"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." Proverb. 3: 5-6
Diaprax:
the dialoguing of opinions ("feelings") to a consensus process (praxis).
Facebook mentality.
by
Dean Gotcher
Bracketed information in quotations and verses is information added by me.
"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16
The dialectic process, i.e., 'reasoning' from the child's/man's carnal nature, i.e., 'reasoning' from "feelings," i.e., from "sense experience," i.e., from "the lust of the flesh," "lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., from "self interest" is antithetical to the father's/Father's authority., i.e., reasoning from established commands, rules, facts, and truth. The traditional family, local control, 'limited' government, unalienable rights, individualism/Nationalism, under God, sovereignty, private convictions, property, business, the "fellowshipping of the saints," faith in God is negated through the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., dialogue—making right and wrong subject to "feelings," i.e., to the child's/man's carnal nature, i.e., to the child's/man's "lust" for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates. 'Justifying' his "self" through dialogue, the child's/man's hatred toward restraint (and the restrainer), i.e., his hatred toward the father's/Father's authority is 'justified' in his eyes. Instead of right and wrong being subject to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will, it is now subject to whoever is seducing, deceiving, and manipulating, i.e., 'justifying' the child's/man's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature" turning him into "human resource," so he can be bought and sold (used) for their own pleasure and gain. Your "lusts" are made manifest and 'justified' in dialogue. "Self interest," i.e., covetousness, i.e., dialogue makes you seducible, deceivable, manipulatable, i.e., subject to whoever gets you into dialogue, turning you against the father/Father and his/His authority, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process. Look around you. It is the way the world is going today. Even the "church" is now dialoguing everyone's opinion of the Word of God instead of preaching, teaching, and discussing it, accepting it as "written," by faith and obeying it, doing the Father's will. To dialogue, you must suspend the truth, as upon a cross, in order to allow everyone to share their opinion. It is then that you must decide whether truth is more important than "human(ist) relationship," i.e., the approval (affirmation) of men, making fellowship dependent upon truth, i.e., the Word of God or "human(ist) relationship," i.e., your desire for the approval of men (affirmation—which is not only intoxication, but additive and possessive as well) is more important than truth, making "truth" subject to "human(ist) relationship," i.e., everyone's opinion. It all hinges upon the importance (or unimportance) of the Father's authority in your life. The Son, Jesus Christ came to 'redeem' us from the Father's wrath upon us for our sins—in order for the Father to 'reconcile' us to Himself. The "Son" without the Father, i.e., the "Son" who comes with dialogue, i.e., with your "self interest," i.e., with what you covet in mind is the Anti-Christ ("big brother"), 'redeeming' you from the Father and His authority, so you can be your "self," 'reconciling' you, i.e., making you at-one-with your "self," the world, and himself. Which Son/"Son" do you choose? You have to choose one. Not to choose is to choose.
"And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you:" 2 Peter 2:3
"And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:16
"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Romans 6:16
"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
"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6
"For 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
"Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." John 5:19
"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
"and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 1:3
"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
"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
The dialectic (dialoguing of opinions to a consensus) process is the praxis of socialists, i.e., 'liberals', as children of disobedience, "reasoning" from their "feelings" of the 'moment,' which are being stimulated by the world, i.e., the current situation, which they are 'manipulating,' 'justifying' their "self," i.e., their "self interest," i.e., their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., dopamine emancipation, which the world stimulates, including affirmation, i.e., the "feeling" which comes with others approving them and their carnal desires, and their dissatisfaction with, resentment toward, hatred against authority, which gets in their way, i.e., which makes them "feel bad," negating (in their thoughts and actions) the father's/Father's authority, i.e., reasoning from established commands, rules, facts, and truth, so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., so they can do wrong, disobey, sin without being held accountable for their actions (at least in their mind), i.e., so they can do wrong, disobey, sin without having a sense of guilt, i.e., so they can do wrong, disobey, sin without having a guilty conscience. This process directly affects you, your family (your spouse and your children), your friends, your neighbors, your educators, your fellow workers and workplace, your media, your entertainment, your police, your military, your leaders, legislators, and judges, your minister, and the "church," etc., i..e, you and the world you live in—destroying respect for the father's/Father's authority wherever it goes. Its seedbed is found in psychology, i.e., in the "group grade," "group psychotherapy," facilitated,' Transformational Marxist, "safe zone/space/place," "positive," i.e., dialoguing opinions to a consensus, soviet, brainwashing ("Bloom's Taxonomy") classroom (from pre-school to and beyond the University and Vo Tech—public, private, and Christian, including the home school), 'liberating' children and adults (in their thoughts and actions) from their parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's authority (something Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud all had in mind). "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)
Preaching commands and rules to be obeyed, teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is by faith, and discussing any questions or misunderstandings the children might have (at my discretion) in my classroom, rewarding or blessing the children who do right and obey, correcting or chastening the children who do wrong or disobey sustains the father's/Father's authority in the home. Dialoging opinions to a consensus in my classroom negates the father's/Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the children. I do not, as an "educator," have to tell the students to question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack their parent's authority when they get home, they will do it automatically after participating in my dialoguing opinions to a consensus, i.e.., "group grade" classroom. "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." (Kurt Lewin in Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education)
Socialists, i.e., 'liberals' (confirming the Word of God, i.e., Matthew 6:24) know that you are subject to, i.e., yield or submit your "self" to one of two paradigms, i.e., ways of thinking and acting, i.e., relating with/responding to your "self," others, the world, and authority. You either, as a child of disobedience, 'reason' from your "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., according to your "sensuousness needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment'—in response to the current situation, stimulated by the world (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)—or, honoring the father/Father and his/His authority, reason from established commands, rules, facts, and truth (doing right and not wrong) which you have been taught.
One paradigm makes you subject to the world, i.e., to the creation only (based upon your "feelings," i.e., your "sense experience," i.e., your carnal desires of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, as a child of disobedience, 'justifying' and esteeming your "self," making you "of and for self" and the world only, 'justifying' your dissatisfaction with, resentment toward, hatred against authority which gets in your way—ibid.). The other paradigm makes you, as a child, subject to his father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11), subject to a "higher authority," i.e., subject to God, i.e., to the Father, i.e., to the creator (based upon your faith in and obedience to Him, i.e., humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining your "self" in order to do His will, i.e., accepting and honoring His authority), having a guilty conscience when doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (Romans 7:14-25).
One paradigm is represented in the traditional home, with the wife submitting her "self" to her husband's authority (Ephesians 5:22-29), the children, humbling, denying their "self," submitting their "self" to their parent's, i.e., to the father's authority (Ephesians 6:1-3), and the parents, humbling, denying their "self," i.e., submitting their "self" to God's authority, i.e., to the Heavenly Father's authority (resulting in the husband loving his wife as Christ loves the church, providing for, protecting, and directing his family in the Lord; ideally as 1 Timothy 3:2-12 speaks of elders and deacons, "ruling over his family well")—God being a "higher authority" than their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' and the world stimulating them. The other is represented in the children of disobedience who, "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (which are stimulated by the world) follow after "the prince of the power of the air" (Ephesians 2:2, 3), i.e., the master facilitator of 'change' (Genesis 3:1-6) who manifests himself (advances his cause, rebellion against authority) through "group psychotherapists," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., Transformational Marxists (all three being the same) seducing, deceiving and manipulating all who come under his (their) influence, 'liberating' their dissatisfaction with, resentment, hatred toward authority—questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, striking out against authority when/since it gets in the way of pleasure, i.e., their "lusts" of the 'moment.'
In one paradigm the child learns to preach, teach, and discuss with his "self" commands, rules, facts, and truth which he has been taught, learning to control and discipline (correct, reprove, reprimand) his "self," making his "self" subject to those commands, rules, facts, and truth and thereby accountable to the authority (author) preaching and teaching them to him and discussing them with him, in order to do right and not wrong, obey, not sin, without having to be reminded or reprimanded by authority and/or suffer the consequences which come with questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, etc., them, i.e., doing wrong, disobeying, sinning. In the other paradigm the child, dialoguing with his "self," 'justifies' his "feelings," i.e., 'justifies' his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' over and therefore against the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, or truth, i.e., authority which gets in the way of, i.e., inhibits or blocks him from "enjoying" (experiencing, i.e., "lusting" after) his carnal desires of the 'moment.'
You dialogue "feelings." You discuss commands, rules, facts, and truth. To dialogue commands, rules, facts, and truth makes them readily adaptable to 'change.' To "discuss" "feelings," i.e., "personal-social issues" makes you readily adaptable to 'change.' For example, in the study of history you preach, teach, and discuss the events of the past. In social(ist) studies you dialogue your "feelings" regarding the events of the past and present, making them adaptable to, i.e., subject to, i.e., interpreted according to your "feelings" of the 'moment.'
In the one paradigm, concerned about doing right and not wrong, setting aside his "self interests," the child discusses with his "self" the right thing to do (despite what it might cost him personally—willing to suffer/endure the consequences, i.e., "missing out," rejection, pain, suffering, and even death in order to do right and not wrong, i.e., in order to do the father's/Father's will). In the other he is concerned about what he can get out of the situation for his "self"—'reasoning' (dialoguing) with his "self," i.e., evaluating the situation (aufheben) in order to determine how best to 'justify,' i.e., "preserve," i.e., save his "self," in order to get/do what he wants, i.e., in order to "actualize" his "self interest," selling his soul to "the group" ("building relationship upon self interest") and the one facilitating (guiding/couching aka "leading," i.e., seducing, deceiving, and manipulating) it (and him) in the process, turning him (and it), into "natural resource" (to be manipulated, used, and "discarded" aka recycled when longer of use or of interest) into "human resource."
In one paradigm the child makes commands, rules, facts, and truth subject to his "feelings," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., his "self interests," disobeying, disregarding, questioning, challenging, and/or attacking commands, rules, facts, and truth which get in his way, and anyone preaching, teaching, and discussing them so he can do/get what he wants. In the other he makes his "feelings" subject to commands, rules, facts, and truth, setting his carnal desires of the 'moment' aside, i.e., denying his "self" in order to do what he is told, i.e., in order to do right and not wrong. In both paradigms the child is accountable for his thoughts and actions, either making his "feelings," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' stimulated by the world the foundation from which to determine what is "right" and what is "wrong" or the established commands, rules, facts, and truth which he has been taught. "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin ["lusts," i.e., carnal desires of the flesh and eyes] unto death, or of obedience [to the Father] unto righteousness?" Romans 6:16
Because of the authority of the father, i.e., his use of force, i.e., chastisement for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, the child (still alive after chastening) is now able to and willing to separate right and wrong, life and death from his "feelings," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., his "If I can't have what I want I'll just die." He learns, through chastisement, to either humble, deny, die to, control, discipline his "self," i.e., stop dialoguing with ('justifying') his "self" or (yet still not able to and/or refusing to separate right and wrong, life and death from his "feelings" of the 'moment') begins to or continues to "murmur," i.e., to dialogue with his "self," 'justifying' his "self," i.e., 'justifying' his carnal desires of the 'moment,' keeping his carnal desires and his dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward authority alive, but private, i.e., to his "self"—out of fear of being reprimanded, i.e., rejected and/or cast out, i.e., disenfranchised. If he rejects the chastening, his "feelings" of the 'moment' remains a life and death, right and wrong issue (pleasure being "right," i.e., life, the pain of missing out on pleasure being "wrong," i.e., death). If he accepts the chastening, doing right and not wrong becomes the issue of life itself.
The father's or parent's "Because I said so," or "Do what I say" (with "or else," i.e., the use of force being implied)—in response to the child's "Why?" regarding a command or rule he has been given—is a form of right and wrong ("I am right, you are wrong"), cutting off the child's effort to bring the parent into dialogue in order to get his way (the child's "Why?" revealing his dialogue, i.e., "self" 'justification' which is already taking place within his "self"). On the other hand, the child's "Why?" in response to facts and truth he is being taught, leads to discussion (at the parent's/father's discretion), leaving faith in authority and doing right and not wrong in place. It is here that discussion (at the parent's/father's discretion)—which will be explained in greater detail below; simply put, the tyrannical father never discusses things with his children, always saying "Because I said so," the benevolent father does, when time permits or the child is receptive and able to understand, respecting authority—is a part of the child's learning to evaluate from right and wrong, i.e., from what he has been taught instead of from his carnal "feelings," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment.' During the Korean war, for example, in their effort to brainwash American soldiers, the North Koreans, who first used torture only—resulting in the soldiers retaining their right-wrong way of thinking, i.e., 'loyalty' to America, i.e., nationalism to the death—learned that through the use of dialogue the soldier's 'loyalty' to authority aka nationalism was replaced with 'loyalty' to themselves (their "self") and "the group," i.e., to "the people." Soldiers captured by the North Vietnamese experienced the same thing, with some returning to America going into politics, carrying the effect of brainwashing ('loyalty' to America, i.e., nationalism replaced with 'loyalty' to "the people," i.e., globalism) into office with them.
Socialism, by keeping "right and wrong" attached to, i.e., subject to the child's "feelings," i.e., subject to the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' makes the child who is "forced" to humble, deny his "self," i.e., who sets aside or rejects his carnal desires of the 'moment' in order to do his parent's will a "victim" of "authority abuse," i.e., of "parental abuse." The socialist's objective is therefore to prevent (keep) the child from thinking (reasoning, i.e., knowing) outside of his "feelings," i.e., his carnal desires, hates, and fears of the 'moment,' , i.e., his "felt needs" of the 'moment,' thereby making him subject to the environment or situation stimulating them and anyone manipulating it, i.e., manipulating the environment or the situation—who is thereby manipulating him. "Preventing someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space." (Wilfred Bion, A Memoir of the Future)
The "empty space" (the 'moment,' i.e., "self") is what we fill either with dialogue, filling it with our carnal desires ("self interests") of the 'moment,' along with our dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward restraint or with discussion, directing, i.e., reproving, correcting, rebuking our "self," i.e., humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining our "self" in order to do right and not wrong according to commands, rules, facts, and truth we have been taught or keep promises we have made (which is the basis of trust). We discuss commands, rules, facts, and truth with our "self" in order to do right and not wrong, feeling guilt when we do wrong. We dialogue our "feelings" of the 'moment' with our self in order to "get our way," 'justifying' (at least attempting to 'justify') our "self" when we do wrong (or are thinking about doing wrong). In essence, "filling the empty space" with our (and other's) "feelings," i.e., dialogue, makes "right and wrong" subject to our (and their) "feelings," i.e., our (and their) carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment'—"right" being our enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world is stimulating, "wrong" being anyone preventing, i.e., inhibiting or blocking us from enjoying it. "Filling the empty space" with "right and wrong," i.e., discussion, makes our (and other's), i.e., our (and their) "feelings" subject to doing right and not wrong according to commands, rules, facts, and truth we have been taught by authority. What we put in "the empty space" directly affects the outcome, i.e., our thoughts and actions. It is here where we decide to either walk in faith (righteousness), in obedience to authority or according to sight (sensuousness), in rebellion against authority. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6
Dialogue, which is informal, keeps "right and wrong" attached to the child's "feelings," i.e., his carnal desires of the 'moment' (his opinion, i.e., you can not say "I know" in an opinion, only "I think" or "I feel"), making facts and truth and "right and wrong" subjective, i.e., subject to the child's "feelings," i.e., the child's carnal desires, i.e., his "lusts" of the 'moment,' i.e., his "sense experience," i.e., his "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment' and therefore subject to the environment (the world) which stimulates them, as well as subject to whoever is manipulating the environment, thereby seducing, deceiving, and manipulating the child. Discussion, which is formal, keeps the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' and facts and truth as well as "right and wrong" apart from one another (knowable, i.e., established), making facts and truth and "right and wrong" objective, i.e., external to, i.e., not subject to the child's "feelings," i.e., carnal desires, i.e., "lusts" of the 'moment.' By the child, when it comes to issues of "right and wrong," holding onto discussion, i.e., holding onto and demanding facts and truth, i.e., refusing to go into dialogue, where everyone's "feelings" of the 'moment' help in determining the outcome (consensus, i.e., affirmation), he is able to keep his "feelings," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' the environment or situation stimulating them, and anyone manipulating it—the "group psychotherapist," i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the Transformational Marxist (all three being the same, i.e., the "vanguard party"), who is attempting to seduce, deceive, and manipulate him (as "natural resource")—from controlling him, i.e., his feelings and thoughts, turning him into "human resource" (in order to use him for their own pleasure and gain). In discussion, even though he might disagree with authority (still doing what he is told, unless it goes against his conscience—which is based upon doing right and not wrong—willing to suffer the consequences—which is not based upon his "feelings," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., opinion, which is the foundation of the so called "super-ego") he can hold on to what he believes is right, keeping facts and truth, right and wrong the foundation from which to reason from, not only in the present but in the future as well. Those of the paradigm of dialogue (dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification') consider this way of thinking as being "authoritarianism," correlating it to Fascism (labeling anyone who obeys authority, i.e., who thinks and acts this way a Nazi, racist, etc.,).
