Introduction to the Articles:


Dean Gotcher

    I find myself at a disadvantage at times, having read the works of Godless men (hundreds of their books, reading some books many times over to make sure I clearly understand what the author was saying, i.e. to understand correctly their method of thinking and acting―with the Lord giving men clear understanding as to their deceitful and wicked ways in the light of his way of righteousness), men who knew the scriptures better than most men of God, and who cunningly (deceitfully) devised methods, which they found in the scriptures, for the promotion of evil rather than good, hiding their agenda (to 'justify' man's wickedness) in methods which have been brought into the "church" (through enlightened church leadership who thought that these methods would be "helpful" in "growing" their ministry, i.e. in "growing" their church). The disadvantage being that when I read the scriptures in meetings, most Christians, thinking it is just another bible class, tend to tune-out, not yet realizing the significance of the scriptures I am using, i.e. how the enemy is using them for his own 'purpose' (or gain) and their significance in exposing and overcoming the methods of the enemy, methods not yet exposed and understood (in the light of God's word) by the audience―in large part, not loving the Word of God because of having been already process in the "contemporary church," i.e. confused concerning and uncertain of the authority of God's word, they do not have a love for God's word, treating it as just another opinion amongst opinions.  Most misunderstanding and attack comes from those (along with their followers) who use the scriptures (much of which are not the scriptures but rather the opinions of men) for their own gain, defending the methods of their choosing, i.e. the methods of seduction, deception, and manipulation to initiate and sustain the "kingdom of God" of their own making, built upon the sensuousness of human nature (even using the name of the Lord in doing so―the kingdom of God is "doing the Father's will," i.e. by His Word and His Spirit, and is not built upon the 'reasoning' ability and strength of man, i.e. according man's will, i.e. 'driven' by his "spirit,"  i.e. according to his sensuousness, united in his 'purpose,' i.e. spontaneity).  Through the use of "original source," for example, "academic" environments (those bound to the use of "the 'scientific' method," i.e. the dialectic process) refuse to respect this kind of information, i.e. information which bases truth or reliability/certainty upon the authority of God's Word (that which is above man's wisdom and strength, that which is according to God's will, by His Spirit) over and against human 'reasoning,' enlightened 'reasoning,' i.e. sensuous 'reasoning,' since any exposé must be based upon the writings and ideas of men (of his own "sense experience," of his own nature―which is presumed to be 'good') rather than of (and thus supporting of) a "non-intellectual," "non-human," "non-sensuous" source such as the Word of God and the Holy Spirit―who are good, i.e. only God is good.
    "Sense experience must be the basis of all science." (Karl Marx)  "... a science based on an erotic sense of reality."  (Norman O. Brown,  Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)   To be "balanced" (that is, not to judge man as being deceitful and wicked, i.e. as being sinful in his nature) man's 'reasoning,' i.e. dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. "profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called," "vain words," and "philosophy and vain deceit" (1 Timothy 6:20,21; Ephesians 5:5-7; Colossians 2:8), also know as "critical theory," must always be included and recognized as being "superior to" or "equal with" the Word of God―to be "equal with" the Word of God is to be "superior to" the Word of God―or have more weight of credibility (with any subject of value) to the "intellectual" (enlightened) mind. 
    Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason 'justified' dialectic 'reasoning' on that bases, i.e. that man's 'reasoning' can become purified, i.e. become good in and of itself.   By separating reasoning from faith, by 'delivering" man from faith, i.e. delivering him from having a "guilty conscience" for following after his own natural inclinations, i.e. his nature which goes counter to his belief, man can become himself again, of his own nature.  It is thus, according to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' that only through the use of 'dialectic 'reasoning' man can come to know himself, i.e. become "free."  The soul of man, a result of God's work, by His Spirit, is replaced with the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains of man, all of (and therefore subject) to nature, i.e. material or cosmic in nature.  Faith only being placed in the process of 'change,' i.e. in those who facilitate it.
    Jean Piaget wrote: "This role [bringing the biological nature of man, his "sensuous needs" and his "sense perception" into union with his social life, i.e. his "sense experience" with the world] played by action (or by praxis) has been abundantly emphasized by Marx, who quite rightly went so far as to consider perception itself as an 'activity' of the sense organs [we actively seek out that which is "positive" ("affirmative") to our nature, i.e. pleasure and avoid that which is "negative" ("not affirmative") to it, i.e. pain] ."  (Jean Piaget,  Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child: Development of Teaching Methods) (bia) "Any time we teach a child something, we keep him from discovering it himself," (Jean Piaget)  Piaget wrote that Socrates' (from whom we get Socratic Critical Thinking, i.e. 'reasoning' through questioning) was executed due to his corrupting of the minds of the youth and destroying of their faith in the gods, i.e. that his dialectic 'reasoning' method was the reason for their disrespect toward traditional authority, i.e. authority which prevented them from using philosophy, i.e. questioning what is, to 'discover' what ought to be, as the means to 'discovering' and knowing truth―thus preventing them from 'discover' the truth about themselves and the world around them through their own nature and 'reasoning' abilities (instead, according to Socrates, parent's and God corrupted the youth and men by preventing them, through chastening or threat of judgment, from becoming at-one-with their own carnal nature and the world of sin, i.e. reasoning must be used to defend the person's nature, not restrain it, i.e. 'reasoning' must be freed from the restraints of righteousness if it is to be utilized in reuniting man with himself and the world, i.e. basing reality upon his own nature, i.e. according to his own sensuousness, i.e. in the 'light' of his own "sense experience" rather than upon something or some one who is not of but is greater than the "sensuous 'moment,'" i.e. greater than nature, i.e. greater than human sensuousness).
    The Marxist Antonio Gramsci wrote: "[L]earning takes place especially through a spontaneous and autonomous effort of the pupil, with the teacher only exercising a function of friendly guide [facilitator, i.e. as Satan facilitated the woman in the garden in Eden].  To discover a truth oneself, without external suggestions or assistance, is to create—even if the truth is an old one.  It demonstrates a mastery of the method, and indicates that in any case one has entered the phase of intellectual maturity in which one may discover new truths."  (Antonio Gramsci, Selections From the Prison Notebooks)  (bia)  Dialectic 'reasoning' permeates the field of education.  "Memory is not education, answers are not knowledge. Certainty and memory are the enemies of thinking, the destroyer of creativity and originality."  (William Glasser,  Schools Without Failure"The organized subject-matter of the adult and the specialist cannot provide the starting point when education is based in theory and practice upon experience." (John Dewey, Experience and Education"God's work is a source of corruptions in individuals." 
(John Dewey, Democracy and Education) 
    Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' man can only come to know the truth (become "enlightened," become illuminated, become educated) about himself and the world ('justify' himself through his "sense experiences" with the world, i.e. 'justify' his "sensuous needs" which 'drive' him to become at-one-with the world) through his own human 'reasoning,' i.e. through his own speculations, through his own understanding.  According to Immanuel Kant: "Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbst verschuldeten Unmündigkeit."―"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity."  (Immanuel Kant,
Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung? 1784) "Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage [freedom from a condition which "represses" his own 'reasoning' abilities by holding him captive to what "is" and what "is not"]. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another [his dependence upon parent or God and their commands or laws to reason from (deductive reasoning), i.e. to determine right from wrong from above, according to the will of God or the parent, rather than from below, according to his own human nature―enlightenment or dialectic 'reasoning' is therefore antithetical to Proverbs 3:5, 6]. Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another [his "guilty conscience" or inculcated habits, i.e. his "improper," parochial education prevents him from using 'reasoning' to help free himself from the restraints of higher authority, i.e. to liberate him from faith, i.e. to separate 'reasoning' from faith and therefore 'deliver' himself from God or parent (Kant provided an "exit door" from a world of higher authority in man's thoughts, in which 'reason' could be used by man to separate, emancipate, himself from faith in higher authority, if only in his thoughts, that "maturity," man's identity with nature or reality somehow resided within the child, as Hegel would later expound), i.e. Hegel then put 'reasoning' into synthesis with sensuousness, overthrowing parental and Godly authority, i.e. bringing down parochial authority in the individual and then Marx put it into social praxis, overthrowing parental and Godly authority in all of society].  Sapere Aude!  Dare to know! 'Have courage to use your own reason!'- that is the motto of enlightenment."   (Immanuel Kant,  Konigsberg in Prussia) (bia) "The ideas of the Enlightenment taught man that he could trust his own reason [dialectic 'reasoning' 'justify his own "sense experiences"] as a guide to establishing valid ethical norms and that he could rely on himself, needing neither revelation [the scriptures] nor that authority of the church [the Lord Himself and the Holy Spirit] in order to know good and evil."  (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists)  (bia)  
    The theme is the same for all "contemporary" thinkers and actors.
"Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience." "Experience is, for me, the highest authority." "The individual in such a moment, is coming to be what he is. He has experienced himself. He has become what he is." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) "A stranger, even if his name were God, who imposes commands upon us must be resisted, he must be killed because nobody can stand him." (Paul Tillich in Lenard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism"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. He 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."  "Tillich's message is that God is man, mankind, humanity." (Leonard Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism)
    The truth is (regarding the following information), by reading through what is written, i.e. to know what is being said (weighing all according to the Word of God) any misunderstanding should be overcome, that is, if you are a person of faith in the Lord and not a person of dialectic 'reasoning.'  In that case (if you are a person of dialectic 'reasoning'), there is nothing that can be written about the righteousness of Christ and the wickedness of man that you will not distort in some way, for your own 'self-justification,' or attack outright to initiate and sustain your own sensuous world, i.e. to "serve and protect" your carnal identity.  You would think I was speaking only of the secular world but I am also speaking of "contemporary" minded ministers and their "contemporary" followers.
    The relevance of knowing this material is that the dialectic process directly affects every part of our daily life.  It is our very "human" nature being 'justified' by "human" 'reasoning.'  I use the word "human," which is not found in the word of God, although heresy manuscripts are now using it, for carnal man, man void of spiritual understanding, full of pride in his 'reasoning' abilities, justifying himself before himself and his "fellow" man (considering his oneness with himself and mankind as being the right "spirit"), determining what is right or wrong, good or evil, according to his own worldly nature (according to his own ability of 'reasoning,' i.e. 'reasoning' in the same structure as eastern religion, i.e. 'reasoning' through the "light" of his own sensation, i.e. according to his own "sense experience").  "Human nature" is the 'drive' and the 'purpose' for the use of the dialectic process, which is used for the 'justification' of man as being 'right' ('righteous' or 'justified') in his own eyes, i.e. 'right' according to his own carnal nature and therefore 'right' according to his own carnal understanding.  The woman in the garden in Eden used "human 'reasoning," i.e. dialectic 'reasoning' to justify her original desire to "touch" the "forbidden tree," i.e. justifying the "lust" of her flesh, the "lust" of her eyes, and her "pride of life," i.e. her ability to direct her own steps, i.e. "control" her own life, i.e. 'justifying and live (thinking and acting) according to her own will, thus disobeying God's will.  While in the wilderness, the Lord made reasoning, i.e. the reason for his actions subject to His Father's will, i.e. 1) man's "duty" is to "live by every word which proceeds from God,"  and not just live according to the "needs" of his flesh, i.e. man is not to live according to the "lust of his flesh," 2) man's "duty" is to "worship the Lord, God," and "only worship Him" and not worship the things of his own perception, the things of the world, i.e. not worship according to the "lust of his eyes," and 3) man's "duty" is not to "tempt God," i.e. not to make God and His word  subject to his sensuous desires, i.e. not make God and His word subject to his "control," i.e. subject to his "pride of life").  While Jesus preached and taught, "It is written," responding to his situation according to faith, i.e. according to righteousness, the woman dialogued, responding to her situation according to her own 'reasoning' ability, 'reasoning' according to her own "sense perception," responding to her situation according to sight, i.e. according to sensuousness. The confusion comes when people think that God dialogues with man (making God and man equal). To dialogue is to make all participants equal.  The truth is, God discusses His will and man's behavior, never stepping outside His office of authority when speaking to man.  In other words he never places himself as being equal with man, but as a loving Father, discussing the son's behavior or desires according to His standards, He maintains His position of authority at all times. 
