authorityresearch.com

The Dialectic (dialoguing of opinions to a consensus) Process:
breaking it down for you.

by
Dean Gotcher

(A + B) does not equal B.
(A + B) - A equals B

The praxis of dialoging opinions to a consensus in order to negate A, i.e., 'liberate' B from A so B can be its "self" without having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against A.

Georg Hegel: "The child [B], contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such ." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) In other words: "The child" i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., B—"lusting" after the carnal pleasure of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates, and hating restraint and the restrainer, i.e., hating A, i.e., the father's/Father's authority for getting in the way of pleasure—"is the absolute," "is enduring and everlasting," is "the totality," which can "produce itself once again as such," as the child (B) is 'liberated' from the father's authority (A), i.e., only as the child learns to 'justify' his "self," i.e., establishes his "self," i.e., his love of pleasure and hate of restraint (that which he has in common with all the children of the world—the foundation of common-ism) over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority (A), negating the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth so he can be his "self" again ("of and for B," i.e., "self" only, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only), as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life (getting in the way of pleasure).

Hebrews 12:5-11: "Furthermore we have had fathers [A + B] of our flesh [(+ B)] which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits [A - B], and live? For they [(A + B)] verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure [(+ B)]; but he [A - B] for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness."

If (A - B) is "the Father of spirits," i.e., holiness, and (A + B) is the "father of the flesh," "chastening the child after his own pleasure," and B is the carnal nature of the child, i.e., the flesh, then the child (B), embracing the father's authority, i.e., becoming like the father (A + B), developing a guilty conscience in his "self" for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, can only be 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority (A + B)/(A -B) by negating the A, i.e., the father's/Father's authority in himself, negating the guilty conscience in his "self" for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process. Remove (negate) A, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the "negative" in the thoughts of the child (B) and all you have is B, i.e., the carnal nature of the child, i.e., the "positive"—that which we all have in common. This is what the dialectic (dialoguing of opinions to a consensus) process, i.e., common-ism is all about. This is what Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud all had in mind.

The Father's reasoning, i.e., the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the Father's restraints begin with His love for the child. The child's 'reasoning,' i.e., dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' begins with (is triggered by) hate of restraint, i.e., hate of the father's/Father's authority, making the Father's/Father's reasoning unreasonable, irrational, impractical, therefore irrelevant in the thoughts of the carnal minded, i.e., dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning' child.

If B is your natural desire to enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'' which the world stimulates and A is established commands, rules, facts, and truth, which is to be accepted as is and obeyed (by faith), engendering a guilty conscience (accountability) within you whenever you do wrong, disobey, sin, then the only way you can enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, without having a guilty conscience (accountability) for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning is to negate A, i.e., negate established commands, rules, facts, and truth (and anyone preaching, teaching, discussing, and enforcing them) which get in the way—treating A, with his/His commands, rules, facts and truth as being irrational, unreasonable, impractical, etc., and therefore irrelevant, i.e., whatever happens to A is A's own fault for getting in the way (treating A with indifference, i.e.., with a "hard heart").

"The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure (B) is the standard for "good" instead of (A) doing right and not wrong according to A's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will], and desperately wicked [hating A for preventing, i.e., inhibiting or blocking B from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' it desires, i.e., preventing B from having and enjoying what it thinks it "deserves" (or is "due")]: who can know it [B can not see its hatred toward A as being evil because its love of pleasure, i.e., love of "self" and the world which stimulates it is in the way—blinding it to the truth.]?" Jeremiah 17:9

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." "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. 1 John 2:16, 15 B can not know A's love (for it), thus it can not have "the love of the Father" in it without getting "self," i.e., love of pleasure and hate of restraint out of the way, i.e., denying, humbling, dying to "self," in order to do A's will. When B keeps "self" in the way, it can only see "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., its "sensuous needs," "sense perception," and "sense experience," i.e., "all that is in [and of] the world," i.e., "only that which proceeds from nature," i.e., only that which is "rational," "reasonable," "practical," to "self," i.e., only that which is "of and for self" as being "good." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)

"Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15 B, by 'justifying' its "self," i.e., 'justifying' its love of pleasure, automatically 'justifies' its hatred toward A (for getting in the way of pleasure). B, not seeing its hate as being evil, perceives its hatred toward A as being "good," i.e., 'justified.' A, on the other hand, does not hate B. A only hates B's way of thinking and acting, i.e., B's praxis of "justifying itself before others," i.e., "esteeming" its "self"—based upon B's and others love of pleasure and hate of restraint.

"Every one that is proud in heart [who 'justifies' his "self," i.e., who 'justifies' his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e. who establishes B as being equal with, therefore above or greater than, therefore against A, thus negating A's authority in B's thoughts and actions] is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5

By simply replacing discussion (facts and truth, i.e., belief-faith/knowing, i.e., doing right and not wrong, which is formal) with dialogue ("feelings," i.e., opinion/theory, i.e., loving pleasure and hating restraint, which is informal, i.e., which all people have in common and can readily relate to—Facebook, i.e., "like"-unlike, "friend-unfriend") A, i.e., doing right and not wrong is negated, negating the guilty conscience (accountability) for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process—so that all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity (without having a sense of guilt or a sense of accountability for their carnal thoughts and carnal actions). This is why 'liberal's,' i.e., socialists always attempt to move discussion (doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts and truth) into dialogue (dialoging opinions to a consensus), i.e., remove discussion (doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts and truth) so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with no sense of accountability, i.e., so they can do wrong, disobey, sin without having a guilty conscience.