This would be just some intellectual exercise if it were not for the fact that contemporary education (which is based upon what are called Bloom's Taxonomies) is based upon this same 'reasoning.' "To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values [not of and for the father's/Father's authority], the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes and he must be involved in an environment which in may ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed.... many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern [the father's/Father's authority] is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)
Philosophy is based upon such 'reasoning,' i.e., 'reasoning' through dialogue. After all, the essence of philosophy is a person thinking about how the world "is" (where "feelings" are subject to, i.e., "repressed" by someone in authority preventing them from being expressed, keeping the child from doing what he wants, when he wants—enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates), how it "ought" to be (with him doing what he wants, when he wants), and how it "can" be (once authority gets out of the way of his "lusting" after pleasure, i.e., "lusting" after the things of the world which stimulate it).
It is not that "feelings" are not important, they are. It is that they must be subordinate to commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., "right and wrong" or they become "lusts," engendering chaos, rebellion, anarchy, and revolution, with leadership, acting as children, oppressing the people. (Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud) By focusing upon the child's "feelings," i.e., the world of "ought," i.e., "oughtiness," socialist seek to 'create' a "new" world order where "is" is what children "can" be, 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "of and for self" and the world only, so they can rule the world without the father's/Father's restraints, i.e., so they can think and act, i.e., do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., with no accountability (other than to themselves, i.e., their carnal desires, i.e., their "lusts" of the 'moment,' and the world which stimulates them).
While dad and mom are not perfect, they may be or may have been down right tyrants, their office is perfect, having been given to them by God in which to do His will, i.e., in which to serve Him (training up their children in the admonition of the Lord). Socialist, from national (Fascist, i.e., racist) to global (common-ist aka communist, i.e., paradigm-ist)—rejecting accountability to God for their thoughts and actions, i.e., rejecting the Father's authority over them—reject the office of authority God has given to parents over their children, i.e., to the earthly father over his children (which engenders individualism, under God, i.e., "freedom of the conscience"—socialism, initiating and sustaining "freedom from the father's/Father's authority," engenders "freedom from the guilty conscience" for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning). 'Driven' by their "lusts" and "pride of life" (dialectic or dialogue 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification'), socialist, i.e., 'liberals' can only find one 'purpose' in life, that of 'liberating' the child's heart from parental/Godly restraint, so that they can be "of and for the world" only, i.e., so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. It is here that dialogue, i.e., the child's "feelings" (his or her heart's carnal desires and hates) over and therefore against discussion, i.e., the parent's authority (doing right and not wrong) comes into play—National socialism, i.e., Fascism, while preventing dialogue, prevents discussion as well (as does global socialism), discussion (at the father's discretion) being a key element of the benevolent (forgiving, merciful) father's authority, with (unlike the traditional father system, where the father, still loving the rebellious child, has to judge and chasten him in order to teach him to do right and not wrong or cast him out if he becomes revolutionary—questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking his authority) all forms of socialism inhibit or block immigration, i.e., escape from the socialist system, whether national or international (global), the idea being the process, i.e., socialism is not successful until no one can escape, i.e., all "citizens" must participate (or at least cooperate) or be censored, i.e., silences, imprisoned, or removed (killed). This follows after the nature of the child (who is unable to separate "right and wrong" from his "feelings"), whose hatred toward restraint (which is "right," i.e., 'justified' in his eyes) is at the same time hatred toward the restrainer, i.e., the "resistor of 'change,'" i.e., the inhibitor or blocker of pleasure (including the elderly and unborn). For socialists, without the child's conversion, i.e. 'liberation' from the father's/Father's authority or removal (negation) there can be no "worldly peace." For the global socialist, by simply bringing the child into dialogue (with other children) regarding "personal-social" issues, making "right and wrong" subject to the child's "feelings," i.e., the "affective domain" the deed is accomplished ("Bloom's Taxonomies")—parental authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority is negated in the child's mind, negating the guilty conscience (the "negative valance") for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process (Kurt Lewin).
"The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will], and desperately wicked [hating whoever prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' it desires]: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15
The Marxist, Theodor Adorno wrote: "The individual may have 'secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it. To gain access [through getting him or her to dialogue, i.e., to share his or her "feelings" of the 'moment' with others] is particularly important, for here may lie the individual's potential [for 'change,' i.e., to become of and for his or her "self" and the world only—'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority; Genesis 3:1-6]." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) "Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure [Hebrews 12:5-11], . . . have all left man overly docile [obedient to authority], but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic [believing one thing while feeling and/or acting contrary—called belief-action dichotomy, i.e., desiring to obey God, yet sinning, feeling guilty for sinning; Romans 7:14-25]." "Neurotic symptoms, with their fixations on perversions and obscenities [sinning, i.e., "lusting" after the things in the world], demonstrate the refusal of the unconscious essence of our being [our flesh and eyes "lusting" after the pleasures of the world] to acquiesce in the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower [to submit to the father's/Father's authority]. The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious [in the child's carnal, i.e., sinful nature, i.e., in "human nature"]; the foundation has to be recovered [the child must be 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the child, dialoguing with his "self" (his love of pleasure and hate of restraint and the restrainer) must be "grouped" with all the children of the world, who are themselves dialoguing with their "self" (their love of pleasure and hate of restraint and the restrainer), and through dialoguing ('discovering' common ground) with one another unite upon what they all have in common (their love of pleasure and hate of restraint and the restrainer)—making the child's love of the world and hate of the father's/Father's authority the basis of life, 'creating' common-ism through dialogue, i.e., "self" 'justification' with others, i.e., affirmation—dialogue is the pathway to common-ism, making "feelings" the foundation of right and wrong, making all children, i.e., mankind seducible, deceivable, and manipulatable (as "human resources," like Pavlov's dog, Thorndike's chickens, Skinner's rats) by the facilitator of 'change' for his own pleasure and gain]." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you:" 2 Peter 2:3
"Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity ["of and for self"]." "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Ecclesiastes 12:8, 13-14 "Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment." Ecclesiastes 11:9
By nature when children grow up, i.e., become parents themselves, i.e., have children of their own they tend to revert to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the Patriarchal paradigm—1) preaching commands and rules to their children, to be obeyed as given, teaching facts and truth to their children, to be accepted as is, by faith, and discussing (at their discretion) with their children any questions their children might have in order for them to do what is right (and not wrong), 2) blessing their children when they do right, obey, do not sin, 3) chastening their children when thy do wrong, disobey, sin, so they might learn to do right, obey, not sin, and 4) casting out any child who questions, challenges, disregards, defies, attacks their authority—thereby inhibiting or blocking the process of 'change.' It is because of this tendency that those of a third paradigm (coming between the children and the father/Father) seek to gain access to the children's private "conversation," i.e. dialogue with their "self," thereby, by gaining access to, affirming, i.e., 'justifying,' and liberating their carnal desires of the 'moment,' being able to gain access to, affirm, i.e., 'justify,' and liberate their dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward authority, using it, i.e., their "self" 'justified' "feelings," i.e., hatred toward authority (the "tyranny of the masses") to negate the father's/Father's paradigm so they—"group psychotherapists," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., Transformational Marxists (all three being the same, i.e., the "vanguard party")—alone can rule the world, i.e., rule over "the people," in the name of "the people."
By children 'justifying' their love of pleasure ("lusts"), with affirmation from others, they are 'justified' (in their mind) of their dissatisfaction with, resentment toward, and/or hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority. By gaining access to your child's private conversation with his or her "self," i.e., what he or she is dialoguing with his or her "self" about, i.e., his or her "feelings" of the 'moment,' access is gained to his or her dissatisfaction with, resentment toward, and/or hatred ("feelings") toward your authority as a parent. You can figure out the consequences of such praxis, making your child's "feelings," i.e., his or her "affective domain," i.e., his or her desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates (which you inhibit or block) and his or her dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward authority a part of the classroom/school curriculum. "Persons will not come into full partnership in the process until they register dissatisfaction." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
One of the two textbooks (referred to as "Bloom's Taxonomies"), which all teachers are certified and school are accredited by, reads: "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." "The affective domain [the child's "feelings," i.e., his or her love of pleasure and hate of restraint] is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box [a "box" full of evils, which once opened, i.e., liberated from parental authority, i.e., from the father's authority can not be closed].'" "[W]e recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places." "By educational objectives, we mean explicit formulations of the ways in which students are expected to be changed by the educative process . . . change in their thinking, their feelings, and their actions [change in their paradigm]." "What we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives [through dialogue, 'liberating' the child's "lust" for pleasure and hate of restraint in the classroom] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs [challenging his parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth] and getting them to discuss issues [share their "feelings," i.e., love of pleasure and hate of restraint, in the "light" of the current situation, i.e., group affirmation (fear of rejection), learning to question, challenging, defy, disregard, attack authority in the process—which is the basis of enlightenment]." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) Through the use of the "group grading" system in the classroom, done in the name of "team building," i.e., "relationship building," etc., "Bloom's Taxonomies" (which is "a psychological classification system") grades all children along a spectrum or continuum of how they feel about, what they think about, and how they respond to authority—one end of the spectrum (the Patriarchal paradigm) being the child remaining 'loyal' to his or her father's/Father's authority (refusing to compromise his or her parent's principles, accepting them as being his or her own, therefore, being "negative" to, i.e., 'judgmental' of, i.e., prejudiced toward other children when they are "wrong," hurting other children's "feelings," refusing to "get along"—with the so called Taxonomy classifying the child as being a "resister to 'change,'" i.e., a "lower order thinker") to the other end of the spectrum (the Heresiarchal paradigm of 'change') where the child has accepted the questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking of the father's/Father's authority (called "higher order thinking skills") as being an essential part of life, i.e., the pathway of 'liberation' from the father's/Father's authority.
Establishing the child's carnal nature (love of pleasure, including the pleasure which comes with affirmation by "the group," i.e., by society, and hate of restraint, including hatred toward the restrainer) as being the 'drive' of life over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority (doing right and not wrong), "Bloom's Taxonomies" establishes "the group," i.e., society, affirming the child's carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority (thus 'liberating' the child from the father's/Father's authority) as being the 'purpose' of life. Negating the father's/Father's authority (individualism, under God) in all children's feelings, thoughts, and actions as well as in their relationship with one another and the world (so they can be "of and for their self" and the world, i.e., society only) is the "Taxonomies" desired outcome, i.e., its "Educational Objective." Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [the child subject 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. Society ["human relationship based upon self interest," i.e., finding one's identity 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] 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 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—history not being the lessons of the past to be used to evaluate the present but the life experience of the child, i.e., the past and present "feelings" of the child evaluating the past and present in order to purge history, himself, and society, i.e., the past, present, and the future of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., of the traditions and restraints of the past).
Government (civil to revolutionary) is based upon which paradigm predominates in the heart of men. Government (how those in government, from the home, to the classroom, to the highest offices in the land, think and act) directly affects your paradigm, your spouse's paradigm, your children's paradigm, your friends and relatives paradigm, your neighbors paradigm, your co-workers/employer's/employees paradigm, your legislator's paradigm, your leader's paradigm, your ministers paradigm, etc., not only in your home, in your neighborhood, in the workplace, in government, etc., but also in the "church."
Change the way you communicate with others (and others communicate with you)—from 1) the preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed, the teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, and the discussing of any differences or disagreements (at the one in authorities' discretion), 2) blessing those who do right, 3) chastening (correcting, reproving, rebuking) those who do wrong, that they might learn to do right and not wrong, and 4) casting out those who question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack authority to the dialoguing of opinions (everyone's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and their dissatisfaction with, resentment, and/or hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward authority) to a consensus ("building relationship upon self interest," i.e., affirming each others desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and each others dissatisfaction with, resentment and/or hatred toward authority, which all those "of the world" have in common, the basis of common-ism)—and your (and their) paradigm is 'changed.'
This is what the process of 'change,' i.e., the dialectic (dialogue) process is all about, 'changing' the world by negating the father's/Father's authority in our communication with one another—moving us from preaching commands and rules, teaching facts and truth, discussing with others any differences or disagreements we might have with them and they might have with us (at our discretion), insisting upon everyone doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth to where we are pressured (out of fear of being censored, i.e., unfriended, i.e., un-liked) to be "tolerant of ambiguity," to make "feelings" the standard from which to determine right from wrong, with dialogue becoming the pathway to unity (consensus), i.e., to "worldly peace and socialist harmony," i.e., to globalism, with those of and for the father's/Father's authority (refusing to compromise their position for the sake of unity—thus becoming the source of controversy, division, and war—thus, to the 'liberal' mind, being 'rightfully' hated) needing to be either converted or silenced or removed.
"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
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8, 9
"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
The carnal nature of the child (the child's desire for, i.e., "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and his or her natural resentment toward restraint—which gets in the way of pleasure) is antithetical to the father's/Father's authority (the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth—which requires the child to do right—and not wrong—to obey, to not sin, inhibiting or blocking the child from "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' he or she is "lusting" after, which the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth restrain). The child's natural desire for ("lusting after") the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., "dopamine emancipation"—which the world stimulates ("emancipates," "liberates" within the child)—and his (or her) natural dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward restraint (and the restrainer) are antithetical to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth which is to be accepted (by faith) and obeyed. The father/Father, while loving the child, hates his doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (chastening him when he does wrong, disobeys, sins in order that he might learn to discipline, i.e., humble, deny, die to, control his "self" and do right, obey, not sin on his own instead). The father/Father (benevolent, i.e., loving father/Father) will discuss any questions the child might have (at the father's/Father's discretion—based upon the father's/Father's desire to share, the time or right time to share, the child's ability to understand, the child's desire to know the father's/Father's answer, and/or his willingness to accept the father's/Father's authority). But when the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, or truth, i.e., authority is questioned and/or challenged by the child the father's/Father's "Because I said so"/"It is written" cuts off the child's "Why?," i.e., prevents dialogue, i.e., prevents the child from having his way, i.e., prevents 'change.' This is especially true when it comes to the father's/Father's commands or rules.
