Your language reflects your culture.


Dean Gotcher

"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.  For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man:"  Matthew 15:18-20a

Thomas Kuhn wrote about the correlation between language and culture and his intentions of changing the culture by changing its language (the way people communicate). "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." (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions)  As in the scientific field, when language (the way people communicate) changes, those who hold to the "old" language of facts of the "past," learned and applied "as is," i.e. "as given," find themselves no longer "keeping up with" the 'changing' times, i.e. find themselves no longer relevant to the "new" culture—where the "new" world order of theories, i.e. of opinions are being put into action (social action) as if they were proven facts.  It is not the specific language itself, such as German, English, etc. of which I am writing about, it is the structure of language, i.e. how it is used, i.e. the paradigm (the way that people feel, think, and act, i.e. perceive and behave) which is being used within the language, i.e. which 'changes' the way the culture things and acts that is speaking German, English, etc.  It is the negation of the language of the Father through the use of language of the "children of disobedience," i.e. using the language of Genesis 3:1-6  (self 'justification') to negate Hebrews 12:5-11 (the Father's authority) to negate Romans 7:14-25 (the "guilty conscience").  It is the language of those who are "lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God."  2 Timothy 3:4  By 'changing' belief (the children accepting by faith what the Father preaches and teaches as truth) into an opinion (how the children "feel" and what they "think" about the Father's command when it interferes with their desires), you materialize beliefnegating the Father and His authority in the thoughts and actions of the children.

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. 1 Timothy 6:20, 21

True science is universal, understandable in any language, used by any culture as it wants to use it to its own end.  "So called science" is a 'changing' of the structure of the language of science, from knowing to theorizing, from being established for all times and all places to being adaptable to 'change,' i.e. taken truth and facts, i.e. knowledge captive to the feelings, opinions, and theories of the 'moment,' thereby making the field of "science" useful in manipulating people to the socialists (social scientists) desired outcome, i.e. socialism.  While true scientists seek to know the facts, i.e. the truth, "so called scientists" only wants to enjoy the "journey," not letting the facts, i.e. the truth get in the way of the "journey," ending the "journey" of 'change.'  Thomas Kuhn could not get his language of "so called science" to work in the field of true science, but to get the field of true science to fit with (abdicate to) his plan of socialist 'change' (socialism) he continued to press its use (through resolving so called "environmental crisis'") and succeeding, thereby silencing the field of true science when it got in the way of cultural 'change' (socialist 'change')  "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." (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions)

Therefore, if you can change the language, i.e. how people communicate between one another, i.e. moving away from the teaching and preaching of facts and truth "as given" (being "negative" if and when necessary to get the facts across), to accentuating the "positive" (augmenting the "positive," i.e. that which makes people "feel" good while negating the "negative," i.e. that which makes people "feel" bad—selecting the "appropriate information" for discussion along with how it is be discussed or rather dialogued, i.e. discussion keeping a "top-down" structure in place, i.e. keeping the environment of communication a facts based-cognitive environment where only "knowers" participate, the dialoguing of opinions 'changes' the method of communication to "equality," to a "feelings" based-affective environment where all who have "feelings" and "thoughts" on the matter are encouraged to participate) you can change the culture.  What God did at the Tower of Babel was to change the language of the people from an "equality" (the collectivist language of "Let us make a name for Ourselves," i.e. "We working for Us," "Ours.  Not just yours") into a "top-down" language (the individualist language of "Mine. Not yours," as in "My garden. Not yours").  Dialectic 'reasoning' 'changes "Mine. Not yours" back to "We working for Us," "Ours. Not just yours" by changing the people's method of communication from the preaching and teaching of facts and truths to be learned and obeyed "as given," to the dialoguing of opinions.   If you change the language of preaching and teaching truth as given, i.e. "It is written," i.e. "Because I said so," to a language of opinions, i.e. how people "feel" and what they "think" in the "given 'moment,'" i.e. in the immediate situation, you change the culture from a patriarchal paradigm (from a "top-down" way of thinking and acting where the individual is of worth as an individual no matter the "given 'moment'" or situation) to a heresiarchal paradigm of 'changingness' (to an "equality," i.e. socialist way of thinking and acting where the individual only finds worth within his participation in initiating and sustaining the collective, i.e. consensus, i.e. socialist, i.e. "common-ist" experience, i.e. being at-one-with the "given 'moment'" or situation, i.e. augmenting 'change'—"Without 'change,' i.e. selling your soul to the beast, you can't participate in the kingdom of man's own making").

Negating "neurosis" (the "old" world order) through the "use" of crime:

If the foundation for a civil society is found in the "guilty conscience" (restraining the citizens from deviant behavior),which is engendered in the traditional home environment (through the Father's authority), then the traditional home environment, i.e. with the Father's authority which engenders the "guilty conscience," must be called into question, i.e. being no longer supported so that socialist 'change' can take place.  Crime therefore must be used, not stopped, if access to the traditional family is to be gained, drawing it together with other families of the "common-unity," all concerned about stopping the crime, not knowing the meeting (the way it is being arranged) is being used to stop them.  The role of the facilitator of 'change' (the facilitated meeting) is not to fix the problem (to solve the crisis in one meeting).  It is to use the crisis (the meeting) to "fix" you.  By changing the language of the meeting from the preaching and teaching of facts and truth (Robert's Rules of order, recognizing inalienable rights and majority vote) to the dialoguing of opinions (the consensus meeting of "feelings" and "thought," initiating and sustaining "human rights"), the participants in the meeting are 'changed,' i.e. loosing their inalienable rights to "human rights," i.e. their duty no longer being to their Father but to "the village."

