave Timothy is true for believers today: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith." 1 Timothy 6:20, 21
The word "oppositions" (as used by Paul) is the Greek word antithesis. Except, in this case it is not the antithesis of true science, which means truth is a categorical imperative, i.e. universal and unquestionable, established once and for all, for all times and all places, as in "two plus two is four" (is a thesis statement, i.e. is an a-prior), and therefore any other number, answer, opinion, theory, speculation, conjecture, etc. is an antithesis, i.e. is an error, i.e. is wrong (the thesis position being established forever that "two plus two is four and can not be any other number," judging all other responses from then on, whether they be true, i.e. "two" or false, i.e. "any other number"). In other words, any response or conclusion other than the thesis position, is an antithesis, i.e. is in opposition of (over and against) the truth. In true science you are either right or you are wrong, whereas in an opinion or a theory there is no certainty of right or wrong in the 'moment,' as all is up in the air, subject to conjecture or speculation, subject to 'change.'
This is the "antithesis" of which the Apostle Paul speaks of, the "science falsely so called," i.e. the "science" of dialectic 'reasoning' where men's opinions or theories are treated as though they are "truth," i.e. tested in the consensus process to see if they are accurate, i.e. "observable and definable" regarding the human experience of the 'moment' and then carried out in praxis (put into social action) to see if they are "true," all in defiance to the truth (treating established truth as being "irrational" in the 'moment' of 'change,' in the 'changing' times, and therefore regarding anyone who insists upon "inalienable" truth, i.e. unchangeable truth, as being "irrelevant")―an anarchistic and revolutionary attitude expressed today in the language of "question authority," "question everything," where human "perception" and human reasoning, based upon a persons own "sense experience" of the 'moment' (subjectivity) becomes the bases, i.e. the only bases, for knowing 'truth,' with man 'driven' by the sensuousness of pleasure and 'purposed' in its augmentation (whether real or imagined), i.e. the "enjoyment" of this life being the end of all things.
A major workbook used to 'change' this nation, detailing how to initiate and sustain the dialectic process of 'change,' explained its so called "scientific" project this way: "No hypothesis in this body of writings has been fully tested. Nor will it be tested fully until it has been used widely in thoughtful experimentation with actual social changes. The school offers an important potential laboratory for the development of a truly experimental social science. Experimentally minded school workers can develop and improve the hypotheses suggested in these readings as they put them to the test in planning and evaluating changes in the school program." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) Emphasis in original. The author of that workbook later published a work entitled: The Laboratory Method of Changing and Learning, Theory, and Practice. Ed. Benne He made the following comment a few years later: "If the school does not claim the authority to distinguish between science and religion, it loses control of the curriculum and surrenders it to the will of the electorate." (Society as Educator in an Age of Transition, Ed. Kenneth Benne, Eighty-sixth Year of the National Society for the Study of Education.) Emphasis added, i.e. Who are the electorate? The author of another major workbook (referred to as "Bloom's Taxonomy"), a workbook of the 50's still being used to train teachers in college today, defined his teacher training manual, in this way: "Certainly the Taxonomy was unproven at the time it was developed and may well be 'unprovable.''" (Benjamin S. Bloom, Bloom's Taxonomy: A Forty Year Retrospect) Bloom even referred to his "special project" (that we are all now subject to as a culture) as the opening up of "Pandora's Box," i.e. a box full of evil, which, once opened, can never be closed. You might question whether someone has the right to 'change' a culture without their being asked or forewarned, but to question the "experts" on "human nature," would only result in you being labeled as being "irrational," making you "irrelevant" when it comes to the matters of your life or your grandchildren's life. They will have to determine your worth or value when you get old, i.e. when you are a burden on society as well as your grandchildren's life, as they decide their personal-social worth or value, after they are conceived, "don't touch my 'pleasure,'" now being the theme of the day.
By using the methods of "science" on human behavior, you automatically make human behavior (man's "lust" for pleasure) the standard from which to measure human behavior. Therefore, from then on, any behavior which is not supported by (or supportive of) your observations (your "sense perception") can not be considered credible, i.e. becomes "irrelevant." Bloom knew that by using the methods of true science on human nature, thereafter, the outcome would negate righteousness from the laboratory experience, i.e. from the classroom experience, i.e. righteousness (the authority of God, reflected in the father figure) from then would have now credibility in regards to "academics," i.e. in regards to acceptable behavior, in regards to the appropriate way of thinking and acting in a dialectic 'reasoning' world. Bloom wrote (remember that all teachers in the public and private schools are being inculcated with this ideology today, it being the basis of their teacher certification and the schools accreditation): "It has been pointed out that we are attempting to classify phenomena which could not be observed or manipulated in the same concrete form as the phenomena of such fields as the physical and biological sciences." "It was the view of the group that educational objectives stated in the behavior form have their counterparts in the behavior of individuals, observable and describable therefore classifiable." "Only those educational programs which can be specified in terms of intended student behaviors [how the student will react in a particular situation, within a particular environment] can be classified." "What we are classifying is the intended behavior of students—the ways in which individuals are to act, think, or feel as the result of participating in some unit of instruction." "Educational procedures are intended to develop the more desirable rather than the more customary types of behavior." "The student must feel free to say he disliked . . . and not have to worry about being punished for his reaction." (Benjamin S. Bloom Taxonomy of Education Objectives Book 1 Cognitive Domain) Bracketed information and emphasis added. From then on, only the child's "natural inclinations" (for 'change') would be evaluated, i.e. would be of any worth. Any standards from the home, from the Father, would become "inappropriate information," unless, of course, it was used to show the child how to identify and negate it (purge it from or disregard it) in his experiment (in his classroom experience, i.e. in his life). Thus the child's "affective domain," his natural inclination toward pleasure would be 'liberated,' freeing him from the affects of his home experience, i.e. from his father's authority. Intoxicated with the acceptance, i.e. with the pleasure (pressure) of group approval, he would from then on, know himself as he "is," no longer as someone his Father wanted him to be. When restrained at home by his Father, he would respond, as one on a drug confronted with someone wanting to take it from him, with animosity and even violence. Bloom wrote in his second Taxonomy, i.e. the Affective Domain: There are many stores of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) That was and still is the 'drive' and the intended 'purpose' of those possessed by the spirit of the "new" world order, i.e. by dialectic 'reasoning.'
We now live in a nation on a drug, a people seeking after the pleasure of the 'moment' (imagined, real, or promised), loosing their liberty and their life, following after men who have usurped positions of authority (actually the citizens have abdicated their position of authority, given to them by God, as Adam did in a garden in Eden, for the pleasures of this life, giving their position of authority to another spirit, a spirit who is antithetical to God and hates righteousness), who (like drug pushers) promise to giving them what they want in the 'moment,' give them what the father's won't, i.e. unrestrained pleasure, thus leading them into slavery (bondage), abomination, judgment, and death (eternal death). "The people," like drug addicts, will now turn on (turn and rend) anyone who attempts to deliver them from death (restore them to life), rescue them from bondage (restore them to liberty), try to get them off the drug (restore them to self-control). Without the Father's restraint all we have is a nation of unrestrained children (in adult bodies), practicing abomination. But that is the way those of dialectic 'reasoning' would want it.
It is not that God is against pleasure. He created it. It is that it, by its very nature (being ever changing, i.e. never satisfied), is against Him, i.e. is against God, i.e. is against the Father who restrains it (God the Father being established forever, unchanging, i.e. satisfied)―satisfaction restraining un-satisfaction, righteousness restraining sensuousness, i.e. like the Father restraining the child's natural inclinations, i.e. restraining his propensity to approach pleasure (without considering the consequences), teaching him to be like him, restraining his own natural inclination (learning self-control), which, if left to himself, like a dog chasing its tail, will never be satisfied, going where the 'moment' takes him (changing), yet going nowhere in particular (yet never changing), just "enjoying" the 'moment'―becoming consumer rather than producer driven, i.e. become pleasure driven rather than doing what is right and not doing what is wrong driven (weighing the consequences of his thoughts and actions, i.e. how they effect him and others in matters of life and death). "How far are we into debt today? Only a consumer driven, pleasure seeking, dialectic 'reasoning,' people end up where we are today. Not only financially bankrupt but also morally bankrupt, living on the "hope" (Immanuel Kant's understanding of pure reason) that the augmentation of pleasure and "enjoyment" will 'redeem' us, i.e. bring us all together as "one"―dead in our sins. We are now a nation of "dead men walking," pushing death, i.e. human nature, calling it "life." "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." John 8:23-24
Thus all (and I mean all, i.e. including every law) becomes materialistic, i.e. sensuous based, i.e. worldly, in the so called "new" world order of dialectic 'reasoning,' in a world built upon the dialectic process of consensus, where "truth" is established upon human nature alone, i.e. upon human sensuousness and human reasoning alone (subject to the ever changing 'moment'). Side note: The so called Health Care Package, is not only about physical health, it is also about mental health and social health. It is a totalitarian form of government, a dialectic 'reasoning' form of government, which by its very nature negates the concept of "inalienable rights"―rights which were not 'changeable,' which are not subject to the 'changing' times, which are not subject to the whims ("wisdom") of those in government (or the departments which "guide" them in their thoughts and actions―"guiding" them according to dialectic 'reasoning,' engendering a "new" world order built upon the foundation of "human rights," a "new" world order where unrighteousness becomes 'righteousness' and abomination becomes the "norm").
While true science discovers and recognizes laws of nature already established (fixed) by God, "science falsely so called" only recognizes the process whereby man 'discovers' those laws through the process of speculation, theory, and the dialoguing of men's opinions to a consensus, i.e. to an agreement (with the testing of the nature of something, to 'discover' what of it is that is only "observable and repeatable," i.e. what is certain, only that in the case of dialectic 'reasoning' the scientific process is redefined to mean what is "observable and definable" (Bloom), i.e. what is still not certain but describable in the 'moment,' which is not the same thing―to be "tolerant of ambiguity," i.e. not knowing for certain but accepting it as fact, will drive a true scientist crazy, building bridges or airplanes on an "I feel" and "I think" is nuts, i.e. it is mad, i.e. fly in an airplane designed and built on those words and see how you "feel" at 30,000 feet in a storm) making men's opinions (manifested through dialogue) the only means whereby he can come to know the "truth"―makes man's carnal nature "truth" itself. When it comes to "morals and ethics," i.e. how a person is to feel, think, and act in a given situation, the dialectic process therefore frees man from the righteousness, i.e. frees man from the judgment of God (negates man of a "guilty conscience"), i.e. humanizes him, i.e. materializes him, i.e. makes him a number (something which can be from then on manipulatable―if your not manipulatable you are of no worth or have no value in a dialectic world other than something to be removed or destroyed).
The Apostle Paul explains that after understanding the laws of nature, that they are established and unchanging, i.e. not "ever changing" but fixed forever, man foolishly makes them subject to his opinions, theories, or speculations of the 'moment,' i.e. subject to the emotive "situation," i.e. 'changeable.' Refusing to recognize that the laws of nature reflecting the very nature of God, i.e. spiritual, established and unchanging (yet God himself not bound by the laws of nature, being Himself merciful and full of grace toward those who repent of their sins and turn from their wicked ways), man turns to the process whereby he came to know the laws of nature, making it, the process of opinions, theories, and speculations, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning' "truth," basing the 'discovering' of the "truth" of his own nature upon his own nature, i.e. a nature of vanity and pride, i.e. of sensuousness and "self-justification," making all men subject to their heart of deceit and wickedness, making "human nature" itself established and unchangeable forever (anyone who condemns it or wants to change it, i.e. redeem man from his nature, from his sin, from then on becomes the enemy of man), i.e. making it the standard whereby to measure all that is in the creation (as well as the creator Himself), thereby worshiping the creation, i.e. worshiping himself, i.e. worshiping the sensuousness of the pleasures of this life, rather than God. (See Romans 1:14-32)
Regarding his use of the "scientific method," i.e. the dialectic process, George Hegel wrote: "I could not of course imagine that the method which in the system of logic I have followed is not capable of much elaboration in detail, but at the same time I know that it is the only true method." "It is clear that no expositions can be regarded as scientific which do not follow the course of this method, and which are not conformable to its simple rhythm, for that is the course of the thing itself." (George Hegel in Carl Friedrich, The Philosophy of Hegel) The dialectic idea being, if "the scientific method" lies within man* so that he can use it 'discover' and know the laws of nature, i.e. to free himself from faith, i.e. so that he can manipulate nature (natural resources) for the "betterment" of his own life as well as for the world, it lies within man so that he can 'discover' and come know himself as he is as well, i.e. to free himself from faith, so that, as he can manipulate the natural things of the world, 'changing' them for the "betterment" of life, he can also manipulate mankind himself (just like natural resources) for the "betterment" of life as well.
*According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the object of "inquiry" is understandable to man because the process is in man himself, i.e. in all men, helping man coming to know himself as he really is, not only as he is in his own nature but in the other objects of the world as well (able to come to know himself in the other as he comes to know the other in himself), i.e. making it possible for him to know the object as himself, as it is in his own nature, as it is in him, (making it possible for all men to become as one in their nature, i.e. in their nature only, mankind uniting upon the sensation of, i.e. desire for "belongingness," finding identity and 'purpose' in the "other" in himself, as he finds identity and 'purpose' of himself in the "other") as Hegel put it, "the Method is no-way different from its object and content;―for it is the content in itself; the dialectic it has in itself, that move it on." (George Hegel, Reading Hegel, The Introduction) Emphasis in original.
For a person to praxis dialectic 'reasoning' on himself is one thing (he simply pays for his foolishness). But for him to treat others as "human resource," seducing, deceiving, and manipulating them into joining him in his foolishness is another. Though he may persuade those who are foolish enough to listen to his foolishness that the dialectic process is a process of "love," the truth is, in the end it is a process of hate, i.e. hate of the truth, hate of righteousness, and hate of the soul of man (and hate of God), making all men subject to the sensuousness (consciousness) and the sensuous reasoning ("cosmic consciousness") of his own nature, calling it, and his use of dialectic 'reasoning' which delivers him, i.e. human nature from God and from the authority of the father (so that man can uses it for the "betterment" of the world), "good," when in truth it is evil, i.e. the way of unrighteousness (and abomination). "The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful. The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good. He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil." Psalms 36:1-4
Dialectic 'reasoning' begins with the premise that man is basically "good" or has the potential of becoming "good" through "right" praxis (through the "right" social experiences, i.e. the "right" educational experience), that the "goodness" of man will manifest itself through man's "willful" participation in "right" thoughts and "right" social action, thereby, from then on, measuring himself with himself, i.e. with his carnal nature, i.e. with that which he has in common with all men around the world, defining what is "good" and what is "evil" (including God and His Word) thereby. Thus those of dialectic 'reasoning, as willful "children of disobedience," call their carnal nature, i.e. the nature of "the child within" (before the Father's act of "repression") "good," and the Father's restraint of human nature and human reasoning "evil." Yet "It is written": "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! [to gain understanding or come to know the truth according to their own sight] " Isaiah 5:20, 21 Bracketed information added
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' good and evil has to be "sense experienced" by man, and "rationally" weighted according to his pain-pleasure spectrum (his carnal nature, i.e. according to that which is of his own sensuousness―which is to "avoid pain-approach pleasure," with the sensation of pleasure being the highest "good") before it is known (Gnosis) as good or evil (rationally understood), making all things material, i.e. all things bound to man's own nature of sensuousness―where "cosmic consciousness" is simply man's love for himself and the world, united as "one," all "working together" for the universal "good," united as one in creating a "better" world for "all," becoming "one" in a world of "pleasure," i.e. in love, i.e. in Eros (call it agape all you want, agape being a fruit of the Spirit not a "fruit" of the flesh, i.e. of human nature in love with itself), i.e. dialectically 'discovering' a world that was there all the time (only being repressed for a time by the restraints of righteousness, i.e. by the Father's commands to do "good" and not do "evil" according to His will so that reasoning itself, i.e. the "divine spirit" could be 'discovered' and known to man, becoming his "savior") i.e. only inhibited by a time of faith before reason came along and 'liberated' "love," i.e. Eros from righteousness, and man's will (to be himself, made in his image) from the will of the Father (to be like Him, made in His image). Thereby, through the deceitfulness and wickedness of dialectic 'reasoning, righteousness (in the thoughts and actions of men) is negated. Man's soul is thus "sense perceived" by those of dialectic 'reasoning,' as being only of the creation, sensuous, of nature only, i.e. of the "spirit" of the world, i.e. having a sense of and desire for "oneness" with the world, i.e. with the cosmos, with the souls of all men coming together as "one" cosmic soul through the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning," i.e. through the consensus process being put into social action, delivering man from the Father, from God, from righteousness so that man can be himself again (before God gave him His first command and threatened to judge him if he disobeyed, i.e. becoming like God himself, i.e. coming to know "good" and "evil" according to his own 'righteousness,' according to his own carnal nature, perceiving himself to be 'righteous' in his own eyes).
The truth is: "... the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7 God sees us as individual souls, judging each one of us individually, according to our own thoughts and actions, holding us individually accountable to His will. Apart from this thesis, there can only be a position antithetical to (over and against) righteousness. Those of dialectic 'reasoning' see our soul (as Marx called it, through the "ether of the brain," i.e. through human reasoning) as of "one soul" (social in nature), our soul only having worth or value through our collective experience of consensus, i.e. through our "sense experience" of becoming at-one-with the world, i.e. becoming as "one" below, i.e. as God in the collective sense (the plural "We" becoming as "one," as "Us"). Instead of worshiping and obeying the one above (God, who is over all), through our use of dialectic 'reasoning' we worship and obey the "one" below (God, i.e. the "spirit" of man united as "one," the sensation of "oneness" in praxis, human sensuousness and human reasoning united as one in social action, etc. ruling over all). It is only in this way that individual man can escape the issue of sin. By finding that sin is common to all men and by calling it "human nature" he can 'justifying' himself as being "normal." Thus, through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' man is able to make sin sin (sin being the estrangement of man from God, because of the nature of man, i.e. because of his love of sensuousness, declared by God as sin, through dialectic 'reasoning' becomes the estrangement of man from man, because of the nature of God, i.e. because of His love of righteousness, declared by man as sin, thus making righteousness 'sin' and sin 'righteousness'), good evil, light dark, unrighteousness good and righteousness evil.
Like a drug, the dialectic process is intoxicating and addictive. It is a process of pleasure, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating all who turn to it and participate. It is a process with an intended outcome, the negation of "the fear of the Lord" and the knowledge of God and thereby, the death of the soul of man. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 1:7 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6 Although Hosea's warning was spoken to Israel of old, it is true for all believers in Christ Jesus today (Jesus having fulfilled the law, i.e. not negating it, the Holy Spirit fulfilling it in us daily as we daily walk in Him). The rejection of the "fear of God" is the rejection of knowledge, i.e. rejection of that knowledge which is everlasting (which is unchanging). To be a child you must have a Father. To have a Father you must have one in authority over you (commanding you, i.e. giving laws to be obeyed and chastening you, i.e. judging you when you breaking them), you must be a children. To reject the Father is to reject his laws, is to reject his office of authority, is to reject your position of authority under him (a position of authority given to you by him to rule over your nature according to His will), is to reject knowledge, is to be destroyed, is for your children to be forgotten (with no hope of a Father's mercy or grace, i.e. being left to the ways of the world and death, a world which will use them, abuse them, consume them, and destroy them, i.e. seducing, deceiving, and manipulating them for its own pleasure and then abandon them, i.e. reject them when they no longer provide for or serve its own pleasure―like what a pimp does with a prostitute: promise her the world, i.e. sustenance, pleasure, and safety, so that he can use her for his own pleasure and gain, only to cast her out, i.e. betray her in the end, i.e. if you reject your Heavenly Father and his love for you, love that chastens, all you have is Satan and his "love" for you, a "love" that will use you up for his own pleasure, i.e. which is to detach you from your Heavenly Father and His love, and destroy you in the end, that is all you have).
What is it for you to gain the world (to reject righteousness, reject the will of the Father, in your pursuit of the sensuousness of the pleasures of this life) and in the process (in your use of dialectic 'reasoning,' 'justifying' yourself, i.e. 'justifying' your carnal thoughts and carnal actions before carnal men) lose your soul (lose eternal life and gain eternal death, for your "lusting" after the sensuous, i.e. the fleeting 'moments' of pleasure of this life, inheriting eternal damnation in the end―after you having taken your last breath, i.e. the last breath of all the breaths that God gave you, to acknowledge Him who created you, to thank Him for sending His only begotten Son to redeem you from eternal death, and to worship Him who truly loves you, with). "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." Mark 8:36-38 What has happened to the children of the father's of the past? Where are the "father's" of the present. They have all become as their children (in the name of "equality"), "lusting" after the things of the present, i.e. chasing after the things of pleasure, i.e. in hot pursuit of the things of the world, i.e. living in the 'moment,' losing their souls, as they come together as "one," i.e. as "children of disobedience."
"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." John 3: 16, 17 Life, love, the soul of man, and righteousness therefore is of God alone (the creator) and not of man (the created). Through the use of dialectic 'reasoning' man filters the authority of the Father from his thoughts and his actions, "purging" himself of the righteousness and grace of God, leaving himself with no hope of eternal life, only a life of the "here-and-now," life only having meaning in the sensuous 'moment,' engendering a "dog eat dog" world (looking for an alpha dog to lead the pack, i.e. to lead the horde, i.e. to guide the masses, i.e. to "facilitate" the group), i.e. a world following after smiling faces and their promises of a "better" life "if we all work together" (a phrase used only to seduce, deceive, and manipulate the ignorant), a world of hearts full of deceit and wickedness, full of vanity and pride, coveting, envying, 'driving' by "lust," 'purposed' in apprehending, augmenting, and controlling all that is pleasurable (sensuous) in sight, yet never being "satisfied." "Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied." Proverbs 27:20 That is why government (controlling the people through the consensus process, i.e. initiating and sustaining unity through sensuousness, i.e. through what we all have in common, and sensuous reasoning, i.e. what we can all identify with and agree upon in the 'moment,' through their "willful," i.e. "lustful" participation in dialectic 'reasoning,' making them all "stake holders," participants in the process of 'change) will not be satisfied until it has control over everything and every one on the face of the earth. What it see's (even in its mind) it possesses, and in its actions (in its praxis) it takes. Anyone standing in its way, claiming that it is theirs instead (like God, or the father ruling over his family property, and business), will be annihilated (borrowing one of Karl Marx's favorite words vernichten, meaning, like a child with a tantrum, to destroy, annihilate, crush, kill, exterminate, obliterate, to have it his way). "Thus, for instance, once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach #4) What he is saying is: once the earthly family (with the father chastening his children, teaching them to obey him) is discovered to be the same method used by the Heavenly Family (with God the Father chastening those who are His, teaching them to obey Him), the earthly father, who engenders the practice first, must be negated in the thoughts and actions of the next generation, if the Heavenly Father is to be negated in the "theory and practice" of men. The consensus process, with its use of dialectic 'reasoning, does both, i.e. negating the earthly and the Heavenly Father in the thoughts and actions of all participants, at the same time.
Apart from God (even in the 'moment'), all man has to measure himself with is himself, i.e. his own "sense experience," lusting after the pleasures and the "enjoyments" of this life only, even "enjoying" his suffering for making the world a "better" place for the "enjoyment" of others, which, to him might seem to be wisdom and life, i.e. calling his praxis "good," but is instead foolishness and death (eternal death to the "living soul" who God created). Apart from God, who is life (who is righteous in and of himself alone), there is no life for the "living soul," only death (unrighteousness), i.e. eternal death, as the soul lives on forever (not only apart from the glory of the Father and the Son but also in the torments of hell―Luke 12:2-5; 2 Peter 2:1-22). "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23 "That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 5:21
All those who praxis dialectic 'reasoning,' those 'justifying' themselves before themselves ('justifying' themselves according to their own nature, i.e. according to "human nature"), travel down the pathway of condemnation and death. "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." "That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 5:18, 21 The "offence of one," i.e. Adam's disobedience to God (the Father), i.e. "doing his own thing," condemned all. "The righteousness of one," i.e. the obedience of Christ (the Father's only begotten Son) to His Heavenly Father, even unto death, saving all (giving life, i.e. eternal life unto all) who believe in His name, "in the name of the only begotten Son of God," redeemed "all men unto justification of 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." John 3:17-18
Jesus is the thesis (the position), the only thesis (the only position), that is life. Any other answer, i.e., opinion, speculation, conjecture, theory, etc. is an antithesis, i.e. is wrong, and leads to death. The praxis of synthesis (of dialectic 'reasoning'), i.e. the merging of the work of Christ (who is righteous) with the work of the world (which is of and for sensuousness) through the use of human reasoning, voids Christ of His righteousness (in the thoughts and actions of men in the 'moment') and deceives all who participate into traveling down the pathway of death which is called (and seems to be in the 'moment') "life," even doing so "in the name of the Lord." Thus through dialectic 'reasoning,' instead of the person sinning alone (yet retaining a "guilty conscience"), he sins along with the collective (with no sense of a "guilty conscience"―"the approval of men" has that affect upon us). In this way, through "group approval," i.e. through "the approval of men," human nature, i.e. the sensuousness of man, can "join" with the righteousness of Christ, voiding man of a "guilty conscience" and Christ of His righteousness (which can only be imputed to man by God through faith in Him―not by works that any man can boast). "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8, 9 When we boast in the things we do, we receive glory unto ourselves. Taken captive by our own "wisdom," we, for vanity sake (for the pleasures of this life alone), seek after that glory which is only due our creator, who created all that is, including the sensation of the pleasure which we "lust" after, engendering disobedience and the "need" for "self-justification," i.e. dialectic 'reasoning' 'justifying' sensuousness (disobedience of the Father's will) over and against righteousness (obedience of the Father's will). "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." 1 Corinthians 3:18-19 Bold added.
It is through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. man living according to his own "wisdom," i.e. man 'justifying' himself, i.e. 'justifying' his own nature of "lust" (his "enjoyment" of the things of this world only) before himself and others, that the "pride of life" is made manifest on the earth, for which "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven." The "pride of life" is man's ability to "control" the things of pleasure of this world, not only for himself but for others as well. The truth is, it is the things of pleasure of this world which "controls" man, i.e. controls his thoughts and his actions of the 'moment,' engendering "ungodliness and unrighteousness," making the "lust" of his flesh (unrighteousness) the standard for knowing "truth." "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves [where there is not restraint to pleasure, pleasure being the end, i.e. the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of all things, the object taking on meaning or value only in the praxis, i.e. in the sensuous 'moment' of "enjoyment," in the augmentation of pleasure without restraint]: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." Romans 1:18-25 Bold added and bracketed information added.
The works of Brian McLaren are an example of dialectic 'reasoning' being put into praxis in the church today (his thoughts are typical of all dialectic thinkers, i.e. God and man working together as one for the "common" good). He writes: "Scripture is something God had ‘let be,' and so it is at once God's creation and the creation of the dozens of people and communities and cultures who produced it." [This is a Gnostic construct in reasoning, i.e. God and man are "one" in spirit, both becoming as "one" as they, enlightened through dialectic 'reasoning,' 'discover' themselves as actually always having been "one."] "We constantly emerge from what we were and are into what we can become—not just as individuals, but as participants in the emerging realities of families, communities, cultures, and worlds." (Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 162, 284) A promo of Greg Garret's works, a compañero of McLaren's, states: "According to recent surveys, many Americans associate the label 'Christian' with judgmental attitudes, hypocrisy, fear of hell, and a commitment to right-wing politics. Author Greg Garrett suggests another way, arguing that a faith that focuses solely on personal morality and the afterlife misses much of the point of Jesus' message. The other way of following Christ is not concerned with an array of commandments or with holding the "right" beliefs. Rather it is centered on loving each other and loving God, or as Garrett puts it, 'love, where the rubber meets the road, where faith meets [works with instead of confronts] the world.'" (http://www.thethoughtfulchristian.com/Products/0664234046/the-other-jesus.aspx) Bracketed information added for clarity. It is in the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning' that the words love and faith take on new meaning, defining them and Christ Himself through human eyes and human ears, synthesizes the righteousness of Christ and the sensuousness of man (uniting the righteous, those made righteous in Christ, along with the unrighteous, those still the world, upon a "common" cause, i.e. even for the cause of promoting the gospel) through human reasoning, creating another Christ, an anti-thesis Christ, an Antichrist―a Fatherless (or lawless) Christ, one who identifies himself only with man's human nature and his social cause, helping him "create" a "better" world for all. Without the Father (who demands perfection, i.e. righteousness) there is no Son (in obedience to His Father, fulfilling righteousness), there is no righteousness imputed to man (perfection fulfilled, i.e. righteousness imputed to 'reconcile' man to the Father), only an ensample of a man at his "best," living and dying for social cause. "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." 1 John 2:22 You have got to have the Father if you are going to have the Son, i.e. there is no Son without the Father. The hope is in the glory of both. In the Father who sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins and in the Son who obeyed His Heavenly Father in all things commanded, even to the death, covering our sins. Apart from (or adding to) this, there is no blessed hope of His glory. "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." Titus 2:11-14 The "good works" being in Him, not in us "working" for His approval, which is, in actuality, us working for "the approval of men." God can not "approve" us until we are dead, i.e. dead to ourselves, i.e. dead to the glory of man (man's "glory" comes through and for his own flesh and reasoning 'ability,' which 'justifies' it, thereby exalting himself, i.e. 'justifying' his carnal nature even while doing "wonderful things" in the name of the Lord), i.e. dead to dialectic 'reasoning,' that God would receive all the glory from His work (from His work alone) for us, on us, in us, and through us. Otherwise (in another "wisdom") we serve (work together with) another Christ, doing "wonderful things in his name," making a name for "ourselves." (A précis of the Articles Continued. To go to the Preface or return to the Introduction or to the top)
First of all: You can not praxis the dialectic process and keep your faith. As you will come to understand, the dialectic process is closer to home than you might believe or maybe even care to know. It is your ability to 'justify' your carnal thoughts and actions to yourself and to others. It is the way of the world, i.e. the sensuousness of your flesh and your reasoning 'ability' to 'justify' it, i.e. to 'justify' your feelings, thoughts, and actions, i.e. to "justify yourself before men," thereby negating the way of righteousness (doing the Father's will) and, if possible (which is not possible), the righteous One Himself, i.e. your Heavenly Father. It cunningly deceives you into 'justifying' your disobedience to your earthly father, convincing you that since he is "irrational" when it comes to the "situation," i.e. to your desires, i.e. to your "felt" needs of the 'moment,' i.e. to your carnal pleasures, i.e. to the "enjoyment" of life (that, when it comes to your natural inclinations of the 'moment,' he is "out of touch with the times"), he is therefore "irrelevant," especially when those same desires or "felt" needs are common to your generation and are essential to you if you are going to relate with them, i.e. that they (both your generation and your "felt" needs, which they have in common) are key to your future and therefore are essential to you if you are to "fulfill" your "potential," i.e. if you are to become "self-actualized." According to Abraham Maslow, if you are to be saved you must become "self-actualized." "Salvation is a byproduct of Self-Actualization Duty." "Meaningful work [working with the community, i.e. with society for the "common 'good'"] comes very close to the religious quest in the humanistic sense." [The] "goal is simply to build group companies where people can self-actualize." "In self-actualizing people, the work they do might be better be called 'mission,' 'calling,' 'duty,' 'vocation,' in the priest's sense." "In a democratic society [engendering an "equality" system, a system based upon sensuousness, what all men have in "common"] a patriarchal culture [engendering a "top-down" system, a system based upon the Father] should make us depressed instead of glad; it is an argument against the higher possibilities of human nature, of self actualization." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management). Bracketed information added. "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) By your use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. by your 'rational' ability to "justify yourself" over and against your father's authority, you not only negate the authority of your earthly father (who is not perfect and therefore who's authority is easily questioned, being antithetical to your natural inclination of the 'moment' when it goes contrary his will, i.e. being antithetical to your "self-esteem"―which is dependent upon social approval, dependent upon "the approval of men," dependent upon "group approval"), you also negate the authority of your Heavenly Father (who is also antithetical to your natural inclination of the "moment' when it goes contrary to His will, but who, unlike your earthly father, is perfect, not needing the approval of anyone for his thoughts and actions). By negating your faith in, belief upon, and obedience toward the office of higher authority, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm (in the earthly realm), i.e. by negating the paradigm or way of thinking and acting of the so called "past" (your "old" way of thinking and acting before you "knew" better, i.e. before you became "enlightened," i.e. before you could thing or reason for yourself according to your own nature and your own desires), you negate the same paradigm, same way of thinking and acting, which is essential if you are to have faith in, believe upon, and obey your Heavenly Father―human reasoning having cut off faith (righteousness, i.e. the righteousness of Christ imputed to you through faith according to his grace) and put sight (sensuousness, your own sensuousness and reasoning 'abilities') in its place.
We are to have "the mind of Christ," who obeyed His Heavenly Father in all things, even unto death. You can not have "the mind of Christ" and praxis the dialectic process. "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2:12-16 Obedience to our Heavenly Father in all things is made possible because "we have received ... the spirit which is of God" and "not the spirit of the world." In the praxis (action or practice) of dialectic 'reasoning,' obedience to our Heavenly Father is negated because in the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning,' .i.e. in the praxis of "man's wisdom," "the mind of Christ" is negated, "the spirit which is of God" (instructing man in righteousness) being rejected instead for "the spirit of the world" (promulgating sensuousness and sensuous reasoning).
As Stephen Bronner wrote, regarding the Transformational Marxist's takeover of the American education system and therefore the American culture (through the use of "Critical Theory," originally called "Critical Marxism," today better known as "question authority," i.e. "question everything," where man is depending totally upon his own "wisdom," guided by the "spirit of the world"): "The ideas of the Enlightenment taught man that he could trust his own reason [trust his sensuousness based reasoning, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning, which engenders "self" justification over and against the Father's authority] as a guide to establishing valid ethical norms [valid according to man's own nature, i.e. according to his carnal desires of the 'moment'] and that he could rely on himself [rely upon his own sensuous feelings ("felt" needs) and sensuous based thoughts of the 'moment'], needing neither revelation [the authority of the Father, defining good and evil for him, as revealed by God through His Word] nor that authority of the church [Note: authority is not in the "church" it is in the head of the church, in Jesus Christ, who, in the ministry of 'reconciliation,' introduces man to His Heavenly Father, with the church's preaching and teaching of the Father's only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, who was and is obedient to His Heavenly Father in all things, even to the death, calling all to follow Him, "bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ"] in order to know good and evil." (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists) Bracketed information added. That is why in a dialectic world, when you share the truth with people, thinking that they will be just as excited about knowing it as you, no one listens (you get that "deer in the headlight" look), because, unlike you, they have all become "enlightened," i.e. convinced in themselves that "truth" is not relevant unless it is 'changeable' according to the 'changing' times―truth is not truth unless it is relevant to their "sensuous needs," i.e. their carnal desires of the 'moment.'
Man is not good and therefore can not tell good from evil―basing it upon his own nature, i.e. basing good and evil upon his carnal desires, according to his deceitful and wicked heart, i.e. according to his worldly "lusts." "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 This ("lust" or "enjoyment" of this life alone) is the platform upon which dialectic 'reasoning' presents itself before man. This is the only foundation upon which the so called "new" world order can build. While there are always "new" things being discovered to use and play with, i.e. the things of the world are constantly 'changing' around us, the heart of man is not new, using what is "new" but still 'driven' by the same old, for the 'purpose' of the same old, i.e. its "lust" for the things of sensuousness of this world (for the pleasures of this life)―even when it is deceitfully and wickedly done in the name of and for the cause of righteousness (not weighing one's thoughts and actions upon the Word of God but instead upon one's own "sense experiences," i.e. weighing the Word of God upon his own thoughts and actions of the 'moment,' i.e. filtering the Word of God through dialectic 'reasoning,' his and others feelings and thoughts). The dialectic process is the heart of man, deceitful and wicked, lusting after the things of the world in the 'moment' of 'change,' always seeking after that which is ever 'changing.' "He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered." Proverbs 28:26
When, whatever it is that is desired can not be apprehended in the 'moment,' then it becomes an object of "hope." Man's hope, according to Immanuel Kant (Critique of Pure Reason), is found in happiness, happiness in pleasure, pleasure in the mind, and now we know that the sensation of pleasure (the "want" of a gratifying object) is the 'liberation' of dopamine (and other neurotransmitters) within the nervous system, i.e. when a person comes into contact with or thinks upon an object of "gratification." It all comes back to the things of the world, where man's imagination, i.e. where his hope (as "children of disobedience") is in the "enjoyment" of this life, calling that "good," and anything which inhibits, blocks, or restraints it (in the 'moment') "evil." It is the imagination of men's heart's turned to the pleasure of this life, rather than turning to God (loving pleasure more than God). It is the hope in man, who is deceitful and wicked, that negates the hope of glory which comes with knowing God, who is good. Reasoning, when engendered from the hope of man (hoping in the things of the world), is dialectic 'reasoning,' reasoning 'justifying' sensuousness, i.e. 'justifying' the things of this world below, over and against righteousness, i.e. that which is of God above. While Kant (only elevating Reason to make it equal with faith), was not willing to go further, i.e. elevating reasoning above faith, thereby negating faith and hope in God alone, i.e. not willing to establish reason over and against righteousness (establishing "the child of disobedience" over and against the Father), Hegel and all who followed him (fulfilling the "hope" of those who preceded them) did. The deception is that man thinks that his heart (the heart of "the child within") is good when in truth it is wicked. Without the righteousness of God to compare his heart with, man is left in his deception and wickedness, thinking that he is "good."
Only God is good. That is the reason the Supreme Court (using dialectic 'reasoning') outlawed the prayer "God is good, God is Great, Let us Thank Him for our food" from the (from then on) "Godless government" classroom, calling the prayer "dangerous" in their "opinion," in their decision (guided by dialectic 'reasoning') removing the authority of God and the recognition of His goodness and greatness from the American education system (from the next generations learning experience) and thereby negated the issue of righteousness from the American culture (all in the name of "equality," i.e. basing good and evil upon man's carnal nature, i.e. upon his own sensuousness, using his own reasoning 'abilities' to 'justify' his "human nature," i.e. sensuousness over and against righteousness. The church did not respond to the 'change' in the 60's because it had already 'shifted' its focus of ministry from the 'reconciliation' of man to the Father, based upon the preaching and teaching of the Word of God "as is," i.e. righteousness unhampered by human "wisdom," the Holy Spirit bringing men under conviction, with unity being based upon a "common faith" built upon sound biblical doctrine (on the issue of righteousness, i.e. on the issue of eternity, i.e. on the issue of not only the "here-and-now" but also the "there-and-then"), to the 'reconciliation' of man to man, based upon the dialoguing of men's opinions, with unity built upon the "common social 'felt' needs" of man (focusing upon the "environmental" crisis, i.e. the situations of the 'moment'), i.e. the building of human relationship, i.e. focusing upon the social issues of the day (issues of sensuousness and human reasoning, i.e. issues of the 'moment,' issues of the "here-and-now" with men working together, creating a "better" "there-and-then")―the "good earth," the so called "good Samaritan" (which the scriptures only call a "certain" Samaritan), and the "goodness" of man, working for the "common good" (referred to today as "good sense"), being the message of the times (the worth of the person and the value of life). In the churches' 'shift' from faith (preaching and teaching the Word of God as is) to sight (finding consensus amongst the "faiths" upon the ground of "common cause," i.e. building human relationship around social issues), faith was sacrificed upon the alter of "social progress," i.e. the church being restructured upon the socio-psychological ideology that man is basically good or "potentially" good as the result of his "willful" participation in a "healthy" environment , i.e. a dialectic 'reasoning' environment of the dialoguing of men's opinions to a consensus (to a feeling of acceptance, oneness, and purpose), i.e. an environment 'liberated' from (uninhibited by) the "restraints" of righteousness (of having to do the Father's will without question).
It is hoped by those of dialectic reasoning, that by getting you to negate the system (or order, or paradigm, or way of thinking and acting) of faith, belief, and obedience to higher authority itself, you will negate the office of authority of both fathers (negate the authority of the "one" above, whether it be the earthly father and/or the Heavenly Father) at the same time, in your feelings, in your thoughts, and in your actions. The dialectic ideology is that not until man's opinion becomes (his theory becomes) united with his human practice (his natural behavior) can he become himself. But unlike "individualism (defined in accordance to dialectic 'reasoning'), where man becomes himself based only upon his own carnal interests, which divides him from the Father but does not unite him with society, the dialectic agenda is that all men would become as "one" in thought and in practice, i.e. through social praxis, which divides man from the authority of the Father while at the same time uniting him with society (with man finding his identity in the social, no longer just in himself or in some higher authority than human nature). "The answer to man's predicament lies in the realization by individual man, that all men are essentially one and that the one is God. This self-realization is a 'return' to union: potential becomes actual." (Leonard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God) Thus the agenda for dialectic 'reasoning' is to bring man's thoughts, and only man's thoughts, into not only individual but also social action and social action into every man's thoughts. "We must bring theory closer to practice." (Statement made on national news by Rod Paige, secretary of education under president Bush Jr.) What "theory and practice" is all about is the negation of righteousness as the issue of life by uniting man's natural (carnal) thoughts with his natural (carnal) actions, declaring this 'right.'
The dialectic process is you, deceived into thinking of yourself as being 'righteous,' 'righteous' in your own eyes, i.e. "highly esteeming yourself among men," and behaving as such, only, instead of negating faith, belief, and obedience in an authority greater than your own human nature on an individual bases, you do it on a collective bases: in the experience of arriving at a consensus, on a social issue, in a facilitated meeting, with a diverse group of people, dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, to a predetermined outcome―that no decision "should" (can) be made without the consensus process, i.e. without the use of dialectic 'reasoning'― and then putting that consensus into social action, i.e. into praxis for the "good" of all, i.e. for the "good" of "the people," negating righteousness as an issue of life. I have just described a "soviet," (the consensus process) the dialectic based system whereby "the people" (the masses) are controlled by masters of deceit, tyranny, and unrighteousness, i.e. the facilitators of 'change.' Norman Levine, who translated the works of the Transformational Marxist György Lukács, wrote: "The institutions in socialist society [where government is more concerned about social needs than individual needs, i.e. where social rights outweigh individual rights, "human rights" (the "rights" of the collective―what is common to carnal man) outweigh inalienable rights (the rights of the citizen, under God)] which act as the facilitators between the public and private realms are the Soviets." (Norman Levine, in prefect to George Lukacs, Process of Democratization) "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." "Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 9-12
The dialectic process is antithetical to God's paradigm: "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 It is antithetical to the right way of thinking and acting. It is man blindly walking in his own way, directing his own "steps," according to his own feelings, according to his own sensuousness, according to his own carnal nature: "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23b It is man "leaning unto his own understanding," acknowledging himself as being 'right' in himself, directing his own "paths" according to his own reasoning 'abilities,' refusing to walk in the pathway of righteousness. We are not to be men of dialectic 'reasoning' but rather we are to be men of faith, i.e. putting our trust in the Lord and not in man (in ourselves). "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not unto your own understanding. In all your ways to acknowledge him and he will direct your paths." Proverbs 3:5, 6 The dialectic process is the "wide" and "broad" (all encompassing) way of the world, leading man to "destruction." It is a process being put into praxis all around you, wanting you to join with it in its "celebration" of "life" (which is death). "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:13, 14
The dialectic 'change' is a negating of the so called "old" world order, i.e. the top-down, patriarchal paradigm of the Father above all, ruling over all, i.e. the Father commanding the Son, the husband being the head over the wife, the parents ruling over their children, God being above angels and men, and the creator being over his creation, order of righteousness restraining sensuousness, i.e. the so called "old" world order of the Father, i.e. his commands (and his use of chastening on his children when they are disobedient) ruling over his family "well." 1 Timothy 3:1-13 The father is to rule over his family according to God's will, Colossian 3:18-25, with all coming under His way of righteousness, i.e. under His authority. Man is not righteous in and of himself (is not God). Only God is righteous in and of Himself (with man under His authority), i.e. imputing righteousness to man according to his faith in Him, i.e. "trusting in the Lord with all his heart." Redeemed man is "made" righteous, subject to and according to the will of the Father, through faith in, i.e. believing upon His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, able to do the Father's will by walking in the Spirit, i.e. all according to the will of God. Yet all men are to be subject to a system of righteousness (even in the secular real), i.e. have faith in, believe upon, and obey a higher authority than their own sensuousness of the 'moment,' accepting chastening for their disobedience when they let their sensuousness , i.e. their natural inclinations of the 'moment,' rule over them (control their lives), i.e. when they let their carnal desires come between themselves and their father, with the father figure reflecting a type of righteousness (with the father ruling over his family "well," under the authority of God, according to His will). It is only "under God" that a child (or the citizen) can therefore disobey his fathers commands (or the government's orders), when the father (when those in government) go counter to or against the highest authorities commands―"freedom of the conscience" or liberty being the issue at hand, i.e. the unruly father (the tyrant in the office of authority) may oppress and "brutalize" you, even take your life, but he can not take away your clear conscience for having done what is right in the sight of God. "But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead: ... For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world," 2 Corinthians 1:9, 12 This is where true and lasting liberty is found.