"The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself [his "self"] 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)

When you make B the focus, i.e., the 'drive' of life, you make the 'purpose' of life B's 'liberation' from A. In this way of thinking, i.e., dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' thinking from "feelings," i.e., from B's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, instead of from A, i.e., from established (known) commands, rules, facts, and truth, B becomes a "victim" in its own eyes, i.e., "repressed" and "alienated" (and hateful towards A, i.e., 'justified' in striking out against, censoring, and removing A) whenever A shows up "demanding its way," i.e., demanding that everyone do right and not wrong, holding them accountable to and judging them according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, engendering (in anyone who will listen) a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, getting in the way of "worldly peace and socialist harmony."

"And for this cause [because B, as "children of disobedience," 'justify' themselves, i.e., 'justify' their love of "self" and the world, i.e., 'justify' their love of the pleasures of the 'moment' over and therefore against the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, thereby 'justifying' their hatred toward the Father's authority] God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie [that pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will]: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth [in the Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ], but had pleasure in unrighteousness [in their "self" and the pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates]." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12

And you thought the dialectic (dialogue) process was just academics, something to be applied to the "secular" world. It is in truth spiritual, washing your mind of A's authority in the "here and now," "helping" you determine where you will spend eternity in the "then and there."

"For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe 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

A is the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, with the father/Father 1) preaching commands and rules to be obeyed, as given, teaching facts and truth to be accepted, as is, by faith, and discussing (at A's discretion) any questions or disagreements which B (the child) might have (providing B is old enough to understand, i.e., is capable of understanding, time permits, and/or he or she is not challenging A's authority), 2) blessing or rewarding B when B does right and/or obeys, 3) chastening B when B does wrong and/or disobeys, in order for B to learn to do right and/or obey 4) casting B out when B questions, challenges, defies, disregards, attacks A's authority.

B is the child's carnal nature, i.e., approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e., the child's natural desire to "lust" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) which the world stimulates and his natural hate of restraint and the restrainer, i.e., hating A when A gets in the way of pleasure, i.e., in the way of B's "self interest." "Self" is wrapped up in the child's carnal nature, i.e., in the child's love of pleasure and hate of restraint.

If we focus upon A (the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., doing right and not wrong), insisting upon B (the child, with his or her carnal desires of the 'moment') obeying, i.e., submitting to A, i.e., humbling, denying, dying to "self" in order to do A's will, then we can not arrive at a consensus, i.e., a "feeling" of "oneness," i.e., affirmation (all we can affirm is our desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment, which the world stimulates, and our dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward restraint, which we all have in common—the basis of common-ism), 'justifying' the child's carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, resulting in (instead) the father (A) remaining in authority over B, i.e., the child, i.e., the child's carnal nature, including the child's carnal nature (B) within the father himself (or maybe not so much—which is the problem—since the father, i.e., A having the child's carnal nature, i.e., B within himself, i.e., (A + B), is, like the child, likewise tempted by the world around him to act like a child, i.e., seeking pleasure over and therefore against doing right and not wrong, resenting restraint, i.e., getting caught, i.e., being held accountable). The distinction between the earthly father, who is of the flesh, i.e., subject to the child's carnal nature, i.e., loving pleasure and hating restraint, yet, unlike anything else in the creation, is created in the image of God, i.e., a living soul, i.e., able to receive from God, as well as give to his children, commands and rules to be obeyed as given, and facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, understanding that he will be held accountable by God for his thoughts and actions, i.e., for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, holding those under his authority accountable for their rebellious thoughts (voiced, i.e., verbally expressed) and actions, i.e., for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning as well, and the Heavenly Father who is spirit only, i.e., pure, perfect, and holy. While the earthly father and the Heavenly Father are different in nature/spirit, the office they hold is the same in pattern or system, i.e., a Patriarchal paradigm, with the earthly father, and all that are his, i.e., that are under his authority (below) therefore being subject to the Heavenly Father (above) for direction.

"It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9

Karl Marx, recognizing this distinction and correlation, yet rejecting the Heavenly Father's authority, wrote: "Once the earthly family [with the children having to submit to their father's authority, i.e., having to humble and deny their "self" in order to do their father's will] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with the Son, and all following Him having to submit to His Heavenly Father's authority, i.e., having to humble and deny their "self" in order to do His will], the former [the earthly father's authority system, with children having to trust in and obey the father] must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated] in theory and in practice [in the children's personal thoughts and social actions (behavior)]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4)

While the father seeks to place his A, i.e., his way of thinking (believing) and acting in the child, by 1) giving the child commands and rules to obeyed as given and facts and truth to accept as given, by faith, 2) rewarding, 3) chastening, or 4) casting him out (or threatening to do so) for his behavior, i.e., holding him accountable for his actions, which is the pattern found in Hebrews 12:5-11—creating a guilty conscience in the child for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, as is explained in Romans 7:14-25—those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., of "self justification"—following after the pattern of Genesis 3:1-6—coming between the child and the father, encouraging, i.e., "helping" the child focus upon his carnal desires, i.e., his "self interest" of the 'moment, which are stimulated by the world, seek to 'liberate' the child from A, i.e., from the father's authority, i.e., from the father's way of thinking (believing) and acting, in order to 'liberate'' the child (and themselves) from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., with no sense of guilt.