While the father/Father preaches commands and rules to be obeyed as given and teaches facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith), discussing with the child (at the father's/Father's discretion) any questions the child might have in order for the child to understand, it is the child's nature to dialogue his carnal desires ("feelings") instead, trying to draw the father/Father into dialogue in order to overcome (negate) the father's/Father's preaching and teaching, "getting his way" in the process. You preach, teach, and discuss facts and truth. You dialogue "feelings" (opinions).
These are two different political systems or paradigms (ways of thinking and acting—behaving). One is based upon the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth—known as the Patriarchal paradigm. The other is based upon (influenced by) the child's "feelings" (carnal desires) of the 'moment'—known as the Matriarchal paradigm.
The child's political system is established upon the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., upon the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., the child's impulses and urges, with, as Karl Marx explained it, his "sensuous needs," "sense perception," and "sense experience," i.e., "only that which is of nature" (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)—confirming 1 John 2:16, "the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life," i.e., that which "is of the world" only (I John 2:16)—helping him decide right from wrong (right being the enjoyment of pleasure, wrong being missing out on it), "directing his steps" (rebellion and anarchy). According to Marxism (dialectic 'reasoning'), the basis of 'reality' is found in the child's carnal desires of the 'moment,' which are stimulated by the world only, being satisfied. "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') According to Karl Marx, instead of "reconciliation" being between the child and the father/Father—according to his or her faith in the Son—it is between the children themselves—according to that which they all have in common, i.e., enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates. Abraham Maslow explained where this "enjoyment of the present" leads us. "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) Whether it is Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "fenceless," i.e., "borderless" society or Georg Hegel's world of equality, based upon the carnal nature of the child it all ends in totalitarianism, where no one can find refuge from the consensus process, where all must participate or be silent (tolerant), or else be removed (censored or killed).
The father's/Father's political system is established upon children having faith in the father/Father, accepting his facts and truth, and obeying his/His commands and rules, i.e., recognizing, accepting, and honoring the father's/Father's authority (rule of law). The Marxist, György Lukács, addressing the "problem" of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., its influence upon the child, affecting how he or she felt and thought about his or her "self," others, and the world and responded to authority, wrote: "for the dialectical method the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its 'obedience to laws'." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) The Marxists, Theodor Adorno, who, along with Erik Fromm, was the "Weltanschauung" (world view) of "Bloom's Taxonomies," wrote: "Authoritarian submission [nationalism, tantamount to Fascism in the mind of 'liberal's'] was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." "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." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
What is present in both the father's paradigm and the child's paradigm (under the influence of the father's/Father's authority) is the guilty conscience (engendered by the child/father having faith in the father/Father and/or fearing his/His disapproval/chastening/rejection), with the conscience making the child/father "feel bad" (guilty) when he is "doing his own thing," i.e., doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., going against the father's/Father's will. While the child might want to do "his own thing" (or goes ahead and does it), it is the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience which it engenders that prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks him from achieving it in peace, with affirmation—preventing "worldly peace and socialist harmony."
It is this "peace and affirmation," i.e., 'justification' of the child's carnal nature by others, i.e., "worldly peace and socialist harmony" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority that those of a third political system seek to achieve—know as the Heresiarchal paradigm of 'change' where "group psychotherapists," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., Transformational Marxists (all three being the same) come between the father/Father and the children/men (taking his/His place in directing their steps, 'liberating' them from the father's/Father's authority in order for the children to follow, serve, protect, praise, and worship them, i.e., become like them instead). This can only be accomplished by focusing upon ("Reasoning" from, i.e., 'justifying') the child's carnal nature ("feelings," i.e., carnal desires, i.e., "self interest"). Georg 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 [once he is 'liberated' from the father'/Father's authority to become as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life (separating him from his "self" and the world), of (and now for) "self" and the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) By establishing the child's carnal nature (his or her "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., his or her carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., "sense experience") over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority (his/His established commands, rules, facts, and truth), the father's/Father's authority is negated in the child's feelings and thoughts, negating the guilty conscience (feeling guilty) for his carnal thoughts and carnal actions, i.e., for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process—making his thoughts and actions one and the same, of and for "self" and the world only—creating a "new" world order where children of disobedience, 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, can be "of and for the world" only, i.e., can be "of and for self," i.e., can do wrong, disobey, sin without having a guilty conscience, so that all children (and especially those "guiding" them) can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity (revolution). "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) Karl Marx wrote: "The life [authority] which he [the child] has given to the object [to the parent, to the teacher, to the boss, to the ruler, or to God—when the child humbles, denies, dies to, disciplines, controls his "self" in order to do their will, thus "empowering" them] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) Only by 'liberating' the child from "the fear of God," i.e., from the father's/Father's authority (which the child "created" by having faith in and obeying the father/Father in the first place) can the child' be of and for "self" and the world only.
According to this third political system, the only way to overcome the effect the father's/Father's authority has upon the child is to negate the father's/Father's authority not only in his physical surroundings (society) but in his personal thoughts (reasoning) as well. Karl Marx 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—no longer "building relationship" with others based upon the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (customs, traditions, doctrine) but, through dialogue, upon common "'self interests'" (carnal desires of the 'moment') instead]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4) "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)
Only by 'shifting' communication from discussion (details, facts, formality; the cognitive domain) to dialogue (ambiguity, feelings, informality; the affective domain) can 'change,' i.e., the third political system be initiated and sustained. While the father/Father (at his discretion) discusses commands, rules, facts, and truth with his children, which prevents or limits change. Children, on the other hand, try to draw the father/Father into dialogue in order to engender 'change,' i.e., in order to get their way. By the father/Father abdicating discussion (facts and truth and position) to dialogue or discourse (feelings and opinions), feelings predominate over and therefore against established commands, rules, facts, and truth, "human relationship," i.e., socialism, globalism, common-ism predominates over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., local control and nationalism, under God. "For to accept that solution [where all citizens, including parents, must participate in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus], even in theory, would be tantamount to observing society from a class standpoint [from the child's perspective, from his carnal nature] other than that of the bourgeoisie [from the parent's authority]. And no class can do that-unless it is willing to abdicate its power freely." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?) There is no "top-down," "right-wrong," "above-below," father's/Father's authority in dialogue. By all participating in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, the father's/Father's authority is negated in any thought or action ("theory and practice") which takes places during or follows the praxis. It is what Lenin preached and put into praxis, i.e., social action in Russia.
This 'shift' in communication carries with it a 'shift' in culture from doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth (rule of law) to love of pleasure and hate of restraint, 'liberating' ('justifying') the child's anger (hatred) towards authority (revolution). Of note: while not condoning public violence against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., private business (at least not publically), the third political system, with its rhetoric, incites it, using it (refusing to squelch it) in order to pressure people (out of fear) to conform (abdicate) to their agenda.
According to this third political system, if you start with the father's/Father's authority, making the child's faith in the father/Father, acceptance of his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth, and obedience to them and him/Him the focus of life (typical of the traditional home, school system, workplace, government, etc., i.e., "old school") then the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child himself is "repressed," the father's/Father's standard, with the child obeying them, insisting that others obey them as well, "alienating" him from the other children of the world—whose father's standards differ from his—resulting in "neurosis," i.e., a guilty conscience for being "human," with the child caught between his desire to please the father/Father, receiving the father's/Father's approval (by obeying the father/Father, i.e., having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline his "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will, i.e., in order to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's standards) and his desire to "do his own thing," i.e., to be his "self," i.e., to become at-one-with his "self" and the world, approaching (loving) pleasure and avoiding pain (hating restraint). But if you start with the child's carnal nature, making the child's "feelings," i.e., his desire to approach pleasure and avoid pain (which all children have in common), i.e., the augmentation of pleasure and attenuation of pain the focus of life, which includes the pain of missing out on pleasure (made manifest in the child, resenting restraint, striking out against father/Father when his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth "get in his way"), then the father's/Father's authority becomes the obstacle which all children must overcome (negate) if they are to become their "self," i.e., if they are to become "free" to think and act according to "human nature" only. Simply put, according to the third political system with its use of dialectic 'reasoning' (dialogue) the child's love of pleasure and hate of restraint (the child's carnal nature) is the 'drive' of life and the augmentation of pleasure ("peace and affirmation," i.e., "worldly peace and socialist harmony") and the attenuation of pain (the negation of the father's/Father's authority) its 'purpose.'
The father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience prevent this from happening, i.e., prevent the child from being his "self," i.e., prevent him from thinking and acting according to his carnal nature, i.e., "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and hating (striking out against) restraint—with the child being chastened or cast out by the father/Father if/when he tries. Without the aid of a third political system with its use of a "group psychotherapist," i.e., a facilitator of 'change,' i.e., a Transformational Marxist (all three being the same) with his or her use of the dialectic process, i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, children tend to initiate and sustain the father's/Father's "top-down," "do right, not wrong," "obey me, or else," "Mine. Not yours" authority, i.e., patriarchal political system (engendering local control and/or Nationalism, under God) when they grow up and have children of their own, initiating and sustaining rule of law and the guilty conscience ("neurosis," i.e., "mental illness") in the next generation when they do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., when they desire to be "human," i.e., when they desire to "do their own thing."
By those of the third political system insisting upon the "positive," focusing upon and 'liberating' the child's carnal desires of the 'moment,' thereby getting rid of the "negative"—pressuring it out of the room for the sake of consensus, i.e., a "feeling" of "oneness"—the outcome is the "positive," i.e., the child's carnal nature only in the facilitated meeting. The third political system is established not only upon 'liberating' the children (the child's carnal nature) from the father's/Father's authority (from the father's/Father's restraints) but also upon negating the father's/Father's authority itself as well—called "the negation of negation" (getting rid of the "negative")—thereby negating the guilty conscience ("neurosis"), i.e., "feeling bad" for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for being "human," so that all children (including the facilitator of 'change' himself or herself) can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., can be of and for nature ("of and for the world") only with impunity.
It is important to realize (and recognize) that the third political system does not consider the benevolent father (the loving father, under law himself, denying himself in order to do right and not wrong, compassionate, merciful, and forgiving, discussing things with his children when they can and are willing to understand, that they might obey and do right and not wrong) as being any different than the tyrannical father (the hating father, above the law, selfish, refusing to discuss things with his children, always insisting upon his own way with no compassion, mercy, or forgiveness), the patriarchal system, structure, or paradigm (way of thinking and acting, i.e., relating with self, others, and the world, i.e., responding toward authority—honoring and obeying the father's/Father's authority). The third political system sees the father's/Father's authority itself (whether benevolent or tyrannical) as being "the problem"—initiating and sustaining the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for being "human," i.e., for being "of the world (nature)" only, i.e., for being "of and for self." Of equal importance to realize (and recognize) is that while the earthly father is not perfect, he might have been or may be a down right tyrant, his office is perfect, having been given to him by God to serve Him in, who is perfect. In other words, there is nothing wrong with the office, it is the man in it, using it for his own selfish (childish) ways. Since, according to the third political system, it is the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11) that engenders the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (Romans 7:14-25) and it is the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (against the father/Father) which it seeks to negate (Genesis 3:1-6) it is imperative that it negates the father's/Father's authority so that all children (and especially those "leading" them) can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity.
By the third political system's use of generalization, making the benevolent and tyrannical fathers one and the same, it exonerates the child's hate of restraint—thereby negating the earthly father's authority, classifying the father's political system itself as evil (getting in the way of pleasure), negating the Heavenly Father's authority, classifying it as being evil as well. By synthesizing ('justifying') the child's carnal (natural) thoughts, i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., his love of pleasure and hate of restraint and his carnal (natural) action of approaching pleasure and striking out against restraint, making them one and the same, i.e., both of and for "human nature," i.e., "of and for self"—thereby negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (which is a product of the father's/Father's authority)—all children can do wrong, disobey, sin (be "human," i.e., be "of the world" only) with impunity. This is why 'liberals' see no "wrong," i.e., have no guilty conscience in questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking authority when (since) it "threatens" their carnal ways, i.e., their carnal thoughts and actions.
Since the children's carnal nature, i.e., the children's love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e., "human nature" and their 'justification of it, i.e., their (in private—out of fear of reprimand) dialoguing with their "self" their carnal desires (including their desire for approval from others, approving their carnal thoughts and actions—affirmation) and dissatisfactions is common to all children, the dialectic process, i.e., the children 'justifying' their carnal nature, i.e., 'justifying' their "self" with one another (through dialogue coming to a consensus, i.e., a "feeling" of "oneness") is the basis of common-ism. According to common-ism it is the father's/Father's authority (the "negative") that stands in the way of children becoming their "self," i.e., thinking and acting according to nature, i.e., thinking and acting according to "human nature," i.e., thinking and acting according to their carnal "feelings" of the 'moment' (which are stimulated by the world, i.e., by "the group," i.e., by one another, i.e., by society), i.e., thinking and acting according to their carnal desires and dissatisfactions only. Thinking through their "feelings," i.e., "thinking" through their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (their "self interests") and their dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward restraint—perceiving the father's/Father's authority as being the source of hate—they, hating the father's/Father's authority, can not reason (find common ground) with those of the father's/Father's authority. They can only find 'purpose' in life, i.e., find common ground (identity) in those dedicated to negating the father's/Father's authority (along with those who support it's negation) only, instead.
The 'shifting' of communication away from discussion (of facts and truth, which support the father's/Father's authority) to dialogue ("feelings," i.e., "self interests" of the children, which are of the children's carnal nature) accomplishes the deed, making anyone who holds to the can not's, must not's, "Thou shalt not's," i.e., the commands, rules, facts, and truth of the father/Father (which get in the way of "building relationships") the enemy, i.e., the barrier, i.e., the resistor of 'change.' It is upon this love of pleasure, i.e., the child's natural "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and hate of restraint, i.e., the child's natural hatred toward the father's/Father's authority that common-ism is built. The disenfranchised, resentful, and rebellious child thus become the seedbed from which globalism, i.e., the third political system is built. Without the discontent it could not survive.
Whoever comes between the father/Father and the children, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating the children, i.e., 'liberating' them (through dialogue) from the father's/Father's authority, establish themselves as the third political system, i.e., establish themselves over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, using the children as "human resource" for their own pleasure and gain. In this political system, where "the end justifies the means," when things go wrong or fail it is not that those of this system (the 'liberal') did anything "wrong," it is that they just did things "badly," the only people being "wrong," in their mind, being those who resisted, opposed, or refused to cooperate, i.e., refused to support their way of thinking and acting, i.e., refused to affirm their political system (praxis) of "self" 'justification.' In this political system's use of the consensus process, where "feelings" 'drive' the outcome, anyone resisting, inhibiting, or blocking, i.e., preventing consensus (a "feeling" of "oneness," affirming the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature") is perceived as being "negative," divisive, hateful, intolerant, etc., needing to be converted, silenced, or removed for the sake of "the people"—requiring that everyone follow after, serve, and protect those who are in control, i.e., the "group psychotherapist," i.e., the facilitator of 'change' , i.e., the Transformational Marxist (all three being the same).