For those who can understand: Martin Luther's "priesthood of all believers" was a person not in defiance to government, just not in servitude to the commands of government when they went the way of abomination, i.e. when government usurped its authority under God and declares itself over and against righteousness, setting itself in the seat of God, declaring itself 'righteous' in and of itself (voiding itself of the council of God―as is done in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus meeting, i.e. in man using the dialectic process to determine what is 'right' in his own eyes in the 'moment,' i.e. giving "birth to himself," 'discovering' his full "potential"). According to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' the dialectic process is man marching through history, progressively negating the effects of righteousness (the authority of the Father) upon himself and the world, coming to know himself as he is, i.e. of sensuousness and reasoning alone. Erick Fromm, while commenting on man's so called march through history, noted the source of that march: "In the process of history man gives birth to himself. He becomes what he potentially is, and he attains what the serpent―the symbol of wisdom and rebellion―promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself." (Erick Fromm, You shall be as gods:)
"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12 Death to America(ns) is not coming the way of outside foreign invasion, it is coming the way of the dialectic process which is being used to resolve the crisis which comes with foreign invasion (whether real or perceived). The use of the consensus process, i.e. the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' to solve a "crisis," i.e. to supposedly "keep up with the times," is in truth a foreign invasion. The restraint which come from the Father (preaching and teaching commands to be obeyed, with the threat of chastisement for disobedience), i.e. engendering the "guilty conscience" (and according to dialectic 'reasoning,' therefore individualism, traditional culture, and nationalism, i.e. "civil government"), is negated by the 'liberation' of the permissiveness (deviancy) which comes from man dialoguing his opinions, i.e. following after his own natural inclinations (how he feels and what he thinks in the 'moment') in the consensus process. It is man, turning to his own "wisdom" (turning to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. turning to his own sensuousness and reasoning, i.e. to the putting aside of righteousness, i.e. replacing the council, authority, and will of the father with the council, authority, and will of carnal man, i.e. facilitated by "the children of disobedience," i.e. the seducers, deceivers, and manipulators of men for the 'purpose' of 'change') instead of turning to God (turning to His council, i.e. turning to His righteousness, i.e. to man putting aside of his own unrighteousness) in the midst of a crisis. It is man being lead in the way of death (down the pathway of unrighteousness), which for the 'moment' (according to man's perception and reasoning) "seems to be" the way of life. "For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." Jeremiah 2:13
The father's authority, ruling over his family "well," under the authority of God, is likewise as the same authority "system" as God ruling over his creation. Parent's are not perfect but the office of authority they serve in, under God, is (being given to them by God whether they are aware of it or not). All authority is of God and accountable to Him. In that authority under God, the desire of the wife's heart is to be to her husband (Ephesians 5:22-28; with the two becoming as one, 1 Corinthians 6:16-20, yet with the husband as the head, 1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 5:23, 33), the children are to obey their parents, in the Lord (Ephesians 6:1-3), i.e. engendering the "guilty conscience," with the Father and the child's "guilty conscience" (when the Father is not present) ruling over the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment' (as God rules over a man's feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment' by His Word and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit; John 3:31―"Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee." Psalms 119:11; John 16:7-15). Thus our affections must be upon God the Father and His only begotten Son, upon He who is above, upon He who is righteous in and of himself, i.e. living in and according to His righteousness, and not upon ourselves, not upon that which is below, i.e. living according to our own sensuousness, "sense perceiving" ourselves to be 'righteous' in and of ourselves, i.e. feeling, thinking, and acting as though we are God (or as a god amongst god's becoming as "one," i.e. becoming God, i.e. or rather "God becoming"―in the Gnostic sense―through the dialectic praxis of consensus). "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." Colossians 3:2 According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the enemy to man becoming as God (uniting as one in a "new" world order) is the "guilty conscience" and the environment which engenders it, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the authority of the father ruling over his family "well," under God, i.e. the dialectic idea being, don't fight against religion, negate the conditions which engender it, i.e. negate the patriarchal paradigm of the traditional home, where the children first experience faith, belief, obedience, and chastening for doing wrong or not doing right, i.e. right or wrong being established according to the Father's will.
The dialectic idea is to first identify the environmental conditions which engenders resistance to 'change,' i.e. the environment which initiates and sustains the "guilty conscience." Norman Brown identified the source of the "guilty conscience" as being the patriarchal based family: "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be the father of oneself." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) The environment of chastening (and reproof) for doing wrong, and the "guilty conscience" which it engenders, thwarts the "I am God" ("I am 'righteous' in and of myself") in the child (in "the child" in us, i.e. in the "Id" and the "Ego," i.e. the "I feel" and "I will" becoming united as one in us―it is with the use of dialectic 'reasoning' that we convert our "I feel" and "I will" to the "We feel" and "We can and will" through the consensus process). Therefore the dialectic idea is, by negating the environment that engenders the "guilty conscience" by cutting off any effort on the parts of the someone to give commands to obeyed without question and threatening chastisement or judgment if they are disobey. By creating a "non-hostile" environment, "tolerant of ambiguity" (an "open-ended," i.e. anyone can say anything they "feel" or "think," i.e. share their opinion, without threat of punishment, and "non-directive," i.e. no one will be commanded in what they are to do or not to do environment―Carl Rogers) the "guilty conscience" can be negated and man, and the world he lives in, can be 'changed,' i.e. man can be made in his own image (of sensuousness only) and the world can be shaped according to his will (according to his own reasoning abilities only).
Richard Paul (quoted below) identified the environmental condition which was necessary to initiate and sustain 'change' if man was to negate the "guilty conscience" (and thereby negate the patriarchal paradigm) and its effect upon the individual and society. The negation of the patriarchal paradigm requires the introduction of an environment of permissiveness with the 'right' to 'safely' "question authority," i.e. known as a heresiarchal paradigm of 'change,' i.e. a dialectical environment of seduction, deception, and manipulation―seducing you by offering to help you attain your desires (thereby gaining your trust), deceiving you by using your own words (yet meaning something totally different) so that you can be manipulated to a predetermined ends, i.e. the negation of a "guilty conscience" and the patriarchal paradigm which engenders it (which requires the negation of the issue of righteousness, i.e. doing the Father's will, in everyone's thoughts and actions). Paul wrote: "Only by bringing out the child's own ideas in dialogical and dialectical settings can the child begin to reconstruct and progressively transcend concepts." (Richard Paul, Critical Thinking Handbook) The "concepts" being "transcended," i.e. negated, through the use of the "dialogical and dialectical setting," is the patriarchal paradigm. There is no righteousness in a "dialogical and dialectical setting," only sensuousness and human reasoning.
For example: according to Jean Piaget, it was determined by the court of Athens that Socrates had corrupted the morals of the youth and destroyed their belief in the gods (negated the patriarchal paradigm, and thereby negated the issue of righteousness, i.e. knowing that they are accountable to "something or someone" higher than their natural inclinations, i.e. their thoughts and their actions, condemning their 'reasoning' abilities being used to 'justify' themselves before themselves and men) through their incorporation of his way of thinking, now referred to as "Socratic critical thinking" or "higher order thinking skills," which is nothing more nor less than dialectic 'reasoning.' It should be noted that "textural criticism" is the same procedure as dialectic 'reasoning.' Therefore men using it to "know" the word of God, whether intending to or not, liberalize the Word of God, corrupting it, make it no longer the Word of God but rather the opinions of men. In their effort to identify it's source and translate it, i.e. trying to make it intellectually "understandable" and "adaptable" to the contemporary (carnal) mind they 'change' the Word of God to fit it into the world (so that they can "feel better" about themselves and be "less offensive" to others) instead of accepting the Word of God as is and letting it change them and the world. They would deny that that is what they are doing, but that is the effect of dialectic 'reasoning,' blinding man to his unrighteous thoughts and actions, perceiving them as being "good," as being "right" in his own eyes (especially if they are being used for God's "glory," which is the lie of lies). "They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." John 16:2 As cream rises to the top so does scum. One is white the other is "green." If you mix the two the "green" will prevail over the white. For an example: one ministry put it this way: "Let us listen to the Biblical mandate to turn to God [to righteousness] and thus, also to turn to Green [to sensuousness]." (Church of South India) Bracketed information added. The Scriptures clearly warn us about being unequally yoked: 2 Corinthians 6:14-18. When faith becomes sight, faith is negated.
The dialectic 'change' is a 'change' to a so called "new" way of feeling, thinking and acting, to a "new" paradigm of "equality," with all men 'rationally' (through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e. to a "feeling" of "oneness," i.e. to a sense of common-ism) becoming (that is collectively becoming) servants to sensuousness (void of "the guilty conscience" and the system which engenders it, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm). This "new" paradigm, i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm of 'change,' is 'driven' by sensuousness (aided with human reasoning which 'justifies' human nature, i.e. sensuousness, and itself, i.e. reasoning as being over and against righteousness), 'purposed in negating the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. negating the patriarch (the Father figure) and his paradigm of giving commands to those under his authority, commands to be obeyed without question, chastening them when they are disobedient, thereby (according to dialectic 'reasoning') through the use of the "guilty conscience," engendering (initiating and sustaining) his position of authority. Negate the "guilty conscience" (there is no "guilty conscience" in the dialoguing of opinions, i.e. how you "feel" and what you "think") and you negate the Father's authority ("Though shalt not" .... "Because I said so.").
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is the "guilty conscience" (the fear of judgment and chastening) which keeps the "present" generation loyal to the "past," subject to the "past" generation and their beliefs (that is, living according to faith and not according to sight). Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' blinded by their sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities, i.e. by their self-justification, do not understand or refuse to accept that God is a living God, that his commands of the so called "past," commanding man to live according to His Word, are also of the present, with man able to fulfill His will only by His Word the power of His Holy Spirit―righteousness therefore not being based upon the works of man, subject to commands of the "past" which he has to carry out in the "present," in his own abilities, but in God himself, who is above, imputed to man because of their faith in the Him, i.e. their trusting in the Lord with all their heart and their refusing to lean to their own understanding. Notice the 'shift' from "above-below" (righteousness, "I'm above and you are below," a hierarchy structure of authority) to "past-present" (sensuousness, i.e. space-time 'spectrum,' i.e. 'changing' structure, i.e. a hierarchy system of augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain―the "fear" of "What is going to happen to me {us} if we don't ....") in mans thinking and acting, the result of dialectical 'reasoning.' What the world does not have is a regenerated heart and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, that which is foreign and antithetical to "human nature." Having rejected the preaching and teaching of truth to be accepted as "is," i.e. "as given," unregenerate man's total bases for what is right and what is wrong is therefore based upon his own "sense experience." Having neither the Word of God nor the fruit of the Spirit―the power and the witness of the Holy Spirit in the "here-and-now" bearing witness to the "there-and-then," i.e. to the promises of God―not having the mind of Christ in their life, having rejecting the preaching and teaching of the cross (faith), dialectical man can not understand the love and grace of God, that righteousness is imputed by God to man because of his faith in Christ Jesus alone, making him able to live according to His Word (inheriting eternal life)―"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18; see also 1 Corinthians 3:18-20, 1 Corinthians 2:12-29, Romans 1:20-25, 1 Peter 1:13-21.
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is the "guilty conscience" (the residue of "past" experiences under the Father's authority) that keeps man confined to the "'belief-action' dichotomy." It is what keeps man subject to the conflict―the antithesis― between spirit and flesh (the "past" and the "present"), i.e. the tension of wanting to live according to something which is not of his own nature (faith) and wanting to live according to that which is of his own nature (sight). It is what keeps him subject to a so called "negative force," i.e. subject to the fear of judgment or fear of failure and therefore the incurred disapproval and chastening by the Father and therefore subject to living a life according to the conditions of righteousness, under rules which are unique to the Father. It is what keeps him from living according to his own nature, keeping him from living according to a so called "positive force," i.e. living a life of "enjoyment" and pleasure, i.e. a life of the love of and pursuit of pleasure, incurring approval by those of like mind, i.e. living according to the sensuousness which is common to all men. The idea of "force field analysis" ―often called "systems analysis" or "general systems theory"― was to identify "negative" and "positive" fields of force ("taxonomizing" paradigms) for the 'purpose' of 'change'―one "force field" demanding faith, belief, obedience, and using chastening, i.e. engendering the "guilty conscience" to initiate and sustain its order (the "old" world order of righteousness) and the other "force field" using seduction, deception, and manipulation , i.e. 'developing' the "super-ego" (negating the "guilty conscience") to initiate and sustain its order (the "new" world order of sensuousness and reasoning united as one)―was first developed by Kurt Lewin. "Force field analysis," i.e. the taxonimizing or the "mapping" the room, is essential if the facilitator of 'change' is to gain and maintain control over the room of students or citizens, for his intended 'purpose' of initiating and sustaining the consensus process of 'change,' i.e. negating the "guilty conscience" (the voice of the Father of the "past"―subject to righteousness only) and its (His) effect upon setting private and public policy (the voice of "the people" in the "present"―subject to their own sensuousness and reasoning abilities only).
According to dialectic 'reasoning": "The most important symptom of the defeat in the fight for oneself is the guilty conscience." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom) Without negating the "guilty conscience" (the voice of the Father of restraint within the child), replacing it with the so called "super-ego" (the "voice of the society of impulses and urges"―that which the child and the world have in common―sensuousness and human reasoning i.e. "self-justification"), resistance to 'change' will prevail over the affairs of men, preventing 'change' from happening, i.e. preventing "oneness" (the "new" world order) from becoming actualized. If society is to be 'changed' from a top-down to an "equality" paradigm (from righteousness to sensuousness―dialectically perceived and treated as "systems"), the condition (or environment) which initiates and sustains the conscience must be negated, i.e. replaced with the condition (or environment) which initiates and sustains the "super-ego." The traditional family condition (dialectically correlated with righteousness, i.e. as a system of righteousness) must therefore be called into question, i.e. become destabilized, i.e. be "upset," i.e. become perceived as being undesirable and unreliable as a means of initiating and sustaining identity and purpose for the next generation.
All social agencies, including education (and the contemporary church) have made this their mandate, i.e. the replacing of the conscience with the "super-ego" (disguising their agenda under the banner of "helping the family"). Benjamin Bloom, in his so called "taxonomy," noted the differences between the conscience and the super-ego, and the focus upon the development of the super-ego, if the world (beginning with the next generation in the classroom) was to praxis 'change.' "The superego is conceived in psychoanalysis as functioning substantially in the same way as the conscience." [Unlike the conscience, which is conceived as the incorporation of the moral standards of the father.] "Superego development is conceived as the incorporation of the moral standards of society [the group]. Therefore the levels of the Taxonomy should describe successive levels of goal setting appropriate to superego development." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) Bracketed information and emphasis added. With the emphasis of learning in a group experience setting, Kenneth Benne pointed out the importance for the training of "democratic leadership," i.e. how they are to infiltrate and then maintain their position in the educational arena, for the 'purpose' of initiating and sustaining 'change': "Changing a group atmosphere from autocracy toward democracy through a democratic leadership means that the autocratic followers must shift toward a genuine acceptance of the role of democratic followers." "It is of utmost importance that the trainer of democratic leaders establish and hold his position of leadership." "In a democratic process deviation [deviancy] is welcomed as a possible source of improvement in common ways of thinking and acting." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) Bracketed information added.
People have been trained to initiate and sustain the destabilization of the traditional family for the very 'purpose' of 'change.' A federally funded project, headed up by Ronald Havelock, emphasized the importance of "upsetting the 'status quo,'" and getting the 'change' process "started." "Most of the time, most people do not want change; they want to keep things the way they are, even when outsiders know that change is required. For that reason some change agents are needed just to overcome this inertia, to prod and pressure the system to be less complacent and to start working on its serious problems. By making their dissatisfaction known and by upsetting the 'status quo' they get things started." (Ronald G. Havelock, The Change Agent's Guide To Innovation In Education; Federally funded project: Contract # OEC-0-8-080603-4535(010), Dept. of Ed. and Dept. of HEW, 1973) The first "outsider," i.e. the first "agent of 'change,'" made his presence known in a garden in Eden, "upsetting the 'status quo,' [getting] things started."
Even today, National Training Laboratories (NTL's) are used to train 'change agents' in methods of initiating and sustaining 'change.' (NTL's history.) Their first training manual makes their dialectic agenda clear: "How can a situation be brought about which would permanently change social interactions?" "To bring about change the old constellation of forces have to be upset." "Hand in hand with the destruction of the old social interactions must go the establishment (or liberation) of new social interactions." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change, 1950) It was necessary that the traditional "top-down" family order (as the means of developing the next generation of citizens, guided by their conscience instead of by the so called "super-ego," i.e. man guided by his social "felt" needs, i.e. "the approval of men") loose "support" if 'change' ("equality" of, by, and for deviancy) was to take its place, i.e. if "deviant behavior" (abomination) was to become the norm. The conscience (as well as true science) interferes with the "stimulus-response" ideology of dialectic 'reasoning,' the ideology that the environment of a persons experiences is what shapes a person's behavior, either an environment in favor of human nature, producing a "healthy person," a "good" citizen, or and environment hostile to or restraining of human nature, producing a "neurotic person." One research organization, seeing the error in such thinking, put it this way: "The nature of free will is another issue that can be tackled by the new biology of mind. Free will is the ability to act or make choices as a free and autonomous being and not solely as a result of compulsion or predestination [according to a person following after his natural inclination in response to an environmental situation]. According to Freud's discovery of psychic determinism - the fact that much of our cognitive and affective life is unconscious - there is not much left for freedom of action. Experiment on the correlation between electrical activity of the brain and movement (lifting a finger for example), reveals that the electrical activity precedes the movement by 200 milliseconds. It is proposed that the process of initiating a voluntary action occurs in an unconscious part of the brain, but that just before the action is taken, consciousness is recruited to approve or veto the action. In the 200 milliseconds before a finger is lifted, consciousness determines whether it moves or not. Thus, our conscious mind may not have free will, but it can freely modify inappropriate behavior. This is the reason for the laws in our society to hold all of us accountable for our own action. It is suggested that we should update our idea of free will to mean self-control over our behaviour." (universe-review.ca/R10-16ANS) "Situation ethics" and "values clarification" failed to produce a moral society because their agenda was in actuality, the promotion of immorality, i.e. the 'liberation' of human nature, i.e. "'normal' human behavior," via the negation of the conscience. Recognizing the source for the development of the conscience (the traditional home environment), Dr. Trojanowicz (who developed the COPS program, although never a police officer himself) accentuated the 'change' which was taking place in a world of 'rapid change,' that is, the devaluation of the traditional home environment as the means to initiating and sustaining social control (the "old" world order). He first began by defining the environment that engenders the conscience and then suggested the 'justifiable' reason to replace that environment with "external control" (government control) for the purpose of "social control." "Social control is most effective at the individual level. The personal conscience is the key element in ensuring self-control, refraining from deviant behavior even when it can be easily perpetrated. The family, the next most important unit affecting social control, is obviously instrumental in the initial formation of the conscience and in the continued reinforcement of the values that encourage law abiding behavior. Unfortunately, because of the reduction of influence exerted by neighbors, the extended family and even the family, social control is now often more dependent on external control, than on internal self-control." (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, Community Policing: The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing) The outcome is a police state with cameras at every corner.
The dialectic focus was therefore upon the traditional family condition (the traditional home environment) which initiated and sustained the child's way of thinking and acting (which would make him loyal to individual rights, family rights, state rights, and national right), to clearly identify what it was, so as to be able to successfully negate it. Theodor Adorno made note of that focus: "The power-relationship between the parents, the domination of the subject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) With society no longer accepting the top-down way of "doing business," the concern was the conflict and tension (and resistance to 'change') which would be engendered by the maintaining of the "failing" system of the traditional home upon a society enamored with 'change,' i.e. with sensuousness unrestrained by issues of righteousness. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' without social action (praxis) 'redeeming' the children from the authority of the Father (by 'changing' how the parents' perceive themselves and their children, i.e. 'changing' their perception on how to raise their children―from responsibility to their Heavenly Father, i.e. living according to His righteousness, which is not common to man, to "responsibility" to society, i.e. living according to their own sensuousness, what everyone has in common), social 'change' would languish if not be blocked by nationalism (isolationism and empiricism) or even fascism (a paranoia of those taken captive to dialectic 'reasoning'―fascism simply being a corrupted form of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. a misapplied use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. globalism regressing to a nationalistic agenda). It was therefore imperative that "social environmental forces" be initiated and sustained to "help" "change the parent's behavior toward the child." (ibid.) Without changing society (along with the parents), i.e. 'changing' the environment of the neighborhood (redefining it as a "community") and the environment of the home, the child (and society) would remain subject to the authority of the Father, perpetuating the patriarchal paradigm, maintaining the "influence" of righteousness upon society.
Without 'changing' the child's environment, in the home and in his relationships outside the home (including the school and the church), the child would retain "the conception of the ideal family situation, (1) uncritical obedience to the father and elders, (2) pressures directed unilaterally from above to below, (3) inhibition of spontaneity and (4) emphasis on conformity to externally imposed values." (ibid.) and God would still rule in the heart's and mind's of men, i.e. inhibiting 'change,' i.e. preventing world unity based upon the sensuousness of man, i.e. upon that which is natural to man, upon that which all men can agree upon and participate in (if it were not for the conditions of righteousness). Only by being able to initiate and sustain major 'changes' in society (how people related with one another) could the authority structure of the traditional home (the authority of the Father) become destabilized.
Theodor Adorno and Warren Bennis both noted the effect social change would have upon the parents: "Few parents can be expected to persist for long in educating their children for a society that does not exist, or even in orienting themselves toward goals which they share only with a minority." (ibid.) "Once uncertainty is created in the parent how best to prepare the child for the future, the authoritarian family is moribund." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)
Mass media, federally mandated laws, and education all served that 'purpose,' the "destabilization" of the traditional home (the children questioning and challenging the authority of the Father to rule his home "well," i.e. under God). Regarding the use of Bloom's "Taxonomies" in education, Bloom noted: "There are many stores of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) That was the intent of those who developed the "Taxonomies." "The major impact of the new program is to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents." (ibid.) Bloom noted the importance of the "experiential chasm" that the classroom offered (as Warren Bennis called it). Bloom wrote: "The effectiveness of this new set of environmental conditions is probably related to the extent to which the students are 'isolated' from the home during this period of time [a key component of the brainwashing (re-education) process]." "… objectives can best be attained where the individual is separated from earlier environmental conditions ["'isolated'" from the top-down system like the home, with teachers no longer preaching and teaching and the students memorizing, learning, and obeying] and when he is in association with a group of peers ["equality" system, with students (encouraged by facilitators of 'change' who call themselves teachers) dialoging their opinions to a consensus, i.e. to a "group grade," in a group setting] who are changing in much the same direction and who thus tend to reinforce each other." (ibid.) Bracketed information added. Kurt Lewin noted the importance of the "group" setting, i.e. "group approval," in developing "the new system of values and beliefs," i.e. in the students participation in and acceptance of the new paradigm of 'change.' "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) Emphasis added.
Righteousness is at the very heart of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. how to negate it. The similarity of the "earthly father" and the "Heavenly Father" (for the 'purpose' of negating both) is recognized by all programs possessed with the idea of social 'change.' As noted by Adorno: "An attitude of complete submissiveness toward 'supernatural forces' and a readiness to accept the essential incomprehensibility of 'many important things' strongly suggest the persistence in the individual of infantile attitudes toward the parents, that is to say, of authoritarian submission in a very pure form." "Authoritarian submission was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures―parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) The dialectic concern was, if the families paradigm was not 'changed,' with the negation of God as the highest authority (when man loosing his faith in God) man would turn to a man to replace God, i.e. turn to a Hitler as their highest authority (in their effort to maintain their patriarchal paradigm, i.e. maintaining a "top-down" system). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' without 'changing' the families paradigm, world unity (initiating and sustaining an "equality" system) would be prevented and the world would remain divided and at war, struggling to maintain and propagate it's varying ideologies. The dialectic fear was: by the fathers efforts to maintain his authority, through the aid of government recognition and support, he would maintain nationalism and thereby engender the potential for fascism. The truth be known, when the father turns to government, giving it authority to "protect" his family, he looses it to the government (it is in limited government, where the father has the 'right' to protect his family, even from the government, that the traditional family, under God, has liberty, i.e. what liberty was all about). The role of civil government is to allow the father to raise his children with a conscience, i.e. that he might become an individual citizen with respect for authority.
Note the statement by Rousseau regarding "civil" government, that it is man's need and duty to annihilate it ("civil society") if he is to "save" himself and all of mankind from division and war―his promoting of the idea that the earth belonged to no one and all its fruit belongs to all "the people" (not his words). As J. L. Moreno stated it, this includes the children: "Parents have no right upon their offspring except a psychological right. Literally the children belong to universality." (J. L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive, Moreno's development and use of "role-playing" was a means to recreate God out of man, i.e. through his social interaction and action, i.e. through his collective recreating of the universe through the consensus process, i.e. creating a "new" world order, i.e. negating God directing his steps, i.e. 'liberating' the children from their father's authority and man from God's authority as he unites as "one" working on creating a "better" world for all.) This is dialectical 'reasoning' being put into praxis. The real reason for dialectic 'reasoning,' as you will see, is that man can remove the issue of sin from his life, i.e. "detoxifying" (purging) himself of the father and therefore of God, so that he can be carnal, immoral, wicked, etc., i.e. "be himself," without a "guilty conscience."
Back to Adorno's idea, that the traditional family system (with the father figure engendering the "authoritarian personality") was the reason for fascism. The evidence was not there (that the traditional family structure engendered fascism) but the dialectic ideology prevailed over the facts, i.e. history was shaped around the 'justification' of dialectic 'reasoning' (history was rewritten to support the dialectic ideology that man's 'purpose' and 'drive' in life is to become as "one"), i.e. viewed through "neo-Marxist lens," so as to 'justify' it's use for the 'purpose' of "world unity," which requires the negation of righteousness―the source of sovereignty and division. The "children of disobedience" can not reunite as "one" and build the "tower of Babel" (a "new" world order of "oneness") with the Father around, demanding faith, belief, and obedience, and chastening for disobedience, all according to His will. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' to condone the authority of the father, in a world of "equality," i.e. in a "child centered" world, would be "sado-masochistic": "masochistic" for the child (engendering the father's will in the child, i.e. the "child within" being "repressed," submitting to the father's will over and against it's will) and "sadistic" for the father (or the "child within" the father submitting to his father's will "repressing" his children. (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom) (This thinking is the spirit of antichrist, hating the authority of God, being expressed in men's writing for the propagation of social policies leading to a world totally dedicated to unrighteousness.) Therefore, for the sake of "equality," the traditional family system must be negated. As James Coleman (who's material and "expertise" was used by the Supreme Court in helping them come to their decisions on education) wrote: "for equality to take place the family as a unite must be weakened." (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society)
The top-down system (husband head over the wife/parents ruling over the children/God above and man below hierarchy), which goes counter to the "equality" system, must therefore become recognized by "the people" as being a barrier to 'change,' i.e. preventing man from becoming himself (inhibiting him from 'discovering' his "full potential"), keeping him in a condition called "neurosis"―not being able to do that which he wants to do (be himself, follow after his own natural inclinations, pleasing himself, follow after sensuousness) and doing that which he does not want to do (disobeying his parents, not being able to following after his Father's commands and thereby being unable to please his Father―not being able to carry out His Father's will he is not able to fulfill all righteousness and therefore lives with a "guilty conscience"). Carl Rogers wrote of the "neurosis" condition which was engendered by the traditional family environment and the difficulties councilors would have in containing the evils which would come by negating the "guilty conscience" (by opening "Pandora's Box" as Bloom called it). "'Have you merely released the beast, the id, in man?' ... There is only man in man, and this we have been able to release." "In psychology, Freud and his followers have presented convincing arguments that the id, man's basic and unconscious nature, is primarily made up of instincts which would, if permitted expression, result in incest, murder, and other crimes." "The whole problem of therapy, as seen by this group, is how to hold these untamed forces in check in a wholesome and constructive manner, rather than in the costly fashion of the neurotic ["neurosis" being the tension between (or antithesis of) the traditional family and "human nature," the child wanting to live according to his Father's will (having to go against his own nature) yet still being drawn to follow after his own natural inclinations (not being able to live up to his Father's standards, i.e. not being able live according to his Father's will because of his nature of "being himself," "doing his own thing" in the 'moment']." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) Bracketed information added. Take note that on the "super-ego" side, i.e. on the "id" (spontaneous-sensuousness) side of man's morals and ethics, "incest, murder, and other crimes" have to be held "in check" by some social system, engendering the need for a police state, i.e. a socialist police state (with psychology and sociology, i.e. social-psychologists, i.e. the facilitators of 'change,' , i.e. "the children of disobedience" as its "spiritual" guide).
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' world unity can never be found in what the Father and the children have in difference, i.e. in the top-down condition of righteousness (the Father giving commands, with his children obeying him without questioning, i.e. where they are not allowed to question or challenge his authority). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' world unity can only be found in what the Father and the children have in common, i.e. in the "equality" condition of sensuousness (in their worldly desires). Only by focusing upon what families had in common, not on what made them different, could social 'change' be initiated and sustained. Trojanowicz noted that "... once you can identify a community [what the father is willing to compromise upon or tolerate to maintain relationship with others for the 'purpose' of meeting basic needs, i.e. personal and/or family needs, according to Abraham Maslow, "'felt' needs," i.e. sensuous needs], you have discovered the primary unity of society above the individual and the family that can be mobilized ... to bring about positive social change." (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, Community Policing: The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing) Therefore, the dialectic 'change' is to the "new," "equality," "children of disobedience" order of sensuousness, i.e. that which the family had in common with the "community," where the husband-wife, father-mother-children are treated as "equals," i.e. as "one." Hegel put it this way: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality." "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, where there is no antithesis of person to person or of subject to object, the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one. So too all contracts regarding property or service and the like fall away here because these things are grounded in the presupposition of private personality. Instead the surplus, labour, and property are absolutely common to all, inherently and explicitly." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) It is a "new" order where the child's feelings and thoughts, i.e. the will of the child, i.e. the child doing as he wills, yet with a "guilty conscience" (still internally subordinate to his Father's will―a condition making a person subject to "cognitive dissonance" where he is caught between his belief, his Father's commands of the "past," trusted and obeyed, and his behavior, i.e. his natural inclinations, i.e. his 'immediate' desires drawing him away from, i.e. counter to his Father's commands), is, through the use of reasoning (dialectic 'reasoning'), "liberated" from the restraints of righteousness, i.e. 'liberated' not only from the Father's authority (from the "fear" of chastening) but also from the "guilty conscience." In this 'liberation,' "the public," i.e. "the people" (and "the children of disobedience") are 'liberated' from the private (from the Father), i.e. "Mine, not yours." Marx did not originate the idea of negating "private property." Before Marx, Hegel, as quoted above, saw its direct tie to the traditional family system where the father ruled over his family, his property, his business, etc., i.e. under God, engendering a patriarchal paradigm in the thoughts and actions of the next generation. Lenin saw that correlation, and set out to negate it through social action, i.e. through violence.
Karl Marx understood the importance of negating the Father's authority. He wrote: "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the heavenly family, the former must be destroyed in theory and in practice." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis # 4) He recognized it's direct tie to man's resistance to 'change,' i.e. it's engendering of the individual, i.e. "entrenched" in established principles and values, refusing to put aside his ideology and become at-one-with the society of 'change.' "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways, the objective however, is to change it." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) Without social identity, according to dialectic reasoning, man has no identity. Marx wrote: "The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in each particular individual." "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 6) According to Karl Marx, and dialectic 'reasoning, apart from "the group experience," man has no true identity. "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) "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) By 'changing' ideology to theory ('changing' his belief to an opinion), i.e. by 'changing' the preaching and teaching of truth, i.e. commands to be believed and obeyed as is, "as given," i.e. engendering accountability to a higher authority than "human nature," to the dialoguing of opinions, man is set free from the restraints of the Father's authority and is "now" free to be himself, 'liberated' from the "past" to become at-one-with those of like kind in the "present," to become "one" with the society of 'change.' As Karl Korsch put it, man must learn to "to grasp philosophies and other ideological systems in theory as realities and to treat them as such in praxis." (Karl Korsch quoted in Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory And Its Theorists) The dialectic idea being, don't reject the person with truth, just recognize he is "deceived" into thinking truth is established for all times and all places (subject to the Fathers' authority) and treat him as someone who is mislead, who is in "denial" of his true nature. Every truth and ideal must be treated as an opinion. In this way, when the person participates in dialogue, treating his belief as just another opinion amongst opinions, he negates the patriarchal paradigm (he negates his "religious" foundation). Karl Marx wrote: "In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for all time, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx) This same dialectic ideology, as explained by Marx, is expressed in (and propagated by) present-day education in the United States of America and around the world. Bloom wrote in his book, which is used by all educators today in their development of classroom curriculum: "But, as has been pointed out before, we recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places." (Benjamin S. Bloom Taxonomy of Educational Objective Book 1: Cognitive Domain) Bloom's ideology was the same as Marx's, only more refined, more subtle.
Sigmund Freud built psychology upon the same dialectic platform as Marx, with the agenda of negating the Father's authority, i.e. replacing the preaching and teaching of truth, to be obeyed as is ("It is written," "Because I said so") with the dialoguing of opinions ("I feel" and "I think"). Freud wrote: "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [the father no longer 'rules' over his family]." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) Bracketed information added.
Reflecting the dialectical doctrine of "equality for all," and therefore the necessity of negating the patriarchal paradigm (negating the Father's authority), Rousseau wrote: "The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine,' and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality) His dialectic ideology was the foundation for the French Revolution, i.e. the negation of the Father figure, replacing it with Sophia, i.e. the gnostic spirit of "oneness," i.e. the unifying love of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the self-social 'justification' of carnal feelings, thoughts, and behavior―the 'justification' of abomination.
It continues today (the dialectic ideology of "oneness"), as expressed by Abraham Maslow: "In a democratic society a patriarchal culture should make us depressed instead of glad; it is an argument against the higher possibilities of human nature, of self actualization." "In our democratic society, any enterprise―any individual―has its obligations to the whole." "Tax credits would be given to the company that helps to improve the whole society, and helps to improve the democracy by helping to create democratic individuals." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management) Yet Maslow had second thoughts about his "theory." He wrote in his journals, "... my children got me into conflict with my theory." "I've been in continuous conflict over this Esalen-type, orgiastic, Dionysian-type education." "Who should teach whom?" (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)
This may be "heady" material to read at first. But it will make sense when exposed by the light of God's Word. First a "fleshing" of the dialectic process itself is necessary. It is a process not as it "seems to be." Appearing to be "academic" it is in truth spiritual, i.e. a process of seduction, deception, and manipulation being used to negate righteousness (faith) by making Spirit, that which is God and of God, that which is above man, "spirit in all spirits," that which is of man himself, i.e. man "at-one-with" himself, individually and collectively (both becoming one through dialectic 'reasoning' being put into social action, i.e. praxis). "Human reason — the consciousness of one's being is indeed reason; it is the divine in man, and spirit. In so far as it is the Spirit of God, it is not a spirit beyond the stars, beyond the world. On the contrary, God is present, omnipresent, and exists as spirit in all spirits." (George Hegel, Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion: A. The Relation of the Philosophy of Religion to its Presuppositions and to the Principles of the Time. I. — The Severance of Religion from the Free, Worldly Consciousness) That "spirit in all spirits" is human reasoning (dialectic 'reasoning') "helping" man 'liberate' himself from the restraints of God (who is above man, i.e. the creator of all things, who all things are accountable to, i.e. right and wrong based upon His will, not upon the will of man, i.e. of "the people"). "Man has only to understand himself, to take himself as the measure of all aspects of life, to judge according to his being, to organise the world in a truly human manner according to the demands of his own nature, and he will have solved the riddle of our time." "But there is no other salvation for him, he cannot regain his humanity, his substance, other than by thoroughly overcoming all religious ideas and returning firmly and honestly, not to 'God', but to himself." (Frederick Engels, The Condition of England A review of Past and Present) "The critique of religion ends in the doctrine that man is the supreme being for man; .... The critique of religion ends with the categorical imperative to overthrow all conditions in which man is a debased, enslaved, neglected, contemptible being." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') The dialectic ideology is that "the test of human conduct must be found in human experience; concern for man replaces concern about pleasing God." (Leonard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God) The "sense experience" of man, collectively actualizing himself through the praxis of initiating and sustaining consensus, negates righteousness. Through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' his thoughts and in his actions are no longer subject to the will of God but rather are taken captive to the collective will of man―now "sense perceived" as being God, i.e. as mankind becomes 'righteous' in and of himself alone (with no standard but himself, i.e. his natural inclinations, and the sensuous 'moment,' i.e. the real or imagined situation, to guide him in his thoughts and his actions). Hegel wrote: "When a man has finally reached the point where he does not think he knows it better than others, that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly and he is interested only in what they have done right, then peace and affirmation have come to him." (G. F. W. Hegel, in one of the casual notes preserved at Widener)
The dialectic process is all about negating (overcoming) the antithesis (conflict or tension) between righteousness and sensuousness. It is all about "resolving" the tension between God and man, between the Father and the child, between the spirit and the flesh (as explained by the Apostle Paul in Romans 7:14-25). But in this case, according to dialectic reasoning, it is not a resolution of the tension by restoring man to God, i.e. to the Father, in the righteousness of Christ imputed to man, as explained by Paul, but rather it is a "resolution" of the tension (the antithesis condition) by 'liberating' man from the Father, as was first done (first put into action or praxis) in a garden in Eden―Genesis 3:1-6. The dialectic process (human reasoning, "self-actualization," i.e. 'self-justification' put into social action―praxis) is man's effort to negate the antithesis between God's will, i.e. which is in and of his own righteousness (spirit) and man's will, i.e. which is in and of his own sensuousness (of the flesh). It is a process which correlates the antithesis between the Father and the child, i.e. between the Father's will, which is associated with his giving commands to his children, commands to be obeyed without question, i.e. to be obeyed by faith, and his use of chastening upon his children when they disobey, as being the same patriarchal paradigm as God's (preaching and teaching truth as "is," revelation truth, to be accepted and obeyed "as given," judging and chastening or condemning man for his disobedience, i.e. for sinning), i.e. a condition or environment engendering a thesis condition of righteousness as explained in Hebrews 12:5-11―a condition requiring faith, belief, obedience, and the use of chastening for disobedience―and the child's will to do what he wants to do, to do as he wills in the 'moment,' i.e. following after his own natural inclinations, engendering the same heresiarchal paradigm of 'change' as "the children of disobedience," i.e. which is of sensuousness (but not yet of reasoning), i.e. engendering an antithesis condition between sensuousness and righteousness (but not as yet over and against righteousness), inducing doubting and questioning and the desire for permissiveness and tolerance, with dialectic 'reasoning' (man 'discovering' 'truth,' i.e. his carnal nature as being "normal," through human reasoning, i.e. through the dialoguing of opinions) being used to overcome (negate) the antithesis condition between the two (the tension between God and man, the Father and the child, the spirit and the flesh), producing what "seems to be" synthesis (a solution to the tension, i.e. the negation of the condition that engenders tension―righteousness).
But, in truth, synthesis (reasoning regarding "morals and ethics," i.e. sensuousness based human reasoning determining "right" feelings, thoughts, and actions) is man 'justifying' the child's will (sensuousness) over and against the Father's will (righteousness), i.e. human reasoning being used to 'justify' the sensuousness of man (sight) over and against the righteousness of God (faith) by making the two appear to become as "one." If you negate the chastening (which the dialoguing of opinions does), you negate the commands of the Father (commands to be obeyed without question), you negate the conditions of righteousness (the preaching and teaching of commands to be obeyed without question―according to dialectic 'reasoning,' a condition engendering an "irrational" authority over sensuousness―requiring faith, belief, obedience, and the use of chastening to initiate and sustain the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the top-down way of feeling, thinking, and acting).
By facilitators of 'change,' agents of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. seducers, deceivers, and manipulators "helping" man define the relationship (including the tension or antithesis) between God and man, the husband and the wife, the parents (the Father) and the children through human eyes (through human reasoning, i.e. through dialectic 'reasoning,' through the sense based reasoning of man), i.e. by "helping" the family define the roll of the Father through the eyes of the child (the sensuous based reasoning of the child), the children and therefore all of mankind become 'righteous' in their own eyes, i.e. become like the Father and God, i.e. righteous in and of themselves, negating the father, under God, ruling over his children as God―the father following after the same system as God, ruling over His creation, that which is "His," as He wills (where property rights, and all of the rights of sovereignty, derives its authority). Dialectic 'reasoning' 'liberates' man from the conditions of righteousness and therefore 'liberates' man from righteousness itself, making him 'righteous' in and of himself, i.e. making him as God. Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' no man has a right to call anything his over and against the "voice of the collective," i.e. over and against the will of "the people," i.e. over and against the "felt" needs of society.
This whole system of 'change' is dependent upon a transition stage referred to as a matriarchal, feeling's based, paradigm, i.e. a "lassie fair' condition where permissiveness is allowed without any particular cohesive (or collective) agenda. Without augmenting the transitional condition (creating an environment where sensuousness is 'liberated' from or not ruled over by the restraints of righteousness) the traditional condition can not be negated by the transformational condition of collective permissiveness (collective sin). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the transformational environment of 'change' (the heresiarchal paradigm) has to have the transitional environment of feelings (the matriarchal paradigm), i.e. an environment of tension, i.e. of instability, uncertainty, confusion, chaos, crisis, etc., if the traditional environment of 'absolutes,' i.e. of "fixity," i.e. of 'unchangingness' (the patriarchal paradigm) is to be negated.
Despite all the sophisticated verbiage which surrounds the study of dialectic 'reasoning' ("thing in itself," "intuition and concept," "universal and particular," etc.) this is what the dialectic process is all about, i.e. the negation of God's will over man's will, the negation of the Father's will over the child's will, i.e. the negation of righteousness ("Thy will be done") restraining sensuousness ("My will be done") by the use of human reasoning 'justifying' sensuousness over and against righteousness―along with the use of praxis (the practice of social action of "Our will be done") initiating and sustaining "world (worldly) peace" and "social (socialist) harmony." According to dialectic 'reasoning,' what is "wrong" is the Father's top-down way of thinking and acting. When a man or a child is placed in an environment (or social condition) which is void of the fear of chastisement, where a person is not accountability for his feelings or thoughts (as long as they don't hurt others or limit others from sharing their feelings or thoughts), i.e. in an environment where he is allowed to "sense perceive" his father's command as being "irrational" (an environment where he can voice or express his feelings and thoughts regarding his personal desires, without fear of restraint or "reprisal"―the emphasis at first is not so much upon the person openly expressing his resentment toward the father and his commands themselves, i.e. their effect upon himself and others when they restrain his sensuous carnal desires, i.e. his "sensuous needs"), the father's command will be "sense perceived" as not being relevant to the times (not relevant to the sensuous 'moment'), and therefore will be responded to as being "irrelevant," i.e. responded to with indifference i.e. as of no importance (in the 'light' of social approval and acceptance). Thus the authority of the Father, now "sense perceived" as being a barrier to human progress, i.e. inhibiting the cause of creating and sustaining social "oneness," i.e. a "oneness" which requires "adaptability and compromise" (which righteousness does not provide), becomes not only negated in the thoughts and actions of the individual but also in "the collective," i.e. in "the people" as well (as all individuals becoming as "one" through the praxis of negating the environment of righteousness, i.e. negating the patriarchal paradigm not only in themselves, i.e. in their own lives, but also throughout "their," collectively speaking, world, in their praxis of consensus). Harry Sullivan, regarding the 'purpose' of the UN, wrote" "The old fixed values of right and wrong must give way to a new maturity that implied qualities of adaptability and compromise." (Harry S. Sullivan, The Fusion of Psychology and Social Science) Martin Luther King Jr., regarding the 'purpose' of "civil disobedience," wrote: "According to the philosopher Hegel, truth is not found in the thesis [in righteousness, in the Father's will], nor the antithesis [in sensuousness, in the individual child's will], but in the emerging synthesis which reconciles the two [but in dialectic 'reasoning', i.e. in human reasoning, i.e. in "the divine spirit" (according to Hegel), i.e. in man reasoning through his own sensuousness, i.e. in mankind's collective will, 'discovering' truth in and through his dialoguing of opinions into a consensus, i.e. creating 'change'―the individual getting rid of the "old" as he works, i.e. 'discovers' and actualizes' his identity within the "We," initiating and sustaining, i.e. Researching and Developing, the "new"―in and through "Our will be done," i.e. in "We working for Us," all working as "one" for the common (ist) "good"]." (Martin Luther King Jr. Strength to Love) Bracketed information added. The Word of God warns us not to journey down the dialectic pathway of seduction, deception, and manipulation, i.e. following after "enlightened" men down the pathway of evil. "Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away." "But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day. The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble." Proverbs 4:14-15, 18-19 "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." 2 Timothy 3:7
By "helping" the child become aware of "class consciousness" (become aware that it is the top-down system which is preventing him from "actualizing" his "full potential"), i.e. by using system's analysis (which materializes, i.e. sensualizes all things), "helping" him become aware of the top-down method of "alienation" and "repression" he is "under" (of subordination to his Father, which makes him subject to the "past," out of touch with the "present"), i.e. being subject to someone else's righteousness (the Father's will, the "old" system based upon fear of chastening or "judgment" for being or doing wrong) "repressing" his sensuousness (his will, the "new" system based upon "love," i.e. "enjoyment," i.e. "lust"), "alienating" him from others of like mind, he becomes "divided" in heart from loyalty to his former paradigm (obedience to his Father and his commands, according to system's analysis, a system of quick response to 'changing' situations, i.e. judgmentalism, i.e. refusal to participate out of fear of failure and judgment) and his "hearts desires" ("doing his own thing which 'seems right' in his own eyes," according to system's analysis, a system of quick response to 'changing' situations, i.e. permissiveness, i.e. willing to participate for the gain of pleasure, not only for himself but for others as well, which has the potential of producing more pleasure for him). Then by "helping" him become aware that there are others of like mind as he (in his same shoes) who identify with him and who he can likewise readily identity with, i.e. "helping" him become aware that he can "help" them in "conquering" (overcoming) their prior paradigm of "repression" and "alienation," i.e. negating the top-down, patriarchal paradigm, not only in their lives but also in his life as will (at the same time), he can be detached from the "old" top-down system of believing and acting (the patriarchal paradigm of 'unchangingness') while at the same time being attached to the "new" equality system of thinking and acting (the heresiarchal paradigm of 'change'). By "helping" others overcome their "problem," he helps himself and by others helping him overcome his "problem," they help themselves, i.e. a so called "win-win" situation developed through the use of dialectic 'reasoning' within the consensus process―according to system's analysis a "slower" system of reasoning, i.e. of evaluating life, determining good and evil from the current situation (rather than from the "past"), showing him how to use "higher order thinking skills" in "helping" himself 'discover' and build upon the common ground of sensuousness, i.e. being "positive" which unites, i.e. which augments 'change,' while negating righteousness, i.e. negating "negativity" which divides, i.e. which prevents or inhibits 'change'). Information is thus divided between that which unites and that which divides, "appropriate information" being that which is "positive" and therefore unites (that which is of sensuousness, doing that which he and the group wills or "wants' to do, i.e. 'discovered the 'truth' of the 'moment' through the dialoguing of opinions) and "inappropriate information" being that which is "negative" and therefore divides (that which is of righteousness, doing that which his Father wants him to do, i.e. preaching and teaching His truth as "is," "as given" to him by his Father). By then uniting with others of like mind in doing "public service," i.e. putting dialectic 'reasoning' into social action (praxis), he can "willingly" (out of his fear of losing "the approval of men" and thus losing the "enjoyments" of life which comes by "the approval of men") participate in 'liberating' sensuousness ('liberating' "the children of disobedience") from the restraints of righteousness (from the restraints of the Father's authority), i.e. making the world a "better" place for all, i.e. creating a "new" world order of 'changingness' (of sensuousness, i.e. of "the peoples" will), i.e. negating the "old" world order of "unchangingness" (of righteousness, i.e. of the Father's will).