"The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself." "What we call 'conscience' perpetuates inside of us our bondage to past objects now part of ourselves: the superego 'unites in itself the influences of the present and of the past.'" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

"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, The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing)

But if we focus upon B, i.e., the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' encouraging the child to set aside (suspend, as on a cross) A, i.e., his (or her) father's authority, i.e., the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (and the threat of being held accountable for doing wrong, or disobeying) for the sake of B's, i.e., the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' then the child's guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning is negated. This is also true for the father, since the father has B, i.e., the child's carnal nature within himself as well (the father being A + B in actuality).

If we correlated A and B to political systems, A would be that of commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., rule of law, defending its position of doing right and not wrong according to established standards, and B would be that of emotions, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating others into supporting its agenda of satisfying its carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., its "self interests," which are stimulated by the world. While A needs emotions, i.e., compassion on those who are innocent or desire to do right and not wrong, but who have done wrong (repenting and asking for forgiveness), B needs commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., "self" restraint in making decisions. Without compassion in A and restraint in B both would rule the world as despots, B ruling as A (Communist, globalists, i.e., replacing discussion with dialogue) and A ruling as B (Fascist, "nationalists," i.e., rejecting discussion and dialogue), both ruling without Godly restraint, serving their own carnal desires, i.e., "self-ish interests," in the name of "the people."

The belief-action dichotomy (between A and B)—the conflict between our desire to receive the father's/Father's approval (blessing), by doing the father's/Father's will and our desire to enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, which produces a guilty conscience in us when we do wrong, disobey, sin—can only be resolved by either humbling, denying, dying to our "self" daily, doing the father's/Father's will (the "old" world order) or "esteeming," i.e., 'justifying' our "self," negating the father's/Father's authority in our thoughts, negating our having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, so that we can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity (the "new" world order), accomplishing the dialectic formula of ((A + B) - A) = B. The latter is the 'drive' and 'purpose' of dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning, i.e., of "self" 'justification, i.e., of "self actualization," i.e., of the consensus process, negating the father's/Father's authority so all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. There is no father's/Father's authority in "self," i.e. in "self actualization," i.e., in dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' i.e., in the consensus process.

It is important to know that a big part of the child's desire for pleasure includes his or her desire for the pleasure which comes with approval from the father (which comes with obeying or doing things right and not wrong, i.e., doing the father's will, i.e., setting his "self-ish" desires aside in order to do his father's will, receiving his father's approval in doing so), which is associated with fellowship. Fellowship is based upon agreement on doctrine, not on feelings, although feelings, i.e., pleasure is a result, i.e., a byproduct). The child's desire for pleasure also includes the pleasure which comes with affirmation (which comes via the child's carnal nature being affirmed by the father and/or others, as a result of the father's and/or other's desire to initiate or sustain relationship, i.e., "feelings" with the child, based upon what he and/or they have in common with the child and the child has in common with him and/or them, i.e., his and/or their carnal nature of loving pleasure and resenting or hating restraint, i.e., hating rejection, i.e., hating alienation). The carnal nature which the father and others have in common with the child, that of approaching ("lusting" after) pleasure and avoiding (resenting) pain, includes the pain (resentment) which comes with missing out on pleasure—which includes the pain (resentment) of being rejected (alienated) by others. In this way, the father, as the child—resenting being held accountable (found guilty) for his carnal thoughts and actions, i.e., nature, i.e., being judged and rejected by others for thinking and doing that which goes counter to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, even those of his own making—tries to 'justify' his "self," i.e., his carnal thoughts and behavior to others in order to keep relationship with them, establishing the carnal pleasures which comes with the respect (affirmation) of men over and therefore against doing the Father's will. In like manor he is willing to set aside (not bring up) commands, rules, facts, and truth which would hurt others "feelings" when they are doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, doing so in order to initiate and/or sustain relationship (affirmation) with them, knowing they would (might) reject him if he held them accountable (judged them) for their actions, in a round about way, 'justifying,' in them, their doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process.

"For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Galatians 1:10 "Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 1:3

By "encouraging" (pressuring) the father (and others holding to the father's way of thinking, i.e., believing and acting) to focus upon the child's "feelings," which the father has within himself as well, finding common identity with the child's natural desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and his hate of restraint, he, along with the child (setting aside, i.e., suspending, as upon a cross the father's authority, i.e., the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth and accountability for doing wrong and/or disobeying, i.e., "negativity" that gets in the way of dialogue, i.e., human-ist relationship) can arrive at a consensus, i.e., a "feeling" of "oneness," affirming B, i.e., the child's carnal nature (even in the father), making social relations (social-ism), i.e., "feelings" (which are stimulated by the world) more important than doing right and not wrong (which are established according to the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth).

