A Précis of the Introduction to the Articles

A Précis of the Introduction to the Articles

Preface

Dean Gotcher

All bracketed information below, within the quotations or verses of this article, is not in the original quotation or verse.
It is information that has been added by me.

"And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15

    The following précis is more like a rough draft, i.e. an article in the making, in that I keep inserting new information (making this précis extensive, i.e. not so précis) as time goes by, which also results in improper tense changes, repetition, typos, etc. (bear with me as I, over time, find and correct them). Yet its information is invaluable for anyone wanting to understand what the so called "new" world order is all about, as well as its effect upon them and their loved ones (in the home, in education, at work, in entertainment, news, etc, in government, and in the church―in the apostate church, known as "church growth," emergent church," "contemporary church," "contemplative church," ecumenicalism, liberation theology, etc.―all building upon "human nature," i.e. sensuousness, over and against, it can not be "equal" with, the righteousness of God, who is always "top-down."   "Equality," when 'justified' through the use of dialectic 'reasoning' i.e. through self-social 'justification' ('justifying' sensuousness), always negates (places itself over and against) a "top-down" (righteousness) way of thinking and acting (paradigm). Sensuousness ("equality," plurality, diversity, spectrum, continuum, "Ours, not just yours," ever 'changing,' i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm of 'changingness') and righteousness ("top-down," duality, "I'm above, you are below," "Mine, not yours," never 'changing,' i.e. the patriarchal paradigm of "everlastingness") can never be (become) "equal." One must rule over (and against) the other (there is no plurality before God, i.e. their is no "diversity" or "tolerance of ambiguity," or consensus in righteousness). There is only God's way or man's way. There is no "third way." There can be no "partnership" with the world (sensuousness) when it comes to righteousness and no "partnership" with righteousness when it comes to the world (sensuousness). There is no public-private partnership, i.e. social-individual partnership (which negates private, i.e. the individual, inalienable rights, "Mine, not yours," private property by the way) which those of dialectic 'reasoning' propagate. The dialectic deception (the lie) being that there can be, deceiving all who participate in dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. "justifying themselves before men," thereby negating righteousness, negating the authority of the Father (which will be explained below) as the issue of life in their thoughts and in their actions. The following may be strange and difficult reading at first but will become clear if you persevere through. It will certainly change your life.
    Some have responded that they wish they had never read it, now knowing the truth as they had never known it, becoming acquainted with grief, as Jesus was acquainted with grief, seeing a world willfully blind to the truth, with many of their own friends and loved ones refusing to hear them when the share it. Yet they have all responded in appreciation of knowing the truth, the following information having liberated them from the tyranny of the process of 'change' or confirming to them why they did not buy in to it, that is, fall for its lies.
    It is not so much what I share in this article that is important, it is what is in God's Word (if you are not in the Word, reading, studying, and living by it, weighing from it what I or anyone else is doing, saying, or writing, it will be just some more information to dialogue about). This information is not just about exposing the dialectic process for what it is, abomination, it is also about encouraging you to do that which is right, walking on the pathway of righteousness, doing that which is pleasing to your Heavenly Father, living in His only begotten Son's righteousness, walking by faith, doing His will. "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6
    We can not find "oneness" with God through the stimulates-response, "approach pleasure - avoid pain" spectrum of our "human nature," according to our sensuousness, according to our flesh (as we find oneness with the world). We can only be 'redeemed' from condemnation for our sins, i.e. from the Father's wrath upon "the children of disobedience," by His only begotten Son 'reconciling' us to God, walking in the Spirit. We can only come to know of and have faith in God through the hearing of His Word, i.e. God revealing Himself to us by His Word (by the preaching and teaching of His Word, the Holy Spirit bringing us under conviction, bearing witness with our spirit that we are "the children of God" as we repent of our sins―Ro 8:16) and not by sight (as the world reveals itself to us). "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17 Therefore it is only through His righteousness, i.e. through His commands and His chastening of us when we do not obey Him, as we repent of our sins, i.e. repent for our disobedience (confessing that we are not God), that we can be at-one-with God. (Man receives God's wrath when he rejects His chastening, 'justifying' himself in his disobedience―where dialectic 'reasoning' comes in.  We can not be God, but can only come to know Him, in and through His righteousness―we can not be righteous in and of ourselves. We can be "like God" ("knowing good and evil," able to evaluate), but only according to our own sensuousness, i.e. according to our flesh, using dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' it, but we can not be "like God" (be righteous in and of ourselves). If we could we would not need God (need faith). We would be God (be only of sight).
