The Identification of Paradigms:
Your paradigm determines your worth.
Part III
by
Dean Gotcher
If you refuse to hear the truth, eventually you can not hear truth.
"To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it. For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.
They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.
Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken. Therefore hear, ye nations, and know, O congregation, what is among them. Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it." Jeremiah 6:10, 13-19"... it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23
[In this article all bracketed information is information not found in the original quotation. It is information added by me.] This is an ongoing research project on my part which includes the ongoing correction of typos, lengthy sentence paragraphs, etc. Since there is a lot of helpful information in these articles, I hope that my writing inadequacy does not stop you from perusing it. Authors are identified in bold name throughout the article.
Adorno, Theodor, The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno)
, Introduction to Sociology
Allport, Gordon, The Nature of Prejudice
Barker, Roger, Child Behavior and Development (Barker)
Benne, Kenneth, Human Relations in Curriculum Change (Benne)
, Society as Educator in an Age of Transition
Bloom, Benjamin, Bloom's Taxonomy: A Forty Year Retrospect
"Bloom's Taxonomies:"
Benjamin Bloom, et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain (Bloom, Book 1: Cognitive Domain)
David R. Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain (Krathwohl, Bloom, Book 2: Affective Domain)
Brightman, Edgar S., "A Personalistic Philosophy of History," Journal of Bible and Religion
Bronner, Stephen Eric, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists (Bronner)
Brookover, Wilbur, A Sociology of Education (Brookover)
, Socialization in the School
Brown, Norman O., Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History (Brown)
Coleman, James, The Adolescent Society (Coleman)
, Community Conflict
Dewey, John, Democracy and Education (Dewey)
, "Social Psychology," Psychological Review, I July, 1894
Drucker, Peter, ‘More freedom' or ‘more harmony'? Henriette Roland Holst, Jacques Engels and the influence of class and gender on socialists' sexual attitudes. Paper submitted to the seminar on "Labour organizations and sexuality", Université de Bourgogne, Dijon 5 October 2001 (Drucker)
Federal Education Grant: Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program, December 1969 (BSTEP)
Finlayson, James Gordon, Hegel's Critique of Kant's Moral Theory and Habermas' Discourse Ethics
Freire, Paulo, The Politics of Education: Culture Power and Liberation
Freud, Sigmund, Civilization and Its Discontents
Friedrich, Carl, The Philosophy of Hegel (Friedrich)
Fromm, Erick, Escape from Freedom (Fromm)
Gramsci, Antonio, Selections from the PRISON NOTEBOOKS (Gramsci)
Habermas, Jürgen, Communicative Ethics: The inclusion of the Other
, Knowledge & Human Interest
, The Theory of Communicative Action
Havelock, Ronald G., A Change Agent's Guide to Innovation in Education (Havelock)
Havighurst, Robert and Hilda Taba Adolescent Character and Personality
G. F. W. Hegel,
Henry, Patrick, June 5 and 7, 1788―1788-1789 Petersburg, Virginia edition of the Debates and other Proceedings . . . Of the Virginia Convention of 1788 (P. Henry)
Horkheimer, Max, Kritische Theori
, Eclipse of Reason
, Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung
Howard, Jane, Please Touch: A Guide Tour of the Human Potential Movement ,
Jay, Martin, The Dialectical Imagination (Jay)
Laszlo, Irvin, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order
Lewis, John, The Life & Teaching of Karl Marx
Lukacs, Georg, History & Class Consciousness What is Orthodox Marxism? (Lukacs)
King, Martin Luther, Jr., "Facing the Challenge of a New Age," Papers
, "How Should a Christian Think About Man." Papers
, Strength to Love
, Stride Toward Freedom The Montgomery Story
, "What is Man?"
, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?
Lenin, Vladimir, Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks' Success May 12, 1920
Marcuse, Herbart, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud (Marcuse)
, Relevance of Reality
Marx, Karl, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, ed. Joseph O'Malley (Marx, Critique)
, Selected Reading in Sociology and Social Philosophy by T. B. Bottomore (Marx, Selected Reading, T. B. Bottomore)
, The Holy Family
Maslow, Abraham, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature (Maslow, Reaches)
, The Journals of A.H. Maslow, Volumes I and II. Lowry R.J. ed. (Maslow, Journals)
, Maslow on Management (Maslow, Management)
Moreno, J. L., Who Shall Survive?
Obama, Barrack Hussein, Speech in Berlin, Summer, 2008 ("tearing down walls")
, Speech in Prague Sunday, April 5, 2009 ("velvet revolution")
Reich, Wilhelm, The Mass Psychology of Fascism (Reich)
Rogers, Carl, on becoming a person: a therapist view of psychotherapy (Rogers)
Seay, George Russell, Jr., Theologian of Synthesis: The Dialectical Method of Martin Luther King, Jr. as Revealed in His Critical Thinking on Theology, History, and Ethics (Seay)
Trojanowicz, Robert Trojanowicz, Dr., Community Policing The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing
Tyler, Ralph W., "Achievement Testing and Curriculum Construction," Trends in Student Personnel Work, E. G. Williamson, Ed.
Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes
Wheat, Leonard F., Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God (Wheat)
Williams, Preston N., "An Analysis of the Conception of Love and Its Influence on Justice in the Thought of Martin Luther King Jr." Journal of Religious Ethics vol. 18, 20. (Williams)
Yalom, Irvin D., Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy (Yalom)
The Identification of Paradigms. Part III
The Identification of Paradigms. Part I
The Identification of Paradigms. Part II
"What truly is always true is that all is in flux, the truth-seeker ought properly to address himself to the study of this life process of truth seeking itself." (G. F. W. Hegel, in Friedrich) [This is the ideology that all is becoming.]
"In the eyes of the dialectical process, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." Karl Marx
"And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint: And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom. And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright." Genesis 25:29-34
In the eyes of the dialectical process: What is established for all times? Nothing. What is absolute or sacred? Nothing. Therefore, according to Marx, you are nothing without the process of change, i.e. nothing. Only when you have nothing (have a world without God, without absolutes, a world without walls or restraint), having sold your soul to the beast will you be "everything." Having, like Eau, sold your birthright for "bread and pottage of lentils," i.e. selling your soul, abdicating your conscience for the super-ego, your individuality for the village, your "made in the image of God," for the image of the creation, what you have from above for that which is below, your inalienable rights given by God above for the "soul of the people," i.e. "human rights," here below, you will end up having "nothing" while maintaining the perception ("the imagination of your heart") that you have "everything," i.e. with "revolutionary boldness" not just rejecting, but seeking to destroy the pathway which leads to life. "Every class lacks the breadth of soul which identifies it with the soul of the people, that revolutionary boldness which flings at its adversary the defiant phrase; I am nothing and I should be everything." (Marx, Critique)
"The highway of the upright is to depart from evil: he that keepeth his way preserveth his soul." "Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud." Proverbs 16:17, 19
Like the void between the planets, i.e. you will be in space and time (living only in the space-time continuum), but going nowhere in particular, ever changing with no arrival point, i.e. no reference points but the void of the process of change. Just make sure you don't run into reality, i.e. hit any planets, i.e. run into any objective truth, or the dialectical process will come to an end for you. Cur-splat! Like jumping out of a plane at 20,000 feet, with no parachute, you can have all the opinions, theories, etc., about gravity you want, even finding consensus with others who have jumped with you , i.e. convince yourself that group hug makes opinions objective truth, that "change" is the pathway of life, that is, until you meet objective truth. In the end it does not matter how you feel, or what you think, or how many of you are feeling and thinking the same thing (i.e. how much "changing" is going on), it's what you know, or better who knows you, that counts. "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18
"Truth and knowledge are only relative and there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places." (Bloom, Book I Cognitive Domain p. 32)
"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:" Romans 1:20 emphasis added
God's paradigm is not man's paradigm (Isaiah 55:8, 9). The patriarchal paradigm is based upon belief in "absolute truth," i.e. the world restrained by tradition (in the good usage of that word, i.e. not as in the tradition of men which is in unrighteousness but in the tradition of Godliness which is righteousness, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." 2 Thessalonians 3:6). The patriarchal paradigm is dialectically seen as a negative "field of force," i.e. having a negative alignment with human nature and the universe because of a patriarchal God. The heresiarchal paradigm, is based upon the ideology of "change," i.e. the world in a state of continual transformation (as in "change for change sake," i.e. never arriving at truth, not in the good usage of that word, as in being transformed from one position, evil, to another position, good, "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." Romans 12:2). The heresiarchal paradigm is dialectically seen as a positive "field of force," i.e. in positive alignment with human nature and the universe (see force field analysis5).
As covered in Part II of this article, Kurt Lewin saw the "negative valence," i.e. the conscience, i.e. the restrainer in the child, i.e. the commands of the parent in the child's mind, as a product of the child having been raised, "in an induced field of force of an adult," and that the only way to deliver the child from this "negative valence" was to psychically remove "the field of force of the adult," i.e. the authority role of the parent, from the perception of the child in his learning experience. "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child [then] the negative valence also disappears." From then on, what is important in his world is not to be found above his nature, defined from above (i.e. God stating "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:17) but is instead found within his nature and the nature of others ("And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." Genesis 3:4-6). Only with the aid of the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. the dialectical process and the help of the "facilitator of change," i.e. Genesis 3:1-6, can the child be helped to re-define reality, i.e. "shift" his paradigm from that which is above his nature to that which "only proceeds from Nature." (Marx)
But it was realized that a transitional phased had to take place. Therefore, the only way to move from, i.e. "shift," one's mind from the patriarchal paradigm (established, a rock—it' a solid paradigm, objective truth) to the heresiarchal paradigm (changing, shifting sand—it's a "shifty" paradigm, subjective truth) is through the use of the matriarchal paradigm, i.e. transition, i.e. "feelings." While the patriarchal paradigm does not reject "feelings," i.e. the affective domain, as a part of daily life, it demands the control of them, i.e. promoting an environment which chastens them, when necessary, to achieve self control, self discipline. The heresiarchal paradigm, on the other hand, depends upon the liberation of "feelings, i.e. "sensuousness (where "the eye becomes the human eye, the ear the human ear." Karl Marx as quoted in Erich Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man), promoting an environment which encourages self esteem, i.e. the love of self and the world ("The more of himself man attributes to God [a "negative field of force" restraining Nature], the less he has left in himself." (Marx, Selected Reading, T. B. Bottomore). "For that which is highly esteemed among men [a "positive field of force" preceding from and uniting man with nature] is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:5b
"Walden Two: 'Now that we know how positive reinforcement works, and why negative doesn't' ... 'we can be more deliberate and hence more successful in our cultural design. We can achieve a sort of control under which the controlled, though they are following a code much more scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless feel free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do. That's the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement―there's no restrain and no revolt. By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behavior―the motives, the desires, the wished. The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises." (Rogers) emphasis in original
It is easier to seduce people into following you when you allow them to do what they want to do, than it is to force them to do what you want them to do, against their will, i.e. the flesh does not readily follow an environment which restrains it (negative force field means restraint of the flesh, i.e. freedom from the flesh, i.e. spiritual), but the flesh gleefully follows the environment which encourages it (positive force field means freedom from restraint of the flesh, i.e. freedom of the flesh, i.e. temporal). The pathway to Hell is replete with those things which attract, i.e. the siren song, Orpheus, the harlot, etc.
"The nature of free will is another issue that can be tackled by the new biology of mind. Free will is the ability to act or make choices as a free and autonomous being and not solely as a result of compulsion or predestination. According to Freud's discovery of psychic determinism - the fact that much of our cognitive and affective life is unconscious - there is not much left for freedom of action. Experiment on the correlation between electrical activity of the brain and movement (lifting a finger for example), reveals that the electrical activity precedes the movement by 200 milliseconds. It is proposed that the process of initiating a voluntary action occurs in an unconscious part of the brain, but that just before the action is taken, consciousness is recruited to approve or veto the action. In the 200 milliseconds before a finger is lifted, consciousness determines whether it moves or not. Thus, our conscious mind may not have free will, but it can freely modify inappropriate behavior. This is the reason for the laws in our society to hold all of us accountable for our own action. It is suggested that we should update our idea of free will to mean self-control over our behaviour." (source: universe-review.ca/R10-16ANS; )
In other words we are all accountable for our actions. Interestingly this article has a picture of Adam taking a fruit from Eve's hand displayed as an example. Be advised that this is an evolution theory based website and I only use it here as true science is true science even if people use it in their effort to promote foolishness, i.e. Godlessness. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalms 14:1. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." 1 Corinthians 3:14, 19, 21; Romans 1: 18-32. True science, discovering established laws set by God, witnesses to God as being the creator of the heavens and the earth. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1 "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:" Colossians 1:16 "But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." 2 Peter 3:7, 13
It is only through the manipulation of "feelings" (through the identification and control of the environmental conditions which stimulate and thus entice our feelings, i.e. the environmentally positive forces which attract i.e. "drive" our senses in a particular direction, appeal to and gratify our sensuousness, i.e. aesthetic pleasure) that the heresiarchal paradigm can initiate and then sustain control over people, i.e. the "masses," for it's own end—world domination—or as those who use the heresiarchal paradigm would rather say, "world peace," i.e. a world without an all knowing, all powerful God and his patriarchal paradigm of authority interfering with human feelings and slowing down human "progress." The heresiarchal, i.e. "change" agenda is not to get rid of the idea of god, i.e. it loves a god who can be synchronized with human nature (a sociological god, a psychological god, a god with human feelings (only human feelings), struggling along with man for cosmic oneness, i.e. a loving but lawless god, i.e. a 'tolerant of ambiguity' god, i.e. Belial). The dialectical agenda is to get rid of a particular way of thinking, i.e. a paradigm, which, according to their reasoning, "initiates" and "sustains" obedience to a patriarchal God, a jealous God who must have it his way or else, i.e. objective truth. "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:" Exodus 34:14 Their thinking is: God did not create man, man created god and therefore a man who believes in and diligently obeys a God, i.e. a God who created man, is "neurotic," having feelings of guilt when he fails him, worrying about things which really don't exist or matter at all, i.e. reality is not above man, reality is man, i.e. reality is man's feelings and thoughts united and then put into action (sensory experience is the medium whereby truth is acquired, truth is not found through spiritual revelation), man being "imaginative," "changeable," "adaptable," "innovative," "creative," i.e. creating "his," world in "his" sensual image.
In the heresiarchal paradigm, human subjectivity (that which is perceivable and experiential) becomes the basis of reality, replacing objective truth (that which is independent of human perception, independent of human thought) as the basis of reality. In this way objective 'truth' is restored only in the social praxis, i.e. objective truth always society in a state of flux, always seeking unity, truth (reality) manifesting itself in "a moment in correct praxis" (Gramsci), i.e. truth seeking itself through human praxis (the consensus moment being the contemporary moment of truth). Whoever controls the environment of perception, whether in education, the workplace, social activates, government, church, etc., controls the senses of those present. By developing experiential perception (what has meaning to your feelings and your thoughts, i.e. your interests) as the doorway to active participation in approving or rejection leadership, people can be conditioned to reject patriarchal leadership and follow after heresiarchal leadership, i.e. praxis anarchy and revolution, even in the church. If you leave the worship service saying "wasn't that a wonderful worship service," instead of praising God and glorifying his name, you just participated in experiential perception, i.e. worshiped the experience of worshiping through human praxis. Reality was therefore in the experience below and not in the Lord above. Are you dead yet? If you just thought "Now you have just gone to far!" you are still alive, in the flesh that is. You are still living by your subjective truth below (living psychologically, living sociologically), refusing God's objective truth from above (refusing to walk in His Spirit).
"Every form of objectification ... results in alienation. Transcending alienation involves transcending objectification.;" (Bronner) The best way to overcome objectivity (God) is through social action (praxis) since, "Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity in the face of apparent group unanimity; ..." (Yalom) [Faith in God is harder to maintain when all your "Christian" friend are trying to pressure you into joining them in the process, "in the name of Jesus."]
Jesus maintained his "objectivity," i.e. obedience to his Heavenly Father "in the face of ... group unanimity," i.e. social action, and has called you to do the same. "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 6:13 "And ye shall be hated of all men [social praxis] for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." Mark 13:13, i.e. read all of Mark 13:1-37 for context.
" For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 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; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled." 2 Corinthians 10:3-6 "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." John 15:19 "Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." 1 John 4:4-6
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Genesis 1:26
"The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in each particular individual." (Karl Marx Thesis on Feuerbach # 6) [Marx is saying we can not be called by God from the womb but that we are only a product of our environmental press, i.e. the environment we were raised up in. It is the environment, i.e. the social matrix, we are subjected to, which determines our characteristics. In this way of thinking, the youth group has as much, if not more, to do with your child's qualities as does God's call on their life, i.e. God's call on their life must not interfere with the quality of life which the youth group provides. This is not biblical but has become the ideology of the church.]
In other words man is not made in the image of God, i.e. not having the right to have dominion over anything under God, i.e. not having an eternal soul, and therefore not answerable to God. By this humanistic "reasoning," potatoes in a sack, individual men (souls) living before God in a fallen world, are replaced with a sack of potatoes, individual man finding their identity within mankind as a whole (social, i.e. in the sack, in the youth group), i.e. all of mankind living as one upon the earth. Therefore identity outside of the all, negates your existence, repudiates you as living, having a life, i.e. "get a life." In the former, you stand before God as in individual, in the latter you stand before mankind and if you don't match up as at one with mankind, i.e. if you come as an "abstract" individual, i.e. if you are not a social potato (you don't identify yourself as of the sack of potatoes—collective, but rather as an individual potato in a sack of potatoes), then you are not an individual of worth, maybe not a potato at all.
"The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." Karl Marx Thesis on Feuerbach # 6 "It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities… only in a socialist society." Karl Marx "Only within a social context individual man is able to realize his own potential as a rational being." (Marx, Critique) "Citizens are obliged to concern themselves with the upbringing of children, to train them for socially useful work, and to raise them as worthy members of socialist society." "Socially useful work and its results determine a persons status in society." (Articles 66 and 14, "Former" USSR Constitution, and the future United States of the Americas Constitution)
"How to convert the perception of favored principles by those who hold them from dogmas to 'hypotheses' remains a central problem for democratic social engineers." (Benne)
Dialectically, if you can talk a person into consenting that their belief ("dogma") is only an opinion ('hypothesis'), you have just made your day, i.e. saved a soul for hell, basing reality upon human perception, upon personal experience below (by sight, sensuousness) rather than upon God and His Word from above (by faith, spirit).
The contrast between the two different ways of thinking is as antithetical as heaven is in height to the earth. Any effort on man's part to bridge the gap between the two paradigms, i.e. to bring the two together, to make the one the same as the other, or to negate the one with the other, is futile. Man's feelings for himself is not the same "feeling" that God has for man. Man's love is temporal, i.e. earthy, i.e. subjective. God's love is Spiritual, i.e. heavenly, i.e. objective. God's love can not be detached from his laws against the fleshy nature of man. Man's love cannot detach itself from the laws of his fleshy nature. Man can not overcome the dualities of life, the below vs. above conflict: below being the desire to live in and of the flesh, i.e. in the 'here and now', and the fear of the death of the flesh, i.e. in the 'there and then,' i.e. his natural law of the flesh to approach pleasure and to avoid pain, vs. above, being able to live spiritually while in the flesh, i.e. in the flesh but not off it, and thus having no fear of death, i.e. spiritually alive, though the flesh dies, he is able to stand and endure all things (the conscience alive and subject to God's kingdom). For mankind to struggle to save himself from judgment and death, through the use of his paradigm(s) (the matriarchal-heresiarchal progression, i.e. making life decisions based upon feelings, i.e. "thinking" and "acting" through "feelings," i.e. basing life upon one's own feelings—matriarchal—and thinking about how to control others feelings—heresiarchal—is impossible. Following after your feelings can only get you into hell. They can not keep you out, or get you out (Luke 16:19-31). Only believing upon and following after God's "only begotten Son," knowing and accepting his love for you, can keep you from going there.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:16-18) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." (John 5:24).
Only God's paradigm, i.e. a patriarchal paradigm, i.e. belief and obedience, made available from God, can redeem you and me from eternal death, death due us because of our love of the flesh, our love of this world. Only God provides a paradigm of repentance. It can only be his work i.e. your flesh can not take part in nor be a part of repentance. If you repent, and you are still thinking about your feelings or thinking about how to control other's feelings, including God's, then you are not repenting to God, you are simply sorry for your actions toward yourself or other men. "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death." 2 Corinthians 7:10 Repentances implies accepted guilt for one's sins, knowing you warrant eternal hell, which means no dialogue, no justification for one's own thoughts, feelings, and actions (If you are guilty on one part of the law, you are guilty for all of it since it was not a particular law but your contempt for God's law itself, i.e. the system of disobedience you leaned upon, i.e. self-justification, which brought condemnation, i.e. its the system, the heresiarchal paradigm you use, which condemns you). If you believe (have faith), you won't dialogue to justify your praxis, i.e. justify your feelings and thoughts in action. If you don't believe or doubt God and his Word, you will dialogue to justify your feelings and thoughts. There is no dialogue, i.e. questioning authority, in belief. There is no dialogue between man and God, i.e. "Lord, what do you want me to do in this situation?" is not dialogue, it is asking for direction.
"It is not in man to direct his steps." (Jeremiah 10:23). emphasis added
Apostate, i.e. Church Growth, emergent church, etc, i.e. dialectically-minded ministers can not accept the patriarchal paradigm and therefore can not accept and therefore practice and preach true repentance from a repentant heart. Every one of them that I have met just loves to defend dialogue (feelings). None are in love with God's word, they are only in love with their opinions of God's word, i.e. their wisdom before men. Some might preach a "hard" sermon but they support or tolerate the flesh, i.e. men's opinions, in all other activities in the church to keep the institution "going and growing" and their bellies full, refusing to be zealous of the Word, and repent. "To have respect of persons is not good: for a piece of bread that man will transgress." Proverbs 28:21 "For there is no respect of persons with God." Romans 2:11 "Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ which strengthened me." "But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:11-13, 19) "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." 2 Timothy 4:2, 16 "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent." Revelation 3:19
"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." John 16:15
"The self-esteem—public esteem system is thus closely related to the concept of group cohesiveness. We have said that the degree of group's influence on self-esteem is a function of its cohesiveness." (Yalom)
The two curses of mankind are 1) the respect of men, i.e. self-esteem which comes from group-esteem ("that which is highly esteemed among men"), and 2) giving man, i.e. his flesh, the benefit of the doubt, i.e. the tolerance of ambiguity, which "is abomination in the sight of God." God is not a respecter of men, nor has he called us to trust in man, turning our heads the other way when we know he is doing wrong, especially if he claims to be a believer (if he is in sin against you go to him privately first (Matthew 18:15-17), if he openly sins and refuses to repent cast him out ("And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Ephesians 5:11 "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear." 1 Timothy 5:19, 20 also see 1 Corinthians 5), and if he is preaching and teaching heresy expose him publicly, "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." Titus 3:10, 11). Let the Lord lead and let his word do the work of conviction of the soul.
Like a child reaching for something he wants but he is not sure it is going to be approved (deep down knowing it is wrong), we look around for approval and therein, if we get it, we respect the person giving it. We then turn the other way, giving him the benefit of the doubt (when our spirit tells us better) because of the benefits of the flesh he allows us. Dialectical ministers have benefited by those who follow them by means of these "attributes," "justifying" the use of the process. "They make the king glad with their wickedness, and the princes with their lies." Hosea 7:3 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14 This is the heart of the dialectical process, the darkness of its nature (human nature in thought and in action, building upon and sustaining the flesh nature of man, through the process of consensus). This is why those who praxis the dialectical process can not comprehend the light (John 1:5), even those who claim to be ministers of the word of God, changing the word of God into a socialist project, even doing it "in the name of Jesus."
"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." John 3:19, 20 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;" "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." "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:,18, 21, 32
Civil disobedience is anathema to God's paradigm, despite what those who use if for social cause might feel or think. Civil disobedience is based upon a matriarchal-heresiarchal progressive paradigm, i.e. based upon human feelings and thoughts, i.e. the dialectical process in action (praxis). Using the dialectical, heresiarchal paradigm for "good," even in Jesus' name (which is confusion: "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." 1 Corinthians 14:33), only leads to death, because it leaves man just as he was to begin with, condemned. Civil disobedience was a changing of the guards for this nation, a changing of paradigms, as to who would be serving in, and how they would be using the office of authority (exousia), given by God.
By what authority do you do these things? "Let every soul be subject unto the higher exousia,"
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenge to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing." (Romans 13:1-6)
Romans 13:1, "pasa quch exousiaiv uperecousaiv upotassesyw" (Greek from the Textus Receptus1) reads, from a proper translation of the Greek: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher authority" and does not read, as the authors of King James Bible incorrectly translated from the Textus Receptus: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher power." The Apostle Paul used the Greek word exousia, exousia, i.e. the Greek word for authority, instead of dunamiv, dunamis, i.e. the Greek word for power, in Romans 13:1-6. There is a world of difference (i.e. a paradigm of difference) between the use of these words in the translation of Romans 13:1-6. If the word for power, which is in the strength of the arm of man (the power of the sword over the bodies of men, but not their souls), is used instead of the word for authority, which is from God (all authority is of God, God has authority, not only over the bodies of men, but he also has authority over the souls of all men; "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers [exousiai]: all things were created by him, and for him:" Colossians 1:16) then the tyrant is "justified," i.e. Hitler was "justified" in using his power, not only over the bodies of men, but also over their soul (which is a praxis of usurpation, since only God has authority over the souls of man). It was the use of the word power instead of the word authority, in Romans 13:1-6, which "justified" the German church's participation with, i.e. empowerment of, the beast. Fearing the wrath of man (power of the sword over the body of man) because they loved the respect of man and the things of this world, rather than feared the wrath of God (authority over both the body and the soul of man). Hell was no longer preached and taught. Hell, after all, is why Jesus came, died, and ascended again. "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death." (Revelation 1:18) Without Hell there would have been no "purpose" in his coming, his death, and his resurrection, other than a socialist message of cosmic brotherhood overthrowing the oppressive 'capitalist.'