The same can be said and done to a room full of students, each coming from a family whose father's standards, i.e., position of authority, which they depend upon for their identity (as a family member) stand in the way of their common identity with one another, i.e., with "the group," that of loving pleasure and hating restraint. Overcoming the effect of individuals, based upon personal accountability to authority, can only be accomplished through the dialectic, i.e., the dialoging of opinions to a consensus process, where the individual 'discovers' his identity, not in the father's authority, which divides him from his fellow classmates, but in his own carnal nature, which he has in common with them instead. The traditional classroom, with the father's/Father's authority system in place, i.e., with the teacher holding students (individually) accountable to commands, rules, facts, and truth which they have been taught, prevents this from happening. "The dialectical method was overthrown—the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)

Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [the child holding his "self" accountable to the father's/Father's authority, doing the father's/Father's will instead of his own] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him [Marx saw the child's act of obedience to the father, which goes counter to his own carnal nature as empowering the father to "repress" him; "The life [authority] which he [the child] has given to the object [to the father/Father, i.e., the parent, the teacher, the boss, the ruler, and/or God—when the child humbles, denies, dies to, disciplines, controls his "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will, thus, according to Karl Marx, "empowering" the father/Father] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)] . Society ["human relationship based upon self interest," i.e., through dialogue 'discovering' one's identity ("self") in "the group," i.e., in society] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority] and individuality [being "of and for self" and the world only] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx) "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach #6) Sigmund Freud likewise believed "the individual is emancipated in the social group." "Freud speaks of religion as a 'substitute-gratification'—the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people.'" "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt [the guilty conscience for disobeying the father/Father] be assuaged." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

As the Marxist, Max Horkheimer explained it: "Protestantism [reasoning from the Word of God, doing the Father's will] was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." (Max Horkheimer, Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung; Reasoning and Self preservation) In other words, man can only save ("preserve") his "self" by using dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' i.e., reasoning (even the Word of God) from his "self," i.e., from his "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., from his own "sense experience," i.e., from what he has in common with all men, "preserving" his "self," i.e., saving his "self" from the Father's authorityeven doing so in the name of the Lord (which is antithetical to the gospel message, which is, at its core, all about the Son's obedience to the Father, i.e., doing the Father's will in all things commanded, calling us to do the same, i.e., to deny our "self," endure the rejection of men, and following after him, do His Father's will as well).

"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 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50

While the father can identify with the child's "feelings," he must judge the child according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, only having mercy on the child if the child recognizes his own behavior (when he disobeys the father and/or does wrong) as being wrong, repents (purposes to obey the father/Father and/or do right), and asks for forgiveness. The father, loving the child but not his behavior (unlike the child, being able to distinguish between the two), has to judge the child's behavior, holding the child accountable for his actions if the child is to come to understand the father's love for him (something the child, associating pain with missing out on pleasure, i.e., hating the missing out on pleasure and, at the same time, hating the one responsible for it, can not, from his own "self" understand, i.e., separate his hate of missing out on pleasure from his hating the one standing in the way). For the child, love of pleasure and hate of restraint and the restrainer go hand in hand. Thus the child has to humble, deny, die to his "self," i.e., get "self" out of the way in order to understand the father's love for him. In fact, if the child is still dialoguing with his "self" (still 'justifying' the Karl Marx in him) after being chastened by the father/Father, he did not receive the father's/Father's correction, i.e., he is still 'justifying' his "self," i.e., 'justifying' his love of pleasure and hate of restraint and the restrainer.

Without the father abdicating (setting aside) his right-wrong, top-down way of thinking and acting, i.e., A, for the sake of initiating and sustaining relationship with the child, i.e., B, based upon the child's (and his, i.e., the father's) "feelings" of the 'moment,' consensus (socialist-unity, i.e., worldly peace and socialist harmony) can not become a reality. Principle (doing right and not wrong) has to be replaced with interest ("self interest") if 'change' (of paradigm) is to take place, i.e., if (A + B) is to become B.

"In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)

This is Georg Hegel's (actually Fichte's) A + -A = A (which is B becoming rigid again i.e., A, needing to do the process over again, ad nauseum for the rest of life until there is no A left) or Thesis plus Antithesis equals Synthesis formula or method, where through dialogue (dialectic 'reasoning') the father and the child 'discover' that their B nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., their natural loving of pleasure and hating of restraint makes them one and the same, i.e., equal. Following after Georg Hegel's emphasis upon the child's carnal nature (making it equal with, therefore establishing it over, and therefore against the father's/Father's authority), Karl Marx worked to remove the father's/Father's authority from society (by killing the fathers outright). Sigmund Freud worked to remove the father's/Father's authority from the child, i.e., from the child's thoughts and actions, thus making Hegel, Marx, and Freud one and the same in the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of life, 'liberating' the child from the father's/Father's authority, resulting in children/mankind never having to do the father's/Father's will again. This accomplishes Immanuel Kant's dictum of "lawfulness without law," i.e., the law of the flesh, i.e., the child's carnal nature without ('liberated' from) the law of God, i.e., the father's/Father's authority. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment)