    For example (using education as an example): when the classroom was 'changed' from the teacher inculcating facts and truth and the students memorizing them "as given," with the students then being tested on their retention of them, being rewarded when they "passed the test" and chastened when they did not "pass the test," to where the teacher and students, in partnership, shared their opinions (their personal feelings and thoughts) on "contemporary" issues (current situations), the study of "human nature" (behavior "science," i.e. "so called science" 1 Timothy 6:20), i.e. humanism, replaced the teaching of truth and facts (true science), i.e. negating the laws of nature (regarding the physical world as established by God) and the laws of God (regarding the soul of man) from the classroom experience and therefore from the present and future generations.  The 'change' was due to the dialectic process having become the "new" teaching method in education, i.e. curriculum development was 'changed' through the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies."  The same has been true for the workplace (Total Quality Management),  the police force (Community Oriented Policing System), government (School-to-Work, now called "Education Nation"), the military (Total Quality Leadership), the "contemporary" (post-modern) church ("Church Growth," "Emerging Church," and whatever new name comes along), etc.  By making "higher order thinking skills," key to the field of science (subject to the material world), the same tool for 'discovering' "morals and ethics," righteousness (obeying parents, teacher, the boss, the laws, and highest of all, God, by faith―tantamount to "lower order thinking skills") was replaced with sensuousness (judging right and wrong behavior according to how it makes people "feel" in a given situation) as the issue of life, i.e. not only in the classroom, but also in the workplace, government, the home, and even the church.
    While knowing this information will not save a person from the abuse which comes by the means of dialectic 'reasoning,' it will help you understand what is happening to you and the world around you and how you are to respond to it if you are not to become subject to its "control."  Without the righteousness of Christ, faith in and belief upon Him and the power of the Holy Spirit, it is impossible for us to overcome the "controlling" nature of our sensuousness, our "lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes," and our "pride of life,"  i.e. our thinking and acting as though we can "control" our lives and the world around us for the "betterment" of life.  "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."  a portion of James 4:1-17  "Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble." 1 Peter 5:5  
    Without the submitting and humbling ourselves before God first (realizing and repenting of our wickedness and accepting and resigning ourselves to His righteousness first), the resisting and the fleeing of the Devil (righteousness prevailing and ruling over sensuousness in our life) will not (can not) happen.  None of which seems to be of relevance today (is not considered nor acted upon) in a world of "enjoyment" and pleasure (as in the days of Noah), in a "rapidly 'changing,'" multi-screen world of sensuousness and dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. a world of self-social 'justification,' i.e. a world of men, dialoguing their opinions into a common-collective consensus (into a "feeling" of "oneness"), and putting their common-collective opinion (mankind is good, i.e. 'righteous' in and of himself when he works together for the common 'good') into social action (praxis), all based upon (tolerant of) man's carnal sensuous nature (of unrighteousness).  There is no "lifting" or "exalting" by God without the "submitting" and "humbling" of man before Him first, something the world hates and refuses to do in its praxis of "loving" and "caring" for the "common" man (all done in vanity, and therefore in vain). 
 The enlightened religious leaders of Jesus day chose Caesar over Christ because they were not walking in the spirit of God, i.e. did not have spiritual eyes, because they were walking in the flesh, i.e. having "roaming" eyes (dialectic, self-'justifying' of the flesh eyes).  They had "listening" skills but were unteachable (regarding the truth), i.e. "listening" to Jesus to find a flaw in what He said or did so that they could justify themselves before themselves and other men.  Therefore they were unteachable regarding their sensuousness (unteachable regarding their unrighteousness, i.e. regarding their love of this world and their hate of His Father) and His righteousness (His love of His Father).  Man's intellectual assent to God always intercepts righteousness (God' will) and puts sensuousness (man's will) in its place.  That is why, without faith, it is impossible to please God. "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  "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
    Dialectic 'reasoning' (Socratic critical thinking, critical theory, "higher order thinking skills in 'morals and ethics,'" i.e. the "scientific method" used to determine right from wrong regarding mans thoughts and actions, i.e. human behavior, situational ethics, values clarification, etc, is "the pride of life," i.e. thinking that we, by "controlling" the environment around us (replacing God's lawswhich man could not fulfill, which only condemned us, exposing us as wicked, having to be fulfilled in Christwith man's laws, i.e. laws protecting the environment), can make the world a "better" place not only for ourselves but also for othersthe truth being all of our thinking and action, no matter how well disguised, is from and for our own vanity and pride, i.e. for our "lust" for the "enjoyment" of our flesh and our eyes) is used to evaluate the source for and resolve the conflict between belief and behavior, what God says and man feels and thinks, i.e. what the parent says and what the child feels and things (known as belief-action dichotomy, i.e. a condition of antithesis between the system of Righteousness, i.e. obeying commands as given, and the system of sensuousness, doing what one "feels" like doing, which the Apostle Paul explains in Romans 7, giving the answer in Jesus Christ, in His obedience to His Heavenly Father's will, and therefore in His righteousness imputed by Him to men of faith in Him alone).  The condition of "neurosis," as described by Paul, is not resolved in man, in sensuousness negating righteousness (by dialectic 'reasoning'), but in Christ, in righteousness (the Holy Spirit) restraining and overcoming sensuousness (by faith in Christ alone).  Norman Brown, while recognizing the problem, rejected the right solution. "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)  Dialectic 'reasoning' is used, by men of seduction, deception, and manipulation, to resolve the conflict between that which is of the spirit (identifying that which is above or is greater than the flesh, i.e. thus is used by dialectic 'reasoning' to identify and negate that which restrains, inhibits, blocks, or condemns man's flesh nature, to identify and negate that which judges man's carnal impulses of the 'moment,' his sensuous-spontaneous response to the immediate environment as being sinful, to identify and negate that which is negative toward and restraining of the human "sense experience" of the carnal oneness he experiences with the world, i.e. of his at-one-with-man in the sensuous 'moment') and that which is of the flesh (that which is of man's common sensuous desires, i.e. that which is positive toward and encouraging of the human "sense experience" of the oneness with the world, his carnal at-one-with-man 'moment').  Dialectic 'reasoning' is used to identify and resolve the conflict between that which restrains or blocks man's common carnal sensuous desires (negating the conflict between belief (from above) and behavior (from below) through the praxis of "negation of negation," i.e. negating that which is absolute, i.e. negating that which is not influenced by the "contemporary" situation, i.e. negating that which is negative, i.e. judgmental toward man's common carnal sensuous behavior) and that which initiates and sustains man's common carnal sensuous desired (augmenting that which is adaptable, i.e. that which is 'relevant' to and encouraging of the "contemporary" "experiential" situation).  Dialectic 'reasoning' is used to resolve the conflict between that which refuses to change and that which desires 'change,' between righteousness and sensuousness, etc., attempting to "rationally," i.e. through the dialoguing of opinions, (through "I feel" and "I think") find "common ground" between the two conflicting positions (between the two patriarchal paradigms which are in conflict), thereby 'rationally' (sensually) negating belief, spirit, absolute, unchangingness, righteousness, etc. thereby negating the patriarchal paradigm or the top-down way of thinking and acting.  To expose dialectic 'reasoning' as being the enemy of righteousness, in a room (world) full of dialectic 'thinkers' is to cast oneself into the lions den, the lions of enlightened Christians, skilled in the art-craft of dialectic 'reasoning,' skilled in trickery, skilled in negating truth by making their lies appear as being the truth and thus the truth of God and His Word as appearing to be a lie (not relevant in all or certain situations), i.e. making righteousness not only "sense perceived" as being  'irrational' but "sense experienced" as being 'irrelevant' in the "light" of man's "felt" needs in the 'moment,' i.e. in the so called, "rapidly changing times."  "Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not."  John 8:38-59  "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds [Gr. praxis]; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him."  Colossians 3:9
    From the creation to judgment, and the reward or punishment that follows, the sum total of life is wrapped up around the will of the Father (God, who is righteous in and of Himself).  We either obey Him and live (are blessed) or disobey Him and die (ar
e cursed), life being only found in Him (man, formed from the dust of the ground, by the breath of God, i.e. the breath of life, became a living soul, to the tree of life in the garden in Eden, to the only begotten Son of God, who is life, to the resurrection/rapture of the redeemed in Christ, to eternal life).  The history of death, as revealed through the scriptures, is about he (Satan, the master facilitator) who came between the children (man) and the father (God), i.e. not that man is God or a son of God (righteous in and of himself, i.e. righteous in his own eyes), and convinced the children that they could be as gods (be equal with the father, i.e. that their will was equal to his will in the 'moment,' that they were righteous in and of themselves, i.e. righteous in their own eyes).   The preaching and teaching of righteousness, i.e. faith, belief, obedience, and chastening (intolerance of ambiguity, i.e. intolerant of man's unrighteous thoughts and actions), used to initiate and sustain obedience (to initiate and sustain the patriarchal paradigm of obedient children), is always undermined through the praxis of dialoguing the opinions of sensuousness, i.e. doubting, questioning, disobedience, and permissiveness (tolerance of ambiguity, i.e. tolerant of man's unrighteous thoughts and actions), used to initiate and sustain disobedience (the heresiarchal paradigm of disobedient, rebellious, revolutionary children, i.e. children of 'transformation,' i.e. children of 'change'―links are audio clips of Shirley McCune speaking at a Governors conference hosted by Bill Clinton in 1989, regarding education 'change'). 