It is not that sensuousness is evil, it is that man, when he serves sensuousness (does his own will) over and against righteousness (doing the Father's will) he becomes evil (unrighteous). It is not that reasoning is evil, reasoning when made subject to God's will (for His glory), i.e. evaluating our lives from the Word of God, i.e. glorifying God, doing the Father's will, i.e. dying daily to self, rejecting "the approval of men" as the standard of life, and following the Lord, is good, while reasoning made subject to man's will (human reasoning or "divine spirit" according to Hegel), i.e. glorifying man (for our vain glory), i.e. evaluating God's Word from our carnal nature, i.e. "self-actualizing," living for "the approval of man," following after those who facilitate 'change,' "helping" us to create a "better" world for "all mankind," i.e. negating God's Word as the issue of life, is evil.
While man is not righteousness, in and of himself, God is. Man, who is sensuous (born into sin), can only become righteous in Christ, His righteousness (His obedience to His Heavenly Father in all things, i.e. fulfilling the law) imputed to man through their faith in Him. Yet, while the system of righteousness, which is faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, is of God (of the "heavenly family" as Marx put it) it is also for man (of the "earthly family" as Marx put it). Marx believed that by negating the "earthly family," the "heavenly family" would be negated as well. The person of dialectic 'reasoning' would say (if he were honest): "All I have to do is re-attach your child to his will (to his own sensuousness, which is natural―a paradigm of dialoguing opinions, i.e. where man is 'justified' by sight), over and against your will as a Father (over and against your righteousness, which is unnatural―a paradigm of preaching and teaching commands and rules to be obeyed without question, i.e. where man is 'justified' by faith), and I have won your child over to my side." Opinions dialogued to a consensus reveals and unites man upon the common sensuousness of the 'moment,' negating righteousness. This is how the "new" world order is created out of the "old" world order―man 'liberating' himself from righteousness through the use of dialectic 'reasoning' being put into social action (praxis). Thus, through the negation of the "old" world order, the "new" world order is birthed and the man of sin―abomination―is revealed. This is the sole 'drive' and 'purpose' of dialectic 'reasoning,' as was first made manifest to man in a garden in Eden.
Through the use of dialectic 'reasoning' negating the will of the Father, i.e. negating the child having to obey or do the Father's will, the child is "liberated" not only from the Father's commands but also from his authority. Through the use of reasoning, i.e. through dialectic 'reasoning,' the will of the child is 'justified' over and against the will of the Father (sensuousness is 'justified' over and against righteousness). It is here, through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' that "the children of disobedience" negate the right of the Father to will (to rule) over his child (what all revolutions have in common is the negation of the right of the "King" and those who submit themselves to his will, i.e. the bourgeoisie, to rule, i.e. their right being negated by the "philosopher kings," i.e. the "vanguard party," i.e. the facilitators of 'change' and their children, i.e. the proletariat, i.e. "the people," i.e. the "grass roots," etc.). With reasoning engendering the "super-ego" (synthesizing sensuousness and consciousness) thereby negating the "guilty conscience," the child's sensuous, carnal (sinful) feelings, thoughts, and actions are thus 'justified,' i.e. 'justified' as being "normal human behavior" (allowing him to do unconscionable things to those who stand in the way of his "pursuit of pleasure"). "The revolution that must occur is the reaction of suppressed life [the child not being able to do his own will], which will visit the causality of fate upon the rulers [upon the Father]. It is those who establish such domination and defend positions of power of this sort who set in motion the causality of fate, divide society into social classes [Father-children, top-down, patriarch order], suppress justified interests [dialectically 'justified' sensuousness], call forth the reactions of suppressed life ['justify' hate of and hostility toward the Father], and finally experience their just fate in revolution [negation of the Father and His authority]. " (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory) Bracketed information added. While revelation comes from the Father to the children, revolution comes from "the children of disobedience" over and against the Father. "The antithesis of the 'authoritarian' type [the Father ruling] was called 'revolutionary' ["the children of disobedience" ruling]." "By The Authoritarian Personality [Theodor Adorno's book used as the "weltanschauung" of Bloom's Taxonomies, used by educators in curriculum development in all public and almost all private schools in America today, i.e. shaping how the next generation will feel, think, and act] 'revolutionary' had changed to the 'democratic.'" (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination) Bracketed information added. Through the use of dialectic 'reasoning' in the 60's, the "Left" of the revolutionary party in Europe had become the "New Left" in the "democratic" party in America (Marxism hid itself, i.e. Marxists hid their agenda under the cloak of "liberalism," "humanitarianism," "environmentalism," "socialism," etc.). "In fact, it is probably fair to say that Erich Fromm's Marx's Concept of Man introduced the young Marx to America and provided the dominant interpretation of this thinker for the students of the New Left." The pot smokers of the 60's have traded in their VW's and beads for Mercedes Benz and polo shirts and now seek, along with their offspring (figuratively speaking), to change and control our lives from the schools to the highest offices in our land. "…Fromm gave the humanitarian, idealist, and romantic proponents of the New Left a Marx they could love." (Bronner) As you will see, it was through the use of education (not the use of bullets) that those of dialectic 'reasoning' were able to 'changed' the American culture. "An examination of the role of education in the revolutionary processes in Hitlerian Germany and Soviet Russia demonstrates that a new controlling group can use the educational system to advantage to bringing about the changes it desires. This illustrates the effectiveness of the educational system in indoctrinating the youth with a desire for the type of society wanted by those in control. . . . To do this they must persist in the maintenance of a new system long enough for controlling interests to be thoroughly indoctrinated in the new social system." (Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education) Through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' through the use of human reasoning, through the use of "self-social 'justification,'" through man "justifying" himself before himself, i.e. 'justifying' his feelings, thoughts, and actions, according to his feelings (according to his "affective domain") and the feeling of others, i.e. according to the personal-social/"public-private" "felt needs" of the 'moment,' reasoning 'justifies' sensuousness over and against righteousness. It is here (through the use of dialectic 'reasoning') that man deceives himself, weighing himself according to his wicked (vain) heart, calling himself 'good,' becoming "children of disobedience," incurring "the wrath of God." "Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." Ephesians 5:6 (Ephesians 6:4 warns Father's not to "provoke," i.e. to use emotional anger on their children, and thereby engender "wrath," i.e. to engender emotional anger, in your children, but rather to "but bring them up in the nurture [παιδεια paideia: using chastisement, i.e. physical sting or verbal reproof, to correct mistakes and curb passions] and admonition of the Lord [so that they will be able to recognize goodness and hating evil for their soul's sake, living according to the will of God, i.e. their Heavenly Father, in the Lord]." Bracketed information added.)
The deception (and the lie) is, that nature loves man. While man may love what he finds he has in common with nature, he soon realizes, like Narcissus, that nature does not love him back. While he might turn to Freud's other Greek mythological hero, Orpheus, a homosexual who made love to young boys (you will have to get past the surface of the Greek story, as touted by those who seek to protect Freud, to get to the whole story which Freud bases psychology upon), he will find again a love for nature, with no true return of love from nature, only a reciprocal sensual pursuit of pleasure from that which is in man (his propensity to carnality). The lie being that man's love is honest. The truth being that man is vain, i.e. loving that which stimulates dopamine emancipation within himself, that which is "gratifying" to him, in the 'moment.' Without learning that love is not that which is of nature, without chastening removing the child from finding oneness with the 'moment' of sensual pleasure, thinking that that it is where love resides, the child will not be able to know a love which is not of his own vanity, i.e. his pursuit of the sensuousness of the moment'―calling it love (Eros). Being deceived, i.e. lying to himself and to others when he says he loves them (when in actuality he loves the dopamine emancipation which they stimulate, i.e. 'emancipate' or 'liberate' within him, they love the love Eros―laying to themselves and others when they call is pheleo or agape), in his defiance to the Father's restraint of his dopamine emancipation (his rejection of the Father's act of chastening―showing the child that love is not to be based upon the stimulus-response/"approach pleasure-avoid pain" carnal spectrum of nature), he makes himself a "child of disobedience."
It is the "void" (where sensuousness does not control the child's thoughts and actions) which the child experiences and learns to accept (the "peaceful fruit of righteousness" which negates the controlling influences of the sensuousness of the 'moment,' that which is of nature), i.e. where his experience ("sense experience" as Marx called it) becomes subject to the Father's will (he becomes detached from himself and the world, i.e. no longer subject to that which is of his own natural inclination, "wanting" to relate with nature in the 'moment,' at its "calling"). A child's understanding is tied to his feelings, i.e. a child's "sense experience" can not understand or relate with his Father's commands in the 'moment,' when his commands are not of and/or go against his "sense experience," i.e. his "felt need" ("sensuous needs" as Marx called it), yet he honors his Father by obeying his commands, according to Freud, "substituting" the gratification (the sensuousness of the pleasure of the 'moment') which would come naturally from following after his own nature (following after that which he can naturally experience, understand, and relate with, i.e. "sense perceive" as Karl Marx called it) with the gratification which comes with obeying his Father (who he can not understand experientially, i.e. who he can not sensually be at-one-with or identify with in the 'moment,' only understanding the consequence for disobedience, i.e. chastening, i.e. pain, yet experiencing his Father's Love and caring, i.e. the Father providing for his daily needs, i.e. his food, clothing, protection, etc., directing his steps, dealing with his soul, restraining his flesh). In the child's acceptance of the Father's chastening (His chastening of the child's natural inclinations), approval of the Father (doing the Father's will) supersedes the "approval of nature," i.e. "the approval of carnal, sensuous men" (doing his own will)―thus cutting off a socialist mindset. "Freud speaks of religion [man's love of and obedience to a higher authority than his own carnal nature, i.e. his natural impulses, i.e. his natural inclinations, higher than his "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment'] as a 'substitute-gratification' – the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, ‘opiate of the people.'" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) According to Freud and Marx (both basing 'reality' upon dialectic 'reasoning'), only be getting man to set his "affections" on things below, becoming cognizant of his own impulses and desires, accepting of his own sensuousness, recognizing it and approving it as being "normal," can he overcome his "affections" for things above, can he overcome righteousness as being the issue of life, i.e. can he overcome the understanding that his soul is eternal, resultant of the breath of God and therefore accountably to He who is above (to God), and not temporal only, of the dust of the ground, of the flesh, "of nature only" (Marx) and therefore accountable to that which is below (to society only). "The answer to man's predicament lies in the realization by individual man, that all men are essentially one and that the one is God." (Leonard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God)
Dialectic 'reasoning' seeks to negate the child's "substitute gratification," i.e. his love for his Father and the acceptance of his authority, through uniting the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions (making them one again, as they were before the Father's first command and threat of chastening or judgment). Through uniting the child's "theory and practice," uniting his feelings, thoughts, and experiences (his "sensuous needs," "sense perception," and his "sense experience") as being one ("proceeding only of nature" as Marx defined it, i.e. from sensuousness only), helping him to "sense perceive" that his faith in, belief in, and obedience of his Father, which goes counter to, i.e. is antithetical to his nature of the 'moment,' is abnormal, is a condition engendering "repression," "alienation" and "reification" (Marx), engendering "neurosis" (Freud), the child can be "guided" into a life at-one-with his nature, thereby 'discover' (through dialogue) that which he has in common with all of mankind, his carnal nature. This is the basis of common-ism AKA communism AKA democratization, communitization, etc., and the "post-modern" age. "Alienation and reification destroy both the dialectical interrelation of being and consciousness and, as a necessary consequence, the dialectical interrelation of theory and practice. Revolution [the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning', i.e. human reasoning, the overthrow or negation of the Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of man] would now seek to transform the everyday life of the ‘establishment.'" (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory And Its Theorists) Bracketed information added. "Psychoanalysis must treat religion [obedience to the Father without question] as a neurosis." (ibid.) "Every neurosis is an example of dynamic adaptation; it is essentially an adaptation to such external conditions as are in themselves irrational and, generally speaking, unfavorable to the growth of the child." (Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom) Fromm believed that man could "not take the last logical step, to give up 'God' and to establish a concept of man as a being who is alone in the world, but who can feel at home in it if he achieves union with his fellow man and with nature." (ibid.) While Marx tried overcoming the dialectic rift between man and nature by killing the righteous (killing the patriarch and his paradigm) on a social level, i.e. through social actions (negating the Father's authority in his social affairs on a public level), Freud tried doing it on the individual level, i.e. in his mind, in his thoughts (negating the Father's authority in the individual's affairs on a personal/private level)―"public-private partnership" is simply Marx and Freud united in the individual's and the "communities" "theory and practice." Transformational Marxism merged the two (Marx and Freud, the sociological and the psychological) in the praxis of putting consensus (social-psychology) into individual-social action (into "public-private partnership"), negating the Father's authority in the affairs of men and nature and society, negating righteousness as the issue of life, not only for the individual but also for society as well, in the same 'moment' (in the praxis of consensus). In this way, by not directly attacking the issue of righteousness itself, but rather by circumventing it, i.e. "bypassing" it in the consensus process, when righteousness is brought up and held to firmly by someone, they are perceived as being controversial (being negative, devices, hateful, negative, prejudiced, intolerant, maladjusted, self-seeking, lower-order thinkers, in denial and in need of counseling).
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' what is real to the child is what is sensual in the 'moment,' and what is sensual to the child, in the 'moment,' is real. Therefore what is 'rational' to the child is what is sensual in the 'moment.' By reattaching the child's sensuality in the 'moment' to what is sensually real in the 'moment,' the effect of the Father (the condition of righteousness) is negated. But without negating the effect of the "guilty conscience," the residue of parental authority, sensuality and reality can not become one in the thoughts and actions of the child. It is therefore the 'purpose' of dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' to the child that what is sensual to him is rational, i.e. that sensuality is where reality resides. Without the ''justification,' which comes via. dialectic 'reasoning,' the "guilty conscience' keeps the child subject of parental authority, i.e. subject to the Father's rule over his thoughts and actions, i.e. his sensuality restrained by that which is not at-one-with his nature.
"Sexuality," the 'liberation' of it from patriarchal restraint, is the "drive" and the "purpose" of dialectic 'reasoning.' Norman Brown made this clear in His book Life Against Death: "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, is a clear instance of repression; and therefore leads to neurosis." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." "Human consciousness can be liberated from the parental (Oedipal) complex only be being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." "The abolition of repression would only threaten patriarchal domination." "Freud, Hegel, and Nietzsche are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." "Capitulation enforced by parental authority under the threat of loss of parental love . . . can be accomplished only by repression." "Therefore the question confronting mankind is the abolition of repression - in traditional Christian language, the resurrection of the body." "What the child knows consciously and the adult unconsciously, is that we are nothing but body." "Infants have a richer sexual life than adults." "Freud takes with absolute seriousness the proposition of Jesus: 'Except ye become as little children, ye can in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven." "Sexual instincts seeks union with objects in the world." "Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world." "Infantile sexuality is the pursuit of pleasure obtained through the activity of any and all organs of the human body [touching, seeing, muscular activity, pain, etc.]. "In man, infantile sexuality is repressed and never outgrown;" "Normal adult sexuality, judged by the standard of infantile sexuality, is an unnatural restriction of the erotic potentialities of the human body." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." " Psychoanalysis declares the fundamental bisexual character of human nature;" "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, . . . leads to neurosis." "Our repressed desires are the desires we had unrepressed, in childhood; and they are sexual desires." "Eros is the foundation of morality." "We must return to Freud and say that incest guilt ["guilty feelings" for our natural inclinations] created the familial organization." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) Bracketed information added: these quotations are re-quoted below but with additional quotations and comments. "Freud noted that … patricide and incest … are part of man's deepest nature." (Irvin D. Yalom Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) According to dialectic 'reasoning,' without the patricide (the negation of the Father's authority), incest (man at-one-with his nature―abomination) can not become actualized.
Herbart Marcuse wrote, regarding Freud and his tie between "sexuality" and "civilization" (the tie between abomination and globalism): "A]ccording to Freud, the drive toward ever larger unities belongs to the biological-organic nature of Eros itself." (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization) Freud's propagation of "sexuality" went far beyond fornication and adultery. He wrote: "'The conflict between civilization and sexuality is caused by the circumstance that sexual love is a relationship between two people,... whereas civilization is founded on relations between large groups of persons.... In no other case does Eros so plainly betray the core of his being, his aim of making one out of many; but when he has achieved it in the proverbial way through the love of two human beings, he is not willing to go further.'" (Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents in Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization) The whole of Maslow "hierarchy of 'felt' needs" rests upon his agenda to "sexualize" the American culture, i.e. to promote Wilhelm Reich's ideology and Kinsey's "sexual revolution," i.e. opening up "Pandoras box," as Bloom called it in his Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: book 2 Affective Domain (the 'purpose' for the use of his Taxonomies in education today). (Wilhelm Reich, along with Kurt Lewin, edited the "Frankfurt School's" journal while in Berlin, the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung―the Institute for Social Research, who's members sole 'purpose was the negation of Western Civilization, along with it's foundation of morality) Maslow wrote in his journals: "So it looks as if nudism is the first step toward ultimate fee-animality-humanness. It's the easiest to take. Must encourage it." "Yet nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian & Jewish foundations. Must move in the direction of the Reichian orgasm." "This movement can be dignified and Apollonian & can avoid pornography & neurosis & ugliness. I must put as much of this as is possible & usable in my education book, & more & more in succeeding writings." Maslow's "hero," Wilhelm Reich wrote (regarding bringing Eros, "sexuality" into the workplace to destroy the top-down morality based system of the patriarchal paradigm)―I add a lengthy excerpt here so that you might get the overall picture, i.e. the full scope of the agenda, i.e. why and how abomination has entered into every part of our society: "The more gratifying one's sexual life is, the more fulfilling and pleasurable is one's work." "It is necessary to establish not only the best external conditions of work, but also to create the inner biologic preconditions to allow the fullest unfolding of the biologic urge for activity." "Hence, the safeguarding of a completely satisfying sexual life for the working masses is the most important precondition of pleasurable work." "Sex-economy sociology was born from the effort to harmonize Freud's depth psychology with Marx's economic theory." "Since work and sexuality (in both the strict and broad senses of the word) are intermately interwoven, man's relationship to work is also a question of the sex-economy of masses of people." "Every effort must be made and all means employed to guard future generations against the influence of the biologic rigidity of the old generation." "The principle weapon on the arsenal of freedom is each new generation's tremendous urge to be free. The possibility of social freedom rests essentially upon this weapon and not upon anything else." "Every physician, educator, and social worker etc., who is to deal with children and adolescents will have to prove that he himself or she herself is healthy from a sex-economic point of view and that he or she has acquired exact knowledge on human sexuality between the ages of one and about eighteen." "… the education of the educators in sex-economy must be made mandatory." "Work and sexuality derive from the same biologic energy." "Psychoanalysis is the mother, sociology the father, of sex-economy." "The child's and adolescent's natural love of life must be protected by clearly defined laws." "Those forces in the individual and in the society that are natural and vial must be clearly separated from all the obstacles that operate against the spontaneous functioning of this natural vitality." "It is the elimination of all obstacles to freedom that has to be achieved." "Natural sociability and morality are present in men and women. What has to be eliminated is the disgusting moralizing which thwarts natural morality and then points to the criminal impulses, which it itself has brought into being." "Sexually awakened women, affirmed and recognized as such, would mean the complete collapse of the authoritarian ideology." "the right of the woman to her own body." "The termination of pregnancy is at variance with the meaning of the family, whose task it precisely the education of the coming generation – apart from the fact that the termination of pregnancy would mean the final destruction of the large family." "The preservation of the already existing large families is a matter of social feeling; . . the large family is preserved because national morality and national culture find their strongest support in it." (Wilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism, Translated by Vincent r. Cargagno―Fascism being correlated to the traditional family system) The so called "Health Package," touted by government today, is based upon this agenda. Abomination is at the heart of dialectic 'reasoning.' It is not a matter of how far down the dialectic path you have traveled. It is a matter that you are on it, that condemns you, i.e. condemns you of the praxis of unrighteousness, i.e. as being a sponsor, if not participant, of abomination.
The role of the top-down Father-children relationship, the authority of the Father to restrain (chastening and reproving his children when necessary) is key to the curbing of abomination. In that "void" of human sensuous experience (the absence of sensuousness controlling one's feelings, thoughts, and action in the 'moment,' which chastening produces and only the Holy Spirit can fill, but carnal man tries to satisfy through his carnal praxis), i.e. the child's obedience to the Father's commands (without question), setting aside his sensuousness, i.e. his "lusting" after the pleasure "of the 'moment,'" makes him an individual over and against his carnal human nature, i.e. an individual in His Father's image. When the child learns to live by faith (live according to righteousness, i.e. doing the Father's will and not his will) rather than by sight (living according to the sensuousness of the 'moment,' i.e. doing his will despite or against the Father's will) the next generation learns to obey higher authority rather than follow after their own sensuousness. The child, no longer chasing after his natural (carnal) inclinations of the 'moment,' is 'unchangeable,' i.e. less capable to unite with that which is common to all of mankind, that which is only of nature. Leaving the child subject to the Father's will makes him less subject to those, i.e. the seducers, deceivers, and manipulators of dialectic 'reasoning,' who want to control him by controlling the sensuous environment The Father's system of righteousness, inculcated within the child's thoughts and actions (preached and taught), inhibits the "change agent's" ability to initiate and sustain control (initiate and sustain 'change') over the child's thoughts and actions, through their use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. through their use of dialoguing opinions to a consensus (the child refusing to dialogue opinions according to his own sensuousness, i.e. refusing to do his will, instead maintaining the preaching and teaching of righteousness, i.e. doing His Father's will―which is true liberty). "For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." 2 Peter 2:18-22 (Similar scriptural warnings)
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' by creating an environment (creating an "experiential chasm" as Warren Bennis called it) where the child can experience freedom from the restraints of righteousness, i.e. an experience (in a "non-judgmental" social environment) 'liberating' the next generation's mind from the fear of the Father's chastening (that which engenders the "guilty conscience," that which keeps him accountable to a higher authority than nature) the Father's commands become "irrational" (antithetical to, i.e. not in harmony with the child's natural inclinations) in the mind of the child and the structure of the Father-Son/child, top-down way of thinking and acting (the patriarchal paradigm) becomes "irrelevant" in the child's thoughts and actions, i.e. thus righteousness is negated in the thoughts and actions of the child. In this way, through dialectic 'reasoning,' the "children of disobedience" 'justify' their carnal nature by getting all of mankind (all the children) to 'justify' their carnal behavior, "sense perceiving" it as being simply "normal human behavior." Thus immorality controls the thoughts and actions of men and abomination becomes the law of the land.
God warns us of the results of such thinking and acting, calling it reprobate (Romans 1:28; 2 Timothy 3:1-8). He calls all to repentance, i.e. finding life and living it in His righteousness (in Jesus Christ's obedience to His Heavenly Father, being able to do the same, i.e. knowing and obeying our Heavenly Father, in the name of Jesus Christ our savior and Lord, through His Word, i.e. in His way, His truth, and His life, in the Father's only begotten Son and by the power of the Holy Spirit, who files the void, giving us understanding). We are to no longer live the way of dialectic 'reasoning,' 'justifying' ourselves before ourselves (living according to our sensuousness and our carnal reasoning, i.e. in "self-justification," by sight), but rather we are to live in Christ, being justified in Him, obeying our Heavenly Father's will in all things (living according to His righteousness imputed, i.e. by faith). "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them." Colossians 3:5-7
If you "follow the money trail," when the patriarch rules, the obedient children are blessed (are not controlled by their own wanton sensuousness, by their own impulsiveness), i.e. they get the Father's money as He wills, and the disobedient, i.e. the rebellious are not blessed (because they remain controlled by their own vain sensuousness), i.e. they don't get the Father's money, especially when they are cast out by the Father, i.e. they are outside the "sheepfold" because of their disrespect and disobedience (because they loved sensuousness, i.e. "doing their own thing," because of their "deviancy," i.e. doing what they will, over and against righteousness, i.e. obeying the Father, i.e. doing the Father's will―I speak here of our earthly Father, who is not perfect, who himself is also subject to the love of pleasure, i.e. subject to sensuousness, with the understanding that this is not truth regarding our Heavenly Fathers, who is perfect, desiring man to know his holiness, yet the office, i.e. they system being the same in structure, i.e. "While dad and mom are not perfect, their office is," being patterned after Godliness). Now to the money issue. If the Father can be taxed, then his tax dollars, which were voted on to go to the building of roads, etc. (according to His will), can be diverted, by "the children of disobedience" to "help" the "needy" (supporting social-ist programs) including "the children of disobedience" themselves, who oversee such programs. In this way "the children of disobedience" can be financially assisted by their Father's money and he has less money or no money to support those who obey him, i.e. those who support his paradigm, and he can not stop those who seek to negate His paradigm ("the children of disobedience" promoting their paradigm over and against His paradigm, with His money), being forced by law to support their cause, i.e. the negation of righteousness as a way of life, negating his rule over the family, and thereby negating his right to have any authority over social issues (negating his "old" world right to promote his way of thinking and acting, i.e. his "inalienable" right to restrain sensuousness by demanding righteousness, i.e. preventing "the children of disobedience," i.e. tyrants and totalitarians, from "doing their own thing," because of his authority to use chastening, i.e. force to make sure his children do His will, i.e. to respect and obey authority under God), thereby negating his right to inculcate righteousness over the nation and world (negating his authority to restrain abomination). According to dialectic 'reasoning, ' what is at issue here is how the traditional father will respond to a dialectic "takeover," how it will engender a totalitarian takeover instead (as they think happened in Germany), empowering a Hitler in his effort of maintaining his "authoritarian," top-down system. "What The Authoritarian Personality was really studying was the character type of a totalitarian rather than an authoritarian society ─ fostered by a familial crisis in which traditional parental authority was under fire." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) The dialectic plan was therefore to inhibit the father's ability to financially support a government which would be antithetical to dialectic (global-socialist-universal) control by redirecting his tax dollars to the support of dialectically initiated and sustained government programs and departments using the consensus process to "bypass the traditional channels of top-down decision making." (Ervine Lazlo)
In a dialectic world, i.e. when "the children of disobedience" augment their cause of sensuousness (augment the "enjoyment" and pleasures of carnal man) over and against righteousness (respect for and obedience to authority under God), the people are oppressed. "And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable." "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:4-5, 12 Read David's response to the oppressors, i.e. Psalms 73:1-28 Read also Patrick Henry's warnings, especially on the power of taxation, i.e. his warning of the evilness of men's heart and the unchecked powers of the Constitution prior to the addition of the Bill of Right's, thereby forcing the Bill of Right's to be added to it, limiting the powers of government, i.e. restraining the evilness of men's hearts over the citizens (until the courts began to redefine the Bill of Right's in the 50's, i.e. redefining it according to their dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. engendering our now dialectic controlled, "postmodern" world, i.e. a sensuous-reasoning world which is over and against righteousness, with men of dialectic 'reasoning' now in control, initiating and sustaining a world of abomination).
"Postmodernity ... describes a world where people have to make their way without fixed referents and traditional anchoring points. It is a world of rapid change, of bewildering instability..." (Edwards Usher) When "human behavior" (sensuousness, i.e. the will of "the children of disobedience") becomes the standard for life (to determine good and evil from―which is the platform for postmodernism) then righteousness (the will of the Father) is negated (as in the days of Noah the Father's will is responded to as being "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant" in the obstinate and impenitent hearts and minds of men) and abomination (lawlessness) rules over the world, making all men subject to the will of "the children of disobedience" (that is until the day of judgment comes). Postmodernism is the era where the beast (loosed from the restraints of righteousness, i.e. refusing to hear the truth, i.e. giving you the "deer in the headlight" look when you share it, disregarding you and the truth, treating you as "misguided" and it, the truth, as your "inept opinion") emerges from the masses of the people ('driven' by the deceitful and wicked heart of the people, united as "one" in consensus) in its intended 'purpose' of negating righteousness, i.e. devouring the righteous (making you "at-one-with" it and the world). The dialectic objective is, instead of man sinning individually, "in the closet," by 'justifying' sinful nature as being simply "normal human behavior" everyone can sin in the open (be normal), "come out of the closet," doing it (sinning) in the collective, in consensus.
The consensus meeting is not just about fixing bridges or solving a crisis (as it, at first, might "seems to be"), it is about "fixing" you, i.e. purging you and the world of the issue of righteousness, i.e. 'changing' your paradigm, by using reasoning (human reasoning) to 'justify' sensuousness (the will of "the children of disobedience") over and against righteousness (the will of the Father). This is the praxis of "Hegel's" dialectic process as first put into praxis in a garden in Eden―Genesis 3:1-6―the benchmark of the so called "new world order." It is the praxis of the thinking of those who wedded the thinking of Marx and Freud, which now pervades our world. As Norman O. Brown (the author of one of the two "bibles" of the 60's, Herbart Marcuse's book, Eros And Civilization, being the other) called it, i.e. a world of "madness." "The entry into Freud cannot avoid being a plunge into a strange world and a strange language―a world of sick men, ....It is a shattering experience for anyone seriously committed to the Western traditions of morality and rationality to take a steadfast, unflinching look at what Freud has to say. To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit; and this book cannot without sinning communicate that experience to the reader." "Our real choice is between holy and unholy madness: open your eyes and look around you―madness is in the saddle anyhow." "It is possible to be mad and to be unblest, but it is not possible to get the blessing without the madness; it is not possible to get the illuminations without the derangement," "I wagered my intellectual life on the idea of finding in Freud what was missing in Marx." (Norman O. Brown, regarding his book Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) It was this merger of Marx and Freud (transformational Marxism AKA social-psychology) which transformed, i.e. 'changed' the world. The so called "new" world order is man marching through history towards the actualization of Genesis 3:1-6 on a global scale, man "giving birth to himself," becoming like God himself, i.e. becoming 'righteous' in and of himself. "In the process of history man gives birth to himself. He becomes what he potentially is, and he attains what the serpent―the symbol of wisdom and rebellion―promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself." (Erick Fromm, You shall be as gods)
The dialectic process is Genesis 3:1-6 "resolving" Romans 7:14-25, negating Hebrews 12:5-11. It is the synthesis of man united only with the world. It is the use of human reasoning to "resolve" the antithesis between righteousness and sensuousness, i.e. the conflict of the two world dichotomy of above-below/righteousness-sensuousness, 'changing' belief into theory, i.e. uniting "theory and practice," and 'changing' truth into opinion, i.e. dialoguing the opinions of men to a consensus. It is consensus uniting with praxis, creating a "new" world order of "oneness," a world of only man, i.e. only of human nature, a world negating the "other" world of righteousness in the thoughts and practices of men. It is man creating a "new" world order of all men united as one though the same method which was first put into praxis in a garden in Eden. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' human reasoning ("philosophy as theory," i.e. the "wisdom" of opinion's), as first put into praxis in the garden, frees man from "the wisdom of the other world." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')
A little compromise (self-justification), done over and over again to initiate and sustain consensus (initiate and sustain human relationship, i.e. "the approval of men") goes a long ways, i.e. "a little leaven leavens the whole lump." Galatians 5:9 It is why people "roll their eyes" when you share the truth with them (warning them of what is happening to them and what is going to happen to them if they persist), with them eventually "glazing over" if you persist―you are not worth listening to because you don't make them "feel 'good.'" Intoxicated with their own reasoning, i.e. human reasoning, i.e. the reasoning of man justifying himself before himself, they refuse to hear the warning of Proverbs 6:27 "Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?" Proverbs 6:27 The "fire" being to them instead the "enjoyment" of the 'moment,' with "no one being hurt" since all agree it is "good" in their own eyes.
Conformation is you agreeing with the Father above (a "top-down," individual system of belief and action―didactic, deductive, patriarch in paradigm, i.e. with the Father in authority, i.e. all things are established according to His righteousness). Consensus is you agreeing with man (an "equality," collective system of thought and action, with some being "more equal" than others―dialectic, inductive, heresiarch in paradigm, i.e. with "the children of disobedience" in authority, i.e. all things are ever 'changing' according to their sensuousness, i.e. according to their "felt needs" or lusts in the 'moment,' with human reasoning making their desires of "enjoyment" 'right,' and therefore themselves 'righteous,' in their own eyes).
The "old" world order is man thinking and acting according to a top-down, patriarchal paradigm. The top-down, patriarchal paradigm is where the Father gives his children rules to be obeyed (establishing a top-down order of the children under the Father's authority, man under God's authority), i.e. where the children are to have faith in and love the Father above all things, i.e. above their own sensuousness (above their desires or lusts of the 'moment'―sensuousness meaning man is only driven by the "approach pleasure-avoid pain" spectrum with the augmentation of pleasure being the highest "purpose" of life, i.e. superseding the Father's will, which is not based upon the child's spectrum of pain-pleasure, with pain, or the absence of pleasure or the missing out on pleasure, being "evil" and pleasure, or the potential for pleasure, being "good"), believing in what He says, hoping in what He promises, and obeying His commands, with the Father judging and chastening them when they disobey, i.e. restraining the children from following after their own sensuous desires of the 'moment,' chastening them when they do―when they are drawn away by, i.e. seduced, deceived, and manipulated by their lusting after the things of this world in the 'moment' (establishing an "equality" order, i.e. an "at-one-ment" with the world) instead of doing the Father's will (instead of being "producer driven," becoming "consumer driven" over and against "producer driven," i.e. becoming 'driven' by sensuousness, i.e. living by and for the sensuous 'moment,' i.e. reasoning and acting according to sight, i.e. materialistic, 'driven' by their "lusting" after the "gratifying" things of the world, seeking after "the approval of men" and the "enjoyments" of the world, subject to the so called "new" world order, i.e. a world of, by, and for man and his "enjoyment" only, of, by, and for sensuousness, i.e. for pleasure only, i.e. a world of men seeking after the things of the world in the "here-and-now," i.e. creating a world according to the carnal imagination of man's heart, created according to his sensuousness and reasoning 'abilities,' according to "human nature") rather than being directed by righteousness (living by faith, spiritual, directed by God, seeking after "the approval of God," living according to His word, in His righteousness, by the power of His Holy Spirit, living as already in a new world, i.e. a world created by God alone, a world which lies ahead, according to the promises of God, a world created according to His righteousness, for those made righteous in Him, yet affecting the present world by their preaching and teaching of righteousness―engendering an antithesis condition for sensuous, carnal man, i.e. engendering a "guilty conscience," i.e. a condition of conflict or dissonance, i.e. a condition of tension with righteousness {the will of the Father superseding the sensuous will of the child, which seeks oneness with the carnal environment in pleasure} restraining sensuousness {the will of the child to relate only with the world of pleasure, i.e. the world controlling him because of his propensity towards objects of "gratification" in it, i.e. objects engendering pleasure} and sensuousness {the will of the child to be at one with the world} resisting righteousness {the will of the Father making the child subject to the world of the Father's own making, a world subject to the Father's pleasure, not just the child's―God, i.e. the Father, is not against pleasure, he created it, only that his will for man to do right and not do wrong, according to his will, supersedes it}).
While the law of God makes man aware of his unrighteousness (his love of sensuousness, i.e. his "lusting" after the flesh, guided by his eyes, fulfilling his vanity and pride), the law can make no man righteous, in that no man can fulfill the law, i.e. fulfill righteousness (perfection), with righteousness having to be imputed by God to men of faith in Him, i.e. because of their faith in the Son of God who fulfilled the law, who fulfilled all righteousness (who was perfect in all things), i.e. who obeyed His Heavenly Father in all things unto death. Therefore neither legalism, i.e. man attempting to be righteous, through his attempts of obedience to the law (making himself equal with God), nor licentiousness, i.e. man considering himself 'righteous' in and of himself (apart from the law), i.e. 'justified' in "doing his own thing" (making himself God), can save a man from condemnation, from the Father's judgment upon "the children of disobedience," (because both the legalistic and the licentious reject salvation by faith in Christ alone, reject salvation by the only begotten Son of God alone, thinking and acting according to His will, i.e. according to His grace). Only in Christ, by faith in Him, through the grace of God, according to His Word alone can man know of and receive salvation (does repentance have any meaning). Yet, only with the law (exposing man's wickedness), i.e. the Father's commands to be obeyed without question and His judgment upon man for his disobedience, does the gospel message have any meaning or value (revealing that man can never be righteous in and of himself, i.e. be God). Yet again, only the begotten Son of God (righteous in and of himself, as the Father, yet coming in the form of man to overcome sin), reconciling man, i.e. redeeming man (he who receives Christ, by faith, into his heart) from His Father's "wrath" upon "the children of disobedience," through His work of love, according to His righteousness, i.e. by his shed blood, i.e. obeying His Heavenly Father in all things according to His Father's will (by the power of the Holy Spirit), i.e. restoring a patriarchal paradigm for man in the heavenly realm (thereby making him able to live according to the Father's will in the earthly realm), does man have hope of eternal life.
Jesus did not come to negate the Father's authority (negate the law) but rather to restore it (fulfill it) in the life of man (by the work of Christ on the cross, redeeming us from the Father's wrath by His blood, His resurrection, returning to the Father, and He and the Father sending the Holy Spirit to bear witness of the Word, directing us in His work, in obedience to the Father's will). Dialectic reasoning' seeks to destroy the patriarchal paradigm in the earthly realm (negating the Father's authority to give rules to his children, i.e. rules to be obeyed without question and the power to chasten them when they disobey, i.e. when they think and act sensuously or judge them then they think and act dialectically), thereby negating it in the Heavenly realm (or so it thinks), allowing man (and the world) to be freed from the effects of righteousness, i.e. faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, and a "guilty conscience." (In his Thesis on Feuerbach #4 Karl Marx tied the "Heavenly Family" to the "earthly family" so as to negate both at the same time through the praxis of 'change' (through the negation of the law maker, i.e. both the Heavenly and earthly makers of law represented in the person refusing to 'change' in a consensus situation, i.e. refusing to 'change' from his dependents upon the Father's will, to pressure him through group pressure, "cognitive dissonance," to instead embrace the will of the group, i.e. the will of "the people," for the sake of a "new" world based upon human nature, i.e. to determine right and wrong, good and evil upon sensuousness , i.e. upon the "pain-pleasure" spectrum only, i.e. over and against righteousness). Without the law, condemning man for his sensuousness (condemning him for lusting after the things of this world over and against doing the will of the Father) and reasoning (used to 'justify' his lusting, i.e. his disobedience), condemning him for his self justification, i.e. for his unrighteousness, along with the righteousness of Christ, 'reconciling' man to His Heavenly Father (returning to the Father having fulfilling all righteousness), the gospel message simply becomes a social gospel, i.e. a message of a man suffering and dying for the 'goodness' of man, 'liberating' man from the authority of the Father (which is dialectic 'reasoning') leaving man in his sins, i.e. thinking and acting according to his "human nature," thinking and acting according to dialectic 'reasoning' (using his human reasoning to 'liberate' his sensuousness from the restraints of the Father's righteousness, i.e. negating righteousness, i.e. negating doing the Father's will, as the way of life).
The pattern or system of righteousness, i.e. the father-son, top-down, (preaching and teaching) patriarchal paradigm, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' is the cause of human suffering (physically, mentally, and socially―"health care" is a dialectic form of government, i.e. a government of sensuousness and human reasoning negating righteousness, i.e. a government of abomination―like a "wolf in sheep skin" it is government wrapped up in your legitimate cares, 'purposed' in devouring you). Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning' (according to the heresiarchal paradigm of 'change,' a paradigm of "the children of disobedience" dialoguing opinions to a consensus for the 'purpose' of 'change,' i.e. 'liberating' sensuousness from the restraints of righteousness), righteousness itself (man's seeking after righteousness, in faith and in belief, in obedience to the Father and His only begotten Son doing the Father's will, i.e. according to His Word only and by the power of the Holy Spirit, accepting chastening, i.e. God "directing man's steps") must be negated in the thoughts and actions of men (in his "theory and practice"), if the world is to know "peace," "harmony," and "justice." The idea being, don't attack righteousness openly, just treat it as being "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant" (in a consensus meeting), i.e. circumvent it by not responding to it (or treating it as "inappropriate" information, i.e. as a judgmental "attitude" engendering controversy and division) to the solution of a crisis, and get "the people" to negate it (put it aside for the 'moment' so as not to offend others) in their praxis of consensus, i.e. in their collective, i.e. uniting as "one," solving of social crisis (according to their 'willing' participation in sensuousness and human reasoning―humanism).
The so called "new" world order is man living according to an "equality" (liberté, égalité, fraternité) heresiarchal paradigm of 'change.' The "equality" (with some being more "equal" than others) heresiarchal paradigm of 'change' is where the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of "the children of disobedience" are to live according to sight (determine right from wrong according to their own "sense perception"), i.e. living "in the moment" (living according to their own "sensuous needs" in the 'moment'), i.e. loving that which is natural (carnal), dialectically 'discovering' themselves, "sense experiencing" their "full potential" according to their own human reasoning abilities, i.e. via the use of dialectic 'reasoning' 'liberating' themselves from righteousness (negating righteousness―at least in their perception, i.e. reasoning tied to "sense perception" and therefore only subject to sensuousness, i.e. if it's not perceptible to man its not real). By joining with others through the praxis of "questioning authority" (except that authority which 'justifies' their carnality,) man 'chooses' the "authority" of sensuousness over and against the authority of righteousness, even doing so for the cause of 'righteousness,' i.e. what "seems to be right" in the 'moment' according to their own carnal eyes. Authority is simply displaced from the Father to the facilitator (following after the first facilitator of 'change' as recorded in Genesis 3:1-6). By the 'participants' in 'change' 'willingly' putting aside their position (their Father's will) for the sake of unity, to solve a "crisis," they give the facilitator of 'change' (the one they abdicate control of the meeting to and their lives to, for the sake of social unity) the power to control their lives. The world of 'change' is therefore a world of sensuousness, 'justified' in man's eyes through the praxis of human reasoning (dialectic 'reasoning' being put into social action, with man therefore 'justifying' his putting aside the "past" rules of the Father, i.e. righteousness, for the sake of overcoming the crisis' of the present and the future), negating righteousness from the thoughts and actions of men, and therefore from the face of the world. A "new" world order of 'change' is man 'liberating' himself from the effects of righteousness, i.e. the authority of the Father, upon his life. A "new" world order of 'change' is a world of carnal man alone―a world of abomination, where, as in Sodom, all are to be treated as "equals."