    Apart from our use of dialectic 'reasoning,' which deceives us into thinking that we are 'righteous' in and of ourselves, i.e. 'righteous' according to our "human nature," we know that we are unrighteous (wicked, in and of ourselves) when we hear the Word of God preached and taught as is. Therefore righteousness can only be imputed by God to us, according to our faith in Him, and can not be achieved through our works, i.e. according to our reasoning abilities (which are only opinions) and our actions, all of which are subject to sight, i.e. subject to sensuousness, i.e. subject to the world. While we, in our bodies of sin, either accept God, repenting of our sin's and accepting Him by faith, or reject him, yet still having a "guilty conscience," knowing that we are wrong, struggling to 'justify' our sinful nature yet unable to do so, those of dialectic 'reasoning,' 'justify their sinful nature ("human nature") as being "normal," and therefore praxis sin without having a "guilty conscience." They are of the way of abomination.   The 'drive' and 'purpose' of dialectic 'reasoning is to negate the issue of righteousness by 'justifying' the praxis of abomination ('justifying' "human nature," sensuousness, the flesh as being "normal") in the mind, heart, and action of "all" men (if everyone is thinking it and doing it than it must be "normal," it must be 'right'). Leviticus 18-20 warns us of the praxis (practice) of dialectic 'reasoning.' For abomination to "come out of the closet" and be "tolerated" (accepted), righteousness must be negated (the word of God must no longer be preached and taught "as is," not only in the church but also in the public arena, being instead treated as an opinion amongst opinions in an environment of dialogue, thereby negating it as the word of God, making it an opinion of men).
    With God there are only two ways, the way of righteousness (faith) and the way of unrighteousness (sight, sensuousness). The way of abomination deceives people into believing that there is a third way. A way of "acceptance" and "toleration" of abomination, deceiving the righteous into believing that they will also be "accepted" and "tolerated," when in truth, they already have been negated. The very act of "acceptance" and "toleration" of abomination negates righteousness (negates "right and wrong") in the thoughts and actions of men. This is the dialectic way.
    Using education as an example: "Although these instruments [Bloom's Taxonomies] were derived from techniques developed from the Eight-Year Study, their application to the field of personal beliefs, where 'right' and 'wrong' is strongly emphasized, represented a new venture [the "new venture" being the negation of "right and wrong" as the only way of thinking and acting]." (Eugene R. Smith and R. W. Tyler, Appraising and Recording Student Progress)   "Bloom's Taxonomies" are curriculum material all teachers must learn in college, i.e. learning how to apply them in their classroom, if they are to be certify. All schools, to be accredited, must also apply them. They were dedicated to Ralph Tyler. Bloom wrote in the first book, Taxonomy of Educational Outcomes: Book 1 Cognitive Domain, "The authors leaned heavily on the instruments of the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (1933-41)." Tyler's view of the school was: "In most schools, each student is respected as a human being without discrimination, the transactions in the classroom are guided by an attempt to be fair and dispense justice, and the class moral is a reflection of the fact that the members care about the welfare of others." (Ralph Tyler in Frank Brown, Education for Responsible Citizenship) Tyler wrote this in the mid 70's. I don't know what schools he was talking about. It was not one I attended. Therefore, according to Tyler (and dialectic 'reasoning') the classroom environment (the "feelings," "thoughts," and "actions" of the children) must be 'liberated' and then used to 'change' the present society, creating a "new" society ('liberating' the children from the restraints of the "old" world order, i.e. from the beliefs and values and the traditions and customs of their parents, with there absolute "right and wrong" way of thinking), negating the authority of the Father.