    By coming between the father and his children (taking that position which is not theirs to take, i.e. "helping" the children to determine right from wrong according to their own carnal nature, i.e. thereby 'liberating' the children from the father's authority), humanism (social-psychology) is born, born of the nature of carnal man (of the sensuous and spontaneous nature of the "polymorphously perverse" child), liberating them from the restraints of God (the father), "liberating" them from the restraints of righteousness (right and wrong being determined according to the father's will).  Man is (children are) thus convinced that he (they) can know good from evil according to his (their) own sensuousness, in defiance to knowing good and evil according to their Heavenly Father's will (their earthly father's will), thus turning him (them), in defiance (in self-justification), against his creator (their creator), who is righteous (who is in authority over them).  Without the chastening (judgment) or the fear of chastening (the fear of judgment) the carnal nature of the child rules over the affairs of men, controlling the world for his own desires, i.e. for his own pleasures, i.e. for his own "lusts,"  i.e. for his own dopamine emancipation
    As you will see, the object, i.e. the person or the event only has worth as it engenders and satisfies desires, pleasures, "lusts," dopamine emancipation, i.e. the object, in and of itself, has no other 'purpose' or value.  In that case, He who is righteous (who is righteous in Christ), who places himself above the sensuous 'moment,' can not be considered of worth, in and of Himself, without fulfilling the conditions of dialectic 'reasoning,' the satisfaction of man's sensuous desires. Righteousness, God's will and His chastening for disobedience against it, is "ugly" in the eyes of "the children of disobedience."  "Why did they kill the ugliest man?" According to Nietzsche, "Because they could not stand him."  (Leonard F. Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God) "Having eyes which are human eyes, and ears which are human ears," (Karl Marx)
"there is no fear of God before their eyes" (Romans 3:18). It is here that the Father's will, i.e. the righteousness of God, becomes an object in which dialectic 'reasoning' must "overcome" and negate (remove from its sight) if it is to "control" the affairs, i.e. the thoughts and actions, of men (so that man can free himself of having a "guilty" conscience―the "guilty" conscience in the child, due to the child's disobedience to the parent's command, i.e. a command preached and taught to be obeyed "as given or else," is now a "super-ego," a "feeling" of "shame" in the parent, due to the parent preventing his child from "freely" sharing his own opinion, i.e. his feelings and thoughts in opposition to or different from, i.e. antithetical to the parent's "command," i.e. now an "opinion"―without the chastening or threat of chastening every command is simply an opinion).  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' instead of man's thoughts being taken captive to the "obedience of Christ," i.e. His unwavering obedience to His Heavenly Father, they must be taken captive to the sensuous desires of men, i.e. taken captive to the sensuous desires (impulses and caprice) of the child, i.e. the heart of the "children of disobedience," for which the wrath of God is reserved.  Without the Lord's work in us, cleansing our heart of its wicked, earthly desires, all we have is "the heart of the child within."  "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me."  Psalms 51:10 (read vs. 7-13)  "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."  2 Corinthians 5:17  As Christ declared of Himself, the same is true for us. "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.  John 5: 19; 7:18
    The question then asked of all men, is: do you have a problem obeying God or a problem with obeying God?  One paradigm recognizes the sinful nature of man and his need for repentance and forgiveness (recognizing the authority of the Father and man's, i.e. the child's pr
opensity toward disobedience, i.e. being drawn away by the "enjoyments" of the world, the sensuous impulses of the 'moment,' i.e. recognizing the authority of the father to chasten his child when his child is disobedient to his commands), the other seeks to 'justify' man's (the child's) carnal nature as being "normal" (allowing him to question and challenge the commands and the authority of the Father).  I am not stating that the earthly father is 'good' or righteous in and of himself.  He is not.  Our earthly fathers are not perfect, but the office is.  He is to rule in it as the Lord directs his steps, which most fathers refuse to do, loving their own carnal, "lustful," sensuous nature first and foremost and therefore using the office as a tyrant or abdicating it to the wife, to someone else, or to society, as they pursue the things of the world, satisfying their own carnal nature, i.e. for their own pleasures.  Man having a problem with obeying God is the way of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. of the "new" world order―which is patterned after Genesis 3:1-6, which leads to death and not life.  As fallen man, reasoning from his own sensuous, sinful nature, after the laws of the flesh, deceives himself, 'reasoning' dialectically, believing that by' 'liberating' himself from the restraints of righteousness, he can 'discover' and 'actualize' (create from within himself) a "new" life, a "new" world, a "new" order of the world patterned after his nature, 'liberating' himself from the guilty feelings of his unrighteousness, 'liberating' himself from the pattern of the "old" world where man is accountable for his every thought and action to a higher authority than his own nature.  Without God creating within us a "clean heart,"  "renewing a right spirit within" us, making us a "new creature," in His righteousness, all we have is the way of the world, not only having a problem obeying God but also a problem with obeying Him, and thereby dying in our sins.  "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
    If you put your trust in man, your trust in this life, if you put your trust in man's ability to create a "new" world 'driven' by and 'purposed' in dopamine emancipation, a "new" world with all men seeking after the "enjoyments" of this life, pleasure (for themselves and others) being the highest goal in life "ye shall die in your sins."  "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36  " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:15  "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  "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"  Hebrews 10:26-29  By the fruit of a man's thoughts and actions you can tell his heart, whether it remains deceitful and wicked (and full of hate), still 'driven' by and 'purposed' in his own sensuousness, the "fruit" being of the sensuousness of the world, or created new in the righteousness of the Lord (loving as He loves, i.e. reproving, correcting, encouraging, forgiving in word and in deed), the "fruit" being of the righteousness of Christ, the way, truth, and life of Christ in him.  "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.  Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.  They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.  And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.  But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience."  Luke 8:11-15 
    Just because someone makes you feel good or you like them (they engender dopamine emancipation in you) is not a criteria for righteousness.  Only if they love you enough to risk your rejection of them, rejection because they chastened you through God's Word (pointing you to the Lord and His Word for answers and not to yourself or man, i.e. including themselves), i.e. chastening you when you are in sin or warning you when you are moving in the direction of sin, while encouraging you to continue in Christ (all of what the Apostle John, in 1 John, writes about).  Only then do you know of their love for you and their love which is of righteousness, and only then, by receiving the chastening from the Lord, from His word (and not really from them) do you know of His righteousness and His love for you.  All you are getting from them is their love for you (love hurts, or "wounds," the one being loved, when they are being chastened, as well as the one who loves, when they have to face the fact they may be rejected for sharing the truth in love―the glory of God outweighs "the approval of men").  Righteousness has to supersede the desire for dopamine emancipation, restraining the sensuous desires of man's heart when it is wrong or desires the "approval of men" in its "lustful" nature, or it is not righteousness Righteousness points you to God above (by His Word and His Spirit) while sensuousness points you to the world below (of man's flesh and his "wisdom").

    Getting dopamine emancipation (pleasure or "enjoyment") from buying, wrapping, and watching your child open a gift you bought them is no different in sensation than buying, wrapping, and watching some one else's child open a gift you bought them except for the fact you can not chasten another person's children (unless given the authority to do so by them).  In the latter action (under the conditions of socialism) chastening ("Thou shalt not" backed up with force, a key component of righteousness, i.e. "This child is my child and not your child") is negated Without the God given right to chasten your children, for their disobedience of your commands, they are not your children but become the children of the "universe."  Righteousness requires the chastening of sensuousness.  Without the chastening (restraining) of sensuousness there is no condition of righteousness
    Only God's love, spiritual, of righteousness, is true love, ever-lasting love.  Man's love, temporal, of sensuousness, of the flesh, is vain love, is ever-'changing' love, is conditional (according to what he can get out of the situation for himself in the 'moment') love.  God chastens those He loves, i.e. restrains the sensuousness and 'reasoning' ability, i.e. cutting off the 'self-justification' ("the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life") of those who are His, to get them off the drug of dopamine, i.e. off the love of the world, his chastening producing a "peaceful fruit of righteousness."   God fills man's heart, not with the love of this world, not of man's carnal nature (dopamine emancipation―of sensuousness), but with His love, of His nature (spiritual―of righteousness).  The peace that comes from chastening is sensuousness silenced (the soul freed from the influence and control of the flesh―which no man or religion of the world can fulfill to man's salvation, i.e. the religions of the world meaning not believing upon the "only begotten son of God," and not loving God the Father, i.e. "him that begat" the Son―"In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him."  1 John 4:9  "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him."  1 John 5: 1).  The "peace" that comes from homogenized permissiveness (consensus) is an orgy of sensuousness (the soul influenced and controlled by the flesh).  Man, at-one-with the world, is a lover of pleasure (via. dialoguing feelings and thoughts, whether to himself or to others―of his own sensuousness, 'driven' by and 'purposed' in dopamine emancipation) more than a lover of God (via. preaching and teaching truth―according to His Word, in His righteousness, by His Holy Spirit, in His love). 
    Those of this life can only have hope in happiness, pleasure, "enjoyment," etc. while the believer's hope is in the glory of the Lord, i.e. that which is not of this world, not of this life alone, evidenced by the joy unspeakable, peace that transcends understanding, love that is not of this world, of His Spirit.  The hope of dialectic man is in this world of sensuousness alone, this life alone, evidenced by the lust of his flesh, lust of his eyes, and the pride of his life, i.e. his desire to control the environment for the sake of his own and other's "enjoyment," i.e. pleasure, i.e. dopamine emancipation.  Without the hope of glory (revealed to man by the law and the prophets, the Lord, i.e. His Word, and the Holy Spirit) all that man has is his dialectic 'reasoning' abilities to 'justify' his own sensuous nature.  The apostle Paul noted two things about having "hope in Christ," regarding this life only: one is that we are all "miserable," missing out on the things of the world when we did not have to (if this life is all that there is), and that those who are not missing out are "miserable" as well, i.e. being never satisfied.   "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." 1 Corinthians 15:19  But, because we have "hope in Christ" not only in this life but also in the life which is to come (in Him), by the fruit of the Spirit we are in truth not "miserable," but rejoicing in all things, which the world can not understand, having only dopamine emancipation of the flesh (of his sensuousness) and not the Holy Spirit of God (of His righteousness).   The temporal man must find or create an environment which is conducive to dopamine emancipation, his hope is in creating a "better" world (a world of sensuous pleasure/"enjoyment") in which to live for himself and for others, while the man made new in Christ has the Joy of the Lord, therefore, no matter what environment he finds himself in, whether in pleasure or in pain or anything in between, his hope is not in this world, in this life, i.e. in himself or his fellow man, but in Christ alone.  While he makes the world a better place to live within, loving and caring for others, that is not his 'drive' nor his 'purpose,' the works being only a byproduct of God's love in Him, the fruit of the Spirit, the result of his knowing and following the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e. walking in the Spirit which is not of this world (being in the world, blessing it, but not of the world, justifying it).  Otherwise, his works, engendered from his own sensuousness, even done for good, being of no eternal value or worth simply pass away as the world passes away, not being engendered from the Lord, by the Holy Spirit, according to the Father's will.
    The church has, as the children of Israel, imbibed in the Midianitish women (of their sensuousness, of sight and lust, i.e. in the "enjoyment" of the 'moment') instead of the Word of the Lord (of His righteousness, of faith and truth, enduring to the end), placing their hope in their own sensuousness and in their own speculations or 'reasoning' abilities, rather than in His righteousness, i.e. in the Word of the Lord (in He who is righteous). By means of speculation (human 'reasoning,' i.e. 'self-justification'), sensuousness is liberated from the restraints of righteousness, and likewise, by means of sensuousness ("ought," i.e. "lust" given a voice in dialogue and then acted out, i.e. thought and action, i.e. theory and practice united, i.e. "lust," i.e. emotion and motion reunited), speculation ('reasoning') is liberated from the restraints of righteousness, and thereby man is liberated from "faith," from "love of God," from "will in Christ," from "because the Lord said," to become himself again (to become what he was, a child of sensuousness and spontaneity, prior to parental commands and restraints).  As Karl Marx understood it, "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)  He knew that it was righteousness (that which can only be imputed by Christ, the obedient Son of the Heavenly Father, to men of faith in Him) which had to be negated if man was to become himself, become only of nature, only of sensuousness, and that it was dialectic 'reasoning' which was the only means to achieve it.  He knew it was the only mean's whereby to negate righteousness, that speculation and sensuousness (human 'reasoning' and human behavior) had to be united as one in an experiential, i.e. sensuous and spontaneous 'moment'―consensus, even doing so in "the name of the Lord."   The dialectic 'method' being, instead of cursing the children of Israel (instead of fighting against the religious, inflecting them with pain which tends to strengthen their resolve to stand) assist them in actualizing the "good life" (join with them and "help" them in achieving their "goals," assist them in augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain, on their way to the "promised land").  Satan, instead of fighting the church, joined with it, through the department of administration, sensuously and 'rationally,' facilitated it in the praxis of "growing" itself, even doing so (deceitfully) "in the name of the Lord," i.e. baiting with the name of the Lord and then switching to building and maintaining unity on human relationships, i.e. in man's sensuousness instead of establishing unity upon doctrine, i.e. upon the Lord's righteousness alone.