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28)
The secular realm (temporal, flesh) and the sacred realm (eternal, soul): Which paradigm are they subject to?
If the use of the word authority is to be rejected in Romans 13:1-6, then the individual man has no freedom of conscience, before man or God, i.e. his conscience and his soul are both tied to, i.e. are both subject to higher authority, the power of the ruler, i.e. the sword, over the body and the power of God, i.e. the Spirit, over the soul. In that case if the ruler is a tyrant, i.e. not recognizing God's authority over himself, you are (illegally) subject to him in all things. If he claims he is under God's power, he is doing it in name only. "Man does not live by bread alone [temporal realm], but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the God [sacred realm]." (Jesus quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 bracketed information added) God, who is Spirit, i.e. concerned about man's soul, i.e. since it is eternal, and not material, i.e. and therefore would be concerned about man's flesh, i.e. which is temporal, will not share his power (spiritual) with anything created, in heaven and on earth (temporal), i.e. not under his authority in the sacred realm. His power (his Holy Spirit) is given (distributed amongst) only to those who are under his authority in the sacred realm (the Church, i.e. spiritual), although members of the sacred realm (the believer, i.e. spiritual) may be serving in the secular realm (the State, i.e. temporal), i.e. having the power of the sword over the flesh in the secular realm, i.e. over the bodies of men, executing "wrath upon him that doeth evil," i.e. "evil," as defined by civil laws, established by citizens in the secular realm, still under God, i.e. God still being the highest authority. While the sacred realm (the Church, i.e. ekklhsia ekklesia, i.e. the called out ones, i.e. called out of the world system, i.e. in the world, but not of it, i.e. under a patriarchal system) can not punish for murder, J-walking, etc. the secular authorities (the State) can, since their jurisdiction is over civic behavior, i.e. matters of the civic body, i.e. the temporal, i.e. temporary, i.e. the flesh. And while the Church authorities can excommunicate (not execute) an unrepentant member or accept a repentant murderer into its fellowship, the secular authorities can not stop them from doing so, since the secular authorities (even though they might be members of the Church) are serving in a realm outside the sacred realm's jurisdiction, i.e. regarding matters of the soul, i.e. religious, i.e. eternal, i.e. spiritual. But both realms, the sacred realm, which develops the conscience, and the secular realm which is restrained by the conscience, are united, under God in this one thing, the freedom of the conscience of man. Without it, man is simply seen as a 'social animal,' subject to the fleshy world he lives within with no since of accountability for his thoughts and actions in some future time. Transformational Marxists understands this, i.e. the office of authority under God, which can only come from the patriarchal paradigm in both the secular and the sacred realm and its effect, i.e. the development of the conscience, and religiously work to overthrow it, while the "conservatives" are ignorant of it, not being grounded in, nor in love with the Word of God, but being instead grounded in the things of this life, in love with the world, and thus willingly allowing its, i.e. the conscience overthrow in both realms.
"For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world." (2 Corinthians 1:12)
When the word authority is used in Romans 13:1-6, the secular realm (the State) is outside the sacred realms (the Church's) jurisdiction regarding matters of the soul, i.e. under God, and the sacred realm (the Church) is outside the secular realm (the State) jurisdiction regarding matters of the body (as in civil behavior between others and self), i.e. under God. Thus the sacred realm can only affect the secular realm by means of its members being citizens with a free conscience, in the secular realm. The secular realm can not infringe upon the sacred realm, telling it's members what they can or can not do in the sacred realm unless the sacred realm is perverted and attempts to takes up the sword, i.e. the power of the sword, granted by God to the secular realm, for his purpose, i.e. restraining the secular realm in matters of the soul, through the development of the conscience, under God, in the sacred realm. (This will be clear when you understand the "purpose" of the heresiarchal paradigm, which has a clear understanding in regards to how God's patriarchal paradigm works and has a dialectical, i.e. diabolical, plan on how to subvert and annihilate it, i.e. Satan worked under God's patriarchal paradigm for a while, at the topmost level, and he knows how it works and he has a plan, a "device" on how to subvert and annihilate it.) When the citizen ceases voting his conscience in the secular realm, the secular realm breaks down and uses it's power over the souls of men, suppressing or bypassing the conscience for the sake of the promotion of the flesh. Any individual can protect himself, his family, etc. i.e. the body, with the sword, in good conscience but the sacred realm can only protection itself with the word of God, i.e. the shield of faith. The church, which is not of the flesh but of the spirit, can not (is not called by God to) protect itself with the power of the sword, which is used to protect the flesh, i.e. under God's realm the flesh can not rule. "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 the church to take control of the sword it must become the state, the state becoming a theocracy. It must use the sword to remove the flesh, or rather, since it is in league with the flesh, call the flesh spirit, and use the sword on anyone who might seek to purify the church of the flesh to return it to the spirit. "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world [temporal]: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight [use the power of the sword]," first part of John 18:36. Without obedience to God (higher authority) learned in the sacred realm (including the home), the conscience is seared in its participation with the secular realm and joins with the secular-sacred realm partnership, with the state-church in persecuting the true believer for the preservation of the "church," i.e. the state-church.
Did the States have State churches in the years following the ratification of the Constitution of the united States of America? Yes. Around the year 1830 Massachusetts became the last State with a State Church. They rejected the idea when they realized the Unitarians were going to get the vote and the citizens were going to be taxed to support the Unitarian's instead of their church. Were the States right in having a State Church to begin with? No. It brought the same abuses done in Europe, i.e. the suppression of the conscience, to America. Does this mean that the State can not recognize religion, i.e. the Sacred realm as being key to its realm. No. It was the establishment of one denomination over the Nation which the Constitution rejected. This is something which did not apply to the States. Today, because of re-education (deliberately done) and ignorance both in the sacred and secular realm, this is no longer known and now the state-church, secular-sacred partnership, i.e. "humanistic Christianity" prevails.
The secular realm, under God's authority, has nothing to fear from the sacred realm, under God's authority, unless it seeks power over the soul's of men, i.e. it seeks freedom from being under God's authority, i.e. freedom from the conscience, i.e. freedom for the liberation of the flesh of men, i.e. the approval of human nature. It is the development of the conscience in the individual citizens, i.e. issuing from the sacred realm, i.e. right and wrong above and over the flesh below, with which the secular realm is subjected to, under the authority of God. A tyrant hates, i.e. can not function, with a citizenry who has freedom of conscience (he can not control him with the fear of the sword), but he loves, i.e. functions freely with a citizenry who has freedom from the conscience with what is called the superego, i.e. the humanized 'conscience,' following anyone who make him feel good, i.e. safe and secure in the "here and now," and fearful of social rejection. Why use the sword when the use of cognitive dissonance can work just as well.
Freedom of conscience is the most sacred right of the citizen in the secular realm, under God: Listen to Phil Worts' teaching part 1, part 2, part 3 on the subject.
The sacred realm can not take a man's life and the secular realm can not take a man's soul, i.e. associated with the development of the conscience, under the authority of God. By the development of what is called the super-ego, i.e. the 'organ' of the temporal domain, i.e. subject to the flesh, that which is below can replace the spiritual, that which is above, as the 'organ' for determining right and wrong. If you read my article on Bloom's Taxonomy you will see how and why the conscience is being deliberately 'replaced' with the superego, through the education system, i.e. secularized, by the development of the "super-ego", i.e. for the liberation of the flesh, i.e. for the social cause of "world peace." "Therefore the levels of the Taxonomy should describe successive levels of goal setting appropriate to superego development." (Krathwohl, Bloom, Book 2: Affective Domain, p. 39) (Read that sentence one word at a time backwards and then forwards several times and it becomes chilling.) Then, knowing the conscience comes from an authority higher than man's body, reading "Superego development is conceived as the incorporation of the moral standards of society." ibid. identifies Blooms educational intent, i.e. replacing the conscience, which comes from the sacred realm, with the superego, which is from the secular realm. Communication change from the conscience (belief, as in "x is right and y is not") to the superego (opinion, as in "I think x is right, but y might be right also." "What do you think?" "How do you feel about it.") in education, between teachers, staff, and students, and eventually the whole village, was the purpose of Blooms Taxonomies. The idea being, if you change the way the next generation communicates, the past generation and their patriarchal paradigm will be left behind, i.e. their knowledge of the truth incomprehensible by the next generation.
"Scientific knowledge, like language, is intrinsically the common property of a group or else nothing at all. To understand it we shall need to know the special characteristics of the groups that create and use it." "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." "If a paradigm [change] is ever to triumph it must gain some first supporters, men who will develop it to the point where hardheaded arguments can be produced and multiplied (which eventuates in) an increasing shift in the distribution of professional allegiances (where upon ) the man who continues to resist after his whole profession has been converted is ipso facto ceased to be a scientist." (Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) It should be added that "Kuhn admitted problems with the schemata of his socio-psychological theory yet continued to urge its application into the scientific fields of astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology." (ibid.)
"The superego is conceived in psychoanalysis as functioning substantially in the same way as the conscience." (Krathwohl, Bloom, Book 2: Affective Domain)
The conscience "represses" the flesh for the sake of the parent above, i.e. is rigid since it restrains the affective domain, making it subject to the parent's will, while the superego "represses" the flesh for the sake of the community below, i.e. is adaptable to change since it liberates and then guides the affective domain, making it subject to the people's will.
Both the conscience and the superego, theoretically, are developed by environmental conditions, i.e. the paradigm which predominates the environment determines the outcome. Thus whichever paradigm is able to initiate and sustain, i.e. have control over, a particular environment, determines whether the conscience or the superego is developed to its end. The conscience is developed as a result of living within a limiting environment, i.e. a closed, directive environment, initiated and sustained by a patriarchal paradigm (there is liberty but it is in law). "Social control is most effective at the individual level. The personal conscience is the key element in ensuring self-control, refraining from deviant behavior even when it can be easily perpetrated. The family, the next most important unit affecting social control, is obviously instrumental in the initial formation of the conscience and in the continued reinforcement of the values that encourage law abiding behavior." (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz Community Policing The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing) Those in the heresiarchal paradigm correlates this to the sacred realm, i.e. the spiritual, i.e. above human nature, i.e. where objective truth is preached and taught, i.e. to be obeyed or else, i.e. "blind" obedience to the "reality principle" or "actual conditions." The superego is developed as a result of living in an permissive environment, i.e. an open-ended, non-directive environment, initiated and sustained by the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. the temporal, i.e. human nature, i.e. the flesh, where subjective truths, i.e. opinions, are dialogued to find a common consensus, i.e. following after the "pleasure principle" or "desired conditions." "Unfortunately, because of the reduction of influence exerted by neighbors, the extended family and even the family, [Notice that God is excluded.] social control is now often more dependent on external control [super-ego development, fear of social rejection, i.e. public shaming], than on internal self-control [conscience development, fear of parental chastening, i.e. parental or Godly judgment]." "... once you can identify a community [where people are willing to compromise for the sake of human relationship, where temporal interests are in common, i.e. for the sake of preserving the relationship with others, i.e. for the sake of dopamine emancipation, i.e. to play cards or games or watch football with others, everyone must accept, knowingly or unknowingly, the rule "not to bring up absolutes which cause a breakup of the game," therefore personal rules are 'slightly' bent or 'temporarily' set aside], you have discovered the primary unity of society above the individual and the family that can be mobilized ... to bring about positive social change [super-ego development]." (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz Community Policing The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing)
"Concerning the changing of circumstances by men, the educator must himself be educated." (Karl Marx Thesis on Feuerbach # 3)
Just because every certified teacher and every accredited school in your state, Christian included, is trained in Bloom's Taxonomy does not mean that all agree with its use and willingly use it on children, their parents, the township, and themselves. With the incorporation of the secular into the sacred, i.e. through dialogue and the consensus process (synthesis), the conscience is compromise and the superego is developed, i.e. the secular is freed from spiritual restraint, i.e. freed from the office of authority, under God, i.e. freed to use the power of the sword, the power of the secular office, against the sacred, to promote the use of the flesh, unrestrained, with the compromised—apostate— enlightened, "sacred realms" approving. Therefore the true sacred realm, labeled as being an anti-governmental institution, can be persecuted and imprisoned by the secular realm in synthesis with the "sacred" realm, i.e. "in the name of Jesus," both no longer under the authority of God. The secular-sacred realm partnership comes about when the sacred realm seeks to promote itself as an institution recognized and approved by the secular realm. When compromise is necessary to preserve or promote an institution, originally formed to present and stand up for a cause, i.e. an ideal, it changes from its original "purpose." As the institution changes to defend the cause, the cause changes; the cause is no longer the ideal which gives purpose to the institution, the cause is to promote the institution which gives it purpose in society (its focus has moved from seeking direction from above to seeking approval in the eyes of men below, i.e. a shift from the conscience to the superego ensues). Strictly holding to its original ideal may isolate the institution from society, not by its will for isolation but because of society's rejection of the ideal. To gain acceptance of the institution (with the purpose of presenting its ideal to society) within the community, some, wanting approval from society (superego based individuals), believe it must redefine (compromise) its ideals to build and maintain relationships essential to preserving and growing the institution in society. In this way the institution, built upon a patriarchal paradigm, built upon absolute rights and wrongs, "shifts" its paradigm in the direction of the heresiarchal paradigm.
"The dialectic of Hegel and Marx's variation on the theme, contain discrepancies between actual and desired conditions. The contradiction between thesis and antithesis set up pressures that eventually force a new state of affairs, the synthesis. The desired condition is synthesis, the elimination of contradiction and conflict between thesis and antithesis [conflict between what God says and how man feels and what he thinks God said]. Conflict between thesis and antithesis bring about a restructuring that reduces or eliminates (negates) the conflict." (Richardson, George P., Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems Theory as quoted in Judy McLemore, The Architects of Total Quality Management General Systems Theory and Marxist Theory-Praxis; http://authorityresearch.com/Sources/Total Quality Management - General Systems Theory - Marxist Theory-Praxis by JudyMcLemore.pdf)
Theoretically, if you can get rid of "negative," judgmental attitude and language, then God, man, and Satan can get along, they become one in the praxis.
"Only when the immediate interests are integrated into a total view and related to the final goal of the process do they become revolutionary," (Lukács)
You can not have revolution until you get people's feelings united upon an issue thy are willing to tackle which is in conflict with the patriarchal paradigm. United "ought" negate God's "not."
"No class of civil society can play this role [emancipators of society] unless it arouses in itself and in the masses a moment of enthusiasm, a moment in which it associates, fuses, and identifies itself with society in general, and is felt and recognized to be society's general representa-tive, a moment in which its demands and rights are truly those of society itself, of which it is the social head and heart." (Marx, Critique)
Man's natural feelings are tied to the flesh, therefore his natural inclination is to find someone who will love him (human relationship), based upon the satisfaction of his fleshy desires. Unrestrained by his conscience, i.e. the result of the sacred in his life (this is structurally correlated with parental commands restraining the fleshly desires of the child by the use of categorical imperatives not of the child's making), he will use his power to get what he wants for his flesh. God does not love the fleshy nature of man, it will not enter his kingdom. But he does love man's soul. When secular man looks for love from the sacred, he naturally wants to find love for the flesh, but instead he finds love for his soul, i.e. restraint over his flesh (the law kills the flesh, you can not get into the sheepfold because of the fence around it, i.e. the law, i.e. the law does not save, it converts a person). If the sacred realm accepts the love of man, love of the flesh (negating the law), while thinking it still has the love of God, i.e. in truth it has rejected God's love, i.e. love for the soul (since his love always includes the law, which condemns the law of the flesh), then the sacred has no 'purpose' except to satisfy the realm of the secular, i.e. the love of the flesh, now without the restraint of a conscience (law from above, which can not save a man from the flesh but only exposes the flesh so that man would not turn to it for solution, i.e. the law shows, i.e. the conscience shows up when the flesh shows up). It has traded in the 'old' lamp, i.e. the conscience, i.e. with its restraint upon "emotional impulses," the "pleasure instinct," "life instinct," and "self" will, for a 'new' lamp, i.e. the superego, i.e. with its consensus with "emotional impulses," the "pleasure instinct," "life instinct," and "self" will. Look at the 'church' today and see if this is not true.
"It is a function of the ego to make peace with conscience, to create a larger synthesis within which conscience, emotional impulses, and self operate in relative harmony. When this synthesis is not achieved, the superego has somewhat the role of a foreign body within the personality, and it exhibits those rigid, automatic, and unstable aspects discussed above." (Adorno)
Adorno is defining the purpose of the dialectical process: if the "conscience," i.e. that which is developed in the sacred realm (above and controlling mans temporal nature, i.e. the spiritual), can not partnership (come to synthesis) with "emotional impulses, and self" i.e. the secular realm (mans temporal nature, i.e. the fleshy) then the "superego," i.e. the voice of the village, i.e. the "youth group," i.e. humanism, can not be developed and thus replace, i.e. destroy, the conscience, i.e. annihilate the sacred realm's restraining voice within the village, and "a foreign body" i.e. the voice of God and the parent, i.e. individualism, will persist in controlling, i.e. restraining the flesh in the village, then the individual citizen and the village will remain "neurotic," i.e. forever divided between above and below, i.e. unchangeable in "changing times," i.e. some setting the minds on things above while others are setting their minds on things below prevent harmonious, peaceful change, i.e. world peace.
"If there is a universal neurosis, it is reasonable to suppose that its core is religion." (Brown)
"If we follow this train of thought beyond Freud, and connect it with the twofold origin of the sense of guilt, the life and death of Christ would appear as a struggle against the father—and as a triumph over the father." (Marcuse)
In this way psychoanalysis can use religion to triumph over religions (diversity), making the cross a social issue, i.e. overthrowing the Father, seen as an oppressor, i.e. to the flesh, rather than a sin issue, obeying the Father, seen as the liberator, i.e. from the flesh, even to death of the flesh. Thus salvation, according to the heresiarchal paradigm, is not to be found above man but within man, in his social praxis, in his flesh nature.
If the sacred realm (the Church) incorporates the secular (through the practice of dialogue and consensus, i.e. the dialectical process, i.e. the development of the superego), the flesh becomes a part of its realm, i.e. perverting it, and the sacred becomes adulterous, i.e. a friend of the world. Then the secular realm, not God, justifies the sacred in its "purpose," now subject to the flesh and the use of the power of the sword. When the Church turned it's focus to "youth groups," i.e. feelings, instead of retaining its study of the Bible ("study to show yourself approved unto God"), i.e. truth, human relationship, the fleshy nature of man, took precedence over the souls of men, and the power of man, i.e. respect of men, took precedence over the authority of God and his word. The superego swallowed up the conscience. It is up to the sacred to prevent this from happening, i.e. that of synchronizing fleshly love, worldly pleasure, i.e. "what can I get out of this relationship for me?" with God's love, by uniting the flesh and the spirit, i.e. uniting Eros, man's temporal love, and agape, God's spiritual love, and then calling it agape "love," i.e. ambiguous love (ambiguous is just another word for homosexual or bisexual when applied to sex). "The notion that Eros and Agape may after all be one and the same—not that Eros is Agape but that Agape is Eros—may sound strange after almost two thousand years of theology." "Eros is striving to 'form substance into ever greater unities.'" "The biological drive becomes a cultural drive." [this is the purpose in purpose "driven" church.] (ibid. second quotation by Freud, Collected Papers, V, 135) Finding the beauty or the good in all people for the sake of peace and harmony, i.e. interpersonal relationships, is Eros, not Agape. The sacred realm can not participate in a sacred-secular partnership and remain sacred just as agape can not partnership with Eros and remain agape.
"‘Every renunciation ... becomes a ... conscience; every fresh abandonment of gratification increases its severity and intolerance ... every impulse of aggression which we omit to gratify is taken over by the super-ego and goes to heighten its aggressiveness.'" Freud Civilization and Its Discontents, 1949
Void of the understanding of God and His paradigm, those with the heresiarchal paradigm view the conscience, when under increased patriarchal control, remaining subject to the patriarchal paradigm, while the super-ego, under increasing patriarchal control, becomes more aggressive toward the patriarchal paradigm. They do not understand the change which takes place when a person repents of their sins, accepts Christ into their heart, and is filled with His Holy Spirit. There is no super-ego, only a compromised or seared conscience and a hardened heart toward righteousness.
According to Herbart Marcuse, Eros is the combination of the Id, i.e. pleasure, i.e. the "life instinct," and Ego, i.e. the will, i.e. the "death instinct." The Id associates pleasure with the mother. When the Ego and Id are in harmony, i.e. free of restraint, i.e. free to be spontaneous, the child's natural inclination is to have an incestuous relationship with the mother (Freud's "pleasure principle," this is what Freud was all about). While the Id is timeless, "Isn't it interesting how fast time flies when you are having fun?" the Ego is not (while the Id is in instant unity with whatever stimulates pleasure, the Ego sees the experience, in time and space, and wants to control the environment for more pleasure knowing his time is limited, i.e. possibly coming to and end). Thus the relationship is always in jeopardy of ending, i.e. death. It is the Father, the patriarch, who calls the child's behavior "polymorphously perverse" and restrains both mother and child with moral rules of conduct, demanding "renunciation and restraint" of the life instinct, bringing pre-mature death into the child's life, with the child succumbing to accept the condition of death over life, restraint over pleasure, spiritual over temporal, that which is above over that which is below.
"The replacement of the pleasure principle by the reality principle is the great traumatic event in the development of man ... it occurs during the period of early childhood, and submission to the reality principle is enforced by the parents and other educators." (Marcuse)
According to Herbart Marcuse, true morality lies with the Id (pleasure) and not with the Father's restraint upon it (pain or threat of it). In this way, for the sake of survival ("Dad will kill me."), the child turns his Ego toward the Father's commands, splitting his Id and Ego with what Freud called the super-ego, thus producing the subconscious mind and the "reality principle," sensuousness suppressed and spontaneity inhibited by non-sensuous commands and rules, thus reasoning becomes alienated from human nature (dialectically seen as a practice of immorality). In this situation the super-ego is in a 'neurotic,' irrational condition, i.e. called the con-science. For the super-ego to be restored to is "healthy" condition, i.e. the "reality principle" must be restored to the child-mother condition, while the Father and his rules, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, must be negated—the Id-Ego relationship restored. It is only in this condition that Eros can have preeminence in the world again.
The "evolution of culture," i.e. the product of oxymoron's, i.e. wise fools:
"[Freud] states his intention ‘to represent the sense of guilt as the most important problem in the evolution of culture, and to convey that
the price of progress in civilization is paid in forfeiting happiness through the heightening of the sense of guilt.'" (Marcuse)
To show where this 'logic' can take society, if the purpose of life is to find and restore harmony between the Id and the Ego (pleasure and free will), any condition which blocks such an effort, i.e. locks the Id under the control of restraint, i.e. places the person under the 'pain' and 'want' of restraint and judgment, must be removed, both from the person's thoughts and actions and from the social praxis. If the Id is timeless, and the Id is pleasure, then pleasure is timeless. Then when the Ego is in harmony with the Id, it is free from the constraints of time, i.e. no guilty conscience, i.e. no promises to keep, i.e. man can not comprehend a future time of accountability to the past, i.e. the past is now outside of his own biological nature which is now freely seeking life, i.e. pleasure. The word of God says the opposite, "But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth." 1 Timothy 5:6
Thus, looking through a dialectical lens, if life's conditions become hopelessly painful, not only physically (physical pain and bodily failure makes life no longer capable of pleasure, i.e. the need and want is to great to be overcome), but also emotionally (guilty feelings and condemning thoughts continually distress the person), and mentally (the mind is incapacitated, i.e. awareness of pleasure is unattainable, or incapable of thinking upon pleasure, i.e. petrified by fear), i.e. the "life instinct" (Eros, i.e. "pleasure impulses," i.e. maintaining the life of the flesh, i.e. organic life) is incapable of being actualized, then the "death instinct" must come into play, i.e. have its way. The "death instinct" comes from the Ego, i.e. the "destructive impulses," i.e. attacking the condition of "tension" of want and pain bringing the life of the flesh—pleasure—to an end, postponing where the flesh is naturally digressing towards—returning to the inorganic world, i.e. nirvana, i.e. death.
"If it is true that life is governed by Fechner's principle of constant equilibrium, it consists of a continuous descent toward death." (Feschner The Ego and the Id)
When harmony between life and death, i.e. the sustaining of organic life and the end of organic life, i.e. organic life return to its original inorganic state, being again at one with the earth, is disrupted by anti-organic or non-organic forces (the spiritual, the supernatural, equated with the patriarchal paradigm), the "death instinct" must come into play, not in submission to the "negative forces" of the patriarchal paradigm but in opposition to them. The destructive part of Ego becomes manifest, in an "unhealthy" form, when the "life instinct" is repressed by submitting to non-organic or anti-inorganic forces (spirit), i.e. when the person, trying to slow down or stop the premature "decent toward death," wanting liberation from subjection to inorganic life, yet wanting life for the Ego, surrenders its will to an authority which is unsympathetic to the "pleasure instinct," i.e. turns his Ego, i.e. his will, and therefore his pleasure, over to the control of an anti-organic-inorganic authority, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm. The "healthy" Ego, with its "healthy" destructive nature becomes manifest when the "life instinct" is liberated in the praxis of death to the patriarchal paradigm (the negation of the patriarchal paradigm—emotionally, mentally, and physically; sensually, rationally, and socially), within oneself and within the one repressing the "life instinct."