 "In psychology, Freud and his followers have presented convincing arguments that the id [man's carnal nature], man's basic and unconscious nature, is primarily made up of instincts which would, if permitted expression, result in incest, murder, and other crimes." "The whole problem of therapy, as seen by this group, is how to hold these untamed forces in check in a wholesome and constructive manner, rather than in the costly fashion of the neurotic [how to use crime for socialist 'change' (positive social change) rather than stop it, i.e. how to 'liberate' "human nature" rather than recognize the Father's authority, which engenders the "guilty conscience," which represses it]." (Carl Rogers On Becoming A Person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

"Walden Two: 'Now that we know how positive reinforcement works [getting people to dialogue to consensus, i.e. seducing, deceiving, and manipulating them into 'change'], and why negative doesn't' [chastening them, i.e. engendering the "guilty conscience"]... '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 wishes.  The curious thing is that in that case the question of freedom never arises." "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors will follow." (Carl Rogers On Becoming A Person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) emphasis in original

The foundation for a civil society is found in the "guilty conscience,' which is engendered in the traditional home environment: "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)

For socialist 'change' to take place, the "guilty conscience," i.e. the traditional home environment which engenders, it must be called into question, i.e. no longer supported:  "Unfortunately, because of the reduction of influence exerted by neighbors, the extended family and even the family, social control is now often more dependent on external control, than on internal self-control."  (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz,  Community Policing  The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing)

Crime must be used, not stopped, if access to the traditional family is to be gained, drawing it together with other families concerned about stopping the crime:  "The community of interest generated by crime, disorder and fear of crime becomes the goal to allow community policing officer an entree into the geographic community."  "The theme underlying much of the research is that once you can identify a community, you have discovered the primary unit of society above the level of the individual and the family that can be mobilized to take concerted action to bring about positive social change."   (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz  Community Policing  The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing)  emphasis added 

The foundation of common-ism is based upon all public-private institutions coming together as "one," united in an effort to "stop" crime (i.e. to resolve crisis), i.e. negating the individuals duty to the Father by refocusing it to the common-unity: "Leaders of the community (law enforcement, government, business, education, health, civic, non-profit, medical, religious, etc.) collaborating to identify problems in the community… and suggesting solutions to those problems."  "Identifying common ground, where all factions of a community can work together for the common good of the community in a broader problem-solving approach. Forming a partnership between police and the rest of the community where each is accountable to each other and the community as whole."  "Shift in philosophy about police duties vs. community responsibilities to a team concept of  Total Quality Management of the community. Reidentifying the police role as a Facilitator in the community."  (COPS, Community Oriented Policing Services US Department of Justice )  emphasis added

Replacing "inalienable rights" (duty under God, individualism, i.e. the freedom of the conscience, i.e. the voice of the Father preventing socialists control) with "human rights" (duty to common-unity, common-ism, i.e. freedom from the conscience, i.e. the searing of the conscience, i.e. replacing the conscience with the "super-ego," i.e. replacing the voice of the Father with the "voice of the village" for the sake of socialist control) engenders 'change': "Human rights and duties are grounded in the institutions and ideologies of a culture, not in a nature independent of man's social relationships."  (Kenneth Benne Human Relations in Curriculum Change)  When traditional families seek refuge from crime areas, moving to where they can be free of it, it is the socialists duty to create areas of crime in their "new" area of "escape," via public housing, etc. (all in the name of "helping" people get on their feet and for the 'purpose' of "equality"), to force families into dialogue with diversity (deviancy), thereby using crime to destroy the traditional family while engendering a police-state society of abomination.  It is not that fathers do not care.  They do.  They tend to bring the neighborhood up to a higher plain (morally) for the sake of their children if they are allowed.  Socialists have to negate this if they are to engender 'change,' i.e. 'change' meaning the expression of man's carnal nature without a "guilty conscience."

By moving the language of communication from speaking with a voice of authority, i.e. from the preaching and teaching of facts and truths "as given," speaking as one who knows, whose duty it is to serve the Father, doing His will, to the language of opinions, i.e. speaking as one who does not know for certain, but only "feels" and "thinks," those who hold to the "knowing" language ("It is written") no longer find themselves relevant in the 'changing' world of "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. a world ever 'changing' according to the opinions of men, even though they may be speaking the same dialect such as English, German, etc.  For example: by adding Bloom's Taxonomies to the classroom experience, i.e. changing the classroom from the adult teacher preaching and teaching facts and truth to the students, facts to be learned and properly applied, with the teacher chastening those students who did not do their homework (by giving them a bad grade) or misbehaved (by paddling), i.e. by the classroom environment being that of the traditional home environment where children are accountable to a higher authority for their actions, to where the teacher and students 'discovered' truth together (as partners) through the dialoguing of the students and teacher's opinions, i.e. expressing their "feelings" and "thoughts" on personal and social issues, not only were the students 'changed' but the whole nation was 'changed' as well, i.e. the classroom experience engendering students who from then on felt free to "questioned authority" (treat their parent's authority as being "irrelevant") when it conflicted with their "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. when it inhibited their personal and socialist desires of the 'moment.'   Bloom admitted, as Kuhn did (as sited above), that social "science" was not the same as true science but pushed its use anyway, treating it as a science, censoring any who attempted to warn of its use, i.e. "common-ism."  "Certainly the Taxonomy was unproven at the time it was developed and may well be ‘unprovable.;" (Benjamin Bloom, Bloom's Taxonomy: A Forty Year Retrospect)  Bloom's Taxonomies are used in every nation around the world, including your local public and private schools, shaping the minds of the next generation to accept global dominance ("We working for Us") as the way of life (see Common Core).