    It is for the believer to endure the temptations of this life, to endure the testing of his faith, (to willingly "miss out on" the pleasures of this world, i.e. "pleasures" which are now coming from the "contemporary church," to suffer as Christ suffered―persecuted by the religious, i.e. the dialectic 'reasoning' establishment of his day) that he may attain the hope of the Glory of the Lord.  It is not a world of pleasure ("enjoyment," sensuousness) that the Lord has called the believer and the church (the assembly of believers) to imbibe in, it is, as a faithful bride, to reject the pleasures (temptations) of this life, awaiting her groom, remaining spotless and without wrinkle, living in His righteousness, walking in His Spirit.  The two or three coming together in His name, in His righteousness, do not do so for the sake of sensuousness, for the "feeling" of oneness, i.e. for the sake of the "feeling" of brotherhood, but do so for the sake of each believers eternal life (to encourage and to admonish one another in the word of God, to worship the Lord, and to reprove any who return to disobedience) that all may endure in Him, i.e. remain in His righteousness, not loving the pleasures of this life but instead loving the Lord to the end ("to the death." Revelation 12:11). "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine."  2 Timothy 4:2  
    It is not that God is against pleasure. He wants us to have pleasure.  He created us that we can have it. It is that we are not to put pleasure before Him.  Something we, like children, have a propensity to do, being, by nature, subject to our carnal nature.  Without the chastening we will not turn to righteousness as the right way of thinking and acting, the system of  Righteousness only being a type, or shadow, or system, or culture found within (and engendered from) the traditional family, true righteousness (eternal life) only being found in the Lord, i.e. only of God.  Therefore, whether it be the person, the "village," the nation, or the church, by moving man's focus to the hope of creating a "better" life here, created through human effort, and away from the perfect life to come, created only by the Lord, (not that making the world a "better" place is bad, it just is not going to save man, i.e. it has no eternal value), man has placed his own sensuousness (his carnal nature) in front of the righteousness of God (the will of God) and has chosen a life of the 'spirit' of man (seeking after social harmony, i.e. uniting upon "the approval of men," which is an illusion since all men, in and of themselves, are vain) instead of a life of the Spirit of God (which is true peace, joy, love, and life).  The spirit of man, his seeking for oneness with his own nature, of sensuousness, is of the world while the spirit of God, directing man to become at-one-with God (not equal with but in agreement with, being subject to, directed by), in His righteousness, through Christ and the Holy Spirit is not of the world.  World unity, the "new" world order is of the spirit of antichrist (of another Christ, of another gospel, of fallen man seeking oneness with the world, with nature, according to his own sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities).  George Hegel stated it this way:
"Spirit, in so far as it is the Spirit of God, is not a spirit beyond the stars, beyond the world.  [Therefore it is not of righteousness.]  On the contrary, God is present, omnipresent, and exists as spirit in all spirits." ["God" is therefore of sensuousness and spontaneity united, and is made manifest through human nature seeking 'organic' (emotion-motion) unity with the world and therefore is dialectic 'reasoning' itself which makes a "life" of "love," i.e. "enjoyment," i.e. "lust" possible].  (George Hegel)  The "contemporary" church is the greatest offender of righteousness, being the greatest ambassador for sensuousness, for the sake of social unity (unity built upon that which is common to man, i.e. human nature, removing that which is not common to―not engendered from―mankind, i.e. removing that which is not engendered from human nature, i.e. removing that which causes division, dissention, divisiveness, amongst men, i.e. negating that which is the source of discrimination, i.e. negating that which is judgmental and thus the source of anxiety, i.e. fear of being or doing wrong and being punished or chastened for it or fear of being wrong by "offending" someone by speaking the truth in love, i.e. reproving someone of sin, i.e. speaking the truth according to the word of God, etc.), i.e. negating righteousness for the sake of "growing" the church.  Dialectically making the world agreeable (acceptable) to the church and thereby the church agreeable (acceptable) by the world. 
    The spirit of God (who is righteous) divides the redeemed man (who is made righteous in Christ by his faith in Him alone) from the unredeemed man (those who remain subject to their own sensuousness, subject to the love of this world).  The "spirit" of man (that which of the world, seeking sensuous unity with the world, i.e. man's natural desire for "the approval of men") divides man (the unredeemed man, i.e. those who love the world more than God) from God (the redeemer, who separates man from the world and its ways, i.e. separates the redeemed man from the world of self-social justification, the world built upon man's 'quest' for the "enjoyment" of this world, by changing man's heart to where he is now seeking after "the approval of God," i.e. living and walking in the righteousness of Christ).  Man, deceived, believes he can, by himself, by living according to the "books" of his understanding, written in support of human nature (and thus negating in his own mind and in his own actions God's judgment upon him for his sin, for his disobedience against God's will, i.e. judgment justified according to the righteousness of God), i.e. by thinking, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' that he can justify his self 'justification' through 'justified' sensuous social action (evaluating right and wrong according to his own human eyes, thinking his 'good' works for mankind makes him 'good,' i.e. gives him worth, i.e. 'purpose,' thus becoming 'righteous' in his own eyes). Through the use of fables, i.e. the art of illusion (through the 'aesthetic' dimension), i.e. the imagination of the heart, i.e. internally perceiving how the world "ought to be" in his mind, i.e. a world free from chastening (a world not subject to the evaluation and "judgmentalism" of righteousness), initiates and sustains the process of liberating sensuousness (the child within, i.e. the impulses of the present 'driving' the present, creating the future) from the restraints of righteousness (from the parent without, i.e. from the commands and promises of the past directing the present, determining the future).  The further from the parent's commands the mind wanders, the freer the person find himself (and the less value the parent and his commands have regarding the present and the future).  "The value of a thought is measured by its distance from the continuity of the familiar.  It is objectively devalued as this distance is reduced."  (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists)  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' freedom is found in that which mankind has in common with himself, i.e. in his own sensuousness, (social duty therefore becomes his highest calling, fulfilling his "potential"), bondage is found in that which divides, i.e. "alienates" man from himself and therefore divides him from the world.  Bondage, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' is therefore found in righteousness.  Freedom, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' is therefore "freedom from righteousness."
    God, on the other hand, who is righteous, justifies man according to His righteousness, righteousness which can only be imputed by God Himself to man, i.e. to men of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone, imputed by He who was in the world, but was not of the world, redeeming man from his sinful nature, i.e. from his disobedience against God, and thus redeeming man from God's judgment upon him, that all glorying would be in God the creator and not in man the created.  Man, following after the spirit of darkness, following after the way of dialectic 'reasoning,' wanting the glorying to be in and of himself, i.e. "Look what we have done, by working together in Jesus name, for us and God" and not in God alone, i.e. in His name alone, according to His word alone, by faith in Him alone, and by His grace alone, "that no man may boast").  As the fruit, giving evidence of the type of plant, is a byproduct of being attached to the vine, the fellowshipping of the saints in love, giving evidence of Christ in their "midst," is a byproduct of each believer being in Christ, loving righteousness.  This is not the witness of the "contemporary" church, i.e. "being in Christ" instead giving evidence of 'justifying' (tolerating) man's carnal nature in its midst, thereby bearing witness to its source, man's carnal nature, i.e. man's love of his own sensuousness.  "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them."  Ephesians 5:11
    Not until I recognized that I was wicked, a man of sin, exposed and condemned by to the law of God (and still am wicked apart from Christ in me, His righteousness imputed to me by my faith in Him alone―being the temple of the Holy Spirit does not mean that the temple sanctifies, i.e. makes Holy, the Spirit, but rather that the Spirit sanctifies the temple, i.e. makes it Holy), i.e. that I was condemned to eternal damnation by my creator, who is holy, pure, and righteous, did I realize that I have no 'good' within me, no righteousness within me whereby to redeem myself from His wrath.  Not until I knew of and acknowledged the wickedness and deceitfulness of my own heart did I come to know that I could only be saved by the work of God alone, by the blood of the Lamb of God alone, by His righteousness imputed to me only through my faith in Him, i.e. by faith in Him alone.  All men are wicked, deceived in believing that they are 'good' or have the potential of becoming 'good,' i.e. given the right conditions, education, doing the right things, etc.  It is in this lie that dialectic 'reasoning' finds its identity and 'purpose,' i.e. in human nature, in man "redeeming" himself from the righteousness of God. This is the spirit of the Antichrist. Apart from the righteousness of Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit, all I have is the 'spirit' of fallen man (the spirit of wickedness, the spirit of the "prince of the power of the air"), "redeeming" me from the wrath of God, i.e. "redeeming" me from the knowledge of my sin, "redeeming" me from God's righteousness, and "redeeming" me from the coming judgment by God upon me for continuing to live in sin, i.e. living according to my human nature, i.e. 'justifying' it through dialectic 'reasoning.'  Through dialectic 'reasoning' man's focus is 'changed' from looking above, seeking after righteousness (coming to know the Heavenly Father of the only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, who obeyed His Heavenly Father to his death on the cross, who raised him from the grave, who ascended to be with His Heavenly Father that both could send the Holy Spirit to be our comforter, that we to might be able to endure to the end―"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."  Matthew 24:13; endure the rejection of men, endure hatred received from the world for persisting in preaching and teaching Christ, i.e. man's wickedness, man's love of his sensuousness, and Christ's love of His Heavenly Father, His obedience to His Heavenly Father's will to the death, His righteousness), to looking and living below, man justifying his sensuous nature, justifying his unrighteousness, justifying his "enjoyment" of this life, encouraging himself in working with other men in and of the world, making it a "better" place to live within for all mankind, that it is here, in this world, working in unity with other men, living in the spirit of consensus, with man working with man for man, that he can 'discover' his identity, fulfill his 'purpose,' no longer recognizing sin, righteousness, and judgment (no longer recognizing that which is not in common with mankind and thus is not of this world, i.e. negating that which divides man from man, i.e. negating righteousness) as an issue of life.  This kind of thinking is communism, i.e. common-ism, now referred to as communitarianism, democratization, conscietization, synergism, etc.  "A new emphasis on civic participation and social interaction alone seemed capable of confronting the crisis [the "crisis" being individuals "‘out of touch' with their own feelings and those of others as well" because of the system of Righteousness and its "obey or else" paradigm making righteousness, not sensuousness the bases for truth and life]. And, that is precisely what Fromm provided in his notion of ‘communitarian socialism.'"  (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists)  (bia)
    The names just keep coming but the process is the same, man 'justifying' himself before man, highly esteeming himself and the things of this world, wickedly and deceitfully 'justifying' his own heart, 'justifying' the praxis of abomination, seeking to negate the Spirit of God, and those who walk in the Spirit of God, by actualizing in every man's soul the "spirit" of the world, the "spirit of unity," through the praxis of consensus ("self-actualizing" in every man the spirit of oneness).  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' without righteousness (without a higher authority than human nature, restraining the impulses of the sensuous, consensus 'moment') there would be no sin (disobedience to a higher authority than nature, i.e. higher than the stimulus-response nature of nature) and there would be no fear of judgment (fear of chastening, i.e. accountability for one's natural behavior to that which is not of human nature) as the issue of life.  Therefore by removing or negating the fear of judgment (negating chastening or fear of chastening, i.e. accountability for one's natural thoughts and actions which go counter to the will of a higher authority) you can remove or negate sin (negate disobedience to a higher authority than human nature) and negate righteousness (negate recognition of a higher authority than human nature itself) as being the issue of life.  In this way the spirit of sensuousness (of pleasure, the "enjoyment" of oneness in the praxis of pleasure, i.e. "the approval of men" in sensual harmony) supersedes the spirit of righteousness (of God, the joy of the Spirit, which is unspeakable, i.e. unexplainable to unredeemed man).