    While an adulterous people sin with a "guilty conscience," being caught between their love of sensuousness and their recognition of (and their concern regarding) God's righteousness, fearing God's judgment upon their sins, a people of abomination sin without a "guilty conscience," having used dialectic 'reasoning' to 'justify' "human nature," i.e. 'justifying' their sin as being "normal," thereby negating God's judgment as having any relevance. An adulterous people, caught between their desire for righteousness and their love of sensuousness (their desire for approval from the Father and the world at the same time, engendering a condition of antithesis, a belief-action dichotomy, sinning but having a "guilty conscience" about it, not going beyond two, i.e. duality, in immoral relationship, sustaining a black and white, right and wrong way of thinking and acting) can be 'changed' into a people of abomination (unlimited, i.e. multiple, i.e. a plurality, a spectrum of varied immoral relationships, initiating and sustaining a gray, varied, adaptable to 'change,' "tolerant of ambiguity" way of thinking and acting) 'justifying' their praxis of "unity" through their use of dialectic 'reasoning,' through the synthesis of sensuousness and reasoning, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning' being used to justify, in the thoughts and actions (the "theory and practice") of "all" men the negation of righteousness ("self-restraint," "self-control" according to God the Father's will) as an issue of concern―abomination thereafter becoming the law of the land. "'... The conflict between civilization and sexuality is caused by the circumstance that sexual love is a relationship between two people,... whereas civilization is founded on relations between large groups of persons ["the village," the community, i.e. the "common" unity].... In no other case does Eros so plainly betray the core of his being, his aim of making one out of many; but when he has achieved it in the proverbial way through the love of two human beings, he is not willing to go further.'" (Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents)
    The 'quest' of dialectic 'reasoning' is the uniting of the diversity (deviancy, 'changingness') of "humanity" into "oneness," uniting it into and upon a common "feeling" of "oneness," through consensus (sensual consent).   Thus (using the Father-children relationship to explain the dialectic process), the condition of thesis (the Father's 'unchanging' position of restraint) and the condition of antithesis (the child's desire to relate unrestrained with that which the Father restrains him from, the child's desire to 'change' yet not being able to because of the Father's 'unchanging' way) is overcome through the negation of the Father's position to restrain the child (negating his condition of 'unchangingness' in the child's life), where synthesis with the object of desire (the object in and of the world, the "other") and the desire to unite with it (the subject being the child, his "natural inclination" to relate with the object which is in and of the world unrestrained) are 'justified' as being "normal," of "human nature," allowing and encouraging him to become "one" (unity) with the world, where both the one and the other, the child and the objects of the world are united or synthesized as "one," becoming the "new" thesis (a "new" position, a "new" order of the world based upon 'changingness,' readily adaptable to 'change'). With the dialectic cycle repeating itself, uniting ever larger groups into "oneness," the universe will eventual become "one." Which, according to dialectic 'reasoning' was there in the beginning (the desire for unity, for "oneness" with, in, and through the world), in, with, and through the child's "human nature"―the child's "nature" of 'changingness' (his "natural inclination" to keep up with the 'changing' world, i.e. the 'changing' times) having to be rescued, i.e. "redeemed" (through his use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. a 'reasoning' process of self-social-world-nature-environment-universe as "one" 'justification') from the Father's restraint (his "unnatural," "top-down," 'unchanging' way of thinking and acting), "reconciling" the child back to the world, as it was before the Father's first command and his threat of chastening for disobedience (which, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' engendered the "guilty conscience," i.e. created the feelings of "guilt" for being "normal," i.e. for being deviant).
    Adultery and abomination, both find their common ground in the sensuousness of sexual pleasures, which according to dialectic 'reasoning,' begins in infancy. Hegel, with Marx and Freud following in suit, built his whole system upon the carnal nature of the child (the child unrestrained by the Father's authority). "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)   "Freud, Hegel, and Nietzsche are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force [the Father's authority to give commands to his children and chasten them when they disobey Him] in order to explain repression." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
    The so called "repressed," the sulking "children of disobedience," the "pushers" of abomination, the dialectic 'reasoner's of 'changingness,' the facilitators of 'change' (not intellectuals as they want all to believe but emotional's which they really are) perceive the Father as a Sadist and the children, who obey Him without question (following Him in faith), as Masochists, classifying all believers as Sadomasochists, i.e. classifying righteousness (as a filthy mind would) as a "sexual perversion" (thereby perpetuating a hate toward righteousness across a nation which once exonerated it, i.e. supplanting God's love, righteousness with man's love, sensuousness). "In Escape from Freedom, Fromm offered the sado-masochistic character as the core of the authoritarian personality [one honoring the Father, i.e. accepting His authority]." (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination) Fromm wrote: ". . . Definition of religious experience [a "top-down" system] as experience of absolute dependence is the definition of the masochistic experience in general." "Both the sadistic and the masochistic trends are caused by the inability of the isolated individual to stand alone and his need for a symbiotic relationship [turning to someone who is not of and/or greater than his sensuous 'moment,' who is not in agreement or alignment with his 'immediate' "experiencing" of the world, i.e. supernatural] to overcome this aloneness." (Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom) The idea being, by separating the child from God or his Father and then, in his state of aloneness, reattaching him to that which he has in common with all the world, i.e. his "natural inclination" to relate with the world in pleasure, thinking and acting according to his carnal "human nature," uniting with others going through the same dialectic "experience" (called consensus, i.e. uniting, i.e. becoming as "one" through sensuousness, thus negating righteousness), he can, through the dialectic process of 'change' (with his "guilty conscience," the Father's voice within, negated) be brought into the praxis (social action) of abomination―there is no "guilty conscience" in the praxis of dialoguing opinions to a consensus, i.e. to a "feeling" of "oneness" ("How do you feel," "What do you think" negating "Dad said ....," i.e. "It is written").