When the teacher asks for the facts or truth learned by the students (taught to them by the teacher), with the students understanding that they will be held accountable for the right answer, a patriarchal paradigm is experienced by the students.  When the "teacher" (the facilitator of 'change') asks the students how they "feel" and what they "think," i.e. for their opinion concerning the issue or issues at hand, a heresiarchal paradigm of 'change' is experienced by the students, i.e. with the patriarchal paradigm called into question (if not negated) in the experience.  Just answering the questions "How do you 'feel?'" and "What do you 'think?" in regards to something that is known, 'changes' you, i.e. 'changes' your paradigm.  The answer (the paradigm, i.e. the culture) is in the question (is in the language, i.e. is in the form of communication), is in the way the question is asked.  The 'changing' of language (the 'changing' of the method of communication) within the classroom environment affects all of society, not only the individual child.  It affects (determines) how children and adults will respond to another method of communication in the future.  Education is not the issue.  "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."  (Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education)   The method (paradigm) being used in education, i.e. in the classroom, is the issue.  One method engenders a patriarchal paradigm of consistency, i.e. a "top-down" culture based upon facts and truth, i.e. a culture based upon established facts and truth of the "past," initiating and sustain a culture of stability.  The other methods engenders a heresiarchal paradigm of 'changingness,' i.e. an "equality" culture based upon "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. initiating and sustaining a culture of instability, a culture based upon the ever 'changingness' of men's opinions, negating facts and truth when they get in the way of "progress," i.e. when they get in the way of 'change.'  Have you heard the word 'change' recently?  It is the hallmark of Karl Marx's ideology.  "The philosophers have interpreted the world in different ways, the objective is to change it."  (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11)

Today, you receive that "deer in the headlights look" from people when you warn them about what is coming down the road, i.e. when you preach and attempt to teach them the truth.  America is a nation ripe for road kill because it has done a paradigm 'change,' i.e. changing from the language of knowing to the language of opinions, i.e. the citizens no longer speaking the truth, but loving a lie, trusting government as it encourages them to speak openly on how they "feel" and what they "think" while restraining (censoring) those who preach and teach the truth—"Because God said so," i.e. because "It is written"—accusing them of hate.

The hallmark of those nations who are overtaken by communism and fascism, i.e. by dialectic 'reasoning,' is the negation (annihilation) of those citizens who warn their fellow citizens of impending danger—they are found guilty for being "negative," for speaking the language of the "past," guilty of no longer being relevant to the citizens current "felt" needs of the present, i.e. citizens who can now only accept the language of the "here-and-now," i.e. how they "feel" and what they "think" and how other's "feel" and what they "think" (of men's opinions) in the given 'moment,' i.e. the language of the "positive."  The scriptures warn us: "Cursed is the man who trust in man and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD."   "Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is." Jeremiah 17:5, 7  As the Apostle Paul wrote it in Romans 3:4: "let God be true, but every man a liar."

There has been a warning given: "Having rejected the Bible as the infallible and inerrant Word of God and having accepted the view that everything is in flux, the liberal theologian holds that it is unsafe to formulate any fixed views about God and theological truth."  (Henry Clarence Theissen, Systematic Theology-Nature and Necessity of Theology)  Martin Luther warned of the schools of "higher learning" (of textural criticism) of his day, that they had become "wide gates to hell," that "they teach not Christ but human reasoning [i.e. not the Word of God "as is," but the opinions of men]."  "Woe to these lost and dreadful men of Sodom and Gomorrah!" "Miserable Christians, whose words and faith still depend on the interpretations of men and who expect clarification from them!  This is frivolous and ungodly.  The Scriptures are common to all, and are clear enough in respect to what is necessary for salvation and are also obscure enough for inquiring minds. . . let us reject the word of man."  (Martin Luther, Luther's Works)   Concerning man's focusing upon God's love for man, i.e. focusing upon His grace (accentuating the "positive"), without recognizing the wrath of God upon "the children of disobedience," i.e. recognizing judgment and damnation (recognizing the "negative"), Luther wrote: "It is Satan, the god of all dissension, who stirs up daily new sects, and last of all, which of all other I should not have foreseen or once suspected, he has raised up a sect such as teaches that man should not be terrified by the law but be gently exalted by the grace of Christ."  (Martin Luther)  Not that the law saves.  It condemns.  But it turns man to a savior, i.e. Jesus Christ, who (having fulfilled the law) is the only one who can save, i.e. 'redeeming' man from the wrath of God, i.e. from the wrath of the Father, 'reconciling' him to the Father.  It is the latter part, i.e. the 'reconciliation' to the Father (keeping the Father in authority—"And call no man your Father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9) that the "old" world order with its "liturgical church," i.e. with it's "doctrines of men" and the "new" world order, with its "contemporary church," with its "opinions" of men, can not accept. "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   Doctrine is important, but it must be "sound doctrine," it must be according to and subject to the Word of God, leading men to the Lord, not making the Lord (and the redeemed) subject to an earthly father (an institution of man's own making) or negating the Father altogether.  It can not come between the soul of man and the Lord (establishing any institution or person between the redeemed and the redeemer, both being subject to the Father's will, subject to the Word of God, first and foremost). "Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers."  Titus 1:9  "Gainsayers" are those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. those who "oppose themselves," i.e. always subject to 'change.' 