    "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. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.  He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you." John 16:7-15.  Sin, righteousness, and judgment go hand in hand. Sin because of man's disobedience to the Father's will, refusing to recognize his wickedness, and rejecting His Son's work for the remission of his sin, righteousness because of Christ's obedience to the Father while on the earth, his obedience to the death, and returning to be with the Father, continuing in obedience, and judgment upon Satan and his followers, i.e. "the children of disobedience," because they followed him in refusing to worship and trust in the Lord.  In the end it is all about the Father (who loves us), the son (who loves and obeys His Heavenly Father, even to the death), and the Holy Spirit (who instills within us God's love, power, and clear mind).  Sensuousness (flesh) will pass away, i.e. those of it (of the world) being condemned forever, but those in the righteousness of Christ, i.e. Christ's righteousness imputed to them by their faith in Him, will live forever.  Why then are we so infatuated with how people "feel" about us and what they "think" about us (wanting "the approval of men") when on that day of judgment men's opinions will not matter.  It is who we know (the Lord) and how we live (in His righteousness), i.e. not what happens to us or how people treat us in this life (in this life of sensuousness―whether in pleasure or in pain, whether they "like us or not") that matters in the end. 
    If we don't start with righteousness as being the issue of life, then we can not see above the fray of the sensuous 'moment' and know who we are and where we are going and turn from our wicked ways (be redeemed from eternal damnation).
 "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."  Ephesians 2:2,3  "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."  1 Corinthians 15:50  "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."  Romans 7:18 "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." Romans 8:8  "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."  Romans 8:13  "But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof."  Romans 13:14 "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 6:8  "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.  For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.  But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.  Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.   And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.''  Galatians 5:16-26 "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God."  1 Peter 4:1,2  "For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."  1 Corinthians 6:20 "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:  That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;  And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."  Philippians 2:8-11 "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
    When I first spoke just on the mechanism of the dialectic process (just stayed academic), many listened.  Then, when I spoke on the rebellious nature of man (his "ought," his desire for sensuousness, his propensity toward sin), which the dialectic seeks to 'justify,' not as many listened (Christians began to cancel meetings because I "offended," by my preaching of the gospel, those they needed to work with in winning social issue).  Now that I speak on righteousness, what the dialectic process is all about (the negation of righteousness as being the issue of life that is), few listen. 
    It is here, on the issue of righteousness, that the individual, the family, the workplace, the government (politics), and the church, all reside. Yet they have all become captive to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. almost all men everywhere are fully involved in self-social 'justification' instead of taking
"into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ."  2 Corinthians 10:5  Being subject to the opinions of men only (where there resides no conviction, contrition, and repentance), few are now teachable.  They, as "children of disobedience," refuse to listen to the truth of their unrighteousness. 
    If you have not noticed: righteousness and the system of the father figure ruling over the home go hand in hand.  You see it in the life of Christ, His obedience to His Heavenly Father.  Therefore, by making all, i.e. the father, the mother, and the children equal in the family, the tradition, patriarchal family,  i.e. the top-down, family system of God and man is negated and the issue of man's sin, i.e. his disobedience before God or parent above becomes moot.  In fact, the negation of the traditional family system, the negation of belief in God the father of commands, the son of obedience, and the holy spirit of conveying information and making it understood, and the negation of righteousness do go hand in hand.  By making all things equal through human "eyes,"  i.e. by 'reasoning' through sensuousness, all (both man and God) become equal in 'purpose,' i.e. the augmentation of the pleasures of this life.  All that can become one, i.e. all that is of worth, therefore is from and is for common-ism AKA communism (the forceful or psychological removal of anything which distracts from, blocks, inhibits, or supersedes the approach pleasure-avoid pain, stimulus-response nature of man).  Hegel defined the "contemporary" (community, i.e. common-unity AKA communitarian) home in this way: 
"On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [all are carnal in nature, therefore oneness can only be found in the carnal nature of man, i.e. if all are sinners, then sin is "common human behavior" and should be recognized, tolerated, respected, and encouraged as being "normal"], where there is no antithesis of person to person or of subject to object [there is no top-down system in sensuousness, only a gradient of "contemporary" conditions engendering pain or pleasure in the 'moment,' with the 'purpose' of life being the augmentation of pleasure and the attenuation of pain], the surplus is not the property of one of them [the father can not 'rule' over anything, i.e. land, or anyone, i.e. people], since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one [his authority is not permanently established by a higher authority since there is no higher authority other than the sensuousness of man's nature, therefore there is no righteousness, i.e. therefore Jesus returning to be with the Father, i.e. the Father raising Him from the grave by the power of the Holy Spirit is therefore only an illusion or a fable created by those of the system of righteousness, which has to be negated in man's personal thoughts and community actions if he is to become "normal," i.e. experience "guiltlessly" carnal (adulterous, homosexual, etc.) behavior again]. 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 [individuality engendered from the 'right' of authority is negated, i.e. your soul created by God is of no worth, i.e. read: you have no worth or 'right' outside of the universal, i.e. the social, since you are only of the universal and therefore have not right of private which interferes with the public or social "felt" needs of the time, i.e. of social "felt" needs in the 'moment']. Instead the surplus, labour, and property are absolutely common to all, inherently and explicitly [Hegel sounds like Marx, or rather, Marx sounds like Hegel, doesn't He―sounds like "contemporary" government leadership today as well]."  (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)  (bia)  psychology, sociology, anthropology, ("Blooms' Taxonomies" and thus the American classrooms), etc. are all "grounded" upon this carnal "democratic" ideology.  America is now "grounded" upon this ideology, calling it "democracy," going into a debtors grave as it crams "make the world safe for 'democracy'" (AKA communism) down every nation's throat, in the name of "social harmony and world peace."  Therefore righteousness (top-down patriarchal authority) is out and sensuousness (consensus, one world government) is in, as the way of life.
    It is therefore evident that dialectic 'reasoning' has been very successful, i.e. the community minded individual, the community minded family, the community minded workplace, the community minded government, the community minded church, i.e. the "contemporary" Christian and the "contemporary" church, having made sensuousness (man) instead of righteousness (God) the issue of life.  Man is therefore deceived into believing that he can have both, man (sensuousness) and God (righteousness), in harmony (subject to his sensuousness), when in truth he can only have (be of) either one, of man, of his own sensuousness or in the other, in God, in His righteousness.
"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. 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. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."  1 John 2:15-18. "Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;"  Titus 2:12  "I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world."  John 17:14  The Lord imputes His righteousness unto men of faith in Him alone (the oneness being in Him in His Father, in righteousness―read all of John 17 for the full picture of Christ's love for and obedience to His Heavenly Father, that he desires all men to know).  Therefore there is no "equality" of sensuousness with God, only "inherited"-ship of His righteousness, i.e. all under the Father's righteous rule, i.e. why the redeemed and the unredeemed both get new spiritual bodies, with the sensuous body cast aside, those of unrighteousness spending eternity in Hell, being cast into the fire which is never quenched, and those made righteous in Christ spending eternity in His glory, in the glory of His Heavenly Father.  Therefore the true meaning of the resurrection and the rapture get lost in dialectic 'reasoning.' Enlightened Christians, think that it is all about the pleasures of the body (missing out on an experience of pain as God raptures them out for a better life of sensuousness), when in truth it is the denying of their "lustful," sinful nature in this life, only made possible, i.e. endurable, in Christ (in His righteousness) and by the power of the Holy Spirit (by His Love and His Power) which makes the resurrection and the rapture understandable.  It is this misunderstanding which has lead to the persecution of believers (who fear God and love His Word, those of faith) by the "contemporary" apostate church's of today (which builds its identity upon "growth" and numbers, those of sight). 
    It is also very evident, that the preaching and teaching of righteousness, which used to be in the family, the workplace, the government, and the church will make you very unwanted, with few listening to you, especially those who have had training in 'listening' skills, in "relationship building skills" (in dialectic 'reasoning').  In the end you may stand alone, but in truth, in Christ you are never alone, only rejected by those of the world (of sensuousness).  As Jesus was acquainted with grief, you will be also―grief being, you have no control over the situation, i.e. few listened to the truth of His righteousness, i.e. believed upon Him in His day, but some heard, believed, and were saved.  Few will listen to Him in you, preaching and teaching of His righteousness, today but some will hear, believe, and be saved.  Repentance, salvation (
"the Lord add[ing] to the church daily such as should be saved."  Acts 2: 47) through the preaching and teaching of His Word is anathema to "empowerment," consensus, and the "growing of the Church" through marketing techniques, i.e. though polls, surveys, feasibility studies, and synergistic programming used in the apostate churches of today, i.e. engendering the dialoguing of men's opinions and theories and putting them into social action, known as praxis, i.e. "theory and practice" (which is of the world system).  If the conscience is a product of chastening, and chastening is a product of the Father, then the conscience is a product of the Father.  If the super-ego is a product of the "fear of rejection" by man and the "fear of rejection" by men is a product of society then the super-ego is a product of society. It is the "divide and conquer" nature of the dialectic process, dividing (coming between) the children and the father, a man and his conscience, the creator and the created, overcoming the belief-action dichotomy between righteousness and sensuousness (which can only be resolved through the righteousness of Christ, i.e. by his obedience, even to death, to His Heavenly Father imputed to men of faith in Him), etc., that the children, man, the created, belief, righteousness, etc., are conquered in the praxis of creating and sustaining social harmony, i.e. in the praxis of "building human relationship according to the "felt" needs of sensuous, carnal man (according to his sinful nature, i.e. his human nature), i.e. in the praxis of dialoguing opinions to achieve consensus (sensuous oneness with man).  There is no "my child, not yours," "my property, not yours," "my business, not yours,," "my family, not yours," etc. i.e. creator-created, i.e. sovereignty, in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus upon human nature, i.e. upon "man's "felt" need for "enjoyment," i.e. for the pleasures of this life, over and against the righteousness of God.
    Few will come out of the "emergent church," i.e. the harlot church, having sold their souls to the sensuousness of 'righteousness' (the sensuous experience of worship, i.e. worshiping the experience of worship, i.e. "corporate" worship) or rather the 'righteousness' of sensuousness (where if it did not make you or others "feel" good, i.e. sensuously prosper you in this life, it was not of God).  The true church is of Christ, personal, for each individual soul in the assembly (His righteousness imputed to those of faith in Him―the fellowship of "believer's," i.e. individual believers who come together―believers being the emphasis, not things in common, who hold everything in common in Him, "
And all that believed were together, and had all things common;"  Acts 2:44―the "had all things common" being a "byproduct" of "believers" having come "together," i.e. "things common" being out of their individual's will to be pleasing to God, directed by His Spirit of Love, as believers in righteousness, i.e. their actions being out of His righteousness, and not due to the dynamics of the group to "have the approval of men," i.e. not out of their sensuousness, i.e. not 'driven' by the pressure of or 'purposed' in the use of group dynamics, i.e. not 'driven' by the desire to have "the approval of men" and not 'purposed' in actualizing "the approval of men" in others, i.e. not 'driven' out of and 'purposed' in actualizing their own sensuousness or worth), the other church is collective, of the social (engendered from man's sensuousness and 'reasoning' abilities―manipulative abilities―i.e. his 'righteousness' actualized by his "feeling" of oneness in praxis―"having all things in common" is their belief, i.e. common-ism, AKA communism, i.e. 'driven' by and 'purposed' in the use of group dynamics and cognitive dissonance, i.e. building upon man's carnal, i.e. sensuous desire to have "the approval of men," i.e. putting down doctrine, i.e. that which is not of and inhibits sensuousness, to actualize it―a subtle 'change' having major consequences).  It is no wonder most ministers have refused to allow me to share this subject (exposing Satan's devices) in "their" churches, exposing, upsetting, and ruining their "business" praxis (exposing their marketing methods―the dialectic process they praxis―which they use in "growing" their sensuous based, i.e. multi-screened, celebrating, "experiencing God," i.e. experiencing and worshiping the "feeling" of oneness, consensus 'driven/purposed,' dialoguing of opinions―so that everyone can "feel better about themselves and be less offensive to others," i.e. participate in the experience of "oneness"―"contemporary," i.e. with the temporary, i.e. tolerant of the carnal nature of man, "group hug," cosmic Jesus, i.e. "non-offensive, user-friendly, readily adaptable to 'change' Jesus," apostate church).  The true church, the bride of Christ, is none of these, being only in (into) Him.