    How we got to where we are today is though the praxis of "counseling," mediation, and facilitated meetings of 'change,' uniting us upon the "common ground" of our (read: collective, for the sake of unity) "feelings" and our "thoughts" and not upon the authority of God's (the Father's) words, with our "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. our carnal lusts 'driving' our lives instead of God, the Father, directing them. Those were removed in the 50's by the church (in its silence, in its apathy, and its "tolerance" of man's carnal "human nature," in its focus upon the youth via. youth groups instead of the Father's "top-down" authority, in its embracing of psychology, i.e. the study of hedonism for the 'purpose' of actualizing it, as a tool for "knowing oneself" instead of the Word of God alone) when prayer, scriptures, the Ten Commandments and chastening were removed from the public schools. When the classroom experience for the students moved ('shifted') from the teaching of truth and facts (with teachers up front inculcating truth, truth being established above and beyond the child's self cognition in the 'moment,' i.e. not being engendered in, of, and from his own "sense experience," therefore having to be accepted by faith, "memorized," and applied when called for, inculcating obedience to a higher authority than the child's own "human nature") to the sharing of students opinions (group grades based upon the praxis of consensus through the use of Bloom's Taxonomies, where truth is relative, i.e. not lasting "for all times and places" and therefore subject to the ever 'changing' "sense experiences" of the student, 'discovered' through the witness of their own common life experiences, 'discovered' through their use of dialectic 'reasoning') the nation was 'shifted' from a focus upon righteousness (obedience to and a respect for higher authority, God being the highest authority over the father) to a focus upon sensuousness (to the 'justification' of "human nature," man's carnal sensuous nature, as being "normal," i.e. the standard by which to establish the individual-social "norm").   "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 Having, in education, i.e. in the classroom, negated the Father as an issue of importance, with His "truth established for all time and all places," truth was no longer the way of life for the next generation, at least "establishment" truth. Man's (the student's) common "sense experiences" with others of like "feelings" and "thoughts" in the 'moment' became the way of 'discovering' the 'changing' truth of the 'moment.' We certainly saw the result of the use of Bloom's Taxonomies in the 60's. We are now living in the cesspool (abomination) of its actualization today, all in the name of 'change.'
    Side note (but fits here): When the "church" puts, next to the name of Jesus, "in the name of 'change,'" you know you are going into Babylon. Only God, through His Word, i.e. "top-down," can change your heart. Any other 'change' is just a 'change' of scenery, leaving your heart in a state of "equality," i.e. in the hands of men, deceived, wicked, and condemned―where "counseling," mediation, and facilitated meetings of consensus, i.e. where experiences of dialectic 'reasoning,' leave you, whether at the workplace, in government, in the classroom, in the home, or in the "church." God wants' your flesh dead, not working "with Him" in "helping" Him building His kingdom through the praxis of consensus. God can not do anything "with you" until you are dead, dead to your dialectic 'reasoning,' dead to you 'justifying' your flesh, i.e. "how you feel and what you think," and alive in Him, doing what His Father says, living according to His Word and His Word alone.
    According to those of dialectic 'reasoning' it is the sensuous pleasures of all the organs of the body, seeking oneness with the world, which is the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of life (although they, in denial or hoping to hid the truth of their agenda, would deny it, labeling it under the "building of human relationships," becoming "normal" through therapy, where pro-creation is not the necessary outcome but rather the uninhibited sensation of sensual "oneness," i.e. universal peace and harmony). Norman Brown, in his book Life Against Death, explained the reasoning behind merging Karl Marx (who built his ideology upon sensuousness, i.e. "sense experience") and Sigmund Freud, uniting the world upon "human nature" (sensuousness, "pleasure," what Hegel called "enjoyment," of self and the world as one) by 'liberating' the child's carnal nature ("human nature") from the Father's authority (using social-psychology to 'redeem' the child, and therefore society, from the influences of the Father's authority, undoing his dependence upon his Father for direction, thus 'reconciling' the child, and therefore mankind, back to his own nature and the world, engendering a perverse world, a world of abomination). Marx, by the way, was not "more right than wrong," as some "church" leaders and followers say. He was dead wrong. As dead wrong as Freud and all others who praxis dialectic 'reasoning.' Call it sociology or psychology or social psychology or any other name you want, it is all the same, the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e. the way of death.