The "culture war" of today is the negation of the language of the Father, i.e. giving commands to His children to be obeyed "as given" (as "It is written"), and chastening them when they disobey (engendering a "guilty conscience"), i.e. "Do this," "Don't do that,"  "Because I said so." (The 'purpose' of the consensus process is to filter out the "old," i.e. the preachers and teachers of truth and facts "as given," by augmenting the "new," the dialoguers of opinions.)  That culture, which we have now become, i.e. which refuses to listen to the language of the Father, i.e. which rejects the preaching and teaching of truth or facts "as given," i.e. which has no "guilt conscience" for its unrighteous thoughts and unrighteous actions, embraces the language of the children, i.e. the language of opinions, i.e. how we "feel" or what we "think" in the 'changing' 'moment,' and is now ripe for the judgment of God (the wrath of God upon "the children of disobedienc"").  The "children of disobedience," as children who, loving their opinions, i.e. how they "feel" and what they "think" in the "given 'moment,'" refuse to honor their Father's authority, i.e. His authority to give commands to his children and chasten them when they disobey, therefore are regarded by the Father as bastards (as illegitimate children), i.e. as "deer in the headlights" (who refuse to heed His warning) are soon to experience His wrath.  "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  There are those today (in all offices and walks of life) who can sleep a peaceful sleep.  Those who have a clear conscience (being right before the Father).  And those who have no conscience at all (having no fear of judgment from the Father, i.e. having washed Him from their brain).  It is the latter who can "waste" you and sleep soundly, dreaming of "the good life," i.e. the life that can be if only we all would work together for the common-ist cause (even doing it "in Jesus name").

Is your language (and culture) of the paradigm of death (of the heresiarchal paradigm of the "children of disobedience," i.e. of men's opinions, i.e. how you "feel" and what you "think" in the carnal 'moment') or is your language (and culture) of the paradigm of life (of the patriarchal paradigm of the Father, i.e. of the Word of God being preached and taught and accepted by faith as given, i.e. as "It is written")?  "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."  2 Corinthians 5:17   "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."  Matthew 24:35

     "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.  Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.  Be not ye therefore partakers with them."  Ephesians 5:5-7  "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"  Hebrews 10:26-29  The Lord God of mercy and grace is patient but he is not tolerant. "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.  Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.  To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."  Revelation 3:19-22

"Kuhn states 'If a paradigm 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)  Therefore the understanding is: anyone who continues to advance the "old" culture (preaching and teaching the judgment of God, His condemnation of the unrighteous, His damnation of those of the world), will be treated as being "irrational," no matter the truths they are preaching and teaching.  Any information (warnings) they impart will be taken out of context by those who are deceived in their effort to protect the deceived.  Any response to those of the "old" way of thinking and acting (preaching and teaching the truth as given) by those with the "new" way of thinking and acting (language and culture) will be to attack the "old" way of thinking and acting (the "old" language and culture), i.e. the "old way of believing and acting" being perceived as being "irrelevant" (extremist if propagated and therefore detrimental) to the "new" common cause.  The general public, lacking any understanding of (or respect for) the "old" cultures way of thinking and acting, will readily embrace any attack upon it, perceiving it as being relevant (necessary) for their own safely and the preservation of their "new" way of thinking and acting, i.e. their "new" world order.

Abraham Maslow wrote of the cost and outcome of such language and cultural 'change,' the outcome being arrived at over "much blood."  "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) emphasis added   Maslow was responding to his early statement regarding the "new" world order: "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.'"   He continued: ". . . 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.)"  "The new Zeitgeist is value-full (value-directed, value-vectorial), human-need & meta-need centered (or based), moving toward basic-need gratification & meta-need meta-gratification―that is, toward full-humanness, SA, psychological health, full-functioning human fulfillment, i.e., toward human perfection as the limit & as the direction."  "It revolves around a new image of man, a new conception or definition, containing both the Freudian-style depts & a higher nature, higher possibilities, which can be actualized under the proper life-history and social milieu & conative history."  "For Marx, man's being & consciousness are determined by the structure of his society."  "For Freud, society only influences his being by greater or lesser repression of his innate biology."  "Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory to round it out. And of course, vice versa."  "How can we teach everyone to have the "scientific" or empirical attitude about everything."  "So it looks as if nudism is the first step toward ultimate fee-animality-humanness.  It's the easiest to take.  Must encourage it."  "Yet nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian & Jewish foundations. Must move in the direction of the Reichian orgasm."  "This movement can be dignified and Apollonian & can avoid pornography & neurosis & ugliness. I must put as much of this as is possible & usable in my education book, & more & more in succeeding writings." ibid.   Abraham Maslow wrote in his journal, after speaking at a Catholic School in Southern California in 1962: "They shouldn't applaud me. They should attack me. If they were fully aware of what I was doing, they would attack."  ibid.  It is amazing that a professor, who never worked a day of his life, could have had such influence over this nation, his material being used all around the world today to justify the "new" world order ("human rights") shedding the blood of those who want to hold on to their "Mine. Not yours" (inalienable rights) way of life.  He did have personal doubts of his globalist plan once he had his own family (go figure), but that does no seem to matter, the process having taken on a life of its own (with the children in adult bodies, i.e. "big brother" now in control).  He wrote in his journal: "... my children got me into conflict with my theory.  Who should teach whom?  Youngsters teach the elders or vice versa?  I've been in continuous conflict over this Esalen-type, orgiastic, Dionysian-type education."  (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow

By opening "Pandora's box," a box full of evil, which once opened can not be closed, the author of restraint, i.e. the Father's authority becomes moribund and that which is evil, i.e. the heart of the child, i.e. "human nature," now becomes good in its own eyes.  George Hegel wrote: "When a man has finally reached the point where he does not think he knows it better than others, that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly and he is interested only in what they have done right, then peace and affirmation have come to him."  (G. F. W. Hegel, in one of the casual notes preserved at Widener as sited in Carl Fredrick, The Philosophy of Hegel)  By this "logic," in only one or two generations, evil can not be dispelled, man's ability (the Father's authority) to initiate and sustain order (the "old" world order) now having become moribund. "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)  Not only will the "children of disobedience" turn on their Father's as well as their own, even the father's, as "children of disobedience," i.e. freed from the fear of God ( freed from the "guilty conscience," i.e. subject only to the pleasures of this life), will turn on their God given office and betray their own sons.  "Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death.  And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." Mark 13:12

America is at its own deathbed.  Those of the "old" world order (of the "old" language of right and wrong, the old "top-down" culture of parental authority where the Father gives commands to His children to be obeyed without questioning His authority and be chastened when they disobey, receiving His wrath when they disrespect His authority) are soon to be removed for good (what is left of them in the nation that is).  Their blood will soon to be shed (via means of "non-lethal" weapons, i.e. "health care,"  i.e. those who can no longer contribute to the socialist cause no longer need any socialist support) by those doing their "public duty," mopping up any left over remnants of the "old" world order, i.e. clearing the way for an "improving" and "sustainable" "new" world order.  Out with the "old" and in with the "new."  It will (and already has) "cost much blood," i.e. the blood of the unborn, the elder, and any who stand in the way of the "new" world order, i.e. in the way of "progress," i.e. in the way of pleasure and convenience, i.e. in the way of "Making the world safe for democracy,"  i.e. "Safe for the tyranny of the masses."  During the purging of the "old" world order, the "old" culture (which respects and honors the Father's authority, i.e. where property rights, i.e. inalienable rights are derived, where sovereignty is recognized and respected—God voicing the first property rights and sovereignty, i.e. "My garden. Not your garden.") the language of those of the "new" world order (where children of the flesh, i.e. of impulses, feelings, and thoughts rule, i.e. where "human rights" are derived, i.e. initiating and sustaining a society of "Reichian orgasm," i.e. a world of abomination where "God's tree is our tree," i.e. Adam and Eve, "The King's horse is the peoples horse," i.e. Karl Marx, "Your property, family, business, life, etc. is our property, family, business, life, etc.," i.e. communitization), of the "new" culture, will be: "How do you, like, like, ah, like, 'feel' about, like having, like, like some pizza."  Or more "dignified." "What do you 'think' we should do to make the church more environmentally friendly, i.e. more 'green.'"

When you are seeking the truth (above this life of the 'moment,' beyond the carnal 'moment'), i.e. seeking "the approval of the Father," you are not offended, i.e. you do not stop seeking the truth because of how people "feel" about you or what they "think" of you.  People rejecting and even shaming you might hurt but it won't stop you from seeking the truth and doing what is right according to your Heavenly Father's will. "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6  But when you base life upon men's opinions, i.e. how people "feel" about you and what they "think"' of you, i.e. seeking "the approval of men," you will be offended, i.e. you will stop seeking the truth when the truth might separate you from "the people," i.e. from the "masses."  You can't go any further into the truth than your "friends" and "friendships" will allow you. "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  Jesus made it clear who those are that seek the truth, i.e. those who seek the Father, i.e. doing' the Father's will:  "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  "And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it."  Luke 9:23-24  "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

Those who are seeking after the Lord without the Father, i.e. who love the opinions of men (who, through dialectic 'reasoning,' filter the Word of God through the "feelings" and "thoughts" of men, i.e. 'changing' it to meet their "felt" needs, for worldly gain), are of the spirit of Antichrist, i.e. only of the world.  Those "Christians" who reason 'dialectically," who are controlled by how people "feel" about them and what people "think" of them, i.e. who are seeking after "the approval of men," are as "wolves in sheepskin" (their "ought" is the wolf in them)  establishing themselves upon the dialectic foundation of men's opinions, i.e. negating the Word of God, negating the righteousness of God and His judgment upon the world because of their unrighteousness, i.e. their unrighteous thoughts and unrighteous actions, instead augmenting the pleasures of this life while attenuating the pain of this life, i.e. purging society of the Father's authority, i.e. negating those who preach and teach righteousness and judgment, i.e. either establishing righteousness upon the law, requiring their own works (money) for salvation (legalism), or upon "human nature," i.e. upon the law of the flesh (licentiousness), 'justifying' themselves according to themselves, making themselves as God. "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 " Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?"  Colossians 2:20-22   "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God."   Luke 16:5   Being 'justified' in their own eyes, i.e. making themselves 'righteous' according to their own "human nature" through "human 'reasoning' they (those of dialectic 'reasoning') condemn anyone who expose them for their unrighteous thoughts and unrighteous actions.  This is the hallmark of "common-ism" AKA communism AKA communitarianism.