The praxis (social practice) of the heresiarchal paradigm of 'change,' i.e. of "equality," i.e. of "the children of disobedience" requires the negation of righteousness. The praxis of the "new" world order can not be initiated and sustained without negating the father's authority to give rules to his children, i.e. negating His commands to be obeyed without question and negating His authority to judge/chasten His children when they disobey His commands (under God). The praxis of dialectic 'reasoning' is for man to no longer respect, honor, and obey higher authority, i.e. to question commands (filtering them through his carnal thoughts, justifying his carnal actions) and overthrow his authority. (Aristotle believed the cowardly man ran from the generals commands, the foolish man obeyed them without question, and the courageous man questioned them.) While obedience to man (without question) is a problem, man being vain, proud, envious, i.e. unrighteous, and merciless, with God, it is not, God being holy, pure, loving, i.e. righteous, and merciful―we are to take every though that enters our mind "captive to the obedience of Christ," who obeyed his Heavenly Fathers' commands without question, even to death. But remove righteousness as the issue of life, which dialectic 'reasoning' does, and you will believe that anyone who follows after, i.e. initiating and sustaining the system or pattern of righteousness, i.e. having faith in and believing in higher authority, obeying them without question and accepting their chastening of them for their disobedience and you have, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' Fascism AKA nationalism AKA "authoritarianism" AKA the patriarchal paradigm of 'unchangingness,' i.e. the children obeying the Father's commands without question, i.e. going against their nature, i.e. letting" a higher authority (including the conscience) other than nature (the sensuousness of the 'moment') direct their affairs (according to psychology the cause of "neurosis" and according to communism the cause of "alienation" and "repression"). The praxis of dialectic man (socialist man) is the negation of righteousness (the rejection of righteousness as being the issue of life) so that sensuous (carnal) man can "control" (direct) his own steps, lusting after the things of this world, i.e. living according to his own nature, "undisturbed" by the righteousness of God. (Bring righteousness into a room full of men dialoging to consensus and you become the source of controversy, causing division.) According to dialectic 'reasoning,' righteousness does not fit in with a world of sensuousness, i.e. a world of man's own making, i.e. a world 'rationally' (dialectically) designed according to man's own nature. Therefore the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning' (human reasoning 'liberating' sensuousness from the restraints of righteousness, i.e. 'facilitators of 'change' 'liberating' the children from the restraints of the Father) is the negation of righteousness i.e. is the negation of the Father's authority in directing the steps of his children (making the children of the world, i.e. "the children of disobedience" and the children of God, i.e. the redeemed, the same, i.e. "equal" in the praxis of social action, in the praxis of consensus).
Human reasoning made "equal" with righteousness negates righteousness, sensuousness and human reasoning being the same. What Immanuel Kant made "equal" ("Critique of Pure Reason"), Hegel "intellectualized," and Marx put into social action (praxis) for the 'purpose' of 'change' (Freud only putting it into individual action in the praxis of counseling one on one). Synthesize Marx and Freud and you have man becoming as "one," i.e. "equal," "directing his own steps," i.e. negating righteousness.
"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23b The praxis of dialectic 'reasoning' (the "new" world order) is antithetical to the way of the Lord (who was and is obedient to His Heavenly Father in all things, i.e. in all his thoughts and in all his actions, and has called all who are His to do the same, i.e. to be the same way). Man directing himself, i.e. directing his own steps, through the use of dialectic 'reasoning' (through the use of self-social "justification"), i.e. living according to his own nature, i.e. living according to his own sensuousness , justifying himself according to his own human reasoning, negates the restraint of righteousness. Dialectic 'reasoning' put into social action (praxis), i.e. man 'justifying' his unrighteous thoughts and his unrighteous actions through the use of the consensus process, i.e. man "proud in heart," i.e. believing that he is in "control" of life and the world (or believes he can control his own life and "his" world, which is "the pride of life"), is the way of abomination. "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' without negating the "guilty conscience," a byproduct of the top-down, patriarchal paradigm, man can not follow after that which is of his nature only, i.e. that which is of sensuousness only, i.e. "doing his own thing" through/with "the approval of men," i.e. being 'rational,' i.e. living according to the consent/consensus/sensuousness of "the people group," i.e. of society only. It is only through dialectic 'reasoning' (the negation of righteousness) that man can experience a life without a "guilty conscience," i.e. without the internal voice of the Father restraining that which is natural to man, that which is of sensuousness only, of nature only.
It is only through the use of dialectic 'reasoning' (human reasoning) AKA the "scientific process" that sensuous man can remove (purge) from himself, and therefore from society, the effects that righteousness has had upon his life and upon the whole world (the "guilty conscience"). His own human experience, i.e. "sense experience," therefore must become the basis for 'discovering' "truth." The idea being, as "the scientific process" is used to 'discover' the laws of nature (rocks, plants, and animals) so it can be used to discover the 'laws' of man (laws of the flesh). Using "the scientific process," as in "behavior science," materializes man, i.e. demythologizes him, making him in his own carnal image, negating the soul, i.e. negating man made in the image of God, i.e. therefore negating his accountability to a higher authority other than his own nature and nature itself. Benjamin Bloom wrote, regarding the objection by some in the scientific field, of his use of "the science method" to taxonomize man (for the 'purpose' of 'change'): "It has been pointed out that we are attempting to classify phenomena which could not be observed or manipulated in the same concrete form as the phenomena of such fields as the physical and biological sciences." (Benjamin S. Bloom Taxonomy of Education Objectives Book 1 Cognitive Domain) But, despite the protest from the scientific field, he went on with the project of "scientifically taxonomizing" the students (and the world) for the 'purpose' of 'change,' i.e. 'liberating' the children from the effects of righteousness (the traditional home experience of obeying their father's commands without question, accepting his chastening of them when they disobeyed). By making him (the student and therefore the parent) subject to the laws of his own nature he made him at one with the world, subject to the world according to the laws of nature, only the laws of nature, i.e. 'liberating' him from the laws of the Father. "It was the view of the group that educational objectives stated in the behavior form have their counterparts in the behavior of individuals, observable and describable therefore classifiable." ibid. All contemporary education is built upon the use of "Bloom's taxonomies," which, when used in the classroom, affectively materializes all students, teachers, staff, parents, and "community" members who participate in its "progressive" program of 'change.' (More on Bloom and his "Taxonomies" below.)
Marx wrote, regarding the use of "the scientific process" on man (negating righteousness as the issue of life): "Sense experience must be the basis of all science." (Karl Marx) "Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception and sensuous need, that is, only when it proceeds from Nature." (Karl Marx MEGA I/3) "Marx urged us to understand ‘the sensuous world,' the object, reality, as human sensuous activity." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) According to Marx (in alignment with dialectic 'reasoning') "the real nature of man is the totality of social relations." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 6) Therefore, according to Karl Marx, apart from consensus being put into social action (praxis)―negating the effects the initiator and sustainer of righteousness has had upon the thoughts and actions of men―man can not come to know himself as he really is, i.e. a sensuous and reasoning product of nature only, i.e. a social animal, i.e. man driven by "the approval of men" for the 'purpose' of pleasure, i.e. finding reality and truth in a society of impulses and urges "struggling to circumvent" (liberate "itself" from) the Father's authority in "its" quest to relate with (unite as one with) the world only. As Norman O. Brown defined "it" and "its" 'purpose': "By 'dialectical' I mean an activity of consciousness struggling to circumvent the limitations imposed by the formal-logical law of contradiction." "Formal logic and the law of contradiction are the rules whereby the mind submits to operate under general conditions of repression." "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, is a clear instance of repression; and therefore leads to neurosis." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." "Human consciousness can be liberated from the parental (Oedipal) complex only be being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." "The abolition of repression would only threaten patriarchal domination." "Freud, Hegel, and Nietzsche are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) Ervin Laszlo, the "guiding light" of the environmentalists movement to control the world, wrote: "Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon .... transform public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests.... transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps..." (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order) Emphasis added. His ideology is patterned after the heresiarchal paradigm of 'change,' from which the soviet system (communism) was designed (where a person's worth is based upon his social praxis, i.e. his participation in social action, i.e. initiating and sustaining 'change'), circumventing a top-down system of rule (overt authority), giving the 'facilitators' of 'change' (covert authority) control over "the people" instead, i.e. seducing, deceiving, and manipulating "the public," i.e. the "grass roots" for their own pleasures.
Karl Marx understood the "restraining power" that righteousness (the Father, giving commands and chastening when they are not obeyed) has on sensuousness (the children, desiring to "do their own thing" in the present 'moment') and how to negate the Father and His authority so that 'change' (sensuousness 'liberated' from righteousness, i.e. the children 'liberated' from the Father's authority, i.e. man 'liberated' from God) could take place. He understood the word of God, i.e. the gospel message, i.e. the righteousness of Christ and how to use dialectic 'reasoning' (what he called "critical criticism," today known as "questioning everything") and praxis (social action) to "overcome" it, i.e. negate the effects of righteousness upon the individual and society. He identified the "problem" this way: "The unspeculative Christian also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, i.e., of faith, of true love, i.e., of love of God, of true will-power, i.e., of will in Christ. Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) Emphasis in original. He explained the solution, i.e. the negation of the effect of righteousness upon the individual and society, i.e. the negation of man's cognition domain built upon "faith" in the Father, the negation of his affective domain built upon "love" for the Father, and the negation of his psycho-motor domain built upon "obedience" to the Father and His will, in this way. "'It is true we do not like to admit' ... 'the power of sensuality; but it has such tremendous power over us only because we cast it out of us and will not recognize it as our own nature, which we should then be in a position to dominate if it tried to assert itself at the expense of reason, of true love and of will-power [according to dialectic 'reasoning' human reasoning must 'liberate' man from faith and reattach him to sight, i.e. restoring him to his own nature only, "true love" must become sensuous based, no longer spiritual, and "will-power" must become based in man's nature, not in the doing the Father's will which goes counter to, i.e. is antithetical to nature].' "Critical Criticism ["questioning everything"] is a spiritualistic lord, pure spontaneity, actus purus, intolerant of any influence from without." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) Emphasis in original while bracketed information is added.
Through the praxis of dialectic reasoning (human reasoning 'liberating' sensuousness from the effects of righteousness) man can therefore have "No Fear" (and no remorse) in the praxis of negating the Father and His authority (along with those who "initiate and sustain" his order, i.e. maintain his authority by fearing, honoring, and obeying him, then continuing his authority through their actions, i.e. their habits). Through the use of the dialectic system, i.e. a soviet system, a system initiating and sustaining individual-social-environmental policy, all policies, i.e. personal and social, are rationally 'discovered' and rationally 'liberate' from the effects of righteousness, i.e. negating the "guilty conscience," i.e. the internal voice of the Father, i.e. the commands, rules, and standards of the "past" (the voice of the Father replaced with the voice of "the village," i.e. "the people"). That dialectic policy setting environment is: "a diverse/deviant group of people, dialoguing to consensus, over social issues, in a facilitated meeting, to a pre-determined outcome" (so that no decision can be made through the Father's authority, according to His commands). The "pre-determined outcome" is that all decisions must be made through the use of the soviet system, i.e. the consensus-dialectic process meeting, i.e. according to the so called "voice of the people." The key to success, for dialectic thinkers, is to control the environment, i.e. the environment being what the people attend to in it, i.e. either 1) the authority figure giving commands, demanding obedience, 2) no direction other than the impulses of the 'moment,' initiated and sustained by the environment―"approach pleasure and avoid pain," or 3) an "authority" who uses (shapes) the environment so as to seduce, deceive, and manipulate the people into producing the 'facilitators' desired outcome, i.e. the people following after them (supporting their way of thinking and acting) in making decisions, thinking that the outcome was theirs. The latter method requires the gratifying thing of the environment to be of nature only, stimulating dopamine, i.e. the "neurotransmitter" of pleasure, i.e. the "want" for whatever it is in the environment which stimulated it to be 'liberated' or 'emancipated' into the synaptic gap in the nervous system, i.e. including the brain. When that cycle of the gratifying things of the environmental stimulating dopamine emancipation (the "want" to relate with the environment, in pleasure), the looking for (attending to) whatever it was in the environment which stimulated the desire for pleasure, and the action taken to control the environment so as to initiate and sustain the stimulation of dopamine emancipation, is blocked by an authority figure (the Father) who uses commands and chastening to prevent it's 'emancipation,' or hope of 'emancipation,' a condition of antithesis is created (righteousness restraining sensuousness, sensuousness resisting righteousness).
The only way to overcome the effects of righteousness, i.e. the preaching and teaching of right and wrong, right to be obeyed as given, wrong to be chastened, with a "not" blocking action towards whatever it is in the environment that is gratifying to the person (engendering dopamine 'emancipation'), is through the use of dialogue, i.e. with a "Why?" to get authority to move ('change') from a top-down language of "can not," to the language of "equality" of "I feel" or "I think." The authority figure, using "Because I said so" (the language which threatens chastening) blocks all hope for "equality" and therefore prevents any hope of dopamine 'emancipation' from nature, i.e. prevents pleasure or "enjoyment." The language of nature, seeking 'liberation' from authority, is the "ought," as in "I ought to be able to ...." Our "ought" always being 'good' in our own eyes ties us to nature, i.e. to sensuousness. Therefore, only by getting the "ought" out of the person under authority (creating and environment of "oughtiness") can that person be 'liberated' from the authority of the "can not's" in his life. It is in the dialoguing of "ought," in the form of "I think" and "I feel," that the person can become freed from the effects of righteousness ('liberated' from the voice of restraint of the Father, and therefore the actions, of the person). It is only in a policy setting environment where a person's gratification or desire for gratification (sensuousness) and his reasoning can be united through what is natural that he can come to know himself as he is, i.e. think and act according to his own nature, according to dialectic 'reasoning.'
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' to 'change' the world you must 'change' the way people initiate and sustain policy. You must 'change' the policy setting environment from one where men seek after righteousness (to obey the Father) to one where men are 'liberated' in their "lusting" after sensuousness. You must 'change' the policy setting environment from one where people do that which is right, "judging" those who do wrong according to God the Father's will, i.e. an environment "intolerant of ambiguity," "intolerant of unrighteousness," "intolerant of abomination" (according to dialectic 'reasoning' 'a "negative" environment) to an environment where human nature can "do it's own thing," an environment "tolerant of ambiguity/permissiveness/deviancy/perversity," "tolerant of abomination" (according to dialectic 'reasoning' a "positive" environment). Therefore the dialectic policy setting environment (of consensus) becomes "intolerant of negativity," "intolerant of righteousness," "intolerant of 'judgmentalism,'" i.e. intolerant of the fear of judgment, i.e. intolerant of the Father's commands and his use of chastening (engendering the fear of judgment) to initiate and sustain his "old" world order of "fixity" (Carl Rogers).
For example: the classroom environment was changed in the 50's (through the use of Bloom's Taxonomies) to make room for the "deviant student," i.e. to make room for the praxis of abomination. Prior to Bloom's work research was already being done on how to open "Pandora's Box," i.e. the child's heart of rebellion (sensuousness), in the public classroom―for the 'purpose' of 'change.' "The school must itself be changed if it is to serve more effectively in the formation of good character. It must make room for the deviant student. This person will be able to discriminate among values and to deviate from the moral status quo of the community, when such deviation is necessary to the realization of higher moral principles. How such persons can be discovered, and, above all, how such persons can be produced in greater number is the major problem for research in character formation." (Robert Havighurst and Hilda Taba, Adolescent Character and Personality) Emphasis added. "Good character" meaning a dialectic (sensuous) thinker and doer. "To deviate from the moral status quo of the community" meaning to "question authority," i.e. to counter the traditional values established by the traditional home with the father establishing the rules and using chastisement when they are broken. "Higher moral principles" means "democratic principles," i.e. not righteousness based principles (from above nature) but sensuousness based "principles" (according to nature), "principles" of 'changingness' (situational) initiated and sustained according to human reasoning (dialectic 'reasoning'), principles subject to any given 'situation,' i.e. subject to the 'moment,' i.e. subject to the seduction, deception, and manipulation of "change agents," i.e. agents of 'change.' Karl Marx understood the importance of education regarding the process of 'change.' "Concerning the changing of circumstances [changing of society] by men, the educator must himself be educated. The changing of circumstances and of self can only be grasped and rationally understood as revolutionary practice." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 3) As one of John Dewey's doctoral candidates put it this way. "Educators and others in the role of change agents must have a method of social engineering relevant to initiating and controlling the change process." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) Revolution, i.e. the overthrow of a patriarchal paradigm, becomes the agenda for all with Bloom's special training of educators "… to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents … [producing] conflict and tension between parents and children ..." (Benjamin S. Bloom and David Krathwohl, Taxonomy of Educational Objective: Book 2 Affective Domain) Bracketed information added. Without the use of sensuousness (the affective domain), the system of righteousness, i.e. the authority of the Father, could not be negated for the sake of 'change.' "In fact, a large part of what we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives ['liberate' the child's sensuousness, openly communicating their dissatisfaction towards the restraint of authority] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs [giving them the "freedom" to questioning their father's commands and authority without fear of chastening] and getting them to discuss issues [sharing their own feelings and their own thoughts, i.e. their opinions regarding the issues of life]." ibid. Bracketed information added.
Hegel believed that "peace and affirmation" comes to a man when he becomes "indifferent to what they [he and others] have done badly and is interested in only what they have done right." (Source sited above) This effectively negates righteousness―where right and wrong (truth) is established by or dependent upon a higher authority and not by the 'immediate' situation, i.e. the experiential 'moment' (situation ethics), i.e. an environment where man is controlled by (under the control of) the 'immediate' (sensuous) situation ("feelings" based, i.e. relative, subjective, experiential, 'changing,' and not truth based, i.e. absolute, objective, established, unchanging) According to dialectic 'reasoning' and praxis, man, 'changing' with the 'changing' times is sensuousness based, i.e. rational, i.e. relevant (is positive, non-confrontational, non-demanding), but man refusing to 'change' with the "changing times," i.e. holding onto and defending absolutes learned from the "past," is righteousness based, irrational, and therefore is irrelevant (is negative, confrontational, demanding―according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the cause of wars and human suffering) and must be negated if the world is to be 'change' for the "better," i.e. if it is to experience peace (worldly peace), harmony (community harmony), and justice (socialist justice) built upon the nature of man, i.e. upon unrighteousness. "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged." John 16:7-15 Through man's use of dialectic 'reasoning' the Spirit of God, who exposes the unrighteousness of man, is negated by the spirit of man ('rationally' united as one) justifying his 'unrighteousness' as being "normal human behavior." (man thinks he controls his life when in truth the environment controls him, drawing him after those things which are in it which are 'gratifying' to his flesh, i.e. whoever therefore controls the environment, controlling the sensuousness of man, i.e. controls man. Righteousness blocks the controlling effect the world, i.e. "the prince of this world," has upon man. If the Word of God, preached and taught "as is," exposes and condemns "the prince of this world," and the "prince of this world" controls the world thought the dialoguing of men's opinions, then the preaching and teaching of God's word must be negated through the dialoguing of men's opinions if "the prince of the world's" "judgment" is not to be exposed. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the spirit of man, i.e. human reasoning 'discovering,' 'liberating,' and uniting itself through man's use of the consensus process, must negate the Spirit of God, i.e. negate the Spirit of God who "reproves" man for "lusting" after his own sensuousness, for his disobedience to his Father, and for his following after "the prince of the world," i.e. following after he who "helps" man, through dialectic 'reasoning,' 'justify' his love of sensuousness and his "right" of disobedience ("question authority," civil disobedience, revolution, 'change,' etc.), i.e. 'justifying' his lawlessness, bringing all who follow him (in his lawlessness) into his judgment. John 3:17-21
According to Kenneth Benne is was necessary to create a citizenry who could not tolerate the "principled" person, i.e. the person who refused to 'change' in the midst of a social crisis crying out for compromise. "We must develop persons who see non-influenceability of private convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) In other words a principled person (evaluating, i.e. judging right from wrong according to pre-established commands from his Father, i.e. his earthly father and/or his Heavenly Father, demanding that all who associate with or work with him do what is right―according to his Fathers will―refusing to go along with as well as exposing what is wrong, i.e. refusing to compromise, thinking and acting in obedience to a higher authority than the sensuous 'moment'), subject to righteousness and subjecting others to the same, in a consensus meeting―where "the approval of men," i.e. the sensuousness of approval in the 'moment,' 'drives' the 'purpose,' i.e. the 'purpose of augmenting the sensuousness of "enjoyment," i.e. augmenting the pleasures of the world while at the same time attenuating the effects of righteousness upon man and the world, i.e. negating the conflicting/confronting/controversial effect righteousness has upon the lives of carnal, sinful, unrighteous man―is "sense perceived" by "the people" as being a barrier to progress, i.e. perceived as someone working against the "common good," someone to be recognized as being "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant" to the 'changing' times rather than a person to be recognized, respected, and honored. "These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me." John 16:1-4 "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." (John 14:23-27) "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:" (Luke 12:51)
Those of dialectic 'reasoning' always begin with and continue to maintain (communicate) their concern over feelings at the expense of truth (even though they say they believe in and are defending the truth), i.e. truth is filtered through feelings (whether the truth will be pleasurable and therefore acceptable to the other person or painful and therefore rejected by the other person, needing it be reshaped so that it will be pleasurable, i.e. perceivable to the other person and not painful, i.e. unperceivable)―they can't see it any other way, i.e. all their communication is about feelings or "felt needs" (Abraham Maslow). Any communication you have with those of dialectic 'reasoning,' regarding the truth, i.e. regarding the issue of righteousness, is recycled through (filtered through) the issue of human "feelings," i.e. sensuousness (righteousness "offends" the dialectic, i.e. "self-social 'justified,'" carnal man). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' all "truth," i.e. righteousness must therefore be subject to and thus shaped around the situation, i.e. controlled by the sensuousness of man ("Make man feel 'good' and he will listen to you" mentality). Although we are not to offend (seek to harm others for our own gain), the Word of God (truth) is an offense (painful) to those under the control of sensuousness―bringing those lusting after, i.e. protecting their carnal nature either under conviction, if they are willing to humble themselves and listen or, if they remain in their pride, i.e. full of pride, i.e. self-justified and refusing to listen, condemnation, i.e. their "listening skills" aligned with sensuousness, i.e. feelings, i.e. according to the flesh, and not subject to righteousness, i.e. the truth, i.e. according to the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. According to dialectic 'reasoning' controversy is synonymous to conviction, creating and resulting in a set , i.e. unchanging, position or attitude in the individual (why "new" world order laws must negate all beliefs, thoughts, and actions which engenders controversy or conviction, i.e. force sensuousness to become subject to righteousness, i.e. the flesh subject to the spirit, i.e. man subject to God, i.e. the children subject to the Father). Dialoguing man's opinions speaks to the head of man, retaining his deceitful and wicked heart, i.e. not bringing him under conviction, producing contrition, leading to repentance, leaving his heart as is, i.e. deceitful and wicked, while the preaching and teaching of God's Word speaks to the soul of man, i.e. brings a man under conviction, producing contrition, leading to repentance, changes his heart, making it "pure"―2 Timothy 2:22; Matthew 5:8; Proverbs 30:5; Psalms 12:6; Proverbs 7:1-5.
The Word of God (the truth, even when it chastens) is not an offense to those seeking after righteousness, i.e. those who have faith, who humble themselves before the Lord, dying daily to their carnal nature, no matter how much it might hurt at the time. Only "children of disobedience," those controlled by (possessed by) their own sensuousness (the pleasures or "enjoyments" of this life) and their 'reasoning' skills to 'justify' their sensuous "desires" ('driven' by "the approval of men" for the 'purpose' of pleasure―for example: the "'purpose driven' Church") are concerned about being "offended" or "offending others" by the truth, i.e. by the chastening of God's Word (the righteousness of God, through His Word and the Holy Spirit, exposing man's sins and bringing man under conviction for the deceitfulness and wickedness of his heart of sensuousness, or condemning him for his negation of righteousness through his use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. human reasoning, to 'justify' his "human nature," i.e. to 'justify' his own sensuousness, i.e. his flesh), loving his sin's more than the righteousness of God. True love begins with loving God first. True love begins with righteousness. "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." Mark 12:30, 31 Therefore the second command can not be built upon sensuousness (the lusts of the flesh and eyes and pride, i.e. human reasoning, i.e. deceit and manipulation) because it is the result of the first commandment, righteousness. "For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Romans 13:9 Then the love man has for his fellow man is not based upon his lusting after pleasure, lusting after the "enjoyment" of the things of this world, lusting after "the approval of men" (the things of men), but is from the Lord, i.e. a love which comes out of the denial of self (denial of the "approval of man" for the 'purpose' of pleasure) for the purpose of bringing men to the saving knowledge of the Lord, to the saving of their souls, for the glory of God the Father and His only begotten Son by the power of the Holy Spirit. Speaking "the truth in love," according to dialectic 'reasoning,' is based upon filtering the truth through human feelings (through sensuousness, i.e. "What can I get out of this for me?" or "What can we get out of this for us.?) and human reasoning, making the truth subject to sensuousness (vanity, pride, and envy), subject to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. subject to trickery (deceit and wickedness), the heart of man not having been changed, i.e. not being changeable according to righteousness. God chastens those He loves (which is painful to man's flesh and pride, i.e. making God, and anyone who preaches or teaches his word in love, 'judgmental' in the eyes, i.e. according to the "sense perception" and therefore the reasoning of dialectic 'thinkers').
"Christians" today want an "intellectual," i.e. emotional assent to God (that which requires self-justification), not death to self (where justification is in Christ alone, i.e. in His obedience to His Heavenly Father, to death, i.e. in the "the obedience of Christ" to His Heavenly Father alone). The Lord was clear on this. Read His Word not man's opinions of it. Men's' opinions of God's Word is man 'rationally' filtering what God the Father says through human "feelings," i.e. evaluating God's Word through men's opinions, so as not to offend their "feelings," so that they (everyone) can "feel" better about themselves and be less "offensive" to others, i.e. so that the Word of God, "sense perceived" as being commands of the 'past,' won't interfere with their own sensuousness, i.e. won't interfere with their own pleasures {lusts}, i.e. wont' interfere with their own love for thing of the world in the 'moment,' in the "here-and-now," i.e. so that others might be "willing" to listen to the "truth" according to their human reasoning, continuing to live by sight and not by faith. Living by faith requires the evaluation of our thoughts and our actions and the thoughts and actions of others according to what our Heavenly Father has to say about them, whether they are right or wrong thoughts or actions according to His will, reasoning, i.e. weighting our thoughts and actions from our Father's commands and thereby obeying Him, which is called deductive reasoning, i.e. the "old school" way of thinking and acting, i.e. living by faith and not by sight, i.e. living according to the Fathers' promises. Living by sight (dialectic 'reasoning') is where we evaluate our lives and the lives of others according to our own feelings, thoughts, and actions (our opinion) and the feelings, thoughts, and actions of others (their opinion), which negates the Words and the commands of our Heavenly Father and His only begotten son, i.e. which negates the way of righteousness, which is inductive reasoning, i.e. the "new school" way of thinking, i.e. the so called "new" order of the world, i.e. following after the ways of men, i.e. living by sight and not by faith, i.e. living according to and in the 'moment.' Therefore the process just keeps recycling itself, never brought to judgment and death by faith in the Lord and His Word and obedience to the Father (only made possible through the hearing of God's word, i.e. receiving it and accepting it "as is," and the convicting work of the Holy Spirit) but continues to initiate and sustain a system of heresy, i.e. of 'change,' of the heresiarchal paradigm of 'justified' unrighteousness, 'justified' wickedness, i.e. abomination, of "the children of disobedience."
Change God's word through dialectic 'reasoning' (through the dialoguing of opinions) and you redeem man from righteousness and condemnation, at least his awareness ("perception") of it. The dialectic idea being, by negating righteousness you negate condemnation (to fallen man, man lusting after sensuousness, the "guilty feeling," i.e. the "fear" of chastening, judgment, and condemnation and righteousness, which initiates and sustains it, go hand in hand). Negate condemnation (chastening and judgment) in your communication with others ("Don't be so negative") and you negate righteousness (a top-down system which preaches-teaches what is right and good and chastens-judges when one is wrong and evil) as an issue of life. Replace righteousness (the commands of the Father to be obeyed without question, i.e. living by faith) with sensuousness (with our own "feelings and thoughts," i.e. our opinions, i.e. that which we can all identify with and agree upon, i.e. living by sight) and the issues of life (man's communication with man) becomes "positive" (carnal, worldly). The "new" world order simply makes sensuousness (human feelings) the issue of life (initiating and sustaining an "equality" system of a heresiarchal paradigm of 'changingness'), thereby negating righteousness (respect for and obedience to authority, i.e. that which was the issue of life of the "old" world order, i.e. initiating and sustaining a top-down patriarchal paradigm of unchangingness).
In his dialectic praxis, i.e. man's love of the his world, i.e. man's pleasure fulfilled through it's 'momentary' gratifications (what he has in common with all men, i.e. sensuousness, i.e. "equality," i.e. walking according to man's flesh) replaces/negates his love of the Father, i.e. eternal life (what God the Father freely offers man according to his faith in the Lord alone, i.e. faith in His only begotten Son alone, i.e. righteousness, i.e. submitting himself to the top-down authority of the Father, i.e. walking according to the Word and the Spirit of God), the issue of righteousness is negated (righteousness, i.e. the love of the Father, i.e. "What would my father say?" i.e. his values preached and taught "as is" and backed up with chastening, is no longer an issue of consideration in man's thoughts nor in his actions, i.e. in his "theory and practice," sensuousness, i.e. "enjoyment," i.e. the love of the world, i.e. "What does it mean to me," i.e. the dialoguing of man's opinions having taken its place, authorizing carnality, making the laws of the land subject to the abomination of "self-justified" men through the praxis of "self-social 'justification,'" i.e. through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. through the consensus process). When righteousness (Spirit, i.e. obedience to the Father's commands) is silenced (set aside) in the consensus meeting, sensuousness (flesh, i.e. the "approval of men," i.e. the "spirit" of social harmony, i.e. pleasure, i.e. "enjoyment") becomes the 'driving' force (the "spirit") and the 'purpose' (the uniting of all "spirits" as one "spirit") of life. Through dialectic 'reasoning' (sensuous reasoning), man's love of the world (sensuousness) supersedes man's love of the Father (righteousness) and abomination prevails (for the time being). "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." 1 John 2:15, 16, 18 "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." "That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 5:18, 21 "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon." Isaiah 55:7 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 12 "Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds [praxis, Greek] of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." Romans 8:12-17
God, our Heavenly Father is a God of love, who chastens His children, "producing a peaceful fruit of righteousness." Yet He is also a God of wrath, who casts out "the children of disobedience," dialectic 'reasoning' children, who make their own sensuousness (that which is of the world), not the righteousness of Christ (that which is only of God), the issue of life, i.e. "disobedient children" who are 'driven' by and 'purposed' in the augmentation of pleasure (men united in "sensuousness and reasoning," united within the praxis of consensus and upon the consensus of praxis, i.e. united upon the "equality of opportunity" of carnality), over and against righteousness (being reconciled to a Father-Son, top-down relationship through the righteousness of Christ―it is the righteousness of Christ, i.e. imputed to men according to faith, which reconciles man to the Father, become heir to eternal life, which separates man from the 'reconciliation' of man to man, i.e. leaving man condemned to the world of sight, 'justifying' his own sensuousness, his carnal nature, via. human reasoning, i.e. leaving him bound to his temporal life and there condemned to eternal death). Romans 8:1; Romans 5:10 & 2 Corinthians 5:5, 6, 18, 19; John 3:16-21
Because of the hardness of man's heart toward righteousness (because of his love for and 'justification' of his own sensuousness), God turns him over to his own judgment, i.e. turns him over to his "reprobate mind" for the day of judgment. "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient [decent];" Romans 1:28 Man, seeing ("sense perceiving") no harm in his actions of "enjoyment" ("As long as no one is hurt."), does "his own thing" in the 'moment.' In his "pride of life" (thinking he has control over life, over the situation, i.e. nothing can go wrong or is wrong in the praxis of the 'moment' since right and wrong is under his control, according to his own perception, i.e. his own understanding) he is deceived into believing that he is the one who determines right from wrong, evaluating what is right and what is wrong according to his carnal pleasure-pain spectrum of sensuousness. Dialectic 'reasoning' determines right from wrong according to man's own "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" (Karl Marx), according to the spectrum of "approaching pleasure-avoid pain," i.e. pleasure ("enjoyment" in the 'moment,' sensuousness) being "good," pain (including the absence of pleasure/carnal "enjoyment" in the 'moment,' due to the restraints of righteousness) being "evil." Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning' (human reasoning), commands to be followed (which are not "enjoyable" in the 'moment,' i.e. which do not make sense, i.e. which can not or are not able to be dialogued) and chastening to reinforce them (restraining, inhibiting, or blocking spontaneous-sensuousness) is therefore "evil" and permissiveness, i.e. carnality, i.e. spontaneous-sensuousness ("as long as no one is hurt"), i.e. human nature is "good."
Dialectic 'reasoning' rises and falls on the concept that human nature (sensuousness and therefore sensuous reasoning) in and of itself (man in and of himself) is good and not evil, thus making righteousness (that which is not of the human nature of man, i.e. not of sensuousness and therefore not subject to sensuous reasoning, i.e. restraining and judging man for his carnal thoughts and his carnal actions) "evil." As the woman in a garden in Eden saw (reasoned) nothing was harmful in her eating of the fruit of the "forbidden tree," so man sees no harm in his carnal thoughts and actions, i.e. through dialectic 'reasoning' "justifying" his perception that no harm will come to him for his praxis―right and wrong is determined according to his own perception, i.e. according to his own nature (sensuousness) and is not determined according to that which is not of his own nature (righteousness ruling over and restraining that which is natural, i.e. therefore not making sense to man or the child in the 'moment'). With man ("the children of disobedience") the issue of life is sensuousness (making him seducible, deceivable, and manipulatable, i.e. subject to, i.e. self-justified by dialectic 'reasoning') while with God (the Father) the issue of life is righteousness (faith, belief, obedience, and chastening―and, in Christ, grace), making man (the child) accountable for this thoughts and his actions, according to God's (the Father's) commands. Not only being unrighteous (sinful and adulterous, because of his deceitful and wicked heart), but also through dialectic 'reasoning,' man, 'justifying' his unrighteousness, perceives his own human nature as being "normal" (making his carnal nature, i.e. "the child within," the "norm") 'justifies' abomination. Man (following after the woman, blinded by her carnal reasoning, i.e. determining right from wrong according to human reasoning) is driven out of the garden by God (the Father), God (the Father) giving man ("the children of disobedience") "over to his reprobate mind" until the day of reckoning, i.e. until the day of judgment, when God will pour out His wrath upon "the children of disobedience" for their "theory and practice," judging them for 'justifying' (through dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, i.e. to social agreement, common-ism, i.e. a feeling of "oneness" in 'purpose,' i.e. to the augmentation of pleasure) and doing that (following after and 'justifying' their opinions) which "seemeth right" in their own eyes in the 'moment.' "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' "thought" (reasoning) is engendered by "ought" (sensuousness) which is engendered by "not" (righteousness) restraining/blocking "ought" (preventing sensuousness from experiencing oneness with nature, i.e. in the 'moment'). It is therefore dialectic 'reasoning', i.e. "thought" (reasoning) which 'liberates' man from the "repression" of righteousness ('emancipates' man from that authority which "alienates" himself from his own nature and from the rest of the world), and which unites him with that which is of nature only (that which is of sensuousness only―making reasoning subject to sensuousness, i.e. engendered from human experience, according to the will of man, and not subject to righteousness, i.e. subordinate to commands, according to the will of the Father), i.e. uniting reasoning and sensuousness (the world and man, the "is" and the "ought," the "theory" and the "practice," the praxis and the opinion) as one (reasoning put into praxis 'liberating' sensuousness, i.e. man, i.e. "the children of disobedience," from righteousness, i.e. from the Father, i.e. from higher authority, thereby negating righteousness as the issue of life, negating the restrainer of sensuousness, thereby initiating and sustaining abomination). This is the same dialectic 'reasoning' man has faced from a garden in Eden to the father-son relationship in the home today. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' you can not have "thought" (dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. sensuous reasoning, i.e. human reasoning, i.e. reasoning, i.e. the "divine spark," i.e. enlightenment, i.e. "higher order thinking skills in morals and ethics," etc.) without the "ought" (the child's sensuous values, i.e. that which is "good" in his own eyes, i.e. that which is of his own nature, i.e. that which is in and of the 'moment,' i.e. encapsulated in the child's "Why?" in his response to his Father's "Can not," i.e. his questioning of the Father's command to get His Father into dialogue, which would affectively negate the Father's authority, i.e. negate righteousness as the issue of life―according to dialectic 'reasoning') being engendered by (in response to, i.e. antithetical towards) the Father's "not" (the Father's righteous "Can not .... Thou Shalt Not .... Because I said so" values). "Though" (dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. sensuous reasoning, i.e. i.e. human reasoning, i.e. reasoning, i.e. "higher order thinking skills in morals and ethics," etc. all dialectically perceived, "sense perceived," as being the same) 'justifies' the "ought" (sensuousness, i.e. "the carnal child within," i.e. the "goodness" of man's deceitful and wicked heart, i.e. human nature) over and against the Father's "not" (righteousness, i.e. the authority of the Father and His commands) thereby negating the "not" (negating righteousness, i.e. negating the authority of the father and his commands, i.e. negating the "guilty conscience") in the thoughts and actions ("theory and practice"), i.e. praxis of the next generation, engendering a nation and a world of abomination (where, because of "NO FEAR" of accountability for their thoughts and actions, people {blinded by unrestrained sensuousness, i.e. by consensus, i.e. by "self-social 'justification'" of sensuousness} become possessed with the pleasures of the world―no longer cognizant that their sinful behavior is wicked, now perceiving it as being "the norm," i.e. their "right"―what was once done in the darkness, i.e. man fearful of ensuing judgment for their thoughts and actions, is now done in the light of day, i.e. judgment for sin no longer on their mind, i.e. no longer an issue of the day―with man now thinking and doing unconscionable/abominable things). Dialectic 'reasoning' 'justifies' sensuousness (the thoughts and actions of "the children of disobedience") over and against righteousness (the Father and His authority).
When you understand this (the dialectic formula as explained above), you will understand the "new" world order and its agenda to "control" you for its "use," i.e. according to its 'drive' and for its 'purpose' alone, i.e. seducing, deceiving, and manipulating you into participating in the praxis of the "new" world order, making you subject only to sensuousness, i.e. worldliness, i.e. lawlessness (following after the lawless one, i.e. the antichrist, i.e. a user-friendly, non-offensive, readily adaptable to 'change' Christ, i.e. a dialectic Christ in "touch" with your feelings, "understanding" of your thoughts, and "tolerant" of your actions, i.e. an abomination of desecration). You will understand that it's only agenda is the negation of righteousness (that which is only of God, i.e. of the Father-Son, top-down relationship, i.e. negating that which engenders, i.e. initiates and sustains a top-down order, i.e. the "old" world order where commands are given, to be obeyed "as is"―"Because I said so," "Though shalt ...," "It is written," and chastening is used to initiate and sustain that order) as an issue of life, supplanting it with that which is only of man, of his own sensuousness, (that which is only of nature, i.e. that which all men have in common―"I feel," "I think," "My opinion is," etc.―common-ism AKA communism, i.e. engendering "equality," i.e. "public-private partnership," "communitarianism," "synergism," conscietization, democratization, etc.) through "self-social-environmental 'justification," i.e. through the consensus process, i.e. through the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning' (sensuous reasoning) being put into social action, negating righteousness as the only issue of life (eternal life). "As it is written, 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 sepulchre; 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." Romans 3:10-18
As you will see, Heraclites, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, .... George Hegel, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, .... Theodor Adorno, Herbart Marcuse, Erick Fromm, .... Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, Benjamin Bloom, .... contemporary leadership in government and in the "church" i.e. all dialectic in "thought," have followed/are following down (thus bringing all who follow them down) this dialectic pathway of abomination. According to Sigmund Freud: "'Imagination [phantasy, the imagination of men's hearts] envisions the reconciliation of the individual with the whole, of desire with realization, of happiness with reason [according to Hegel, of sensuousness with reasoning and according to Marx, of theory with practice].'" (Sigmund Freud quoted in Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) Bracketed information added. Marcuse wrote: "perversions ... show a deep affinity to phantasy [the imagination of men's hearts, i.e. his thoughts of "oughtiness" (Maslow)]. Freud's Collected Papers [on Phantasy] links perversions with the images of integral freedom and gratification. Phantasy plays a most decisive function in the total mental structure: it links the deepest layers of the unconscious [the Eros or spontaneous-sensuousness of self] with the highest products of consciousness [the Eros or spontaneous-sensuousness of the material world, i.e. uniting man with himself and with society through his "oughtiness," with that which he has in common to all of society, i.e. his dissatisfaction with the world that "is," expressed in his imagination on how it "ought" to be], the dream with the reality ... the perpetual but repressed ideas of the collective and individual memory, the tabooed images of freedom." ibid. Bracketed information added. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' for the "repressed ideas of the collective and individual memory" to be 'liberated,' they (the collective and individual imagination) must be united (in consensus), i.e. united in the praxis of negating righteousness, i.e. man united in consensus no longer doing the Father's will (there is not Father's authority, no righteousness in the sensuousness of man's "oughtiness," in the imagination of his heart).
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Genesis 6:5 Abomination (the "new" world order) for the time being will have its day of "enjoyment." But its day of judgment will come. "For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Matthew 24:38, 39
In dialectic 'reasoning,' the eyes and ears of the flesh (sensuousness augmented by, with, and for human reasoning), i.e. man in love with himself, i.e. 'justifying' himself according to his own sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities, negates spiritual eyes and spiritual ears, i.e. man in love with the Father, i.e. men of faith, justified by God's righteousness, with man no longer able to know, nor desiring to know, anything except the pleasures of the 'moment,' with any thought of heaven (the "concept" of judgment and hell having been long negated, i.e. "How can a 'loving' God create such a place to condemn/cast 'caring' and 'loving' people?"), i.e. the "imagined" future, being a time and a place of continued, but "better," worldly pleasures. This is a deceitful and wicked, i.e. sensuous pathway of the flesh, a pathway of condemnation, a pathway of dialectic 'reasoning,' a pathway of another Christ, i.e. a "Christ" of the flesh, of one in harmony with the sensuousness of human reasoning, a pathway down which much of the "church" is now going, walking after a "Christ" of the flesh, of sensuousness, and not after the Christ of the Spirit, of righteousness. Man, through dialectic 'reasoning' makes mankind, i.e. human relationship building, "equality" in the oneness of sensuousness and the sensuousness of oneness, i.e. the flesh of man the "spirit," rather than the Father-Son, top-down relationship, which can only be revealed to man by God through His Word and by His Spirit, the Spirit. Therefore the issue of "reconciliation" is between the Father and the children and not just between the children. Reconciliation only between the children ("equality") would negate the Father and His authority, i.e. negate the top-down system of righteousness by negating the Father's commands by negating the fear of judgment, i.e. "You won't die," for disobedience. Remove the fear of judgment, you remove the command, you remove the Father, you remove righteousness (which can only be fulfilled in Christ. who alone fulfilled all righteousness, obeying the Father in all things even unto death, taking our place for the Father's judgment upon us for our disobedience, i.e. reconciling us to His Heavenly Father by His blood and by the power of the Holy Spirit and not according to our flesh, i.e. the spirit of man―thereby only in Christ can the control of the flesh upon man, i.e. his use of dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' our unrighteous thoughts and our unrighteous actions, and therefore our condemnation, be negated, "reconciling" us to a Father-son relationship). "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 8:1 "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint–heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." Romans 8:16, 17 "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." Galatians 4:6, 7 What God has in store (for those who's sins have been covered by "the blood of the Lamb" and have suffered with Christ, putting the flesh aside) is not according to man's sensuousness, i.e. by his flesh, for his glory, but according to His righteousness, by His Spirit, for His glory, which sensuous man can never imagine or know, i.e. can not make sense ("flesh and blood will not enter the Kingdom of God"). "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." 1 Corinthians 2:9 "And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." "And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death." Revelation 7:14; 12:11
It (dialectic 'reasoning') is a subtle and complex process*, that is, until you understand it in the light of the Word of God. Then, and only then, can you see it for what it is, the heresiarchal paradigm of 'change,' the way of "the children of disobedience," the way of unrighteousness, where man sees himself in his own "light" (through his "enlightened" mind) as being (becoming, through dialectic 'reasoning') 'righteous' in himself (becoming an "abomination in the sight of God"). Dialectic 'reasoning' is man rejecting faith in God, rejecting (mocking) righteousness and instead turning to sight, turning to his own sensuousness and reasoning abilities, trusting in (esteeming) himself and the world. *I place this quotation here, by Jürgen Habermas, just to see if you can wrap your head around it. Skip it if you don't have time. By the end of this article you should be able to understand it and its ramification for you and the world you live in (which we are now doing in the consensus, dialectic 'reasoning' process). Jürgen Habermas wrote: "... the concept of the world as the totality of facts is connected with a correspondence notion of truth and a semantic conception of justification. The social world, as the totality of legitimately ordered interpersonal relations, is accessible only from the participant's perspective; in the pragmatic presuppositions of rational discourse or deliberation the normative content of the implicit assumptions of communicative action is generalized, abstracted, and freed from all limits — the practice of deliberation is extended to an inclusive community that does not in principle exclude any subject capable of speech and action who can make relevant contributions. This idea points to a way out of the modern dilemma, since the participants have lost their metaphysical guarantees and must so to speak derive their normative orientations from themselves alone. As we have seen, the participants can only draw on those features of a common practice they already currently share…. The bottom line is that the participants have all already entered into the cooperative enterprise of rational discourse. The practice of argumentation sets in motion a cooperative competition for the better argument, where the orientation to the goal of a communicatively reached agreement unites the participants from the outset." (Jürgen Habermas, Communicative Ethics: The inclusion of the Other. Studies in Political Theory)
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' there can be no dialectic 'reasoning' ("human reasoning," i.e. reasoning) without righteousness. Man's effort to 'liberate' himself from the restraints of righteousness (the source of antithesis, i.e. the conflict between the Father of righteousness, i.e. a top-down order, and the children of sensuousness, i.e. an order of "equality") engenders dialectic 'reasoning (the means to synthesis―consensus, i.e. "rationally," i.e. dialectically, uniting the particular, i.e. the individual, to the universal, i.e. to society based upon what the individual and society have in common, i.e. sensuousness and reasoning, i.e. that which is of the world and for the world, i.e. of and for sensuousness united through reasoning―the "savior" of "humanity" from God, from the Father, from righteousness). According to Hegel, the "divine spark," i.e. reasoning ("human reasoning") can only be brought to "light" through man's desire to "control" his own life, i.e. fulfilling his "lust" for the "enjoyment" of life, being restrained by someone or something ruling over him ("bullying" him*), inhibiting or blocking his natural inclination to unite with the world in pleasure, i.e. a world unrestrained by unnatural laws (unrestrained by laws of righteousness), a world where sensuousness and spontaneity ("theory and practice," "beauty and justice," sensuousness and reasoning) are reunited as one in praxis (in individual-social action with no above-below, righteousness-sensuousness, spirit-flesh antithesis). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' man's resistance against righteousness (the child's resistance against the Father's authority to rule over him, "repressing" him, preventing him from following after his natural, i.e. carnal, worldly inclinations) 'drives' him in his 'purpose,' i.e. the engendering of reasoning (and thereby the praxis of negating righteousness―known as "the negation of negation," i.e. the negation of "authoritarianism," i.e. negation of a top-down system, through the totalitarianism of human nature, i.e. through a system of "equality" of carnality). *Regarding "bulling" in the schools, Maslow wrote: "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management) Maslow must have read Hebrews 12:5-11 and reversed the order, i.e. making "the children of obedience" the "bastards" instead of "the children of disobedience." So much for the dialectic platform of "tolerance" ("tolerance of ambiguity," i.e. "tolerance of deviancy" means there can be no "tolerance of certainty," i.e. there can be no tolerance of preaching, teaching, and chastening to initiate and sustain absolutes, i.e. unchanging righteousness which is not of and antithetical toward every 'changing' sensuousness).