    Whether it be the home, the school, the workplace, the town hall meeting, the church, by 'changing' the environment which is used to set policy, i.e. how right from wrong is decided, 'changes' the way a person thinks and acts, i.e. produces a paradigm shift or 'change' in the persons participating.  An environment of preaching and teaching, inculcating categorical imperatives, with the use of chastening or threat of force to reinforce them, correlates to a system of righteousness, i.e. initiating and sustaining a right-wrong way of thinking and acting, i.e. engendering a patriarchal paradigm. While cults may appear to use this system, they in truth use the "fear of rejection of men," i.e. the dialectic process, to initiate and sustain control over their "members," not allowing "their members" to use the Word of God to correct their errors, i.e. their sins, that is the sins of those in leadership.  By simply changing the environment of the home, classroom, workplace, government, church to one where policy is decided thought the dialoguing of opinions to consensus, i.e. according to human 'reasoning,' the paradigm (or way of thinking and acting) of the participants are 'changed' to a system of sensuousness and human 'reasoning,' i.e. to a heresiarchal paradigm of 'changingness.' 
    This is the genius (if you want to call it that) of dialectic 'reasoning.'  Without the use of outright force (as traditional parent's used to be allowed to do, even in public, i.e. chastening their own children when they were disobedient to the parents commands), which would only initiate the patriarchal paradigm of "intolerance to ambiguity" and sustain a resistance to 'change,' by simply using the force of group dynamics, i.e. the fear of "losing the approval of men" ("What is going to happen to me, my family, my business, my friendships if I loose the 'village's' respect and support," i.e. so I can do what I want to do), the patriarchal paradigm is negated by the individual's (the traditional parents and their children) 'willful' participating in the heresiarchal paradigm of "tolerance of ambiguity" and the desire for and the approval of 'change,' i.e. the desire for those things which are anathema to righteousness, i.e. which are of the flesh, i.e. which is of sensuousness.  In this way, in the dialectic way, i.e. through the covert, "positive" way of thinking and acting, all facets of society are changed without the use of outright force (overt force, negative force field of wrong being chastened) being used against the individual, the parent's 'willfully' (out of their fear of rejection by men, having abdicated their fear of rejection by God because of their love for the things of this world) abdicated their sovereignty (which can only come through God) by their willful participation in the process of 'change' for the sake of "the approval of the village,'" i.e. to keep "control" over their children―which they just lost to the "village," i.e. the community "cause" now supersedes their "Because I said so" within their family. 
"... once you can identify a community [behavior that the parents are 'willing' to tolerate (or secretly desire to participate in) to initiate or sustain relationship with one another, behavior which they restrain within their families], 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)  "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 individual may have ‘secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it. To gain access is particularly important, for here may lie the individual's potential." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)  With the peoples concerns having been 'changed' to the issue of sensuousness (focusing upon "the family," i.e. the children and the mother's "feelings," i.e. no longer recognizing and respecting, i.e. honoring, the father as the sole or final arbiter of right and wrong in the family, but instead recognizing and focusing upon the rebellious child's or wife's "feelings," i.e. focusing upon who or what is engendering the rebellious nature of the children, their dissatisfactions, i.e. the understood source being the "authoritative" parent, i.e. the "authoritarian" father or husband), the issue of righteousness (the authority of the parent, as a type and shadow of God, i.e. established by God to set standards for the children and then use their power to enforce them, i.e. being the author and the authority over what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil) is thereby negated.  Those of righteousness (of faith) are thereafter treated not only as being 'irrational' (when they persist in voicing in meetings the issue of righteousness, i.e. preventing their children from 'changing' in a 'rapidly changing world'), but are also thereafter treated as being 'irrelevant' (in a now "sense perceived" world of 'rapid change,' i.e. a world of sensuousness, the heart of man as well as the child, i.e. the heart of deceitfulness and wickedness, is now no longer "sense perceived" as being an issue of eternal concern, i.e. of eternal life or eternal death, i.e. of the "there-and-then" with God and righteousness as the focus of life, since eternal concerns have now become "contemporary," of pleasure or pain, i.e. of the "here-and-now" with man and his sensuous needs, i.e. his "felt" needs as the focus of life, i.e. "If it feel's good, just do it." "Boys will be boys."  "I'm OK. You're OK."  "Can't we all just get along?"). 
    By simply changing the learning environment (policy setting environment) from one of preaching and teaching truth and giving commands (to be obeyed "as given or else" which engenders a top-down patriarchal paradigm where truth is not dependent upon the sensuous 'moment') to one of dialoguing opinions to a consensus (where "truth" is finding "common ground" through "feelings" and "thoughts" which engenders an equality matriarchal-heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. "Truth is a 'moment' in correct praxis" Gramsci) a persons paradigm is changed,' i.e. his affections 'shift' from looking above (pursing righteousness, i.e. pursuing "the approval of God" or "the approval of the father") to looking below (pursuing sensuousness, i.e. pursuing "the approval of men," i.e. "the approval of the 'group'"). 
"The shift in perspective from God to human beings" takes place in an environment in which men dialogue their opinions to come to the "truth."  "The epistemic authority of the God's eye view" is "devalued" and "moral commands lose their religious as well as their metaphysical foundation" within an environment of dialogue, i.e. in an environment where men determine right from wrong according to their opinions.  (Jürgen Habermas, Communicative Ethics The inclusion of the Other)  Before coming into the consensus room (into the process of 'change,' of sensuousness, i.e. situation ethics, i.e. stimulus-response) the person is dissatisfied with their behavior (dissatisfied with their behavior which dissatisfies or disappoints their parents or God), i.e. dissatisfied with their behavior which comes between them and their father (where they acquire their belief, their thesis, their position, their justification) but in the consensus room (during their participation in the dialoguing, i.e. dialectic process of 'change,' of sensuousness) they become dissatisfied with their belief (dissatisfied in their belief which dissatisfies, i.e. disappoints the group, the brotherhood, the community, i.e. dissatisfied in their belief which prevents the individuals in the room from coming into common-unity, i.e. community, which can only be engendered from sensuousness, i.e. from that which all individuals have in common), i.e. they become dissatisfied in the system of belief itself (dissatisfied with their parent's or God's commands and therefore dissatisfied with parental or Godly authority) which comes between them and other's.  Only through dialoguing their opinions, 'discover' their common behavior (common sensuousness) and their common dissatisfaction with belief (dissatisfied with their parents or God's uncommon and therefore alienating, divisive top-down, system of Righteousness) can the system of Righteousness, and therefore righteousness itself (engendering a "guilty conscience"), be negated as an issue of life.  By changing the learning environment from preaching and teaching to dialoguing opinions, a persons paradigm is 'changed' from righteousness (focusing upon he who is above, finding pleasure and purpose in pleasing the parent or God―dialectically perceived as a "substitute object of gratification" for dopamine emancipation) to sensuousness (focusing upon that which is below, finding pleasure and 'purpose' in pleasing men of common interest, i.e. "the group," i.e. the brotherhood, i.e. the community, i.e. society, i.e. the world―dialectically perceives a natural "object of gratification" for dopamine emancipation).  "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence."  (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest)  "Once a member realizes that others accept him and are trying to understand him, then he finds it less necessary to hold rigidly to his own beliefs; and he may be willing to explore previously denied aspects of himself.  One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group. (Ervin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)  
Going over it again:  Instead of a person being dissatisfied with their behavior, i.e. dissatisfied with the system of sensuousness (approach pleasure-avoid pain), dissatisfied with their own carnal human (sinful) nature (Romans 7:14-25) they become dissatisfied with their belief, i.e. dissatisfied with the system of righteousness ("Thy will, not my will be done"), dissatisfied with the commands and restraints of higher authority itself which (who) interfere with their natural desires (Genesis 3:1-6), thus creating a "new" world order born out of their own sensuousness and dialectic 'reasoning,' a new order of the world where it becomes every citizens duty to negate the commands and chastening which restrains theirs and other's carnal human (sinful) nature (turning the parents in to the "proper authorities" when they are caught chastening their children), where it is every citizens duty to question authority, i.e. question everything, thereby negating those conditions which are not engendered from sensuousness (are not from the Id, are not from human impulse or mimesis) itself, educating, encouraging, and supporting the praxis of negating Hebrews 12:5-11, thus making man (human behavior―sensuousness, i.e. "enjoyment" negating "repression," i.e. pleasure negating pain, i.e. "the children of disobedience" negating parental authority, the woman in the garden in Eden negating the "Thou shalt not" of God) the measure of all things, i.e. determining behavior, whether it is good or evil, according to man's "felt" (sensuous, carnal, temporal) needs in the sensuous 'moment,' alone.  This has become the agenda of teacher training on classroom curriculum, i.e. the negation of the traditional family (the top-down patriarchal system or paradigm or way of thinking and acting where the Father rules, the desire of the heart of the wife is to her husband, and the children obey their parents, in the Lord) and the system of Righteousness it represents, i.e. initiates and sustains, by negating it in their children's life experience in the classroom, i.e. by their participation within the dialectic structured classroom of the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (a group grade), i.e. a classroom now restructured on sensuousness and dialectic 'reasoning' ("higher order thinking skills" in morals and ethics).  If "Thy will-not my will be done" (the conscience, the voice of the Father restraining "the carnal child within," i.e. faith, belief, obedience, and chastening, i.e. "the approval of God or parent," i.e. that which is of the system of Righteousness) does not rule over the approach pleasure-avoid pain carnal nature of the person then the approach pleasure-avoid pain (the super-ego, the voice of "the carnal child within," i.e. "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e. "the approval of men," i.e. that which is of the system of sensuousness) will.  Or in condensed form: if "Thy will, not my will," the will of the Father does not rule over the approach pleasure-avoid pain nature of carnal man then "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," the will of carnal man will.  If the Father does not rule over the child's will, directing him, restraining him from the things of the world, then the child's will will justify his thoughts and his actions according to how much pleasure he can attain from (and augment for) the world, i.e. thereafter he will be 'driven' by and 'purposed' in augmenting the pleasures of this world, "sense perceiving" and justifying it as being "the will of God," i.e. "the will of the people."