The consensus process—with "group psychotherapists," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., Transformational Marxists coming between the father/Father and his/His children, "helping" children, through dialogue 'justify' their "self," i.e., 'justify' their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (which the world stimulates) and their resentment toward restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority ('liberating' their carnal nature from the father's/Father's authority)—not only negates the father's/Father's authority in the children's thoughts and actions (turning the children against the father/Father and his/His authority) but also negates the children having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., with no fear of judgment or accountability. "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15
The dialectic (dialogue) method or formula of the consensus process is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6 (the 'justification' of "self," i.e., you "thinking" through your "feelings," i.e., your desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which are being stimulated by the world, i.e., the surrounding situation or circumstances—including, and especially, your desire for affirmation from others, i.e., "the group"—and your dissatisfaction, resentment, hatred toward restraint/authority, which/who is getting in the way of pleasure) being used to negate Hebrews 12:5-11 (the father's/Father's authority), negating Romans 7:14-25 (the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning) in the process. It is this dialectic (dialogue) method or formula of "positivity" that "group psychotherapists," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., Transformational Marxists, i.e., those who merge "the group," i.e., society and psychology, i.e., the individual (bypassing, i.e., circumventing the father's/Father's authority, i.e., negating the father's/Father's authority, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process) are using, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating your children, spouse, relatives, neighbors, educators, co-workers, entertainers, media, legislators, lawyers and judges, leaders (both secular and religious) as well as you into "joining" with them, creating a "new" world order of 'change,' i.e., a world void of parental/Godly restraint (the father's/Father's authority), i.e., a world void of having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., a world void of "negativity." Like a train rolling down the tracks (with no brakes) it has become impossible to stop. It has become so much a part of the American (and worlds) culture ("psyche"), who would dare expose it, i.e., speak against it? To do so would expose them to censorship (and hate), i.e., to being called ("labeled" or classified as being) negative, divisive, hateful, intolerant, prejudiced, a "lower-order-thinker," maladjusted, not a "team builder," "psychological," mentally ill, "in denial," a sociopath, a Fascist, a Nazi, a racist, neurotic, phobic, unreasonable, irrational, irrelevant, etc.,.
The so called "'new' world order" (common-ism aka socialism-globalism) is affecting you and everything you see going on around you today—in the home, in the classroom (textbooks, assignments, tests, and classroom projects, inside and outside the classroom are being affected with it today—via the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies"), in the neighborhood, in the workplace, in entertainment, in the media, in the government, and even in the "church." It is antithetical to the "old" world order (individual-ism, under authority aka nationalism) which it must negate (amalgamate) in order to initiate and sustain itself. It is here, in the "new" world order, which is engendered from and supportive of the child's' carnal nature, i.e., the child's natural desire ("lust") for pleasure and dissatisfaction with restraint (hatred toward the restrainer) that dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' manifests itself. It is this desire for pleasure and resentment toward restraint, with the child dialoguing within himself (of note: you dialogue "feelings," i.e., opinions, 'justifying' your "self," esteeming your "self" in order to "get what you want," i.e., in dialogue you 'reason' from your own "sense experience," i.e., your "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment, in the "light" of the situation, requiring the suspending of your position in order to hear someone else's opinion, i.e., "feelings" and "thoughts" which makes 'reasoning' informal, making your position readily adaptable to 'change,' while you discuss commands, rules, facts, and truth, requiring the humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining of your "self," holding your "self," i.e., your "feelings" and "thoughts" accountable to commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to "do right and not wrong," making 'reasoning' formal, logical, i.e., either-or, i.e., contradictory, i.e., not readily adaptable to 'change'—the conscience is based upon commands, rules, facts, and truth, the "super-ego" upon the child's "feelings" of the 'moment'), 'justifying' his "self" (which is common with all children, which is the basis of "common-ism") that 'change,' i.e., 'liberation' from the "old" world order, i.e., the father's/Father's authority—along with the father's/Father's commands and rules to be obeyed as given and facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith—is initiated and sustained, 'creating' (in the child's mind) a "new" world order where he can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., be of and for the world only, in pleasure with impunity, i.e., with no sense of guilt (which explains the 'liberal' mind, which, makes "pleasure" the standard for "good" instead of "doing right and not wrong" according to the father's/Father's will, making it impossible for him to hear, much less receive the truth—you can preach and teach the truth to him all day long but, like a rebellious, spoiled, obstinate child, he will not hear a word you say, turning whatever you say into an opinion or, if you persist, considering your position as being "irrational," i.e., "unreasonable," i.e., "hurtful" and therefore hateful—by perceiving your position and therefore you as being "irrelevant" he can, 'justifying' his "self," do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., do wrong, disobey, sin with no sense of guilt).
As Karl Marx wrote: "The philosophers [those who are dissatisfied with how the world "is," i.e., subject to authority (as a child is subject to the father's authority, as man is to God's), thinking about how it "ought" to be, i.e., satisfying their carnal desires ("lusts") of the 'moment' instead] have only interpreted the world in different ways [establishing, i.e., preaching and teaching their "opinion" as the only right way, thus inhibiting or blocking others from enjoying the carnal pleasures ("lusts") of the 'moment' which they desire], the objective however, is change." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) Karl Marx's "change" is the process of 'change' itself, i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus where, 'liberated' from "the Father's" restraints, i.e., from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, everyone can be "of [and for] the world" only, i.e., enjoying "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" without having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (which the father's/Father's authority engenders). The idea being: by negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the "old" world order with its preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed as given and its teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, i.e., by "encouraging" (pressuring) everyone in a "group psychotherapy," i.e., facilitated meeting, to dialogue their opinion to a consensus (thus 'justifying' the child's' carnal nature, i.e. identifying with the "disenfranchised," i.e., the "repressed" and the "alienated" with their carnal desires and dissatisfactions over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority) the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking authority is negated, making it possible for all to do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., to be of and for the world only (transcending local control and nationalism) with impunity—making the child's hate of restraint the catharsis and the one in authority the oppressor, the tyrant, Hitler. As will be pointed out again, Hitler, by removing discussion (which is always a part of the father's/Father's authority, subject to the father's/Father's discretion) engendered Fascism, 'justifying,' in the 'liberals' mind the negation of the father's/Father's authority itself, something all socialists (national and global) do. Those of the "new" world order, i.e., the children of disobedience, following after the ideology of Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud, will always side with the angry child, i.e., with the "disenfranchised," i.e., with the child's "feelings" of the 'moment' over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., over and therefore against doing right and not wrong, i.e., over and therefore against the commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., over and therefore against the laws of the 'past' which get in the child's way, making laws subject to the child's "feelings" i.e., the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' letting the child's "lust" for the things "of the world" and his anger toward the father/Father (and his/His restraint) guide them, i.e., direct their steps in making law instead. The idea being "don't just study Marx," forcing everyone to do what he says—what traditional Marxists do—"be Marx," i.e., experience the Karl Marx in your "self," resenting restraint, hating the restrainer, putting your "feelings" into social action (praxis), "helping" others, thought dialogue, 'discover' the Karl Marx in themselves, putting their resentment toward restraint and hatred toward the restrainer into social action (praxis) as well—what Transformational Marxists do (resenting and silencing anyone being "negative," i.e., preaching commands and rules to be obeyed and teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is, i.e., discussing commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to arrive at "the truth," i.e., the "right" answer or solution in a meeting which emphasizes being "positive," i.e., dialoguing opinions in order to arrive at a consensus instead). While the father's/Father's authority entails preaching, teaching, and discussion (at the father's/Father's discretion), the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions are wrapped up in dialogue. When the father removes discussion from his repertoire, he becomes a tyrant, 'justifying' to those of the "new" world order the use of dialogue in order to negate the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the "old" world order, initiating and sustaining a world of 'change.'
The "old" world order is associated with or structured upon the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11), i.e., the commands, rules, facts, and truth "of the Father," with children having to obey the father, doing the father's will, engendering local control, i.e., private convictions, property, and business, i.e., a "top-down," "above-below," "Mine. Not yours," "right-wrong" way of thinking , i.e., humbling, denying, controlling, disciplining, dying to "self" in order to do right and not wrong according to commands, rules, facts, and truth being preached and taught by those in authority, using deductive reasoning, i.e., reasoning from established commands, rules, facts, and truth and acting in a way, i.e., respecting, honoring, and obeying authority which leads to sovereignty, i.e., nationalism, creating division between people and nations based upon established (local) principles and traditions. The "new" world order is associated with or structured upon the carnal nature of the child (Genesis 3:1-6), i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., the child's desire ("lust") for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., dopamine emancipation which the world stimulates and the child's resentment or hatred toward the father's/Father's authority, which gets in his way, engendering socialism (globalism), a way of thinking (inductive reasoning, i.e., reasoning from the child's "feelings" of the 'moment' in the 'light' of the current situation) and acting which is 'purposed' in removing commands, rules, facts, and truth which divides the child from his own nature and thus divides him from other children, seeking to unite him with other children instead upon their common "self interests," i.e., "lusts" of the 'moment,' initiating and sustaining a society "of and for self," based upon the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," which is universal, i.e., which all children have in common (the basis of "common-ism"). It is the guilty conscience—which the father's/Father's authority engenders (Romans 7:14-25) and the child carries around with him—that prevents him from becoming at-one-with his "self" and the world in pleasure. Without it's negation, the father's/Father's authority is carried from the past, into the present, and into the future, preventing "worldly peace and socialist harmony," i.e., globalism, i.e., 'change.'
As you will see, by 'changing' communication (in the home, in the classroom, in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the government, in the "church") from the language of the parent's, i.e., the father/Father, i.e., the preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed as given, the teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, and discussion (at the discretion of the one in authority—you discuss facts, which are used to persuade, you dialogue opinions, i.e., "feelings" which are subject to manipulation, with authority using discussion to clear up any misunderstanding or for clarification without loosing their position of authority) to the language of the children, dialoguing their opinions to a consensus (Facebook mentality), where, with the "help" of a facilitator of 'change,' their "feelings" of the 'moment' (in the 'light' of the given situation) guide them in determining right from wrong, i.e., the right way to think and act in the situation (known as "situation ethics," "values clarification"), the "new" world order is able to usurp, i.e., negate the "old" world order, making all children the same, i.e., of and for their carnal nature, i.e., "of [and for] the world" only. Children are in fact being seduced, deceived, and manipulated in the consensus environment by a facilitator of 'change' since children do not come to consensus naturally, tending to divide themselves from one another based upon their "self"-ish interests of the 'moment' or their parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth, insisting upon doing things their or their parent's way, initiating and sustaining their parent's way of thinking and acting, i.e., a "top-down," "Mine. Not yours," "right-wrong" way of thinking and acting. In other words (according to those intoxicated, addicted, and possessed with the "new" world order, i.e., the consensus process), when children yield to their parent's authority (or any authority) against their carnal desires of the 'moment' they "create" the father's/Father's authority, a "top-down," patriarchal way of thinking and acting. Karl Marx wrote: "The life [authority] which he [the child] has given to the object [to the parent, to the teacher, to the boss, to the ruler, or to God—when the child humbles, denies, dies to, disciplines, controls his "self" in order to do their will, thus "empowering" them] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) The Marxist Theodor Adorno explained it this way:
"Authoritarian submission [nationalism, tantamount to Fascism in the mind of 'liberal's'] was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) By removing discussion, Hitler negated the father's/Father's authority, used the office for his own carnal desires instead, thus 'justifying' to the socialist-commonist-globalists their use of dialogue, i.e., the language of the children of disobedience in order to initiate and sustain 'change,' taking control over and keeping themselves in power over "the people"—for the sake of "the people." "Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the individual to the state [parental authority, local control, Nationalism], and so forth, have so frequently and, as it seems to us, correctly, been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed that a search for correlates of prejudice had naturally to take these attitudes into account." "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." ibid. This is the paranoia of the liberal mind.
The only solution to the "problem," according to Karl Marx, i.e., to those of the "new" world order is to negate the father's/Father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the children, 'changing' how they communicate with their "self," others, and the world, as well as how they respond to authority. Karl Marx 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)
The "old" world order is based upon faith and obedience, i.e., doing "right and not wrong" according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., righteousness—"trusting in the Lord," letting the Lord "direct [your] steps." The "new" world order is based upon "sense experience," i.e., upon that which is of nature only, i.e., loving and approaching that which is pleasurable and hating and avoiding that which is painful, i.e., hating and avoiding or attempting to remove (negate) that which inhibits or blocks the enjoyment of the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' making "truth" subject to the persons "own understanding," subject to their carnal desires, i.e., "lusts" of the 'moment' (which are being stimulated by the world around them in the 'moment')—making deductive (didactic) reasoning, i.e., reasoning from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth subject to inductive (dialectic) reasoning, i.e., subject to their opinion, i.e., reasoning from their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' thus negating the father's/Father's authority as a means to making judgment regarding right and wrong thinking and acting, treating facts and truth as theories and opinions, thus treating theories and opinions, i.e., "feelings" as fact and truth, making themselves subject to the seduction, deception, and manipulation of the facilitator of 'change' who "helps" them 'discover' what is "relevant," "reasonable," "rational," practical," i.e., "positive" and what is not—with pleasure, i.e., their carnal desires of the 'moment' being "positive," the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth which inhibit or block it being "negative," therefore "irrelevant," "unreasonable," "irrational," impractical," especially, according to Karl Marx, when it comes to determining what is real or "actual" and what is not. Karl Marx wrote: "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') The Marxist, György Lukács wrote: "for the dialectical method the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its 'obedience to laws'." According to Lukács it is the father's/Father's authority that stands in the way of common-ism (Globalism), i.e., "reality"—which can only be initiated and sustained through dialogue. "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?) Without dialogue, common-ism (Globalism) cannot become "reality." "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) Abraham Maslow's "self actualization" is simply Karl Marx's "reality" of the child's "lust of the flesh," "lust of the eyes," and "pride of life" being 'justified' before men and put into practice, which requires (demands) the negation of the father's/Father's authority. Maslow wrote: "Nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian & Jewish foundations." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow) Maslow wrote of the merging of Marxism and Humanism (socialism and psychology and philosophy) in order to rid the world of sovereignty, stating that it would "cost much blood." "Marxian theory needs Freudian-type instinct theory [Freud considered all children sexually active] to round it out. And of course, vice versa." ". . . I've decided to get into the World Federalists, become pro-UN, & the like." "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.) ibid.
The solution was to simple. By creating a classroom environment where children can dialogue their opinions to a consensus, resulting in them going home challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking their parent's authority, parent's are pressured to go to counseling, dialoguing their opinions to a consensus with their children, negating their office in the process—their participation (abduction of their authority to dialogue) accomplishes the deed.
The "new" world order is established upon Karl Marx's dictum that 'reconciliation' is to be with one's "self," others, and the world in pleasure instead of with the Father in faith and obedience, 'changing' our response toward authority from respecting, honoring, and obeying it to questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking it instead. This applies to the laws of the land as well, with the commands, rules, facts, and truth of the father/Father (rule of law), which restrains man's carnal nature, being replaced with the opinions of men (rule of men), which 'liberates' the carnal nature of man from the father's/Father's authority so that all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., so that all can break or ignore (circumvent) laws when "deemed necessary" (for the "good" of "the people"), i.e., when they get in the way of man's (especially the facilitator's of 'change's') carnal desires of the 'moment.' By creating a cycle of children increasingly disrespecting authority with those in authority increasingly using force to bring them under control, rebellion can lead to revolution, resulting in the children 'liberating' their "self" once and for all from the father's/Father's authority, 'creating' a world where "reality" is no longer based upon the father/Father and his/His authority but upon the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., man's "lust of the flesh," "lust of the eyes," and "pride of life," i.e., all that is "of the world" only.
The "new" world order is 'driven' by the child's carnal nature, i.e., by the affective domain, i.e., by the child's "feelings" of the 'moment, i.e., by "human nature" (which is stimulated by the world, including the approval of other children, i.e., affirmation) and is 'purposed' in augmenting pleasure, i.e., the child's carnal nature (that which is of the world only) over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority (along with his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth), 'justifying' the negation of the "old" world order, i.e., the father's/Father's authority and anybody who, and anything which honors and perpetuates it, fulfilling Immanuel Kant's dictums of "lawfulness without law," i.e., the law of the flesh without the law of God, and "purposiveness without purpose," i.e., "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates without having to do what the father/Father says, thereby no longer having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment) Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud all had the negation of the father's/Father's authority in mind, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, so they could do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., be "human" with impunity, demanding that all people be like them, i.e., "of [and for] the world" only as well.