    Brown wrote, regarding the merging of psychology (the individual) with sociology (with society): "Sexual instincts seeks union with objects in the world." "Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world." "Infants have a richer sexual life than adults." "Infantile sexuality is the pursuit of pleasure obtained through the activity of any and all organs of the human body ['touching, seeing, muscular activity, pain, etc.']." "What the child knows consciously and the adult unconsciously, is that we are nothing but body." "In man, infantile sexuality is repressed and never outgrown;" "Normal adult sexuality, judged by the standard of infantile sexuality, is an unnatural restriction of the erotic potentialities of the human body." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." "Our repressed desires are the desires we had unrepressed, in childhood; and they are sexual desires." "Freud takes with absolute seriousness the proposition of Jesus: 'Except ye become as little children, ye can in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven." "Therefore the question confronting mankind is the abolition of repression - in traditional Christian language, the resurrection of the body." "Psychoanalysis declares the fundamental bisexual character of human nature;" "Eros is the foundation of morality." (ibid.) The only 'purpose' of psychology, sociology, philosophy (which those in the "practice," in denial, would deny) is to negate righteousness (negate the Father's authority, i.e. praxis patricide) through the praxis of abomination ('justified' "human nature," i.e. 'justify' the praxis of incest). Read Wilhelm Reich's take on the issue―that an abortion instantly kills the father structure of the traditional patriarchal home.
    If private means "nobodies business" and public means "everybody's business" then to tax property means property is no longer "our property," private property, individual property, but "Our property," public property, socialist property to be used for the propagation of socialism, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning.' To license a car makes it public property. To force people to have health care (for their own, or rather for the public "good") makes our very own bodies public property, government property, socialist property. "Health" meaning not only physical health but mental and social health as well, with social-psychology, as described above in their very own words, setting the standard to determine our worth or value, as an individual "citizen," weighting our thoughts and our actions upon our "willful" participation in and contribution to socialist praxis, i.e. according to our "tolerance" of, if not embracing of, abomination.
    Most people do not have the capability to think clearly today, having been under the influence of dialectic 'reasoning' for so long, i.e. having learned (been programmed) in dialectic 'reasoning' ("group think"). Having learned to think through or reason through their feelings (or the feelings of others), they can no longer receive the truth, the truth hurting their feelings (or the feeling of others), forcing (triggering) them to shut down their thinking to protect themselves from developing a "guilty conscience," becoming "abnormal," guilty of "neurosis," i.e. becoming a social misfit (not at-one-with the group) again. This is why you get that deer in the headlight look from people when you attempt to share the truth with them, warning them of where they are going, and taking the rest of us, i.e. supporting laws which (and people who) take away our inalienable rights, rights which come from God, from the Father (from the "top-down" system of righteousness) and not from man (from "human nature," from the nature of the "child within," from the "equality" system of sensuousness―with "human reasoning" being used to 'justify' sensuousness over and against the system of righteousness), as so many professors and teachers ("Christian" professors and teachers included) falsely, i.e. out of ignorance (having been deceived, which does not excuse them), propagandize in the classroom today, teaching "human rights" instead of inalienable rights, thereby legitimizing, i.e. "legalizing" abomination in the thoughts and actions (theory and practice) of the next generation.