    The conscience is created and sustained when the parent gives a child a command of "not," i.e. warns the child as he approaches an "object of gratification" (which is forbidden by the parent) and is chastened when he seeks to or continues to relate with it.  By the simple act (praxis) of removing chastening or threat of chastening (removing the "or else though shalt die," the "My will be done or else," the "Because I said so" of the Father) the dissatisfaction of the parent's command (expressed in the "ought," i.e. the desire to "touch it," the "My will be done," the "ought-a," "should-a," "might-a," "could-a" of the child) is liberated, i.e. freed to be expressed, and the persons carnal human nature is freed to be 'rationally,' i.e. dialectically, justified and acted out (put into praxis) without any sense of guilt or condemnation, without any sense of higher authority, i.e. without any "Thy will be done" ruling over, i.e. directing the affairs of life.  In fact any "My will be done or else" not only is negated in the minds of people (in their thoughts) but is also actively negated (by force removed) through their social actions (praxis).  Chastening → ought → thought → praxisrighteousness.  In this way, sensuousness is liberated from righteousness, i.e. the fear of God and love for His word is negated as "vanity" is liberated, i.e. takes its place, i.e. as man 'rationally' becomes 'righteous' in, of, and for himself.  By the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning' the conscience, the fear of chastening (or judgment), which inhibits a child's movement toward something in the environment which naturally attracts him (which is necessary for the engendering of unity within the world) is negated by the removal of the authority figure who chastens, not only removing him from the environment but also from the mind of the child.  The threat of punishment or chastening is removed from the situation through the creation of an "open-ended," "non-directed" i.e. "We can talk about anything." "I'm not going to tell you what is right or wrong and neither should anyone else." classroom environment.  In this way "ethics," doing what is right in the situation based upon "beauty and justice," i.e. spontaneous sensuousness and 'justification,' can be engendered from the sensuous situation rather than from the "non-sensuous" authority figure.  Situation ethics is when sensuousness rather than righteousness is the source of "ethics," i.e. when the augmentation of pleasure ("We working for us.") rather than "Not my will but thy will be done" directs a persons thoughts and actions.  The current environment rather than God or the parent is therefore the source for determining what is right and wrong behavior in any given situation.
"The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult.  If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality)  The scriptures warn us: "Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity." "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.  For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."  Ecclesiastes 12:8, 13-14  
    It is not an institution (whether secular or sacred, i.e. including the church, or men, i.e. including our parents, bosses, judges, or leaders) which we are to fear (they can only chasten or kill our bodies), we are to fear the lord (who not only has the power to kill but also has the power to cast our souls into hell). 
"For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.  Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.  And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.  But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him."  Luke 12:2-5  "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 1:7  "Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding." Proverbs 4:1  "My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother: Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck. When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee. For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman. Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids. For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life. Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent." Proverbs 6:21-29  "Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish." " A wise son heareth his father's instruction: but a scorner heareth not rebuke." "The fear of the LORD is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility." "He that wasteth his father, and chaseth away his mother, is a son that causeth shame, and bringeth reproach. Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge. An ungodly witness scorneth judgment: and the mouth of the wicked devoureth iniquity." Proverbs 12:1; 13:1; 15:33; 19:26-28
    The classroom environment, structured upon "Bloom's Taxonomies," is one now designed by social engineers ('change' agents, facilitators, social-psychologists, Transformational Marxists, all the same in thought and action, i.e. in social action, i.e. in praxis) "to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents," producing "conflict and tension between parents and children" when the children return home with their newly discovered belief system, challenging parental authority, conflicting with all "who are not participating in the special opportunities." "… objectives can best be attained where the individual is separated from earlier environmental conditions and when he is in association with a group of peers who are changing in much the same direction and who thus tend to reinforce each other." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book II Affective Domain)   These are key components to a brainwashing session.  
    Warren Bennis, an expert on the techniques of brainwashing (washing from the brain the system of Righteousness, which is the basis of absolutes, the traditional family, private business, private land, nationalism, and sovereignty, i.e. a free people, i.e. individual liberty under God, i.e. inalienable rights) wrote:
"In order to effect rapid change, . . . [one] must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved.  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
    Jean-Jacques Rousseau understood the dialectic nature of the child (of sensuousness), their hatred of "Mine, not yours" of the father (of righteousness), their contempt for the voice and the force of higher authority, the voice that inhibits and blocks their lust for the things of the world. 
"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)   As the "forbidden" tree, i.e. the father's tree, was the woman's tree, and then the man's tree, and then "Our" tree (Genesis 3:1-6), so the kings horses are the peoples horses, i.e. the fathers horse is the children's (the proletariat's) horse ("The proletariat thus has the same right as has the German king when he calls, the people his people and a horse his horse."  Karl Marx, Critique of 'Hegel's' Philosophy of Right), so the children lusting for those things which are not theirs to take, that being the father's things, are now their things, through the voice of the "We," the "Us," and the "Ours."  The voice that all men have in common is the voice of the "Mine" of the "the child within" lusting after those things which are not theirs to take, the voice of "covetousness" and "envy" now hid in the collective voice of the "Ours."  It is here, in the collective voice of the "Ours" that the voice of the father, i.e. his "Mine, not yours," that inalienable rights ("civil society"), the rights of the individual (those rights which come from the father, i.e. engendering the conscience within, protecting the children from the "covetousness," i.e. the unrighteousness of the collective horde) are lost.  It is here in the collective voice of the "Ours, not just yours," i.e. in "human rights," i.e. in the collective voice of the "covetousness" of "the child within," that the the citizens are made "merchandise" of by the "feigned" words (the plastic words, the forked tongue, the double speak, the lies) of those skilled in dialectic thought and action.  "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not."  2 Peter 2:3  After all is said and done by men of dialectic thought and action, i.e. "children of disobedience" in men's bodies, i.e. as children in tantrum with power to kill, tare down, and destroy, thinking that all they see ("sense perceive") is theirs to take: "the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof."  (1 Corinthians 10:26)   Those of the collective "Ours," the "child within" united in consensus, in the praxis of evil, will be judged by the father in the end.  "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished. By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil."  Proverbs 16:5-6  The solution to the voice of dialectic thought, to that voice of your "child within," is to be found in the Lord alone, in His obedience to His Heavenly Father, now your Heavenly Father through Him (His righteousness imputed to you by your faith in Him), to be obey by you as well. "Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."  Hebrews 13:5
    George Hegel believed that the system of ethics is engendered from the child's nature (of sensuousness) and his 'reasoning' abilities (reflections) to rescue himself (his reasoning) from the authority structure of the parents (which inculcates righteousness).  "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)  Hegel is saying that it is in the child's sensuous and spontaneous nature where man is to find his standards for "normal human behavior" and not in the standards inculcated by parents, i.e. standards of righteousness which restrain, i.e. inhibit and block, i.e. "repress" the child's carnal nature, i.e. "alienating" man from that which he has in common to all mankind, i.e. his sinful, worldly nature.  In Gnostic 'logic' the time between man being created and God giving him a command to obey or die, man was only man (human), free of the parent's commands and threat of punishment which prevents him from being his true self.  Only through dialectic 'reasoning,' can man 'rediscover' his true nature (free his mind of the patriarchal paradigm) and creating a "new" world built only upon that which he has in common with all men, i.e. his carnal nature, coming to know himself as he really is.  This is dialectic 'reasoning' being put into praxis, i.e. a "new" world order with the children ruling and the people oppressed, having to be transformed into their image (sensuous and spontaneous) if they are to become 'relevant' in a "rapidly changing world" of sensuousness.
    Karl Marx believed that for man to be truly himself, his world must become a place of sin, i.e. a world of augmented sensuousness achieved by the attenuation of pain, i.e. by the "categorical imperative" of annihilation, i.e. the annihilation of the system of Righteousness, if righteousness was to be no longer an issue of life.  Marx believed that the traditional family system had to be "annihilated" if belief in God (and therefore the issue of sin, righteousness, and judgment) was to become a thing of the past, not only in the persons thoughts but also in his social actions. 
"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, Theses On Feuerbach #4)  The identity of man, according to Marx, i.e. according to dialectic thought, is not to find in God (in His righteousness) but in man, i.e. in his carnal nature (in his sensuousness) alone.
    Sigmund Freud believed that without the "collective killing and eating" of the father figure (the praxis of patricide, i.e. the social action of patricide) the true nature of man, engendered through the child's nature (the praxis of incest―sensuousness unrestrained by "non-sensuous" rules), could never be realized.  Only through man's (the child's) hatred of the father system of authority (hatred of the "old" world order of faith, belief, obedience, and chastening), put into social action, could love of humanity (could love of pure sensuousness and spontaneity in "social harmony," i.e. the "new" world order of questioning and permissiveness put into social action) become recognized and actualized. 
Freud's story of history is based upon the "collective killing and devouring of the father." i.e. the negation of the father system of authority from social thought and action, i.e. not only from human (social) behavior but also from human (social) consciousness by the 'liberated' children"... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother—culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan, which in turn deifies the assassinated father and introduces those taboos and restraints which, ..., generated social morality."  (Herbert Marcuse Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)  "One day, the brothers who had been driven out came together, killed and devoured their father and so made an end of the patriarchal horde" ( Sigmund Freud, Totem and taboo  1912-1913a, p. 141) He believed that the father could "stick around" as long as he no longer functioned as a traditional father figure (no longer demanding faith in him, belief in his commands, obedience to his will without question, and accepting chastening as a means to initiate and sustain order), thus not only tolerating the praxis of incest (consensus) but also participating in it (his carnal nature in social harmony) as well.  "‘It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)  Freud believed that man could only be himself again, i.e. carnal, void of 'guilty' feelings engendered by the preaching and teaching of sin, righteousness, and judgment―condemnation for sin, i.e. man judged as being evil because of his "normal human behavior" (for his "polymorphously perverse behavior"), only if he was freed from the the effects of the traditional father figure, i.e. freed from his commands and his chastening or threat of chastening inhibiting the child (and therefore mankind), freed to become himself again, i.e. to be as he was before the father's first command and chastening took place, i.e. "normal."  Freud believed that man's true nature was social, that it was only through finding what he had in common with humanity that he could know himself.  "Freud's theory is in its very substance ‘sociological.'" (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)  The soul 'drive' and 'purpose' of psychological counseling is to help the child deliver himself from the father's voice of restraint upon his "normal" human (carnal) nature.  Without patricide (without the negation of the father's authority and the traditional family system, the negation of the system of righteousness) incest (human nature, i.e. sensuousness in social harmony―consensus) can not become reality. "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)
    Benjamin Bloom, along with David Krathwohl (the lead author), in the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book II Affective Domain (used by every certified teacher in this nation) reference two men who reflect their "weltanschauung," i.e. their world view or paradigm.  They are Theodor Adorno and Erik Fromm. 
    Adorno, in his book The Authoritarian Personality, wrote: "... the conception of the ideal family situation for the child [consists of]: (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."  "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."   Fromm, in his book Escape From Freedom, wrote:  "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."   Adorno, in another work, Introduction to Society, elaborated upon Fromm's understanding of the traditional family as being "irrational."  He wrote: "... the survival of irrational 'moments' of society can only survive through irrational institutions like the family."  "... the irrational conditions of society can only be maintained through the survival of [the] irrational functions of the family."  (Theodor Adorno,  Introduction to Sociology)  Max Horkheimer, director of the Institute of Social Research (informally known as The Frankfurt School), knew social 'change' could only take place when the family was recognized as the main institution which had to be 'changed.'  