No man can attain righteousness in and of himself, neither singularly nor socially.  Only God is righteous in and of himself.  Therefore righteousness can only be imputed by God to those of faith in His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.  God will therefore pour out his wrath upon those who reject His righteousness, upon those who reject the only way of salvation, who reject God and the Son of God ("the Lord God, and the Lord Jesus Christ"), who reject Father and the Son, i.e. the Lord Jesus Christ—who accepted (humbled himself and took on the form of a man) and honored His Father's authority (who and what Jesus came to obey and fulfill, even unto death).  The hallmark (residue) of dialectic 'reasoning' is that righteousness and judgment (condemnation and damnation)—established only by God—is no longer an issue of life, no longer a top priority (if at all of any concern) in the thoughts and actions of men, with "human nature," i.e. man being "positive," being "tolerating ambiguity,"  i.e. augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain (including the pain of righteousness), i.e. initiating and sustaining the way of abomination, now having taken its place.  Dialectic 'reasoning' engenders a culture and a language of hostility against the language of God, persecuting the culture which preaches and teaches the Word of God "as is," i.e. uncontaminated by men's opinions, with those of the world (including the dialectic "church" with its facilitators of 'change') calling God's judgment upon sin, i.e. His condemnation of "human nature" as being "hate speech," i.e. a "hate crime," condemning any who speak the Word of God "as is," accusing them of being "negative," i.e. guilty of engendering "divisiveness."  Even in the "church" today, righteousness (the Father's authority, in Christ, i.e. the Word of God) is out and sensuousness ("human nature," men's opinions, i.e. "How 'the people' feel" and "What 'the people' think) is in.

 "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.  Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.  For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.   When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.  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. But now ye also put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.  Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds [Greek, praxis]; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him."  Colossians 3:1-11

To refuse to recognize and incorporate the language of righteousness (of the system of righteousness, i.e. "Thou shalt not ...." "Because it is written," i.e. "You can not ...."  "Because I said so."  "Because it is wrong.") in the language of your culture is to reject God (that there is a God in the true meaning of the word, i.e. who will judge you for your unrighteous thoughts and unrighteous actions).  To refuse to recognize and incorporate the language of righteousness is to reject salvation for yourself and salvation for all who follow you in your praxis of lying, i.e. of negating the language of righteousness, i.e. rejecting the Father's authority to give commands to His children and to chasten them when they disobey (the Father either chastens, which restores right thinking and acting, or pours out His wrath upon those who refuse to be chastened, which destroys—no matter how you feel or what you think, these are the only two options you have to pick from).  To refuse to recognize and incorporate the language of righteousness is to attack His children, i.e. silencing those who embrace and preach and teach His way of thinking and acting.  In a socialist culture, sensuousness, i.e. "human nature," i.e. the flesh, must be exalted and righteousness negated  if there is to be "peace."  It is the dialectic way, with "enlightened" men of "wisdom" engendering a language and a culture which is 'purposed' in initiating and sustaining "worldly peace and socialist harmony."  Yet for a while they shall prevail, boasting to their shame (hundreds of millions of people have been {and millions more will be} tormented, tortured, and killed, i.e. dying horrible deaths at their hands) until judgment, i.e. until the Son of the Father returns to judge them (with the Father pouring out his wrath upon them and all who follow them, i.e. all being lovers of lies, in their "new" world order way of thinking and acting), i.e. with the Father pouring out His mercy and grace upon all who love Him, who walk in His way. "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid."  John 14:27  "For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape." 1 Thessalonians 5:3

"Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."  Matthew 24:9-13:  "... nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8b  The language of faith is the language of the Lord: "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."  Matthew 4:4  The language of the "new" world order is: "Question authority."  It is the language of Satan, i.e. "You won't die."   Yet, in the end, it is the language of death, i.e. the language of eternal death to all who speak it (who refuse to accept and speak the language of God, i.e. who refuse to accept it, Him, and His Word as is, loving the opinions of men instead).  

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?  Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?  Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."  Mark 8:36-38

The Apostle Paul wrote of those of the language and culture of righteousness, of those, who having been redeemed from the language and culture of the "new" world order of 'change' are no longer blinded by the "feelings" and "thoughts" of men, i.e. no longer influenced and controlled by the opinions of men (while loving all men, trusting no man, taking captive every thought to the obedience of Christ, evaluating men's thoughts and actions according to God's Word and not evaluating God's Word according to men's opinions, i.e. according to "human nature"): "Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God."  "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."  "For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us."  "We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh." 2 Corinthians 4:1-11

Your opinion, your language of "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. your "thinking" through your "feelings," i.e. depending upon the flesh, upon sensuousness ("sense experience"), upon sight, i.e. that which is of the world to know right from wrong, good from evil won't be acceptable (won't count) on the day of judgment.  What makes you think it is acceptable (counts) before the Lord today, especially when it comes to the Father's will.  "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding."  Proverb. 3: 5  Those of the kingdom of God do not accept men's opinions (including their own) as being equal with God's Word, but instead weigh their opinions and the opinions of others upon the authority of God's Word.  Those of the kingdom of men can not accept the authority of God's Word.  It would condemn them, judging their way of thinking and acting as being evil, accusing their heart's intent as being wicked ("The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 ) creating a "guilty conscience," calling them to repentance (dying to their carnal thoughts and actions, dying to "the approval of men," i.e. dying to dialect 'reasoning,' i.e. the 'justification' of the flesh, that which is of the world) and to the following of Jesus, doing His Father's will, less they die in their sins, being cast into hell. "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."  Matthew 14:41, 42