"We propose, therefore, the specialization of the notion of parenthood into two distinct and different functions-the biological parent and the social parent. They may come together in one individual or they may not. But the problem is how to produce a procedure which is able to substitute and improve this ancient order." (J. L. Moreno Who Shall Survive )
"In addition, mindful of the global shift away from concepts of parental power towards parental responsibilities.... attention will have to be given to surrogate motherhood, issues around alternative modes of conception, adoptions by same sex couples, and other models of alternative family life." (bold emphasis in original) Source: South African Law Commission; Issue Paper 13; Project 110 The review of THE CHILD ACT First Issue Paper [18 April 1998] Closing date for comment: 31 July 1998 ISBN: 0-621-28026-7 PDF file [This is the "right of the Child" bill in South Africa]
"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
What is missing in all this "fable of men" is the soul of man. Those who are intoxicated with the deceit of this process must reject the truth that the soul is eternal (eternal in life, a living soul, when subject to the Spirit of God, eternal in death when following after the flesh of man, i.e. when following after the world). Therefore "enlightened" men make the study of the soul, i.e. psychology, actually the study of life finding harmony with death (rejecting the soul as living, as an act of God, instead embracing in secular form a dualistic - Gnostic ideology of flesh-spirit in that man is simply divine spark—an essence, a passion, i.e. love, captured by Demiurge—an anti-cosmic god—and then put into earthly bodies, i.e. life therefore not emanating from God, Demiurge, but borrowed from god, the Gnostic god, thus love, the desire to unite with all divine sparks in the universe and return to god, is forced to obey God's will. The objective of the "enlightened" is, through cosmic consciousness, i.e. consciousness of everyone's oneness with the universe, to show man how to return the divine sparks, by "enlightening" mankind on how to deliver himself from God, i.e. liberation of love (Eros calling itself Agape), to bring love back to the cosmic Gnostic god, so that in mankind becoming as one, the cosmic god, i.e. society in Marx's secular rendition, can become one again, know itself through the experience of overcoming its opposite, i.e. the patriarch God, through overcoming the restrainer of the flesh nature (Eros), through mans love of the creation, i.e. the Eros of man seeking universal unity).
"And death shall be chosen rather than life by all the residue of them that remain of this evil family, which remain in all the places whither I have driven them, saith the LORD of hosts." Jeremiah 8:3
"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." John 3:19
In the final analysis, the process negates the conscience, dialectically seen as a deformation of the superego. The conscience seen as the result of exposure to a non or anti organic-inorganic power forcing its way, i.e. its will upon man. In the "light" of this humanistic ideology, when the parent gives a child a command, a command which inhibits or blocks the organic nature of the child's life, i.e. the pleasure of building social-environmental relationship, i.e. interpersonal relationships, he is introducing a spiritual, anti-organic experience into the child's life. Supposedly, aggression, a natural part of the Ego, manifests itself in an unhealthy form when the child submits to parental authority when their will goes against his "natural inquiry" into the environment ("natural inquiry" done for the purpose of creation, i.e. the creative act of experiencing oneness, i.e. identity with the creation, in this way of thinking, i.e. in his identity with his own nature and nature itself both are becoming actualized, he is in it, and it is in him, i.e. outside of this "scientific" formula there is nothing else). The parent, the patriarchal paradigm, gains control over the "death instinct," when the child's Ego (his will), seeking freedom for the "life instinct" (Eros, i.e. the divine spark seeking oneness with mankind and the universe, i.e. the cosmic god), seeking freedom for the "pleasure instinct" (the Id), tries to find freedom from the Patriarchal Paradigm, by striking out at the parent, i.e. the anti-organic-inorganic force, but instead surrenders his fight for the liberation and freedom, justice and beauty, sensuousness and spontaneity of the Eros-Ego unity, for fear of "premature" death at the hands of the parent (chastening or the fear of it), the child's will is surrendered to the patriarchal paradigm, forced to apply its aggressive nature on the side of the Patriarchal Paradigm, for the sake of the survival of the Ego (to stay alive), resulting in the repression of the "life instinct," resulting in a premature, i.e. non or anti-inorganic death. Therefore, in the patriarchal paradigm, the future is bound to the past (that which is above man's nature) and the "evolution of civilization" is prevented, i.e. the present "changing" and transforming itself into the future is repressed by the restraints of the past (that which is above man, i.e. parents over "children's rights" and God over "human rights"). According to humanistic logic, the Patriarchal Paradigm can now use the deformed "death instinct," i.e. aggression (the repressed, frustrated Ego), for its own purpose, that of sustaining the patriarchal paradigm, maintaining that which is spiritual, that which is above the material world, above biological nature, immeasurable, the God of "arbitrary" law. Thus mankind, uncontrollable by humanistic scientists, will not, and can not, naturally move in the direction of universal oneness, because their Ego, like the law of gasses does not contain within themselves the ability to form gravitational mass.
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Genesis 1:26
Don't take dominion over the earth, take dominion over the souls of men by making them your customers. By giving them what they want they will give you what they have, and dominion over the earth will follow, with them being your happy slaves working the earth for you. Nothing like Government sponsored, Government guaranteed job security.
"Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core." Jude 1:11 Jude 1:1-25
Behavior "scientists" ("social engineers") must use, i.e. liberate the flesh to arrive at their outcome, i.e. the control of men, i.e. gaining control over other people's money and how they use it, i.e. negating "surpluses capital" and "surplus repression," while making sure they get a piece of the pie. In their quest for the respect of men, in their pursuit of initiating and sustaining pleasure for themselves (and of course pleasure for others, you have to market the latter, i.e. "caring" for others, to sustain the former, i.e. "What can I get out of this situation for me?" after all isn't that what the "life instinct" is all about, putting the "pleasure principle" into action), in their dream of universal harmony, i.e. harmony with the world, i.e. nirvana, they must present a sermon, i.e. a message, a "dream" promising life which is in truth leading all participants down the pathway of cosmic death. These are the men insisting that you submit to their counsel, their wisdom and embrace their "health care" package.
Man can not love God the Father because he can not love the Father's Law, which kills the flesh, so God does not use the works of the flesh, the Eros-Ego unity, in his kingdom, as fallen man does in his kingdom. Not until a man is dead to his flesh (accepts God's law, recognizes his condemnation, and repents of his sins), and is alive in Christ (accepts Christ's work of redemption from the curse of the law), and is walking in the Holy Spirit (the law and Christ now in him, united), can he love God the Father.
Dialectically, for life to regain harmony again (restore Eros-Ego unity in their quest for "change," i.e. organic life leading to inorganic death), the "death instinct," i.e. destructiveness, along with the "life instinct," the want of gratifying objects—both within Eros—must be brought back under the control of the Ego, i.e. the self preservation instinct, again (not the parents Ego, but the child's Ego, seeking harmony with the social Ego built upon social Eros). This can only be done by the liberation of the "life instinct," i.e. the Id which is tied to the Matriarchal Paradigm ("tend and befriend"), i.e. that part of the child or man not usable by the Patriarchal Paradigm for the purpose of gaining or maintaining control (he must use fear, i.e. force or threat of force, and can not use the liberation of pleasure, i.e. the flesh, i.e. licentiousness, as his chosen tool for control, to maintain a patriarchal paradigm). The patriarchal paradigm gains control over the child with the surrender of the child's Ego, i.e. the "death instinct," to the control of the parent. This makes the Id (the life of pleasure) subject not to the child's will, but to the parent's will, for the purpose of the reproduction of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. procreation, i.e. resulting in the repression of the "pleasure instinct" (life comes from above, i.e. from God, or parent's procreation, and can not from Eros below).
"Authentic communion implies communication between men, mediated by the world. Only praxis in the context of communion makes 'conscientization' a viable project. Conscientization is a joint project in that it takes place in a man among other men, men united by their action by their reflection upon that action and upon the world." (Paulo Freire The Politics of Education: Culture Power and Liberation)
"It is not men's consciousness that determines their existence, but on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness." (Lukacs)
But if the "death instinct" (destructiveness) is brought back into the child's consciousness (conscientization), with the understanding that its true purpose is to find equilibrium, i.e. common ground, with the "life instinct," "class consciousness" would manifest itself and "patricide," i.e. revolution against and annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm (negation of the paradigm which divides man against himself), i.e. against belief in God above, would commence (philosophy, dissatisfaction with non-human restraints over human nature, would then come into play, i.e. action, i.e. praxis). Either violent revolution, done outwardly via the shedding of patriarchal blood (in the Communist/Socialist/Democratic Revolutions over the French, Russian, and Chinese people and Communist/Socialist/Democratic revolutions which have followed, it was the patriarch who were killed, along with women and children who supported them), or "velvet revolution" i.e. revolution done inwardly, via therapy (street protest being public therapy), i.e. the "change process," i.e. the washing of the mind of the patriarchal paradigm, for example: through mass therapy put into practice, i.e. the use of "civil disobedience," would become the praxis of social life (petitioning government for redress of grievances is negated by contempt for governmental authority). Dialectically this is done for the purpose of overcoming the condition which restrains and thus represses the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, not seen as "lust" but rather as the "life instinct" finding unity with all life forms in the creation through the liberation of the "pleasure instinct." This is actually a formula for the hate of life, i.e. the hate of life under God (spiritual), disguising itself as the love of life, the love of life for mankind (love of the flesh, love of the world) which is actually death. It is not liberation of the flesh which brings love and life (for from the beginning to the end it is death, i.e. there is no life in the flesh), but rather the work of Christ Jesus. It is only He who liberates us from the works of the flesh and death, by His obedience to His Heavenly Father, by His dying on the cross for our sins, i.e. his shed blood, by his resurrection and by the power of the Holy Spirit as promised by His Heavenly Father. "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;" Colossians 2:13 This is God's love. The type of love darkness, i.e. death, i.e. flesh, can not comprehend.
"I could well imagine a world of a reversed order, opposite to ours, in which ethical suicide of people after 30 or 35 as a religious technique or countering overpopulation is just as natural as birth control has become in our culture. In that society the love of life would be carried to its extreme. 'Make space for the unborn, make space for the newborn, for everyone born, Every time a new baby is born make space for him by taking the life of an old man or an old woman." (J. L. Moreno Who Shall Survive?) [Moreno lived past his 60's. Hypocrite!]
"The ethical issue is: How much can society spend, if it has is limited resources, on keeping some person of age 65 alive for ten years at a cost that would cover the health services to children for perhaps 20 or 30 times that many children?" (Ralph Tyler An Interview with Ralph Tyler Conducted by: Jeri Ridings Nowakowski, Ed.D. November 1981)
Dialectically, the "death instinct" which is equated to love (Eros), is actually hate (hate toward the patriarchal paradigm). But, since those who think dialectically want to justify death as a part of life (to talk others into the praxis of not only living in Eros but also dying in Eros, i.e. not just for Eros), to remove the fear of death and judgment before a Holy God (since they have no hope in Christ, at least in a Christ obedient to his Heavenly Father, even to the point of death, they therefore can not know that the fear of death, i.e. eternal death, is removed in Him and therefore they can only hope to repress the fear of death, i.e. suppress the thought of eternal death through the praxis of social Eros, i.e. socially justified destruction), and want those who are freed from the conscience to take the life, at least the life support, of anyone who "inflects" such thinking upon humanity. They therefore refuse to see their actions of calumniation and bowdlerization toward the patriarchal paradigm as an act of hate (except when it is used against them by a patriarchal minded person, i.e. calling the heresiarchal to repentance, speaking of judgment and hell, restraining the flesh, refusing to condone acts of abomination, preaching the Word of God in public places, etc).
Dialectically, i.e. in a heresiarchal culture, when a person has become a burden, i.e. an expense, not only financially but also physically, emotionally, and mentally on others (resulting in debasement and a hopeless humiliation to himself as well as to others), then the person can be "encouraged" to give up on life and take his life or let others help him take it and "die with dignity," doing it in the "pleasure" that peace will thereby come to himself and others at last (Nirvana). This mindset is not of God but of the Devil, i.e. men thinking like Job's wife, i.e. "Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die. But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips." Job 2:9, 10 [Of note: the evil was from Satan and not from the hand of God, but because God had removed his hand of protection for a period of time, up to the point of death, Satan exercised his evil way].
Dialectically, the 'death instinct' becomes destructive to the person and others, when the Ego (the will to power) surrenders Eros (the flesh) to complete control under the Father, the patriarch, for the sake of self preservation (fear of judgment from him for being disobedient). It then, according to them, is used to counter any social movement in the direction of dialectical, socialist, communist, globalist thinking and acting (theory and practice, rebellion and revolution, "ought" and "is," flesh and power, Eros and Ego, thinking hate of the patriarch and doing hate toward the patriarch, i.e. treating him as irrelevant in mind and killing him in body). World peace, i.e. the order of the 'new world,' is when all men can enjoy, i.e. take pleasure in, not only life but also death (death to the patriarch which becomes pleasure) without having physical pain, emotional fear of God and judgment, and mental grief of being a burden upon loved ones and society because of promises unkept or hope unrealized. This wicked way of thinking, a callousness towards life, which "justifies" abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, social rightsizing (population control), i.e. physical, mental, and social triage, etc. is the paradigm our nation's "leaders" have chosen for its citizens, bon voyage, cheerio.
Dialectically, 'healthy' memory is tied to the Id, i.e. the pleasures of life, and not to the restraint of life, i.e. the pain of "unlivable life" and the fear of judgment which follows death, they believe and teach that you can be comforted (negate God and judgment in your mind, i.e. your life has purpose only in the 'here-and-now") in the idea that your absence will be replaced by the memory others have of you, "remembering the good times," thus initiating and sustaining physical, mental and social health for all you leave behind. Hate, disguised as love and caring, lies behind this package. Put your trust in this dialectical package and you will personally learn that more citizens have died a violent death from their own leaders than any foreign nation has inflicted upon their own citizens, i.e. you are nothing more than an element on the periodical chart (Hu as in Human), expendable, just a moment in the great social experiment. How does the "health care package" sound to you now? It will directly effect you and your loved ones lives as it unfolds itself for the purpose of the new world "order," i.e. the heresiarchal order taking its place in the temple.
"In the words of Thoreau: ‘We need pray for no higher heaven than the pure senses can furnish, a purely sensuous life. Our present senses are but rudiments of what they are destined to become.'" (Brown)
Dialectically, history, i.e. things to be remembered, must not be tied to the Father, i.e. to his rules and commands of the past, i.e. from above (which gives direction to the present and future, i.e. seen as restraining the present, inhibiting impulse and innovation, i.e. change, and rejects putting dreams into practice without all the facts, i.e. the facts which impede the "possible," i.e. the theory from happening, from being put into practice, but rather history must be active in restoring the desire of the Id (the "pleasure instinct" of Eros) to unite with the mother (memories of the gratifications, i.e. the "lusts" of the past, i.e. the repressed "want of a gratifying object," waiting to be reminisced over and brought back into play, i.e. experienced in the present and therefore more likely to be carried on into the future), i.e. making a way for mankind to give birth to life through a pleasurable, i.e. sensual, i.e. carnal, i.e. earthy praxis. Thus, according to socio-psychology, history is not found above human nature, restraining it, directing it, but must be re-discovered within human nature (biologically, psychologically, sociologically, anthropologically) and practiced with the aid of all the tools of psychoanalysis. "Psychoanalysis is the heir to a mystical tradition which it must affirm." "Psychoanalysis declares the fundamental bisexual character of human nature;" "Psychoanalysis must treat religion as a neurosis." (Brown)
Religion in this sense being absolutes from above human nature, restraining human nature, both in thought and in practice. Any effort on man's part to discover these absolutes through human reasoning, i.e. through experience, i.e. through sensual praxis, would have to be considered futile or else deceptive. Thus absolutes do not provide a medium ("life style") from which the dialectical process can function, i.e. not giving the Devil a foothold, i.e. a place, to begin with. If membership is based upon acceptance of absolutes, i.e. doctrine, then the only way the dialectical process can infiltrate is through the focus upon maintaining fellowship at the expense of absolutes or doctrine. When this happens then the "neurosis" of religion makes itself apparent, with absolutes now becoming an obstacle to personal desires and to the maintaining of the fellowship, i.e. "sensuous life." The desire for fellowship, at the expense of absolutes (setting them aside for the sake of the "special opportunity") moves you from a patriarchal paradigm into a heresiarchal paradigm. I mean absolutes in regard to the infallibility and inerrancy of God's word and His will and not the "absolutes" of men's doctrines, see Colossians 2:18-3:2-17. "Thy will be done" must be at the forefront in responding to such heresy, for you must respond, "speaking the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15), for to become entrenched in anger and to strike out in rage against such heresy is to give "place to the devil," "Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices." 2 Corinthians 2:11 In the illustration of the tares and the wheat, Jesus' message is to be faithful in preaching and teaching the word of God (to bring all to repentance, to reprove, correct, and rebuke, as well as edify the saved, and convince the lost of God's judgment, in case that they might come under conviction, repent and be saved), not in judging according to institution law, to "purify" the institution, i.e. the "church," of the unrighteous, i.e. the misfits. (Matthew 13:27-30) In some way the institution becomes the focus and not the soul of man, i.e. liberty in Christ, when legalism (doctrines for church purity) or when licentiousness, i.e. "lasciviousness," i.e. tolerance of ambiguity becomes the praxis of the church.
"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 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. Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: Neither give place to the devil." Ephesians 4:17-27"The ideal of democratic deliberation is an intelligent and uncoerced consensus concerning what should be done. This consensus will attempt to incorporate the valid insights and values of all parties in the conflict. The validity of these various insights and values is to be tested by the common study, deliberation, and discussion of the group and ultimately by the consequences of the common plan as it works out in action and as these consequences are evaluated by the common judgment of the group. It cannot be stressed too emphatically that the ideal goal of democratic co-operation is a consensus in the group concerning what should be done—a consensus based on and sustained by the deliberation of the group in the planning, execution, and evaluation of the common action of the group. No other method of social control depends so crucially on the deliberation of the whole group concerned in resolving the conflicts which for the time impede and prevent community of action. And, as a corollary, no other method of social control depends so centrally for its effective working-out upon the habituation and responsible discipline of all of its members in conscious methods of deliberation and discussion." (Benne) emphasis added
"Uncoerced" means an environment of socially controlled permissiveness, desired by a group of people who are rejecting a person who wants to keep restraints, i.e. restraint as in an act of coercion. "Coercion" means an ark, like Noah's Ark, a place of refuge and protection, a place with walls which divides that which is outside from that which is inside, associated with force. Therefore coercion is force from above human nature and uncoerced is human nature in force, i.e. in praxis.
"Democratic methods will not work in making many policies under present conditions. It is the faith of the democrat that no conflict can best be resolved unless all relevant and available human experience and insight is brought to bear on its resolution. No conflict is fully resolved until all have come, through deliberation, to accept the resolution as their own. The best common action on this view must involve the minds and purposes of those engaged in it as well as their bodily efforts. The methods of democratic co-operation are thus oriented, as we have stressed before, to the utilization of all available human resources—resources of purpose, experience, and insight in the planning, the execution, and the evaluation of common action. It is this full utilization of human resources in the guidance of common action that justifies the democrat's faith that democratic co-operation leads to policies and programs which are more relevant to existing conditions, more sensitive to all human values, more generally satisfying to the men concerned, and more enduring than policies and programs based on any other made of social co-operation." (Benne)
"If the school does not claim the authority to distinguish between science and religion, it loses control of the curriculum [the paradigm used to shape the next generation] and surrenders it to the will of the electorate." Society as Educator in an Age of Transition, Ed. Kenneth Benne, Eighty-sixth Year of the National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago Press. Ill. 1987, p. 259
"Surrender its will to the electorate," i.e. those who pay for the school and the salary of the staff and therefore foolishly send their children there to be brainwashed, i.e. the brain washed of religion, i.e. things above, i.e. respect for parental authority. Thus the electorate, who tie science and religion together, i.e. a patriarchal paradigm, should not be able to stop social engineers from separating science and religion, i.e. a heresiarchal paradigm. In fact the electorate must be forced, via taxes, to pay them to use the same paradigm Satan used on the woman in the Garden in Eden, separating science from religion, i.e. the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil turned from a religious issue to a scientific issue, i.e. scientifically there was nothing wrong with the tree, it was religion which caused the problem. Thus the parents have no control over how their children will behave toward them when they come home, i.e. the parents still set in their ways, and eventually when the parents become elderly, the children no longer having to, for conscience sake, care for and financially support obstacles to social health.
When the school systems moved from an in loco parentis structure (a patriarchal paradigm where the schools served the parents, i.e. Christians, spiritual, religious, traditional interests, its environment never move the child away from the perception of parental authority) to a "community" structure (a heresiarchal paradigm where the schools served socio-psychologists, and thus humanistic, i.e. temporal, transformational interests, its environment is designed to create the perception of society, with no perception of parental authority, i.e. patricide, i.e. the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm in the child's mind and classroom experience, i.e. the authority structure never comes up unless it is in a contemptuous, intolerant, or irrelevant tone of voice), social engineers could grow the next generation into a national "shift" in paradigm, where man's nature, with dialogue, i.e. 'drawing it out,' would negate the voice of authority of the parents and traditional teachers, along with their teaching of facts and truth which prevented 'rapid change,' socialist controlled instability (continuous improvement, sustainable development, etc. Hand in hand with the secular incorporating the heresiarchal paradigm (through social-psychology and dialogue), the sacred became a part and parcel of the secular and rejected the patriarchal paradigm of the true Church (the preaching and teaching of the Scriptures alone, in love), redefining, i.e. rejecting revelation, replaced it with human feelings and thoughts in group settings, i.e. through the dialogue of opinions.
"No school worthy of the name can exist unless the principle of respect for authority is observed. No school can exist without discipline, without subordination of pupils to reasonable rules and regulations. Anarchy in school means anarchy in the nation later on. . . ."
"Has authority been banished in these later days? Is there still such a thing as discipline? Has the world reached a point where it will condone the formation of pupil soviets?" (Will C. Wood, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of California, California Blue Bulletin, 1920) [Note the year of these concerned statements, as well as the State from which they came.]"Educators and others in the role of change agents must have a method of social engineering relevant to initiating and controlling the change process." (Benne)
If there is to be freedom of the conscience in both realms, i.e. right and wrong established from above and not compromised by the fleshy feelings of the secular realm below, then the church must keep itself pure from secular partnership, i.e. secular control. It must keep itself under Godly restraint, under his authority, i.e. in love with him and his word, and not submit to licentiousness, under the power, i.e. under the control, of the secular, i.e. the flesh, i.e. making human relationship the "purpose." Without the freedom of the conscience, the sacred realm is under restraint to the secular realm, not being under God's authority but man's, and therefore the conscience, developed in the sacred realm is negated, and the secular, i.e. the unrestrained beast, rules over the souls of men, empowered by the harlot church, i.e. the "sacred" whore, i.e. the "uncircumcised in heart and ears." "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears [the "sacred" in consensus with the flesh of the world, i.e. the flesh still attached], ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye." (Acts 7:51) Notice that when the adulterous "sacred" realm serves under the secular realm, i.e. the fleshy realm, i.e. the flesh of human nature is not exposed and cut off. Thus, resisting the Holy Spirit, it uses the power of the secular realm, i.e. the flesh, i.e. the power of the sword, to persecute and crucify the sacred realm, i.e. Jesus and all who follow him, i.e. those obedient to God and his authority unto death.
"For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." (Romans 10:2-4)
When the word power is used in Romans 13:1-6, both the secular and sacred realms are under the jurisdiction of the secular realm, i.e. the temporal. When the structure of the secular, i.e. power, is used to justify the praxis of the sacred, the sacred becomes legalistic to occupy space, i.e. establishing laws to justify the use of power to compete against the secular or even conquer the secular realm, i.e. focusing upon God's law to justify the use of power to redeem a culture without understanding God's righteousness, i.e. his work to redeem the souls of men. "... whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." Galatians 5:4 On the other hand the sacred realm uses the structure of the secular realm, for licentiousness, i.e. the liberating of feelings to keep up with the times, i.e. focusing upon human relationship, to grow in numbers from association with and approval and respect from the secular realm. There is no liberty in law, i.e. mercy and grace under the law, found in the secular realm which ties everything to space and time, i.e. temporal, apart from the sacred realm (liberating man from the power of the flesh, i.e. "What can I get out of my office for myself," replaced with the conscience, i.e. "What is the right thing to do in this office, under God?"). For law, mercy, and grace are united only through the work of God in Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit, in space and time but not of it, i.e. for the souls of men in the sacred realm, i.e. men walking in spirit and in truth in the secular realm. The secular can only experience liberty in law, mercy, and grace when it recognizes that its right of power is under God's authority, and thus "willingly" (by the right of citizens to bear arms to protect their conscience, i.e. to defend right against wrong in the secular realm) limits its power, i.e. shares it power, not with the sacred realm, but with the citizens who recognize the author and finisher of both the secular and the sacred realms, i.e. the office of authority, under God (a patriarchal paradigm).