Their ideology is reflected in the so called "public-private partnership," i.e., consensus process being "promoted" today. By uniting that which is private, i.e., that which is nobody's business with the public, i.e., with that which is everybody's business, creating "public-private partnerships," socialists are able to make what is private, i.e., your private convictions, property, and business everybody's business, bringing that which is private, i.e., your private convictions, property, and business under their control, creating a "new" world order where government is no longer limited by local control, i.e., by the father's/Father's authority, i.e., by the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., by your "private convictions" or restraints but is "empowered" to control you by the "feelings" of those being seduced, deceived, and manipulated in facilitated meetings, so that all can, as children of disobedience, do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, convinced in their "self" that whatever they see, be it your children, spouse, property, business, etc., including you is theirs as well. Beware: if you insist upon negating the father's/Father's authority so you can do what you want, when you want without his/His restraint, God will grant you your wish, i.e., turn you over to your carnal desires, but you (and your children) will pay the price in the end. "Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment." Ecclesiastes 11:9 "And for this cause [because men, as "children of disobedience," 'justify' themselves, i.e., their love of "self" and the world, i.e., their love of the pleasures of the 'moment' over and therefore against 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
"The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful. The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good. He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil." Psalms 36:1-4
This explains the attitude of 'liberals,' acting as spoiled, unthankful, hateful children when confronted with or restrained by 'conservative' principles, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, manifesting their love of pleasure (love of the world) and their hate of restraint (hate of the father's/Father's authority). They think and act as children of disobedience, doing what they can to get rid of the father's/Father's authority so they can (as a "big brother") rule the world instead—believing that everyone is just like them, i.e., a child of disobedience (just not knowing it yet, i.e., still in "denial"), needing their "help" in order to be converted or be silenced and/or removed instead. The hallmark of philosophy, socialism (all forms of socialism from Common-ism to Fascism), psychology, anthropology, etc., i.e., "group psychotherapy" (which began in the garden in Eden, with the "help" of the first facilitator of 'change', i.e., the first seducer, deceiver, and manipulator of mankind—Genesis 3:1-6), is the praxis of someone coming between the father/Father and his/His children, 'liberating' them from his/His authority by "encouraging" them to dialogue their opinions to a consensus (the same system as a soviet which is used to initiate and sustain laws enforcing socialism aka common-ism), 'justifying' (affirming) their "self" before one another, washing their brain of the father's/Father's authority, turning them against the father/Father so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., so they can be "of and for self," i.e., of and for their carnal nature and the world which stimulates it, doing wrong, disobeying, sinning without having a guilty conscience, seeing no evil in their deceitful and wicked ways, i.e., in their unconscionable and abominable deeds (praxis), therefore (seeing no wrong in themselves) seeing no need to repent, ask for forgiveness, and be saved—Romans 7:14-25.
The role of the facilitator of 'change' is to preselect the "Legos" that are put in the box (the "appropriate information") so the children can only build the object he wants built. When only their "feelings" of the 'moment' (in the 'light' of the given situation) guide them in deciding right from wrong, i.e., excluding their parent's or God's commands, rules, facts, and truth (which divides them from one another), the only outcome will be their carnal nature, 'liberated' from parental or Godly restraint, which makes them one and the same, i.e., of and for the world only, hating parental and/or Godly restraint, calling their parent's and/or God (or anyone preaching and teaching their/His commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted by faith and obeyed) hateful for getting in their way, i.e., for making them "feel" bad, i.e., for making them "feel" guilty for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, not seeing their hate of the father's/Father's authority as being what it is, hate.
The solution, for the 'liberal,' i.e., for the common-ist is simple. By creating a classroom environment where children can dialogue their opinions to a consensus, resulting in them going home challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking their parent's authority, parent's are pressured into counseling, i.e., into dialoguing their opinions to a consensus with their children, i.e., into no longer chastening their children when they do wrong, disobey, sin, negating their office of authority in the process—their participation (abduction of their authority in order to dialogue with their children) accomplishes the deed. In this way, those hating the father's/Father's authority are 'justified' in accusing those supporting the father's/Father's authority of being hateful, thereby 'justifying' their passing laws against hate, i.e., against the father's/Father's authority, through tax dollars and government agencies, forcing all, including those supporting the father's/Father's authority, into supporting them and their hatred toward authority.
"Because that, when they knew God [the creation bearing witness of Him, i.e., of His power and greatness, along with man's ability to be in awe (aware) of it, i.e., in awe (aware) of His works and therefore in awe (aware) of Him], they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:21, 22, 28, 32 In the 'liberals' world of "oughtiness," a world of their "imagination," i.e., a world subject to their heart's carnal desires they are preparing the world for judgment, as in the day's of Noah. "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." "... the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;" (Genesis 6:5; 8:21)
"The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will], and desperately wicked [hating whoever prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' it desires]: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9
There is no freedom of religion (and freedom of the conscience, i.e., private convictions) in the consensus process, only freedom from religion (and freedom from the conscience, i.e., private convictions, replacing it with the "super-ego," i.e., the "feelings" of the child instead), unless you make humanism a religion, requiring all religions to be tolerant (non-judgmental) of the child's carnal nature, making all religions subject to the world and the scientific method of social-psychology, i.e., dialectical/historical materialism. Consensus can only be arrived at through the dialoguing of opinions, with opinions 'liberating' all participants from the father's/Father's authority, dialogue (vain speculation) making all 'equal,' and the consensus process uniting all as one, affirming the carnal nature of the child, i.e., "human nature" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority—which is the motto of the French Revolution: "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité," i.e., "liberté" from the father's/Father's authority so that all children can be "of and for self," i.e., carnal, i.e., of and for the world only, "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, "égalité" (equality) based upon the child's carnal nature of "lusting" after pleasure and hating restraint, resulting in "fraternité," i.e., community, i.e., the children united in negating of the father's/Father's authority in the name of "the people," protecting the "rights" of the children, "doing what feels good" in the 'moment' ("good sense") according to the children over and therefore against "doing what is right" according to the father/Father. It is not that the father/Father is against pleasure. It is that pleasure can not supersede the father's/Father's authority, i.e., go against doing the father's/Father's will without it becoming "lust," i.e., anarchy and revolution, i.e., "of and for self" only. While the pleasures of this life pass away (are temporary) the joy of the Lord (which the world can not experience, i.e., can not know) is eternal. Thus, those leaning to their own understanding, i.e., subject to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., 'reasoning' from and for their carnal nature, removing all that is not "of and for self," have to remove those filled with the joy and peace which can only come from trusting in the Lord, walking in the Spirit, doing the Father's will—since the commands, rules, facts, and truth of the Father being preached and taught judge and condemn (damn) them for their deceitful and wicked thoughts and actions (ways).
"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." (Kurt Lewin in Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education)
Education, i.e., how children are raised or trained up (including in the home) has been at the forefront of this 'change' or paradigm 'shift,' i.e., how children feel, think and act as well as respond to others, the world, and authority—either recognizing, honoring, having faith in, and obeying authority or questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking it instead. "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," 'changing' how teachers (and students) communicate with one another in the classroom, making teachers therapists, 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 facilitator of 'change' (as well as rejection by the rest of the class out of fear of what might happen to them if they behaved in the same way), 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.
"And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:16
The "old" world order is in similitude to God telling Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, "lest ye die," i.e., "lest ye" lose your inheritance, which is the tree of life (as a father telling his children, "Do what I say." "Because I said so," or else you will not be in my will). Psychology, in defence of the child's carnal nature, i.e., in defiance to the father's/Father's authority was the key ingredient, as in the garden, in which to initiate and sustain 'change.' "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "The 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence.'" (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) The "new" world order is in similitude to the Serpent, as a facilitator of 'change,' telling the woman that she would not die if she disobeyed, "beguiling" her, i.e., seducing, deceiving, and manipulating her into believing that she could do what she wanted to do, when she wanted to do it, when it "seemeth right unto" her, i.e., when it seemed to be "reasonable," i.e., "rational," i.e., "practical" to her in the 'moment' despite it being in opposition to God's will, i.e., that she could do wrong, disobey, sinned against God, i.e. disobey the Father and not be held accountable, thereby in her (and Adam's) praxis of disobedience, i.e., doing her will instead of God's, i.e., choosing sensuous knowledge, i.e., "sense experience" ("the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" which the world stimulates) over and therefore against the Word of God (faith which leads to obedience), abdicating her inheritance of eternal life (which is a gift from God for obedience) for the pleasures of the 'moment' (which is "of the world" only, which is temporary, i.e., which is passing away), resulting in her, along with Adam (who joined her in disobedience, then, together with the woman, both acting as "liberals," refusing to repent, blaming someone or something else for their problems, i.e., for their sins) being cast out of the garden, resulting in all men, who in defiance to God, i.e., who, as children of disobedience rejecting the Father's authority, doing their will instead, dying in their sins, missing out on eternal life, having to endure eternal death instead. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25
Just know this, your body, which you spend your life trying to please, will (figuratively speaking) someday drag you into the grave with it (your soul actually separates from your body at death, awaiting judgment). Where you spend eternity depends upon whether you, pleasing your body, i.e., 'justifying' your "self," did your will or you, pleasing the Father, i.e., humbling, denying, dying to your "self" daily, enduring the rejection of men, and following after the Lord Jesus Christ, did the Father's. After all, while Jesus Christ—who being perfect, came to save us—divides us from our earthly father—who being imperfect, can not save us—he did not negate the office itself, he simply put His Heavenly Father, who is perfect, in its place, i.e., in our earthly father's place. "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 "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 Apart from the Son, Christ Jesus, there is no 'redemption.' Apart from the Father their is no 'reconciliation.' "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 While those of and for the world might accept the Son, seeing him as someone trying to rescue man from the "establishment," they, loving their "self" and the world, can not accept the Father, judging, condemning, and damning them for their sins—refusing to accept the Father's love for them, sending His Son to 'redeem' them from their sins (by His Son's death, i.e., shedding His blood on the cross to cover their sins), 'reconciling' them to Himself (in resurrecting His Son from the grave), that they might inherit eternal life.
"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 2:15
While dad and mom are not perfect, they may be (or may have been) down right tyrants, their office is perfect, having been given to them by God, who is perfect, from which to serve Him. Diaprax seeks to negate the office, negating both the earthly father's and the Heavenly Father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the child, as well as in his or her relationship with others and the world, turning the child against his or her parent's and/or God's authority, the child's communication from then on being based upon the child's "feelings," i.e., his or her "felt needs," i.e., carnal desires of the 'moment' rather than upon doing right and not wrong according to the parent's or God's commands, rules, facts, and truth. In this way the preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed as given and the teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, which go against (is antithetical to) the child's carnal nature is overcome (negated) through the praxis of dialogue, i.e., the children sharing with one another their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' becoming one, i.e., building relationship, i.e., coming to consensus (a "feeling" of "oneness") based upon their common "self interests" of the 'moment,' transcending parental/ Godly restraint (authority), negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobedience, sinning in the process.
Diaprax is the dialectic process ("self" 'justification,' i.e., you 'justifying' your carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment') being put into praxis (practice or social action). It is the manifestation of the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's love of pleasure (dopamine emancipation), which is stimulated by the things of the world, hating the father/Father for chastening him when he does wrong, disobeys, sins, refusing to humble, deny, die to his "self" in order to do the father's/Fathers' will, turning against the Father instead. The father/Father on the other hand, loving his/His children, chastens them that they might learn to do right, obey, not sin, and live, i.e., so they might receive an inheritance from Him. As the prodigal son 'discovered,' thinking life was all about the pleasures of the 'moment,' using up his inheritance for his carnal desires, in the act of humbling, denying, dying to his "self" and returning to the father, his inheritance was his father's love for him.
Children can not separate their hate of missing out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which they desire and their hatred toward the one inhibiting or blocking them. The father/Father on the other hand, while hating his children doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, loves his/His children, disciplining them in order that they might learn to do right, obey, and not sin, i.e., learn to discipline and control their "self", i.e., grow up and become mature instead. Fathers who "love the world" and "the things that are in [it]" are children in adult bodies (which describes most fathers today, i.e., forty year old playing with toys), using the office of authority God gave them for their own carnal "self"-ish pleasure and gain. Children can, on the other hand, having been chastened by their father for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, repenting and desiring to do their father's will instead, have "the love of the father" in them, loving others while hating what they are doing, even to them. The same is true of man (as a child of God), repenting, turning from his wicked ways, i.e., humbling, denying, dying to his "self" daily, doing his Heavenly Father's will, having "the love of the Father" in him for others, even when they, in sin, are doing wrong (evil things) to him—something a "child" who is "of and for self" can never understand. While the child, by nature, sees the father's/Father's chastening of him as being evil he can not see his hatred toward the father/Father and his/His authority as being evil. The gospel message is after all about a Son who came to tell us about His Heavenly Father, i.e., who wants us to know His Heavenly Father, i.e., who wants us to know His Heavenly Father's love for us. The dialectic process is all about rejecting "the love of the Father" since it—incorporating his chastening for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning—gets in the way of man's love for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates, a love which never satisfies, i.e., which is always passing away.
"Ye are they which justify yourselves [your "lust of the flesh," "lust of the eyes," and "pride of life"] before men;" Luke 16:15
Diaprax is man 'justifying' his "self," i.e., 'justifying' his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, i.e., his "love of the world," i.e., his "lust of the flesh," "lust of the eyes," and "pride of life" through the praxis (social or group action) of dialoguing his opinion, i.e., sharing his "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' with others (in a "group psychotherapy," i.e., facilitated meeting), setting aside, i.e., suspending as on a cross, any command, rule, fact, or truth, i.e., "private convictions" which get in the way of "building relationships," in order (as in "new" world order) to come to a consensus, i.e., to a "feeling" of "oneness" with his "self," others, and the world. Diaprax is man putting dialogue, i.e., dialectic or dialogic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., his "lusts," i.e., his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation), which the world stimulates, including his desire for the approval of men, i.e., affirmation, and his dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., his dissatisfaction with the father's/Father's authority (the "old" world order) into social action (praxis), 'liberating' his "self," i.e., the child's carnal nature from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., negating the father's/Father's authority in his feelings, thoughts, and actions as well as in his relationship with others and the world, i.e., washing his brain of the father's/Father's authority thereby negating his having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, so that he (along with his newly found "friends" of the world, 'discovered' through dialogue, as children of disobedience, in consensus, i.e., void of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., void of parental/Godly restraint, i.e., void of having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning) can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., so that he (along with his newly found "friends" of the world) can do unconscionable things with no sense of accountability, having 'justified' his (and their) deceitful and wicked thoughts and actions as being necessary for the 'liberation' of all children from the father's authority. Until you know of God's wrath toward you for your praxis of unrighteousness you can not know His love for you, sending His Son, Jesus Christ to 'redeem' you from it, taking your place instead, imputing His righteousness to you (by your faith in Him) that you might live. If you refuse to accept the "bad news" that your heart is "deceitful above all things" and "desperately wicked," you can not accept the "good news," i.e., the gospel of the Lord changing your heart, putting "the love of the Father" in it instead, that you might know the Father and His love for you, inheriting eternal life instead of dying in you sins, suffering eternal death. Pleasure is a gift from God—that you might "enjoy" what He has created, giving Him thanks and praise. Since life is from God (and not from the world), when you choose pleasure over and therefore against obedience to God, which is required for inheritance, all you can receive after death is eternal death and a "life" (if you want to call it that) void of any pleasure, a "life" filled with pain and regret.