The language of the child, i.e. his "Why?" (the dynamo for dialectic 'reasoning'), i.e. as in "Why do I have to do what you want me to do when I want to do something I think is good in my own eyes, which obeying you would prevent?"), in response to the Father's command to do something or not do something He demands "or else" (be chastened, detaching the child's actions from his carnal feelings, his actions now subject to his Father's will).  The child's "Why?", when suppressed by the Father's "Because I said so" becomes an "ought" as the child talks to himself, i.e. "Well, I ought to be able to ...."   By the Father setting standards which prevent the child from being subject to his impulses, feelings, and thoughts, i.e. which are influenced by the world, i.e. by the natural environment, the Father creates a different culture (a different world) than that which is of the child, with right and wrong, good and evil being established above his "human nature," restraining it, i.e. a spiritual world restraining the natural world, preventing the child from becoming at-one-with the world, i.e. at-one-with the environment in pleasure in the 'moment.'  "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." Proverbs 22:15  "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." Proverbs 23:13, 14  If you cringed at the reading of these verses it might be your language is in agreement with the child's carnal nature and not in agreement with the Father's authority to train up His children in His own image, i.e. the child evaluating the world from the Father's standards rather than from his own nature.  While the earthly father might be wrong in his commands, i.e. he is not perfect and might even be a tyrant using the office for his own carnal gain, his office is perfect, given to him by God to use under His authority, according to His will.  So if you are in disagreement with the Father's commands, go to him and persuade him to change them, but you can not be in disagreement with the earthly father's God given authority to train up his children in his own image, i.e. doing right and not doing wrong according to his "top-down" authority. "A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself."  "Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding."  "He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding."  Proverbs 18:2; 4:1; 15:32  The flesh of the child ties him to the sensuousness of the world, his soul ties him to the spiritual authority of God.  Preaching and teaching the Word of God speaks to the soul, while dialoging his opinion, only being of his flesh, i.e. of the world, only speaks to his flesh, i.e. to the world.

For the language and the culture of the child (of the world) to prevail, the language and the culture of the Father must be negated.  Psychology, sociology, philosophy, etc. all have this one mandate, i.e. the negation of the Father's authority over His children through the use of the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, negating the preaching and teaching of truths to be learned and obeyed "or else." "Freud and Hegel are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression."  "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." "Normal adult sexuality, judged by the standard of infantile sexuality, is an unnatural restriction of the erotic potentialities of the human body."  "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, . . . leads to neurosis." "Our repressed desires are the desires we had unrepressed, in childhood; and they are sexual desires." "Psychoanalysis declares the fundamental bisexual character of human nature;" "Eros is the foundation of morality." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)  Theodor Adorno, whose Weltanschauung (paradigm) was that from which and for what Bloom's Taxonomies were established, wrote: "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." "The impact of Sigmund Freud's work on modern culture [was] the connection between the suppression of children (both within the home and outside) [and] the psychological dynamics of the life of the child and the adult alike." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)   Karl Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family [the earthly father's authority] is discovered to be the secret of the heavenly family [the Heavenly Father's authority], the former must be destroyed [annihilated] in theory and in practice [negated in the child's thoughts and actions]."  (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis # 4George Hegel wrote: "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." (George Hegel, System of Ethical LifeSigmund Freud wrote: "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [the father no longer functions with a father's authority]." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud

According to Freud, the child's "Id," man's true nature, i.e. the essence of his being, has no "negation," i.e. has no "Thou shalt not's," i.e. has no Father's authority.   Therefore it is the duty of his "Ego," the child's "I will," to defend his "Id."  But, in fear of death at the hand of his Father, he instead submits his will to the Father's will, thus "repressing" his "Id," engendering a life of "neurosis."  The solution, according to Freud, is the child's killing of the Father.  But being to weak by himself it is therefore incumbent upon all the children, unite as one in consensus, to not only kill the Father but also to eat Him, leaving no trace of his existence.  Herbart Marcuse, explaining the merging of Freud with Marx, wrote, regarding Freud:  "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a  'barrier to incest' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother—culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan."  But a sense of guilt (for their actions against the Father) results in a "guilty conscience," i.e. realizing that the Father was not totally evil, having clothed, fed, protected, and loved the children thus engendering a "civilization of neurosis," i.e. a society of rules reestablished by the children to serve and protect the family, undoing their "freedom."  "The crime against the reality principle [against killing the Fatheragainst killing the system of righteousness] is redeemed [is undone] by the crime against the pleasure principle [by reestablishing rules restraining the children―restraining the system of sensuousness]: redemption thus cancels itself."  Without negating the condition which engenders the "guilty conscience" (the fear of "reprisal" for breaking rules), the society of children (freed from the Father's authority) can not be realized.  Without creating an environment, i.e. a culture where the children can freely share their "feelings" and "thoughts" without the fear of "reprisal," i.e.. the effects of their Father's preaching and teaching regarding what is right and what is wrong (good and evil) according to His will, can not be undone.  Therefore, without patricide, i.e. without negating the Father's authority (his right to chasten for disobedience) in the thoughts and actions of the children, incest, i.e. socialist unity can not be realized (There is no Father's authority in "theory and practice."  It only resides in belief and action.  The trickery is to 'change' facts and truth into a theory, i.e. belief into an opinion, affectively negating facts and truth, i.e. belief, i.e. the Father's authority as the proper way of thinking and acting).  Marcuse wrote: "according to Freud, the drive toward ever larger unities [socialism] belongs to the biological-organic nature of Eros [of sensuousness] itself."  (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)  While the Karl Marx in the child is expressed in his reaching for the "gratifying object" the Father has taken from him, the child's kicking of the Father is the Sigmund Freud in him, attempting to remove the barrier "repressing" his life of gratification.  The structure of the home, with the Father ruling over it as God, therefore must be negated if the world is to become freed from patriarchal domination.  Only by changing the language being used in setting of policy, i.e. changing it from the preaching and teaching of facts and truth to be learned and put into action "as given," to the dialoging of opinions to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness") can man, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' be freed from the "old" culture, i.e. 'liberated' from the Father's authority to be of the "new."