(Lawlessness is the result of thinking and practicing grace and mercy without "law," an oxymoron, i.e. as the lawless one, i.e. the antichrist, rules under these conditions). What was unique to America, amongst all the other nations of the world, was the idea of checks and balances in government, i.e. delegated, limited responsibilities in all branches, in all departments, in the Federation, in the States, in the Counties, in the Townships, in the Villages, so that the family and the Church, both patriarch in structure, i.e. where the conscience is developed, could have the greatest power, and thus could train up the next generation of citizens to be understanding of liberty, i.e. liberty in law, willing to promote and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That has long since passed away (few understand the system of though behind the development of our Constitutional Republic and the bill of rights, i.e. our "inalienable rights," i.e. patriarchal in nature, which kept the Constitution from being a document of tyranny, until elected and appointed officials ignored them and/or redefined them). Only a remnant is left to give testimony of what once was. Those who think dialectically long to be rid of that remnant, so that the world of wickedness and unrighteousness (of abomination) can be freed from the restraint of Godly authority, the patriarchal paradigm of the believing Church and the traditional home, under God.
Only by the power of God (God is Spirit) upon the souls of men, is law, mercy, and grace united, his righteousness imputed through the works of His Son, Jesus Christ, i.e. the spiritual over the temporal, i.e. God's authority, not being justified by the feelings, thoughts and actions of men, i.e. the temporal, i.e. subject to the power of the sword, but by his authority alone. This may be why the word power was used, instead of the word authority, in the King James Version, considering King James wanted to keep his power over both the secular and the sacred realms, i.e. over the State and the Church. To use the word authority in Romans 13:1-6 would make you politically incorrect in his day. It will make you politically incorrect today, i.e. identifying you as a "fundamental religious extremist," with "ministers of righteousness" agreeing (2 Corinthians 11:13-15). It is just a matter of how they think, i.e. their paradigm, which will determine who they agree with, i.e. the believer or the world. Ironically the three combined words all mean the same thing. They are simply descriptive of different attributes of an authoritarian person, one who weighs all actions, their own and others, under the authority of God, taking "into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5), i.e. the praxis of a patriarchal paradigm. (Getting ahead of myself: All religions of the world tie themselves to space and time in some way, shape, or form. By tying God and his word to space and time, grouping Christianity with the religions of the world, the antichrist will think he can rule over the body of Christ but he can not, for although it is in space and time, the true Church it is not of space and time. I'll cover this up ahead.)
"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 [authorities; exousia], 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)
Getting ahead of myself again: using the word power, instead of the word authority, theoretically, allows both man and God to share in power (in this way man can still keep God in the picture, i.e. for the purpose of deception, i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm wants all under its power, even the religious—Satan's spiritual authority of wickedness works with and through the power of the flesh of man, that is why he has pleasure in the things of carnal man even in the "sacred realm"). If God's power (spiritual) is limited in space and time (temporal), i.e. God can not rule on earth without the help of man, i.e. enmeshment, then God himself is locked into space and time with man, being subject to man's feelings and thoughts in the "here and now," assisting man in man's praxis of creating man's "there and then," i.e. dreams, i.e. his interpretation of world peace. One dialectically minded minister puts it his way: "God and His angels need our permission to work on earth. Even God Himself is illegal on earth. Why? Because, He is a spirit and the law He set up by His own mouth was that only spirits with bodies can function on earth legally. God has done nothing on earth without a human co-operating with Him. Prayer is man giving God permission or license to interfere in earth's affairs. In other words, prayer is earthly license for heavenly interference. God could do nothing on earth, nothing has God ever done on earth without a human giving Him access." Myles Munroe. All the proceeding statements by Myles Munroe, are anathema to the power and authority of God and are abomination before God and blasphemous of the work of the Holy Spirit. If a Babylonian King, quoted below, would recognize the power and authority of God, then why won't men who call themselves men of God. It is because they are desirous of power over the earth and believe that God needs their permission to work on earth. They refuse to recognize and submit to his authority. God did not send them.
"And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me. Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase." (Daniel 4:34-37)
A space-time continuum6 (spatio-temporal framework, i.e. matriarchal-heresiarchal paradigm) materializes and temporaries all which comes under its sphere of influence (like a black hole of relativism, i.e. if you enter into its dialectical vortex, i.e. enter into dialogue, you will never come out, i.e. the "old" you, i.e. as a believer, the "new" you, will never be seen again, i.e. only bits and pieces of what you once were will come flying out, the only evidence that you once were). What is meant by this is that right (righteousness) and wrong (wickedness) are no longer eternally established but become subject to the environmental conditions they are subjected to, i.e. subject to the will, i.e. the wisdom of man in this age, i.e. philosophy. Relativity7 (moral relativism) therefore defines and establishes life (Eros swallows up agape and takes its place in appearance, i.e. mans "love" swallows up God's love and no one can tell the difference, that is except the discerning, under God), i.e. abolishing life under God's authority. When the word power is used, instead of the proper word authority, both, God—who is eternal, and man's soul—which is eternal, become temporal in perception, i.e. secular, worldly, (influenced by, i.e. subject to the environment they find themselves in, i.e. in space and in time, i.e. in the "here" and in the "now") and take on meaning only within the context of the contemporary, i.e. taking on importance only as they mesh with the moment. As a famous Transformational Marxist wrote: "Truth is a moment in correct praxis." (Gramsci). In this way the soul of man is lost in the quest for the liberation of human nature, human nature liberated from "non-human," unnatural forces, i.e. therefore mankind, both secular and sacred, can be uniting in the experience of the moment, i.e. in space and in time, i.e. in the "here and now."
"Sense experience must be the basis of all science. Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception and sensuous need, that is, only when it proceeds from Nature." (Karl Marx emphasis added)
Humanism can not exist unless objective truth is tied to (perverted with) sensuous needs (changing sensuous need from true science, i.e. the desire to know, i.e. to know truth, i.e. spiritual, as in greater than feelings, i.e. the desire to know the laws which govern things, to the sensuous need of "so called science," i.e. the desire to relate with, i.e. to know experientially, i.e. temporally, i.e. dialectically called spiritually but tied to the universe, i.e. zeitgeist) and sense perception, i.e. from sense experience, which must all proceed from nature. True science requires the same, minus the desire to know all things experientially, i.e. be at one with, i.e. mystical fusion. But by using the scientific method on man, properly used on rocks, plants, and animals, all things become subject to sense perception, including "faith," all things are based upon human experience, now classified as a point in space and time needing realignment to progress up the continuum of human worth.
"Thus when ‘science' maintains that the manner in which data immediately present themselves is an adequate foundation of scientific conceptualisation and that the actual form of these data is the appropriate starting-point for the formation of scientific concepts, it thereby takes its stand simply and dogmatically on the basis of capitalist society. It uncritically accepts the nature of the object as it is given and the laws of that society as the unalterable foundation of ‘science'." "The dialectical method was overthrown and with it the methodological supremacy of the totality over the individual aspects; the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole and, instead, the whole was dismissed as unscientific or else it degenerated into the mere ‘idea' or ‘sum' of the parts. With the totality out of the way, the fetishistic relations of the isolated parts appeared as a timeless law valid for every human society." (Lukacs)
What appears to be science may not be science. The dialectical "scientific process" is built upon the law of human nature, i.e. "the science of social experience," which is ever changing (not necessarily evolving to a higher state, since the process only detects the potential for change and the actual praxis depends upon individual-social participation in the experiment). When this condition is denied because of the "rule of science," i.e. true science which is applied to rocks, plants, and animals and is rigid (2 + 2 = 4 and ≠ any other number), social change is denied. "Bookish" science inhibits the scientific experience of the human laboratory. In dialectical thought, it is the fetishization of science which restricts the experience of changingness, science becoming an end in itself, treated as being above human "purpose," i.e. for the "purpose" of individual-social "change." Since science is based upon the question of what is and what is not, when applied to man it must liberate man from absolutes (the "irrational" restraints upon human nature, the restraints of "is" and "not" which come from above human nature, i.e. spiritual). It destroys absolutes (what is and what is not) the moment it pursues what might be and what might not be (theory). By the testing of the theory (what might be) in the "light" of the life experience (praxis), "absolutes" are momentarily if not permanently annihilated, i.e. depending upon whether the "scientific method" identifies them as relevant or not to the human situation. By participation in the "scientific process" (the dialectical process), the method itself is accepted as the only way to resolve the crisis, making the "right," i.e. 'rational,' decision based upon human thoughts and feelings, i.e. self-reflection, i.e. "thought experiments." This is the method which Einstein turned to, to "justify" his theory of relativity, i.e. the "space-time continuum".
Don't be tricked into the lie that the continuum is value free and not prejudice. It is prejudiced to its own taxonomy, the flesh of man, and the way of the world. The spider and fly having lunch (two separate things having lunch) is not the same thing as the spider having the fly over for lunch8 (so the one can swallow up the other). Only the deceived, i.e. the stupid fly in this case (or parent), who entertained the foolishness of thinking it could have a peaceful lunch with a spider (put themselves or their children in the process under a facilitator), participated in the deceiver's lie, he became the deceiver's lunch (that is why the deceived take pleasure in deceiving others, i.e. its their happy hour, their lunch time, i.e. their "power lunch"). To dialogue with the deceiver, brings you into his deceit. World peace is a world deceived (perceived), a world freed from truth, i.e. freed from God's authority. To dialogue truth is to be deceived into a lie. You can not dialogue truth, the very act turns you into a liar. You can only dialogue opinions. If you are talked into dialoguing truth, the spider just had you over for lunch. Yum, yum, you are now a part of the spider, i.e. in the world system and of the world system.
"The scientific study of ideology can only be made on the basis of theory." (Adorno)
"...to grasp philosophies and other ideological systems in theory as realities and to treat them as such in praxis." (Bronner)
The Dialectical agenda is: don't tell a person who believes in a patriarchal God that he is illusional, just help him discover himself, i.e. discover that his feelings are the basis of life, i.e. that man is God, and the illusion will go away. When values are subject to human classification they are based upon human feelings and human thoughts actualized in human praxis. Even though placed within the continuum of a taxonomy, i.e. universal moral absolutes ("categorical imperatives") may be recognized by the taxonomy, but they are only recognized as an opinion, having relevancy only upon their transformation, i.e. their changeability, i.e. the experience of showing others how to incorporate, i.e. annihilate them by bringing them into the taxonomy of relativism, i.e. show others how to neutralize, marginalize, and/or remove them in a particular environment, at a specific moment, i.e. in space and time. Marx believed that every ideal or truth must be treated as an opinion, this is classic dialectical thought in praxis.
"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. Therefore let no man glory in men." (1 Corinthians 3:18-21)
The contemporary church, i.e. the church of the flesh, "in Jesus name":
The moment the church, the sacred, goes "contemporary," it shifted its focus from the souls of men, that which is spiritual and eternal (there and then), to human relationship, i.e. the secular, the flesh of man, that which is temporary (here and now). Thus all mankind is thus tied to the world and the temporal, in space and in time. All who claim authority above the spatio-temporal moment, restraining that moment, along with its "potential," are identified and treated with contempt. The use of power is therefore justified in the annihilation, i.e. the negation of any authority above human nature (the persecution, i.e. re-education, of the believer is justified in Communist countries with this logic). Man, separated from the office of authority, under God, can only find hope in a humanistic dream (perception), i.e. the pursuit of world peace—the dialectical imagination in domination, always before his eyes and in his ears. His hope in God, living under his authority, is therefore replaced with a hope in man, subject to his tyrannical use of power, even "in God's name." To live such a life, and call it life, is to live a lie. Hope in life can only come through God, for only God is life. "The LORD is my portion, saith my soul; therefore will I hope in him." Lamentations 3:24 "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;" Titus 1:2 "For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith." Galatians 5:5
"Do you know the difference between right and wrong?" Dialectically, there is no right or wrong answer to any question, unless right or wrong is absolute and not tied to proper behavior in a given situation. The question of what is right or what is wrong is irrelevant unless it is tied to the immediate situation in space and time, i.e. situational ethics.
While in the office of authority, under God, the ruler has power over the bodies of men. He does not have authority over the souls of men. Therefore he can not use his power over the souls of men. Thus the citizen has the right of 'freedom of conscience' under the ruler's authority, under God. Rulers, serving in the office of authority, are to serve and protect those under their authority (the office of authority granted to them by God—given by God for the benefit of all men i.e. for the restraint of wrong and the support and protection of right), to serve and protect those who are doing what is right (those citizens being civil, i.e. not usurping the office of authority of another citizen, under God), and to punish those who are doing what is wrong (those citizens not being civil, i.e. usurping the office of authority of another citizen, under God), all guided by the conscience. But if he uses the office of authority for his own personal gain, using his power of office, which he has control of, to the detriment of those he is in office to serve and protect (using his power against the conscience of the citizens), he is a tyrant (a usurper). This is why the power of government was limited in America, so that citizens could have the right of conscience, under God (only possible in a patriarchal paradigm), and why today, through the growing power of government under man (humanism, environmentalism, globalism, i.e. those who initiate and sustain the use of the heresiarchal paradigm), the right of conscience is being negated, is being replaced with the practice (praxis) of consensus through dialogue in the power of office, by both elected and non-elected people. There is no true representation (re-presentation) in the praxis of a diverse group of people, dialoguing to consensus, over social issues, in facilitated meetings, to a pre-determined dialectical outcome (better known as a soviet i.e. directorate, i.e. politburo system of government, i.e. a government system using the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. built upon the dialectical process—used with the intent of circumventing the conscience of the people, i.e. bypassing a representative form of government). When this process is used in government (to set policies and solve problems), what is really being represented, is not the conscience of the citizens (even if they voted their conscience), but the dialectical process itself. "Grass roots," as in "the grassroots movement," does not mean the conscience of the citizens, nor the souls of men, but that which was formed from the dust of the ground, the Eros of man, i.e. human nature in touch with the cosmos, without the breath of God, i.e. void of Godly restraint. Globalism, i.e. the antichrist, can not function without the assistance of the "grass roots."
Being subject to higher authority:
It should also be noted that the Greek word for subject (upotassesyw), as used in the King James translation, means to be subordinate. This takes on greater significance when you consider disobedience as being insubordinate to authority, i.e. assuming a position of being equal with or greater than the one in authority, or, worst of all, considering the office of authority itself as irrelevant (which is heresiarchal). Also, it is understood that the word higher (uperecousaiv) in "higher authority" means that all authorities must accept God as the highest authority; therefore, everything is subject to His will and commands, and will be judged accordingly. I am not saying the secular must base law upon the sacred, but that the secular must allow the sacred freedom, i.e. its citizens the right of conscience. The secular can not therefore use any system which negates the freedom of the conscience of its citizens. To do so would be an act of tyranny. For example, the dialectically based statement, "We must develop persons who see non-influenceability of private convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." (Benne) would be an act of tyranny. Only those with a seared conscience can comfortably serve under, i.e. be in agreement with, a tyrant, using his power to suppress citizens with a conscience and any realm which develops it.
Again: The church or the sacred is not to be subject to the civil or secular authorities when it comes to matters of the soul, nor is the secular, the state, to be subject to the church's authority when it comes to matters of the sword, i.e. the church over the use of the sword for its own purpose (the difference between the spiritual authority of the church, i.e. the "bride of Christ," which is not a civic institution of man's own making, and the conscience of the individual citizen who is a member of the secular state), as one is temporal, dealing with the body or civic realm and the other is spiritual, dealing with the soul or spiritual realm. But both are under God's authority in their specific realms. Of course the carnal man resents this and would want the secular realm freed from being under the authority of God (it's mind, i.e. brain, washed of Godly restraint), and would set out to neutralize, marginalize, remove, or corrupt the spiritual realm—attempting to prostitute the bride of Christ through the use of the diabolical, dialectical process. Also, those who claim to be spiritual, but are not guided by the spirit of God, i.e. being guided by the dialectical process and the spirit of rebellion behind it (see Genesis 3:1-62), would want the church to have control over or be in partnership with the state for their "religious" advantage, i.e. to use the power of the state (the sword) to remove those who do not serve their own carnal purposes, of course all done "in the name of Jesus."
(1) "In the first phase various members of the group quickly attempt to establish their customary places in the leadership hierarchy [i.e. revert to a top down order, i.e. a patriarchal paradigm]."
(2) "Next comes a period of frustration and conflict [initiated and sustained division] brought about by the leader's [democratic leader or 'facilitator of change'] steadfast rejection of the concept of peck order [top down order] and the authoritarian atmosphere [patriarchal, i.e. traditional environment of above-below] in which the concept of peck order [respect for the office of authority] is rooted."
(3) "The third phase sees the development of cohesiveness [abdication of or washing from the brain the effects of the patriarchal paradigm] among the members of the group, accompanied by a certain amount of complacency and smugness [revitalization, i.e. liberation, i.e. emancipation, of the suppressed rebellious nature, i.e. the subconscious, up until now inhibited by the patriarchal environment making itself known]."
(4) "In the fourth phase the members retain the group-centeredness [abdicate right and wrong thinking, i.e. the conscience, to the tolerance of ambiguity, i.e. the superego, i.e. socialism] and sensitivities [basing reality, i.e. truth, no longer upon commands and truths declared as true from above, i.e. to be unquestionably obeyed, but now based upon humanistic reasoning i.e. sense experience, i.e. sensuous needs, i.e. feelings and i.e. sense perception, i.e. inductive, i.e. dialectical reasoning] which characterized the third phase, but they develop also a sense of purpose [what is good for the group is good for me and what is good for me is good for the group, i.e. if we don't work together to overcome evil, i.e. those who resist change, i.e. refuse to join with "us" in overcome evil in the world, social disharmony, evil will prevail, the patriarchal paradigm will prevail] and urgency [if we don't work together we will fail] which makes the group potentially an effective social instrument [i.e. committed to the overthrow of a patriarchal paradigm for the sake of saving the world from catastrophe, i.e. catastrophe seen, i.e. perceived, and felt as guaranteed if society continues to follow down the pathway of the patriarchal paradigm]." (Human Relations in Curriculum Change, ed. by Kenneth Benne, "The Growth of a Group," From Herbert Thejen and Watson Dickerman "Stereotypes and the Growth of Groups", Educational Leadership, February 1949)
There is no such thing as a Christian nation. There can be a nation with Christians. In a predominately moral and religious country, where the sacred realm preached and taught the word of God and served under his authority, the secular state, through the use of majority vote of the citizens (by secret ballot, with the citizen voting his conscience, i.e. "What is right, What would God say."), would reflect a conservative restraint, i.e. a patriarchal paradigm, and would accept and encourage the displaying of the Ten Commandments in the public realm, having prayer (in Jesus name only) in the public realm, reading scripture (translated from the Textus Receptus) in the public realm, and chastening as a means of discipline in the home (as was the heritage and praxis of this nation for over two centuries). In a country that is predominately immoral, atheistic, agnostic, Christian humanist, pluralistic (humanistic, socialist—social-psychology, democratic), i.e. heresiarchal paradigm, the secular state, through the use of the consensus process influencing the majority vote, (a vote coerced through the use of the consensus process, i.e. the dialectical process, i.e. "What would the group think," developed by the method listed above), would reflect a liberal licentiousness, i.e. would inhibit or prohibit the displaying of the Ten Commandments in public places (seen as a barrier, i.e. inhibitor, to human relationship building, i.e. the development of interpersonal relationships with the "diversity" of beliefs and opinions of the world), praying in Jesus name in public places, reading scriptures in public places (especially scriptures translated from the Textus Receptus1), and chastening as a means of correction, especially in the home. It would even seek to outlaw the same from being practiced in the sacred realm (as has been the praxis of over the last half century by many people in positions of influence in this nation). Once these things are lost to a nation, history shows they are not easily if ever restored. These conditions have to developed from the heart of the people (people who love and fear God) at the very onset of policy building, because, as you have seen, once the process takes over, restoration can only be by an act of God, i.e. through judgment upon the people.
"Our cultural workers must serve the people with great enthusiasm and devotion, and they must link themselves with the masses, not divorce themselves from the masses. In order to do so, they must act in accordance with the needs and wishes of the masses. All work done for the masses must start from their needs and not from the desire of any individual, however well-intentioned. It often happens that objectively the masses need a certain change, but subjectively they are not yet conscious of the need, not yet willing or determined to make the change. In such cases, we should wait patiently. We should not make the change until, through our work, most of the masses have become conscious of the need and are willing and determined to carry it out. Otherwise we shall isolate ourselves from the masses. . . . There are two principles here: one is the actual needs of the masses rather than what we fancy they need, and the other is the wishes of the masses, who must make up their own minds instead of our making up their minds for them." (From the Selected Works of Mao-Tse-Tung, Vol III "The United Front in Cultural Work" (October 30, 1944) (Peking, 1967), pp. 186-187)
Today, the sacred realm must incorporate other religious views and philosophical thoughts to be publicly approved by the secular realm, i.e. to prevent "extremism," i.e. intolerance, prejudice, etc., i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. passive or isolationism (private) or hateful or aggressive (capitalism, i.e. imperialism), in the sacred realm. In this way the humanist has not only gained control over the individual, and thus (according to his perception) the secular realm, but he also has gained control over the individual in the sacred realm. Not until the tyrant (the lawless one) is able to either remove the sacred realm, through the use of physical force (Traditional Marxism), or gain access into the sacred realm, through the use of consensus and dialogue, and thereby corrupt it (Transformational Marxism), can it "feel" and "think," i.e. praxis, a life unrestrained by God's authority, i.e. therefore a feeling that nothing is impossible to man, i.e. man is "free at last," i.e. no longer subordinate to God's "arbitrary" laws and his unquestionable authority which inhibits human nature. Thus the citizen is only a citizen if he is freed from having a guilty conscience, i.e. a product of the sacred realm, under God.
Anyone using an office of authority for himself is a tyrant.
Kurt "Lewin emphasized that the child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group." (Brookover)
When you teach a child to control himself, you are teaching him he has an office of authority over himself, i.e. his-"self" life (There is I, me, and myself. I can talk to myself, I can agree with myself, I can disagree with myself, I can humble myself, I can deny myself, I can drag my self out of bed, I can love myself, I can exalt myself, and I can hate myself. Self will never be held accountable for what it does—serving "the flesh the law of sin" Romans 7:25—but I will be held accountable for listening to and doing what it wants me to do—the lust of the flesh—and not taking control over it or disciplining it, temporally, and not humbling it or denying it, spiritually, making it subject to my authority over it, under God—"under God" is equated to a top-down paradigm or way of thinking whether secular or sacred, civic or religious, all being under God's authority since he not only judges individuals but judges nations as well). If the child does not take control over himself (his "self" life), then you (the parent), having the right of authority over him (under God), must use your power, in the office of authority in which you serve, to take control over him (to chasten him) until he learns to take control over his "self," and learn to function properly in his own God given office of authority. Other-wise, if he simply uses his God given office of authority for himself (his "self" life), he becomes a tyrant (have you seen any little tyrants running around lately, grown up one's as well? I don't know who Elizabeth Powers is, but she put it right when she wrote: "Discipline is foreign to the liberal mind, liberals hate contours and self-definition that comes from limits." "Liberals tend to colonize all spaces they are in." "Public space becomes for liberals an extension of their private living room." "... their kids amused themselves by running up and down ...." Elizabeth Powers). The praxis of tyranny (diaprax—the lack of self-control in the office of authority under God), can be true for the husband, the wife, the mayor, the governor, the president, the minister, etc. as well as the children.
Of course, a tyrant, by his very nature, would not agree. He would see the father, who trains up his children with a conscience (through inculcation, indoctrination, and chastening) as a threat, and blame personal and social discord upon him (I am not justifying a father who provokes his children to wrath, because of his taunting, "You are stupid," and belittling, "You will never amount to anything," ways. The Bible warns fathers not to do that.). But it is here, with the pent up hate for the father figure, where Fascism and Communism meet. In error, the Marxist/communist/socialist (socio-psychologists) would say the father, who trained his children to obey orders without question, was/is the root cause of Fascism (nationalism)—as is advanced by two Transformational Marxists, Erich Fromm, in his book Escape from Freedom, and Theodor Adorno, in his book The Authoritarian Personality (American politics has been influenced by these two men and their ideology more than most Americans realize or are willing to admit). The truth is, the tyranny of fascism gained control, like communism (socialism, democracy), by the use of trickery (seduction and deceit), threat, and brute force (along with the citizens putting their blind trust in men i.e. in unlimited power of government). These are not the attributes learned from a Godly father, in the office of authority, under God. He would train his children up on how to control themselves, under God, not trusting man or government, but being vigilant at all times, applying the spiritual to the temporal. ("Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world." 1 Peter 5:8, 9). He would teach them in understanding the nature of fallen man, especially when given unlimited power in the office of authority. Over 220 years ago Patrick Henry9 warned us of such a praxis. "Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example, where rulers overcharged with power, willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly?" "A willing relinquishment of power is one of those things which human nature never was, nor ever will be capable of:" (P. Henry) It was because of men like him that government, i.e. force, through the Bill of Rights was placed in the hands of the citizens.