"The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [once he is 'liberated' from the father's authority so he can be his "self" again, as he was before the father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only]." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)

It is this focus upon the carnal nature, i.e., the "sensuous needs," "sense perception," i.e., "sense experience" of the child and the father, i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint—which they both have in common—that makes 'liberals,' socialists, common-ists, globalists, psychologists, "group psychotherapists," facilitators of 'change,' Transformational Marxists, etc., one and the same. Deriving that the 'drive' of life is found in the child's carnal nature, they are 'purposed' in 'liberating' the child's (and the father's) carnal nature from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., 'liberating' man from Godly restraint, even doing so in the name of the Lord. Psychology, for example, falsely defines the soul as being the cognitive (data), affective ("feelings" or emotions), and psychomotor domain (what everything works through) only, i.e., which engenders love of pleasure, which the world stimulates, and hate of restraint, deliberately leaving out our ability (and need) to receive direction, i.e., commands and rules to be obeyed, as given, and facts and truth to accepted as is, by faith, i.e., desiring to do right and not wrong, being held accountable (feeling guilty) for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, having peace in the soul for doing right, obeying, not sinning (even if we have missed out on pleasure), or for being forgiven (loved), after repenting.

To "purge [man] of sin with all the aids of the dialectics ["self" 'justification,' i.e., dialogue], therefore, is to rob him of true salvation, of his eternal destiny." (Rene Fulop-Miller, The Power and Secrets of the Jesuits)

Going over it again, in more detail, A is based upon commands, rules, facts, and truth, which even the father (A + B, i.e., the child in the father) must obey (which he might not be doing). B is based upon "feelings," i.e., the child's "feelings" and "thoughts" (which are subject to his or her "feelings" of the 'moment' which are being stimulated by the world—including his or her internal "feelings" of the 'moment,' whether desired or needed, i.e., whether imagined or real). When A rules over B then B, by learning to obey, develops in himself (or herself) an A, i.e., a guilty conscience for doing wrong and/or disobeying, thus preparing himself to become an (A + B) in the future. When we focus upon the child's "feelings," i.e., his or her love of pleasure and hate of restraint, making "feelings" the standard for right and wrong, the guilty consciences, i.e., the A in the B, is replaced with the "super-ego," i.e., the "feelings" of the past as well as those of the 'moment,' negating A, the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience in the child for doing wrong, disobey, sinning.

While the father is trying to put an A, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (private convictions) in the child, so that he or she might do right and not wrong in the future, those of dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning' are trying to get the A out of the child so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., so they can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., be "human" without having a guilty conscience. "[We] must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions [those holding onto doing right, obeying, not sinning, holding others accountable for do wrong, disobey, sin, while privately judging their thoughts, i.e., temptations in order to keep their "self" "under wraps," i.e., in order to not do wrong, disobey, sin] in joint deliberations [in the consensus process] as a vice [as being mentally ill—as being "negative," hateful, hurtful to other's "feelings," divisive, etc.,] rather than a virtue [as being healthy in mind—as being "positive," affirming man's carnal nature)]." (Kenneth D. Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

A, i.e., the father depends upon 1) preaching, teaching, and discussion , 2) blessing, 3) chastening, 4) casting out in order to initiate and sustain his authority. B, i.e., the child depends upon dialogue in order to 'liberate' his "self" from the father's authority. Dialogue, which is based upon our "feelings" of the 'moment,' 'liberates' us from the father's authority, making us all the same (equal) in our "feelings" of the 'moment,' Discussion, where doing right and not wrong is based upon established commands, rules, facts, and truth, makes us subject to the father's authority instead.

"A Dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals." "A key difference between a dialogue and an ordinary discussion is that, within the latter [in a discussion] people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favour of their views as they try to convince others to change. At best this may produce agreement or compromise, but it does not give rise to anything creative [a "new" world order]." "What is essential here [in the consensus process] is the presence of the spirit of dialogue, which is in short, the ability to hold many points of view in suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation of common meaning." (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity)

By focusing upon dialogue, i.e., B, i.e., "feelings," discussion, i.e., A, i.e., facts and truth is negated. It is just that easy (and simple). If you miss this statement, you miss understanding the whole situation.

Like a chain, all links to an outcome of "knowing" must be of discussion ("Is this statement right/true or wrong/false?"—with right/true being accepted and wrong/false being rejected) or the outcome is wrong/false or at most unknown, i.e., an opinion, i.e., a theory, i.e., based upon "feelings." By replacing one link in the chain with dialogue, i.e., an opinion, i.e., an "I think" or "I feel" the outcome is taken captive to the "feelings," i.e., an opinion or theory of the moment, making right and wrong subject to "feelings" i.e., opinion, i.e., theory instead of facts and truth, negating the outcome and purpose of discussion—arriving at the truth. The object of those pushing dialogue ("feelings," opinion, theory, i.e., "I feel" or "I think") into a discussion ("I know") is that of "preventing someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space," thus 'liberating' their "self" from having a guilty conscience ("feeling" guilty) for being or dong wrong, disobeying, sinning, so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. (Wilfred Bion, A Memoir of the Future) The "empty space" is where we either discuss commands, rules, facts, and truth (doing right and not wrong) with our "self" or dialogue with our "self" and with others, our desires and dissatisfactions ("feelings"), i.e., opinion of the 'moment,'