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the Father's isolating of his children from their commonality with society engenders social disharmony, i.e. "negativity," socially, mentally, and physically "damaging" his (the universes) children. Through the social praxis of negating the father's top-down (preaching, teaching, and chastening) authority over his children, "negativity" is negated from the children and from the community as "positivity" is augmenting within the children and the community (through the dialoguing of opinions to consensus, a feeling of "oneness" engendered thought reasoning 'liberating' sensuousness from the cognition of {and respect for, i.e. restraint of} righteousness).
In education, the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" in curriculum development served this very purpose, i.e. the changing of the classroom environment from one initiating and sustaining a patriarchal, top-down (facts based, preaching and teaching, cognitive domain) paradigm or way of thinking and acting (reminiscent of a Father's authority, i.e. with rules to be obeyed and chastening to instill that obedience) to a classroom where feelings (the affective domain) were 'liberated' for the 'purpose' of 'change' (the negation of the Father's authority, i.e. the negation of the system of righteousness, so to speak, through the 'liberation' of sensuousness by means of initiating and sustaining "higher order thinking skills" in "morals and ethics," i.e. through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. through the dialoguing of opinions regarding how the student's themselves felt and thought about the issues of life, i.e. thereby 'justifying' their questioning of and disobedience toward higher authority, i.e. their parent's, teachers, God, and His Word―engendering the heresiarchal paradigm of 'change,' i.e. an environment reminiscent of "the children of disobedience"). 'Changing' the classroom environment from a patriarchal paradigm, i.e. righteousness, i.e. Father directed outcome, to a heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. sensuousness i.e. "children of disobedience" driven outcome, the nation was 'changed' from righteousness to sensuousness, i.e. from a top-down, respect authority way of thinking and acting to an "equality," question authority way of thinking and acting, i.e. from "What would my Father say?" principled behavior to "Can't we all just get along?" permissiveness behavior, with sensuousness (carnality) not righteousness (self-control) becoming the issue of life. The dialectic classroom experience thereby "helped" the next generation learn ("facilitated" the next generation in learning) to "clarify" their values ("values clarification"), where their own feelings guided them in their thoughts and actions rather than their parent's values and their own reasoning abilities guided them in determining right from wrong in the current situation ("situation ethics") rather than their father's pre-established, inculcated principles. Love then became based upon assisting others in (and not inhibiting others from) satisfying carnal pleasures, i.e. "the approval of men," i.e. pleasure/"enjoyment" (sensuousness) becoming the bases of love, rather than a higher authority determining what is the right way to think and act in all situations and what is "not" the right way to think and act in all situations, i.e. not being chastened for doing right and being chastened for doing wrong, i.e. "the approval of the father," i.e. doing what he says is right and "not" doing what he says is wrong (righteousness) being the bases of love. Here is where G. W. F. Hegel (sensuousness and human reasoning) mostly clearly differs from the Word of God (righteousness) regarding right thinking and acting, Hebrews 12:5-11.
As I will say again and again, righteousness is only of God, for He alone is righteous in and of Himself. Righteousness is not of man, for no man is righteous in and of himself. Righteousness has to be imputed by God to man, according to man's faith in God, for it is impossible to please God without faith. No man can "earn" it (become righteous) through human effort, i.e. through his own sensuous and reasoning abilities (through his participation, i.e. doing right and not doing wrong, in any "institution," even any act of, in, and for the "church"). To attempt to do so, he must use dialectic 'reasoning and thereby open "Pandora's" box of abominations. "Flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of God." The kingdom of God is doing the Heavenly Father's will (what Jesus did), directed by God, i.e. His Word and lead by the Holy Spirit. Yet, while the earthly father is not righteous in and of himself, his use of the system of Righteousness, a top-down patriarchal paradigm, given to him from God, restrains the praxis of abomination in the individual, the home, the nation, and the world (including within the "church"). Without the system of Righteousness, abomination (sensuousness, i.e. the praxis of "the children of disobedience") "controls" the day.
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' in man's 'drive' (mimesis, i.e. his natural inclination to spontaneously relate with the world in sensuousness) to 'liberate' himself, i.e. 'emancipate' sensuousness from the restraints of righteousness, i.e. "deliver" or "save" himself from the restraints of (rule of and chastening by) the Father, human reasoning 'discovers' itself. The social environment of "tolerance of ambiguity" (tolerance of deviancy, immorality, carnality, etc.) was what was needed for such 'change' (sensuous-reasoning, i.e. self-social justifying, i.e. deviant society―consensus) to take place. Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is only in his praxis of negating righteousness, through man's (or the child's) united effort with others of like (deviant) thoughts and actions, based upon dialectic 'reasoning,' that man (the child) can come to know himself as he "really is," carnal, sensuous, of the world, "only of nature" (Marx), i.e. 'discovering' his 'purpose' in life, finding "oneness" in and with what he has in common with the world, i.e. "rationally" finding oneness in the "community" of sensuousness, building "human relationship" upon the common-unity of unrighteousness, i.e. working together, i.e. uniting in the praxis of abomination (in, through, and for the praxis of consensus, i.e. "Diversity-deviancy in unity"). Without the reasoning all carnal man has is the conflict (antithesis) between righteousness (doing what is right according to someone greater than the natural inclinations of the 'moment') and sensuousness (doing what seems natural in the 'moment'), i.e. adultery, i.e. man breaking contract, but with a "guilty conscience," but with reasoning, his praxis becomes abomination (the negation of righteousness, i.e. the negation of a "guilty conscience" in responding to life's situations), i.e. man becoming lawless, without a "guilt conscience" (man's conscience replaced with a super-ego, i.e. a social, carnal, natural, internal-external voice lusting after oneness, i.e. 'belongingness' with the world, i.e. finding identity with/within the world of/with pleasure). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' without man's cognitive domain (knowledge―consciousness) being united with his affective domain (his feelings―self-consciousness), the psychomotor domain (sensuous reasoning, i.e. human reasoning, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning') could not become engendered for the 'purpose' of 'change,' i.e. man would remaining subject to the top-down, patriarchal system of righteousness (caught in the antithesis of two worlds, between the one of his own sensuousness and the other of the Father's righteousness, which is not of himself, i.e. inhibiting or blocking his natural inclinations of the 'moment').
It is in the praxis of negating righteousness that reason finds its 'purpose,' not just in 'liberating' the 'drive' of sensuousness from the restraints of righteousness alone, but also in reasoning 'discovering' (coming to know, i.e. gnosis) itself as well. If, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the restraining of sensuousness by righteousness engenders reasoning, the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of dialectic 'reasoning' is to 'discover' itself in the praxis of reasoning negating righteousness in social action (in praxis), i.e. not only in his "theory" (in the individual's philosophy, i.e. in his opinion, i.e. in his human reasoning) but also in his "practice" (in his social action, i.e. in his "'normal' human behavior"), i.e. not only in man's thoughts (in his "ought's") but also in his social actions (in his "can's" i.e. "we can" attitude). Therefore, whenever believers (those made righteous in Christ) stand silent in the midst of unrighteousness (especially in the church), fearing "the rejection of men," i.e. refusing to suffer with Christ, choosing instead the "the approval of man," i.e. following after the pleasures of the scribes and Pharisees rather than choosing "the approval of God," i.e. following after Christ, who obeying His Heavenly Father in all things, even unto death, they praxis the dialectic process, i.e. they negate righteousness (negate the father's authority to rule over and judge/chasten his children according to His will) as the issue of life, i.e. 'justifying' their praxis as being necessary for the 'good' of society, i.e. for the 'good' of the institution, i.e. for the 'common' cause. The difference between the true church and the apostate church is that the former defends itself by its faith in God, i.e. in the Word of God (bringing no physical harm to man only conviction by the work of the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit), the changed heart of man thereby changing the world, while with the latter the church defends the "faith," i.e. the church, using force (violence), i.e. the power of government (the state) to 'change' the world, making it subject to its "control."
Nowhere in the gospel is there a message for believers to use force (violence) for the defense of the faith or to protect the church. Force is used to protect the right of the citizens, i.e. to protect life, i.e. the right of family and the right of fellowship or not to fellowship (freedom of the conscience). Force is only in the hands of the state to either recognize and protect the right to fellowship and the right not to fellowship (the right of the father to raise his family according to his belief's, the right of the father to chastening his children for their disobedience to his will) which limits the power of government (majority vote and a representative, according to private convictions, form of government), or to negate it's (the right to fellowship and not to fellowship and the families) right to be autonomous from the state (no longer recognizing the fellowship and the family being under God, i.e. top-down, but instead being under man, i.e. equal), making it subject to the reasoning of man, i.e. serving the 'purpose' of the state, i.e. serving society (sensuousness reasoning over and against righteousness), which empowers the government to be tyrannical over the citizens (authoritarian or totalitarian). Under the former, righteousness affects the state (the heart of man is changed, now made subject to that which is not of his spontaneous sensuousness), under the latter, the state negates righteousness (the heart of man remains unchanged, subject to his natural inclinations of unrighteousness). It is only through dialectic 'reasoning' that the "church's" control of the state (of society) or the state's (societies) control of the "church" can be "justified," (both becoming "one" in 'purpose,' both leadership and followers remaining subject to the cause of sensuousness) with neither one being of God, i.e. of His righteousness.
Tolerance of ambiguity (unrighteousness, i.e. 'justifying' human nature through human reasoning, dialoguing opinions to a consensus) is an abomination. Apart from fearing God and loving His Word you won't see it that way. Apart from the light of God's Word (His Word alone), you will defend your fear of man (your love of this world) and your love of men's opinions, (your fear of "the rejection of men") i.e. justifying the dialoguing of men's opinions ('justifying' your sensuousness and reasoning abilities) over and against the preaching and teaching of God's Word as is (justified by His righteousness).
Dialectic "trickery" is to seduce, deceive, and manipulate you into believing that you can have it both ways, i.e. synthesize preaching and teaching the Word of God and dialoguing men's opinions to know ('discover') the truth. In truth (according to God's Word) it is an either-or, i.e. righteousness is either of God (in His Word) or of man (in your opinions). To esteem your opinion (man's opinions) as being equal to God's word is to reject righteousness (and therefore your sinfulness and need to repent before the Lord, dying to/denying yourself daily) as the issue of life. To esteem the opinions of men is to make your own sensuousness (and therefore the negation of righteousness) the issue of life. Apart from fearing God and loving His Word above all things, you won't see it that way, i.e. you won't see it. 2 Corinthians 6:14-18
For example: How this fits in with politics is that believers (at least they call themselves such), for the sake of fighting government encroachment upon their God given inalienable rights, put aside or ask others to put aside (suspend for the 'moment') the message of righteousness, so that they can work with the "community," i.e. the unsaved, i.e. so as not to offend those who they "need" to work with in fighting for a "common cause." "Believers," by setting aside righteousness as the issue of life (so that "they" can "win" the day, i.e. "win" the cause), do the dialectic process, making the cause of sensuousness ("the approval of men") more important in the 'moment' than the cause of righteousness ("the approval of God"). "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." Mark 8:36-38 It is those who call themselves believers (who are in or seeking any office of authority), who have set aside righteousness as the issue of life (the issue of righteousness is what limits the corrupting power of government), that has made America the wicked nation that it is. A nation which is now promoting wickedness around the world (even doing so in "the name of the Lord"―"church growth," "emergent church," etc, using dialectic 'reasoning' for the praxis of social 'change').
We wondered how the German people could have embraced the ideology of Fascism and the Russian people could have embrace the ideology of Communism while we are doing the very same thing, using the cause of society, i.e. the society of men (sensuousness, i.e. the 'good' of society―'justified' dialectically, i.e. "rationally" for a national or a global cause) as the standard for determining right from wrong (they are both of the same paradigm, man using reasoning to 'justify' his sensuousness over and against the righteousness of God―the Marxist would disagree, thinking that because their cause is universal, i.e. global, not particular, i.e. national, their praxis is difference and better, when in the end it is not, i.e. it is the same, i.e. the negation of righteousness, i.e. the negation of the right of the individual before God above man, by making man God, i.e. sensuousness not righteousness the issue of life, i.e. 'justifying' the taking {negating, termination, aborting} of life, for the "betterment of society," i.e. for the "greater 'good'").
While righteousness deals with the soul of man (life, i.e. eternal life therefore being sacred) sensuousness deals with the flesh of man (pleasure, i.e. the "enjoyment" of this life being sacred). Reasoning made subject to righteousness (the Father determining what is right and what is wrong) restrains the sensuousness (carnality) of man while reasoning "engendered" from man's sensuousness (right and wrong determined from sensuousness) 'justifies' and therefore 'liberates' the sensuousness (carnality) of man from the restraints of righteousness. Whether it be the killing of a race or an unborn child for the cause of society or for an institution or for the "good" life (whoever determines what that might be), the "betterment of society" outweighs the value of life itself, i.e. supersedes the fact that man is created in the image of God, i.e. eternal, every soul being therefore accountable for his thoughts and his actions to the righteousness of God. All actions (praxis) taken by government controlled through dialectic 'reasoning' (controlled by departments run by consensus rather than by men directed by their conscience) follows down the same pathway, the pathway of the oppression of the righteous (persecution of the individual, i.e. the oppression of the soul, i.e. the one under the Father's authority) for the sake of the sensuous (for the pleasures of "the children of disobedience"), i.e. propagating the idea (democratic ideology) that iniquity (the judgment and condemnation of unrighteousness by righteousness) is the cause of inequity, i.e. that righteousness, a top-down system, engenders discontentment, i.e. disharmony, i.e. antithesis between men seeking after sensuousness and men seeking after righteousness. In this way the soul of man (righteousness, i.e. justification by God being the issue of life) is replaced with the "psycho-motor" of man (sensuousness and human reasoning, i.e. "self-social justification" by man being the issue of life).
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;" Romans 1:18 The truth is there for all to see, but in the vanity and envy of man's heart (his love of his own sensuousness and reasoning abilities, i.e. his use of dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' himself, i.e. his praxis) he, as a "child of disobedience" is blinded to its source and cause (blinded to God, his Heavenly Father of righteousness, being the source of life and His glory being the "because" or 'purpose' of life), is like the devil, using that which from God ("For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." 1 Corinthians 10:26) for his own selfish and foolish (sensuous) gain.
By 'justifying' yourself as being 'righteous,' i.e. 'justifying' your own and others sensuousness and your own and others reasoning abilities through "group approval," you 'justify' yourself in your own eyes through the eyes of your fellow man. "The self-esteem—public-esteem system is thus closely related to the concept of group cohesiveness ["self-esteem―public-esteem" is man's lust for "the approval of men" and his fear of "the rejection of men"]. We have said that the degree of group's influence on self-esteem is a function of its cohesiveness." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy) Bracketed information added. "Only by bringing out the child's own ideas [opinions] in dialogical and dialectical settings [in an environment of sensuousness and human reasoning, an environment freed of fatherly restraint, an environment which initiates and sustains self-social justification] can the child begin to reconstruct and progressively transcend concepts [negate righteousness, be 'emancipated' from the father's authority, justify his predisposition toward "disobedience" and unrighteousness, i.e. his propensity to deceitfulness, wickedness, and covetousness]." (Richard Paul, Critical Thinking Handbook) Bracketed information added. "For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth. The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts." Psalms 10:3, 4 "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5 "Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin:" Isaiah 30:1 "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:5 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12
That is why in studying the dialectic process you will not be allowed to evaluate "the process" in the light of the Word of God, which would condemn it, or the Word of God is 'changed' (extrapolated, rearranged, re-defined, interpreted in a way to please man, treated as an opinion amongst opinions for the 'purpose' of dialogue, i.e. making God and His word subject to human reasoning―as all contemporary bibles are, having been translated from the heresy documents of Metzger, Aland, Nestle Greek texts, Greek heresy texts based upon the gnostic works of the heretic Origin, aka Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus אּ, Codex X, etc. and Alexandrian, i.e. all is becoming one, i.e. "God begetting God," Greek texts for the 'purpose' of engendering uncertainty, confusion, and dialogue in the church; read hyperlink above regarding "the Word of God"), i.e. evaluated through dialectic 'reasoning' and made into another opinion amongst opinions (there is no condemnation, conviction, or call to repentance in an opinion, i.e. in uncertainty) so as not to expose, evaluate, and condemn "the process," i.e. expose and condemn it for what it is, i.e. the way of the world, i.e. the way of unrighteousness, i.e. the way of Genesis 3:1-6 "resolving" Romans 7:14-25 by negating Hebrews 12:5-11 (human reasoning 'justifying' "human nature," thus "resolving" the issue of man's sinful nature, i.e. the sinful nature of human behavior by negating righteousness, i.e. negating righteousness as being the issue of life). Instead of fighting against faith and righteousness, show those of faith and righteousness how to use human reasoning (dialectic 'reasoning' of self-social-worldly justification) to defend their faith and they will lose their faith and their righteousness, "enjoying" life as they do it in the dialectic praxis of consensus, i.e. 'discovering' oneness in 'drive' and in 'purpose,' i.e. in sensuousness and human reasoning, which is of man, negating righteousness, which is of God alone).
'Righteousness,' according to dialectic 'reasoning', is attainable by man through his own works in, with, and for the world, i.e. "self-perfection of the human individual is fulfilled in union with the world in pleasure." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History). That union is only made possible, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' through the dialoguing of opinions amongst two or more parties, all parties 'discovering' oneness (common ground, i.e. "truth") upon that which they all have ("sense perceive" as having) in common with one another, upon that which is of sensuousness, of themselves, i.e. of their own feelings and thoughts, uniting upon that which "makes sense" (has "perceptual" understanding) to all participants, through the praxis of consensus, i.e. through the praxis of 'justifying' (liberating man from the "judgmentalism" and condemnation of righteousness), thus utilizing the "old man" of lies (man becoming "good" by initiating and sustaining a "good" environment, an environment of "enjoyment," for the "goodness," "enjoyment" of man) to unite the world through the praxis which all men have in common, i.e. a world built upon man's sinful "human nature." If light (righteousness) is not allowed in the room, then no man can see darkness (unrighteousness) for what it is, man (through his use of dialectic 'reasoning') glorifying himself. Again: If righteousness (light) is not allowed in the room, then no man can see it (himself and his use of dialectic 'reasoning') for what it is, unrighteousness (darkness) glorifying itself. Man, through his use of dialectic 'reasoning,' negates righteousness so that he can glorify himself alone.
The truth is, we are to "put on the new man." We are to be "renewed in knowledge after the image of" God who created us. "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds [praxis]; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." Colossians 3:9, 10 The word "deeds," as used above in Colossians 3:9 is, in the Greek, the word "praxis." The "new world order" is a world of dialectic 'reasoning,' a world made up of "the old man," i.e. a world of lies, where opinions are treated as "truth" (where uncertainty is regard as "reality" and ambiguity is treated as "truth") and belief is treated as an opinion (where God's Word is treated as an opinion amongst opinions), where dialogue is "sense perceived" as being the only way for man to 'discover' the 'truth' and where the preaching and teaching of truth is "sense perceived" as being a barrier to man coming to "know," i.e. 'discover' the "truth," i.e. with "gnosis" or a "sense perception" of "truth," i.e. man's "sense experience," being the only "truth"), with man subject only to his own love of sensuousness (man's "sensuous needs," "sense perception," "sense experience," and 'reasoning' abilities being the only catalyst for knowing the truth). It is a world void of the "old world order," i.e. a world where man was still subjected to the preaching and teaching of righteousness i.e. with man being "renewed" in the image of God (God who created him), i.e. "renewed" in His righteousness. In soviet Russia, the citizens were (are) allowed to keep their belief in God as long as they kept (keep) it private, i.e. they did (do) not bring righteousness up in public, making it an issue of life, exposing man's deceitful and wicked heart. But all citizens could (can) "propagate" dialectic 'reasoning,' which evaluates all things (including God's Word and those who believe in it) through the lens of dialectic 'reasoning, i.e.' Godlessness (sensuousness and human reasoning), under the guise of being academic, being rational, being understanding and "caring." This is America today, with even the "churches" doing it (putting the "old man" and his lies into praxis), even doing so in the "name of the Lord"―the lie being that man is basically "good," i.e. 'righteous' in his own eyes. In the dialectic 'fellowship,' man does not need a savior, i.e. someone to redeem him from his sinful human nature and from God's judgment upon it, i.e. judgment upon him for his use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. for 'justifying' himself according to the "light" of the world, since the "light" of the world (enlightenment, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning') is the only way that he can think and act, i.e. make himself "good" in his own eyes, i.e. in the eyes of the world. "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Luke 11:35
Many quotations from the men who promoted dialectic 'reasoning' will follow throughout the articles, but a few quotations, for the purpose of clarity, are necessary here. The Marxists, J. L. Moreno, i.e. the "father of role-playing," defined it in this way: "A meeting of two: eye to eye, face to face. And when you are near I will tear your eyes out [your carnal lustful eyes out] and place them inside of mine, and you will tear my eyes out [my carnal lustful eyes out] and will place them inside of yours, then I will look at you with your eyes and you will look at me with mine [and we will have common-ism AKA communism] ." (J. L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive) The Marxist Jürgen Habermas explained it as "recognizing oneself in the other," 'justifying' the dialectic process as being necessary if man was to liberate himself from "the Biblical curse of necessary labor," i.e. "Do what I tell you to do or else," i.e. as the result of sin (get rid of the top-down system and you get rid of sin, i.e. in dialectic 'reasoning' the top-down system is sin). Jürgen Habermas wrote: "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." "Therefore the dialectic of the moral life must repeat itself [sensuousness and human reasoning, i.e. man's "common needs," not righteousness, must continuously be the basis for determining what is right and what is wrong thinking and acting, in the 'moment'] until the materialist spell [the absoluteness, i.e. unchangingness of God's Word] that is cast upon the reproduction of social life, the Biblical curse of necessary labor, is broken technologically." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory) The dialectic idea being: If man can restore a common communication between himself, create a language based upon his own sensuousness and reasoning abilities (according to his own opinions), he can get back to the rebuilding of the tower of babble, thus making a name for himself he no longer needs God to rule over him, directing his steps. According to Karl Marx, dialectic 'reasoning' was necessary if man was to have "eyes which are human eyes, and ears which are human ears." (Karl Marx) God describes it as fulfilling prophecy, i.e. man closing his mind (closing his heart, ears, eyes, and understanding) to the righteousness of God, through the praxis of "esteeming" himself ("esteeming" the "enjoyment," i.e. sensuousness of the world) over and against the righteousness of God. "And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." Matthew 13:14, 15.
The dialectic process (the 'justifying' of man's fallen nature as being "normal human behavior") is anathema to the gospel (the good news that sensuous, carnal, sinful man is redeemed by faith, restored to a right, i.e. righteous relationship with the Father, a relationship only attainable through the atoning work of God's only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, who fulfilled all righteousness, reconciling man to God the Father by His righteousness, i.e. God the Father requiring man to be perfect as He is perfect, i.e. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:45, thus making righteousness unobtainable by man, in and of himself). Therefore man needs a savior, i.e. someone to impute righteousness to him, according to his faith in God's Word, that God, the creator, would receive all the glory. Therefore righteousness is not attainable to man, by his physical and mental efforts, i.e. according to his works, i.e. according to sight (by human sensuousness and human reasoning), with man, the created , receiving the glory which is only due to God the creator (who is of righteousness). This provokes the lust and pride of man, revealing his evil heart by his turning to dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' his carnal nature, i.e. his love of the world. Dialectic 'reasoning' thus making man an enemy of God. "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4
This is why no "respectable professor" ("Christian professors" included) will expose (or dares expose) the dialectic process for what it really is, i.e. the way of unrighteousness, i.e. the paradigm of abomination in his classes (or "his" church). He would lose his respect as a "professional." He would lose his job. This is why you will never study the dialectic process in the light of God's word, in any arena of "higher education," including "Christian" schools, colleges, universities, and even the church (which is now using it to "grow" itself). Disguised as being "academics," i.e. the advancement of "higher education" it is instead a method of seduction, deception, and manipulation, as used in Genesis 3:1-6 to 'liberate' man from the restraints of righteousness. True science evaluates nature through experimentation to 'discover' the laws established in them by God. "So called science," 2 Timothy 6:20, uses the same method on man, except that the theoretical aspects of science, i.e. opinions, theories, speculations, are applied to and engendered from the ever-changing "feelings" of man, i.e. his "affective domain," rather than the established laws of nature, which skews all outcomes from being facts based to being opinion based. All evaluation ends upon in the direction of sensuousness, establishing "truth" upon the ever-changing pleasure vs. pain spectrum of sensuousness, with human reasoning being taken captured to human "felt" needs, i.e. carnal "lusts." The dialectic process is therefore used to sanitize all observations and outcomes of righteousness, making man subject only to the carnal laws of his flesh. Calling it academics, when in truth it is the praxis of negating righteousness as the issue of life, the "children of disobedience," i.e. those of unrighteousness disguise themselves as being "intellectuals" when in truth they are "emotionals," having been taken captive to the worship of sensuousness, "lusting" after their own flesh, i.e. "enjoying" themselves "enjoying" the world, loving the world instead of God, they are taking all they can with them down the dialectic pathway of death. Bring righteousness into an "academic" class of "so called science" (including a contemporary "bible study") and you will find out how dedicated to human opinions, Godlessness, i.e. i.e. worldliness, i.e. humanism, i.e. antichrist, its 'drive' and its 'purpose' is. Prepare yourself to know more about the dialectic process then the "professors" (or "Christian ministers") know, want to know, or dare to know. Just know this: the truth sets you free. It liberates you (from promotion, your job, your next term in office, respect with your relatives and neighbors, good grades, ... approval by the world).
While the "earthly father" uses the system of Righteousness (faith, belief, obedience, and chastening), a system which requires giving commands to be followed without question, i.e. commands which go counter to the natural inclinations of human nature (inhibiting or blocking the impulses of the 'moment') and justifies his use of chastening upon those who disobey him, i.e. chastening those who follow after the system of sensuousness and not after the system of Righteousness, his use of the system of Righteousness (to initiate and sustain order) does not make him righteous in and of himself. It only prepares all to know of and accept the system of Righteousness which is of God (a top-down order of the so called "old" world order, i.e. not of the "equality" order of the so called "new" world order), and recognize (become cognizant of) His righteous, which can only be received (imputed) to man because of his faith in God (in the Lord Jesus Christ). The dialectic 'reasoning' being: get rid of the system of Righteousness and you get rid of faith. Jesus asked the question "Will there by faith...." knowing of man's propensity toward "self justification," i.e. his predisposition to dialectic 'reasoning,' knowing of its intoxicating effect upon man, using it to 'justify' himself, his love of his flesh, his love for "enjoyment," his love of "the approval of men," his love of the world. This is why Jesus responded to us and our use of dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' ourselves before men (including those of our own household) with such straight forward response, i.e. with such strong words. "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross [be willing to reject "the approval of men" and be willing to accept "the rejection of men"], and come after me, cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26, 27 Bracketed information added for clarity; "He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal." John 12:25.
You can not do (praxis) the dialectic process (used to build human relationship with the world―being used to "grow" the "church") and keep your faith in the Lord. With the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning' (making human relationship building the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of life) you can only keep your "faith" in a "so called Lord Jesus Christ," i.e. a Jesus of your own making, of your own understanding, of your own human perception and nature (of men's opinions), i.e. a Fatherless Christ (anointed of men and not of the Father), an antichrist―a Jesus (savior) tolerant of ambiguity (tolerant of immorality, i.e. tolerant of deviancy, i.e. tolerant of 'change'), a Christ of unrighteousness, a Christ of abomination. Through your praxis of dialectic 'reasoning' (through your participation in the consensus process) you have placed your hope in the augmentation of the pleasures of this life (in your "enjoyment" of the 'moment' of sensuousness) not in the blessed hope of the glory of God the Heavenly Father and His only begotten son, Jesus Christ, who came (in obedience to His Heavenly Father―even unto death), to redeem us from our unrighteousness and reconcile us through His righteousness unto His Heavenly Father, restoring our relationship with His (our) Heavenly Father through His righteousness (not through our sensuousness and human reasoning, lest any man should boast).
While the "earthly father" is not in and of himself perfect, his office (the system of Righteousness; requiring faith, belief, obedience, and chastening for disobedience), given to him by God, is. One of several differences between our Heavenly Father and our earthly father is that it is only through the righteousness of Christ that we can be "reconciled" to our Heavenly Father, i.e. that we can come to know true righteousness, i.e. righteousness which is not of the world. But to know the righteousness of Christ you must accept the system of Righteousness. Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. seducers, deceivers, and manipulators, know that by getting rid of, i.e. negating the system of Righteousness, negating the father's authority to give commands and chasten those who disobey him (who are under his authority), negates faith in a higher authority other than one's natural impulses, i.e. one's spontaneous sensuousness of the 'moment' (which is not of faith, i.e. of righteousness, but of sight, i.e. of sensuousness―which all men have in common). If you can inhibit, block, or prevent the system of Righteousness from being known or accepted, you can negate righteousness from being known or accepted. Negating faith in a higher authority who restrains or blocks the impulses of the 'moment,' i.e. who inhibits the spontaneous sensuousness of human nature, negates faith as being the issue of life and thereby negates righteousness as being the issue of life.
Dialectic 'reasoning' is: instead of fighting against righteousness and faith (openly fighting against the system of Righteousness), by getting everyone to focus upon solving the crisis' of life through the use of sensuousness and sight, i.e. participate in and support the system of sensuousness through the praxis of consensus, righteousness and faith (of the system of Righteousness) will become moribund, i.e. will no longer be the issue of life (will instead be "sense perceived" as being a barrier to progress and 'change'). Thus, the true gospel (of righteousness) will be supplanted with a dialectic gospel (of sensuousness and human reasoning) making all, including the "church," an enemy of God, denying the faith (What does God want? i.e. turning to God and His Word to know the truth, i.e. knowing the right thing to do), following instead after sight (What can we do?, i.e. using feasibility studies, polls, surveys, etc, i.e. through dialogue and human opinions coming to know the 'truth,' i.e. to gnosis, as in Gnosticism, the "right" thing to do), undoing the "reconciliation" of Christ.
"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Romans 5:10 "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." 2 Corinthians 5:5, 6, 18, 19
By focusing upon the issue of sensuousness (accentuating man's need for relationship with the world―his "felt need" for or the sensation of "the approval of man," i.e. his pleasure or "enjoyment" being tied to objects of nature, imagined or real, that are gratifying to him and approving of him, objects which are from the 'immediate' sensual environment, i.e. imagined or real which stimulate dopamine emancipation, i.e. the wanting of a gratifying object in the environment which stimulated pleasure, i.e. emancipated/liberated dopamine, within the body), those of dialectic 'reasoning' (starting with the premise that man is born neither being good nor evil, i.e. that his potential for good or evil is based upon his upbringing, i.e. his education, i.e. the environment of his development shaping him into being "good" or "evil," according to the standards of "human nature") circumvent the issue of righteousness (evade the issue of man's wicked and deceitful heart and thus his need to be reconciled to God―his need for "the approval of God," i.e. an "object" which is not subject to his imagined or real "felt need" or sensuous need for gratification or approval from an object in the 'immediate' sensual environment, i.e. engendering a relationship which is not based upon the fulfillment of sensuousness, i.e. pleasure or "enjoyment" in the 'moment,' but instead is based upon a relationship which is based upon the fulfillment of righteousness, i.e. doing that which is right and not doing that which is wrong, according to a higher authority than the sensuousness of the 'moment,' i.e. not being subject to the sensuousness, i.e. natural inclination, i.e. stimulus-response impulses of the 'moment'). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the "approach pleasure-avoid pain" nature (spectrum of 'changingness') of sensuousness correlates not only with the physical pleasure and the physical pain which comes from contact with objects of nature but also with the mental and social pleasures which comes from the "approval of others" or from "approval by the environment," a relationship which is "sense perceived" as being "good" or "right," i.e. "positive," and the mental and social pain which comes from the "rejection by others" or from "rejection by the environment," a relationship which is "sense perceived" as being "evil," bad, or "wrong," i.e. "negative."
The twist in (the trickery of) dialectic 'reasoning' is that anything which does not function within the nature of sensuousness (the sensuous spectrum or continuum of "approach pleasure-avoid pain," i.e. the source of pleasure being "good" and the source of pain being "evil"), i.e. that inhibits or blocks sensuousness from finding oneness with-within nature, which functions by and for "unnatural" causes (where "good" is not based upon the sensuousness of "enjoyment" and "evil" is not based upon the sensuousness of "missing out on 'enjoyment,'" but rather good and evil is based upon doing that which is right and not doing that which is wrong according to a higher authority than nature, i.e. according to a higher authority, i.e. the creator, than nature, the created―the creator and the created not being "equal" in nature), is "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant" regarding the "morals and ethics," i.e. the "purpose" of life, since the pleasure-pain spectrum (the worth of the day being based upon the amount of pleasure vs. the amount of pain a person experiences during the day) is all that man has, regarding his "human nature." Therefore when right and wrong are based upon conditions which do not correlate with nature (are not based upon "stimulus-response" and therefore are not 'scientifically' "observable and definable" Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book 1 Cognitive Domain), they are "sense perceived" as being "irrational," and, therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' they are to be considered as being ''irrelevant,' especially when it comes to determining what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong, what is moral and what is ethical (ethics and morals being situations, i.e. where values always need clarification, i.e. sanitization from the effects of righteousness, through dialectic 'reasoning' in the "light" of the situation), what is beautiful and and what is just, etc in the 'moment.'
All segments of society, from the home to the top branches of government, by using dialectic 'reasoning' to solve personal-social problems (solve personal-social crisis), are being taken captive by/to the praxis of abomination. Making "human nature" the standard whereby to measure right from wrong, good from evil, negates righteousness (at least in the "sense perception" of man, i.e. man is blinded to and hostile towards the conditions of righteousness), makes man only subject to the laws of his own nature, i.e. the laws of unrighteousness and sin. It is in this praxis that all men are becoming "equal," losing their souls (their inalienable rights) to the process of death ("human rights"), i.e. like boarding the Titanic, which 'in the moment' "seems to be" a trip of a lifetime, is in the end, a trip which is leading to death. "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12
An example of dialectic 'reasoning' being used on men and women for the 'purpose' of social 'change' is best shown by the use of abortion to that end (the negation of the traditional family, the negation of the source and foundation of nationalism, and the negation of the resistance to 'change.' Although the bodies of men are different than the bodies of women, i.e. both bodies are designed by God for the purpose of procreation (initiating and sustaining a "top-down" system of authority with righteousness, not sensuousness, being the issue of life), according to dialectic reasoning, the commonality of both bodies, i.e. the desire to approach pleasure and the desire to avoid pain, by not only men and women but also by children, are in actuality the 'purpose' of life (initiating and sustaining a system of "equality" with sensuousness, not righteousness, being the issue of life―Hegel perceived husband, wife, and child as one in nature thereby negating righteousness, a top-down system, as an issue of life). Therefore from birth on, men and women (and children) have only one 'purpose,' according to dialectic 'reasoning,' and that is the "enjoyment" of "sexuality," i.e. "the pursuit of pleasure obtained through the activity of any and all organs of the human body," with procreation being an option determined by environmental conditions and social needs, where procreation is to be controlled for social causes, i.e. for "population control," with no control over the pleasures of "sexuality" itself (in any way, shape, or form, i.e. providing that all parties "consent," i.e. that is that "no one is hurt," whatever that means, "in the 'moment'," and that individual-social needs are being met).
For example, regarding the racist agenda of abortion, for the sake of creating a "healthy" society in the minds of dialectic practitioners, Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood), in a letter to Gamble (founder of the "Negro Birth Control Committee," AKA "the Negro Project," i.e. pushing Eugenics* on "the colored"―with the expressed 'purpose' of a racist agenda, i.e. hate of the black home, disquiets as caring for "the people," as stated in its preamble: "The mass of Negroes, particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the [population] increase among Negroes...is from that portion...least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear children properly."), Sanger wrote: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." (Letter, Sanger to Clarence Gamble, 19 October 1939, Sanger Collection, Smith College, cited in Linda Gordon, Women's Body, Women's Right: Birth Control in America) Gamble responded with: "There is great danger that [the project] will fail because the Negroes think it a plan for extermination. Hence let's appear to let the colored run it...." (Gamble memo, undated but probably November or December 1939, Sanger Collection, Smith College, cited in Linda Gordon, Women's Body, Women's Right: Birth Control in America, op cit, p. 329) *"The application of such a selective breeding program to human populations would require policies for 'positive eugenics,' designed to increase the numbers of children of the healthy, the intelligent, and those with strong moral character; and for 'negative eugenics,' designed to reduce the numbers of children of the unhealthy and of those with low intelligence and weak moral character." (Eugenics: Eugenics, A Reassessment, Richard Lynn, Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence, Seymour W. Itzkoff, Series Editor) The biotechnology of eugenics is another wicked 'purpose' of this money making 'profession.' Government leadership, under the influence of dialectic 'reasoning,' will do all in their power to initiate and sustain such projects, disguising it under titles and departments associated with promoting "health care," done for the "good" of the "masses."
Realizing that the deaths which governments have committed, supporting the killing of hundreds of millions of people, i.e. children, i.e. unborn, around the world, innocent people not give the chance to see the light of day, and the misery experienced by the parents of those dead children, who killed their own children through the dialectic praxis of abortion for the sake of personal-social "pleasure," has been 'justified' through the use of dialectic 'reasoning.' Therefore there is much hate in the hearts of men, "repressed" hate against being exposed and judged for participating in such evil deeds, that now permeates the American culture, waiting to be "channeled" for some social cause. Those of dialectic 'reasoning' will do all they can to channel that hate to the negation of the patriarchal paradigm, the traditional family, i.e. to the negation of the system of righteousness, covering their hate against righteousness with the banner "for the good' of 'the people.'" Abomination now reigns in a culture which at one time, though at first oppressed by slavery and then oppressed by men who were slaves to hate and prejudice, still had family pride, but now "freed," has little if any family pride, i.e. the American black family (or the family of any race) no longer has a husband who rules his home well, in the fear of the Lord, with the wife's heart desires being to her husband (Ephesians 5:22-33, 6:4), submitting to him in her love of the Lord, and their children obeying their parents, in the Lord. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." Ephesians 6:1-3
As you can see, it is not going well for the black family of America. 40 trillion dollars, filtered through dialectic hands, will not better a cultures life, i.e. strengthening the father, his home, and his business, it will only do the opposite, i.e. negate the father's authority, his home, and his business, for the sake of developing the kingdom of sensuousness, i.e. the kingdom of abomination (as in Sodom), for "equality" for the masses of unrighteousness. "Equality of Opportunity becomes ever greater with the weakening of family power." (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society) "Once uncertainty is created in the parent how best to prepare the child for the future, the authoritarian family is moribund [the father no longer rules over his family once he becomes fearful of what "the authorities" will do to him for chastening his children when they disobey his orders], regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken." "The state, by its very interference in the life of its citizens, must necessarily undermine a parental authority which it attempts to restore." "Any non-family-based collectivity [any dialectic 'reasoning' organization or department that focuses upon the 'rights' of the child] that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a democratizing [liberalizing, i.e. the children "emancipated" from parental authority] impact on that relationship [negating the authority of the father to rule over his home, his property, and his business]. For however much the state or community may wish to inculcate obedience and submission in the child, its intervention betrays a lack of confidence in the only objects from whom a small child can learn authoritarian submission [from the parents]." "An overweening interest in the future development of the child―in other words, a child centered orientation" [destroys the traditional family]." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society) In the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning,' the "children of disobedience," by ruling over the home, rule over the neighborhood, the city, the county, the state, the nation, and eventually the nations. "The children of disobedience," those who are of dialectic 'reasoning,' those of abomination (all three being the same) then rule the world.
Unless the heart of the father and the mother are changed from sensuousness ("What can I get out of this for me?") to righteousness (What does the Lord want me to do?) the family and the nation can not be saved. "As for us, our eyes as yet failed for our vain help: in our watching we have watched for a nation that could not save us." Lamentations 4:17 Our hope and our salvation is not to be found in man or in a nation but instead is to be found in the Lord. It is only in Him, in His righteousness, that the family and the nation can be saved. At this late date, the question is "Who will listen?" "Who cares?" Like people on a drug, Americans today will not listen to the restraints of righteousness. They will only listen to those who promise them a kingdom of their own making, i.e. a "new" world order built upon man's own "lust" for sensuousness, i.e. a world filled with "enjoyment" (Hegel), i.e. a world built upon the death of the innocent, the helpless, and the unwanted who stand in the way of "progress" and 'change.'
Wilhelm Reich, regarding the 'purpose' of abortion, i.e. the destruction of the patriarchal family, wrote: "The child's and adolescent's natural love of life [the child's love of sensuousness] must be protected [from the restraints of the Fathers demands of righteousness] by clearly defined laws ["human rights" negating "inalienable rights"―inalienable rights beginning with life, then liberty, then pursuit of happiness (with happiness guided by the conscience, or of righteousness), in that order while "human rights" begins with the pursuit of happiness, then liberty, and then life (with life guided by the super-ego of sensuousness), in that order, therefore in "human rights," the right of the life of the child, and therefore its pursuit of happiness can be superseded by the mothers "right" of the pursuit of happiness, which precedes the right of the life of the child―the dialectic trickery or lie here, if you did not catch it, is where does the mothers pursuit of pleasure become greater or more important than the child's pursuit of pleasure, i.e. sucking it's thumb while in the womb, if "equality of opportunity" is the 'purpose' of life. Therefore the 'drive' and the 'purpose' for using dialectic 'reasoning,' is not for the augmentation of life but rather for the augmentation of death 'justified' through "the pursuit of pleasure"]." "Those forces in the individual and in the society that are natural and vial must be clearly separated from all the obstacles that operate against the spontaneous functioning of this natural vitality." "It is the elimination of all obstacles to freedom that has to be achieved [elimination of the Father's God given right to set standards of behavior for his children and the right to chasten them when they misbehave]." "Natural sociability and morality are present in men and women ["approach pleasure-avoid pain"]. What has to be eliminated is the disgusting moralizing [the preaching and teaching of righteousness] which thwarts natural morality and then points to the criminal impulses, which it itself has brought into being [that is: Godly righteousness "represses" carnal man's sensuousness, which triggers man's hate against righteousness, which, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' is the 'justifier' and 'savior' of man's sensuousness―the child's rage against parental restraint is the act of man delivering himself from the "repression" of righteousness and must be supported by social law's and force]." "Sexually awakened women, affirmed and recognized as such, would mean the complete collapse of the authoritarian ideology [it would negate the top-down, Father ruling, patriarchal paradigm]." "... the right of the woman to her own body [not so, as written in 1 Corinthians 7:1-6]." "The termination of pregnancy is at variance with the meaning of the family [instead of giving birth to sustain the top-down traditional family system it would declare pleasure as being the highest 'purpose' of life, thereby negating the top-down traditional family], whose task is precisely the education of the coming generation – apart from the fact that the termination of pregnancy would mean the final destruction of the large family." "The preservation of the already existing large families is a matter of social feeling; . . the large family is preserved because national morality and national culture find their strongest support in it [abortion ties directly to a political agenda, i.e. the negation of the sovereignty of nations, i.e. negating the "old" world order based upon families, for the 'purpose' of creating a "new" world order, i.e. creating a One World Government, based upon abomination]." (Wilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism) Bracketed information added. In other words, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' that which is "natural" ("sexuality," i.e. "human rights") must be 'liberated,' negating "national" (Fatherly authority, i.e. inalienable rights, under God), if world "peace" and social "harmony" is to become a "reality."