Through civil disobedience, and events like it, the force of government has been taken from the citizens and placed in the hands of a select company of "social-scientists" (Transformational Marxists), tyrants in governmental offices. Assisted by dialectically organized think tanks (developing anti-American policy, in the traditional meaning of those words, through the combined use of facilitation, dialogue, diversity, social issues, consensus, knowing that through this praxis the mind is set free from God, at least a God above human nature i.e. above the "the flesh the law of sin"), elected and appointed governmental officials, and their departments (which serve the process), have succeeded in establishing governmental policies in harmony with the new world order (anti-Constitutional Republic, anti-limited government, anti-private business i.e. anti-commerce, anti-patriarchal home, anti-conscience, anti-liberty in law, and anti-Christ)."I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." 1 Corinthians 5:9-11
The Transformational Marxist plan (socializing the world through the use of the dialectical process) was to tie technology, i.e. progress, to the promotion of human nature (man's sin nature, i.e. compromise for the preservation and promotion of his fleshiness, as illustrated by Lawrence Kohlberg's dilemma questions), so that the only way to gain access to technology, the key to success in business, was to support (at least tolerate) human nature, i.e. sin. Thus, anyone slowing down the "ship of progress," i.e. anyone slowing down the process of change, i.e. the change of paradigms, i.e. anyone restraining human nature, would be seen as fighting against everyone's opportunity for success, i.e. growth. The leaders of the institutional church, following down this same pathway (with their emphasis upon success i.e. prosperity), brought the church under the same influence, that of promoting human nature. Instead of the institutional church focusing upon "knowing" the Word of God (which causes division, i.e. "in the world but not of it"), it focused upon the "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. the opinions, of its members regarding the Word in light of social conditions, i.e. the immediate sensual environment. Their opinions therefore took on more weight, i.e. more meaning, i.e. more importance, than the Word of God itself (resulting in a much "safer," less offensive, i.e. less divisive gospel, i.e. a user friendly, non offensive Christ, synthesized with a user friendly, non offensive Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud (social-psychology), to make a user friendly, non offensive Marx-Christ, i.e. a humanized Christ, i.e. anti-Christ, Church). Opinions, i.e. how you feel and what you think, are not "categorical imperatives" (absolutes, necessitating obedience), and therefore allow human nature (sensuousness) spontaneous, unrestrained freedom of expression. In the fluidity of opinions, absolutes, i.e. truths are negated while, to the participants, they appear, i.e. "seem to be" retained. Our perception that the Church was not changed when the Word of God was not brought up in dialogue, because we remembered the scripture in our mind when it was not brought up, is in error because the perception of those who are ignorant of God's word, do not have it in their hearts and in their minds, is that the Church does not need scriptures as its basis of "purpose," but only tolerance of ambiguity, now identified as love. The Church was changed because we did not speak the word of God when it was left out so as not to offend the "pre-Christian."
"To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." 1 Peter 2:4-10
"No thing is as hateful to the Devil as the Gospel, for that shows him up, so that he cannot conceal himself, and everyone sees him as black as he is." Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, as quoted in (Brown)
It should be noted that psychoanalysis uses Luther as an example of man seeking release from the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the Papal authority, which is the only way the process can see anything. He is seen historically—psychoanalytically—as isolating man from authority, via the "priesthood of all believers," so that he can become reattached to the collective soul, the quest, as they falsely see it, of the "modern" age. The truth is, the modern age could not have happened without Luther and the understanding that righteousness can not come from man's efforts—individually or collectively—but instead must coming from God's work in Christ, that righteousness is imputed from above. Therefore man "does his best to the glory of God" above, which puts capitalism, 'filthy lucre,' back under Godly restraint (there is nothing wrong with money, it is the love of it which is wrong). Luther was not detaching man from the Pope below, which would leave man still lost, he was attaching man to God above—the patriarchal paradigm, whereby he could be saved. He was simply moving man from worshiping the man, and thus his flesh and the world, below, claiming to be from God above, to worshiping God above, hating this flesh and the world below. "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:35-38 "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26
We are to put no man between us and God. "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." John 5:30 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21 "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." 2 John 1:9-11
Those who praxis the dialectical process can not recognize, i.e. process, this truth, for this truth would expose the dialectical process as "black," i.e. as hating the authority of God above. If anything this shows how perverse psychoanalysis is. Those who use it, turn anything or anyone who exposes it as evil, with its use of the dialectical process—and the Devil from which it came—as evil (ignorant), i.e. as trouble makers, resistors to change, divisive, placing them at the "anal" (irrational) stage of the continuum, as taught by Freud. Psychoanalysis is a one-upsmanship over God, weighing the importance, i.e. relevance of God's word based upon its approval by man, i.e. it relevance to growing the fellowship, i.e. human relationship building skills. It is this perversity which has crept into the church and is now being used for the "purpose" of the human factor, turning the truth of God's word, the gospel, into unrighteousness, i.e. justifying human nature so "men of God" can feed their bellies through the respect of men.
There is nothing a believer can say which will not be interpreted through the continuum of human perception when this process is being used, used by those blinded by this process, led by those who have the most to "gain" by the humanization of the Gospel, i.e. the "ministers" who must conceal their dialectical agenda with their position of respect in the "church," preventing their being exposed by those who are not trained in the word as they are. Any opposition or exposure of the process is seen as an act on your part to sublimate the "life instinct," i.e. your subconscious life seeking deliverance from the oppressor, i.e. parental authority, i.e. the Patriarchal God."Love of money is a sublimation of anal eroticism." "If there is a psychoanalysis of money it must start from the hypothesis that the money complex has the essential structure of religion." "Marx had compared the money complex with the religious complex, as two forms of human self-alienation." "To take the path of psychological explanation means that the money complex is to be derived from the religious complex." "The money complex is inseparable from symbolism; and symbolism is the mark of the sacred." "The real essence of money is disclosed by a theory of ownership – i.e., power. All power is essentially sacred power. Power is in essence a psychological category." "The science of use-value would have to be based on a science of human nature, able to distinguish real human needs from (neurotic) consumer demands . . . Money making as unnatural perversion." "The psychology of economics is the psychology of guilt. Money is condensed wealth; condensed wealth is condensed guilt. Money is human guilt." (Brown)
Everything is evaluated from man's here-and-now needs, for the "purpose" of change, i.e. "Christians" seeking deliverance from the past traditions of the church, freedom from its control of money to sustain the status quo, thus turning a spiritual issue, not walking in the Spirit or lack of spiritual discernment and growth, into a carnal issue, the lack of dopamine, i.e. no "fun," in the services (instead of the church being the "called out ones" it is now the drawn in ones, i.e. via the flesh, you can't tell the difference between the church and the world). So in this case God is man's repressor (the authoritarian, equated to "money" used to control man's soul and the Gospel is man's consciousness seeking freedom from his restrainer.
God has nothing bad to say about the Spirit while the Devil has nothing bad to say about the flesh of man, thus both conditions are seen as positive, depending upon which domain they are being view from, i.e. from above or from below. God has nothing good to say about the wickedness of man and the Devil has nothing good to say about the righteousness of God, thus both conditions are seen as negative, again depending upon which domain they are being view from, i.e. from above or from below. Psychoanalysis—the dialectical process in praxis—can only evaluate "life" from below, through human nature, i.e. seeking social harmony through dialogue (the free exchange of opinions through dialogue to find con-senses) and social action (praxis). Positive is thus the flesh nature of man and therefore his wickedness being "tolerated," for the sake of human relationship building, below, and Negative is the Spiritual, i.e. the "fundamental religious extremists" and their focus upon the Word of God and their preaching and teaching of righteousness, that righteousness which can only come from God, via the gospel, from His word which can only come from above. "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the God." Jesus quoting Deuteronomy 8:3, i.e. rejecting the heresiarchal paradigm, the flesh below for the patriarchal paradigm, God above.
You can say nothing, when in the room where the process is being used, without being psychoanalyzed by its predetermined outcome, i.e. the humanization of your soul for the cause of human relationship building, i.e. "You're just to negative." Brown's chapter on "The Protestant Era" exposes his blindness to the truth. Dialectically minded "ministers" follow down this same pathway. They do not preach and teach the Gospel, they only use it as a tool for the "purpose" of human relationship building, i.e. to "grow the church." In this way Luther's statement above loses its purpose, the conversion of souls through the preaching of the Gospel. Something which both the Devil and those who use the dialectical process love. If you love the church via the human relationship factor, you have to hate the Gospel for it exposes the human relationship factor, exposing it as evil, i.e. as "black." The church is either believers fellowshipping, which is of God, or the fellowship of pre- and post- "Christians," i.e. the continuum of the dialectical process ('righteousness' and unrighteousness seeking harmony through finding common ground, i.e. the social gospel), which is not of God.
"Evil in the world will not be eradicated through human effort or divine intervention alone, but through human effort and divine power." (paraphrase of King Jr. Strength to Love pp. 127-136 in Seay) The truth is, a believer can be sociable, i.e. in the world, alive in the Spirit, but he can not be a socialist, i.e. of the world, since he is dead to the flesh, dead to the foundation from which socialism must build itself upon. In the end, during a dia-logue to consensus, i.e. human relationship building session, i.e. youth group, team building, etc, the only ones upset with those who preach and teach the gospel, using the word of God as their foundation, are those who are in love with their flesh and this present world, i.e. "Can't we all just get along?"
The techniques of marketing rely heavily upon the understanding of human nature, i.e. the conditions which affect how one "feels" and what one "thinks." They also require learning how to initiate and sustain the conditions which manipulate, i.e. "drive," human nature into the outcome desired, i.e. fulfilling the desired "purpose" i.e. "growth." Thus the church's "purpose" changed ("shifted") from being led by the word of God, by the spirit of God, to being "driven" by human nature, i.e. by the desire to be successful, i.e. to grow—to increase in members i.e. produce "customers" (Peter Drucker) in the name of Jesus. This is why the leaders of the institutional church, in their effort to be successful, so heavily relied upon marketing techniques in the praxis of manipulating their members. Through the praxis of the manipulation of the environment, people who were exposed to the environment, if they were undiscerning, were by their nature (the desire to be successful, i.e. enjoy the "blessing" of this life, "in the name of Jesus"), drawn into participation with the dialectical process and thus supported and promoted it's outcome, i.e. socialism). Thus Peter Drucker's favorite question was, "What is your business?" and favorite answer was "To make customers." Therefore, the apostate church, using the dialectical process, the Transformational Marxists paradigm, could be successful in the eyes of the world, "in the name of Jesus."
"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." Galatians 5:21
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Revelation 21:8
"For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." Revelation 21:15
The lawless rule when the citizens refuse to be subject to the laws of God themselves, when they refuse to be subject to any authority which goes against (which restrains) their carnal human nature (which, as noted above, inhibits their perception of success in this life, i.e. the respect of man). Thus they refuse to listen to any authority which holds them accountable for their praxis, a praxis of lies and deceit. Their contempt for truth (that glazed over look when you try to share it, truth that is), and their hate toward the voice of restraint (the voice of authority, under God) is not just directed toward those who refuse to support and promote the power of the tyrant, but is also directed against God himself. Put in proper perspective, when the lawless one rules it is because the secular and the sacred no longer wants to be subject to the laws of God, and therefore be subject to any authority above himself, i.e. his "self" nature, i.e. his "I will," nature, any authority holding him accountable for his praxis, a praxis of lies and deceit, a praxis of hate, disguised as caring and love, which is not only directed at those under his power (nations which come under the control of the dialectical process kill their own citizens, by the millions, in the name of the dialectical process, i.e. for the sake of social cause, i.e. equality and liberty) but is also directed against God himself (Dialegomai antallagma apokaluqiv; Dialogue in exchange for revelation, i.e. man and his nature in exchange for God and his word. "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 16:26).
"Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds (praxiv, praxis); And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." (Colossians 3:9)
There is an old man praxis and a new man praxis. The old man praxis is to lie (when the truth can interfere with his success, whatever he perceives that to be), the new man praxis is to proclaim the truth, in love—truth can liberate you from "success," that is why so many "Christians" are running away from the truth as fast as they can. The old man praxis is a heresiarchal paradigm, a praxis of man's fallen human nature. The new man praxis is a patriarchal paradigm, a praxis of being "renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." The old man praxis, although most "Christians" would deny it, follows after the image of the original lawless one. "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." (John 8:44) The new man praxis follows after the Son of God. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." (John 14:6) You are never deceived because somebody lied to you, you are deceived because you trusted him, because you trusted in your "self," (your old man) first. "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." (Jeremiah 17:5) Not properly weighing your thoughts and action (theory and practice) with God's word (belief and practice), you are not able to properly weigh the tyrants thoughts and action (his theory and practice) with God's word. Everyone who participates in civil disobedience begins with this praxis, i.e. theory and practice, i.e. men's opinions practiced, i.e. experienced as facts and truth. That is why it is called human-ism. It starts and ends with man (with a humanized, dialectically created god thrown in, when the occasion warrants).
Humanism, i.e. theory and practice, i.e. "the soul of the people," must reject the patriarchal paradigm of Jesus Christ, "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." "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." (John 5:30, John 8:42) and replace it, even "in Jesus name," with the heresiarchal paradigm of Karl Marx, "Every class lacks the breadth of soul which identifies it with the soul of the people [the human relationship factor], that revolutionary boldness which flings at its adversary the defiant phrase; I am nothing and I should be everything." "The only practically possible emancipation is the unique theory which holds that man is the supreme being for man." (Marx, Critique) Leonard Wheat, in his book, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God, explains the humanizing of God and the elevating man to the status of God: "Tillich is actually directing an apologetic humanistic message to a Christian audience. 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 wrote: "Demonism concerns man's attitude toward others. Estrangement describes the condition of man which results from the Demonism of his fellow man. Humanism asserts that the test of human conduct must be found in human experience; concern for man replaces concern about pleasing God. Humanism elevates man to the rank of God." (Wheat)
Those who think dialectically (globalists, antichrist), those who want to use the power of man—empowerment—in place of authority under God, would like you to think that the patriarchal family initiates and sustains what they see as tyranny i.e. fascism (which they equate to nationalism, i.e. prejudice, imperialism, isolationism, etc.). The following excerpts from Theodor Adorno should be sufficient to show the hostility against the traditional home and the agenda to destroy it. ". . . [S]hould fascism become a powerful force in this country, it would parade under the banners of traditional American democracy . . . ‘rugged individualism'" "Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them. ... The conception of the ideal family situation for the child: 1) uncritical obedience to the father and elders, 2) pressures directed unilaterally from above to below, 3) inhibition of spontaneity and 4) emphasis on conformity to externally imposed values..." "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." "It would then be more understandable why the German family, with its long history of authoritarian, threatening father figures, could become susceptible to a fascist ideology." "Authoritarian submission was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures‑‑parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." "It is a well-known hypothesis that susceptibility to fascism is most characteristically a middle-class phenomenon, that it is ‘in the culture' [in the traditional home environment] and, hence, that those who conform the most to this culture will be the most prejudiced." "Superstition indicates a tendency to shift responsibility from within the individual onto outside forces beyond one's control . . . the ego has ‘given up,' renounced the idea that it might determine the individual's fate by overcoming external forces." "A tendency to transmit mainly a set of conventional rules and customs, may be considered as interfering with the development of a clear-cut personal identity in the growing child." "... dominated by the authoritarian aspects of the parent‑child relationship or by a more democratic type of relationship, the ability of the subject to appraise his parents objectively [through humanistic, dialectical, "neo-Marxist" lens, ], as contrasted with an inclination to put the parents on a very high plane." (Adorno) emphasis added
Therefore the traditional family environment (its system of thinking and acting) must be annihilated if world peace is to be achievable. It must be annihilated because any residue of its presence (any remnant left over) will reconstitute the conscience. "The overthrow of the king-father is a crime [getting rid of the father, as the head of the home, is a crime, but a necessary crime, justified by dialectical reasoning, for the sake of freedom], but so is his restoration [the retention of a guilty conscience, the reactivation of a feeling of guilt for disobeying commands, regenerated by public support of the "king-father" system, i.e. "restoration" of the "king-father" system is caused by a remnant support system in the community which "cancels" out "redemption" from the "King-father" system, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm in the individual].... The crime against the reality principle [overthrowing the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. leaving home] is redeemed by the crime against the pleasure principle [not feeling free to "do your own thing," to "go with the flow," to be at one with the world when in the world, because you remember or someone in the world still thinks and acts with a patriarchal paradigm]: redemption thus cancels itself." (Marcuse emphasis added) Thus, according to dialectical reasoning, when the prodigal son came to his senses and went home, he cancelled out his redemption. Dialectically it would have been better for him to have died in the pig sty than to have returned home to his loving Father. I am not being facetious here, this is dialectical reasoning. Paul Tillich stated it thus: "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." (Wheat) This is the same reasoning which controls the education system, the work place, government, and the institutional church today in America. When it comes to your health, as you will see, your age along with your social worth will have a major bearing on how you will be treated, i.e. being "taken care of" is an ambiguous phrase.
"The authoritarian family becomes the factory in which the state's structure and ideology are molded." (Reich)
Even though the person may be out of the home, or it may be "dysfunctional" (in the home, but not of it), the conscience helps keep him from escaping the home experiences (now internalized), i.e. there are residues of the traditional home experience still limiting his "humanistic" potential. In essence, his conscience helps him escape from freedom (it keeps him from finding complete freedom from the patriarchal paradigm). Erich Fromm wrote a book, entitled Escape from Freedom, with this very thought in mind. He wrote: "The most effective method for weakening the child's will is to arouse his sense of guilt." "The most important symptom of the defeat in the fight for oneself is the guilty conscience." (Fromm) In other words the parents "categorical imperatives," their enforced commands, commands which do not make sense to the child, i.e. stand in the way of the child's own nature, desires, and potential, making the parents agents of child abuse. ". . . Definition of religious experience as experience of absolute dependence is the definition of the masochistic experience in general." (Fromm) Dialectically then, when the child faithfully obeys the parent's commands without question, commands which go against the child's own nature, the child becomes a masochist. When the parent insists that the child obey his commands without question, commands which go against the child's own nature, the parent becomes a sadist. Thus dialectically, believing parents, parents who obey God without question, training up their children to do the same, are sado-masochists. "In Escape from Freedom, Fromm offered the sado-masochistic character as the core of the authoritarian personality." (Jay)
"And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable." Isaiah 3:4, 5
Another transformational Marxists (social-psychologist), Norman O. Brown added: "The new guilt complex appears to be historically connected with the rise of patriarchal religion (for the Western development the Hebrews are decisive)." "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself." "We must return to Freud and say that incest guilt created the familial organization." (Brown) There is a direct relationship, in dialectical thinking, between incest (spontaneous, sensuous, unrestricted relationship with nature, i.e. homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. i.e. abomination) and patricide (freedom from the "familial organization" which restricts spontaneous sensuousness). Dialectical thinking is grounded in the belief that before the "healthy" nature of man can be realized, the "familial organization" must be dealt with ("annihilated"). Before human nature can be liberated from a negative environment, with its non-natural forces, i.e. liberated from preaching and teaching (enforcing that which is from above, above human nature, above the common human experience), a positive environment, an environment friendly to human nature, reinforcing human nature, building upon the common human experience) must be established. In this way the negative environment with its enforced "categorical imperatives" is overcome with the positive environment of dialogue—the dialectic process in praxis. Dialectical thinkers preach and teach that once the child, out of ignorance, because he was not properly educated, accepts guilt for his natural behavior, i.e. his incest nature, and accepts the feeling of "guilt" as natural, he "incorporates" himself with his parents. Accepting the praxis of "irrational" obedience to parents, he empowers the office of authority of the patriarchal home i.e. giving birth to the "familial organization," and thereby surrenders his will, his humanity, his humanistic potential (his homosexuality), to an "alien," an anti-human authority. Can you grasp the underlying hate, waiting to be released upon the restrainers of abomination, with this kind of thinking? Have you read Revelation 17 lately?
"...‘the elimination of the need to hide sexual relations of an unusual character is one of the first preconditions for a healthy sex life and a healthy sexual morality'." "In the socialist future monogamy would ‘completely disappear'." (Peter Drucker ) [Church Growth, the emergent church, i.e. the mega-church (the systems marketing church) are all built upon the application of the same dialectical process in Non-profit organizations, such as the church. Attendee beware.]
"Capitulation enforced by parental authority under the threat of loss of parental love . . . can be accomplished only by repression." "Our repressed desires are the desires we had unrepressed, in childhood; and they are sexual desires." "Infantile sexuality is the pursuit of pleasure obtained through the activity of any and all organs of the human body [touching, seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, muscular activity, pain, etc.]." "What the child knows consciously and the adult unconsciously, is that we are nothing but body." "Infants have a richer sexual life than adults." "Sexual instincts seeks union with objects in the world." " Psychoanalysis declares the fundamental bisexual character of human nature;" "In man, infantile sexuality is repressed and never outgrown;" "Therefore the question confronting mankind is the abolition of repression - in traditional Christian language, the resurrection of the body." "Freud takes with absolute seriousness the proposition of Jesus: 'Except ye become as little children, ye can in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven." (Brown)
Freud, paraphrasing Matthew 18:2-4, deliberately took it out of context. He left out the words "converted," and "humble," and ignored the fact that the child faithfully obeyed a command. The scriptures read: "And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:2-4). Freud's rendition of scripture would justify the praxis of incest, "the resurrection of the body" i.e. abomination. This is the praxis of the dialectical process, deceitfully handling the word of God, for the things of men. "But he [Jesus] turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Matthew 16:23 Even those behind the pulpit, savoring the things of men, are being used by Satan (1. not denying themselves—not personally dying to self, because they still love this world, 2. not picking up their cross—not willing to face social rejection, because they are not willing to be totally obedient to God's will, therefore they are not able to follow Jesus, they just use his name to keep their salary, the perks of the office, and their position of influence, so that they can deceive and manipulate others.) A dialectically minded "minister," who markets the bride of Christ, is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's skin. It has always amazed me, when, in doing this research on the dialectical process, i.e. when I came to a new understanding of the process, i.e. its depravity, and I do a word search in scripture on God's response to it, how impeccable the word of God is, in identifying it. It is as though God has given "ministers," ministers who use this diabolical process for their ministry, i.e. ministers pimping from the pulpit "in the name of Jesus," a double portion of blindness.
"The interest of restoring a youth-adult homosexuality culture, an undercurrent growing around the world, pushing for global equality, carries with it an interest in the boys of adolescent age. This is true of almost all social-psychology material today. For example: HANDBOOK of PARENTING Theory and research for practice Edited by MASUD HOGHUGHI and NICHOLAS LONG with support for their research from researchers like Charlotte J. Patterson Charlotte J. Petterson
Dialectically, social harmony and world peace will not be pursuable as a goal, much less attainable if those who want globalism can not get rid of two conditions. 1) the patriarchal home—which restrains Eros without, externally by chastening or threat of chastening, therefore internalizing "non-humanist" rules in the next generation. This condition is seen, dialectically, as initiating and sustaining prejudice. Man's prejudice (pre-established conditions which help in determination of what is right and what is wrong) is secular, i.e. mandatory temporal opinion, which is based upon the sensuousness and spontaneity of the fleshy mind, restrained only by the commonality of all men with the same condition seeking "equality of opportunity." God's prejudice, which is sacred, i.e. established spiritual truth, is based upon conditions higher than mans carnal, i.e. fallen nature, in the "here-and-now" seeking sensual and spontaneous praxis, i.e. external actualization. But, for obvious reasons, dialectically, both secular and sacred ,are grouped as spiritual because anything which is unquestionable, anything which is untouchable, is which is unchangeable, anything which is immeasurable (not material or temporal, i.e. eternal or infinite, i.e. beyond space-time continuum, i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm) is incomprehensible to human reasoning, is considered spiritual. And 2) the support of the patriarchal home within the community—which helps restrain Eros within, internally, through the fear of chastening from the parents if someone in the community informs on them. The fear of getting caught, i.e. the "guilty conscience," i.e. a knowing that, either what they are doing, or what you are thinking of doing, or what you have done is wrong.
"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Gen 3:5
"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue: And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring: That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God." Numbers 15:37-40
"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts." Proverbs 21:2
"The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful. The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good. He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil." Psalms 36:1-4; Proverbs 6:12-19)
"Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied." Proverbs 27:20
Both environments or conditions must be changed if the perception (the mind's eye or paradigm) of the person is to be changed, i.e. his eyes 'opened' to his true nature and its potential, i.e. self actualization. "In a democratic society a patriarchal culture should make us depressed instead of glad; it is an argument against the higher possibilities of human nature, of self actualization." (Maslow, Management) Perception, in regarding what is of worth and what is not of worth (what is worth attending to), affects how a person will respond in "changing" times, i.e. during a crisis, i.e. having to make a decision. If keeping up with "changing times" is the agenda of life, i.e. the ideology that history does not repeat itself but is man, and according to some god, discovering himself through space and time, then the conscience must be recognized as and treated as a major barrier to life, i.e. holding back the history of man becoming. Due to the conscience's rigidity it must be considered as worthless unless it can be somehow "adapt" to relate with the present. Therefore the conscience must be shaped, "shifted," ("augmented") into the super-ego, dialectically a condition which is, supposedly, found within man himself, a condition which functions in place of the conscience, a condition which is only tied to the flesh nature of man, "only proceeding from Nature" (Marx) in the here-and-now (a heresiarchal paradigm), and not bound by the 'spiritual' conditions of the there-and-then of the parents or God (a patriarchal paradigm), a condition where sensuousness and spontaneity must be restrained (repressed) for the purpose of attaining what lays ahead, striving for that which exists outside of the current space-time continuum, i.e. outside the control of the dialectical process.
"What we call ‘conscience' perpetuates inside of us our bondage to past objects now part of ourselves: the super-ego ‘unites in itself the influences of the present and of the past.'" (Brown)
"This voice which really isn't you but tells you the way the world works is a direct attack on creativity. We have to work to remove it." "When we learn to silence the inner voice that judges yourself and others, there is no limit to what we can accomplish, individually and as part of a team. Absence of judgment makes you more receptive to innovative ideas [change]." (Michael Ray, quoted in Maslow, Management) "Receptive to innovative ideas" means receptive to change.
Some background information: developing the big picture of why the traditional home is under attack.