    "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6 What has happened and is happening to the children of this nation (aborted, those not aborted living openly in sin and rebellion, exonerating, perpetrating, and participating in revolution, in dialectic 'reasoning' 'justifying' their actions) began when God (the authority of the Father, His law, His Word, prayer, and chastening) was removed from their parent's and now their education, i.e. those who were not killed by their parents for the love of pleasure sake. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 1:7 It is amazing how wise a child can become when he hears his father's belt passing through his belt loops. Dialectic 'reasoning' removes the fear of (judgment of) God and a love for Him and His Word (above all else), from the thoughts and actions of men (to receive God's mercy and grace you must first recognize your wickedness, confess your sin and rebellion against Him, and repent, asking Him for His forgiveness). But when man 'justifies' himself (his "human nature") before his own eyes, through his use of dialectic' reasoning,' then Romans 3:18 becomes the way of life (and death). "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:18 "The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful. The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good. He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil [is "toleration of ambiguity," i.e. is tolerant of abomination]." Psalms 36:1-4 When you "tolerate ambiguity" you "tolerating abomination." You then become a part of a culture which not only has no "guilty conscience" for its unrighteous thoughts and unrighteous actions but hates righteousness, i.e. is 'driven' by and 'purpose' in the negation of righteousness, negating that which engenders the "guilty conscience," the conscience thereafter not longer being subject to the Father's will (of righteousness) but of the child's will (of sensuousness) and therefore seared (the seared conscience being called the "super-ego" to deceive the world into believing that it still has a conscience―which can only be "top-down"). "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual comes to ask himself 'What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers, On Becoming a Person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)
    While a man of dialectic 'reasoning' might say: "Man has only to understand himself, to take himself as the measure of all aspects of life, to judge according to his being, to organise the world in a truly human manner according to the demands of his own nature, and he will have solved the riddle of our time. But there is no other salvation for him, he cannot regain his humanity, his substance, other than by thoroughly overcoming all religious ideas and returning firmly and honestly, not to 'God', but to himself." (Frederick Engels, The Condition of England A review of Past and Present, by Thomas Carlyle) The scriptures warn us: "... but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise." "For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth." II Corinthians 10:12b, 18
    It is not that God has rejected us (He sent His only begotten Son to 'redeem' us, by His blood, and 'reconcile' us back to Him) it is that we have rejected Him by making ourselves the measure of life and not Him. Martin Luther, the initiator of the Protestant Reformation, returning man to God and His word as the foundation for their life, and not man―where we got the modern age (and the strong middle class) with man (the "priesthood of all believers") doing his best to the glory of God, over excelling in whatever he put his hands to―wrote: "Miserable Christians, whose words and faith still depend on the interpretations of men and who expect clarification from them! This is frivolous and ungodly. The Scriptures are common to all, and are clear enough in respect to what is necessary for salvation and are also obscure enough for inquiring minds. . . let us reject the word of man." (Luther's Works. V. 32, p. 217) But make sure you are reading and studying from the Word of God and not the opinions of men.
    Without the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' all man can do is feel guilty for following after his "natural inclinations," i.e. for "doing his own thing" instead of obeying God or, as a child, obeying his father (as the Apostle Paul describes in Romans 7:14-25). But through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. through man's ability to 'justify his "human nature" as being "normal" (the standard by which to measure the worth or value of life), there is no need for a "guilty conscience" for disobeying God or the father, since the person is doing that which is "normal," i.e. doing that which is right in the eyes of men, i.e. thinking and acting according to nature. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' man's "fixations on perversions and obscenities, demonstrate[s] the refusal of the unconscious essence of [his] being to acquiesce in the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower." The praxis of incest ("perversions and obscenities"), i.e. becoming "one" with that which is of nature (in "enjoyment"), thus becomes right ('righteous'). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' any restraint against "human nature," i.e. inhibiting or blocking man's "natural inclination" to be at-one-with his own nature and nature itself―any act or threat of act "repressing" his "society of impulses, feelings, and thoughts," (Carl Rogers) which are common to all men, and thus perceived, i.e. "sense perceived" (Karl Marx) as being abnormal―engenders "neurosis" and needs to be negated (patricide) if man is to become normal again (before the Father's first command and threat of chastening, i.e. before man's first encounter with the system of righteousness in the garden in Eden). Brown wrote: "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, is a clear instance of repression; and therefore leads to neurosis." "Human consciousness [the body's natural "impulses and urges," called "mimesis"] can be liberated from the parental (Oedipal) complex only be being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." (ibid.) The use of dialectic 'reasoning' is therefore an infringement upon our religious freedoms, i.e. the freedom of religion (as in the soviet union, you can keep it as long as you don't share it, i.e. make it public, thereby re-engendering a "guilty conscience" in society).