According to the language and culture of the dialectic 'reasoning,' the child's identity is not to be found in the Father's authority, establishing him as an individual accountable before God for this thoughts and actions, i.e. restraining his "human nature," but in the society of children, united upon that which they all have in common, their carnal "human nature" (common-ism).  Marx wrote: "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 6 "It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities." (Karl Marx) "Only within a social context individual man is able to realize his own potential as a rational being."  (Joseph O'Malley, editor of Karl Marx's Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')  Regarding Freud's correlation with Marx (the correlation of psychology with sociology, i.e. Transformational Marxism)  Brown wrote: "The individual is emancipated in the social group."  "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt [the fear of the Father's chastening for disobedience to His command] be assuaged."  (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)  Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' sin is not of the child's nature, i.e. of the flesh, i.e. "human nature" in rebellion against the Father's authority, the spirit, it is the Father's authority preventing the child from knowing "himself," i.e. that which he has in common with all children, his "human nature," i.e. the Father preventing him from becoming at-one-with the children of the world (a common-ist).  "'The answer to man's predicament lies in the realization by individual man, that all men are essentially one and that the one is God. This self-realization is a 'return' to union .... 'Sin' is the estrangement of man from man ." (Leonard F. Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God)   By elevating the child (human feelings) to the same level as the Father (establishing right from wrong, good from evil), elevating his opinion (feelings) to the same level as the Father's belief, elevating his theory to the same level of the Father's facts, elevating his sensuousness to the same level of his Father's righteousness, (the system of righteousness being the Father's giving of commands to His children and chastening them when they disobey, righteousness itself only being imputed to men of faith in the Lord God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, by God himself since only God is righteous in and of Himself), etc. the Father, his belief, his facts, His righteousness (the system of righteousness), etc. i.e. are all negated, the child, his opinion, his theory, his sensuousness, through dialectic 'reasoning' being placed over and against them. 

The language and culture of the children (of the "children of disobedience") "controlling" the world is the use of Genesis 3:1-6 (the language of self 'justification,' i.e. of "I feel" and "I think," where "sense perception" determined right from wrong, good from evil—I "feel" I ought to be able to at least "touch it,"  I "think" there is no harm in eating from it as it is just like all the other trees which are "good for food" and "pleasing to the eyes," i.e. the first praxis of common-ism, i.e. the first use of the "wisdom" of the world for self-'justification,' i.e. the "pride of life"—thereby the "forbidden object" became "good," "pleasing," and "desirous," i.e. the flesh and its lust for the things of the world became the bases of evaluation, used to determine right from wrong, good from evil rather than the Word of God) negating Hebrews 12:5-11 (the Father's authority to give commands to His children and to chasten  them when they disobey) negating Romans 7:14-25 (the "guilty conscience," i.e. the fear of judgment and damnation and the need for a savior to 'redeem' the children from the Father's wrath and 'reconcile' them to the Father).  By rejecting the Father's authority, i.e. rejecting righteousness as the issue of life, God has turned us over to our own demise, i.e. over to our childish "human nature," i.e. over to the "children of disobedience" (who have no "guilty conscience"), i.e. over to sensuousness, i.e. over to incest, i.e. over to abomination.  "And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable."  "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:4-5, 12 

I have yet to meet a "minister" of the "church growth," "emergent church," "contemporary church" kilt who fear God and love His Word.  They all instead love the opinions of men, thereby loving their own sin (I've had some yell at me defending the cause of dialogue, i.e. 'justifying' their sin, although most walk out during the first part of my speech if they are willing to listen at all, i.e. It is not only what I am preaching and teaching that offends them, i.e. exposing their method, i.e. exposing their lies.  It is how I present it, i.e. refusing to compromise.). "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."  2 Corinthians 11:13-15 "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 1:9-1 "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 [to the opinions of men]." 2 Timothy 4:3  "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." 2 Corinthians 11:3-4

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life [which engenders and is subject to the opinions, i.e. the "feelings" and "thoughts" of men], is not of the Father, but is of the world."  1 John 2:17  "No servant 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."  Luke 16:13  "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."  John 8:23-24  "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."  Acts 4:12

 The next time you say "I feel" or "I think" in regards to doing right and not doing wrong, consider the language of your Heavenly Father and, walking in His kingdom, do His will instead.  "Thy will be done."

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2013-2015