"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 "self," i.e., "human nature" as being equal with, therefore above or greater than, therefore against God, i.e., the Father's authority, thus negating the Father's authority, i.e., the fear of God in his thoughts and actions] is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5
In review, diaprax is man's praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., of man 'justifying' his "self" before others, being affirmed by and affirming them, i.e., their love of pleasure (the world and all that is in it) and hate of restraint (the father's/Father's authority), negating Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority in his feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in his relationship with others and the world, thereby negating Romans 7:14-25, i.e., having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., negating the need for contrition, repentance, and forgiveness, i.e., redemption and reconciliation, having a "fit" when the father/Father gets in his way instead. God has warned us of diaprax, i.e., of the praxis of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., of the praxis of "self" 'justification,' i.e., of the praxis of the so called "new" world order where children of disobedience rule, dialoguing their opinions to a consensus in facilitated, "group psychotherapy" meetings, establish their "self," i.e., their carnal nature, i.e., "human nature" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., living for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' rejecting the Father's authority, rejecting eternal life, choosing eternal death instead. If you do not start from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, weighing your thoughts and actions from it, you will "naturally" start with your "feelings," weighing the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth from your carnal desires of the day, liberating' your "self" from its restraint. When you are silent, i.e., refuse to correct, reprove, or rebuke unrighteousness in order to initiate and sustain relationship, i.e., "build relationship" with it, unrighteousness becomes the "norm." "Qui tacet consentit," i.e., silence gives consent.
"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
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8, 9
"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
Behind closed doors:
When you attend a meeting or a class where you are asked to be "positive" and not "negative," you are being "encouraged" by a facilitator of 'change' (if you hold to the father's/Father's authority you will appear as being prejudiced, judgmental, divisive, i.e., "hateful" to "the group," pressuring you to "willingly" participate with "the group" or at least be silent—which is participation—submitting yourself and the group to the facilitator's control) to dialogue your opinion (your desire for the things of the world and your dissatisfaction with the father's/Father's restraints, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, which you are already doing if you have not denied, humbled, died to your "self" before the meeting, willing to stand alone with the truth, i.e., willing to be rejected by "the group" if need be, instead of uniting) with others to a consensus, preparing your "self" and your children, spouse, neighbors, co-workers, leaders to participate in the "new" world order—a world void of the father's/Father's authority, where you, including your children, your spouse, etc., especially the facilitator of 'change' (who convinced you to think and do what naturally comes to you, without the fear of being punished, as the Serpent in same fashion told the woman in the garden she would not die) can do wrong, disobey, sin without having a guilty conscience. Setting aside, i.e., suspending, as on a cross, commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., your "private convictions," i.e., "It is written," "Because dad said so," etc., in order to be "positive," i.e., in order to be affirmed by "the group" means you are willingly participating in and promoting the broad path "that leadeth to destruction." "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves," seducing, deceiving, and manipulating you in order to use you as "natural resource" for their own pleasure and gain, deceiving you into believing that they have your "best interest" in mind when it is theirs instead (when they "help" you to 'justify' or at least tolerate your and others sinful nature, their sinful nature is 'justified,' affirmed as well), seducing you with your desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world is stimulating, including your desire for their approval, i.e., affirmation. (Matthew 7:13-15) "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." 2 Peter 2:3 "Covetousness," i.e., your natural desire ("lust") for the carnal pleasure of the 'moment' and your resentment toward whatever or whoever is preventing you from having and enjoying it, i.e., dialogue, i.e., "self" 'justification' makes you subject to seduction, deception, and manipulation. You can not be merchandised (bought and sold) without it.
We live in a world that emphasizes being "positive," with "positive" being "good," i.e., a world that believes that we are "good" or can become "good" by doing "good works," i.e., that "goodness," i.e., "good works" or the potential for "goodness," i.e., "good works" lies within each one of us, observable and definable and therefore affirmable by one another—that by making others "feel 'good,'" i.e., "positive" we become "good," i.e., "positive" in their eyes, thus, making our "self" "feel 'good,'' becoming "good," i.e., "positive" in our eyes and by others making us "feel good," i.e., "positive," they become "good," i.e., "positive" in our eyes, thus making them "feel good," i.e., "positive" in their eyes, thus affirming the "goodness" or the potential for "goodness" in mankind through doing "good works," i.e., being "positive," making "feelings," i.e., sensuousness ("all that is in the world"), i.e., our "sensuous needs" ("the lust of the flesh") and our "sense perception" ("the lust of the eyes") and our "sense experience" ("the pride of life"), i.e., all that we have that is "of and for self," i.e., all that is "of the world" the basis from which to determine what is "good" and what is "evil," what is "right" and what is "wrong." This automatically makes anyone, i.e., "the Father" who gets in the way of, i.e., inhibits or blocks, i.e., judges and condemns "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., who prevents man from, i.e., who judges and condemns man for making his "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," i.e., his "sense experiences," i.e., that which is "of the world" only, the bases from which to determine what is right and what is wrong, i.e., what is good and what is evil "negative," i.e., evil, i.e., wrong Himself. By focusing upon the "positive," i.e., 'justifying' that which makes man "feel good," the "negative," i.e., the Father's authority which judges and condemns man's carnal thoughts and actions is automatically "negated" in the person's thoughts and actions. The idea being, without the Father and his authority (that which is "negative"), "lust" is no longer "lust" but only "human nature," i.e., man being or becoming himself as he is, i.e., "normal," i.e., "positive," i.e., at one with his carnal nature and the world that stimulates it. This is a Marxist construct, making "feelings" (being "positive"—"feeling good" about our "self"—and not "negative"—"feeling bad" for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning according to commands, rules, facts, and truth preached, taught, and enforced by authority that get in the way of, i.e., inhibit or block us from "feeling good" about our "self" in the 'moment') the focus of life. (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) It is this concept of the "goodness" of the child's carnal nature (being "positive") and the "evilness" of the father's/Father's authority (being "negative") that makes Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud (as well as all who preceded them and all who follow after them, i.e., all philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, environmentalists, globalists, etc., i.e., "group psychotherapists") the same, i.e., "children of disobedience," i.e., facilitators of 'change.'
The hallmark of being deceived is that you liked, i.e., "felt good" about the person who was deceiving you (who sided with you on your carnal desires of the 'moment' and your dissatisfaction with authority), i.e., who you were convinced had your "self interest," i.e., "best interest" in mind, despite others or something within you possibly warning you, not knowing or refusing to accept the fact that you were being deceived, i.e., were being "beguiled" by him for his own pleasure and/or gain. Because he not only allowed you but encouraged you to 'justify' your "self," i.e., 'justify' your carnal desires of the 'moment,' which included relationship with him, which made you "feel so good," and 'justify' your defiance to authority, which was warning you about and/or trying to keep you away from him he was able to seduce, deceive, and manipulate you as "natural resource," using you until you offered him no more pleasure or gain, casting you off as a broken toy, having no use for you, having take all your money, inheritance, time, and pride. This is the 'liberal's' mind, seducing, deceiving, and manipulating people, befriending them, i.e., "building relationship" with them so they can use them for their own pleasure and gain, then discarding them when they serve no useful purpose or get in the way. Discernment, if you have it, does not necessarily tell you what is wrong, it just tells you "something is wrong." It is up to you to find out what it is and do something about it.
Being "positive" is the praxis (social action) of not judging or condemning man's carnal nature, i.e., not making a person "feel bad," i.e., "feel guilty" for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, 'justifying' the person's carnal thoughts and actions (which are "of the world" only) as being "human," i.e., as being like everyone else, i.e., as being "normal," affirming him, i.e., affirming his carnal thoughts and carnal actions ("theory and practice"). "Science," as in "behavioral science," can only evaluate and judge a person according to his "positive" or "negative" reaction to the things of the world, i.e., his love of ("lusting" after) or rejection of (judgment against) the carnal things of the world, with him either 'justifying' his "self" —'justifying' his carnal nature, i.e., being "positive," i.e., being normal, going against (resenting or hating) the Father and His authority, i.e., rejecting, i.e., refusing to recognize, respect, and honour the Father, refusing to submit to His authority, i.e., negating that which is "negative" (to "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., the laws which condemn all men as sinners), thereby negating the need for the work of the Son, i.e., 'redemption' from damnation (i.e., from the wrath of the Father against "the children of disobedience") through faith, and the work of the Holy Spirit, i.e., conviction leading to contrition and repentance, leading to 'reconciliation' with the Father, doing the Father's will, inheriting eternal life—or humbling, denying, dying to his "self"—going against "human nature," i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" in order to do the father's/Fathers' will, becoming "hostile" to "human nature," demanding that others think and act the same way, i.e., become "negative," i.e., "prejudiced" and "judgmental" as well (from the perspective of those who are of and for all that is of the world only, i.e., historical materialists who base history only upon your life experience, i.e., your "sense experience," eradicating all history that is negative to it, i.e., that inhibits or blocks it, i.e., that judges and condemns it).
According to "positivism" (I am not using that word as used in philosophical circles, only using it to describe those who are "encouraging," i.e., demanding everyone to be "positive," i.e., "of and for self" and not "negative," subject to the Father's, i.e., God's authority), what makes the person "good" is not that the physical and/or academic work he (or she) is doing or has done is necessarily done right—in other words, the work he has done or is doing can be done wrong, or as Georg Hegel stated it done "badly" (see affirmable link above)—it is that his emotions, i.e., his "feelings" while doing the work are "good," that he is "positive," i.e., tolerant of others carnal thoughts and carnal actions, i.e., deviancy (as well as of his own—in fact when you are dialoguing with your "self," 'justifying' or attempting to 'justify' your carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' which go against authority you are practicing deviancy in thought, i.e., 'justifying' it), i.e., not judging or condemning others (or his "self") for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., not judging or condemning others (or his "self") for not thinking and acting according to the commands, rules, facts, and truth established by authority, i.e., not making others (or his "self") "feel" guilty, bad, or sinful for doing that which others (or he) can not do or has not done or does not want to do, making his "self" and others "feel good," i.e., "positive" instead, social in nature, i.e., affirmed. In recognizing his "self," i.e., his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates (and his resentment toward restraint) in others, he, along with them become "good" in his eyes since "self" always see itself as being "good." "Self" is always "positive," i.e., "self" always affirms (is interested in) the persons "lust" for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates. When you discuss commands, rules, facts, and truth with your "self" in order to do a job right and not wrong, you maintain authority over your "self." When you dialogue your feelings, i.e., your carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' with your "self," "self" takes authority, i.e., control over you. Discussion, i.e., maintaining authority is "negative" to dialogue, i.e., 'liberating' your "self" from it.
Thus in a group or social setting "positive," i.e., "good works" means "building relationship" through dialogue, based upon the "self interests" (which are "positive") which workers have in common (common-ism), working together as one, i.e., in consensus as they work on a project, i.e., working with a "feeling" of "oneness," affirming each others "goodness," affirming their carnal nature, affirming their "self" whether the work is done right or not (physically and/or academically). "Right" from then on is based upon being "positive," i.e., "feeling good," i.e., affirming one another, i.e., affirming "human nature," i.e., affirming the child's natural desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and his natural resentment or hatred toward restraint over and therefore against any command, rule, fact, or truth that goes against "human nature," i.e., that judges and condemns "human nature," i.e., that has to be accepted as is, by faith, and obeyed, i.e., that gets in the way of "feeling good," i.e., that hurts someone's or everyone's "feelings," i.e., that is "negative," i.e., that divides people between those who are doing things right and those who are not, i.e., that prevent, i.e., inhibit or block man from uniting upon that which they have in common—"the lust of the flesh, and lust of the eyes, and the pride of life ... all that is in the world." Instead of "feeling good," because the job was done right and not wrong (because the person obeyed commands and rules and attended to facts and truth), "feeling good" itself, i.e., being "positive" while doing the job i.e., affirming and being affirmed by others becomes the focus of the day—"the lust of the flesh, and lust of the eyes, and the pride of life ... all that is in the world," i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., that which is common with all humans, i.e., our natural love of pleasure (that which is "positive") and our natural hate of the father's/Father's authority when it gets in the way of pleasure , i.e., hate of restraint (that which is "negative") becomes the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life, negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "negativity" in the process (referred to in philosophical circles as the "negation of negation," which was Georg Hegel's, Karl Marx's, and Sigmund Freud's agenda).
The child's hate of restraint is not perceived by the child as being hateful. His effort to remove the barrier to pleasure, i.e., attack authority is only natural, i.e., "normal." Therefore, according to (and through the use of) dialectic or dialogic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' (where the child is talking to his "self," i.e., dialoguing with his "self" about his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' the world is stimulating and his dissatisfaction with, i.e., his hate the father and his authority, i.e., his hate of restraint) it is the child's duty to save his "self" (from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from having to humble, deny, die to his "self" in order, as in "old" world order, to do the father's/Father's will). This is the sum total of philosophy, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc., i.e., "group psychotherapy": the child thinking (dialoguing with his "self") about how the world "is" in the 'moment,' still subject to the father's/Father's authority where the child can not do what he wants to do, when he wants to do it, how it "ought" to be, where he can do what he wants to do, when he wants to do it, and how it "can" be, with all children free to do what they want to do, when they want to do it, in consensus making what they want to do, when the want to do it a social project, negating the father's/Father's authority from their feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with one another, others, and the world.
As the saying goes: "Capitalism rewards good work (good academic-physical work, i.e., doing the job right according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth), socialism bad." Under capitalism (which can save no one, only giving the individual a "top-down," "right-wrong," "Mine. Not yours." i.e., Patriarchal way of thinking and acting) a person, having learned to discipline and control his "self" can do a job without the need of affirmation, being able to focus upon doing the job right and not wrong as an end in its self. On the other hand, under socialism, the person, cognizant of (subject to) "group approval," is unable to work without affirmation—being able to therefore blame someone else for not working with him, for getting in his way, or for leading him astray (for not supporting him as he worked for "the people," i.e., for the "common good," i.e., for his "self") or blame the situation ("unforeseen circumstances") if the job is not done right (not knowing or accepting the commands, rules, facts, and truth that would have required him to be "negative," i.e., to set aside his "feelings," i.e., to humble, deny, die to his "self" in order to learn and obey them, that would have gotten the job done right in the first place, having chosen affirmation by those who are antithetical to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., who reject accepting by faith and obeying established commands, rules, facts that inhibit or block them from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they desire, i.e., which are "of the world" only). While the capitalist, respecting sovereignty, i.e., private property and business, leaves the laborer free to use his paycheck as he needs or pleases, i.e., does not take the labor's money back after he has paid him, the socialist, not respecting sovereignty, i.e., private property and business, taxes the labor's paycheck, property, and business in order to support himself (and those who do not or will not work), whether the laborer wants to support him (and them) or not. Socialist's can not survive without taking someone else's money, claiming they are doing it "for the people," when, in truth it is really for themselves, making sure no one can escape their belief that everything they see they own, i.e., that everyone owes dues to them, in the name of "the people."