    According to dialectic 'reasoning,' man's social freedom rests solely upon his ability to 'liberate' his carnal nature ("human nature") from the restraints of the Father (from the "guilty conscience"). "Universal Reconciliation relies on a reason that is before reason-mimesis or 'impulse.'" (Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action)   It is here, in dialectic 'reasoning,' in man's ability to 'justify' his "human nature" as being "normal," that abomination finds its 'justification.' According to dialectic 'reasoning,' abomination isn't a sin, it is a "disease" which man can use to help himself evolve to "a higher state of being." Righteousness is a sin, preventing man from becoming himself, preventing the individual and society from becoming as one, according to what man has in common, his "human nature."   "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16 The "lust of the flesh" being man's "cognition" of the world around him, becoming aware of and wanting the sensually gratifying things in the world which draw him to it, i.e. his "human nature" wanting the things of pleasure, "lust of the eyes" being man's "affection" for the things of gratification of the world around him, locating, focusing upon, and thinking upon the things of pleasure, i.e. his "natural inclination" to approach them to apprehend them, and the "pride of life" being his "psychomotor" ability to "control" the world around him to initiate and sustain the pleasure he derives from the gratifying things of the world around him. This is the only platform upon which man can stand when he declares "human nature" as being "normal," if "unrestrained" in his thoughts and his actions abomination becoming the standard from which to determine right from wrong. Wrong being that which restrains "human nature," "repressing" man, preventing him from becoming "normal."
    You can not see the dialectic process for what it is (abomination) without looking at it through the eyes of righteousness. Through the eyes of sensuousness, through the use of your "human eyes and human ears" ("having eyes which are human eyes, and ears which are human ears" Karl Marx), through your "human nature," you will support it, letting it take over your life, i.e. negating righteousness as having any relevance in your life and in the life of others. You can not understand what has happening to America without looking at it, as one author put it, through a "neo-Marxist lens." (Sheila Slaughter, The Higher Learning and High Technology : Dynamics of Higher Education Policy Formation) But first you must know that Marx considered faith in God an "opiate" as Freud considered it the cause of "neurosis," both blinded by their love of dialectic 'reasoning.' "And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." Matthew 13:14, 15
    While the law can save no person (engendering legalism, with man attempting to silence his "guilty conscience" through his own works―with Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, being the only one capable of fulfilling the law and who did, who was and still is obedient to His Heavenly Father's will in all things commanded, even unto death), neither can lawlessness (engendering licentiousness and abomination, with man having no "guilty conscience" to silence, recognizing no Father's authority to be obeyed, His law no longer required, perceived as "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant" in the 'changing' times). But God, our Heavenly Father, has provided a way of salvation from our carnal "human nature" and His condemnation upon us for our following after it, i.e. for our sins, i.e. for our breaking of His law, by the righteousness (obedience) of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, by His word, by His grace, and by our faith in Him alone. "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" 2 Corinthians 10:5 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians. 2:8, 9 "What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace. God forbid." Romans 6:15
    The following articles expose dialectic 'reasoning' ("human reasoning" 'justifying' "human nature" which our nation has embraced as its foundation for thinking and acting, i.e. for "doing business") for what it is: the praxis of abomination. "Freud noted that … patricide [negating righteousness, negating obedience to the father's will, i.e. obeying him above all things (without question), hostility towards the father and his way of thinking as the way of life] and incest [augmenting sensuousness, obeying (following after) "human nature" according to (being lead by) one's "natural inclinations" to relate (unite) with the world as "one," as the way of life] … are part of man's deepest nature."   (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)   "On the basis of Kant's theory, the aesthetic function [sensuousness 'justifying' reasoning and reasoning 'justifying' sensuousness, i.e. the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning' over and against righteousness] becomes ... the philosophy of culture ... a non-repressive civilization, in which reason is sensuous and sensuousness rational ...." (Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)
    Immanuel Kant (with Hegel, neo-Kant's, ... Transformational Marxists following in suit) put it this way: 'purposiveness without purpose,' 'lawfulness without law' in that aesthetic is the "enjoyment" of an object (according to the natural spontaneous laws of sensuousness, i.e. 'lawfulness' or reasoning based upon the "feelings" of the 'moment beyond the laws of cognition, beyond man's ability to analyze and control, yet within him and nature, drawing him to nature and nature to him in the 'moment,' fulfilling man's "natural inclination" to relate with (be-at-one with) something in the environment, in the world in the 'moment') without the object itself controlling the outcome (establishing laws which have to be followed), only one's sensuous experience with the 'moment' becoming reality (having any 'purpose' or meaning or 'reason'), with a "feeling" of 'law' and a "feeling" of 'purpose' (sensuous "freedom" and sensuous "beauty") becoming one in the sensuous 'moment' alone. In that 'moment,' the object has no value or worth in and of itself other than as an object of "enjoyment," i.e. its value or worth being based upon its engendering of spontaneity and sensuousness (united as one) in the 'moment.'