"Work done by Horkheimer in the thirties identified 'neurosis as a social product, in which the family was seen as a primary agent of repressive socialization.'"  (Erich Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man, as quoted in Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists)  According to Brown, as quoted above, unwillingness to 'change' was due to the influences of the traditional home (fear of chastening) and the religious traditions (fundamentalism) of the local church (fear of losing the church's approval, i.e. fear of losing "the approval of men" because of one's private thoughts or actions, i.e. behavior, i.e. one's natural inclinations which go against church doctrine). By keeping "the approval of men" while rejecting the chastening, both the family and church could be 'changed,' i.e. socialized.  By removing fear of God (chastening and wrath), love for God's Word diminishs as love for human relationship takes its place
    All of social-psychology, whether united or separated into their individual fields, are focused upon one thing, the negation of the traditional family structure, the negation of the top-down system of Righteousness, and the negation of righteousness itself (Jesus obeying his Father's will, even to death, asking us to do the same―John 5:30, John 12:49, Matthew 12:50, Philippians 2:5-8, Matthew 23:9).  "External domination," while claimed by those of the "new" world order to be the enemy of humanity, the source of "repression" (according to Freud) and "alienation" (according to Marx), is itself the only tool whereby the "new" world order can initiate and sustain "order."  Once the dialectic process has "control" over the souls of men, no one can challenge its authority―a condition known as a "police state," i.e. with the "children of disobedience" oppressing the people and women ruling over them (Isaiah 3:4-5, 12).  Although the father figure might be a 'tyrant,' (using the office of authority for his own gain) it is actually the system of the father figure (the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the system of righteousness) which is of issue in dialectic 'reasoning,' the 'tyrant' simply being used to 'justify' the negation of the top-down patriarchal system itself.  In the French Revolution is was Louis XVI.  In the Russian Revolution it was Tsar Nicholas II.  In the Chinese Revolution it was the removal of monarchy rule (the
Manchu dynasty).  Over the last century the focus has increasingly been upon "making the world safe for democracy," which means the negation of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. with the removal of 'evil' families from controlling their countries, i.e. oppressing their people, being the justification for encroachment upon (the disregarding of) the sovereignty of nations by the leaders of this nation (controlled by socialist-globalists ideology which does not recognize boarders, i.e. does not recognize "Mine, not yours" as being reality, i.e. does not recognize 'inalienable rights' as being a right, "human rights" having taken its place), joining with other nations around the world with the same dialectic ideology, i.e. the negation of nationalism (negation of the traditional top-down family system) for the 'purpose' of globalism, i.e. the "new" world order of "oneness," i.e. all of mankind, through dialectic 'reasoning,' established as one upon the "spirit" of sensuousness.
    Lest you get lost in all this, thinking that it is just some weird academic exercise devised by some "heady" people of "intellectual" abilities playing around in some secret laboratory in some far off land, you need to realize that the mindset of those who have merged Marx and Freud (social-psychology), which now has unlimited "control" over the thoughts and actions of the people of this nation (and not just the leadership) have done all this for spiritual reasons. Fromm wrote:  "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 [righteous in himself]." (Erick Fromm, You shall be as gods; whose book Escape From Freedom was the weltanschauung, i.e. the world view, i.e. the paradigm for Bloom and his taxonomy of education objectives.)  (bia)   Herbart Marcuse, another partner with Adorno and Fromm (all Transformational Marxists of the "Frankfurt School"), wrote: "If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man can ever be redeemed by freedom [freedom from a patriarchal based family and therefore from a patriarchal God who initiates and sustains it], 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." (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)   Norman Brown (a compatriot with Marcuse) wrote: regarding Freud and the merging of him with Marx: "
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;" "I wagered my intellectual life on the idea of finding in Freud what was missing in Marx."  (Norman O. Brown commenting about his book, Life Against Death)  Mike Connor wrote, regarding Brown's book: "Life Against Death established Brown, along with his colleague and friend Herbert Marcuse, and later Charles Reich, as an intellectual leader of the New Left …. a Marxist mode of Freudian analysis. Brown's push to resurrect the human body with all its erotic urges freely expressed, resonated with the members of the Human Potential Movement and the undergrads they were influencing in the 60's." (Mike Connor, quoted in March 23-30, 2005 issue of Metro Santa Cruz)  It is here, in the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e. the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning,' that we find the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. the "salvation" of mankind from the righteousness of God, that we find the ideology that man can be himself alone, of his own carnal nature alone, i.e. in, of, and for the world alone, i.e. "controlled" by "prince of the power of the air," i.e. by Satan alone. 
    It is not that the traditional, patriarchal family is holy.  It is not. (Only God is Holy.)  But that the system which is represented by it is the same system as the Holy Family, i.e. the system of faith, belief, obedience, and the acceptance of chastening, which God requires of us if we are to be adopted into His family.  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' by getting rid of the former, the "earthly family," you negate the later, the "Holy Family." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4)   By getting everybody's support in negating the authority of the traditional family (because of the "physical, mental, and social abuse," i.e. the "spiritual abuse" which is found within it, as defined by dialectic 'reasoning'), you make the latter, the authority of the Heavenly Father (righteousness) moribund ('irrational' and 'irrelevant,' i.e. and therefore of no worth) as a social issue (personal issues thereafter become subject only to social issues, with righteousness evaluated, dialectically, only according to its value or worth in the 'light' of social issues, i.e. according to issues of sensuousness, i.e. according to man's "felt" needs).
    The retraining of educators upon a "new" classroom curriculum (merging Freud, psychology and Marx, sociology into social-psychology and applying it in the classroom) was therefore the best rough to take in the restructuring of America for the 'purpose' of the "new" world order, which is not "new."  Read Genesis 3:1-6, i.e. it is that "new."   "Re-education must be clever enough in manipulating the subjects to have them think that they are running the show." "The objective sought will not be reached so long as the new set of values is not experienced by the individual as something freely chosen." "An outright enforcement of the new set of values and beliefs is simply the introduction of a new god who has to fight with the old god, now regarded as a devil." "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to a group." "A feeling of complete freedom and a heightened group identification are frequently more important at a particular stage of re-education than learning not to break specific rules." (Kurt Lewin quoted in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change, pdf file format) 
    Carl Rogers knew that human nature (of the system of sensuousness), that which is of the many below, i.e. of sensuousness ("I'm OK, You're OK," "equality" paradigm), would prevail over Godly or parental authority (of the system of Righteousness), that which is of the one or few above, i.e. of righteousness (obey or be chastened, top-down paradigm), providing the right environment for experimentation ('discovering' oneself in the many) was initiated and sustained.  The deception being, the many were simply now made the subject of the few or the one, i.e. the social engineers ('change agents,' 'vanguard party,' directorate, facilitators, councilors, etc) and the Antichrist (the Lord of the Ring of unrighteous men).  The counseling session and the public classroom were the perfect laboratory from which the 'change' was to be made. "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."  "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."  "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." "
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
    Abraham Maslow knew that without the liberation of sensuousness (equality), righteousness (top-down) could not be negated and men like him (perverts) could not have free reign of (pleasures of and control over) the children of the parents (as well as control over their businesses, property, and $$$―taking and "enjoying" for themselves that which is not theirs to take or have). 
"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." [Then his children's behavior (as he saw his family fall apart due to dialectic ideology and practices) began to bother him.]  "... 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)  
    Like a pharmaceutical company, which knows that it's money making product is lethal, (burying the truth in mountains of data and laboratory research, claiming that the "problem" is from some other, as yet unidentifiable, source) those of dialectic 'reasoning', know that it's money making (people controlling) process is evil, i.e. is "Pandora's Box" (Krathwohl, Bloom, Taxonomy of Education Objectives: Book II, pg. 91) yet continue putting the process into praxis upon the citizens (and children) of this nation, claiming to all its clients or "unites," i.e. victims, that it will help them to attain a "better" standard of living not only for themselves but for all "the people" (as in the "the people's republic of Communist Americas"), i.e. praxis the art craft of "the old man," lying, i.e. worshiping the creation (that which is apart from he who is righteous, worshiping only that which is of sensuousness and subject to death, i.e. the source of all things that "seem to be 'good'" in the 'moment') rather than the creator (who is righteous, who is the source of life, i.e. the source of all things good for all eternity).  By coming between the creator and the created, i.e. between God and man, the father and his children, the teacher and his students, the business owner and his employee, the land owner and his land, the citizen and his representative, etc., they take that which is not theirs to take, i.e. man, the children, the students, the employee, the land, the representative, etc. and turn them against God, the father, the teacher, the business owner, the land owner, the citizen, etc, and profit themselves from their praxis of usurpation thereof.  "
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: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1:20-25
     If you understand this, you understand what the dialectic process is all about, i.e. the negation of righteousness as the issue of life by placing abomination, i.e. that which is "highly esteemed amongst men," i.e. the sensuousness of the pleasures of this life, in its place. No class on Hegel, Marx, Freud, Rogers, Maslow, etc. will tell you the truth, i.e. what the dialectic process is all about.  Not until you turn to the word of God can you see the dialectic process for what it is.  All the following articles expose the dialectic process by the light of God's word.  Otherwise you can not see the dialectic process for what it is, you 'justifying' yourself before men, "highly esteeming the approval of men" for the augmentation of the pleasures and the attenuation of the pain (including the chastening by God) of this life―Abomination.  It is why we are what we are as a nation today, a nation of unrighteousness (sin), promoting unrighteousness (the way of sin, i.e. the dialectic process) around the world.  Now we are hated and mocked by the other nations of the world―who once looked up to us as an example of how it should be done.  "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people."  Proverbs 13:24
    If you think we, as a nation, can come out of this, just consider this.  No candidate (conservative and, of course, liberal) can speak of righteousness today (or does) for fear of loosing votes (if they mention the Word of God it is for deceitful purposes only, so that they can "impress" a select few, deceivable, voters).  Who would listen?  Any man who would run on a platform of righteousness would not be voted for because he is "unwinnable." Certainly the American public would not vote for him, especially those of the "humanized" (dialectic) churches.  The problem is not the candidates who are running, it is the citizens (especially the churches) themselves, i.e. it is you (and me) "leaning to our own understanding" (leaning upon our own and others "feelings" and "thoughts," trusting in our own sensuousness) and not "trusting in the Lord with all our heart" (not trusting in Him and His righteousness, not living by "every word which proceeds from the mouth of God," not walking in the Spirit).  Proverbs 3:5 (paraphrased)  We are to repent of our sins before the Lord, suffer the shaming (rejection) by the world, along with Christ, and endure the testing of our faith to the end. For it is in Christ alone that we are on the right way, know the truth, and have everlasting life.  All other ways lead to death (damnation), and many are going that way.  "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death."  Proverbs 14:12  As far as this nation goes, there is no such thing as a Christian nation, only a nation with Christians, i.e. those who humble themselves before God and seek his face, crying out for him for help in time of need.  It is now need, "felt" need, i.e. "lusts" which men cry out for, even doing so in the name of the Lord. 
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."  2 Timothy 4:3, 4  "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them."  Deuteronomy 30:19, 20 
    What was true for the children of Israel (regarding the promised land across the Jordon) is likewise true for you and me (regarding the promised land―not of this creation, who's builder and maker is God Himself), by faith in Him alone, i.e. by His righteousness alone, are we able to enter in his kingdom. "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"  Matthew 16:24-26  "For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels."  Luke 9:26  
    While the world, through dialectic 'reasoning,' tries to convince you that academics, work, religion, government, etc. is of this world, i.e. of sensuousness alone, be assured that all will be judged according to God's righteousness.  Don't let the Midianitish women seduce, deceive, and manipulate you with that which is of your nature, of our sensuousness and draw you way from the truth and the life which can only be found in Christ Jesus, in His righteousness alone, i.e. in His grace alone, in his Word alone, in your faith in Him alone, i.e. in Him alone. Hollowed be our Heavenly Father, who's Kingdom, Power, and Glory is of and for Him alone (those of faith in Him being adopted as sons into His Kingdom, by His Power, to behold His Glory for eternity―Ephesians 1-6).  Let us reject the word of man and turn instead to God and His Word for direction.  It is only in Him alone that we can know the way, know the truth, and know eternal life. 

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2012-2015