In this way of thinking, i.e., socialism, with its Heresiarchal paradigm of 'change,' rejecting the "top-down," "right-wrong," "Mine. Not yours." i.e., the Patriarchal paradigm of the father's/Father's authority (which is "negative" to "the lust of the flesh, and lust of the eyes, and the pride of life ... all that is in the world," i.e., "human nature") way of thinking and acting, rejecting the individual under God, i.e., subject to God's authority, humbling, denying, dying to his "self" in order to do the Father's will, as the child is under the father's authority, i.e., subject to the father's authority, humbling, denying, dying to his "self" in order to do the father's will, see no value or worth in the person doing right and not wrong according to commands and truth established by God (with God's grace 'redeeming' him, i.e., God's Son imputing his righteousness, i.e., "goodness" upon him through faith—including the laws of nature, i.e., the rules and facts of physical nature which are established by God—with the person attending to them "doing his best as unto the Lord"). The "rock" upon which the congregation of the Lord's is built is not Peter, who is a "pebble," but upon Jesus and his statements "for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." in response to Peter's, or rather His Father's declaration through Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." with the Father, i.e., God's authority being the emphasis in both statements by Jesus, i.e., the Son of God, who was obedient to His Heavenly Father in all things commanded. Matthew 16:16-18 It is clear from the Word of God, the importance of God, i.e., the Father's authority. "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 In all of life, it is either the child's carnal nature, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and lust of the eyes, and the pride of life ... all that is in the world," i.e., "human nature," with "the children of disobedience" in control (ruling), which is "positive" (to the child's carnal nature) or the father's/Father's authority, with the children doing the father's/Father's will, which is "negative" (to the child's carnal nature). "Positive" and "negative" therefore emanate from the child's carnal nature, i.e., from his (or her) desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates (which is "positive") and his (or her) resentment (or hatred) toward restraint, i.e., missing out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates (which is "negative").
If you do not humble, deny, die to your "self" in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's/Father's will you can not handle the rejection, i.e., the dis-affirmation from others—'justifying' your and their natural lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life, the hallmark of the "new" world order. If you want to be "positive," i.e., be affirmed by the world, you have to get rid of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., stop being "negative." It should be noted that words like inheritance, posterity, private property, private business, private convictions, sovereignty, and such emanate from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from the "negative." They are missing in, i.e., can not emanate from the child's carnal nature, i.e., from being "positive." You abdicate all your unalienable rights the moment' you set aside being "negative," i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to be "positive," seeking to be affirm by those who are of (and for) your carnal nature only, i.e., of and for "human nature," i.e., of and for "all that is of the world," i.e., "of and for self." But, you might ask your "self," "How can I turn them down when they have my 'best interest' in mind, when they are 'helping' me to have and enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' I desire, which the world stimulates, without "feeling bad" for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in order to have and enjoy them?" If you do not humble, deny, die to your "self," accept being rejected (dis-affirmed) by them, and following after the Lord, do His Father's will, i.e., if you are still talking to your "self," i.e., 'justifying' your "self" you can not.
In the world of "positive," i.e., common-ism, the individual has value or worth only as he benefits society, i.e., makes others "feel good," i.e., becomes "good" (in their eyes), thus making his "self" "feel good," i.e., becoming "good" in his eyes—with everyone affirming and being affirmed by each other, engendering common-ism based upon the child's carnal nature, i.e., upon "human nature" only. Capitalism begins in the home (with the children learning to obey the father). For socialism (common-ism aka globalism) to work someone has to come between the father and his children, 'liberating' them from his authority, i.e., negating his "top-down," "right-wrong," "Mine. Not yours." i.e., patriarchal way of thinking and acting in the their feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with one another, others, and the world., so they can be or become "positive," i.e., so they can be or become "of and for self" and the world only, i.e., so they can be or become "good."
With "feeling good" being "good" or "positive," anything or anyone inflicting pain, including the pain of missing out on that which "feels good," i.e., "pleasure," including the "pleasure" or "feeling good" which comes with being approved, i.e., affirmed by others, or the pain of being made to "feel bad" for "doing wrong, disobeying, sinning," including the pain which comes with being rejected, i.e., dis-affirmed by others, becomes "negative," i.e., "evil" or "bad." In this sense, according to Georg Hegel, i.e., according to dialectic 'reasoning' all adults are children by nature, "lusting" after, i.e., loving the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,'' hating restraint, i.e., hating the father's/Father's authority—hating missing out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which they desire because of having to submit, i.e., humble, deny, die to their "self" in order to "do right and not wrong," i.e., in order to think and act according to someone else's standards, i.e., having to do what someone else says or tells them to do (not giving them the "freedom" or "right" to evaluate, i.e., aufheben and decide for their "self," i.e., "Reason" for their "self," what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil according to their natural "lust" for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and their natural hate of restraint, i.e., "What can I get out of this situation for me").
All of man's "Reasoning" (philosophy, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc., even theology, when based upon men's opinions, i.e., "group psychotherapy") is altogether "of and for self," i.e., vanity—like a hole in space you pour time into until you run out of time, having nothing of eternal value or worth to show for it in the end. "Verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity." "The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity." Psalms 39:5; 94:11 "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity." "Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment. Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh: for childhood and youth are vanity." "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Ecclesiastes 1:2; 11:9, 10; 12:13, 14 "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." Matthew 16:24-27
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' while the objects of pleasure might differ ('change') over time and between people, i.e., while our "interest" ("lust") for specific object increase and decrease, i.e., come and go, our carnal nature of loving pleasure (dopamine emancipation) itself (that which is "positive"), which objects stimulate, and our carnal nature of hating restraint (that which is "negative"), i.e., our natural inclination of approaching pleasure and avoiding pain makes us all the same, i.e., of nature only (the only foundation from which to build consensus). It is not that God is against pleasure or takes pleasure in pain. It is that when pleasure becomes more important than doing His will (like a child loving a toy over and therefore against the parent who gave it to him, refusing to put it up when told to, striking out against the parent instead—with the parent then having to discipline the child, teaching him right from wrong thought and behavior—or playing with something he is told he is not to play with, trying not to get caught—even thinking about doing it) it becomes "lust," i.e., "of and for self" only, turning us against Him—with us, as a child, i.e., loving (subject to) our carnal desires of the 'moment,' hating restraint, i.e., hating having to endure the pain of missing out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' we desire in order to do "right" and "not wrong" according to his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth which go against our carnal nature of "lusting" after the carnal pleasures we desire of the 'moment' and hating restraint (missing out on pleasure). Only when we humble, deny, die to our "self," i.e., our carnal "interests" in order to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will is hate of restraint negated ("Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." Hebrews 12:11), otherwise, continuing to dialogue (with our "self," 'justify' our "self") regarding our carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' (in indifference or defiance to authority), hate of restraint (and hate of the restrainer) is kept alive—if the child is still dialoguing with his "self" about his carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., 'justifying' his "self" after the chastening, the chastening did not take hold, i.e., he has not learned to control or discipline his "self." Likewise, if you are still talking to your "self" (complaining or anxious) about your problems which you gave to the Lord, you did not give them to the Lord.
It is here, in the child's dialogue with his "self," 'justifying' his "self," i.e., continuing to focus upon his "interests" in indifference to or defiance to authority that dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., hate of restraint, i.e., hate of the father's/Father's authority resides. It is why "liberals" behave the way they do (as "sulking" children) when they do not get their way. You can see it, i.e., their disrespect and defiance, i.e., hatred toward authority everywhere you look today, behaving as "children of disobedience," wanting you to join with them, in consensus 'justifying' (affirming) their deceitful and wicked, i.e., "self"-ish ways. The difference being, when you are under authority, what you have has been entrusted to you to be a steward over, while those of dialectic 'reasoning' think, since it brings pleasure to them they should have it as well (instead), not understanding the responsibilities which come with stewardship, i.e., accountability, which can only come from submission to authority, which they are not able to be (as good stewards) since they have set their "self," i.e., their carnal "interests" above and therefore against authority (restraint, i.e., limits and measures inhibiting or blocking them from "enjoying" or "actualizing" their carnal desires, i.e., "self interests" of the 'moment'). While they accuse and attack others who, believing in commands, rules, facts, and truth, break them, i.e., do wrong, disobey, sin, they find no fault in their "self," i.e., 'justify' their "self" when they do wrong, disobey, sin since they do not hold themselves accountable to established commands, rules, facts, and truth which go against their carnal nature, finding fault in the situation or in others instead (as Adam and the women did in the garden in Eden).
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' without the hating of restraint (hating the "negative," i.e., your natural hatred toward being reproved, corrected, rebuked, i.e., chastened for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning), i.e., without the very act of restraint itself creating the world of "ought to be," i.e., you dialoguing with your "self" (and with others) about a world that is "positive," i.e., a world that makes you "feel good," i.e., a world in harmony with your "feelings" (carnal desires) of the 'moment,' where "lust" is not "lust" but just you and others being "normal," thinking and acting in a way that is natural, i.e., in accordance with "human nature," "Reasoning" (dialoguing with your "self," and, provided the right conditions, dialoguing, i.e., justifying' your "self" with others to a consensus—'discovering' common ground, i.e., common-ism) could not come into being. It is therefore only in your dialoging with your "self" (and then with others) your carnal desires of the 'moment,' requiring the negation of restraint, i.e., 'liberation' from the not in the world that "is," i.e., 'liberation' from "two plus two is four and can not be any other number," i.e., 'liberation' from the "negative," i.e., 'liberation' from the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is, by faith and obeyed as given that the world of "ought to be," i.e., the world of the "positive," i.e., a world 'listening' to (subject to) and seeking harmony with your "feelings" of the 'moment' can become a reality (with reality residing in your imagination, i.e., in your "feelings," i.e., your carnal desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., your thoughts of the 'moment' instead of in the "past," external to the "eternal present"), engendering 'change,' making anyone who initiates or sustains 'change,' i.e., who negates the "negative," i.e., who negates the "can not's," "must not's," "Thou shalt not's," "It is written's," "Because I said so's" (of the "past" restraining the present) "good."
As crazy as it might sound, though true, the objective is to, through dialogue, negate the preaching and teaching of the "not," i.e., the "negative" of the "old" world order that "is" in order to create a "new" world order of "oughtiness," i.e., a world which by affirming the "positive," i.e., the child's carnal nature, negates the "negative," i.e., the father's/Father's authority. Dialogue, i.e., starting with the child's "feelings," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., his "ought," like a filter removes preaching and teaching, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth from the outcome. Politically speaking, local control, where each citizen is treated as an individual under the father's/Father's authority, where government recognizes, respects, and honors the father's/Father's authority of "Mine. Not yours," i.e., private convictions, property, and business is negated in the consensus meeting, where that which all citizens have in common, i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., "human nature" is in control, making all citizens the same, with all they have being subject to the seduction, deception, and manipulation of the "group psychotherapist," i.e., the facilitator of the consensus meeting, using the citizens as "natural resource" for his pleasure and gain, doing so in the name of "the people." "All power to the people" really means all power to the facilitator of 'change.' According to all training manuals, the consensus process would not work (happen) without him. By the facilitator of 'change' seducing "the people" into dialogue, "encouraging" them to be "positive" and not "negative" while they work to solve the crisis or personal-social issue at hand (thereby 'discovering' "the people's" common "self interest"), he is able to deceive them into believing that he has their "self interest" in mind, when it is his "self interest" he has in mind instead, being able then to manipulate them, i.e., unite them as one, in consensus, using them as "natural resource" for his own pleasure and gain, resulting in their worshiping and praising him for his "good works," taking care of him as he "takes care of them."
As people—thinking and acting according to their carnal nature—seek the "positive" over and therefore against the "negative"—having to miss out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they desire because they have to do what someone else demands—they 'discover' their common identity in one another, affirming each other's carnal nature, i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e., that which is of the world only. While you approve of (or disapprove of) the child's behavior according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth you can only affirm the child's flesh—with your and his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and your and his hate of restraint being the same. It is here that affirmation (finding common identity, i.e., consensus with one another, through dialogue, i.e., setting aside, i.e., suspending the truth, as on a cross, in order to "get along," i.e., "build relationship") unites all as one, making the individual subject to society, i.e., to "the group," i.e., to the many instead of to the father/Father, i.e., to the one (Hebrews 12:5-11). Instead of persuading and being persuaded through the preaching, teaching, and discussion of commands, rules, facts, and truth, through dialectic 'reasoning,' through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (i.e., through thinking through others "feelings" of the 'moment') they become subject to the seduction, deception, and manipulation of "group psychotherapists" (Genesis 3:1-6), in facilitated meetings learning how to do wrong, disobey, sin without having a guilty conscience—therefore, no longer needing a savior (Romans 7:14-25), i.e. having found their identity in one another, 'justifying' their "self" before men. "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) "How can it be wrong when it feels so 'good,' i.e., seems 'right.'" "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25 Apart from the God (the Father) revealing himself through His Word, all we have is our "self," and its love ("lust") for the carnal pleasures of the world—"and the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:17 Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., of "self" 'justification' have only this world and its pleasures of the 'moment,' which are constantly 'changing,' i.e., passing away, leaving them hollow, "lusting" after more, never satisfied. As the gospel song "Only Jesus can satisfy your soul" by Lanny Wolfe goes, "The world will try to satisfy that longing in your soul, you may search the wide world over but you'll be just as before. You'll never find true satisfaction until you've found the Lord, for only Jesus can satisfy your soul.... If you could have the fame and fortune all the wealth you could obtain, yet you have not Christ within, your living here would be in vain; there'll come a time when death shall call you, riches can not help you then, So come to Jesus for only He can satisfy, satisfy your soul.... Only Jesus can satisfy your soul, and only He can change your heart and make you whole; He'll give you peace you never knew, Sweet love and joy and Heaven too, for only Jesus can satisfy your soul."
With others affirming the child's "good works," i.e., "works" which make them "'feel' good," making the child "feel good," they are not only affirming the child's carnal nature they are affirming their carnal nature as well, thus making "feeling good," i.e., the love of pleasure, i.e., the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., being "positive," i.e., affirmation the standard for "good." This makes everyone "negative" who preaches and teaches that only God, i.e., the Father and His son, Jesus Christ is good, i.e., that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," i.e., that all are deceitful and wicked by nature (deceived in believing that pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing God, the Father's will and wicked in resenting/hating the Father's authority, i.e., restraints) and are therefore condemned, needing a savior to 'redeem' them from damnation so they can be 'reconciled' to the Father (that any good work they do is the result of the work of the Lord in them, thereby not being able to boast in and of their "self," i.e., esteem their "self," i.e., the child's carnal nature over, and therefore against the father/Father and his/His authority). Therefore, in a world "lusting" after the pleasures of the 'moment, loving the "positive," anyone preaching and teaching commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as "is," by faith, and obeyed as give, making people "feel bad" or "guilty" for doing wrong, disobeying, or sinning, especially in a consensus meeting, is identified and labeled as being "negative," divisive, hateful, intolerant, a lower order thinker, maladjusted, not a "team player," a "resister of 'change'," in denial, phobic, neurotic, etc., needed to be either converted (i.e., 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, fighting against it instead), silenced (not "pushing" their belief on anyone, i.e., keeping it to themselves in order to get along), or removed for the "good" of "the people."