Norman Brown explained a dialectic society of licentiousness, i.e. a dialectic world of abomination in this way: "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, is a clear instance of repression; and therefore leads to neurosis ["neurosis" is the antithesis condition the Apostle Paul described in Romans 7:14-25]." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." [A culture where God fearing Fathers rule their homes, under the authority of God] "Our repressed desires are the desires we had unrepressed, in childhood [before the Fathers rules of right and wrong behavior came into the child's life]; and they are sexual desires." "What the child knows consciously and the adult unconsciously, is that we are nothing but body [born of sensuousness only]." "Infantile sexuality is the pursuit of pleasure obtained through the activity of any and all organs of the human body ["touching, seeing, muscular activity, pain, etc."]." "Sexual instincts seeks union with objects in the world." "Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world." "Eros is the foundation of morality." "Infants have a richer sexual life than adults." "Capitulation enforced by parental authority under the threat of loss of parental love . . . can be accomplished only by repression." "In man, infantile sexuality is repressed and never outgrown;" "Normal adult sexuality, judged by the standard of infantile sexuality, is an unnatural restriction of the erotic potentialities of the human body." "Therefore the question confronting mankind is the abolition of repression - in traditional Christian language, the resurrection of the body." "Freud takes with absolute seriousness the proposition of Jesus: 'Except ye become as little children, ye can in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven." " Psychoanalysis declares the fundamental bisexual character of human nature;" [Freud wrote: "In no other case does Eros so plainly betray the core of his being, his aim of making one out of many; but when he has achieved it in the proverbial way through the love of two human beings, he is not willing to go further." (Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents)] "Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic. Neurotic symptoms, with their fixations on perversions and obscenities, demonstrate the refusal of the unconscious essence of our being to acquiesce in the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower. The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious; the foundation has to be recovered." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) Bracketed information added
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' "sexuality" is physical-mental-social (dialectic) contact between men, women, and children, i.e. sexual arousal being the desired 'purpose,' i.e. the intended outcome being attraction and acceptance between all parties, in pleasure or "enjoyment." "Sexuality" is conduct which is not acceptable in a patriarchal home―where the husband rules his home will, in the Lord, the desire of the wife's heart is to her husband, in the Lord, and the children obey their parents, in the Lord, i.e. where the husband and wife are one in marriage, i.e. her body his, and his body hers, i.e. where the marriage bed is undefiled―"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." Hebrews 13:4 "Sexuality" is where pleasure or "enjoyment," i.e. the approval of a spontaneous-sensual-unrestrained relationship between men, women, and children (according to the praxis of consent), is the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life, is an act of iniquity, i.e. is abomination―the object itself, be it man, woman, or child {or anything else} is of no value or worth other than for the sensation of "sexuality" (sensual arousal or consciousness), i.e. where the physical act, which would engender procreation, is not, in itself, necessary, where a social to a mental to a physical sensation, i.e. a sensuous-spontaneous feeling of oneness, unrestrained/unrestricted by rules of righteousness, where an "orgiastic, Dionysian" experience, as Maslow called it, is experienced from the praxis, engendering a social sensual experience (awakening in the person a sensual feeling of oneness and acceptance without restraints or fear of reprisal or harm, i.e. a fear of accountability for one's thoughts or actions) is what is of value. (It is not so much the physical act itself, i.e. the desire coming to fruition, which is of importance, it is the 'drive' which engenders it, i.e. the object of gratification in the environment and the stimulation of pleasure in the persons being one and the same in the 'moment,' and the person being consciously satisfied in the experience, an experience of sensual oneness, be it another person or thing, or imagined person or thing ("lust of the heart"). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' if the 'drive,' thoughts, and actions are not natural, "free," spontaneous, unifying (lawful meaning conscious to sensuousness, lawless meaning unconscious to righteousness, i.e. rules restraining to natural inclinations are abolished in thought and in actions, i.e. in theory and in practice, thought and action unified, theory and practice synthesized), i.e. a product of individual-social-environmental relationship, then it is perceived as being "restraining," "repressive," "forced," "domineering," "oppressive," etc.)
Psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc., i.e. the 'justification' for "Child Protective Agencies" world wide, are all 'purposed' in "recovering" this "foundation on which the man of the future will be built," "recovering" it ("sexuality") through their use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the 'justification' of man's carnal sinful nature as being "normal human behavior." For such a "new" world order to become a "reality," the top-down system, i.e. the Father's authority to rule over his children and chasten them for disobedience, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the system of Righteousness (see Hebrews 12:5-11), i.e. the presumed source of "neurosis," "repression," and "alienation" must be negated. Through the use of dialogue (through the dialectic process of 'change') such a "new" world order can come into fruition, i.e. a "new" world order which was first began in a garden in Eden, i.e. Genesis 3:1-6. Although those of "enlighten" minds (dialectic 'thinkers') refuse to accept righteousness as the foundation of right and wrong, they readily support the enemy (the antithesis) of righteousness as their foundation, claiming all the while not to have a religious agenda in mind. With God it is an either-or, in dialectic 'reasoning' there is no either-or, just "another," which is the lie of deceit. "In the process of history man gives birth to himself. He becomes what he potentially is, and he attains what the serpent―the symbol of wisdom and rebellion―promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself." (Erick Fromm, You shall be as gods) "If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man can ever be redeemed by freedom [freedom from a patriarchal family and a patriarchal God, i.e. freedom from righteousness], then the 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence [making "human nature," i.e. man's sinful nature the "norm," i.e. "Man did not sin, he just 'discovered' himself"].'" (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) Bracketed information added. "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit; and this book cannot without sinning communicate that experience to the reader." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
The testimony of such a diabolical plan is plain for anyone to see, providing they are willing to look into their own deceitful and wicked heart (only possible with the light of God's Word) and admit it. The "new" world order of evil was in you already. It just needed the "prince of the power of the air" to facilitate it out of you (helping you 'justify' yourself in the 'light' of the world, i.e. enlighten you) as he did with the women in a garden in Eden. "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 3:19-21 The good news is: "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." John 3:17-18
The problem with man is that it is his nature (which is of sensuousness―which is common to all men, making him "equal," i.e. a heresiarchal paradigm of 'change') to seek after the "honour" of men (to seek after "the approval of men," i.e. doing that which "seems to be 'good' to man, thus making a name for himself) instead of seeking after "the honour that comes from God alone" (seeking after "the approval of God," i.e. doing the Father's will only, that all would be done in His name alone, i.e. in His righteousness alone―which is of God alone," with God the Father, being above man, not being equal with man, who is below, i.e. a top-down patriarchal paradigm of unchangingness). "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?" John 5:43, 44
A dialectic society is a society of abomination, i.e. a society where all thoughts and actions are "right" ('righteous') except for those thoughts and actions which inhibit or block the augmentation of spontaneous sensuousness, i.e. those thoughts and actions which are of righteousness, judging "human nature" as being sinful and unrighteous, i.e. as an abomination―the praxis of human reasoning (the dialectic process of self-social 'justification') negating righteousness as being the issue of life. Luke 16:5 This is where the "church" finds itself today, i.e. on the side of abomination. While thinking they could use the dialectic process to "grow" the church, through the praxis of building of "human relationships," "church leadership" has immersed the "church" in the system of dialectic 'reasoning," "emerging" the harlot church from the sensuous needs of "the people," i.e. becoming a "church" of immorality, i.e. becoming a "church" at-one-with the world, a "church" of abomination. The "prosperity message" has taken the "church" to the alter of "the approval of men," an alter built upon man's sensuousness, not to the alter of "the approval of God," an alter of righteousness.
Those of dialectic 'reasoning' see history as the march of mankind becoming (becoming as "God," becoming 'righteous' in. of, and for himself as he unites as One in, of, and for the world, that God, i.e. the "good" society that "can be," and man, i.e. the "human being" that is becoming, are One. "Man knows about God only in so far as God knows about himself in man;" G. W. F. Hegel) Leonard Wheat stated it clearly when he explained Paul Tillich's dialectical "christianity." "Tillich is telling those Christians who can hear that they can accept humanism without relinquishing Christianity if they will accept man as the true meaning of God." "Humanism asserts that the test of human conduct must be found in human experience; concern for man replaces concern about pleasing God. Humanism elevates man to the rank of God. Tillich's message is that God is man, mankind, humanity. Tillichian salvation is a symbol, a symbol for becoming ultimately concerned about humanity―salvation in an "eternal" present. The answer to man's predicament lies in the realization by individual man, that all men are essentially one and that the one is God. This self-realization is a "return" to union: potential becomes actual." (Leonard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God) Thus through dialectic 'reasoning,' man is 'discovering' himself through "enlightened" reasoning, i.e. becoming at-one-with the world (at-one-with nature, the universe, the cosmic forces, etc.). Thus it is only through human reasoning (opinions) being put into praxis ("theory and practice" synthesized), i.e. through the consensus process, that man can become as one, negating the preaching and teaching of righteousness, i.e. overthrowing that system which keeps man alienated from his own nature and at odds with the world.
For dialectic 'righteousness' to become a "reality," Godly righteousness must be negated through the praxis of 'emancipating' human nature, i.e. liberating man, not only from the physical, but also from the mental and the social restraints of righteousness, from the top-down order of the Father-Son relationship, through the creation of a "new" world order of unrestrained sensuousness, of the order of "equality." The truth is: history is the witness of God's love for man, i.e. His grace which He offers to lustful, greedy, envious, sinful (warring) man, who, turning from the ways of the world (from his own sensuousness) to God (to His righteousness), repents of his unrighteous thoughts and his unrighteous actions (overcoming the "belief-action" antithesis, i.e. dichotomy of Romans 7:14-25 through Jesus Christ), and who is therefore, by God's grace, redeemed from God the Father's wrath upon him, i.e. his wrath upon "a children of disobedience," through his faith in God, i.e. with Jesus Christ redeeming him to the Father-Son relationship, and the Holy Spirit revealing to, within, and through him that relationship, a relationship of righteousness and love―redeeming sinful man from his relationship with the world, a world of sensuousness and hate, a world deceiving man into believing that his love is "good" when in actuality it is full of vanity and pride, i.e. full of deceitfulness and wickedness, i.e. full of hate, i.e. a hate of righteousness). Bring righteousness up in a "group" learning to put dialectic 'reasoning' into praxis and you will experience the "divine spark" of the enlightened mind, i.e. the spirit of hate (disguised as counseling, i.e. "having your best interest in mind"). Dialectic 'reasoning,' makes the law of the sin of the flesh, i.e. that which is of sensuousness, 'i.e. that which drives' man to be at-one-with the world, "good," and therefore the law of God, i.e. that which is of God's righteousness, i.e. that which separates man from the world, evil, thus making man's emancipation from God, i.e. man's "redemption" from God's righteousness, the 'purpose' of life (helping the lawless one to "emerge" from the heart of "the people"). Emancipation thus lies in the individual becoming at-one-with society (through dialoguing the opinions of men) and not in an individual being at-one-with God (through the preaching and teaching of the cross).
When you scratch the surface of man's love, you get hate, for man is flesh (of sensuousness). When you scratch the surface of God's love, you get love, for God is spirit (of righteousness). Our Heavenly Father sent His only begotten Son to take on the form of a man and to die on a cross to cover our sins, to show us His love (experiencing not only physical pain but also mental and social pain, i.e. the rejection of men). He then sent His Holy Spirit to fill us with His love, i.e. the love of the Father, who sent His only begotten Son to die for us, commanding Him to obey His will to the death, as well as the love of the Son for the Father, obeying His Father's commands even to death, both Father and Son equal, in the same Spirit of love (love which is not of man's love which hates, i.e. hates to obey commands which lead to pain, i.e. leads to "the rejection of men," and hates to obey commands which lead away from pleasure, i.e. leads away from "the approval of men." Consensus is based upon man's love of "the approval of men" and man's hate of "the rejection of men"). Consensus is not of God. Confirmation, which agrees with God's Word, is. "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." Titus 2:11-14
Refusing to recognize the deceitfulness and wickedness of his own heart, i.e. the sinfulness of his own nature (perceiving himself, i.e. his "human nature" to be "good" or "right," i.e. 'righteous' in his own eyes, according to his own "ought's"―which is always "good" in his own perception), the dialectic minded man ("enlightened" man) refuses to accept his need to repent, thus rejects Jesus Christ as his savior (his only way of salvation). Jesus' response to the "enlightened" man's attitude of "self-social-'justification,'" i.e. man 'justifying' himself before himself as 'righteousness' in and of himself, is: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Luke 5:32 "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." John 8:24 Without accepting the truth that you are wicked in your unrighteous thoughts and your unrighteous action and repent of your unrighteousness, accept Jesus Christ (he who is righteous) as your savior, saving you from His Father's wrath upon you for your sins (saving you from his judgment upon your unrighteousness), "you will die in your sins." If you don't start with righteousness as being the issue of life, you can not see above your own sensuous, carnal, fallen, sinful nature, 'justifying' it through your use of dialectic 'reasoning,' with the whole world supporting you in your praxis.
In dialectic 'thinking' there is a direct tie between the top-down system of our Heavenly Father and our earthly father. Hegel, believing that since, according to him, the father, mother, and children were equal in nature, i.e. all the same in sensuousness and human reasoning, the father (God) had not right over his wife, his children, his property, his land, his business, etc. (God has no right over his own creation once He created it), in that they were all of "universality," i.e. that they were all "equal," i.e. One in nature. Therefore "morals and ethics" (words of social behavior, addressing human sensuousness and human reasoning and not words from the scriptures which instead addresses righteousness) can not come from the Father's preaching and teaching of rules and commands to be obeyed as given (using "morals and ethics" instead of righteousness means the Father's, i.e. God's commands and therefore His authority can be questioned in the "light" of man's social "needs"), but can only come from all the people 'discovering' their commonality with one another through dialogue (through human reasoning), uniting as one in social action, i.e. in praxis (Karl Marx), thereby negating the father's (God's) right to chasten his children (judge man) when they were disobedient or wrong, (have sinned, i.e. are wicked, i.e. are unrighteous). Quotes by Hegel will follow.
While we, as believers, are to "call no man Father on the earth, for one is your Father which is in Heaven," we still recognize the office of and honour our earthly fathers (just not as a God, i.e. the one with the final authority, i.e. final word and judgment). What makes them the same (the Heavenly Father and the earthly father) is the system which they use to create order (hypothetically the "old" world order), i.e. the authority of the father to make rules for and give commands to his children and chasten them when they break them or disobey. While our earthly fathers definitely are not perfect (as God our Heavenly Father is perfect), generally speaking, some are downright wicked (tyrants), thinking they are the office themselves, i.e. using the office of authority for themselves, not knowing that they are in an office of authority given by God, i.e. under God's authority (therefore able to admit their failures and sins to God, before their family, without the fear of loss of office, being humble before God, submitted to His will, loving, directing, serving, and protecting his family―living in "the tents of Shem"), preparing the next generation to honor a higher authority than their own sensuous impulses of the 'moment' (not becoming an absent, permissive, abusive, self-seeking, or tyrannical father when they grow up). We can not obey our Heavenly Father, doing His will, without the righteousness of Christ (being dead to ourselves and alive in Christ), and the power of the Holy Spirit. The first thing we have to admit, daily, is that we can not do it, i.e. do the Father's will (be perfect that is). Our Heavenly Father's will can be fulfilled in us and through us only by his directing, i.e. only by His Word and His Holy Spirit (according to his righteousness), and can not be fulfilled according to our strengths, talents, and reasoning abilities (according to our sensuousness), that He would receive all the glory.
Without the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the father's authority to give commands to his children, along with his authority to chasten them when they disobey him, producing a "guilty conscience" (the system of the so called "old" world order), all you have is the matriarchal paradigm of "everyone doing their own thing" (having "positive feelings") along with having a "guilty conscience" (along with having "negative feelings") or the heresiarchal paradigm, where "the children of disobedience" (the system of the so called "new" world order) unite in negating the patriarchal paradigm (united in negating the source of the "negative feelings," i.e. negate the Father's authority to give commands and chasten for disobeying them―"the negation of negation," i.e. negating the Father's authority of "negativity") so that everyone can do "their own thing" (have "positive feelings") without having a "guilty conscience" whatsoever (without having "negative feelings" exuding negativity on others). In this way, in negating the top-down system of the patriarchal paradigm, "the children of disobedience," i.e. those of the heresiarchal paradigm of 'change,' can consider themselves as God, 'righteous' in their own eyes. Thus, doing what is "good" for society, i.e. making society or the group "feel good," makes a man "good," i.e. makes him "feel good."
Through the pain of chastening (experiencing "the disapproval of the Father" as a result of disobeying Him―disobeying the one above) and the pleasure of blessing (experiencing "the approval of the Father" as a result of obeying Him―obeying the one above) the pleasure of "the approval of men" (satisfying the many below) and the pain of "the rejection of men" (disappointing the many below) is limited or blocked (does not influence or control a person's thoughts or actions). Through chastening, the person becomes more loyal to the patriarch (the Father―the one), and his commands, than to the desires of the heresiarch ("the children of disobedience"―the many), and their "lusts." The 'drive' and the 'purpose' of dialectic 'reasoning' is the negation of the Father's authority (the patriarch and His righteousness) so "the children of disobedience" (the heresiarch and their "righteousness") can follow their natural inclination (sensuousness unrestrained by righteousness). The 'purpose of dialectic 'reasoning,' is to augment the pleasures which come from the world, of "the children of disobedience" below (of sensuousness―of "positivity" to the flesh) and to attenuate or negate the "pain" which comes from the "other" world, of the Father above (of righteousness―of "negativity" to the flesh). From then on, the pleasures of "the approval of men" and the pain of "the rejection of men" controls the thoughts and the actions of men rather than the pleasure which comes from obedience, i.e. from the Father's blessings (pleasing the Father), and the pain which comes from disobedience, i.e. from the Father's chastening (disappointing the Father). "Philosophy as theory [the children's opinions] . . . establishes the basis of its reality as praxis [the "righteousness" of human nature, 'justified' through "human reasoning," i.e. through dialectic 'reasoning,' being put into social action]; it serves to distinguish it from religion [the righteousness of the Father and His commands], the wisdom of the other world [the Father's righteousness exposing and condemning the "righteousness" of man, i.e. the deceitfulness and wickedness of "human nature"]." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') Bracketed information added.
What differs between the earthly and the Heavenly Father is that the Heavenly Father not only deals with man's physical needs, mental needs, and social needs but also deals with his soul (eternal life, an issue of righteousness) while the earthly father (as far as the children are concerned) deals only with (only affects) their physical, mental, and social needs (only affects their temporal life, an issue of sensuousness). Why money always figures in here is that as long as the Father (the patriarch) is in control of it, the children (the heresiarch) can not "do their own thing," i.e. "enjoy" life according to their own natural inclinations (have "peace," "harmony," or "enjoyment" with anything in the world) without the father's approval. If they fall out of favor with the father or are cast out by him they no longer have access to his money. Their "peace" and their "enjoyment" therefore depends upon, i.e. is limited by their obedience to him (doing his will). Therefore the objective of dialectic 'reasoning' is to gain access to the father's money, his house, his land, his business, his wife, his children, etc. (negate the father's authority) so that all can "share it equally," ("enjoy" life as children without the father's restraint)―with those in control of it being "more equal" than those who they "equally" distribute it to. The object with the Heavenly Father is not the money but the souls of men while with the earthly father it is not so much the soul but the money (although the system he uses, i.e. giving commands to be obeyed and chastening when they are not, is a procedure which deal with the soul, i.e. a top-down system of accountability to a higher authority, i.e. to a creator). The idea of "equality" does not (and can not) enter the picture. If it did, the top-down system would come under attack, and if accepting of "equality," would become moribund.
The adage: "The power to tax is the power to destroy" fits in here in that when government leans to the side of righteousness, it's authority and its power to collect taxes is limited only to those things which do not go counter to righteousness (thus supporting the top-down system of the Father, i.e. restraining sensuousness under the authority of righteousness) but when government leans to the side of sensuousness, it's authority and its power to collect taxes is increased to negate those things which are of righteousness (thus supporting the "equality" system of "the children of disobedience," i.e. 'emancipating' sensuousness from the restraints of righteousness). Life is an either-or (antithesis) situation. The deception and the lie of dialectic 'reasoning' is that there is another way, the way of dialectic 'reasoning' (synthesis), used to "better" running government, i.e. 'justifying' in the minds of the citizens the negation of the either-or way of the Father (Heavenly and earthly, i.e. both of the system of righteousness). In other words "If you don't legislate on the side of righteousness (restraining sensuousness), you'll end up legislating on the side of unrighteousness (augmenting sensuousness, over and against righteousness, i.e. augmenting the "right of the child of disobedience," to "do his own thing," over and against the "right of the parents," to "train up their children in the admonition of the Lord," i.e. doing as God does, giving His children commands to be obeyed and chastising them when they disobey). In the end there is only an either-or outcome, i.e. either the paradigm of righteousness or the paradigm of sensuousness. Thus, in a system supportive of the top-down patriarchal paradigm, taxation will be limited to only those things which will advance civility between the citizens (allowing them to function as individuals), serving and protecting the rights of the citizen, i.e. the right of the father to rule over his family, property, and business, where government is subject to his authority and his right to chasten for disobedience, i.e. with those in government fearing the citizens. In a patriarchal paradigm, the roll of government is to serve and protect the interests of the citizen (preserving and defending private interests through majority vote). But in a system supportive of the "equality," heresiarchal paradigm of 'changingness,' i.e. sensuousness, taxation will be increased to fund social programs designed to negate the right of the citizen, i.e. negate the right of the father to rule over his family, property, and business, i.e. now made subject to "community" interests and needs, with the citizens fearing those in control of their government, i.e. departments and agencies designed to oversee public-private interests for social causes, i.e. the "good" of "the people." The roll of government is from then on to serve and protect the interests of the "community" (initiating and sustaining public interest over and against private interests through the praxis of consensus). Representation is thus replaced with mediation, inalienable rights with "human rights," the system of righteousness with the system of sensuousness., the principles of the American Revolution with the principles of the French Revolution. Government is now under the control of departments, i.e. departments skilled in the art craft (trickery) of counseling the citizens and their representatives according to the way of dialectic thinking and acting (uniting "theory and practice," i.e. sensuousness, by negating belief and action, i.e. righteousness, through the praxis of consensus), making sure that all financial transaction between the citizens, in some way, shape, or form, end up supporting their (the facilitator of changes') cause of abomination.
The soul, a product of God's breath into the nostrils of a body formed out of the dust of the ground, is like nothing else in the creation since it is made by that which is not of the creation. By man looking to define himself, only according to that which is of the creation itself (which is all that man can know and do apart from God revealing Himself to him through His Word), he can not accept, much less understand that the soul of man, and therefore his every thought and action, is wholly accountable to God. Any understanding he has of his soul, according to human reasoning, makes his soul subject to the creation. Therefore man's dialectic 'logic' (his Gnosis) will always lead him to the definition of himself according to his own sensuousness, according to his daily "sense experiencing" of life himself, even his love, which he "sense perceives" as being "good," being only vain and prideful (having a love of sensuousness and not of God's righteousness). All religions of the world, including humanism, are therefore, unable to truly understand the truth that man's soul is eternally subject to God, i.e. that his soul is forever subject to God, it's creator (who is righteous) and not subject to the creation or some extra planetary force (which is of sensuousness). As the material things will pass away, that which man counts as important to life will dissolve as a vapor, yet his soul, that which is intangible to him and is therefore dismissed in dialectic 'reasoning' as being an 'illusion,' a product of "religion," is tangible to God, and will live forever, spending eternity either in heaven, i.e. in eternal life with God, or in hell, i.e. in eternal death along with the Devil, i.e. being eternally subject to God's righteousness, i.e. not man's sensuousness. With man, the object called the soul of man, is a product of his own sensuousness and reasoning, while with God, it is a product of His righteousness (not that the soul of man is righteous in and of itself, only that it is accountable to God and His righteousness, not to man and his sensuousness). All dialectic 'reasoning' therefore falsely defines man, i.e. his 'drive,' and his 'purpose,' on a lie, that lie is that life is based upon human sensuousness (human behavior, that which is subject to the creation) rather than God's righteousness (God's word, that which is from the creator).
With that said, the old adage, i.e. "follow the money trail," will tell you where dialectic 'reasoning takes all who participate in its lie. The objective of "the children of disobedience" is to gain access only of the money, i.e. the means to "enjoyment" and "peace" so that they can be (become) at-one-with the world in pleasure, their approval (access to the pleasures of the world) no longer dependent upon the Father (from the One who is above) but is dependent upon men (from the many below), who now support "the children of disobedience" who are below. Thinking that the above and the below are equal ("The money is everyone's.") negates the above ("The money is mine, not yours."). Refusing to recognize the One who is above as being greater than the many below (rejecting his right to rule over his children and therefore his money), thinking that above-below (antithesis) are equal (synthesis), i.e. that the children are equal with the Father and that the Father is equal with the children, both in sensuousness and in reasoning, i.e. equal in their dissatisfaction with righteousness, they refuse to accept the fact that the above is not equal with the below, i.e. they refuse to recognize that the Father is righteous in and of Himself and that the children are not (having to obey his commands and be chastened when they disobey, distributing his money in favor of those who obey, excluding those who refuse to obey). Therefore by rejecting the Father's right to give categorical imperatives to His children, i.e. commands to be obeyed without question, along with His right to chasten when they disobey, they are able to control how His money is to be "equally" distributed (used for their "enjoyment" of, in, and with the world). "World peace" and "social harmony," according to dialectic reasoning, can only come about when the Father can no longer rule over His family, i.e. His money, i.e. when it can be "properly" distributed amongst all of mankind (to "the children of disobedience") for the pleasures of this world. Without the negation of the Father's authority, "the children of disobedience," the deviant children, those cast out of the family because of their rebellious nature, would not have unlimited access to His money (so that they could do "their own thing," without the Father's restraint, i.e. his condemnation and judgment upon their carnal human behavior, i.e. their "lusts" and their 'self-justification,' i.e. their "pride of life").
The "if-then" of the patriarchal paradigm is "If you repent and come my way, then you can have peace," thereby maintaining a condition of the antithesis of "either-or," i.e. "Either come my way, or be judged and cast out," i.e. be rejected of the Father (be rejected of the "I AM, that I AM"). The "if-then" of the heresiarchal paradigm is "If we can put aside our differences and focus upon that which we have in common, then we can have peace," thereby initiating and sustaining a condition of the synthesis of "either-or," i.e. "Either come our way or be judged and cast out," i.e. be rejected of men (be rejected of the "I reason/think, therefore I AM" or rather "We reason/think, therefore We ARE becoming," i.e. "We working for Us"). Jesus, and the gospel, presents the patriarchal paradigm of "if-then, either-or," i.e. with repentance (turning from the things of this world, i.e. from unrighteousness and eternal death, to God, i.e. to His righteousness and eternal life; "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." Colossians 3:2. The Antichrist, and the world system, presents the heresiarchal paradigm of "if-then, either-or," i.e. with compromise, i.e. by finding common ground upon and uniting upon the things of this world, i.e. with the augmentation of pleasure/"enjoyment" and the attenuation of pain/division being the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life (turning from God, i.e. from His righteousness, to the pleasures/"enjoyment" of this world, i.e. to unrighteousness).
By excluding ("negating") God the Father (and therefore His only begotten Son who obeyed His Heavenly Father in all things, even to death) from the events of life makes the thoughts and actions of men Godless (Fatherless), i.e. lawless (where "theory and practice," i.e. where men's opinions and their unrighteous actions rule over the hearts and affairs of men. In belief-action liberty is freedom of religion, i.e. thinking and acting right to please the Father, so as to having a clear conscience before Him. In theory-practice "liberty" is freedom from religion, thinking and acting "right" for the "good" of mankind, for the community, i.e. an ever 'changing' "society of impulses and feelings and thoughts," without having the need for a "guilty conscience" which would get in the way, i.e. not being readily adaptable to 'change' (explained later).
In that "new" world order the Fatherless Christ, i.e. the lawless One, the spirit of Antichrist (the facilitator of human reasoning) rules. From then on the reference point for man's thoughts and man's actions (whether they be right or wrong) is no longer "What would my Father say," (which is rigid, fixed, or unchangeable) but "What will the group, the community, or society say" (which is in flux, adaptable to 'change,' i.e. ever 'changing' with every 'change' in the environment/situation). Hegel wrote: "What truly is always true is that all is in flux, the truth-seeker ought properly to address himself to the study of this life process of truth seeking itself." (G. W. F. Hegel) Therefore, according to Hegel, truth is not to be found in a person (in Christ, i.e. established forever) but rather is found in the universality of human reasoning, i.e. "truth" becoming as it "discovers" itself through the praxis of human experience, i.e. "sense experience" liberating itself from the Father's authority (Karl Marx). Carl Rogers applied the dialectic process in "therapy," in the praxis of "theory and practice." "Life, at its best, is a flowing, changing process in which nothing is fixed." "The more that the client perceives the therapist as empathic, as having an unconditional regard for him, the more the client will move away from a static, fixed way of functioning, and the more he will move toward a fluid, changing way of functioning." "Consciousness, instead of being the watchman over a dangerous and unpredictable lot of impulses, becomes the comfortable inhabitant of a society of impulses and feelings and thoughts." "Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity, though such a process is indeed possible. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process." "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual comes to ask himself 'What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)
Through dialectic 'reasoning,' loving this world with its "changeability" (its spectrum or "continuum" of sensuousness) replaces loving God the Father and His everlasting Word (Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son who obeys His Heavenly Father in all things, i.e. fulfilling the "fixity" of righteousness). Dialectic 'reasoning' questions higher authority ("Question authority," i.e. "Question everything"), challenging it based upon personal feelings and thoughts, refusing to obey and submit to it. Jesus Christ obeyed and submitted to His Heavenly Father's will in all things and has called all men to do the same. "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." "By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." Hebrews 13:7, 8, 15-17 It is clear that those who rule over you must know of and proclaim and demonstrate their faith in "the word of God," and therefore can not ask (or command) you to go against the will of God, to the destruction of their soul and your soul. If they do, you must obey God's will, i.e. your Heavenly Father's will, over their will (possibly suffering at their hands). Otherwise you are to obey them and submit to their rule, i.e. bring joy to those who "watch for your souls," not "grieving" them, "for that is unprofitable for you." Those who seek to rule over you through the use of dialectic 'reasoning' are not men of faith but are instead wolves in sheep skin. Do not submit to their attempt to rule over you for they do not "watch for your soul," other than to condemn it. "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you." Matthew 7:15; 24:4
He who is of dialectic 'reasoning' seeks to control the world, not for the souls of man (other than to the condemnation of them), not to the praise of God (looking for the approval of the Father, living in His righteousness), but rather for the pleasures of the flesh, looking for the praises of men (looking for the approval of "the children of disobedience," living according to his own sensuousness) John Dewey, as an experiment, told half his class to frown at him (with disapproval) and the other half to smile at him (with approval). Half way through the class he could only look at the smiling side of the class, he could not look at the frowning side. Those of dialectic 'reasoning' know that the "approval of men" is that powerful and thus cunningly use it for their gain, i.e. for the "control" of men. Thus all servants of dialectic 'reasoning, i.e. 'facilitators of 'change,' i.e. "change agents," are "children of disobedience" lusting after "the approval of men," using "the approval of men" to initiate and sustain control over men, i.e. for their control of the world. 'Justifying' man's unrighteousness, i.e. through dialectic 'reasoning' redefining it as "normal human behavior," "change agents," blinded by their love of this world, i.e. seeking after "the approval of men," are 'purposed' in the condemnation of men's souls, persecuting any who seek after the approval of God alone, i.e. persecuting men who are not "influenced" by their dialectic methods of seduction, deception, and manipulation, thereby making all men consenting to diversity, i.e. deviancy, i.e. abomination, i.e. unrighteousness, for the 'purpose' of initiating and sustaining a world of 'change' (or rather making all men consenting to the process of 'change,' for the 'purpose' of initiating and sustaining a world of diversity, i.e. deviancy, i.e. abomination, i.e. unrighteousness). "We must develop persons who see non-influenceability of private convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
The "new" world order, now taking the world captive to dialectic 'reasoning,' is thus 'driven' by the love of pleasure, i.e. the world lusting after "enjoyment" (that which is of the system of sensuousness) and is "rationally" 'purposed' in negating the Father's authority (the top-down system of Righteousness) which inhibits or blocks it. "It" meaning, man's love of the world, uniting as one, in consensus worshiping it (sensuousness, the pleasure/"enjoyment" of the things of this world, that which is of the system of unrighteousness). The motto of the "new" world order is therefore, "God's righteousness divides, man's 'righteousness' unites." Man's 'righteousness' meaning he is 'righteous' in his own eyes, i.e. 'righteous' according to the "light" of or reasoning of his own "human nature."
It is impossible for us to see past the 'righteousness' of man and know the righteousness of God without faith. "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6 "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." Romans 1:17 "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." 1 Corinthians 2:5 "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." 1 John 5:4 "... nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8b It is impossible to have faith in God and praxis (practice/do/participate in) the dialectic process. You can only do either one or the other. If you think you can do both (serve sensuousness and righteousness) then you are deceived, i.e. then you are doing the dialectic process. "No man 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." Matthew 6:24
The dialectic process is only complex because we make it that way, wanting to justify it, that is justify ourselves before ourselves and the world for our own vain glory sake. Blinded by our own carnal "human nature" and our 'reasoning' abilities used to 'justify' it, i.e. 'justify' our love of the world, our love of pleasure rather than God, our love of the creation rather than the creator, we are easily deceived through our use of the dialectic process ("self-justification"), and therefore easily entangled in the things of the world, thinking that it is (and therefore we are) "good," i.e. thinking that we are as God, "righteous" in our own eyes. This is why dialectic thinkers, i.e. those of "enlightened" minds look down upon believers (those of "lower order thinking skills," who accept God's word "as is," and preach and teach that man is wicked, deceitful, and in need of repentance to their Heavenly Father for salvation from his wrath). With contempt for God and His Word, those of dialectic 'reasoning, of "enlightened" minds, handle the Word of God deceitfully, questioning it, treating it as being equal with the religions of the world, as another opinion amongst opinions, not allowing it to be preached and taught "as is" (to the saving of souls). You can usually tell who are subjects of dialectic 'reasoning' by simply sharing (preaching and teaching) God's Word "as is" ("It is written ..." and "Thus saith the Lord"). Exposing their "lusts" and "pride," i.e. spoiling their "enjoyment" of the world, you can watch their eyes "glaze over," i.e. their mind's close down as they retreat back into themselves or their eyes get cold as they attack. The "enlighten" are not really "intellectuals," as they claim. They are actual emotionals. When confronted with the truth of God's Word they stop being "intellectual" and become very emotional against you (degrading you, ignoring you, attacking you as they try to avoid or circumvent the truth of God's word). "For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." Acts 28:27
The following pages will go into some detail regarding the dialectic process of Hegel and Marx fame (although they certainly did not come up with it―it is simply Genesis 3:1-6 being put into global praxis). They just made it "popular." It will be worth your while to read through these pages, as involved and repetitive as they are. Repetitive only to get the point across.
It's all about the negation of the father's authority. As dumb or simple as that might sound, that is what it has all been about. Since the fall of Lucifer and then the fall of man in a garden in Eden, the object of rejection has been the Father's authority to give commands and judge or chasten when they are not obeyed, making man (and the angels) subject to God above. For Hegel, it was man's fall that made him free, free to know himself as he is, i.e. right ('righteous') in his own eyes. "The Fall is therefore the eternal Mythus of Man – in fact, the very transition by which he becomes man." "Man is God only in so far as he elevates himself to God." (G F W Hegel, The Philosophy of History) Something Hegel understood as being the catalyst for 'change,' was the child's ability to reason in the "kingdom of his own mind, i.e. beginning his journey toward "the kingdom of pure thought," i.e. in a kingdom not of the Father (as in "seek ye first the kingdom of God"), where his world could be "good" (of his natural inclinations) when the Father's world was "evil," ("sense perceived" as being "evil" i.e. blocking his natural inclinations). For Hegel, it would take reasoning (theory) to 'liberate' the child (man) from his Father's kingdom. For Marx it would also have to include praxis (practice), the overthrow of his Father's kingdom. The idea being, without "theory and practice" united as one, theory would stay in the head and practice would be unpredictable and unreliable. United they could take over the world, creating a "new" world order (a Fatherless order), where human reasoning (dialectic 'reasoning') would direct the affairs of men rather than God. Although Hegel wrote "about" the God of the scriptures, the God he wrote about was not the God of the scriptures but rather was a God of his own dialectic 'reasoning.' Most ministers and ministries of today are established upon Hegel's dialectic 'reasoning' of God (explained later).
After studying the dialectic process for over 30 plus years, reading thousands of books and articles on the subject and continuing to do so, it is clear that the dialectic process is simply man's effort to negate (make of no worth or value in his life) the father's authority over his family, his land, and his business, under God. It is rebellious man (under Satan's influence) attempting to negate God's authority over His creation, and therefore over him, so that he can 'justify' his sinful nature as simply being "normal human behavior." It is only in the process of 'change' that such theory and practice can be 'justified,' i.e. 'change' meaning the negation of the father's authority to rule over his family, his land, and his business, so that a "new" world order can come into being, so that a one world system (based upon dialectic 'reasoning') can become 'reality,' where all men can become "equal" (living as one in a world of unrighteousness, without a "guilt conscience").
Those who use dialectic 'reasoning' only seek to 'justify' that which is of the world, negating the Father and His authority (the father's authority to give commands to be obeyed and to chasten when they are not). There is no Father's authority (righteousness, i.e. faith, belief, obedience, and chastening) in the dialectic process. The Father's authority, to give commands and chasten when they are disobeyed, is a barrier to the 'liberation' and use of dialectic 'reasoning,' to "self-justification." The dialectic process, when 'liberated' is used to 'change' the world, i.e. "redeeming" the children from their Father's chastisement and "the children of disobedience" from His wrath, thereby "redeeming" fallen man from God's judgment upon him for his sins (at least that is what the "perception" is). This is why children are taken from their parents by "child protection" agencies when parents chasten their children for disobedience. The 'drive' is the hate of chastisement (the love of pleasure, i.e. "enjoyment," i.e. the "lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes") and the 'purpose' is the negation of the Father and His commands (the 'liberation' of "the children of disobedience"), i.e. the negation of righteousness (the 'emancipation' of unrighteousness from any sense of guilt, condemnation, or judgment so that man can have complete "control" over the world, of, by, and for himself, i.e. the "pride of life"). Chastening detaches the child from his sensuousness (sensuousness which is spontaneously expressed―hereafter applied as such), from his will serving his natural inclinations, from that which is of the world which controls him, from that which he has in common with all men (the love of the world, i.e. the love of pleasure), from that which makes all men equal (the unrighteous thoughts and unrighteous actions of men).
Therefore, whoever controls the environment, or man's perception of it, controls man. His fear of the loss of pleasure, i.e. the loss of the "respect of men" will 'drive' him into" 'willful" participation in the use of the dialectic process, 'purposed' (with all men of like mind) in negating that condition which inhibits or blocks his quest for union with the world, i.e. negating the Father's authority to make "arbitrary" commands (in his eyes) which inhibit or block his natural inclinations and then chastens him when he disobeys. He will then be 'purposed,' along with all men, in augmenting the dialectic process so as to augment more pleasure, i.e. negate the Father's authority. Those in control of the environment can, from then on, control his thoughts and his actions, i.e. seducing and deceiving him by simply manipulating the environment, i.e. at least manipulating his perception of it and thereby manipulating him. How many times have you gotten out of bed saying "I just can't wait to be manipulated today." If you consider yourself "human resource," that is your daily prayer. "By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior." "We can choose to use our growing knowledge to enslave people in ways never dreamed of before, depersonalizing them, controlling them by means so carefully selected that they will perhaps never be aware of their loss of personhood." "The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises." "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors will follow." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) Emphasis in original.
Chastening affixes the child to righteousness (or to the system of Righteousness), i.e. to his will serving the Father's will, to loving the Father, to obeying rules unique to a top-down family environment. The scriptures describe the top-down family environment: "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." Ephesians 6:1-3 Jesus described his obedience to His Heavenly Father (knowing that he, unlike us, was equal with His Heavenly Father, yet humbled himself, taking on the form of a man, for our sakes). "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 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 "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 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21 We are to have the mind of Christ. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:5-11 Everything in the life of Christ was about His obedience to His Heavenly Father.
The Father's use of chastening develops the conscience ("with-science," i.e. what is known to be absolutely right and absolutely wrong, i.e. you do it right or else someone is going to get hurt or killed, i.e. there is accountability, without mercy under the laws of nature, regarding the body, while under God there is mercy towards a humble, repentant, forgiving, and thankful heart, regarding his soul and, depending upon God's will and purpose, the body). Through chastening, the individual learns to respect and honor a higher authority other than his natural inclinations. Chastening removes sensuousness, i.e. "enjoyment," i.e. "lust" from the equation of knowing right from wrong, i.e. it does not have a say in it). He is restrained from chasing after his impulses affected by the situation or environment , i.e. stimulated by the 'moment.' Doing what is "right" and not doing what is "wrong" (according to the Father) from then on directs his thoughts and his actions rather than his own natural inclinations, i.e. right and wrong being based upon higher authority's will, rather than his own self-will. "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23b Without chastening, the nature of man will take him in the way of the world (thinking he is as God, righteous in his own eyes). While Jesus did not need chastening to correct his thoughts and actions (He is righteous), he was chastised for our iniquities, taking our place instead.
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' chastening inhibits or blocks the development of the "superego" (where the conscience, ones feelings, and the ego function in relative harmony, i.e. a situational, rapidly adaptable to 'change' conscience), i.e. the "'social' conscience" where the "felt needs" of others (to make one "feel 'good'" as well), not an absolute right or wrong (commands from above, to be obeyed or else), directs the course of one's actions, i.e. where the individual is at-one-with the "village," i.e. in harmony with that which he has in common with the world, i.e. influenced by his natural inclinations (sensuousness). Therefore, the environment a person learns in will have a direct affect upon how he will think and act in situations (crisis) of life, i.e. whether his thoughts and actions will be directed by God (unchanging―a patriarchal, father's paradigm) or he can be manipulated by the world ('ever changeable'―a heresiarchal, "child of disobedience" paradigm). While the patriarchal paradigm has "feelings," i.e. love and compassion, it does not set aside right or wrong in the pursuit of pleasure, for the sake of "feelings," for the sake of "the approval of men." All this will be explained later with quotes from Hegel, Freud, Marx, and others.
Dialectic 'reasoning' only recognizes sensuousness, that which is of man, that which is of the world of pleasure/"enjoyment" alone, i.e. of nature only (that which is common to all men from birth, i.e. the stimulus-response of approach pleasure and avoid pain). It "tolerates" all "religions," as long as they are recognized as being an opinion amongst opinions, i.e. are willing to participate in dialogue, i.e. are willing to 'discover' their "common ground," i.e. find their identity, within a society of human "felt" (temporal, carnal) needs. "The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in each particular individual." "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 6) "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) "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) Being "born again," does not mean made a "new creature," a new individual in the image of God (in His righteousness), but being "born again" in the group, in the image of society (of its sensuousness). "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "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) It is in the process of initiating and sustaining 'purpose,' based upon group approval, i.e. social 'purpose,' that man can be changed from fearing God (desiring and seeking after the approval of God, i.e. obeying the Father, i.e. walking in the spirit) to fearing man (wanting "the approval of men," i.e. becoming at-one-with "the children of disobedience," i.e. walking in the flesh). "A group becomes a group fully only as it forms a common purpose and decides on a course of action appropriate to that purpose. The purpose of discussion involves, therefore, the remolding of habits, attitudes, understandings and ways of working . . . in relation to the process of problem definition and solution as a whole." "'What is our purpose at this point?' is recognized as one of the most helpful questions that can be asked . . ." "Purpose: . . . the building of group-centered attitudes and . . . the perpetuation of such group-centered behavior." (Kenneth Bennie, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) The key to creating a dialectic world, i.e. "redeeming" man from God, i.e. "emancipating" him from righteousness, is to use "group-centeredness" to get all individuals (united as one) to focus upon the community of human "needs," i.e. sensuous needs, i.e. is to use the consensus process (the feeling of at-one-ness with the group) to produce a world of 'change.' "The individual is emancipated in the social group." "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt be assuaged." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) It is in the group-centered environment (through the dialectic process of consensus, i.e. through man's lusting after "the approval of men") that man is "liberated" from the "guilty conscience," i.e. "emancipated" from obedience to his Father's commands, and thereby, through dialectic 'reasoning,' is "freed" to be himself (carnal, evil, unrighteous, full of pride), united with the world, 'purposed' in challenging and overthrowing his Father's authority. "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5 But the Lord would want it another way. "By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil." Proverbs 16:6 "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." John 3:3, 5, 6 If a man, in his thoughts and his actions, is dead to the flesh, i.e. no longer living according to the way of the world, and is alive to the Spirit of God, i.e. living according to the will of his Heavenly Father, i.e. "born of water and of the Spirit," he can not be "born again, born together in the group," i.e. living according to the will of the world.