This is why traditional parents discuss things with their child (at the parent's discretion) in order for their children to do right (and not wrong) and why children try to get their parents into dialogue, so the children can "do their own thing," i.e., enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates. How we communicate with one another reveals our paradigm, i.e., our way of thinking and acting, relating with our "self," others, and the world, as well as how we "feel" and behave toward authority—whether we honor it, disregard it, or question, challenge, defy, attack it. Put students in an environment of dialogue and you will quickly observe their paradigm, i.e., how they "feel" towards authority, with the traditional students (resisting 'change,' being "negative," insisting upon a right-wrong outcome) being either converted (seduced, deceived, and manipulated into participation) or silenced (shouted down, i.e., intimidated, i.e., censored), and the 'liberal' students being 'liberated.'

Discussion negates dialogue when it comes to A's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., doing right and not wrong, which counter B's, i.e., the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., opinion of the 'moment.' Dialogue negates discussion when it comes to B's "feelings," i.e., B's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, which counter A, i.e., the father's right-wrong, "top-down" authority system. Children naturally ask their parents "Why?" in response to any command or rule which get in the way of the child's carnal desires of the 'moment'—in order to draw the parents into dialogue, getting them to focus upon their (including the parent's) "feelings" of the 'moment' so they can "do their thing," with the parent's approval (affirmation). It is the parent's "Because I said so," implying judgment for disobeying, which cuts off dialogue. When the "Why?" is asked, regarding facts or truth, discussion is best (if time permits, the child is old enough to understand, or the child is not challenge authority). When parent's never discuss things with the child (at the parent's discretion), always saying "Because I said so," they become tyrants in the eyes of the child, resulting in the child turning to dialoguing within his "self," 'justifying' his hate of authority.

"Persons will not come into full partnership in the process until they register dissatisfaction." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

This is what socialists, i.e., "group psychotherapists," globalists are looking for in the child, i.e., the child dialoguing with his "self" his desire for pleasure and his hate of restraint, 'liberating' it, i.e., the child's dialogue , i.e., dissatisfaction with authority (especially in a group setting) in order to 'liberate' the child from the father's authority (which, to the socialists, is associated with individualism, Nationalism, sovereignty, which is tantamount, according to them, to Fascism—which, unlike individualism, Nationalism, sovereignty, excluded discussion as an option with "the people," a key point 'liberal's' deliberately overlook, lumping the benevolent, i.e., loving father and the tyrannical, i.e, hateful father together as one, making them one and the same).

"Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making [representative, limited government which is subject to rule of law], our objective centers upon transform public opinion [the peoples "feelings" of the 'moment'] into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps." (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order)

To merge the two, i.e., A and B, i.e., the father's authority and the child's "feelings," for the sake of consensus (human-ist relationship) only results in confusion, resulting in A either negating A for the sake of B's (and A's) "feelings" of the 'moment' ('creating' consensus) or holding to A for the sake of doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth (sustaining division, i.e., duality, i.e., above-below, top-down, right-wrong, either-or, "Mine. Not yours." Heaven-Hell, saved-lost, redeemed-unredeemed, etc., i.e., belief-action dichotomy, i.e., rule of law over "human nature").

This is how the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, "group grade," "group psychotherapy," facilitated (soviet, i.e., washing the father's/Father's authority from the brain), "be positive, not negative," "safe space/zone/place," "snowflake" creating classroom is 'changing' the next generation, making their desired outcome, based upon their "feelings" of the 'moment' the 'purpose' of "communication," i.e., "Make me 'feel good' and I will listen to you. Hurt my 'feelings' and I won't hear a word you say, other than to use (twits) what you say in order to attack (negate) you.," negating their respect for authority, where they have to suspend their "feelings," i.e., their desires of the 'moment' in order to arrive at the truth—which they do not want to do—turning them into 'liberal's, socialists, globalists, common-ists, humanists, etc.(all being the same in nature, i.e., of and for B only). You can see 'change' taking place in education, in the workplace, in entertainment, in government, and even in the "church" today, destroying the traditional family with its father's authority, i.e., the middle-class, which is the basis of a civil society.

"There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

This from the books all teachers are certified and schools are accredited by today, referred to as "Bloom's Taxonomies," "a psychological classification system" (Benjamin Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1, Cognitive Domain), 'changing' how teachers (and students) communicate with one another in the classroom, making teachers therapists ("group psychotherapists"), i.e., counselors, i.e., social-ist engineers, i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., 'change' agents, 'changing' traditional minded students into socialists. "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual come to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) Detached from his parent's authority, in the pain of isolation, the child finds his identity in "the group," i.e., in those he can reality identify with, who have his "self interest" in mind. "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs ['liberation' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., 'liberated' to be his "self" again, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only, as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life] by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) Those students who refuse to "participate" in the 'change' process, i.e., who defend the father's/Father's authority in the classroom face the wrath of the facilitate of 'change,' as expressed by Abraham Maslow. "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow) Welcome to the "group grade" classroom, "helping" the students 'liberate' their "self" from the restraints of the father's/Father's authority.