The change had to come from the realignment of the environmental conditions used in overcoming crisis. We thought that the crisis was the issue to be solved, instead the crisis was simply used as an opportunity to more easily change the paradigm being used to solve the crisis; the "old" patriarchal paradigm was simply replaced with the "new" heresiarchal paradigm, with the use of facilitation, dialogue, and consensus (key components of a soviet system). Therefore, the dialectical process became the praxis of American society. A Constitutional Republic, representative, limited form of government was replaced with a Democracy, sight based, all seeing, all powerful, form of government, while resolving the crisis. "A new emphasis on civic participation and social interaction alone seemed capable of confronting the crisis [i.e. negating the patriarchal paradigm]. And, that is precisely what Fromm provided in his notion of ‘communitarian socialism.'" (Bronner) "All that matters is that the opportunity for genuine activity be restored to the individual; that the purposes of society and of his own become identical [bypassing the patriarchal system as a solution to social crisis resulted in bypassing the patriarchal home as a solution to the social crisis, thus both becoming the cause of the social crisis because the refuse to participate, i.e. change]." (Fromm)
"But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased. Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them." Psalms 115:3-8
In his book Escape from Freedom Fromm stated that he believed fascism materialized because man could "not take the last logical step, to give up 'God' [give up obedience to higher authority with its absolutes (a patriarchal paradigm) i.e. God (above, spiritually) thus correlated with Hitler (above, temporally) who promised the "good life" to all who would follow him and obey his commands] and ... establish a concept of man as a being who is alone in the world, but who can feel at home in it if he achieves union with his fellow man and with nature." (Fromm) Therefore, according to dialectical theory, as liberalism (Transformation Marxist) initiated "change," Fascism (a barrier to globalism) would rise its ugly head again, and without the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. the destruction of the traditional home, especially the "full quiver" family in America, history would repeat itself (If Transformational Marxists don't believe that history repeats itself, then why do they work so hard to prevent it from happening again? They lie, i.e. "Trust us, 'You won't die ....'" Genesis 3:4).
"The whole discussion becomes species-wide, One World, at least so far as the guiding goal is concerned. To get to that goal is politics & is in time and space & will take a long time & cost much blood." (Maslow, Journals)
There are no innocent participants in the dialectical process because inevitably somebody must be sacrificed upon the alter of consensus. That is the nature of the beast. If you are not willing to sacrifice someone else's life or your life for the consensus process, for the life of the group, i.e. the community, you are not a worthy citizen of the community. May the weak and the strong both be aware. This is no idle prattle.
There is one major ingredient in your participation in the process, in initiating and sustaining the dream of "the beloved community. That is the sacrifice of those who are perceived as less worthy of or a barrier to that future goal. It just makes your participation in the process a stronger experience. In that way, you are less likely to fall back into the use of the conscience, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, in the future. For any motion in that direction would be to painful, i.e. to grievous (that is why those who are in the process are so hard of hearing).
Therefore, the only way to avoid the pain is to "take every thought captive to the 'purpose' of the process," the experiencing of "brotherly love," i.e. all participating in the quest of a "One World" order of "freedom" and "justice" for all, i.e. promoting the heresiarchal paradigm of thieves, murderers, and destroyers, in the name of community, i.e. common-unity.
Believers can not participate in this process but are instead redeemed from it, in Christ. "Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep." John 10:7-13Abortion and the large family was and is still seen as key issues in determining which environment prevails. "The termination of pregnancy is at variance with the meaning of the family, whose task it precisely the education of the coming generation – apart from the fact that the termination of pregnancy would mean the final destruction of the large family." "The preservation of the already existing large families is a matter of social feeling; [today, derogatively referred to as the "full quiver" see Psalms 127:3-5] . . the large family is preserved because national morality and national culture find their strongest support in it." (Reich, see Wilhelm Reich11). Reich was seen as an original thinker by social-psychologists. Read Maslow's and Roger's material and you will see their admiration for him and his ideas.
You do not permit abortions, you commit abortions. All of Germany was found guilty for "permitting" the holocaust because they saw no wrong in the use of the dialectical praxis, for a national-social cause i.e. the taking of innocent life, i.e. what they saw as non-humans, i.e. the Jews were labeled a parasite. (This is due to the effect of the dialectical process, the neutralizing and negating of the conscience, i.e. the effect of an ego, ethno, socio, or anthropo-centric perception, mystic-centric is included, negating Christ-centric). Pro-abortionists likewise find no fault in the taking of innocent life in their use of the dialectical praxis, used for a humanistic-social cause (choice), and get up in arms, just as the fascist did, when they are revealed as murderers.
Both conditions require that the conscience not be allowed in the jury booth of public opinion. Therefore both need conditions which prevent, i.e. censure the actual witnessing of the praxis, i.e. anything disturbing the perception of it as being "necessary" for the social good. Remember for man to create he must destroy, therefore, to create a better life for himself it is 'necessary' for him to destroy whatever it is that is preventing him from having that better life. For the woman, now equal with man, that includes the child in the womb. Therefore the general public was not allowed to witness the torture and execution of Jews or are not allowed to witness the daily torture (dismemberment) and execution of the unborn so that their conscience is not disturbed).
In the heresiarchal way, "less is more." Less conscience is more "freedom of choice." The courts will make sure that the conscience will not be experienced in the courtroom, that only the super-ego will be allowed, that is what makes a showtrial a show trial. Our court's have taken on the same praxis as the Fascist and Communist show trials as practiced around the world (international law is built upon the same process). They all use the dialectical process to get there.
As Dr. Randy Barton stated, while introducing this process to the presbyters of the Assemblies of God, "We are to look at everything but our doctrine." meaning doctrine is irrelevant so it will not be brought up so it can not interfere with the process. In this same way the judges will not allow the law (the conscience) to be on trial, i.e. to be brought up, so that they are not be bound to the law (the conscience) for your defense. As an added note of process language and attitude being applied everywhere, Barton referred to the traditional ministers of the AG as "barnacles," i.e. slowing the ship of progress down, that the "command and control" leadership was "frustrating, antiquated, and irrelevant," that there was a need for a "deep change," "systemic changes" which must "appeal to the grass roots," and that the church leadership needs to "hear from the grass roots . . . to start down the path of change." etc. etc. etc. See my article Church Leadership doing Diaprax)
Once you decide that "What is 'good' for society (the institution, i.e. the "community" of believers, etc.) is 'good' for the individual," you have to find the 'good' in the individual which lines up with the 'good' in society and bring the two together in consensus. (By first identifying your carnal interests which are common to all mankind, then by finding a system which will help others identify those same interests, a system which will help them separate their interests from principles, i.e. principles which inhibit interest, i.e. inhibit the desire for immediate gratification, then by creating an environment where they can initiate and sustain the emancipation of their interests from principle, i.e. by consensus, i.e. keeping the principle for yourself $$$$, you can ride them like a wave, i.e. they will supply your interests, not just free of charge but rather paying you forever, as long as you keep them from falling back upon or running into the rocks of principle again. That is why it is called sight based management, they have to keep their eyes open via feedback loops, for potential conscience awakenings and cut them off, through the dialectical process of dialogue and consensus.) In that way, the heresiarchal pathway, i.e. along the continuum, with no conscience (or not being directed by God, His Word, and the Holy Spirit) to worry about, the 'good' society can become a society of 'choice,' (not bound by ridged laws, commands, promises, or doctrine, i.e. spirit above man's immediate "sensuous needs," i.e. interests, and there immediate or near immediate perceived gratification).
The "good" society can only be achieved (perceived) through the praxis of slithering on the blood of the innocent, the helpless, the elderly, focusing upon those who believe in, practice, and fight for the patriarchal paradigm, especially those who are believers in Christ Jesus ("rightsizing" with the facilitator determining the "right" and the "size," i.e. what is the right for the moment and who can or can not participate, i.e. buy and sell). This process has "cost much blood," and will cost much more because it's kingdom is not built upon "the blood of the lamb," but rather is built upon the shedding of blood. As long as it is kept out of the general public view, so as not to disturb the conscience, or it is part of the consensus game, which requires no conscience, there is no limit as to how much blood can be shed or recycled for a more useful "purpose."
Concerning abortion:
Life is in the blood. What is flowing in the unborn child's veins is not the mother's blood but its own. The blood of the baby is not the mothers blood, blood type maybe, but not her blood. To shed the blood of the innocent child, born or unborn, is to bring God's judgment upon a wicked nation. To then call the unborn child a parasite, or treat it as such, is to use the same logic the fascists used to terminate the life of Jews. Life begins at conception. Biblically life begins at conception, i.e. by faith, while Socratic reasoning states that life begins at birth, i.e. by sight. The Supreme court compared Biblical belief (above) with Socratic reasoning (below) and then "reasoned" that life begins at birth (a dialectically "rational" decision). The blood of the unborn child is determined in the gene of the child at conception. At conception, that blood is a result of the gene, specifically of that baby. Therefore the only way a person can permit an abortion is through the justification of taking innocent blood. This is what the law of moral relatives does. It defies the laws of nature, then makes them relative to human nature, to feelings (social feelings). The statement "I don't feel like that Jew should be living in my town, taking up my life space and time." is just as hateful, as prejudice as "I don't think that baby should be living in my body, taking up my life space and time." All who think dialectically will hate me for making that statement, because they can not stand the truth, considering truth 'irrational' when filtered through their feelings and thoughts. Therefore to determine the worth of an unborn or born child, with the intent of taking its life (justified in our courts, etc. through the use of dialectical 'reasoning'), is irrational, cold hearted, and hateful. It is only "rational," "caring," and "loving" if you hate God, and your own soul. Yet Jesus, like he did with the woman at the will who repented of her sins, will forgive you, telling you, when you repent of your sins, to go and sin no more.
"The unspeculative Christian also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, i.e., of faith, of true love, i.e., of love of God, of true will-power, i.e., of will in Christ. Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply." (Karl Marx The Holy Family) emphasis added [If you thought Marx was not aware of the Gospel message this statement should open your eyes. If you want to create something, you must identify what it is you want to destroy, which Marx did and which those who push the dialectical process today continue to praxis.]
Marx truly hated a world under the authority of God—man's "will" (his sensuality) being subject to God, i.e. "of will in Christ," instead of in himself. Freud believed that conception was an "accidental" byproduct of the body, a body originally designed for pleasure ("While adult sexuality serves the socially useful purpose of breeding children, it is for the individual in some sense an end in itself as a source of pleasure – according to Freud, the highest pleasure." Brown), while Marx believed the traditional family, with or without a "full quiver," was a major obstruction to a world of social "change." Social-psychology brought both men together with their purpose to drive the patriarchal family out of existence. You could say that they equate the patriarchal paradigm to cancer, if you don't get it all, it will keep coming back. This nation has been under their diabolical, dialectical chemotherapy for some time. If the patient lives, according to them, man will be free from both the patriarchal God, and his associate, the patriarchal home. If the patient dies, it was only an experiment anyway, the praxis of a theory, just some more R & D. So just eat, drink, and be merry. "If it feels good just do it." (Marcuse) "For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." (Matthew 24: 38, 39)
According to dialectical reasoning, when communism/socialism/democracy tries to take control over society, patriarchal minded people, people who do not like change, turn to government for help (personal note: when they should be turning to God, God looks at your heart and my heart to determine what to do with this nation—we do not control God in this, he directs us, if he can not direct us, he judges us by giving us the leaders we deserve) and thus Fascism gains power over society (reactionary). Thus, without a synchronized changing of all institutions, the fear is that global dialectical socialism will be thwarted by national dialectical socialism (global communism, i.e. capitalist-socialist partnership, i.e. under the control of social-psychologists, i.e. guided through internationally networking via. soviet structured "departments of ...." using facilitation, diversity, dialogue, consensus, and social issues will be taken over by Fascism, i.e. capitalist-socialist partnership, i.e. under the control of a socialist dictator, nationally dominating via top-down force). The patriarchal home suffers in both dialectical environments. The reason being: the patriarchal home is structured on the inculcation of truth (the strengthening of the conscience), insists upon obedience and a top-down system, seeks independence from government control (Germans had not experienced limited government, especially since Bismarck, except in a tribal form which Hitler taped into and used for his purpose), and definitely can not tolerate an environment of finding common ground between opposite positions through the means of dialogue and consensus, especially when the office of authority of the parent is included as one of the positions to be mediated out of existence.
To clear things up: Transformational Marxists (socialist-capitalist-globalists, greens, international communists, U.N. etc.) identify Traditional Marxist (regional or national, "hard line" communist such as those who still are or were in control over Russia, China, Cuba, etc.) as Fascist because they maintain a national identity with a fundamentalist approach to making policy, i.e. leadership does not function within the public consensus, i.e. they may give lip service to the theory but do not practice it. According to Transformational Marxists (social-psychologists), if you are not thinking outside the box (thinking global, acting local), you have resorted to Fascism in your dialectical thinking and deformed the process or brought it to an end. Read Norman Levin's book Dialoguing within the Dialectic for more details. For example he writes: "The bourgeois world-view [a patriarchal weltanschauung, i.e. parents in control of the home] was characterized by ideas of reification, the split between subject-object, and atomism ... thought in terms of fixed and unchanging nature and social laws. Unwilling to think the possibility that capitalism could pass away ... but preferred to uphold the possibility that some special structures, private property for instance, were immutable social forms .... [They] had no idea of immanence, and accepted the split between the subject and object. If certain social and physical forms were eternal, they were thereby immune to the powers of human modification [anti-change]. The object did not proceed out of the subject: they were divided. They concentrated upon the individual and his private interests.... did not see society as a totality, but as a composite of independent elements." "The struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat was not, for Lukacs, confined to economics or politics, but was a fight of cultures as well. The proletariat world-view [a heresiarchal weltanschauung, i.e. children (with mother) in control of the home] was marked by its idea of historicity, immanence and totality ... the belief in the constitutive power of human action [praxis] and the belief that man was an end in himself and thus society must conform to the needs of man [consensus via. dialogue] .... 1) emphasis on individual will and decision ... 2) and communism as a society which conformed to the needs of man.... both anthropocentric" (Norman Levin Dialoguing within the Dialectic) He contended that since dialectical materialism (Traditional Marxism, which he related to the bourgeois) tied the dialectic to nature, and therefore became fixed and unchanging, then only historical materialism (Transformational Marxism), which tied the dialectic to society, making it transformable and changeable, was truly Marxist in nature, being grounded upon Marx's categorical imperative regarding nature i.e. change: "The philosophers have come up with many different views of the world, the objective however, is change." (Karl Marx Feuerbach Thesis #11) Have you heard the word "change" recently.
"The expression, We, the people, instead of the States of America." ". . . extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous." "Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain." "... our rights and privileges are endangered." (P. Henry) emphasis added [Every State constitution, except Hawaii's, recognized God as the source for their powers, by stating "people" instead of "States," God is circumvented. Dialectical powers, i.e. the illuminati, were at work and Patrick Henry knew it even back then, at least he understood the significance of words, something we do not know or don't seem to care to know today. "The instructions on how to defuse the bomb are on the label. Now, if only I knew how to read....."]
"In Escape from Freedom, Fromm offered the sado-masochistic character as the core of the authoritarian personality [the patriarchal paradigm]." "The antithesis of the ‘authoritarian' type was called ‘revolutionary [the heresiarchal paradigm; Marxism].'" "By The Authoritarian Personality ‘revolutionary' had changed to the ‘democratic.'" (Jay) emphasis added
"In fact, it is probably fair to say that Erich Fromm's Marx's Concept of Man introduced the young Marx to America and provided the dominant interpretation of this thinker for the students of the New Left [the democratic party]." "…Fromm gave the humanitarian, idealist, and romantic proponents of the New Left a Marx they could love." (Bronner)
The issue was not memorizing what Marx said (deductive reasoning) and then use force to make people quote him (rigid), but rather on how Marx was applied (praxis, i.e. of inductive reasoning put into practice). In this way Transformational Marxists were able to ensnare (deceive, re-educate, and enlist for their cause) traditional democratic Americans, all the time presenting themselves as enemies of Communism. In actuality they were enemies of the "hard line" communists, i.e. Traditional Marxists in Russia, Cuba, China, etc—who they correlated with nationalist, fascist, "fundamental religious extremists," "Constitutional Republicanism," anyone with elements of a top-down, patriarchal paradigm. For example: the Vietnam War was a battleground being fought over in America. It was actually a war between American Nationalism (patriots, Constitutional Republicanisms) and American Transformational Marxism (social-psychologists, i.e. liberals on our college and university campuses and in political offices across the nation and in the capital, many there since WWII). The American Transformational Marxists "assisting" American Nationalist in "winning" the war for the North Vietnamese Transformational Marxist. While for the traditionally minded American the war was lost, for American Transformational Marxists, the liberal democrats (the 'peoples' party), the war was 'won.' They made themselves appear as aiding in the preservation of our national identity while in praxis working (progressively gaining control over our government) to do the opposite (the Paris meetings were simply soviet styled meetings neutralizing any patriarchal outcome to the meeting). By fighting against "Communism" they were able to, with the help of the media and the education system, gain control of the American political scene, influencing and infiltrating (through the ballot box and appointments) not only our courts, but also the legislative and executive branches of government.
"An examination of the role of education in the revolutionary processes in Hitlerian Germany and Soviet Russia demonstrates that a new controlling group can use the educational system to advantage to bringing about the changes it desires. This illustrates the effectiveness of the educational system in indoctrinating the youth with a desire for the type of society wanted by those in control. . . . To do this they must persist in the maintenance of a new system long enough for controlling interests to be thoroughly indoctrinated in the new social system." (Brookover)
Many liberal politicians (Transformational Marxists) gave an appearance of being "family" friendly, promoting social programs for the home while in actuality they were developing programs which would do the very opposite i.e. placing heavier taxation upon the middle-upper class to weaken it's ability to grow i.e. breaking its back, while using the tax dollars to promote their anti-traditional family, pro-socialist programs. Through the use of the school system, heavily funded by taxes collected from citizens under duress, under the seduction of grants and the pressure of mandates by the growing socialist minded government, the classroom environment was changed into an "experiential chasm," to produce "change," not only in the students but also in the home and in the community (Cf. Kenneth Benne Human Relations in Curriculum Change). "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." "… Once uncertainty is created in the parent how best to prepare the child for the future, the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken. The state, by its very interference in the life of its citizens, must necessarily undermine a parental authority which it attempts to restore. Any non-family-based (dialectic) collectivity that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a democratizing (anti-patriarchal) impact on that relationship . . . any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy regardless of its intent." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society). Those who did not support an increase in taxation to assist "education" in its role to annihilate the traditional home (re-educate the next generation in the praxis of patricide and incest), were labeled as anti-education.
Those promoting the dialectical process were able to cloak themselves with the skin of the institution they infiltrated (like a wolf in sheep skin: Matthew 7:15). The dialectical process came into the classroom on the shirt tails of science and technology, disguising itself as a legitimate form of science. Apparently the warning by some in the scientific field were disregarded as irrelevant by those in the educational profession. "It has been pointed out that we are attempting to classify phenomena which could not be observed or manipulated in the same concrete form as the phenomena of such fields as the physical and biological sciences." "It was the view of the group that educational objectives stated in the behavior form have their counterparts in the behavior of individuals ... observe(able) and discrib(able) therefore classifi(able)." (Bloom, Book 1 Cognitive Domain, p. 5 suffix "-able" added for clarity) The paradigm being used to define the behavior, determines the criteria of observation, how it will be described and therefore how it is to be classified, i.e. spiritual over temporal, spiritual with temporal, temporal over spiritual, or just temporal, or dialectically all placed upon a continuum of "change," change being from the spiritual over the temporal to the temporal ( where the patriarchal paradigms upper, i.e. reasoning and action directed by the spiritual over the temporal, now becomes the heresiarchal paradigms lower, i.e. lower order thinker skills, i.e. faith in and obedience to higher authority, and where the patriarchal paradigms lower, i.e. reasoning and action grounded upon man's carnal nature, now becomes the heresiarchal paradigms upper, i.e. higher order thinker skills, i.e. faith in and obedience to the social cause)
While many of the words of the past system (the patriarchal paradigm) remained, their meanings changed. What words originally applied to rocks, plants, and animals now applied to man himself, thereby materializing him, i.e. making him at-one with the creation, negating a patriarchal creator (and the soul of man under his authority, i.e. a spiritual being replaced with a hu-man being, a being of the earth; behavior-science) from the educational experience of the instructors and students, directly affecting how they thought and therefore how they acted. The word education was no longer about "basics," (duality of right and wrong, above-below, spirit and flesh, creator and created, i.e. consistent even in the laws of nature, learning to do what is right and not to do what is wrong as defined by adults) but was now about "change." This change was all about overcoming the duality of right and wrong (negating of the belief-action dichotomy where belief, which conflicted with a person's natural behavior, was considered superior to a person's natural behavior), i.e. overcoming discrimination, i.e. overcoming an above-below way of thinking, both in the secular and the sacred realm: "The immediate task is to unmask human alienation in its secular form, now that it has been unmasked in the sacred form." Karl Marx MEGA I/1/1 "The only practically possible emancipation (emancipation from the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. 'the opiate of the people') is the unique theory which holds that man is the supreme being for man." (Marx, Critique)
This changing of society can only be done through synthesis i.e. basing all praxis (human behavior, i.e. behavior science) upon identifying, i.e. theorizing, what man has in common with the creation—common-ism, and acting upon that theory, treating it as though it were a proven fact: "Certainly the Taxonomy was unproven at the time it was developed and may well be ‘unprovable.'" (Bloom's Taxonomy: A Forty Year Retrospect) After forty years of applying the dialectical curriculum in the classroom, i.e. washing from the mind of the next generation the respect for parental authority, Bloom admits it was only an 'unproven' theory at the time it was brought into the classroom, and probably 'unprovable' in the end. As Kenneth Benne wrote in his book Human Relations in Curriculum Change, a book published in 1950 detailing the procedure for brainwashing and how to apply it not only in the classroom but in all social institutions (a book Phil Ring fittingly calls 'a cook book on humans'), "No hypothesis in this body of writings has been fully tested. Nor will it be tested fully until it has been used widely in thoughtful experimentation with actual social changes. The school offers an important potential laboratory for the development of a truly experimental social science. Experimentally minded school workers can develop and improve the hypotheses suggested in these readings as they put them to the test in planning and evaluating changes in the school program." (Benne)
"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 [If you are not interested in coming "unto the Father," then you must discover another Jesus; a user friendly, non-offensive, readily adaptable to change, dialectically minded, anti-patriarchal Jesus.]
"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:21-23
Thus, dialectically, truth is not found in any given state of completeness, i.e. in categorical imperatives which denounce and inhibit 'perpetual change,' i.e. truth is not found in its ready state, i.e. given and ridged. Marx believed: "Laws must not fetter human life; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities of the people change." (Marx, Critique). Nor is truth found in any person or being greater than the common human experience. Instead truth is the very experience of man seeking truth through the process of change itself, it is "a moment of correct praxis" (Gramsci). A German-American Marxist, Herbert Marcuse, explained it this way: "… the dialectical concept, in comprehending the given facts, transcends the given facts. This is the very token of its truth. It defines the historical possibilities, even necessities; but their realization can only be in the practice which responds to the theory, ...." (Herbert Marcuse One-Dimensional Man , p. 253)
As Hegel stated (rather heady at first but I think enough has been explained to make it understandable): "Philosophy is a free [impulsive; sensuous and spontaneous in contemplation] and not self-seeking activity [controlling action, possessive activity], … This activity contains the essential element of a negation, because to produce is also to destroy; … as Mind passes on from its natural form, it also proceeds from its exact code of morals and the robustness of life to reflection and conception [theory]. The result of this is that it lays hold of and troubles this real, substantial kind of existence, this morality and faith, and thus the period of destruction commences." "It may be said that Philosophy first commences when a race for the most part has left its concrete life, when separation and change of class have begun, and the people approach toward their fall; when a gulf has arisen between inward strivings [lust of the flesh for pleasure, i.e. want of a gratifying object] and external reality [established commands and laws which block the "moment"], and the old forms of Religion, &c., are no longer satisfying [right-wrong, good-evil thinking which resulting in alienation and wars demands a desire for change of this system of thinking]; when Mind manifests indifference to its living existence [despises its resignation to a state of lethargy, i.e. just going through the motions, lose of hope leads to loss of happiness, leads to lose of pleasure, leads to lose of mind (freedom to imagine), leads to lack of dopamine emancipation, therefore depression; passivity, i.e. low self-esteem ensues] or rests unsatisfied therein [it harbors resentment; dissatisfaction, i.e. potential aggression], and moral life becomes dissolved [the longing to obey disappears]." "Then it is that Mind takes refuge in the clear space of thought to create for itself a kingdom of thought in opposition to the world of actuality [day dreaming, imagination, and fantasy becomes a place to escape the real world of what is and creates a desire to enter into a new world order of what might be], and Philosophy is the reconciliation following upon the destruction of that real world which thought has begun [philosophy is the mind no longer set upon things above but rather the mind now set upon things below]." (Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philosophy Introduction B. Relation of Philosophy to Other Departments of Knowledge.) [information added for clarity.] Thus, it is within an exercise of collaborative philosophical discourse (theory liberated), i.e. within a facilitated meeting of a diverse group of people, dialoguing to consensus, over social issues, where consoli-dated theory (men's opinions united in consensus) is "changed" from just thought and put into action (it is not enough to think resentment toward restraining authority, act it out, i.e. praxis resentment toward restraining authority), "where truth is found." (Consensus: a room full of discontents birthing thought into action, praxis).