Dialectic 'reasoning' is man 'driven' by "the approval of men," 'purposed' in creating a world of "men approving men" for the 'purpose' of pleasure ("enjoyment"). Dialectic 'reasoning' is man 'purposed' in the augmentation of pleasure and the attenuation of pain. It only recognizes that which is "right" in man's own eyes, i.e. in the so called "the people's" eyes. I say so called because even Marx called it the product of the "ether of the brain," (Karl Marx, The Holy Family), i.e. social consciousness/cosmic consciousness/class consciousness (the awareness/understanding of where conflict comes from and resides, i.e. in the patriarchal paradigm of unchangingness, and where reason and harmony reside, i.e. in the heresiarchal paradigm of 'change'). When "higher order thinking skills" (a method used in science to discover the laws of nature and then used in technology to turn natural resources into things like cars, planes, TVs, computers, etc.―science and technology) is used on man to "help" him 'discover' his own nature so that he can create a "better world," man is materialized (turned into "human resource"―when the "experiment" fails and you or your loved ones get wasted, don't take it personal, it was just an experiment―hundreds of millions of lives have been wasted on this experiment. It will continue, unabated, that is, until the Lord returns to judge those who use it). Through the use of "higher order thinking skills" on man, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning,' all that will be 'discovered' is man's fallen nature, his natural inclinations, his carnal nature, etc., that which is at-one-with the world, with man building a world upon his own carnal nature. Therefore, through dialectic 'reasoning,' he is made subject only to the world, serving and protecting the deceitful and wicked heart of man (his included). Any thing that he designs (participates in the creation of), as a result, will be of, by, and for the world alone (all who refuse to participate or resist or block its use will be considered a barrier to 'change,' an obstacle to 'progress,' and will be blamed for any failure, i.e. treated as waste, i.e. "extruded" as Irvin Yalom put it in his book, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy). By rejecting the Father's authority, all man has left is dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the praxis of justifying his sinful carnal nature, i.e. becoming at-one-with the world, i.e. serving, protecting, and worshiping he who initiates and sustains a world of sin, unrighteousness, and condemnation, i.e. making all men "resist[ers of] the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." 2 Timothy 3:8b Bracketed portion added.
According to dialectic reasoning, any top-down voice of restraint or judgment―inhibiting or blocking (condemning and chastening ) the common human experience ("sense experiences") of life, inhibiting or block man's (or the child's) lusts for the pleasures of this life, i.e. insisting that they (the father and his commands) are (categorically) "right" and that others (the child and his thoughts and actions) are "wrong," insisting that their rules and commands must be (imperatively) obeyed, i.e. without question―must be silenced, i.e. neutralized, marginalized, and removed, or be converted if there is to be "world peace and social harmony." All objective truth must therefore be subject to subjective truth to be of any worth or value in a dialectic world. The object itself has no worth, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' other than to stimulate (amongst all men) a sensation of oneness with the universe. Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' life has no worth if it does not stimulate oneness with the world, i.e. you are of no worth outside of the "community" experience of all becoming as one, i.e. you are to be removed (peaceful or violently) if you inhibit or block its initiation and sustentation (especially if you insist that there is One greater than the "village," One who holds all men accountable for their unrighteous thoughts and unrighteous actions). "Every form of objectification [recognition of a Father's authority]... results in alienation [a top-down system, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the Father ruling over His family, his land, and his business, results in the children not being able to "do their own thing," i.e. "enjoy" life according to their own natural inclinations (relating with other children of the same natural inclinations), i.e. righteousness (God) "repressing" sensuousness ("human nature"), "alienating" man from his own nature and the world]. Transcending alienation [overcoming prejudice, pre-set standards established above human nature (discriminating between good and evil, good being the Father and His will, evil being the child in disobedience to the Father and His will), "repressing" human nature through the use of commands to be obeyed without question and the use of chastening to instill obedience, preventing man or child from seeking and 'discovering' oneness with the universe] involves transcending objectification [negating the father's authority to rule over his family and chasten his children for their disobedience];" (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists) Bracketed information added.
"Transcending objectification" means negating the Father's authority to rule over his family, his land, and his business by refusing to recognize the Father as having authority, i.e. neutralizing him first, then marginalizing him, and eventually removing him from his family, his land, and his business, or removing his family, his land, and his business from him, if he doesn't convert, i.e. concede to the use of dialectic 'reasoning' in his life, i.e. "recognize" that his family, his land, and his business are no longer his but instead is the "villages," the communities, the worlds. "Transcending objectification" means treating the Father's authority as being "irrational" in a "rapidly changing world." It therefore results in "the people" (the "dialectic government") disregarding the Father and His authority, i.e. his inalienable right to initiate and sustain, i.e. to serve and protect a top-down patriarchal system. Under a dialectic government, the Father's authority no longer has support but instead is negated by dialectic laws of "equality," i.e. treating his inalienable rights as being "irrelevant" in a "global economy" based upon human rights (the "right" for all to be 'justified' in their sins, without fear of condemnation, i.e. for all children to be 'justified' in their carnal human nature, without fear of chastisement).
You can skip over the next few paragraphs if you don't want to get upset or mad, i.e. upset with those who have used you or mad at me for exposing them. I feel like John the Baptist mentioning Herod's "wife" (if I can use that analogy). I decided to place it in another article, so if your are interested in finding out what I originally entered below, go there. Otherwise read on, beginning with the next paragraph.
"For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?" Hebrews 12:6-9 Only the Lord can change the heart of man. Social praxis can not. It only utilizes hate for a social cause (hating the father's authority to chasten for doing wrong―while Marxists blame the traditional family system of Germany for the "creation" of Hitler, i.e. escaping Marxism the fathers ran to Fascism to preserve their family system, the truth is both Marxism and Fascism must negate the traditional family system, since the traditional family system, left to itself, would prevent both from taking over). Using the dialectic process to 'change' society only results in the negation of the father's authority to chasten his children, i.e. negating his inalienable, God given, right to inculcate his belief on to his own children, on to the next generation. The contempt for and the negation of chastening (disrespect for the father's authority) resulted in the bastardization of the children of this nation, as well as the bastardization of its cultures and the nation as a whole. That is what we are now see happening around us today, as has happened throughout history to other nations and cultures who tried to used the same process to "better" their lives. God warned us regarding the rejection of our father's chastisement. Dad may have been wrong for chastening us, when we did no wrong. But the office he served in is right. Just because he was wrong in the office does not make the office wrong. It only makes him wrong while serving in the office. Jesus was abused by those who took over (usurped) the office of Moses, using the office for their own vain glory, yet Jesus endured the shame of the cross (a fraudulent punishment upon a righteous man) and looked forward to the Joy that lay ahead, not once condemning the office, only obeying his Father to the death. While those who are of the world have no such hope in enduring, those in Christ do. By negating the office of authority, given by God, man negate the blessings of God, Joy, Peace, Love, and eternal life. Negate the office and you negate "the peaceful fruit of righteousness." What is true for the Heavenly Father is true for the earthly father, i.e. negate chastening and the children become "bastards," i.e. become at-one-with the world. They become as the children of Sodom, united as one in the praxis of "enjoyment," i.e. in the bastardization of the children of the patriarchal paradigm of righteousness.
With the Father's authority to chasten his children for disobedience, man can never unite in the praxis of rebuilding the tower of Babel, i.e. building a one world government of "We working for Us." Where "working as a team, nothing is impossible." You just have to talk those who obey the Father's commands into "rightsizing" themselves out of existence, or "help" them to see the "light," if you want to create the "new" world order, i.e. an order of "equality" where man is freed of the top-down patriarchal paradigm, i.e. 'liberated' from a Father's chastening, i.e. chastening his children when they disobey His will.
God added the clause, "In the Lord," to the child's requirement to obey his father. Thus the child can refuse to obey his earthly father when he tells the child to go against God's word (the citizen can disobey the King when he tells the citizen to go against God's word), accepting his chastening, knowing that he obeyed his Heavenly Father, who will judge the earthly father (the King) for his unrighteousness if he does not repent. Therefore his peace is not found in the will of his earthly father (the King) but in the will of his Heavenly Father. Satan hates the children who obey their Fathers, in the Lord, maintaining a top-down system of righteousness, i.e. a system of faith, belief, obedience, and chastening for disobedience, maintaining the awareness of God's condemnation upon those who praxis sin, i.e. His coming wrath upon "the children of disobedience," those who are of the "new" world order.
When Hegel wrote: "When a man has finally reached the point where he does not think he knows it better than others, that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly and he is interested only in what they have done right, then peace and affirmation have come to him." (G. F. W. Hegel, in one of the casual notes preserved at Widener) he cursed mankind. Try running a business or a country this way (in the practice of theory, i.e. putting opinions into practice, where there are no "can not's," or "wrong" way of doing things and therefore no accountability for one's thoughts or actions) and see where it takes you. Oh. I think we are already there―morally and financially bankrupt (how far are we into debt), i.e. socialism only fails when it runs out of other people's money, or running out of other people has to 'liberate' more "other people," "freeing" them under the banner, "making the world safe for democracy," so as to have access to more money, i.e. their money, i.e. "the peoples" money. The 'purpose' of dialectic 'reasoning' is for the facilitators of 'change' to gain access to "the people's" money and use it for their worldly pleasures while meeting "the peoples" "felt needs" (at least the perception is that their "felt" needs are being met or are going to be met―as the old saying goes, "a fool is born every minute," the bible states it this way: "Cursed is the man who trust in man." Jeremiah 17:5). In the end it is all about "the love of the world," AKA "the love of pleasure" AKA "the love of money." As the prodigal son, the man of the world fulfills the old saying: "A fool and his money are soon parted," not knowing that "his inheritance was not his Father's money but rather his Father's love." (Cynthia Lauren Thorpe)
The issue for man is not the pleasures of the world, i.e. love of his own sensuousness (the basis of dialectic 'reasoning' and eternal death), but rather is the love of the Father, i.e. of His righteousness (the basis of faith and eternal life). Through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' the latter (God's love for you―which is "negative" to the flesh) is negated through the 'justification' of the former (your love of the world―which is "positive" to the flesh). "Don't be so negative" means "Don't bring the Father's commands and judgment into the conversation and give me a 'guilty conscience,' condemning me regarding my thoughts and my actions." "Being positive" means "Don't judge me for my unrighteous thoughts and my unrighteous actions but instead tell me 'I'm OK in my sins.'" "Win-win" means "If you accept sin as 'normal human behavior,' and don't make me feel bad for being 'normal,' then you won't have to feel bad for being 'normal' either." "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. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." 2 Timothy 3:1-8 Bold added. Reprobate means degenerate.
"In the eyes of dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx) The idea being, if there is "nothing absolute or sacred," no man (Father, above) has a "right" to restrain or chasten (his children, below) for what he thinks (believes) is absolutely right. Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' no man (or God) has the "right" to claim authority over that which "belongs" to the world, i.e. that which is common to all men (or child), i.e. that which belongs to the universe, claiming that it is His alone to rule over (initiating and sustaining a top-down patriarchal paradigm). "Morals and ethics," according to dialectic 'reasoning,' proceed from within man, from his nature (of sensuousness) which he has in common with all men (this is the basis of common-ism AKA communism), not from outside or above him, in that which is not of his nature (of God the Father, of righteousness). Thus religion must be subject to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. be socially adaptable, tolerant of human nature, i.e. in harmony with the world, if it to be of any human worth or value, i.e. "good." "Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven" (Matthew 6:10), i.e. God, the creator of all the heavens and the earth, ruling over all of creation (over angels in heaven and over man on earth, judging all according to His will), must be dialectically re-interpreted as "As above, so below" (dialectic, Hermetic, mystic, occult, anti-dogmatic, i.e. God in man and man in God, i.e. an "omnipresent" mind, the universal in the particular and the particular in the universal, i.e. all as one―Satanic). "By dialectical I mean an activity of consciousness ["human reasoning"] , struggling to circumvent the limitations imposed by the formal logical law of contradiction [the Father's authority]." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) Bracketed information added. This is the reasoning (spirit) of Satan, a fallen angel, one in rebellion to God's authority, roaming to and fro upon the face of the earth, seeking to make all in his image, i.e. all men 'liberated' from being under the Heavenly Father's authority. Man thinking that he controls the world, does not realize that it is the world which controls him, therefore he is now under the influence of Satan, the master facilitator, the agent of 'change,' the great deceiver who "deceiveth the whole world." "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." Revelation 12:9 Those who think that the dialectic process is just "academic," denying that they are under the 'influence' of Satan, i.e. being seduced, deceived, and manipulated by him, reveal their deceivability, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating those who come under their 'influence.' "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." 2 Timothy 3:13
Those of dialectic 'reasoning' can only build upon one foundation, that which all men have in common, worldly lusts and pride, i.e. the "lust" or intense desire to be at-one-with that which engenders the sensation of pleasure (for the flesh, i.e. that which is in the environment which stimulates dopamine emancipation in the body, i.e. brain), the "lust" to mentally "enjoy" that which engenders the sensation of pleasure (of the imagination or the mind), and the ability to control, i.e. to initiate and sustain control over others, through seduction, deception, and manipulation, (through reasoning) getting others to work for them, supporting them in perpetuating an environment which engenders the sensation of pleasure (associated with the approval or envy of men who are of like mind, i.e. "Look at who I am" or "Look at what I have," which can be hidden in the "Look at who we are" and "Look at what we have" mindset, even for the "benefit" of others). In this condition man can not see outside the world of his own perception. Like those of old who thought the world was flat, they judge any who do not think like them as being "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant" when it comes to anything of importance. "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
Jesus came, in obedience to His Heavenly Father in all things, to redeem us from His Heavenly Father's wrath upon us for our use of dialectic 'reasoning,' for our love of the world, i.e. for our disobedience, i.e. for our sins against Him, so that we, by faith in Him, by His righteousness imputed to us, could "come unto the Father." It is better to be chastened by the Father, repent, receive his forgiveness and live than, reject his chastisement, "do our own thing," face the wrath of the Father, and die. "But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world." 1 Corinthians 11:32 Yet those of dialectic 'reasoning' reject the use of chastening, thereby leaving all under their control, condemned, i.e. "the children of disobedience" receiving the wrath of the Father, cast out into utter darkness. Those who are of dialectic 'reasoning,' choosing sensuousness (man) over and against righteousness (God the Father), have chosen eternal death, having rejected eternal life, doing so in the pride of their mind, knowing what they are doing is in defiance to God. "Tillich suggests that it would be better to let the giver of arbitrary laws to destroy us physically than to accept the psychological destruction that would accompany submission to an alien will." (Leonard F. Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism) They refuse to submit to God, the Heavenly Father―who is not of the world. In their pride, thinking that they are as god, i.e. righteous in their own eyes, they condemn anyone who submits to God the Father, claiming, in dialectic fashion, that by doing so (by submitting to the Father's authority), man creates God, i.e. a God who then judges them for their natural carnal inclinations. Karl Marx, reflecting a secular Gnostic construct, put it this way: "The life which he has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx MEGA I/3)
Rejecting the Father's authority, they reject eternal life. Only those who are in Christ (the only begotten Son of God) will see the Father and receive eternal life. "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 "Jesus Christ of Nazareth," the "only begotten Son of God," is the only one who can save us from the Father's wrath upon us for our sins. "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12 The same Spirit of the Father "that raised up Jesus," now "dwelleth in" the redeemed, those who have been "buried with him by baptism into death," who are raise up to "walk in newness of life." "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Romans 8:11; 6:4 The believer, not 'driven' by or 'purposed' in sensuousness, i.e. the pleasures of this life (wanting "the approval of men," fearing "the rejection of men"), instead follows Jesus, denying "the approval of men" and enduring "the rejection of men," living anew in Him, in truth, in life, in His righteousness, walking in the Holy Spirit (having "the approval of God," having overcome "the rejection of God"). The spirit of the world, "human reasoning," self justification, is not the same Spirit which is of God. The spirit of the world rejects the preaching and teaching of sin, righteousness, and judgment by God. The Spirit of God convicts man of his sins, i.e. exposes his sins and troubles his conscience for his disobedience to the Father, bears witness of righteousness fulfilled, i.e. of the Father-Son relationship, and declares that judgment is established, "the prince of this world is judged," i.e. his method of dialectic 'reasoning,' "helping" man to 'rationally justify' himself, i.e. 'justify' his carnal nature, i.e. 'justify' abomination is judged, that the spirit of antichrist has been defeated (only allowed to "rule" over the nations for a season, i.e. until the judgment of the nations, i.e. the judgment of the world is fulfilled by the Lord's return), the Holy Spirit being greater (encouraging, speaking the truth, i.e. sustaining the believer) than "he that is in the world" (discouraging, speaking lies, i.e. attacking the believer). "Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." 1 John 4:4-6
The way of the world and the way of the Lord are antithetical to one another. Man, using dialectic 'reasoning' to not only "justify" his sensuousness but also 'justify' his disobedience and denial of the Father, is antithetical to Christ, obeying His Heavenly Father in all things, i.e. fulfilling righteousness. The world system, disobeying and rejecting the Father's authority, living according to a person's own sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities, i.e. as "rebellious children," "children of disobedience," approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, basing "good" on the pleasures of the flesh or upon the "enjoyment" the world {instead of basing good upon obeying the father, i.e. doing the father's will, i.e. the Heavenly Father is always good, therefore His will is always good}, esteeming self (rejecting "the approval of God the Father") and denying the cross (esteeming "the approval of men" instead), i.e. esteeming self through consensus, is a system which fulfills all unrighteousness.
Dialectic 'reasoning' ("human reasoning") has no 'purpose' other than to negate the antithesis, i.e. negate the either-or of the way of righteousness, thereby negating the conflict between sensuousness (flesh, that which is below) and righteousness (spirit, that which is above), so that man, subject to the flesh, can enjoy playing upon the bed of iniquity without a "guilty conscience." The way of sensuousness is a spectrum between the sensation of pleasure and pain (the spectrum of the flesh) while the way of righteousness is an either-or (either of the spirit, righteous, or of the flesh, unrighteous). There is no "more right than wrong" with righteousness (as there is in the spectrum of unrighteousness). Therefore, it is not how far down the path you have gone (spectrum―of sensuousness). It is the path you are on (an ether-or―the path of righteousness or the path of unrighteousness, i.e. by faith or by sight). "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." Galatians 5:9 To take one step down the dialectic pathway you have had to already have stepped "in it." "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
To lie is to lie. Whether the person is three, thirty-three, or ninety-three, when they lie, they know that they have lied. To break one part of the law is to break it all. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." James 2:10 That is why righteousness can not come from man. Being of sensuousness, not being able to be perfect in the law, man is not able to be righteous in and of himself. Righteousness could only be fulfilled in Christ, who fulfilled the law, living without sin, dying in our place for our sins, covering our sins, covering our unrighteousness with His righteousness through the shedding of His blood (without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin), fulfilling the requirements of righteousness for us. "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 Therefore, only in Christ, by the law of faith, can we be saved, become righteous in His righteousness. The scriptures direct us to "yield [our bodies and our lives] to righteousness unto holiness." The Apostle Paul wrote: "I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness." Romans 6:19
Though some may claim their "works" to be of the Lord, Jesus declared that his response to their dialectic ways, i.e. rejecting the Father's authority and not obeying His will, will be: "depart from me, ye that work iniquity." "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:21-23
Man's way, of sensuousness, of dialectic 'reasoning,' of self justification, is not God's way, of righteousness. For example: we are to "flee youthful lusts," i.e. run away from "adult entertainment," for to stay in the midst thereof we will "justify" ourselves and partake in sin. Controlled by our own love of sensuousness, justifying ourselves through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. loving out of a heart of vanity and pride, we can not help by lust after the things of the world. We are to instead "call on the Lord out of a pure heart," made pure by His righteousness. "Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart." 2 Timothy 2:22 His love, which is everlasting and pure, will then rule over our heart. Thereby we can love as He loves, from a pure heart.
In a consensus environment you must esteem yourself and others (be picked up, as you pick others up and as you pick others up, be picked up), i.e. initiate and sustain the approval of men (treat all as equals), and deny the cross, not cause division over a pre-established, father's position and bring judgment (chastisement), i.e. producing a "guilty conscience" upon others (thereby upholding a top-down system of righteousness, of Godly authority over men's opinions, i.e. "repressing" the flesh {Freud} and "alienating" man from his own nature and therefore alienating "men from men" {Marx}). The truth is: All but the believer in Christ can be accused of being "self-righteous," the believer instead having righteousness imputed to him by God for his faith in Him, his words of judgment (chastisement), i.e. his "judgmentalism" being actually the Father's words of judgment upon the unrighteous thoughts and unrighteous actions of unrighteous men. "The children of disobedience," those of dialectic 'reasoning,' hate those who preach and teach the truth, hate those who expose their wicked and deceitful ways, and will always take counsel (praxis consensus) against the righteous in Christ, to sustain their rebellious ways, to 'justify' their life of sin. "Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin:" Isaiah 30:1 "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5
Christ obeyed His Heavenly Father in all things. He denied himself. He did not run after the pleasures of this world, i.e. seeking after "enjoyment." He did not seek for "the approval of men" but instead rejected "the approval of men." And he picked up his cross. He did not run away from the pain the world inflicted upon Him (being "rejected of men" He did not 'change' his position, given to Him by the Father, for "the approval of men"). He instead sought after "the approval of His Father," and thereby He fulfilled all righteousness. We are to follow the Lord and not love (lust after) the pleasures of this world, i.e. seeking after "the approval of men," compromising our faith out of our fear of the "the rejection of men."
Immanuel Kant placed Hope in happiness, happiness in pleasure, and pleasure in the mind (and now we know that the sensation of pleasure comes from dopamine, which is 'liberated,' 'emancipated' in the nervous system, i.e. in the brain, when we are stimulated by that which is gratifying in the environment, thus drawing man to the gratifying things of this world―"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." James 1:14, 15). Hegel placed Hope in the rational "enjoyment" of this life, in sensuousness 'liberated' from the Father's authority through reasoning, i.e. 'liberating' reasoning, i.e. "the divine spark," out from under the Father's condemnation. Marx placed Hope in the negation of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the Father's authority (the "inhibitor," "estranger," alienator," of "enjoyment"―Befremdung {estrangement; hostility}, Verfremdung {alienation}, Entäußrung {self expressed; externalization} + Erinnerung {recollection} = Entfremdung {alienation; "to make alien"}, i.e. the person "feels" alienated from life, i.e. life has no meaning or 'purpose').
It is in only when reasoning is detached from faith, i.e. faith in the Lord (as Kant and Hegel espoused), that man can find his hope in himself and the world, united as one. Reasoning detached from faith will place man's hope in all that is of this world, "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," (1 John 2:15-18), calling that which is of the world, i.e. sensuousness, good and calling that which is of God, i.e. righteousness, evil. It will then have to call that which is of God (who is good), i.e. His word's of righteousness, which convicts man of his sins, i.e. condemns those who love the world to eternal death for their unrighteous thoughts and their unrighteous actions (redeeming the repentant into eternal life), as evil. Such reasoning has only one 'purpose,' the negation of righteousness (faith, belief, obedience, and the chastening of disobedience) so that the world can unite upon "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," and praxis unrighteousness with no sense of "guilt," i.e. no one, including it's "ministers of righteousness," fearing God or loving His Word. The 'purpose' for dialectic 'reasoning' is not to emancipate man from God but to emancipate reason, so that man could become God.
Instead of alienation being of man from God (Ephesians 4:18), because of man's darkened mind, because of his love of sensuousness, the dialectic idea is that alienation is between man, mankind, and the world, because of his faith in, belief in, and obedience to God, because of his love for He who is of righteousness (the Father), i.e. because life (meaning and 'purpose') is found in the Father of righteousness (separating man from his sensuous "enjoyment" with the world, for Marx, separating man from "enjoyment" in his labor and the product created, both united as one), and not in the world of sensuousness (where 'purpose' and enjoyment, meaning and life are unite in the world of sensation instead of in doing the will of the Father) For Marx there is only 'purpose' or meaning to life if man's work is not only for mankind but also with mankind in thought and in action, united as one in the production and product, i.e. man freed from his alienation with the world by his praxis of collective "creation," i.e. if man does not enjoy his work, in the here-and-now, and can not participate equally in it fruits, it is not worth doing. Just know this: for man to 'create' something "new," as in the "new world order," he must first kill, destroy or tear down something else to create with. What might "seem to be" good to you at first, will cost you your family, your land, your business, and even your life, and/or someone else's family, land, business, and life in a dialectic world. To make men before God move to God for men, to end up with men to men, Marx had to negate the Father's authority and the Son's love for the Father (to death). In other words he had to pervert the word of God, i.e. lie like the Devil. Leave the Father-Son relationship, i.e. righteousness, out of God and you will end up with a dialectic "Jesus." Jesus did not come to "negate" the law of the Father but to "fulfill" it in righteousness, something man can not do (why righteousness has to be imputed by God to men of faith in Him). Thus men to men (consensus) leaves all men in their sins, condemned to eternal death. Man's hope in this world is vain. Although it might have "value" (sensuous worth) in the here-and-now, on the day of judgment, it has no value, i.e. it won't buy a man's soul from Hell. (Bread will keep you alive for today but will not save you from Hell when you die.) "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 12:4, 5 "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4 It is therefore every man's "duty" to live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (righteousness, for eternity), and not to just live by bread alone (sensuousness, for the day). To ignore the former and do only the latter, will result in eternity in hell, after even a full and "enjoyable" life here.
According to dialectic 'reasoning', without the antithesis (conflict) between the father (the Father) and the child (the Son), the antithesis between the top-down patriarchal paradigm of unchangingness (righteousness) and the heresiarchal paradigm of 'changingness' (sensuousness), reasoning (the intuition, the universal, the "divine spark") could not have become actualization. It is only through the child's effort to resolve the alienation between himself and the world (sensuousness), i.e. the world of his desires (lusts), that through the praxis of synthesizing himself with the world, that reasoning, i.e. the reason or 'purpose' for life could become manifest and 'liberated,' i.e. freeing him from the Father's will, i.e. from "Thy will be done" to where his "My will be done" could become 'reality,' i.e. with "the prince of the power of the air" now controlling his life―the "Our will be done" only obscures Satan's "My will be done."
The believer places his Hope, not in this world (not in himself or man), but rather in the Lord, in the Hope of Glory. The believer is not to lust after "the approval of men," nor is he to suspend the word of God (by participating in dialogue instead of preaching and teaching it as is) to avoid the pain the world inflicts upon him, i.e. fearing "the rejection of men" because of his faith in, belief upon, and obedience to the Heavenly Father, made possible through his redemption through the Father's only begotten Son and the power of the Holy Spirit). "And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." Luke 9:23
In consensus with unbelievers (lusting after "the approval of men" and fearing "the rejection of men"―approaching pleasure and avoiding pain) the "believer" rejects the Lord and denies his faith. We are to stand, clothed in His (God's) armour. We are not to chase after the pleasures of the world, lusting after "the approval of men," nor are we run away from the pain the world inflicts upon us for our belief upon Him, fearing "the rejection of men"―"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." 2Ti 1:7; "For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." Romans 8:15). We are to endure not only the pain of rejection but also endure the "missed" enjoyments of worldly pleasures which comes with "the approval of men." We are to stand ("withstand in the evil day"), established in Him, we are to "stand against the [trickery] of the devil," we are to endure to the end. "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand." Ephesians 6:11-13 The believer is not to function on the approach pleasure-avoid pain spectrum of the world (the bases of dialectic 'reasoning') but he is instead to walk in the Spirit, letting the Lord direct his steps, and not love his life, to the death. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not unto your own understanding. In all your ways to acknowledge him and he will direct your paths." Proverbs 3:5, 6
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' war is caused by the patriarchal paradigm, the top-down order of authority "repressing" man (the position taken by psychology), "alienating" him (the position taken by sociology), preventing him from becoming at-one-with the world in pleasure. By getting rid of the top-down patriarchal paradigm of "mine not yours," the dialectic "logic" goes, man can get rid of war. The truth is, war is the result of man's vain and envious heart, lusting after the things of this world. "From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up." James 4:1-15
While the following few paragraphs might require some "thinking through" (trudging through) the first time read, they are worth reading because they directly apply to how the dialectic process affects you. They reveal the reasoning behind the "new" world order of "equality" (mankind as God―where we get "human rights" from) and the negation of the "old" world order of "top-down" (God over man―were we get "inalienable rights" from). While the dialectic process might "seem to be" academic (with it's thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, universal and particular, intuition and concept, thing in itself, etc. rhetoric), it is in truth spiritual. Hegel defined dialectic 'reasoning' as: "human reasoning," "consciousness of being," the "divine in man," "the Spirit of God ... exist[ing] as spirit in all spirits." He wrote: "Human reason — the consciousness of one's being is indeed reason; it is the divine in man, and spirit, in so far as it is the Spirit of God, is not a spirit beyond the stars, beyond the world. On the contrary, God is present, omnipresent, and exists as spirit in all spirits." (George Hegel, Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion: A. The Relation of the Philosophy of Religion to its Presuppositions and to the Principles of the Time. I. — The Severance of Religion from the Free, Worldly Consciousness) In other words, according to Hegel, God is all inclusive (only comprehendible) in the "Divine spark" of "reasoning," that which is found in all men, i.e. "reasoning" in the "light" of man's own immediate "sense experiencing" of life. Reasoning, according to Hegel, reveals to man that "truth" and "reality" lie within himself (not in "a spirit beyond the stars"), i.e. that in his self-consciousness with the world he 'discovers' that he is "divine" (righteous in himself) as he becomes "self actualized," as he rationally 'discovers' himself and his 'purpose' though his participation within the praxis of "worldly consciousness," i.e. that through dialectic 'reasoning' he is 'discovering' the universality of mankind, that is, man can only become at-one-with the universe through reasoning, i.e. that oneness, through reasoning (consensus), gives man 'purpose.' Marx put that 'purpose,' i.e. the 'quest' for oneness, i.e. the sensation of the "here-and-now," i.e. "ours in common," "all are equal," in "controlling" the "here-and-now" (today, this 'moment') and the "there-and-then" (the future) in the praxis of negating individualism, i.e. negating the "there-and-then" (negating the past ruling over the present and the future), i.e. negating the "mine not yours," "top-down," Father's rule over the "here-and-now," negating that which negates "all is equal" in the sensuous 'moment').
Genesis 3:1-6 is dialectic 'reasoning,' reasoning making God's tree everyone's tree in the "here-and-now," i.e. all is equal. Through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' God's threat of death becomes "irrational" in the sensuous "here-and-now" 'moment,' the tree scientifically "sense perceived" as being of no physical harm to them, being just like the other trees (the same human reasoning is used to justify common-ism AKA communism, now called communitarianism―where man's image {'drive' and 'purpose'} is of community {common-unity}, i.e. equality, i.e. subject to sensuousness {public-private partnership, oneness where private has no right to separate itself from public and the public has not right to submit to and serve the private}, and man's image is not of God, i.e. top-down {Father-Son}, i.e. subject to His righteousness {private, under God, affecting the public}). To create community (oneness) out of diversity (deviancy), righteousness (the Father's authority) must be sacrificed for sensuousness (that which everyone has in common). Crisis ("sensuous need" tied to "sense perception") is the quickest way to create unity ("sense experience") out of diversity, i.e. the quickest way to negate righteousness (the Father's authority), i.e. to make righteousness (the Father's authority) "irrelevant" as an issue of life. Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' God's command, i.e. his authority, not to eat of the "one" tree, because it was "His" tree, became "irrelevant" in the 'rational-sensual-moment,' i.e. it was rationally (in theory) and practically (in practice) everyone's tree (it was universal).
"Human reasoning" makes all things (including God's tree, i.e. the Father's garden, i.e. the father's home, property, and business) universal in nature. In this "logic," for example, when government becomes dialectic in reasoning, all the gold people possess as individuals, i.e. "My gold. Not your gold." {private} must be turned into the government, under penalty of law, because those in government perceive that the individual's gold is in actually, i.e. in reality "the people's" gold, i.e. "our gold" {public} i.e. universal gold. Therefore, when all things are perceived as being universal, inalienable rights, i.e. individual rights under God are supplanted with "human rights," i.e. "universal rights" under man (under men possessed by dialectic 'reasoning' 'purposed' in propagating dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. only dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the lawless {unrighteous} declaring themselves "righteous," thus declaring the righteous lawless {unrighteous}). Thus Romans 7:14-25 becomes moot as Hebrews 12:5-11 is negated through the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6. Satan's Genesis project, Genesis 3:1-6 is: There is no need for a savior above us, redeeming us from us, since the "savior" is us ("reasoning," i.e. the "divine spark") redeeming us from the need for a savior above us―by negating the Father above us, though dialectic 'reasoning,' there is no longer a need for a savior, sent by the Father above us, to redeem us from us. If the Father and His commands are negated, judgment for disobedience is negated. Therefore, according to Satan's 'purpose,' all men, who reason like him, will die in their sins along with him, in equality. "They are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah." Jeremiah 23:14b (Jeremiah 23:10-40)
Back to the garden. Death came not because of the "here-and-now" eating of the tree, a physical event relating to the tree itself (the fruit of the tree physical did not kill them), but from God, preventing them from having access to the tree of life because they disobeyed Him. God therefore always maintains a top-down paradigm over all the creation despite man's reasoning otherwise. "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12 The issue of good and evil is not based upon sensuousness (claiming good and evil based upon human reasoning, i.e. the dialectic idea that the individual's garden, i.e. property, business, under God, is "the peoples" garden) but rather upon righteousness (God ruling over His garden and therefore over all souls, individually). Their change of paradigm, from patriarch (Father above ruling over the "here-and-now," i.e. God's authority over all, i.e. nature and every individual soul―for example: no man can sell, barter, swap, loan, or give his salvation to another man, i.e. all men, individually must receive it individually from God by their faith in Him alone) to heresiarch (all are equal, i.e. "the children of disobedience" controlling the "here-and-now," i.e. the serpent's reasoning, i.e. "self-justification," controlling the universe), resulted in death.
Hegel believed that the order of husband, wife, children were only equals amongst equals. According to him (according to dialectic 'reasoning') there is no top-down order in the family as is found in the scriptures, i.e. the husband is to rule his home well, the desire of the heart of the wife is to her husband, and the children are to obey their parents, in the Lord. Therefore the father, according to Hegel, could not claim the family, land, and business, as "his," since all things belong to the universe. "[S]urplus, labour, and property are absolutely common to all, inherently and explicitly" and therefore belong to all "the people." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life―Yes Hegel sounds just like Marx doesn't he, i.e. Marx wrote: "The proletariat ["the child of disobedience"] thus has the same right as has the German king [the Father] when he calls, the people his people and a horse his horse [calls the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil," his tree]." Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right). The Marxists, J. L. Moreno carried dialectic 'reasoning' to a point of clarity when he wrote in his "God" book about "Role-playing," Who Shall Survive?: "The born child is regarded as a possession, as a property, perhaps as a reward for the suffering and sacrifice entailed in giving it birth. This feeling as a counterpart in the relation of the creator to his work [God created man in his image, therefore man is to evaluate the world from His commands and obey His commands instead of following after the ways of the world, as the parent's create the child in their image, therefore the child is to evaluate the world from their parent's commands and obey their commands instead of following after the ways of the world]. He, too, is inclined to regard his work, his child, as his property. But both the parents and the creators are most humanly the victims of the same lust which can be called the parental illusion or syndrome. It is an emotional illusion in the first case, predominantly and intellectually, in the second." "A creator, as soon as his work has emanated from him, has no right to it any longer except a psychological right. [This is the same aloofness Satan has toward God and his creation. Isaiah 14:12-15] He had all rights upon it as long as it was growing in him but he has forfeited these as soon as it is gone out of him and becomes a part of the world. It belongs to universality." [Tell this to a copy-write or patent holder and see what they say.] "Parents have no right upon their offspring except a psychological right. Literally the children belong to universality." "We propose, therefore, the specialization of the notion of parenthood into two distinct and different functions-the biological parent and the social parent. They may come together in one individual or they may not. But the problem is how to produce a procedure which is able to substitute and improve this ancient order." (J. L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive?) Bracketed information added to all quotations above. These men are presumptuous in their thinking, as Eli's sons, they are rebellious, selfwilled children (1 Samuel 2:11-17, 22, 23, 29-36; 3:12-14). They are thieves who steal anything they see and kill and destroy anything which they see that they can not have for themselves or control (John 10:10). Concerning Lot and Sodom (a city of "equal opportunity," a city of "the people" discovering their "full potential," of dialectic 'reasoning') the scriptures state: "(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities." 2 Peter 2:8-10 (God's description of dialectic thinkers and doers and His judgment upon them begins at vs. 1 and continues through to vs. 22: 2 Peter 2)
The reason, according to Hegel, the top-down Father-Son relationship (and yet, according to the scriptures, equal in holiness, glory, and righteousness) have "lost their importance" in the church (and accordingly must be negated, not only in the church but also in the state) is that the there-and-then of the past (God's commands and His judgment upon man for his disobedience of them, and the promised fulfillment of them, by the obedience of Christ to His Heavenly Father in all things, i.e. fulfilling all righteousness―as he has called all men likewise to be obedient to His Heavenly Father, directed by His Word, walking in His Holy Spirit) and the there-and-then of the future (God's judgment of condemnation to eternal death upon all men of sin, i.e. pouring out his wrath upon "the children of disobedience," and salvation to eternal life upon all men who had faith in, believed upon, obeyed, and accepted His chastisement―"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." Isaiah 53:5―His righteousness being imputed to the redeemed because of their faith in Him) have lost their interest or meaning to the person in the here-and-now, who are now possessed by the pleasures of the world, following after their natural inclinations, controlled by the sensuous present (the absence, mocking, or rejection of condemnation, Hell, and eternal damnation for sin will do that). Hegel rejected salvation by faith having supplanted faith (in the there-and-then) with reasoning (in the here-and-now), righteousness with sensuousness, the past, present, and future under God' rule, with the present and future under man's control (the past being the "universal," the" thing in itself," the "divine spark" repressed by the father's commands, not yet manifested, becoming actualized through the praxis of reasoning in the present, negating the father's voice of restraint of the "past"). It is here that Sigmund Freud developed psychology, as will be explained later.
By Hegel rejecting the top-down, Father-Son order (rejecting righteousness as the issue of life), he rejected the resurrection of the Son, the Spirit of His Heavenly Father having raised Christ from the grave, and therefore he rejected the Father and the Son both sending the Holy Spirit to the believer, i.e. sending the comforter to reveal the Father-Son relationship in the redeemed (in the here-and-now) confirming God (above man, but now also in man, by His Holy Spirit) in the here-and-now (in the present), i.e. the Father's commands, through His Son, made manifest to the redeemed by the Holy Spirit, i.e. the Holy Spirit baring witness to (confirming) God's Word, bringing peace and joy, i.e. that which was promised in the there-and-then (in the past), regarding the there-and-then (in the future), given to the believer in the here-and-now (in the present). The peace that passes understanding and the joy which is unspeakable, i.e. they can not be understood by the world since they are of God and not of man, of the Spirit and not of the flesh, while known by the believers in Christ (those of faith in the Lord, filled with the Holy Spirit), are not understandable to the unbeliever, those of "human reasoning," those controlled by the spirit of darkness, i.e. those who are of the "divine sparks" of darkness, i.e. ever learning but never able to understand, those who, by "professing themselves to be wise," have become fools.
The following quotations by Hegel, though "academic," should make what is happening around you today more understandable, i.e. we are living according to Hegel's reasoning rather than living according to God's word. Blinded by his own 'reasoning' abilities, i.e. justifying himself, i.e. justifying his carnal nature, Hegel believed that when man's reasoning (his thoughts) become detached from past commands, commands which have no sensual meaning to him in the here-and-now, yet still direct ("rule over") his present and future, he find's himself "reflecting" upon his own sensuous interest, in the sensuous 'moment,' in the sensuous world (sensuousness supplants righteousness as the issue of life). At this moment his meditating on his father's words (of the so called "past") become displaced (remember Hegel rejected the resurrection and therefore rejected the Holy Spirit being sent to man, the redeemed, by the Father and the Son to confirm and make understandable God's word, i.e. His presence in the here-and-now), i.e. negated by his reflecting upon his own desires in the "light" (the sensuousness) of the present sensuous 'moment,' i.e. the basis of situation ethics and values clarification where man's carnal nature and reasoning become the only venue for potential to become actual, i.e. for his life to have 'purpose'). Reasoning upon (imagining) what the here-and-now "ought" to be like, 'liberates' him, at least for the moment, from his father's authority. Thus when morality, based upon man's quest for salvation from God's judgment upon him, because of his carnal nature, looses its footing, i.e. his Father's commands no longer rule over his life, the 'purpose' of life is detached from God, who is above, to man, who is below, i.e. of himself, i.e. in, of, and for the world which is below. Therefore regarding reasoning or philosophy (how the world which "is," "ought" to be―"ought to be free, that is, no longer under the father's authority"), the Father's "not," along with his chastening or judgment (or threat of chastening or judgment), preventing the child's "ought" from coming to "thought," i.e. therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' must be negated in the child's "mind" and in his social actions (praxis) if the "ought," "how the world ought to be," is to become 'reality," i.e. how the world "can be" if man unites, reasoning as one in the praxis of consensus. Human reasoning 'liberates' "oughtiness" (the child's will) by negating "not-iness," (the Father's authority).
Dialectic 'reasoning' negates the father's authority to rule over home, land, and business, thinking and acting as though it was his to rule over, under God. Millions have died at the hand's of communists because they believed that their homes, their land, and their businesses where theirs (under God) and not society's home, land and business, i.e. universal to all. (Abortion, euthanasia, etc. follow in suit, in the Hegelian ideology that what has no worth or value to society, i.e. inhibits "enjoyment," has no worth or value. This is what is now called communitarianism) Hegel wrote: "It may be said that Philosophy [human reasoning] first commences when ... a gulf has arisen between inward strivings and external reality, and the old forms of Religion, &c., are no longer satisfying [sensually enjoyable]; when Mind manifests indifference to its living existence or rests unsatisfied therein, and moral life becomes dissolved." (Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philosophy Introduction B. Relation of Philosophy to Other Departments of Knowledge) Bracketed information added. When there is no fear of chastisement or judgment from God for one's thoughts and actions, sensual enjoyment becomes the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of life, i.e. the church becomes "purpose driven" in the enjoyment, i.e. changeability/adaptability/tolerability of the world and its sins.
As will be shown later, Hegel believed that morality (justice) resides within the child ("the child within"), waiting to be 'liberated' from the father's restraints upon it, through the praxis of reasoning (or reasoning put into praxis). Hegel calls philosophy the moment of reasoning where the "Mind takes refuge in the clear space of thought to create for itself a kingdom of thought" (ibid), a kingdom which is 'liberated' from and is in "opposition" to, i.e. destructive to that kingdom which is from above (that kingdom which he called 'reality' so as to leave the uneducated in the "dark" regarding his 'purpose' to negate God's authority over His creation, i.e. exampled in the father's authority to rule over his own family, land, and business, under God). "For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." 1 Corinthians 10:26 "And God said, LET US make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Genesis 2:26 Those of dialectic 'reasoning' would want it another way, i.e. that they would have dominion over all the earth, including man. Seducers, deceivers, and manipulators would have it no other way. To create a "new" world order man must create syntheses, become as one, unity upon sensuousness through reasoning, come to consensus upon what all men have in common, etc., by negating antithesis, that which divides, "I'm right and your wrong," "mine, not yours," etc., by negating any permanent, eternal thesis, the authority of the Father, the top-down paradigm, righteousness. Dialectic reasoning is the way of unrighteousness. "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." Romans 3:10-18
When man "creates" (in truth he can only 'change' what "is"), something must be destroyed or die. "Philosophy is a free and not self-seeking activity, … This activity contains the essential element of a negation, because to produce is also to destroy; … as Mind passes on from its natural form, it also proceeds from its exact code of morals and the robustness of life to reflection and conception. The result of this is that it lays hold of and troubles this real, substantial kind of existence, this morality and faith, and thus the period of destruction commences." (Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philosophy Introduction B. Relation of Philosophy to Other Departments of Knowledge) When God creates (He makes that which is not, "is" and what is dead, alive), there is newness of life. "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else." Isaiah 45:18
Man's reasoning is bound to the world, controlled by the "here-and-now" sensuous moment, and therefore is self-seeking and vain. "Philosophies spring from the same spirit in man [the "divine spark" of reasoning] which gives rise to his practical works [the praxis of negating, i.e. destroying any authority that restraints the "divine spark" from becoming one with the world]. Philosophy [human reasoning] is not outside the world; it simply has a different kind of presence in the world. The world is its ground; it is the spiritual quintessence of its age. The world is the object of its enquiry and concern; it is the wisdom of the world." (comments by Joseph O'Malley, translator of Karl Marx's Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right) Bracketed information added, i.e. referencing Hegel's ideology which Marx wanted to put into social action (praxis). Praxis always entails the negation (destruction) of righteousness, identified as a top-down Father system restraining/condemning (chastening/judging) not only the love of sensuousness ("the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes") but also any reasoning which is used to 'justify' it ("the pride of life"), i.e. all that is of the world.