This would be just some more information to forget except for the fact that our government is turning this way to make decisions, with the courts judging you based upon opinions, i.e., judging your worth (whether you are a socialist or not, i.e., a B or an A) instead of judging you upon facts and truth, i.e., upon what really happened. If you are an A in thought (belief) and action, the 'liberal's' agenda is to character assassinate you, using any opinion or theory they can find, treating it or them as a fact or the truth—to be trusted—thus finding you guilty of a crime despite the lack or absence of evidence, i.e., lack or absence of facts or truth. But if you are a B in theory and practice, they look the other way, disregard or downplay the facts or truth, treating them or it as a theory or an opinion—not to be trusted—or accuse you of behaving "badly" only, which is not a crime. It is what, according to our carnal nature, i.e., "self interest" we do when a friend has done something wrong and we are called as a witness—subject to the pressure to sustain relationship with them, our "feelings," i.e., our "self interest" tempts us to twist (spin), put aside or dismiss (deliberately forget, leave out, or hide), or lie regarding the facts or truth in order to defend the relationship, i.e., our "self interest." If the person is someone who we do not like (or hate), telling all the truth (and more, i.e., adding our opinion) is easy to do, out actions being based upon "self interest." Without a court based upon knowing the difference between right and wrong and holding to it, i.e., insisting upon facts and truth only, rejecting opinions and theories as evidence, the pressure of social-ist 'justice' makes any outcome subjective to a persons social-ist worth (in the eyes, i.e., "self interest" of the court). The difference between deductive reasoning, where a principle is written on the board for all to evaluate their life or the situation from and inductive reasoning, where everyone's interests (opinions, i.e., "feelings" of the 'moment') are written instead, with everyone trying to arrive at a common understanding of what is right (for the times, i.e., for their "self interest" of the 'moment'), makes rules "unpredictable" and "spontaneous," i.e., subject to 'change.'

"Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules to best suit the state." (R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law)

Most people think the Berlin Wall came down because communism was defeated. The truth is the Berlin Wall came down because communism had succeeded—hiding itself in the praxis of psychology, i.e., "group psychotherapy," through dialogue, i.e., "How do/did you 'feel' when ...?," i.e., "What do/did you think when ...?," liberating B from A. The sole 'drive' of psychology is the child's carnal nature. Its only 'purpose' is to 'liberate' the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature" from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from parental/Godly restraint. Once it is in power it will do "whatever it takes" to keep itself in power, for the sake of B. Sigmund Freud's history of mankind is that of children 'liberating' their "self" (incest) from the father's/Father's authority, not only killing the father/Father but, to make sure that there is no trace of his/His existence i.e., not guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, "devouring" the father/Father as well (patricide)—"the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the motherculminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father," "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same." "If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man can ever be redeemed by freedom, then the 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence [the 'logic' being, if the father's/Father's authority is negated, then "lust" is no longer "lust," but only the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature" becoming manifest ('liberated'), which is "normal," i.e., "OK," i.e., "I'm OK. Your OK."].'" "Individual psychology is thus in itself group psychology ... the individual [in his carnal nature only, "lusting" after pleasure, hating restraint] ... is an archaic identity with the species." "This archaic heritage [the child's carnal nature, i.e., the love of pleasure and hate of restraint] bridges the 'gap between individual and mass psychology [what all children have in common, i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint].'" (Herbart Marcuse explaining Freud's historiography in his book, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud) It is this emphasis upon pleasure over and therefore against the father's/Father's restraints (authority) that unites Marx and Freud (and Hegel)—'discovering' what is actual, i.e., real in the world, i.e., becoming at one with the world ("self-actualized") through our "lusting" after the carnal pleasure of the 'moment,' which are being stimulated by the world. As Marx wrote: "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')

Abraham Maslow wrote: "Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature) "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, i.e., including the most basic scheme as true-good social conditions are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions stunt human nature,... This is to say, one could reinterpret Marx into a self-actualization-fostering Third- and Fourth-Force psychology-philosophy. And my impression is anyway that this is the direction in which they are going now." "Only a world government with world-shared values could be trusted or permitted to take such powers. If only for such a reason a world government is necessary. It too would have to evolve. I suppose it would be weak or lousy or even corrupt at first—it certainly doesn't amount to much now & won't until sovereignty is given up little by little by 'nations.'" "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." ". . . A caretaker government could immediately start training for democracy & self-government & give it little by little, as deserved." "This is a realistic combination of the Marxian version & the Humanistic. (Better add to definition of "humanistic" that it also means one species, One World.) (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)

Warren Bennis wrote: ". . . any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy regardless of its intent." "The consequences of family democratization take a long time to make themselves felt—but it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun. … once the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in the world approaching." "… 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." (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)