"One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group." (Yalom) As Martin Luther King Jr. stated it: "The philosopher Hegel said that truth is not found in the thesis nor the antithesis but in an emerging synthesis which reconciles the two." (King Jr. Strength to Love) Truth is therefore not found in God or his opposite, fixed in time and space, but rather is found in the act, i.e. in the process of evaluation, i.e. where philosophical thought transforms itself into action, praxis. While God evaluates from his nature (spiritual) and man evaluates from his nature (temporal) both praxis evaluation (see Blooms Taxonomy). And thus theoretically both can become one in the practice of evaluation. From this dialectical point of view both God and man can achieve unity in 'love' and in 'purpose,' creating justice, peace, and harmony in this world. The truth is, unless the heart is changed by God, and God alone, the heart remains unregenerate and the mind remains subject to the temporal."But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart." 1 Samuel 16:7
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9
"And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet. These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." 2 Peter 2:7-22
"That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." Mark 4:12 (see Mark 4:10-20 for full context of this verse.) A parable divides between those who have faith in God, i.e. set their mind on things above, and those who depend upon sight, i.e. set their mind on the things of this world."Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not: Fear ye not me? saith the LORD: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it? But this people hath a revolting and a rebellious heart; they are revolted and gone. Neither say they in their heart, Let us now fear the LORD our God, that giveth rain, both the former and the latter, in his season: he reserveth unto us the appointed weeks of the harvest. Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden good things from you. For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men. As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit: therefore they are become great, and waxen rich. They are waxen fat, they shine: yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless, yet they prosper; and the right of the needy do they not judge. Shall I not visit for these things? saith the LORD: shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this? A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?" Jeremiah 5:21-31
Therefore the theory, the idea (philosophy, i.e. seeking the perceived way out of the restraint of the temporal from the non-temporal, i.e. spiritual, correlated with the restraining laws of the past, laws which may have been proper yesterday but are improper today since times, i.e. conditions have changed and therefore "law abiding behavior," which ties a person to the past, must not be the agenda of behavior development), i.e. dissatisfaction toward the way things "are" (towards an unchang-ing "is," i.e. for example, dissatisfaction toward a parent or toward God—"I AM that I AM"—and his established commands), is necessary if the praxis of change is to be justified and realized, i.e. the theory can not be initiated and sustained by what "is" (and therefore what "is not"), but must be derived from what "ought to be" (like the woman's desire to "touch" the 'forbidden tree' in the Garden in Eden—Genesis 3:1-6), the internal dissatisfaction with what "is" and what "is not. The "ought," once liberated, automatically obscures the "not," i.e. the parent, i.e. the "is." The role of the parent can be recognized as long as it does 'not' inhibit the child's 'ought,' his feelings of resentment toward restraint, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, which must be drawn out by proper environmental conditions to be sustained, i.e. an environment tolerant of ambiguity. With the silencing of the parents "not," i.e. the 'ought' is recovered from the subconscious mind through the uninhibited freedom, now guaranteed, i.e. social encouragement to dialogue openly with oneself and with others. The 'ought' friendly environment must be gendered (prejudiced) against that which restrains and in favor of that which liberates, making possible the "can to," i.e. one's potential, i.e. the "I have a dream" syndrome, known scripturally as the "imagination of the heart." It is not that you ever arrive at the dreamed destination, it is that you joined with all mankind in the journey of creating and sus-taining the dream—the liberation of self from restraint and the controls which humble and deny the self from its desire for esteem, i.e. group esteem. In this way truth, along with mankind, is always becoming, "One is always in the process of becoming." (Ann Robinson quoting in Maslow, Management) Without the "ought" in both theory and practice (class consciousness: thinking upon the "ought" and the conditions which initiated it and suppressed it, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, as well as the conditions which can liberate it, i.e. the heresiarchal paradigm, putting that condition into practice) man is eternally bound to what "is," i.e. God and his will.
"The school can encourage students to reflect on the problem situations they encounter, to analyze these situations, to try to predict the consequences of several possible courses of action, to compare their thinking with what they actually did, and to note the consequences they experienced." Ralph W. Tyler, "Achievement Testing and Curriculum Construction," 1949 [Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book 1 Cognitive Domain was dedicated to Ralph Tyler]
"One of the primary functions of these [matter‑of‑fact] questions was to encourage the subject to talk freely. This was attempted by indicating, for example, that critical remarks about parents were perfectly in place, thus reducing defenses as well as feelings of guilt and anxiety." (Adorno) [Krathwohl, Bloom, Book 2 Affective Domain noted Theodor Adorno, a Marxist, as their Weltanschauung, i.e. world view or paradigm, p.166 fn.]
"What better way to help the patient recapture the past than to allow him to reexperience and reenact ancient feelings toward parents in his current relationship to the therapist? The therapist is the living personification of all parental images. Group therapists refuse to fill the traditional authority role: they do not lead in the ordinary manner, they do not provide answers and solutions, they urge the group to explore and to employ its own resources. The group [must] feel free to confront the therapist, who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation. He [the patient] reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role he once occupied. … the patient changes the past by reconstituting it." (Yalom)
In his book, On becoming a person, Carl Rogers defines the dialectical minded person, i.e. the 'truth' seeker, as one who is ever changing, as one who "... lives openly and freely in relation to others, guiding his behavior on the basis of his immediate experiencing – he has become an integrated process of changingness." "Life, at its best, is a flowing, changing process in which nothing is fixed." "The more that the client perceives the therapist as empathic, as having an unconditional regard for him, the more the client will move away from a static, fixed way of functioning, and the more he will move toward a fluid, changing way of functioning." "Consciousness, instead of being the watchman over a dangerous and unpredictable lot of impulses, becomes the comfortable inhabitant of a society of impulses and feelings and thoughts." "Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity, though such a process is indeed possible. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process." (Rogers).
According to Karl Marx every man must have "eyes that are human eyes and ears that are human ears" if they are to be dialectically in harmony with their true nature. "In the eyes of the dialectical process, nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred." Hegel stated it this way: "What truly is always true is that all is in flux, the truth-seeker ought properly to address himself to the study of this life process of truth seeking itself." (G. F. W. Hegel in Friedrich) Herbart Marcuse wrote: "According to Marx, the correct theory is the consciousness of a practice that aims at changing the world. Marx's concept of truth, however, is far from relativism. There is only one truth and one practice [praxis] capable of realizing it. Theory accompanies the practice at every moment, analyzing the changing situation and formulating its concepts accordingly [i.e. objective truth must always be subjectively based, i.e. situational, earthy]. The concrete conditions for realizing the truth may vary, but the truth remains the same and the theory remains its ultimate guardian. Theory will preserve the truth even if revolutionary practice deviates from its proper path. Practice follows the truth not vice versa" (Herbert Marcuse Reason and Revolution, pp. 321-322)
Revolutionary praxis must be rational, i.e. always questioning authority (the great refusal against everything in the present, i.e. things from the past, which are perceived as inhibiting the dreams of the future) with the intent of achieving emancipation from absolutes, (life must find its 'purpose' in the annihilation of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. in properly identifying, overcoming, and negating restraints to carnal life, freedom can only be achievable through the "negation of negation"—known as the synthesis of man's feelings, thoughts, and actions with his "true" nature), if praxis is to be real. Interestingly enough, the name for the national test for teachers is praxis. Not until it is done in the classroom, and then carried into the home and into the community, is it praxis.
"For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Romans 8:6, 7
Education and thus America was now "under new management." For example, Stephen Bronner wrote of the American Transformational Marxists, Erick Fromm (a member of a group of Marxists, the "Frankfurt School," who came to America in the 30's ): "…Fromm gave the humanitarian, idealist, and romantic proponents of the New Left a Marx they could love." (Bronner) The sequence of word changes, at least the meaning of words, is best explained by Martin Jay: "In Escape from Freedom, Fromm offered the sado-masochistic character as the core of the authoritarian personality [the traditional patriarchal family]." "The antithesis of the ‘authoritarian' type was called ‘revolutionary [Transformational Marxist pushing for the transformation heresiarchal family—same sex marriages].'" "By The Authoritarian Personality [a book written by the Transformational Marxist Theodor Adorno, a groundwork research project out of Berkley, California in 1950, the cornerstone for the development of Educational Curriculum used in all public schools, and most private schools today] ‘revolutionary' had changed to the ‘democratic.'" (Jay) [Democracy was taken over by the praxis of revolution (Marxist revolution, only this time with a smile and a "how do you feel," and "what do you think," so the participants would not be bothered by the killing of the innocent, i.e. those who got in the way of their feelings and thoughts and their dialectical pathway to pleasure: Note democratic minds always re-writes history to justify democracy, i.e. the tyranny of the masses).]
During the 50's the Democratic party came under the influence (control) of Transformational Marxists. Today they are one and the same. "Making the world safe for democracy," voiced by many (if not most) of our leaders is a Transformational Marxist agenda—the negation of the United States of America as a sovereign nation, thus negating protection for the traditional patriarchal home (I'm telling you there is not other reason). The message is the same no matter where you turn: "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests.... transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps..." (Irvin Laszlo A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order) Laszlo is "the man," whose "calculations" of global warming and the o-zone depletion, helped to shape or world politics today. " ... the central problem of democracy is not the discovery of some optimal solution or standard for ranking incommensurate values; ... The central problem of democracy is instead the formation of a somewhat vaguely defined ‘postconventional' consensus through which everyone affected by a decision must be able to participate in reaching it." (Bronner) The democratic, heresiarchal, dialectical praxis of "... everyone affected by a decision must be able to participate in reaching it" affectively destroys the patriarchal home with its office of authority, under God.
"‘Every renunciation ... becomes a ... conscience; every fresh abandonment of gratification increases its severity and intolerance ... every impulse of aggression which we omit to gratify is taken over by the super-ego and goes to heighten its aggressiveness (against the ego).' ‘That which began in relation to the father ends in relation to the community.'" (Sigmund Freud Civilization and Its Discontents, 1949, quoted by Herbert Marcuse)
Why the office of authority, under God, needs to be in control of power: why it must begin in the home.
Thus if you use the word power (instead of authority) in Romans 13:1-6, you must do everything the selfish (dialectical) ruler insists (Despot, Fascist, Communist, etc. walking after the flesh, the law of sin—not a problem for the wicked, but it always results in discrimination against the righteous, the believer; put another way, if the office of authority under God is replaced with the "equality" of power, viz. dialogue and consensus, then the patriarchal home is moribund, and selfishness—humanism—simply becomes a collective experience which everyone must participate in to be of worth). When those in "power" (if you use that word) go against God's word, go against your conscience, and go against the laws of nature (Romans 1:19-32, against the "inalienable rights of men"), you must obey (praxis the dialectical process). If you defy his (their) orders he can use his power, his sword, to make you suffer or to kill you. If you are under his power and suffer or die, you do so in confusion, you're conscience in conflict between man and God (where many "Christian" theologians found themselves in Fascist Germany, thinking God had betrayed man when in truth man had denied God the highest office of authority i.e. the question "Are you harboring a _whoever, whatever_ in your home?" should never be asked. If the question is asked you are in a tyrannical government system). The only way to overcome this confusion, confusion caused by the use of the word power instead of the word authority in Romans 13, is to join the tyrant in his tyranny, in supporting his power, his praxis of tyranny against God's order, redefining God to limit God's power so that man's power can be at one with his (synchronization, sacred-secular partnership), or else reject God. In any case faith in God is replaced with faith in man, and you are therefore, according to the word of God himself, cursed.
But if you use the word authority instead of the word power, in Romans 13:1-6, you do not, in clear conscience, have to obey the ruler when he goes against God's word, your conscience, and the laws of nature (he himself is, like you, under civil law, common law, under God). He may use his power to punish or kill you, for not helping him build the "good" society (the world of his dreams), but you nevertheless suffer or die with a clear conscience before God and man (although man may not want to recognize it), you live and die unconfused, knowing right from wrong. Civil disobedience is not built upon respect for authority but upon the use of power against authority i.e. the power of the press, the power of education, the power of government—the power of taxation to support anti-traditional family socialist programs etc. to destroy the office of authority of the home.
The first encounter you had with this office of authority (an office of authority granted to you by God), was as a child under the authority of parents (an office of authority granted to them by God). To usurp that office of authority, in an effort to remove the one(s) practicing tyranny in that office of authority, simply allows the power of "the flesh, the law of sin" to rule in place of that office of authority, now not under God, but under the will of man. When this is done (even for "good") the child's liberty, the citizen's liberty (liberty from "the law of the flesh") is overthrown (annihilated). Tyranny then rules under the banner of liberation (liberty to "walk after the flesh"). Thus tyranny can be practiced even in Jesus name, as is done in liberation theology. Liberation Theology has even invited itself into the home school movement and has been accepted. See my article A Warning Regarding the Home School Movement.
The parents' responsibility in the office of authority:
If parents neglect their responsibility of office, the development of the office of authority in their children, they are in essence preparing their children to become tyrants as well as supporters of tyranny (it might be because the parents are tyrants themselves—selfish, using the office of authority for their own selfish pleasure—this describes most of the American culture today). The universal responsibility of the traditional home (the patriarchal home) is to chase down and thwart the tyranny of their children (chastening them when necessary), until they learn to discipline and control their own "selves" i.e. they develop a strong, clear conscience ("Until you learn to control your flesh, I will have to control it for you."). This is also done in the home in order to squelch their participation with the "tyranny of the masses," (Democracy) in the future, as well as to prepare them to take a stand and fight against tyranny. The patriarchal home is a place to train up the next generation to be self-controlled, self-governed, under God, preparing a citizenry to be ruled under law (Liberty in Law) and not willingly accept being governed by the power of men, the power of the flesh, for selfish gain. The agenda of change agents is to undo the effects of the patriarchal home upon the next generation. The key to their success was to define what they saw as the conditions which generated "social ills," and then pre-determine the methods necessary in removing them, all done in a language which the parents and citizens would not be able to readily understand (if they did, they would not have participated). Example:
"Through the repression of needs and wishes, it translates this constraint into a compulsion of internal nature, in other words into the constraint of social norms. That is why the relative destruction of the moral relation can be measured only by the difference between the actual degree of institutionally demanded repression and the degree of repression that is necessary at a given level of the forces of production. This difference is a measure of objectively superfluous domination. It is those who establish such domination and defend positions of power of this sort who set in motion the causality of fate, divide society into social classes, suppress justified interests, call forth the reactions of suppressed life, and finally experience their just fate in revolution." (Jürgen Habermas Knowledge & Human Interest, 1968, publ. Polity Press, 1987. Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social)
The dialectical game plan is to liberate the power in every man (equality of opportunity—empowerment) so all can freely participate in the universality of the law of sin, experience the liberation of their "needs and wishes" ("walking after the flesh" ) from "objectively superfluous domination" (parental office of authority under God), i.e. to experience the liberation of Eros—"Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world," "Eros is the foundation of morality." (Brown) " ... Eros belongs mainly to democracy." (Adorno). Dialectical logic goes like this, "If everyone gets a piece of the action (Eros), including yourself and me, and no one is 'hurt' (whatever that means), then 'I'm OK, your OK.'" This is why it is called the "tyranny of the masses." Consensus (unity in Eros), with Eros as its outcome. Consensus is, in the end, tyranny against the citizen who does that which is right before God, it is the persecution of the righteous—the praxis of vendetta upon those who "divide society into social classes" (i.e. who think and enforce above-below, parent-child, God-man, Creator-created, "in-group, out-group," right-wrong, good-evil, saved-lost, and so forth upon others), who suppress "justified interests" (i.e. who restrain carnal desires and any inquiry to satisfy them), and who suppress a "holistic life" (i.e. who establish conditions which limit human nature from being self-actualized). The "who" is God and the traditional home environment, both giving commands to those under authority, commands to be obeyed, and when they are disobeyed, chastening follows. If there is no right or wrong there is no right to chasten, and without chastening there is no right or wrong. To chasten if there is no right or wrong is sadistic, to accept chastening when there is no right or wrong is masochistic. So, as dialectical logic goes, since there is no right or wrong, there should be no home environment which chastens. Thus power in man, who is neither good or evil (the environment he is raised in determines that), must therefore rule out any authority which declares itself higher than man's nature. (A man will be judged in the future based upon the environment he associated with.)
"Who can deliver me from the body of this death?" (Romans 7:24)
The problem though, is never in the office of authority, it is in the heart of the person in the office of authority, 1) using the office of authority in the wrong way (with a heresiarchal paradigm—humanism), and 2) using the office of authority for the wrong cause (worshiping the creation, loving the pleasures of this life, and seeking the praises of men). There are those who want a world controlled by "creative," worldly powers, who reject God's order (an order which restrains the laws of the flesh, an order which condemns humanism, an order which knows that all knees will bow before him, an order which knows all men's thoughts and actions—theory and practice—leaders included, an order of God's authority, who will weigh man by His standards alone). There are men who seek after a new world order, an order which liberates the laws of the flesh, an order which promotes continuous "change," an order which demands all men bow their knees before it and be measured by its humanistic standards, an order whose banner reads, "If it feels good, just do it." (Marcuse), that is unless it gets in the way of the order or is not in harmony with the order. Life in Jesus Christ means deliverance from "the body of this death," through life in him, while life in the world means the dead are simply walking for a time (God is patient i.e. not tolerant—no law of nature, established by God, is ever tolerant), having in that time an opportunity to choose life in Christ Jesus, yet, unless they repent of their sins, they are, but for only a short time, walking in "the body of this death" on their way to eternal death.
Note: regarding the quotation above, by the Marxist, Jürgen Habermas. He understood how much "potential" a person, or group, or community had to have to move them in the direction of "revolution" i.e. the amount of latent synergy available to overthrow the office of authority under God. By measuring the distance between the "repression of needs and wishes" (the "ought to" feeling of dissatisfaction against the "old" parental authority, feelings, in their children and in themselves, which the parents are required to keep under control if they are to maintain their authority in the home, under God) and the "institutional repression" ("social norms" which the parents tolerate within the home, for themselves and with other siblings, and which they tolerate with their associations within the community), he is able to know how much effort is required to liberate a child from the office of authority (foment and actualize revolution in the home in order to make social change possible i.e. to satisfy the child's "internal nature"). The major concern is, if the child's "internal nature" is not tied to social cause, the child will simply rebel against authority and remain maladjusted (out there in space and time, on his own, adrift, with not social "purpose"). Erick Fromm expressed this same concern: "Man is free from all ties binding him to spiritual authorities (patriarchal authority paradigm of Above-below, Creator-created, Parent-child, Boss-worker, etc.), but this very freedom leaves him alone and anxious, overwhelms him with a feeling of his own individual insignificance and powerlessness." (Fromm) In the main textbook for teacher certification we find the following statement in a footnote: "Often this ["Weltanschauung," globalist worldview] is too challenging a goal for the individual to achieve on his own, and the net effect is either maladjustment or the embracing of a philosophy of life developed by others [i.e. understood as Fascism]. Cf. Erich Fromm, 1941; T. W. Adorno et al., 1950" (Krathwohl, Bloom, Book 2 Affective Domain p. 166 bracketed information added) By this method, a counselor, a teacher (See Blooms Taxonomies), etc. can determine the potential for change which is available, the amount of willingness the person has to sacrifice for the cause (the willingness for revolution, for change, within the child; the amount of pent up hostility against restraint, associated with the office of authority), and the willingness to redirect his interests to that of social causes (without this willingness, all that is left is a life of confusion or a life controlled by the rigidity of the "conscience," blindly following someone else's orders, i.e. Fascism). If it is determined that sufficient "forces of production" are present (enough dissatisfaction is present so that it can be utilized against the office of authority), they can be utilized for the social cause of "change," overthrowing the "old" world order i.e. the office of authority under God, and replacing it with the new order, under the power of man (the true meaning of "stakeholder" is helping to stabilize the main support of the cross of a "fundamentalist," unfeeling, antisocial, prejudiced, divisive, unadaptable to change, negative, out of date, ...., believer, as you make him a witness for his faith: witness means martyr, i.e. "taking it to" the "fundamentalist").
Therefore, when "fundamentalism," which teaches that man is not good in himself, and therefore needs redemption and direction from above, is replaced with the concept that man is basically good, or at least neither bad nor good, that he is only a product of the environment he was brought up in, i.e. the paradigm he was raised under being either good or bad (the patriarchal paradigm understood as being bad), the following dialectical logic then follows: "because good citizens ought to be thoughtful and deliberative ones, public schools can legitimately turn down requests by fundamentalist parents not to have their children exposed to literature they consider irreligious or immoral. (Macedo goes further and suggests that liberal democracies ought to prevent fundamentalist parents from enrolling their children in private schools that teach from a fundamentalist perspective.) There is, in this tradition, a strong affirmation of a common morality, one rooted in the Enlightenment and then applied in the United States through our commitments to liberal democracy." Alan Wolfe, Religious Diversity and the Common Cause, http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/research/rapl/seminar2005/ "The ideas of the Enlightenment taught man that he could trust his own reason as a guide to establishing valid ethical norms and that he could rely on himself, needing neither revelation nor that authority of the church in order to know good and evil." (Bronner)]
Re-read Romans 13:1- 6 with the word authority inserting in the place of power, and see if it clears up any confusion:
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher authority. For there is no authority but of God: the authorities that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the authority, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the authority? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenge to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing." (Romans 13:1-6) emphasis added, the word authority used instead of power.
For a detailed explanation of Romans 13:1-6, listen to these exceptional audio presentations by James Borchert; part 1, part 2, part 3 (if they do not play automatically, save them to your computer—right clicking your cursor over hyperlinks above, "save as target," and then play them later from your file).
The following scriptures define the responsibilities of those in, and under, the office of authority in the church (the true church), all under God. These responsibilities can not be practiced in the apostate (dialectical) church. They can only be given lip service to, to deceive the ignorant. The very act (praxis) of comparing God's word (finding common ground) with any other work on the face of the earth is a praxis of apostasy, done for the purpose of deceit. It is a praxis of bringing man up to heaven (to bring heaven down to earth) so that he can weigh heaven's word with his wisdom. Dialectical "wisdom" is apostasy in the church, a wolf in sheep skin. You can only get rid of the wolf by going back to the word of God, as Jesus did in the wilderness, accepting it (Him) as "Is," "I Am, that I Am!"
"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." (Hebrews 13:7)
"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop [minister or Shepard], he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
"Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 3:1-13)
By the use of the dialectical process, man attempts to circumvent the office of authority under God, hoping thereby to annihilate it.
In the article Civil Disobedience And Its Side Effects (which this article was originally an introduction of) I explain how tyranny (the dialectical process) plays a key role in the practice (praxis) of civil disobedience (when it is used to treat the office of authority itself with contempt, i.e. as irrelevant, in our so called "changing times"). In it, I show that in the undercurrent of the dialectical process, a process manifested in civil disobedience, lies a schema to annihilate the traditional home system (a patriarchal paradigm of authority), done so that certain men (or mankind himself) can usurp the office of authority (under God) and use it for their own personal gain (under the banner of "Christian humanism" so that man can bring heaven down to earth—"God can not do it without you." "If the Church is lead by the Holy Spirit, it is lead by no one," statements I have heard taught in seminary), so that he can overcome disparity between his mind and his flesh, able to esteem himself as equal with God, as Lucifer stated "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." Isaiah 14:14). Most of this article has been about the correlation between the breakdown of the traditional home and the use of civil disobedience (disrespect for authority, in the name of social change), to overcome the conditions of men's hearts subject to higher authority. The husband is the head of the home—if you like the book of Esther it is all about the wife being subject to her husband, not about "women's rights," i.e. "Unto the woman he said, ... thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Genesis 3:16, and the children are to obey their parents, in the Lord, i.e. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." (Ephesians 6:1-4)
It is not about "you," or about "me," individuals. Neither is it about "us," the collective, i.e. the fellowship, the brotherhood, the church, the team, the group, interpersonal relationships, social harmony, etc., etc., etc. It is about the Heavenly Father, our Heavenly Father who sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins, to redeem us from eternal death, our Heavenly Father who raised His Son from Hell and the grave that we might have eternal life, and our Heavenly Father who through His Son sent His Holy Spirit to dwell within us, to teach and guide us so that we, i.e. you and I, can be a witness to one another and to the world of His Love (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-15). This is all patriarchal in paradigm. If what is being presented is not patriarchal in paradigm, it is not the gospel. The gospel is not from, nor is it for the world's "purpose" below, but is from God's love and for God's pleasure above, all of it.
Civil disobedience leads to the destruction of the sovereignty of the home, the church, and a nation and the usurpation of its citizen's "inalienable rights." All this is done through the destruction of the office of authority found in the traditional home structure, under God. By focusing on the conditions and standards of man (making mankind, i.e. his feelings and thoughts the starting point for discovering truth), in his dialectical "effort" to annihilate discrimination and prejudice below, i.e. "overcome" discrimination between races, gender, etc. man must initiate and sustain prejudice, i.e. develop a bias in favor of that which we have in common below, i.e. the flesh nature of man to be sensuous and spontaneous, and a bias against anything which inhibits natural inquiry into nature, preventing unity with it below, i.e. faith in God and his Word which inhibits sensuousness and spontaneity, according to the dialectical process we must turn away from, i.e. annihilate, the condition and standards which are given by God above. By placing our faith in God and His Word we discriminate (contrasting) between those things which are from above (spirit) and those things which are below (flesh), becoming prejudiced, i.e. biased in favor of He who is above, i.e. God, and biased against those things which are below, i.e. the flesh nature of man, thereby knowing the difference between right and wrong. "Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;" 2 Peter 2:11 "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." Galatians 5:16-18 [The Spirit will not lead you counter the law. "Have to," under the law, is replaced with "Want to" in the spirit, unpretentiously doing that which is of the law.]
Dialectical agape is Eros disguised as agape, i.e. redefined as brotherly love for the common cause, starting with the premise that man is basically good, i.e. "seeing the good in each person," i.e. seeing god in each person.