    You had better not get old and grumpy (with money or using up money your children can inherit or the government needs) and be dependant upon a machine in a nursing home or hospital if you have children (or government leaders) who think like this. "We care about you" and "health care" take on new meaning in the 'light' of dialectic 'reasoning,' where the "health," i.e. "enjoyment" of the children (or the public) become "equal" to (read: over and against) the "health," i.e. the life of the aging parent (or unborn child) who engender (or have the potential of engendering) pain, i.e. adversely affecting the "health," i.e. the physical, mental, and social health, i.e. the "enjoyment" of the children (or "the people"). "We are not taking your life because we 'hate' you, we are encouraging you to "die with dignity" because we want to, and want others to (that will make it less selfish) 'enjoy' life" without pain, and that included you." The art (aesthetics) of dialectic 'reasoning,' is to negate the authority (the rigidity of the laws) of the Father, the authority of God, in man's personal-social (both united as one in the praxis of consensus) "experience," where "freedom," i.e. 'lawfulness,' i.e. "liberty" (read: lawlessness) is the "beauty," i.e. 'purposiveness,' i.e. 'reality' (read: praxis) of life (negating righteousness as the issue of life. The dialectic idea being: "If, in 'changing' times, we no longer need to recognize laws (doctrines) which prevent us for 'changing' (condemn us for 'changing,' for practicing heresy), then we no longer need a savior to save us from the laws (read: lawlessness) of 'changingness.'"
    The praxis of dialectic 'reasoning' in the church (used to supposedly "grow" it) is the praxis of "patricide and incest" (the negation of the Father's will by turning to the will of "the children of disobedience," building "human relationship," a "feeling" of "oneness," upon "human nature") in the church ("in the name of the Lord"). God has warned us not to participate in its praxis. "...that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness..." Jude 1: 3-4 (excerpt) "This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling [having no "guilty conscience"] have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." "But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." Ephesians 4:17-25   "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds [the word for "deeds" in the Greek is praxis]; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." Colossians 3:9, 10   The Soviet Union had a state church, a dialectic 'reasoning' church, just as we have today in America, so that carnal man could feel at home before a God of his own making (a God at-one-with, non-condemning of, man's feelings, thoughts, and actions), i.e. an unrighteous (dialectic) God made in the image of man, a God seeking oneness with man "as he is," a God at peace with man's carnal nature, "tolerant of ambiguity," i.e. tolerant of abomination.
    You can not keep your faith and praxis dialectic 'reasoning.' The one will always set itself over and against the other. "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24 Why then are "Christians" (church leadership) growing the "church" upon the shifting sands (paradigm 'shift') of dialectic 'reasoning,' walking by sight (taking polls, surveys, and feasibility studies, asking men for their opinions instead of turning to God and His Word "as is," and following Him―instead twisting it to fit with their dialectic, i.e. gnostic, i.e. "oneness," unity built upon "human nature" ideology), 'driven' by the flesh, 'purposed' in glorifying the works of men (doing it in the name of the Lord), 'justifying' themselves through "human reasoning," instead of letting God build His assembly of saints (the εκκλησια, the "called out ones") upon the solid rock of His Word, with believers walking by faith, justified in Christ, lead by the Holy Spirit, doing the Father's will in all things, glorifying God alone?
    As the "church" goes, the nation goes, with man (in the home, in the workplace, in the neighborhood, city, county, state, and nation, in government, and even in the "church") having no "guilty conscience" for his dialectic praxis, 'justifying' himself ('justifying' his carnal theory and his carnal practice) because he has "the approval of men" (consensus), i.e. the carnality of man (that which is common to all men) as his witness. While we are in the world we are not to be of the world. We are to be a witness of God's work in us, living according to His will, not living according to the will of our "human nature." When the "church" makes "human nature" (the building of "human relationships," for and through the augmentation of "enjoyment," engendering "oneness" with the world) its 'drive' and its 'purpose,' then we as believers must "come out" of her (come back to our Heavenly Father, through Christ), at the market, on the street, in the home, etc. (wherever God leads us), having fellowship with those of like faith: "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20) for our souls sake. "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18
    Jesus came not to get us out of the world but to get the world out of us (with us in Him, i.e. Him in us). When the world comes into the "church" and wants you to "tolerate" it, it is time to expose it for what it is, not of God (at God's leading), and if heard, restore the fellowship back to God and His Word, back to faith, but if not, be either "extruded" (excommunicated without or with writ) and leave or leave. Come out of her, i.e. the dialectic "church," i.e. the harlot church.

Continue onto A précis of the introduction to the Articles (57 pages)
or to read the entire A précis of the Introduction to the Articles, with all the above included, (some 150 plus pages)