The only solution is to get government, i.e., psychology (which is a political system) out of the home, the classroom, the workplace, entertainment, government, and the "church," i.e., letting A reappear (which naturally happens on its own—while parents are not perfect, some are or were down right tyrants, their office is, given to them by God, i.e., the Heavenly Father to serve him in), restoring A's preaching, teaching, and discussing (at A's discretion) of commands, rules, facts, and truth, restoring accountability in the home, in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, and even in the "church," rewarding those who do right and obey, chastening those do wrong and/or disobey, and casting out those who question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack the father's authority. If not, then B, or rather those who "guide" them ("psychotherapists") rule—killing the innocent and the righteous who get in their way, which is the hallmark of socialism. "The innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked." Exodus 23:7

When "psychotherapists," facilitators of 'changed,' 'liberals,' socialists, globalists gain power over "the people," in the name of "the people," they use "the people" as "natural resource" for their own pleasure and gain. Like what happened to the prodigal son's "friends," socialist disappear only when they run out of someone else's money, i.e., the children's inheritance (using the children instead—until they die—in the gulag, remember it was the orphaned children, whose father's were killing in the Russian revolution, who, having no conscience, supervised, worked at, and themselves eventually died in the gulag—those in the process kill their own in the name of the process, i.e., it takes on a life of its own, living off the blood (lives) of its victims, including those who follow after, support, serve, protect, defend, praise, and worship it to begin with).

The purpose of life is not to have a "good" life but to ask our Heavenly Father, who is good, what we are to do today, i.e., for direction. When we 'changed' our desire for our children (and for our "self") from "doing right and to wrong" to "having a better life," we guaranteed their (and our) wedding vows would be "for better or for worse—or until something better comes along."

Such is the nature of the beast, i.e., your unrepentant heart—"Oh no! Not mine!" you say. I pray that is true.

"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 "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 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Titus 3:5-7 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8, 9

The whole of the Protestant Reformation was over the rejection of Abraham Maslow's theorem (Marxist-Freudian, i.e., Aristotelian ideology), "good social conditions are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions stunt human nature," implying that man is "good," or has the potential of becoming "good," only need a "healthy" (socio-psychological) environment in which to grow up in, in order to be (do) "good" or become "good." Martin Luther, re-establishing the "church" upon the Word of God, first and above all, rejected this 'logic.' He wrote: "We do not become righteous by doing righteous deeds but, having been made righteous, we do righteous deeds. ... the whole Aristotle [the same ground from which philosophy, sociology, psychology, etc., arise] is to theology as darkness is to light." (Luther's Works: Vol. 31, Career of the Reformer: I, p. 12) [The scriptures warn us: "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." (Luke 11:35)] "If Aristotle had understood the innate sinful condition, he would have called it a disposition, not only an affection. For original sin is a root and inborn evil, which only comes to an end when this body has been entirely mortified, purged by fire, and reformed. Meanwhile, however, it is not imputed to the godly." (Luther's Works: Vol. 34, Career of the Reformer: IV, p.165) "Inborn evil makes acts evil. That is the condition, that is to say, original sin is the root of actual sins. But Aristotle contradicts this, holding that passions are moderate virtues. For philosophers understand sins to be passions. [Personal Note: the same can be said for psychology.] But that radical sin does not cease, nor will ever be destroyed, except through the fire of the conflagration. Meanwhile in this wicked life, God deals with us in such a way that he does not impute our sins to us." (Luther's Works: Vol. 34, Career of the Reformer: IV, p.190) "Do you now understand why I have said so often that neither our vows nor our works are necessary for righteousness and salvation. To those who believe in Christ there are no works so bad as to accuse and condemn us, but again, there are no works so good that they could save and defend us. But all our works accuse and condemn us. Christ's works alone protect and save us.... (against Aristotle) a man acts not from a free conscience but for gain, desire for glory, or fear of punishment." (Luther's Works: Vol. 44, The Christian in Society: I, p.301)

The contemporary "church," the heart of the problem for this nation, has embraced the ideology of dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' i.e., social-psychology, rejecting the Word of God. Through the use of dialogue (to "grow" the "church") it has made the Word of God subject to the opinions of men. You can only have one or the other, i.e., the Word of God or the opinions of men, for direction. You can not have both. You either fill the blackboard with the Word of God (as is), to be memorized, preached, taught, and discussed or you fill it with opinions, to be dialogued—which is the common praxis with "youth groups."

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24

While traveling from coast to coast in this country, speaking on the dialectic (dialogue) process, people would ask me where we were as a nation. My response was we have already lost. "There is water on the deck of the ship. Unless you are in a submarine, that is bad news." They would get upset with me. Then I would ask for the age of the youngest in attendance (usually in their 50's). Where are the children? They are the first to understand what I speak on—during meetings (when they were allowed to come) many would becoming filled with "joy," liberated upon hearing the truth. Without them, we have lost. When I spoke in "their church," "ministers," i.e., those using the dialectic (dialogue) process to "grow their church," i.e., to build relationships, would bus their youth to the bowling alley (etc.,) "to witness" instead of having them attend the meeting, their 'reasoning' being "It would be to hard for them to understand." As goes the "church," so goes the nation.

"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

"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." Matthew 23:13

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2018