"And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God." Luke 18:13
"If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." John 15:19 "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." "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous." 1 John 2:15; 4:10; 5:2,3 "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love." John 15:10 "For if ye love them which love you, what thanks have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful." Luke 6:32-36
The following quotations, from a Seay (covered in my article Civil Disobedience and its Side Effects), serve as an example of the dialectical process at work, tying agape to the agenda of human relationship building, i.e. "turning enemies into friends," voiding, i.e. negating the commandments of God, i.e. as manifested in the praxis of disobedient to civil authority. Quotations from this paper follow, with my comments inserted within brackets. "All epochs and arenas are in, of, and for persons. They have one purpose – rational love, logos and agape. History is essentially one, at all times, in all arenas. There is no superhistory [In other words, there is no God above determining and directing history]. There are simply different stages, phases; aspects of one history. Faith in that spiritual unity [faith in mankind uniting upon a common cause] that underlies all history provides rational insight to the mind and imparts integrity to character." (Edgar S. Brightman "A Personalistic Philosophy of History," Journal of Bible and Religion)
"Martin Luther King Jr. dismisses eros (romantic love) and philia (reciprocal love) as unsuitable foundations for meeting the challenges of the new age."
But as you will see he realigns agape back into social praxis, based it upon the false premise that man is basically "good," i.e. promoting human "dignity," negating that true love can only emanate from God, that all of man's love, call it agape if you want, is altruistic at best, tied to what man can get out of life, even for the cause of others, intellectually recognizing God's love and trying to imitate it is not the same thing as abiding in it via his Holy Spirit. MLK jr's agape is not the same as Christ's agape. "Agape means ... understanding redeeming goodwill for all men ... because God loves you." "With this type of love and understanding goodwill we will be able to stand amid the radiant glow of the new age with dignity and discipline." (King Jr. "Facing the Challenge of a New Age," Papers, 3, 459. cf. Strength To Love, 52.) "King in his sermon, 'On Being a Good Neighbor,' describes genuine agape as manifesting excessive altruism.... to go 'far beyond the call of duty.'" "He argues that agape uniquely qualifies as the love that will bring about the necessary change in humanity and society." "Love sees the good in each person and refuses to defeat an enemy but to transform him/her into a friend." (King Jr. Strength To Love, 52) "The most significant aspect of King's insistence on agape is its transforming power in human lives, not only of those who love but also on the loved, and, by extension, the transformation of the society. He noted it is agape, not the methods of the nascent Civil Rights Movement such as boycotts and marches, that was the underlining means of transformation. Through love those involved in the Civil Rights Movement would be able to bring about reconciliation, redemption, and the Beloved Community by turning enemies into friends." (King Jr. "Facing the Challenges of a New Age," Papers, 3: 458-459) "love, when 'properly understood and practiced enabled persons and groups to recognize their dignity and shun acquiescence in their own oppression.'" (Williams) "love and justice are to be viewed in a dialectical manner." (King Jr., Dissertation, Papers, 2: 439-440. Cf Tillich, observes that "the ontology of love gives the answer. If justice is the form of the reunion of the separated, it must include both the separation without which there is no love and the reunion in which love is actualized." – Love, Power, and Justice, 62) "Justice is really love in calculation. Justice is love correcting that which revolts against love." (Delba Winthrop, "Aristotle and Theories of Justice," The American Political Science Review, 72: 4 (December 1978), 1204-1205.) "…absolute justice for the Negro simply means, in the Aristotelian sense, that the Negro must have ‘his due.'" (King Jr. Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?) "...agape gives the injured person the capacity to forgive. It does not ignore or obviate the injury. However, it does not allow it to remain a barrier to the creation of a new constructive relationship. Love is crucial to breaking down the barriers that separate persons, communities, and nations. King, reflecting Tillich, asserts that: 'Forgiveness means reconciliation, a coming together again.'" ( Strength To Love, 50-51. Tillich in Love, Power, and Justice, argues that, "Love is the drive for reunion of the separated." p. 69.) [Repentance and conversion is a key part of the forgiveness of sin, without it there remains a barrier between God and man. To move this message of love and forgiveness to man alone (even occasionally), omitting repentance and conversion before God, God being the first cause, is the deceit of the dialectical process. "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him." Luke 17:3, 4 "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained;" Acts 3:19; 19:30, 31
The dialectical "logic" goes like this, since god (the universal nature of man seeking belongingness) is the god of order (the order which comes from human togetherness), then order, as in the New World Order, requires the annihilation of the order of a patriarchal God (the order which produces social chaos, the order which divides man from himself and from others, i.e. persecution, martyrdom, etc. in Jesus Name, i.e. not in social cause name). This way of thinking starts with the humanistic premise that man is basically good. Since God is good, and man is good, then man is like god, or god is like man, or they are both one. Therefore the brotherhood of mankind is made possible through the reunion of man through love, i.e. "agape," (by dialectical reasoning, this means, recognizing "the good in each person") through his efforts to remove the "barriers to the creation of a new constructive relationship" and through the practice of "forgiveness," both taking precedence over Christ's obedience to His Heavenly Father (obedience to His Heavenly Father even to death by the hands of men, something he expects us to do as well, only possible through him, by His Spirit, i.e. not the spirit of social cause, even for 'good'). This definition of man and agape, effectively removes that which restrains the heresiarchal paradigm, i.e. the patriarchal paradigm, by accepting man for who he is, as good, then helping him to discover what he "can be" is something God's word never declares.
God is patient, but he does not tolerate unrighteousness and the spirit of rebellion. "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us–ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless." 2 Peter 3:9, 23, 24 "Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love him, because he first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also." 1 John 4:17-21 How then can you hate God, reject him as your creator and sustainer, as Paul Tillich did, and say you love your brother? Your love would only be "what you can get out of the relationship you have with him."
Jesus did not negate the patriarchal paradigm in his call for us to love one another, he changes our hearts to love one another by accepting the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. restoring us to right relationship with his Heavenly Father and thereby to one another in His love, by the Holy Spirit. God's love toward us, without our repentance before him, avails nothing. Apart from our repentance before him, our repentance between one another avails nothing, eternally that is. "Change in humanity and society," a temporary thing, can only take place in the changing of mans heart before a Holy, Pure, Righteous, yet Wrathful God, a God who has mercy and grace toward those who humble themselves before him and are converted, and not through the social actions of mankind "changing" his paradigm, placing his hope in uniting himself around the cause of human justice and peace. "For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us [Gentile and Jew, i.e. what is seen by man as a race issue between men, is really a sin issue before God, reconciliation is therefore not based upon the negation of his law, i.e. to unite cultures into one global culture below, i.e. "humanity and society," but the fulfillment of the law in Christ, uniting repentant men "through him ... by one Spirit unto the Father" who is above, which affects and changes the world below]; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father." Ephesians 2:14-18
God's law was not given to a nation to declare it righteous but was given to a nation to declare all men wicked, i.e. born into sin. It is He who came from that nation, sent by His Heavenly Father, that righteousness is imputed unto all mankind, unto all mankind who believe upon Him. That people began as a patriarchal people formed by a patriarchal Father, Abraham, formed first by faith, and then under Moses it became a nation, not righteous in itself, but under the law. But it rejected its patriarchal God (became righteous in its own eyes, going after the things of the world, it rejected both faith and the law) and thus rejected its patriarchal messiah (the righteous one; who by his faith in and obedience to the Father fulfilled the law). (Some seek to go back under the law for nationalistic reasons thus negating the work of Christ in fulfilling the law. Thinking they are restoring themselves to a patriarchal God, they are in fact following after a heresiarchal paradigm, using dialectical reasoning in their rejection of the work of Christ on the Cross.) "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Luke 5:32 Jesus the Christ lived, died, and rose again to bring all people who believe upon Him, both Jew and Gentile, to His patriarchal Father (not together for a socialist cause here on this earth, even when done in His name).
People think the Berlin wall came down because Communism was defeated. The truth is, it came down because Communism succeeded. Traditional Communism, i.e. Traditional Marxism, i.e. dialectical materialism, which used bullets and blood (which needed walls to shoot people at), was simply swallowed up by Transformational Communism, i.e. Transformation Marxism, i.e. historical materialism, which uses socio-psychology to tear walls down, annihilating the patriarchal paradigm through dialogue and consensus, negating inalienable rights, sovereignty, limited government, states rights, absolutes, private business, traditional home, etc. If you worry about us becoming a Communist nation, you need to stop worrying. We are a Communist 'nation.'
"That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic can not stand." "The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least can not stand." "The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews can not stand. These haled walls we must tear down" (Obama in Berlin, July? 2008.)
"We are demonstrating that free nations can make common cause on behalf of our common security." "We need more resources and authority." "We need real and immediate consequences." "Some will break the rules, but that is why we need a structure in place that ensures that when any nation does, they will face consequences." "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together .... Now is the time for a strong international response. ... the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons. And all nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime." (Obama in Prague Sunday, April 5, 2009)
"So let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on." (Part of Obama's speech while receiving the Nobel Peace prize, December 12, 2009) emphasis added (Notice the Gnostic, i.e. Gaia, connotation and the correlation of patriotism to civil disobedience.)
The twisted minds of dialectical thinkers project into the world a god who is becoming, becoming as man comes together, uniting on the common cause of "seeing the good in each person," i.e. seeing the god in each person (the basis of Gnostic, cabalistic, Pantheistic theology transformed into its secular form of democracy, socialism, communism, globalism, democratization, conscietization, etc.), uniting in the social action of "breaking down the barriers that separate persons, communities, and nations." (See Obama's speeches for an example of this process—portions of which is above, now being put into practice, a one minute excerpt)
Since, according to the dialectical way of thinking, God, who is from above, is the source of alienation (making walls), i.e. His law (unchanging) judges human nature as evil, thereby His law disconnects man from his own potential, that of discovering and uniting upon his own "goodness," God, defining man instead, according to His law, as wicked, as reprobate, (this is the starting point for repentance and forgiveness; "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." Titus 1:16), then the God above must be replaced with, i.e. redefined by the god below. By placing hope in the "goodness" of mankind below, through the development of a dialectical "agape," it is (foolishly) hoped that a new world order "can be" realized. In this way, the hope of salvation has been removed from the praxis of seeking God who is above, through his work on the Cross for our sins, to the praxis of seeking the god who is below, through the collective experience of mankind working for the common cause of world peace, i.e. seeing and actualizing "the good in each person" (praxis). Recognizing "the god in each person" is where deceit begins. It is what keeps the dialectical process going ("I am good and I deserve"). In this way Eros and agape become one. When you synthesize that which God and man have in common, i.e. their "goodness and love," and negate what which divides them, i.e. the God above demanding "His way," at the expense of man's carnal feelings and thoughts below, you have the dialectical god, i.e. mankind, i.e. god and his kingdom becoming.
"Success depends not upon complete absence of prejudice, but upon beneficial prejudices. The problem is one of determining what is 'beneficial prejudice' in any given instance." David Krathwohl "The Myth of Value-Free Evaluation and Evaluator as Negotiations Facilitator-Fact Finder"
Although I have already expanded the dialectical process to what might appear beyond the issue of civil disobedience, in truth I have not. There is a connectedness to all the events of world history and the dialectical process and civil disobedience. There is, hidden within the process, a depravity, the dialectical shadow, which draws all who walk down the dialectical corridor eventually to its door. Those who stand at that door called "abomination" "... insist on maintaining that the homosexual cannot and must not be seen as a separate problem, and that the liberation of the homosexual must not be seen as the egoistic demand of a minority. Homosexuality is just a particular form, a variation, of sexuality and must be considered in the broadest context." "The prejudice with which this mode of behaviour is besmirched derives, in large part, from patriarchal society's depreciation of femininity, considered as 'inferior'. Seen in this way, the cause of the homosexual is the cause of woman." (Daniel Guérin ‘La répression de l'homosexualité en France', p.1.) This praxis is an abomination before God: Romans Chapter 1:16-32.
It is not how far down the dialectical corridor you have walked, the first step is just as wicked as the last, it is the fact that you are walking down it in the first place, that is what judges you. [Liberals are like ostriches with their heads in the sand, chanting to themselves, "there is no God, there is no God, there is no God," in the hope that there is no God, or, if there is, they have to redefine him (dialectically) so that he can be at least on their side. Everyone has to be walking down their corridor, including God, to actualize relevance.] What they can not comprehend is that relevance, in the end, is not determined by them. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; " Romans 3:23 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." 2 Corinthians 5:10 In the end there is only one word which distinguishes the difference between the two paradigms—hell (Luke 16:19-30). Without it there is only heaven, even on earth. The dialectically minded refuses to comprehend hell because they can not accept any condition which does not "change." They can not accept the truth that hell is permanent; "between us and you there is a great gulf fixed." Luke 16:26 Therefore, enjoying the pleasures of this life, they take all the souls they can with them, down the dialectical corridor, on their way there.
"Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. (Colossians 3:5-7)
Sinning in Unity: finding consensus around "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
The dialectical process can not exist without deviancy (sin). Its banner reads "Deviancy in unity." As noted by those who spent their lives in understanding and promoting the ideology of Sigmund Freud, sinning was the answer to a life under the control of a patriarchal God. "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" (Mike Connor quoting Brown. From the March 23-30, 2005 issue of Metro Santa Cruz) "... the ‘original sin' must be committed again: ‘We must again eat from the tree of knowledge ...." (Marcuse) Psychology is finding and relating with that which all humans have in common, that which proceeds from nature, "the flesh the law of sin." No man can be redeemed from "the flesh the law of sin," and its grasp upon his life (no one can be delivered "from the body of this death") apart from Christ Jesus. "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) Though some may use his name and speak of his salvation, without declaring openly, and often, the wickedness of man's heart before a Holy and Pure God, as revealed by his Law, i.e. the law given by the Father, the law which the Son fulfilled, the law which the Holy Spirit fills our heart with, man can not know his need for a savior. He can not be known of Christ. The hedge of protection around the "sheepfold" is the law of God. It kills all who attempt to climb over wanting the peace and joy which only God can give. The scribes and Pharisees loved serving in Moses seat, they loved the respect of men, but they hated the law of God. It exposed their wickedness. In their dialectical "righteousness" they humanized it, making it of non-effect. Therefore Jesus declared that they not only hated the law, they also hated His Father who give it. He gave it so that man might know of ensuing judgment and look for Him, the savior, the messiah. Thereby, by hating the law they hated the Father and they therefore hated the Son of God. Jesus is the "door into the sheepfold," getting us through the wall of death and into the garden of life, He is the way, the truth and life. Apart from Him their is no way, no truth, and no life, only a semblance, a "seems to be." "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." (John 10:1)
The issue of Life is then, which road are you on, the one which leads to (and is) death, or the one which leads to (and is) life. "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:13, 14) Psychology and sociology can not be at one with Christ, for they are both based upon the fallen nature of man (dialectical). They are thieves and robbers leading man through the wide gate and down the broad way. There is no such thing as a Christian psychologist (there are no Ten Commandments under God's authority in psychology 101, only the "ought's" of carnal rebellion, only the "want of the gratifying object," against them and the giver of them, i.e. our Heavenly Father). In the end it is all about the Father and his law, his Son's obedience to him and them, and the work of His Holy Spirit, and you (If you are not redeemed by the blood of the lamb, "the wrath of God cometh upon" you because of your dialectical praxis against his law, i.e. your sin). "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." (John 14:6). God is not dialectical. Man, justifying himself, deifying his own nature, is.
"The entry into Freud cannot avoid being a plunge into a strange world and a strange language—a world of sick men, ....It is a shattering experience for anyone seriously committed to the Western traditions of morality and rationality to take a steadfast, unflinching look at what Freud has to say." "Our real choice is between holy and unholy madness: open your eyes and look around you—madness is in the saddle anyhow." "It is possible to be mad and to be unblest, but it is not possible to get the blessing without the madness; it is not possible to get the illuminations without the derangement," "I wagered my intellectual life on the idea of finding in Freud what was missing in Marx." (Mike Connor quoting Brown. From the March 23-30, 2005 issue of Metro Santa Cruz) about his book Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
It's all about paradigms (ways of thinking). Man's ways of thinking are dialectical (changing and uncertain—earthy, temporal, heresiarchal, based upon changing feelings and thoughts), God's ways are didactic (unchanging and certain—spiritual, eternal, patriarchal, based upon his word, established forever). Though the dialectical paradigm "seemeth to be right unto man," seems to lead to "life," it's outcome (its "logical outgrowth") is always death. God's paradigm tells man that he must die, die to his "self" life, deny his earthiness (psychology), be willing to be rejected of all men (sociology), and follow him, if he is to find (have) life. "And [Jesus] said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." Luke 9:23 The dialectical "life," (even using the name of Jesus), leads to death, the patriarchal life, in Christ Jesus, leads to life. The former seeks to change society for the "better," but it can not (because it can not change the heart of man), the latter changes the heart of man, which can assist in initiating and sustaining a "civil society" under God's authority;
"The dialectical method was overthrown―the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole." Lukacs).
Both secular and sacred are under God's authority, the former has authority and power over the body—temporal; the latter has authority and power over the soul—eternal. The two can not go into partnership (secular, since it is flesh and therefore can never be purely patriarchal, only restrained by the patriarchal citizen under God, can never go into partnership with the sacred, since it is spiritual and is purely patriarchal under God). If they do, as recorded throughout history, the religious will always use the power of the sword for its cause (for the respect of men) and the secular will corrupt the religious for its cause (seeking freedom from Godly restraints)—the church will become a harlot and the state will become a beast. This is why judgment always begins at the house of God, because its adultery (whoredom) with the world empowers the beast. The antichrist can not rule without the apostate (social-psychology based) church, helping "the parts.... find their definition within the whole."
"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." (James 4:4)
Choice:
The amazing thing is, that God is actually the only one who can give you a choice. Only with God do you have a choice. In the dialectic, which talks about "choice," there is no choice, the outcome has already been chosen for you (like being on the Titanic, you can choose any chair you want to sit on, any cabin you want to sleep in), it all ends up in the same place. If in the end, it is only God who gives you a choice (change from below to above), and the world says its on the side of choice (change along a continuum of below), then why is the world so hostile against God? Because God's paradigm of change is the choice between life and death—spiritual vs. flesh. We are all born into the flesh, we have no choice to be alive in spirit, without God. Without God we can not be born again ("Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." John 3:3-6). Without God, we can not be born of the spirit (life is spiritual, which can never be in common, in agreement with the flesh, since it does not proceed from the flesh; "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." Romans 8:10).
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)
"For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:" (Matthew 15:19)
"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." (Mark 7:21-23)
Man's paradigm of change can only give a choice of death—a "body of death," of flesh, calling it "lifestyles" and worldviews i.e. "degrees" of wickedness and depravity. Not even man's compassionate heart counts for life (Communism is built upon the heart of man; "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." (Karl Marx Selected writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy). emphasis added Religion, according to the dialectical process is when man places his hope in a non-human entity and thereby "oppresses" his own human nature, "represses" his love for this world, i.e. social affections, "dominates" his life with those things which keep him from knowing his own identity, potential, and "purpose" in life. Thus, according to the process, belief in and obedience to a patriarchal God is the same as being on a drug, you are unable to identify what is reality and live accord to it. "For the dialectical method the central problem is to change reality. Reality with its ‘obedience to laws' [which are] impenetrable, fatalistic and immutable." Without a change in reality, i.e. a change in the perception of it, reality can not be changed. "... the bourgeoisie [the patriarchal, i.e. God or parent above man or child below] fighting on its own ground will prove superior to the proletariat [the heresiarchal, i.e. man or child below] ... it is self-evident that the bourgeoisie fighting on its own ground will be both more experienced and more expert… the superiority of the proletariat must lie exclusively in its ability to see society from the centre as a coherent whole [in its perception of the group, i.e. society, striving for its natural identity and "purpose" below]. This means that it is able to act [praxis] in such a way as to change reality [negate the patriarchal paradigm in policy environments]." "When the dialectical method destroys the fiction of the immortality of the categories [God above-man below] it also destroys their reified character [faith in and obedience toward higher authority] and clears the way to a knowledge of reality." ["Philosophy as theory . . . establishes the basis of its reality as praxis; it serves to distinguish it from religion, the wisdom of the other world." (Marx, Critique)] "Praxis becomes the form of action appropriate to the isolated individual, it becomes his ethics [annihilates that which is inhuman, i.e. anyone who initiates and sustains the patriarchal paradigm]." "Marx urged us to understand ‘the sensuous world,' the object, reality, as human sensuous activity." (Lukacs)
"This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish." James 3:15
Herbart Marcuse, attempting to explain the "neurosis of civilization," and Sigmund Freud's thoughts on it, identifies the solution in the realization of all mankind that the "reality principle" is the "pleasure principle." This condition can only be realized, not only through the "overthrow" of the patriarchal paradigm in bodily form (removing him from setting policy on social matters, starting in the home), what he calls a "crime against the reality principle," but also through the mental form, i.e. the perception man has of himself. This requires the "overthrow" of the conscience, i.e. the "overthrow" of what he also calls a "crime," the "restoration" of the patriarchal paradigm in the mind. Without the "overthrow" of the conscience (which is the "purpose" of the dialectical process), "redemption," from the patriarchal paradigm, "cancels itself out." He wrote: "The overthrow of the king-father is a crime, but so is his restoration.... The crime against the reality principle is redeemed by the crime against the pleasure principle: redemption thus cancels itself." (Marcuse) Norman Brown, a contemporary of Herbart Marcuse, wrote: "Reality imposes on human beings the necessity of renunciation of pleasure; reality frustrates desires. The pleasure principle is in conflict with the reality principle, and this conflict is the cause of repression." "The goal of the pleasure principle is happiness. The energy or desire with which the human being pursues pleasure is the pleasurable activity of an organ of the body." "According to Freud, the ultimate essence of our being is erotic, and demands activity according to the pleasure-principle. The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious; the foundation has to be recovered. The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." "For example, the modifications and deflections of instinctual energy necessitated by the perpetuation of the monogamic-patriarchal family, or by a hierarchical division of labor, or by public control of the individuals private existence [capitalism seen as social fascism] are instances of surplus-repression pertaining to the institutions of a particular reality principle." (Brown)
Through the subtly and complexity of the dialectical process, i.e. the process of generalization, common can be identified and all things categorized by it, including God. Human sensuality (human quality, i.e. personality) thus becoming the basis or reality. "... personalistic philosophy – the theory that the clue to the meaning of ultimate reality is found in personality. This personal idealism remains today my basic philosophical position…it gave me a metaphysical and philosophical grounding for the idea of a personal God, and it gave me a metaphysical basis for the dignity and worth of all human personality." (King Jr. Stride Toward Freedom The Montgomery Story)
The answer is in the paradigm. God's paradigm is contrast (above-below, heavenly-worldly, spiritual-fleshly, light-dark, heaven-hell, etc. dialectically seen as "negative" by carnal man). Man's paradigm is what he has in common (what he has in common with the world below, temporal, fleshy, i.e. dialectically seen as "positive" by carnal man). What man and God have in common is the ability to evaluate. Evaluation, when used under God's authority, is based upon his perception, i.e. His Word, Spiritual (patriarchal, above the heavens and the earth, the angels and man, requiring revelation, i.e. everlasting, i.e. unchanging, i.e. reliable). Evaluation, when used under man's authority, is based upon his perception, i.e. temporal, fleshy, sense based (heresiarchal, bound to the creation, to angels, i.e. fallen angels and man, requiring rebellion and revolution, i.e. passing, i.e. "changing," unreliable). The only spirit which man can find in common with his dialectical paradigm is Satan (and the antichrist). Does not logic itself follow that with contrast (above and below) you have a choice, but with common (only below) you don't. It is difficult if not impossible for a dialectically thinking person to get his brain around that statement. It would be devastating to his paradigm, his way of thinking. If the Marxists understand this choice "If the 'restoring of life' of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation, then Marx must collapse into a bottomless abyss." (Jürgen Habermas Theory and Practice), then why are those who claim to be Christians running away from God's revealed word, redefining it in humanistic terms (through human eyes and human ears), and running with the contemporary world (with the temporary) into the "bottomless abyss."
Dialectical thinking goes like this: "If we can only unite on common"—below, i.e. identify and sustain human nature, "because contrast will always divide"—above-below, spiritual-flesh, "then we must negate contrast [negate choice, i.e. negate above-below, i.e. negate two roads], in the name of 'choice,'" [promote past-future, pre-post, i.e. promote the one road continuum]. Therefore the dialectical paradigm is all about a way of thinking which believes that "We must create a world where we will no longer be free to 'choose' between life and death as defined from above, but forever living in a world where the dialectical process, and the 'village,' will make those decisions for us," i.e. abortion, euthanasia, right-sizing, etc (the buying and selling of souls), where life and death, i.e. your worth, will be based upon how willing you are to walk down the dialectical corridor and participate in the social cause, and when death comes, making sure that you and those around you have "pleasure" in it (remembering you and the good times), as you go. "Even dying can be a philosophically illuminating, highly educative experience." (Maslow, Reaches) Sounds like a cult to me, built upon the dreams of utopia, common-ism, the New World Order, the "Beloved Community," etc. They are all one and the same—the dialectical process in praxis—dead men walking down a dialectical corridor of death, a corridor keeping them in death (annihilating life by the praxis of theory and practice) while all the time they are "thinking" that it is leading them to life . "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; ... but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15) The dialectical process can not, and will never, offer you choice. It can not comprehend choice since it can not accept the conditions which come from above. "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." (John 1:5)
"He must increase, but I must decrease." John 3:30
The end of Part III of The Identification of Paradigms.
The Identification of Paradigms. Part I
The Identification of Paradigms. Part II
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2009-2015