When dealing with crisis (especially in a group setting―the "youth group," laden with emotions and "ought's," is a good example), reasoning (theory or opinion) detaches man (the youth) from that reality which is from above (top-down), i.e. the father's authority, i.e. that reality which is of righteousness (or of the system of Righteousness), allowing man (the youth) to 'discover' "reality" as being only that which is below (common, within themselves, i.e. of equality), i.e. that which is of the here-and-now, that which is of sensuousness, that which is "of nature only" (as Karl Marx stated it). Role-playing hypothetical situations of life, negates the father's authority in regard to solutions to the issues (crisis) of life (the experience itself is Godless, even though the event might be called "a bible study"). Thus sin, i.e. disobedience to the Heavenly Father, disobedience to He who is above, disobedience to a Heavenly Authority, is converted to a "guilty conscience," i.e. disobedience to the earthly father, disobedience to he who is below, disobedience to an earthly authority. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' without reasoning being "liberated" in the here-and-now, "liberating" man from his sense of sin and/or guilt (that which is of the authority which is from above and/or of the authority which is from below, i.e. that which is of the there-and-then ruling over the here-and-now, i.e. over the present), he can not come to know himself as he really is, i.e. carnal, i.e. at-one-with the spirits of the world, i.e. a "divine spark" amongst "divine sparks," becoming as one with all "divine sparks," i.e. becoming as God, i.e. 'righteous' in himself, i.e. 'righteous' in his cosmic consciousness (why eastern religion follows in behind dialectic 'reasoning'). "In the process of history man gives birth to himself. He becomes what he potentially is, and he attains what the serpent―the symbol of wisdom and rebellion―promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself." (Erich Fromm, You shall be as gods) Sin and a "guilty conscience," i.e. fear of God and a love of His Word, become moot in a world of dialectic 'reasoning.' If there is no fear of God and love of His Word there is no sense of sin or a "guilty conscience." This is why "church growth" ministers always defend dialogue, to the death (over and against the preaching and teaching of the Word of God, as is) because in dialogue there is no sense of sin or a "guilty conscience," i.e. there is no fear of God and love of His Word. In that way they can have relationship with the world, tolerate and participate in unrighteousness, without any sense of condemnation. Even doing so in "the name of the Lord."
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' man's concern therefore becomes temporal (in the here-and-now) rather than spiritual (of the there-and-then). Deceived by the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning,' man remains lost, condemned to eternal death. But by faith alone, through Christ alone, by God's grace alone, and by His Word alone, we have no hope of salvation from God's judgment upon us for our dialectic 'reasoning,' our 'justifying' of our sinful and unrighteous nature, our continuing to follow after that "spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience." "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Ephesians 2:1-3 All praise and glory be to God our creator and redeemer, the Father of lights. "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:17 But there is one who comes as an angel of light, disguising himself as a minister of righteousness who is not sent by God. "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Luke 11:35 Man 'justifying' himself before himself (dialectic 'reasoning') is an abomination.
Enlightened "church leadership," deceived and taking pleasure in deceiving others, is/are using the dialectic process to "grow the church." (Deceived people, like a drunkard, sometimes might know that what they are doing "might" be wrong, thinking that being more right than wrong is right, but do not realize or want to accept how much damage, i.e. evil they are doing, not only to themselves, but also to others, who they say they "love.") Believing that the dialectic process can be used to "advance" the Kingdom of God, they are instead walking upon (and causing others to walk upon) the pathways of darkness, following after that spirit which is not of God. Beware, all who journey thereon. You can not keep your faith in God and praxis the dialectic process, i.e. you can not praxis Genesis 3:1-6, i.e. the basis of Cabalism, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Belial, Humanism, Globalism, etc, and follow Christ. Those who try, deceive not only themselves but also deceive all who follow them, taking all who follow them down the pathway of unbelief, unrighteousness, darkness, Belial, infidelity, idolatry, and therefore to eternal death. God warns us, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18
Hoping to write a "brief" to prepare you for the Introduction to the Articles (the introduction becoming some 79 pages in length), I wrote a 27 page preface. Then I wrote a pre-preface (if there is such a thing) of 24 pages to prepare you for the preface (to better understand it). Together the pre-preface, preface, and Introduction to the Articles (and this "short" précis you are now reading―I keep adding to it so it's not "so short" any more, i.e. 150 plus pages and counting, last revision 08-31-12) make up the best summation of the dialectic process and its consequences I have written to date (they have all the key quotations as far as a basic understanding of the dialectic process goes―at least peruse the quotations). The only one's who will refute it (their being seduced, deceived, and manipulated by their use of the dialectic process) are those who refused to read these articles (are not interested in knowing the truth).
This information is not going to change the world, although that would be wonderful, those of the "enlightened" mind will most likely not read it (I'm sure I've lost most of them already), i.e. there are too many scriptures, making it one sided, i.e. "unbalanced," i.e. "irrational," and therefore "irrelevant" to them, but it will encourage the believer not to give up, give in to, and go with the world, having a better understanding on what is happening to the world around them and how it is taking place (including within the "church"). The believer is not justified by "the approval of men" but is instead justified by his faith in "the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God." Why sell God's love (entailing chastening and is of His own righteousness, which is eternal life) for man's love (entailing permissiveness and is of his own sensuousness, which is temporal, i.e. temporary and leads to eternal death)? "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Matthew 16:25
"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon." Isaiah 55:7
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
I will give one example to help carry you through the defining of the dialectic process. Although it might seem strange at first it will become clear as you read through the following material. The dialectic process follows along the line of conflict which children have with their parents (or rather parents have with their children―I will use the word father instead of parent's from now on to emphasize the importance of the patriarchal paradigm, although the mother also chastens the disobedient child, sustaining the father's authority when he is not present). The dialectic process sides with the child, engendering a "new" world order with "the children of disobedience," united as one, "controlling" the home, along with all of society. With the father preaching and teaching his commands, using chastening to maintain order, to initiate and sustain his chain of command, the only way the child can negate the father's authority (and "do their own thing" or rather "doing their own thing" negating the father's authority) is to first (1) dialogue with other children (sharing their desires and 'justifying' themselves, i.e. 'justifying' their feelings of dissatisfaction which they have against their father's commands, commands which inhibit their natural inclinations, i.e. dialoguing their opinions with others of equal dissatisfaction, coming into agreement, coming into consensus, that they are "right," i.e. their "I ought to be" is "right," and the father's right to say "Because I said so," is wrong, thereby negating their conscience―negating the internal voice of restraint, i.e. the voice of authority, i.e. the threat of judgment and chastening by the father), then (2) calculate (dare I say conspire) how they (all the children united, i.e. the collective) can best "circumvent" the father's orders and authority and then (3) put their consensus plan into social action (praxis) responding to their fathers (and his commands) as not only being 'irrational' (out of touch with their "rapidly 'changing,' i.e. unstable world") but also as being 'irrelevant' (of no worth or value to their "rapidly 'changing,' i.e. unreliable world") as they "do their own thing," following after their own natural inclinations, i.e. acting "normal." Without the overthrow of the father's authority, the next generation will continue to believe that "the ideal family situation" for raising children is the traditional family environment with the father ruling the home. Without the negation of the father's authority, the children, the family, and society will remain loyal to the established way of doing things and no 'change' will or can take place. That condition, the ideal family system, must therefore be dialectically ("scientifically") defined if it is be be dialectically ("scientifically") neutralized, marginalized, and negated for the 'purpose' of 'change.' "The conception of the ideal family situation for the [traditional] child [is]: (1) uncritical obedience to the father and elders, (2) pressures directed unilaterally from above to below, (3) inhibition of spontaneity, and (4) emphasis on conformity to externally imposed values." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) Bracketed information added According to dialectic 'reasoning,' these four conditions must be identified, neutralized, marginalized, and negated through the use of the consensus process, i.e. the dialectic process, if there to be "equality," i.e. a "new" world order where the "Christ" without a Father's authority, i.e. the Antichrist, can control the world.
As you will come to understand, there is a direct correlation, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' between the traditional family system and the system of God, i.e. faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, i.e. righteousness (at least the system of Righteousness, i.e. where it is the Father who establishes what is right and what is wrong behavior and thought, establishes the punishment for or judgment for disobedience, and the conditions for restoration). The dialectical 'reasoning' being, if you can negate the one system (the earthly father and his authority over the children) you can negate the other system (the Heavenly Father and His authority over man), both systems being the same (only the Heavenly Father being able to impute righteousness itself and eternal life to those who have faith in, believe upon, trust in, and love Him and His only begotten Son, walking in His Spirit, able therefore to obey Him in all things, accepting chastening, i.e. reproof for disobedience, for lusting after sensuousness, i.e. for following after the ways of the world―the Father's mercy and grace following after a humble and repentant heart).
For 'change' to take place, not only in the child but also in the family, and therefore society (freeing man of a "guilty conscience"), the father's top-down system of authority has to be negated―negation means not coming to mind or recognized as having worth or value―the family system itself has to be 'changed.' Social change can be achieved by creating conflict (crisis) in the home, by "liberating" the child's mind through the classroom experience (through the use of dialectic 'reasoning' in the classroom―what "Bloom's Taxonomies" calls "higher order thinking skills in morals and ethics" where a persons personal values/opinions influence the outcome without any outside sources, .i.e. father's authority, dictating what is right or wrong)―also the same method used in the youth group meeting, etc), i.e. "liberating" the students/children from having to respect, honor, and submit to parental authority, and then sending them back into the home where they will challenge the father's authority, where the father, out of concern (fear) for the safety of himself and his family (to restore his order in the family), will turn to "the authorities," even in the church, for "help," i.e. authorities who are themselves under the influence and control of dialectic 'reasoning', i.e. authorities 'changed' through the facilitated meetings they are required to participate in while learning their profession, thereby empowering them from then on to "control" not only the father's life but the lives of all the fathers in "the village." Being freed of the fathers authority, the children do not perceive themselves as being hateful, only that the father is being hateful in maintaining his "stubborn" way of doing things. It is now the father "who does not understand," i.e. who needs "counseling." His "negation," i.e. his refusal to recognize the equality of himself with his children and the community, his insistence that his family, property, and business is "his," under God, is negated through counseling, through learning the equality of all things (the "negation of negation," i.e. the negation of antithesis, i.e. negating the Father-Son, above-below, either-or, "Mine, not yours," etc. way of thinking and acting through the praxis of consensus, i.e. experiencing the dialectic way of thinking and acting, i.e. 'changing' his belief-action antithesis into theory and practice synthesis).
Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' while claiming to be 'purposed' in the ending of violence instead initiate and sustain it (utilizing it) for their intended 'purpose,' i.e. for controlling (by fear and crisis) the "masses," i.e. creating a "new" world order where "the people" (the children) are no longer under their father's (or God's) authority but under the control of their "liberators" (the conscience, which restrains deviant behavior in the person, keeping them under authority, is converted to the super-ego, where the person becomes tolerant of deviant behavior for "the good of society," questioning authority). The people (the children), thinking themselves freed to be themselves, are now under the influence and control of those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. subject to the influence and control of social psychologists (transformational Marxists), the facilitators of 'change.' Carl Rogers, in his book on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy, quoting B. F Skinner, explained it this way: "'Now that we know how positive reinforcement works [the liberating of permissiveness to reinforce socialism, i.e. accentuating the need for 'change'], and why negative doesn't' [the use of chastening to reinforcing parental authority, i.e. demanding obedience]... 'we can be more deliberate and hence more successful in our cultural design. 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, nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do. That's the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement―there's no restrain and no revolt. By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior―the motives, the desires, the wished. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises." Bracketed information added. Underlined was in italics in original source.
While one child (isolated in a traditional home setting) is not strong enough to defend himself against the father's chastening (his pre-Marxist arm, striking out at the father when he does not get his way, is not strong enough yet to overthrow the father's authority), a social grouping of children (in adult bodies), i.e. with public support (through the use of social support), are able to "overthrow" the system of fatherly authority. By the children refusing to obey their father, treating him as being 'irrational' (not understanding of the current or imagined future situation) and his commands as being 'irrelevant' (unimportant in regards to the solving of problems in the current or imagined future situation), i.e. holding him in disrespect, conflict can be created within the home to the point where the father either gives in to "the children of disobedience" (so as to have some "peace" in the home) or calls authorities, who instead of siding with the father, pressure the father into counseling, getting the father to dialogue his opinions to a consensus with his children, or remove the children from the father or remove the father from his children if he insists upon chastening his children to initiate or sustain his "old fashioned" top-down order of the world. In this way, through the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning,' all children (mankind) can be "liberated" from fatherly (Godly) restraint by working together as one for the cause of "equality" ("We working together for Us."). "Equality of opportunity." "All children are at risk." and "No child left behind." all take on "new" meaning when seen through a dialectic "lens." As in Sodom, no one must be allowed to escape (all must participate within) the process if the process is to be successful. With community support on the side of "the children of disobedience," laws and community programs put into place restraining the father from chastening his children for "doing their own thing," a "new" order of the world becomes reality, i.e. a "new" world order comes into being, where "the children of disobedience," or rather, the people they look up to, i.e. the facilitators of 'change,' i.e. experts in the change process (who "the children of disobedience," respect, esteem, and worship) "control" the affairs of man and the earth. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' when the children are outside of (in a place freed of) the father's restraint (in an "experiential chasm," outside of the father's hedge of protection), when they can "do their own thing" without fear of judgment, when they can do that which is antithetical to their father's will, with social approval, they become "empowered." They are now free to "be themselves," free to be "their own person," free to "discover their full potential," free to "control their own destiny"―as the woman in a garden in Eden and Adam became (until God showed up). Only in an environment where the child is freed from judgment, can he rediscover his nature, can he become free to think for himself, and thereby overcoming the past, overcoming the influences of the father, 'discover' a life 'driven' by the augmentation of pleasure and 'purposed' in the attenuation of pain. "... memory of gratification is at the origin of all thinking, and the impulse to recapture past gratification is the hidden driven power behind the process of thought." (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud). The dialectic 'reasoning' is: only in an environment where the thoughts and actions of the next generation of citizens can be reattached to their childhood impulses and past gratifications (an environment freed of the father's authority) can a "new" world order be created.
The "new" world order is an "order" which has no fatherly authority, i.e. bourgeoisie (or God) "repressing" (according to Freud) and "alienating" (according to Marx) the children, i.e. the proletariat, i.e. "the people." It is an order which negates (treats as 'irrational,' 'irrelevant,' and therefore "extrudes" from society, 'purifies' society of) fathers who "force" their children (inculcating and chastening them) to live according to their (and/or God's) standards, sustaining his "old fashioned" top-down way of thinking and doing things. This is dialectic 'reasoning' being put into praxis (social action). This is Hegel at his "finest 'logic.'" "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life) This is why the father's (God's) authority must be negated (overthrown in the thoughts and actions of all men, though the praxis of consensus) or the process ("the children of disobedience") can not be successful, i.e. the "wholism" of society, the oneness of the universe, the kingdoms of the world united as one under the Antichrist, can not become a reality. When the children are prevented from coming together as one, the dialectic process can not be successful (mentally helping the children overthrow their father's and God's authority over them). And when the dialectic process is prevented from being used, the children can not come together as one (physically uniting as one, purposed in overthrowing their father's and God's authority over them, directed, guided, coached, etc. by the master facilitator of the dialectic process―guess who that might be). By "isolating" the children (and "the people"), i.e. maintaining the authority and sovereignty of the family, of small business, of ownership of land, and of the nation, by preventing the children (and "the people") from experiencing themselves as being at-one-with the world (through the consensus process, i.e. the dialectic process), "The dialectical method was overthrown―the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)
Whoever defines terms for you controls (or rules over) your life (depending upon how terms are defined). Therefore if the person who defines terms for you is changed in the way they think and act, i.e. changed in their paradigm (is 'changed' from preaching and teaching truth to you to dialoguing with you to 'discover' truth), you will be changed. God defines terms according to His righteousness, according to His will, thus ruling over you through your faith in, your belief upon, your obedience to, and your acceptance of His chastening of you when you are disobedient (known as a patriarchal paradigm). Satan defines terms according to your sensuousness, according to your will to have the pleasures of this world, thus having control over you, seducing, deceiving, and manipulation you through your lusts and your pride of life (called a heresiarchal paradigm of 'changingness'). By changing the person who defines terms, from He who is above ruling over those who are below to where both above and below are perceived as being "equal," the above but "equal" are able to control the below but "equal." The people above but "equal" are able to seduce, deceive, and manipulate those who are below but "equal" by controlling the environment, deceiving those who are below but "equal" by telling them that everyone and everything is becoming "equal" as long as those who are below but "equal" let those who are above but "equal" define the terms. The truth is, the one's below but "equal" are in actuality worshiping, serving, and protecting those who are above but "equal" because those who are above but "equal" are letting those who are below but "equal" "do their own thing," blinding those who are below but "equal" of their subjugation by, slavery to , and death because of those who are above but "equal." When the terms (issues) of life and death are changed from righteousness to sensuousness (or from sensuousness to righteousness) a person's eternity is determined.
Your language reflects your culture. If you change a person's language you will change his culture and conversely if you change a person's culture you will change his language. The language of the scriptures is didactic, to be preached and taught as "is," to be obeyed or else. It is a language and a culture of righteousness, of faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, of the peace, love, and joy of the Lord, convicting of sin, fulfilling righteousness, bringing judgment, and is eternal life, i.e. unchanging. The language of the world is dialectic, dialoguing opinions about what "ought to be," "should be," or "could be or can be if only ...." It is a language and a culture of sensuousness, of the pleasures of this world, of doubting, questioning, permissiveness and tolerance, i.e. tolerance of ambiguity, unrighteousness, and sin, and, although in the 'moment' it seems to be life, ever 'changing,' it leads to eternal death. The latter, being of the father of lies, will try to assimilate (cover itself with the appearance of) the former, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating the many into believing it is the way to life. The former, being of truth, love, and life, will not (can not) be in harmony (assimilate) with the latter, the way of death. Isaiah 55:8, 9 You can not change God's word to make it fit with the world (change it to make it subject to men's opinions, so that the carnal, worldly man can "better" understand it, i.e. understand it in the 'light' of his own carnal, worldly mind. Thereby, not coming under conviction for his sins, not knowing of his condemnation, he feels no need to repent of his sins, having rejected the Lord Jesus Christ as his savior and Lord, redeeming him so that he can know His Heavenly Father. You can not use textural criticism and heresy documents (initiated and sustained by men's opinions) in the church or you will create confusion and doubt, engendering dialogue, thereby negating faith, belief, obedience, and the acceptance of chastening for disobedience. If you do change the language, culture, and the one who defines the terms of the scriptures, what you are reading and studying is no longer the word of God (of the Father), but rather is of the opinions of men (of the world). What the world will then understand is not the righteousness of Christ but only the sensuousness of man, thus engendering an apostate church "driven" by sensuousness, "purpose" in its augmentation, leaving man in his sins.
The "youth group" of the local church, 'driven' by "doing it's own thing" ("in the name of the Lord") can serve the same 'purpose,' 'liberating' the next generation from a top-down system of "It is written," "Thus saith the Lord," and "Because I said so," displacing righteousness with sensuousness, i.e. displacing God's love with man's love. The scriptures are to be preached and taught as is, being the word of God. Even when they are discussed, they are still recognized, respected, honored, and obeyed as the final authority, the Holy Spirit confirming the word, the Lord directing man's steps. In discussion, the top-down order remains in place. When "discussion" is used within a group to solve an issue all sense perceive a higher authority directing the discussion, i.e. there is a sense of authority and a sense of outcome based upon accepted facts (formal, logical, contradictory, i.e. right vs. wrong, i.e. to affirm, justify, and defend a position) where a particular (prior) position rules the outcome (discussion is simply an effort to come to an understanding of the right position, doing right and not wrong being the issue). But in the case where the group is "discussing" in an environment which is engineered (facilitated) to engender a consensus, the "facts" and the conditions accepted are only those "facts" and "truths" which come from the group experience itself ("appropriate information" being that which all in the group can tolerate or agree upon, "inappropriate information" being that which causes division or dissention within the group). This engenders consensus, whereby the authority of position (and therefore truth and worth and value) is determined through the group experience itself (negating the authority of the father―there is no father's authority in dialogue). What might be called "discussion" by the facilitators, as they pre-determine the procedure to initiate and sustain 'change' within the group, is in truth dialogue, when applied within the group setting. "The ideal of democratic deliberation [the negation of a top-down system] is an intelligent and uncoerced consensus concerning what should be done. This consensus will attempt to incorporate the valid insights and values of all parties in the conflict. The validity of these various insights and values is to be tested by the common study, deliberation, and discussion of the group and ultimately by the consequences of the common plan as it works out in action and as these consequences are evaluated by the common judgment of the group." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) No longer does the person evaluate the situation, what is right and what is wrong, according to their father's standards, but now evaluate it according to their own, and the groups, opinion, i.e. their feelings and thoughts now under the influence and control of the current or imagined future situation. In this way, what might appear to be discussion is instead an act of dialoging opinions to a consensus.
There is no top-down authority (therefore no right for the father or God to demand righteousness or right to chasten his children for their thoughts and acts of unrighteousness) in an environment of dialogue. Separation of church and state, which was perceived as freedom of the conscience, is now freedom of the state from the affects of religion, negating the top-down system of the conscience. It is this condition of confusion, discussion morphed into dialoguing to consensus, that discussion, which implies a higher authority over the person (a father or God), is transformed into a collective experience, where the sensation of "group experience" (oneness with the environment, i.e. with the universe) itself becomes the final authority, the feeling (sensation) of "group think" from then on becoming a driving force in "the peoples" thoughts and actions. "A Dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals." "A key difference between a dialogue and an ordinary discussion is that, within the latter people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favour of their views as they try to convince others to change. At best this may produce agreement or compromise, but it does not give rise to anything creative." "The purpose of dialogue is to reveal the incoherence in our thought ... genuine and creative collective consciousness." "What is essential here [in the consensus process] is the presence of the spirit of dialogue, which is in short, the ability to hold many points of view in suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation of common meaning." (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity) underline added
The objective of dialectic 'reasoning' is to move a person away from discussion, i.e. away from maintaining a thesis position (a position given to him from above), into dialogue, i.e. expressing personal feelings and thoughts regarding a position, whereby, within a group setting, with all participants 'willingly' dialoguing their personal feelings and thoughts, a person could experience a consensus, a feeling of oneness with that which is below, a oneness established upon common feelings and common thoughts with others, moving all participants away from God and His Word, i.e. away from that which is above, to where all could find meaning and purpose for their lives in themselves, as a part of mankind below, i.e. in their "felt" needs alone. While dialogue is used in casual conversation which does not demand an outcome, discussion carries with it a demand for a position and an outcome. While scientists might dialogue their personal feelings or thoughts regarding the scientific project they are working on (having to suspend points of contention to maintain the dialogue), they discuss the facts they know regarding the scientific project they are working on (holding to their position unless otherwise persuaded by the facts). To dialogue your faith with those not of your faith (or of your faith) is to negate faith (the either-or/above-below of faith is negated). To discuss your faith with others not of your faith will cause confrontation unless you 'change' your faith to theirs or they 'change' their faith to yours (the either-or/above-below of faith remains). Language and culture are interrelated. Dialogue allows people to suspend the divisiveness which comes with their language as well as their culture. The Word of God is a culture and a language which, while being in the world, is not of the world. Dialogue allows "Christians" a way to suspend the "divisiveness" of the Word of God, thus making a way to overcome the division it creates between the "church" and the world (making both one).
Discussion is not the same thing as dialogue. In "dialogic reasoning" or dialogue, all 'willing' participants in the group experience, experience a sense of equality, equality based upon feelings, i.e. all, sharing their feelings and thoughts, experience a common concern, that all must be allowed (encouraged) to "willingly" participate. Therefore "listening skill" is not learning some pre-established facts but instead knowing what all participants have in common (also noting those who initiate and sustain difference/division regarding their personal thoughts and feelings), identifying with the common, that which unites, and separating, i.e. moving away from those who hold to a hard line of position, who preach and teach truth's and facts "as is," i.e. and are therefore unchanging, i.e. unchangeable―the person insisting upon "his way," insisting upon that which divides. Opinions dialogued to consensus produces a people who base love upon the "feeling of approval" by, and a sense of equality with "the group." The "group," approving/tolerating and uniting upon that which is common between all participants, thus becomes 'purposed' in the augmentation of man's natural inclinations, i.e. human nature, i.e. sensuousness. In this way, through dialectic 'reasoning, all men learn to depend upon the "approval of the man," i.e. "the group," 'justifying'/tolerating his unrighteous thoughts and unrighteous actions, his nature, that which he has in equal (in common) with all men. Common-ism is thus recognized and respected as being "the people's" final authority, with self-social justification from then on directing man's steps. Thus God's love, which requires holiness, based upon God's approval (man's repentance) is replaced with man's love, which requires compromise, based upon man's approval (the augmenting of his self-esteem), making the man who manifests God's love, which is unchanging as well as chastening, appear as being uncaring and hateful, his way of thinking and acting a barrier to social "cohesiveness." "The self-esteem—public esteem system is thus closely related to the concept of group cohesiveness. We have said that the degree of group's influence on self-esteem is a function of its cohesiveness." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy) "Only by bringing out the child's own ideas in dialogical and dialectical settings can the child begin to reconstruct and progressively transcend concepts [go beyond the father and his standards, i.e. freeing the child, and therefore mankind, of the concept of God, of a top-down system, i.e. with the issues of righteousness and sin becoming moot)." (Richard Paul, Critical Thinking Handbook) Bracketed information added.
"How can a situation be brought about which would permanently change social interactions?" "To bring about change, the old constellation of forces have to be upset." "Hand in hand with the destruction of the old social interactions [top-down order] must go the establishment (or liberation) of new social interactions ["equality" order]." (Kenneth Benne Human Relations in Curriculum Change) Karl Marx explained the permanent changing "of social interactions" in this way: "Criticism is now simply a means. Indignation is its essential pathos, denunciation its principle task. Criticism is criticism in hand-to-hand combat. Criticism proceeds on to praxis." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right) The issue for him was that an opinion, i.e. a criticism of what "is," could become an established position itself, inhibiting the process of 'change.' "However, Criticism falls into an inconsistency by thus having its opinion of itself represented as the opinion of the world and by its concept being converted into reality." (Karl Marx The Holy Family Chapter VII Critical Criticism's Correspondence 1) The Critical Mass) Without perpetual dialogue, i.e. reasoning being daily put into praxis, question what "is" and what "is not", man would fall back into a state of establishment, establishing his opinion as 'reality.' (Marx, in dialectic fashion, saw all truths or facts as simply men's opinions established as truths or facts, thereby forcing others to submit to a top-down patriarchal system.) In dialogue, man's reasoning is based upon his own "sense experiences" of the 'moment' (the augmentation of pleasure and the attenuation of pain being the sole 'purpose' of life) and is no longer subject to that which is greater than or is not of his "human nature." (Any effort to stop dialogue is "sense perceived" as being combative, prejudiced, narrow minded, and hateful and, if not halted, will be treated as such.) "Categorical imperative" ("Thus saith the Lord," "It is written," and "Because I said so") lose their "religious foundation" (lose their position of authority) in an environment of "discourse" (falsely so called), i.e. in an environment of opinions dialogued. (Jürgen Habermas, The inclusion of the Other. Studies in Political Theory) From then on, the lies (the self-social justifications) of "the children of disobedience" will come fast and furious as they use the dialectic process to 'justify' themselves before men, 'justifying' their love of this world, i.e. their sins, i.e. their thoughts and actions of unrighteousness, i.e. their abominations, as being "normal human behavior, even justifying themselves "in the name of the Lord." "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:5 "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5
One of the two transformational Marxist "bibles" for the liberals of the 60's, was Norman O. Brown's book, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History. The other "bible" was Herbart Marcuse's book, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud, where we get the phrase "If it feels good, just do it." According to their "bibles," redemption is not man being redeemed from his fallen nature, his human nature (not redemption from God's judgment, i.e. condemnation upon on him for following after it his carnal nature), but instead is man being redeemed from the father's or God's restraint upon his fallen nature (man is 'reconciled' back to and according to his carnal nature only), where dialectic redemption ('reconciliation') is the praxis of negating the father's or God's restraint upon the children and mankind, thereby "liberating" mankind and the children so that they can "be themselves," so that they can become "normal," 'reconciled' to their own carnal nature. In dialectic thought redemption (and therefore 'reconciliation') is not from sensuousness to righteousness, i.e. not redemption from man's lust of the flesh, i.e. not redemption to righteousness, i.e. not redemption from unrighteousness, not God or the father redeeming (reconciling) man or child to themselves, but instead is redemption from righteousness to sensuousness, i.e. redemption to man's lust of the flesh, i.e. redemption to sensuousness, i.e. redemption to unrighteousness, redeeming ('reconciling') man or child to the world, redeeming all who come under it's influence from righteousness. Dialectic 'reasoning' redeems the world from God by redeeming the children from their father by preventing the father from chastening his children for their having yielding to their natural inclinations, in disobedience to his commands, which, in dialectic correlate, is redeeming man from God's judgment upon him for his having yielded to his natural inclinations, in disobedience to God's commands. "Thus, for instance, once the earthly family [the earthly father who chastens his children, teaching them to obey him] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [the Heavenly Father who chastens those who are His, teaching them to obey Him], the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically [through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, putting fatherlessness, i.e. unrighteousness into praxis]." (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4) Bracketed information added. In dialogue there is no father's authority, there is no top-down authority, there is no righteousness. Isn't it interesting that Karl Marx understood the effect of dialogue in negating righteousness (negate the Father's authority, i.e. "Because I said So," "Thus saith the Lord," "It is written" etc., over the children) while "contemporary" ministers, who yell at me in defense of their use of dialogue to "grow 'their' church," don't.
Both books explain how Freud and Marx were united in and through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. Freud on an individual basis, in the form of psychology, and Marx on a social basis, in the form of sociology (in an active, not just an "intellectual" form). When both forms, the individual and the social, were united in "the aesthetic dimension and the corresponding feeling of pleasure ... [united] in the center of the mind .... link[ing] the ‘lower' faculties of sensuousness, (Sinnlichkeit) to morality ... – the two poles of human existence" (Marcuse) man was united with himself and the world in his social environment, i.e. united as one with himself and the world as he experienced it in harmony with himself and himself in harmony with it, in consensus, i.e. "willingly" participated in, a diverse group of people, dialoguing to a consensus, over social issues, in a facilitated meeting, facilitated by social-psychology, i.e. transformational Marxism, i.e. agents of 'change,' and then "willingly" joining with "the group" (the brotherhood, the fraternity, society) in putting the consensus into social action, i.e. into praxis for the purpose of 'change, he experienced a process of 'change,' a process known in the "past" as a soviet. But of course that passed away with the fall of the Iron Curtain. Didn't it? The dialectic idea being, whoever controls the environment (how policy is decided and carried out, i.e. controlling the language, the culture, and the terms) controls man, his physical, mental, and social health, and thereby controls the world. Thus, according to dialectic 'reasoning, by negating the right of the father to rule over his family, by negating the sovereignty of the home, you can negate the right of nations to declare themselves sovereignties, the belief and action of sovereignty negated through the praxis of "equality" (consensus). "‘It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [the father no longer 'rules' over his family]." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) Bracketed information added.
Brown wrote: "By dialectic, I mean an activity of consciousness, struggling to circumvent, the limitations imposed by the formal-logical law of contradiction [the dialectic process is a 'reasoning' process used to overcome the conditions imposed by the father, i.e. commands to be obeyed without question]." "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents ["the guilty conscience is formed" in the child when the child accepts the father's right to chasten him for his disobedience of his father's commands]." "We must return to Freud and say that incest guilt created the familial organization [the child's strong feeling of "guilt" for following after (or thinking about following after) his own natural carnal inclinations (his natural carnal inclinations engenders incest―spontaneous union with the world of sensuousness―which, according to Freud, is normal human behavior), the child's fear of chastening by the father, for their disobedience to their father's orders, results in the child's obedience to the father's commands thus "empowering" the father to rule over the family with a top-down form of government as well as engendering "neurosis" within the child, i.e. an inability within the child to relate with the ever 'changing' world. Again: by the child's acceptance of the father's right to chasten him for his disobedience, the "guilty conscience" is formed in the child and by the child's obedience to the father's will without question, a top-down form of government is initiated and sustained not only in the home but also in the workplace, in education, etc., and even in the church. The objective of dialectic 'reasoning' is to "liberate humanity" from a patriarchal paradigm, i.e. from the father's authority]." "Human consciousness can be liberated from the parental (Oedipal) complex only by being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God.." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) It is in the mother-child relationship that relationship takes on its closes meaning to morality, according to dialectic reasoning. "Pregenital morality is an identification with the mother." [Its repression] "is bound up with the Father." (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) According to dialectic 'reasoning,' unrestrained love (harmony or oneness) with the mother (mother earth) and the children (man), i.e. incest can only happen in consensus with the death of the father, i.e. with the death of the law maker and/or death to his right to chasten those who disobey him and his orders. Diversity/deviancy coming to a 'moment' of consensus engenders patricide, which is "normal human behavior" according to Freud.
The first praxis of patricide is the child's hand of revolution striking out at his father for having taken his pleasure, his desire for union with the world in pleasure, away from him. The father's force of power, his chastening instead conquers the child's 'quest' for union with the world and turns him instead to the father for gratification. The child's mind is thus turned away from the world, i.e. away from that which he is in harmony with (drawn to) and what is in harmony with him (drawing him to it), and is instead turned toward a higher authority than himself and nature, i.e. his father, producing in him a conscience, i.e. the voice of the father internalized, i.e. the voice of restraint, the voice of righteousness from then on ruling over his life. In consensus the individual's conscience is replaced with the super-ego, i.e. the voice of "the village," i.e. the voice of permissiveness, the voice of sensuousness. In this way, the way of consensus, the fathers of the family, the patriarchs of "fixity" (Carl Rogers) are replaced with the children, the heresiarchs of 'change,' i.e. civil government (inalienable rights, where government is of, by, and for the citizens of principle, citizens of self-control initiated in and sustained by the patriarchal home, represented in the form of limited government, by people of principle, of conscience, voted into office to represent and protect the right of the traditional home, the right of the father to train up his children to have a strong conscience, knowing right from wrong) is replaced with "communitarianism" (human rights, where government, "the people" and their "representatives" are controlled through their participation in the praxis of social-psychologists, departments of government, departments of 'change,' influencing and controlling "the people" and their "representative" through the dialectic method of seduction, deception, and manipulation), a 21st century (more "user friendly") form of "the long march" of communism, with communism and capitalism synthesizing on a global scale, the French Revolution coming into fruition (community-individual, public-private partnership for the sake of "humanity," i.e. liberté, égalité, fraternité), leading "the people groups" of the world into a globalized culture of abomination―as we now see "emerging" around us, even from the "church." According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the "problem" to be solved is not the bridge which was washed out, but is instead the problem of division between the people and the nations of the world, divisions caused by "established" truths and facts of past generations which prejudice man against man and nations against nations, preventing them from becoming as one, i.e. 'changing' in a 'rapidly changing world.' The traditional family structure, its need to be 'changed' if a "new" world order is to be initiated and sustained, is at the heart of the problem. "The power-relationship between the parents, the domination of the subject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem." "Social environmental forces must be used to change the parents behavior toward the child." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) Without the father being changed (abdicating his office of authority), the family can not be changed, the world cannot be changed. "Once the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in the world approaching the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' conflict is created and sustained in that which holds us to differences, i.e. absolutes, i.e. "prejudices" (initiated and sustained by the patriarchal paradigm of unchangingness), harmony is created and sustained in that which we have in common (initiated and sustained by the heresiarchal paradigm of 'changingness'). According to the UN, the patriarchal paradigm, expressed in the traditional family and in the sovereignty of nations, i.e. authorities inculcating loyalty to that which divides man from man, preventing man from initiating and sustaining oneness with himself and the world, "brings us face to face with the most challenging dialectical conflict ever, between 'identity' and otherness, between the 'myself' and 'others.' Thus the human rights that we proclaim ... can be brought about only if we transcend ourselves [transcending the ideals we learn from the family, from our nation, and from God]. . . . to find our common essence beyond our apparent divisions, our temporary differences, our ideological and cultural barriers [transcending our father and God and finding ourselves within nature, i.e. within the world, all becoming as one]." (Boutros Boutros-Ghali former Secretary General of the UN speaking at the UN conference on human rights in 1993 in Vienna) Bracketed information added. No decision can be introduced to, addressed by, and carried out in the UN unless it is through the consensus process (making all religions simply opinions amongst opinions and all sovereignties (nations) simply one in praxis. "It is proposed that no facts or opinion be considered by the Congress unless the facts and opinions be the established consensus of a group of collaborators." (Harry Stack Sullivan, The Fusion of Psychiatry and Social Science) This very praxis not only negates the sovereignty of the nations of the world but also negates the rights of the families of those nations as well, negating the right of the father's to rule over their families, developing the conscience of their children. Ervin Laszlo, the instigator of the Rio Conference, i.e. the mind behind controlling the world through the use of international environmental laws wrote: "Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon .... transform public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests.... transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps..." (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order) In all this the issue of righteousness (obedience ... eternal life) is overtaken by the issues of sensuousness (permissiveness ... temporal life), i.e. the sovereignty of the traditional family and the sovereignty of the nation is thereby lost, with patricide and incest having taken their place.
Without righteousness being the issue of life, sensuousness ("normal human behavior," man lusting after "enjoyment," i.e. pleasure, i.e. the things of this world) controls the thoughts and the actions of the individual and "the people," whereby mankind becomes oppressed (oppression is doing what you want to do, all the while knowing it is wrong, i.e. still having a "guilty conscience," yet not being able to stop yourself from doing it, with no one around having a 'right' to stop you), subject to the control of the "children of disobedience," children of, by, and for the laws of wickedness, championing the cause of unrighteousness. Mankind, liberated from "the paternalistic state [mankind liberated from the condition whereby the state is initiated by the patriarchal family and sustained in its preservation of the patriarchal family, with the father ruling, the desires of the wife's heart being to her husband, and the children obeying their parents, in the Lord] and the patriarchal God," can only serve the way of the world and death, i.e. be a slave to his carnal nature and the world of sin, participating in the praxis of patricide and incest.
The unrighteous "redeem" themselves from righteousness through the praxis of dialogue. Through dialectical 'reasoning,' i.e. through the praxis of dialogue, i.e. dialoguing to consensus, the isolated child, under his father's authority, dialoguing with himself regarding his "ought," fellowshipping with others who are themselves isolated, under their father's authority, dialoguing with themselves regarding their "ought's," 'discover' their oneness with one another, revealed through dialogue, are synthesized into a thesis, i.e. come into consensus upon one "ought" they have in common, and then put that "ought" into praxis negating the condition of "isolationism," i.e. negating the father's authority to rule over his home, setting rules for his children to obey, chastening them when they do wrong. In this way, the unrighteous, i.e. "the children of disobedience" "redeem" themselves from righteousness, i.e. "redeem" themselves from the Father's authority through the praxis of dialogue, i.e. dialoguing their dissatisfactions, not only with their father's commands but also with his authority to chasten when the are disobeyed, i.e. "the children disobedience" united in the praxis of negating not only their father's commands but also his authority to rule in their praxis of self-social "affirmation and peace" (Hegel).
"Self-perfection of the human individual is fulfilled in union with the world in pleasure. Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world. Eros is the foundation of morality." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) Immanuel Kant called it "happiness." George Hegel called it "enjoyment." Karl Marx called it "sensuous experience." Sigmund Freud called it "pleasure." John Dewey called it "mimesis." The scriptures call it "lust" (as did Hegel, i.e. the word he used in the German language, translated to "enjoyment" in the English language). Whatever you call it, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is the dynamo which engenders oneness with self, nature, and the world. In the end it is abomination. Abomination in the form of incest (whatever can be imagined and put into praxis in the pursuit of pleasure―"as long as no one is hurt," whatever that means, in the 'moment' of ecstasy) is the legacy of dialectic 'reasoning' liberating the "masses" (the children) from the restraints of the patriarchal paradigm (from the father), from the system of Righteousness. Psychology is an effort to find what a man has in common with the world, according to his natural inclinations (leaving him in his unrighteousness). Sociology is an effort to find what all of mankind has in common with the world, according to his social needs (leaving him in his unrighteousness). Dialectic praxis (social-psychology put into social action) seeks to make reality out of that which both man and society have in common (incest―abomination) through the negation of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the negation of the system of Righteousness (patricide―either through abdication by the father or violence and revolution against him). "Freud noted that ... patricide and incest ... are part of man's deepest nature." (Irvin Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy)
Those who would dispute me on these facts, that psychology and sociology (social-psychology) partnership on the praxis of hate towards righteousness and love of sensuousness, thus 'justifying' abomination, are ignorant of the facts and need to do their homework instead of resting on their uneducated opinions, i.e. defending their carnal human nature, i.e. defending not only their own wicked and deceitful heart but also the wicked and deceitful hearts of all of mankind. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 There is no such thing as a Christian psychologist (the title Christian is used only to deceive the many as they 'justify' their wickedness). In diaprax, hate has not been dealt with, it has only been changed in the direction to which it is being used, i.e. from hating that which comes against the father and the family, i.e. hating societies control over that which is private, i.e. his land, his family, his business, and his life, to hating that which comes against man and society, i.e. hating the father's authority over that which is public, i.e. the land, the family, business, and life. "He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal." "He that hateth me hateth my Father also." "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." John 12:25; 15:23; 3:20 "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" 1 John 4:20 Only God can change the heart of man. Change it from the heart of love for the things of the world (a heart of darkness, hating the light), into a heart of love of God (a heart filled with His light).
World unity, facilitated through the use of social-psychology, i.e. the justification of man's carnal human nature as being "normal," can only build its platform upon "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life," all that which is "of the world": "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 It must therefore set out to negate all that which is of the Father, negate all that is of righteousness, if it is to attain world peace and social harmony. The dialectic idea being, its not "lust" if there is no father figure calling it wrong, sin, unrighteous, etc. restraining and/or condemning it.
Jesus declared that he did not came to bring peace amongst men (justifying man's unrighteousness) but rather that he came to divide man, dividing even the father from the son (that His Heavenly Father is the earthly father's and the earthly son's only true and everlasting justification). He also declared that we are not to call any man father (the final and unequivocal authority) on earth, that His Heavenly Father is to be our only true and everlasting father, who we are accountable to for our every thought and action. While our earthly father is not perfect in himself, he chastens his children for the pleasures of this life, the office he serves in is (to be honored). It is in his top-down position of authority that the next generation comes to know of the system of Righteousness, i.e. of faith, belief, obedience, and the necessity of chastening to bring him back to obedience under the father's authority, that he can come to know that there is only one above man and his nature and that he is accountable to Him alone (above all men). Those of dialectic 'reasoning' seek to destroy the father's authority in the home (by making all equal through dialogue where there is not top-down system of Righteousness) so that no man will accept God and His office, accept God as his creator, to be obeyed without question, and himself as God's created, subject to His will. A man calling himself father, with the intent to be obeyed without question alone, declaring and/or behaving himself as if he were God or equal with God, i.e. righteous in himself, destroys faith in in God alone, belief upon Him alone, obedience toward Him alone, and acceptance of chastening by Him alone, prevents man from serving God who is our true and everlasting Heavenly Father.
Thus dialectic 'reasoning' has major ramifications, not only for the individual but for all the nations of the world, bringing all people and nations into praxis, i.e. condemning all souls in the praxis of violence against the patriarchal paradigm and righteousness (those who love sensuousness, i.e. loving or at least tolerating abomination, hate righteousness)―thus augmenting the pursuit of pleasure for all mankind, i.e. dialectally 'justifying' death, for example, and other methods for depopulation―sustainable development, i.e. shedding the blood of the innocent, helpless, weak, and "expendable" for the sake of the "many," dialectically 'justifying abomination as a means to that end), i.e. bringing all "the people of the world," to their final judgment before our Heavenly Patriarch (Heavenly Father), God, for their unrighteous thoughts and their unrighteous deeds, i.e. praxis. Praxis is referred to as "theory and practice," i.e. bringing man's theories or opinions into practice, as was done in Genesis 3:1-6, i.e. 'justifying' man's carnal nature, displacing the belief-action dichotomy of Romans 7:14-25, i.e. negating the issue of sin and unrighteousness, and therefore negating the need for Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e. the Father's authority, i.e. chastening and righteousness. "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thessalonians 3:3-12
The truth is we need Hebrews 12:5-11 (thesis, position in the Lord) to deal with our Romans 7:14-25 (antithesis between flesh and Spirit, self and God, sensuousness and righteousness) to overcome our praxis of Genesis 3:1-6. (synthesis, i.e. consensus with the world)―either reasoning, the reason you are doing what you are doing, must be subject to righteousness, doing the Fathers will (which is life), or it will become subject to your own sensuousness, doing the will of the flesh and the world (which is sin, unrighteousness, and leads to death). "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
The dialectic process (explained in these articles) is the very same process used by Satan to seduce, deceive, and manipulate the woman in a garden in Eden, and is a process which is continued in use by him on man today. It is the very same foundation the, so called, "new world order" is built upon. The scriptures warn us that we are not to be ignorant of Satan's devices. And yet for some reason we are (even in the church). The question then is: if dialectic 'reasoning' is the same method used in a garden in Eden, whereby Satan was able to facilitate the woman in 'justifying' her carnal nature (and continues to be used by man to 'justify' his sinful nature against God and His Word), why is "church" leadership using the same method to "grow" the "church" today, "emerging" it from the people, upon shifting sands, according to his own sensuousness, rather than letting God build it upon Christ, upon the solid rock, according to His righteousness? Our response to the question, "What is the reasoning behind why you are doing what you are doing," must be because of Christ Jesus "the Son of the living God." which reasoning (and understanding) can not come from man (through opinions) but from our Heavenly Father alone, "for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." The church can only be built upon the Father-Son-Holy Spirit revealed/confirmed word (upon His righteousness, which is eternal life), thus prevailing over the ways of the world (over our sensuousness, which leads to eternal death), i.e. "upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:17-18 "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 In the end it has always been only about our Heavenly Father and His will, His only begotten Son, who obeyed His Fathers will even to death to be our savior from the Father's wrath upon our sin, and the power of the Holy Spirit, revealing to and manifesting through us the Father-Son relationship. It is our duty, as adopted children of our Heavenly Father to cast "down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and" bring "into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 Run the race to win, looking forward to the glory which lays ahead, enduring to the end.
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2012-2015