Being "negative," i.e., making people "feel bad" or "guilty" for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in today's world automatically makes you "irrational," i.e., "unreasonable" and therefore "irrelevant." We find ourselves taken captive to a Marxist, social(list) society striving for consensus (a "feeling" of "oneness" based upon everyone's "feelings" of the 'moment'), 'justifying,' i.e., affirming "human nature," i.e., the child's/man's carnal nature as being "good" or becoming "good," i.e., 'liberated' from the "negative," i.e., 'liberated' from having to have faith in and obey God the Father, and His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, i.e., 'liberated' from preaching and teaching commands, rules, facts, and truth which "judge" and "condemn" man's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," making him "feel" bad—needing to repent, turn from his wicked ways, and do God, i.e. the Father's will. The children of disobedience, not knowing the Father's love, joy, and peace, can only, from their own carnal perspective, perceive the Father as being hateful, i.e., "negative." When you start with the "positive," i.e., exonerate the child's carnal nature, the only outcome you can arrive at is the negation of the "negative," i.e., the negation of the Father's restraint (authority), so that all can be of and for the world only, doing wrong, disobeying, sinning without having a guilty conscience, i.e., with impunity (in their minds), dying in their sins. By focusing upon the "building of relationship" with others in order to share the gospel with them, the die (lie) is cast—the carnal nature of the child, being "positive," has become the pathway to becoming "good," i.e., to being affirmed by men—man can only affirm the flesh. The gospel condemns this way of thinking. Anyone trying to convince you that this is how the gospel is shared is trying to get you to drink bilge water—trying to get you to drink from the same tap they are drinking from. As the Apostle Paul wrote: "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
Dialectic 'reasoning' (human-ist reasoning, i.e., dialoguing with other's what you are dialoguing with your "self" about, i.e., your carnal desires, or Facebook mentality), i.e., "Make me 'feel good' and I will listen to you," i.e., keep everything in an opinion (non-judgmental) format and "I will friend you," i.e., "I will affirm you," "Make me 'feel bad' and I will not listen to you," i.e., preach to me that your position is "right" and that mine is "wrong," i.e., "judge" and "condemn" my thoughts and actions as being "wrong" and "I will un-Friend you," i.e., "I will dis-affirm (reject) you," i.e., 'reasoning' from the carnal nature of the child, i.e., 'justifying' i.e., esteeming "self," makes the child's carnal nature, i.e., his love of pleasure, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" the standard for "good." Therefore, according to those intoxicated with, addicted to, and possessed with, i.e., blinded by dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' anyone reasoning from God, the Fathers' commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., from the Word, "doing right and not wrong" according to the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, requiring His Son and those following Him to deny, humble, die to "self" in order to do the Father's will is perceived as being "negative," i.e., as being evil—correlating the same system, paradigm, or way of thinking and acting with the child having faith in and obeying his earthly father, not only accepting and doing his father's will, but requiring others to accept and do his father's will as well, as being "negative," i.e., as being evil as well. This is what Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud had in common, which is being put into praxis today (everywhere you turn).
In this way of thinking, through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., the consensus process, i.e., basing "good" upon the child's carnal nature, man is able to turn good, i.e., God and His Word, into evil and evil, i.e., man's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature" into "good." Dialectic 'reasoning' thus 'justifies' the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'' and his dissatisfaction with restraint (Genesis 3:1-6), i.e., "human nature," i.e., "self" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11), 'liberating' the child not only from having to do the father's/Father's will, but from having a guilty conscience ("'feeling' bad") for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning as well, negating his need to 'repent' (Romans 7:14-25). While the earthly father is not perfect, he could have been or can be a down right tyrant, using the office God gave him for his own pleasures and gain, the office itself is perfect, under God. Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' basing reality upon the child's carnal nature, i.e., the approaching (love) of pleasure and the avoiding (hate) of pain, i.e., "self," can only see the 'liberation' of the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature" from the father's authority, i.e., the negation of the office itself as being "good," i.e., "positive."
Any meeting requiring all to be "positive" and not "negative," i.e., insisting upon the dialoguing of opinions in order to arrive at a consensus, is a meeting 'purposed' in making policy void of and hostile to the father's/Father's authority. The leader of the meeting, i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the "group psychotherapist'," by 'justifying' the child's carnal nature ("positive") over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority ("negative"), is 'justifying' his (or her) carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority as well, 'liberating' his "self" from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning—as those under his influence accept and participate in (affirm) his leadership, initiating and sustaining the consensus environment which requires all to be "positive" ("of the world" only) and not "negative" (submitting to the father's/Father's authority). The facilitator of 'change' (in his mind), i.e., with the group's (your) affirmation, 'justified' in 'liberating' everyone else from the Father's, i.e., God's authority so he, along with everyone else, can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., without having a guilty conscience. His only challenge (objective) is to get you to join with the group, affirming his and their praxis of unrighteousness and abomination, i.e., "human nature," i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., "all that is in the world," negating the father's/Father's authority and the guilt conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process. As you will see, being "positive," i.e., dialoguing opinions to a consensus in a "group psychotherapy," facilitated meeting accomplishes the deed, i.e., the praxis, 'liberating' all participants (the individual and society) from the father's/Father's authority. Beware: your silence in a consensus meeting, in order not to be rejected, i.e., i.e., "unfriended," i.e., dis-affirmed is perceived as consenting, i.e. affirming the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., the facilitator of 'change' and all following him, voiding the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in the process, making the child's carnal nature the foundation from which to distinguish right from wrong, good from evil—the child's carnal nature from then on (with your affirmation) becomes "good" or "right" and the father's/Father's authority becomes "wrong" or "evil," making anyone holding onto the father's/Father's authority not only "irrational" but "irrelevant" as well.
The child's carnal nature (the "new" world order) and the father's/Father's authority (the "old" world order) are antithetical to one another. "Reasoning" from the child's carnal nature, i.e., from his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., from his "lust" for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and his dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., hatred toward the father's/Father's authority, i.e., reasoning from "human nature," questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking the father's/Father's authority is antithetical to reasoning from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., reasoning from the Word of God (weighing the Word with the Word, refusing to make it subject to men's opinions), requiring faith, leads to obedience. Establishing reasoning upon one, either the father's/Father's authority or the child's carnal nature, automatically negates the other. Preaching and teaching commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is (by faith) and obeyed, i.e., the fathers'/Father's authority is antithetical to the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus in a facilitated meeting, 'justifying' the child's carnal nature. One automatically negates the other. To mingle the two only 'justifies' the latter. "For the preaching of the cross [preaching Jesus Christ, i.e., the only begotten Son of God, in obedience to His Heavenly Father, i.e., doing His Heavenly Father's will in all things commanded, i.e., denying His "self," enduring the rejection of men, i.e., picking up the cross—covering our sins by His shed blood on the cross, imputing His righteousness unto us through our faith in Him] is to them that perish [who 'justify' their "self" before men, affirming their carnal nature, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life"] foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God [who calls us to deny our "self," pick up our cross, i.e., endure the rejection of men, i.e., reject affirmation ("self esteem" which comes through "group esteem") daily, and following Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, doing His Heavenly Father's will as well); "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." John 5:19, 30; 12:47-50; "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; "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9
According to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' since the Father's authority is derived from the children honoring the father's authority, i.e., obeying the father's commands and rules as given and accepting his facts, and truth as is, by faith, by 'liberating' the children from the father's authority (through dialogue), they are able to (through dialogue) to 'liberate' their "self" from the Father's authority as well, the very praxis of dialogue accomplishes the deed, i.e., the negation of the father's/Father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with one another, others, and the world. Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' has only one 'drive,' i.e., the carnal nature of the child, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" and only one 'purpose,' i.e., 'liberating' the child from the father's/Father's authority, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, so that the child (along with the facilitator of 'change') can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., be "of and for self," i.e., of and for the world only instead. Bring it, i.e., being "positive," i.e., dialoguing opinions to a consensus, i.e., tolerance of ambiguity (deviancy) into the home, education, the neighborhood, government, and even into the "church" and it will do the same thing, 'liberate' you and your family, spouse, educators, neighbors, leaders, and minister from the Father's authority so that you and they can be "positive," i.e., do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, with "no fear of God before [your and their] eyes."
Placing a child in a consensus environment reveals where along the process of 'change' he resides in the 'moment,' whether he is 1) 'loyal' to the father's/Father's authority, seeking to do the father's/Father's will (preaching and teaching the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, judging others, after judging his "self," for their evil or wicked ways, i.e., for their carnal thoughts and actions), 2) wanting "the groups" approval while still wanting the father's/Father's approval , i.e., caught in between doing his will (becoming a part of "the group") and doing the father's/Father's will (holding to doing right and not wrong, according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth), remaining silent or non-committal in order not to have to make a choice against one or the other, or 3) 'loyal' to the consensus process (and the facilitator of 'change'), having dialogued with and been affirmed by (and affirmed) "the group," 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, working to 'liberate' all he can from the father's/Father's authority as well, so that he, along with them, can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. This is what the "group grade" classroom (the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom) is all about, preparing the children to go home with the "right" way of thinking and acting, i.e., 'purposed' in negating the father's/Father's authority in the home, when they get home. "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) Placing the child in a traditional environment of right and wrong reveals where along the process of 'change' he resides in the 'moment' as well, with him 1) accepting and obeying the father's/Father's authority (repenting when he does wrong, disobeys, sins, humbling, denying, dying to his "self," seeking to do the father's/Father's will), 2) doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, yet still having a guilty conscience, i.e., fearful of getting caught, i.e., still dialoguing with, i.e., 'justifying' his "self," or 3) 'justifying' his "self" with others, questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking the father's/Father's authority, without have a guilty conscience, trying to bring others (including those in the family) into his way of thinking and acting, i.e., 'liberating' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority as well.
"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain ["of and for self"] in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:21, 22, 28, 32
Diaprax, i.e., the so called "new" world order, where man 'justifies' his "self" before men is antithetical to the "old" world order, where man can only be justified by the work of Christ—doing His Heavenly Father's will—with those of faith in Him doing His Heavenly Father's will as well. Even the "church," turning to dialectic 'reasoning' to grow it's "self," has turned against "the way." "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 Dialectic 'reasoning' negates faith. It is impossible to please God without it, i.e., faith. It is impossible to please God with it, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification.' By making the child's love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e., "human nature," i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" the foundation of reasoning, God's judgment upon man for man's carnal thoughts and carnal actions, i.e., for his sins, i.e., damnation can only be perceived by man as being hateful. Those who reason dialectically, 'justifying' their "self," hate Godly restraint. Just look at our culture today and you can see the affect dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., 'justifying' the carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the child has upon our spouse, our children, our neighbors, the media, our leaders, our nation, and the "church."
Diaprax (dialogue in praxis) is the so called "scientific formula," of Georg Hegel (Luke 16:15), i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, being put into praxis, even in the "church." It is the Heresiarchal Paradigm (a paradigm is a way of feeling, thinking, acting, relating with "self," others, and the world, as well as responding to authority) of the "new" world order (as "new" as Genesis 3:1-6), establishing the child, i.e., the child's carnal nature over and therefore against the "old" world order of the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11), negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process (Romans 7:14-25). Diaprax is "of and for self," i.e., is you sharing with others what you are talking to your "self" about, i.e., is you dialoguing with others your and their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., your and their love of pleasure and hate of restraint/the restrainer, 'justifying' "self," i.e., "feelings," i.e., "self interest," i.e., the child's carnal nature over and therefore against restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, with the "help" of a facilitator of 'change,' i.e., a "group psychotherapy" arriving at a consensus (a "feeling" of "oneness" with one another), affirming each other's "self," i.e., affirming each others love of pleasure and hate of restraint/the restrainer, i.e., affirming the child's carnal nature ("human nature"), uniting with (becoming at-one-with) one another in thought and action (with everyone having everyone else's "feelings" in mind, in truth their own "feelings," i.e., fear of rejection by "the group," i.e., "the people" in mind—fearful of being treated as they treated the "negative" in the consensus meeting itself—resulting in their carnal feelings and thoughts of the 'moment,' i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint/the restrainer—which they have in common with "the group," i.e., with "the people"—now representing "the group's," i.e., "the people's" feelings and thoughts of the 'moment,' i.e., "the group's," i.e., "the people's" love of pleasure and hate of restraint/the restrainer), bypassing or circumventing whoever is preventing them from having or "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they desire, i.e., negating (disregarding, i.e., perceiving as irrational and therefore responding to as irrelevant) whoever is requiring them to humble, deny, control, discipline their "self" in order to do their will, negating their having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobey, sinning ("private convictions") in the process. Loyalty to the father/Father and his/His authority, which restrains their carnal nature is now 'shifted' to 'loyalty' to "the group," which affirms their carnal nature—"'justifying' themselves before men."
Diaprax is your opinion, i.e., your "feelings," i.e., your "sensuous needs" of the 'moment' and your "sense perception" of the situation, i.e., that which is "of nature only" (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3), i.e., your "lust of the flesh" and your "lust of the eyes," i.e., that which is "of the world only" being dialogued to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness" with others), i.e., being affirmed, i.e., being 'justified' in a "group psychotherapy," facilitated meeting (it would not work, i.e., come to fruition without the facilitator)—where "the group," i.e., society (Karl Marx) and the individual, i.e., psychology (Sigmund Freud) are merged (made one) through dialogue—with everyone affirming "self," i.e., 'justifying' their love of pleasure and hate of restraint, , i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," establishing "self," i.e., the love of pleasure (which now includes "group affirmation," which is intoxicating, addictive, and possessive) over and therefore against restraint/the restrainer, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, putting dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' (dialogue), i.e., desire and dissatisfaction into social action (praxis), negating restraint/the restrainer, i.e., the father's/Father's authority—negating that which/who is preventing you and others, i.e., "the people" from being "of self," i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only—thereby 'creating' a "new" world order "of and for self" only, i.e., a world 'liberated' from restraint/the restrainer, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, so that all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., so that all can be "normal," i.e., "of and for self," i.e., of and for the world only (do wrong, disobey, sin) with no sense of guilt. If you understand this, you understand the "new" world order, i.e., the affect it is having on you, your spouse, your children, your relatives, your friends, your neighbors, your co-workers, your educators, your legislators, etc., as well as your minister. Diaprax is the process of ''change,' i.e., heresy being put into individual-social action, negating the father's/Father's authority (there is no father's/Father's authority in an opinion, dialogue, or consensus, i.e., in "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité"—the father's/Father's authority is washed from the brain in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus or affirmation process—soviet system) so that all can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., be "human" (a humanist, a socialist, a globalist, a Marxist, a common-ist in thought and action), i.e., "of and for self" only, without having a guilty conscience, i.e., so that all, 'justified,' i.e., affirmed by "the group," can do unconscionable things (in the name of/for the sake of "the people") without having a sense of guilt. (See diaprax and affirmation charts in Links.) It is not that the socialist, i.e., the facilitator of 'change' really cares about "the people," he just uses "the people" card so that "the people," esteeming their "self," crucifying any who get in their (his) way, and following him—thinking he cares about them—will take care of him, i.e., will serve, protect, and praise him. The dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process is a worship service, with "the people," at the alter of "self," worshiping the facilitator of 'change.' While the dictator puts his "self" in God's place, using the office for his own carnal pleasures, the facilitator of 'change' puts his "self" in Satan's place, using the office to initiate and sustain the praxis of unrighteousness, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification (before men), seducing, deceiving, and manipulating those under this influence (as natural resource) for his own pleasure and gain.
You can not have 'change,' i.e., the "new" world order, i.e., Globalism without it—the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, putting consensus (the soviet system) into praxis, negating restraint/the restrainer, i.e., the "old" world order, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will. It is the religion that all must now bow down to, embrace, and serve if they are to be a part of the "new" world order, i.e., if thy are to be affirmed. As on Facebook, if you hurt someone's "feelings" you become "un-liked" or "un-friended," i.e., irrational ("unreasonable") and therefore irrelevant, excluded, negated, i.e., diapraxed—"Make me 'feel good,' i.e., 'justify' my carnal desires (thoughts) and behavior of the 'moment' and I will 'friend,' i.e., add (affirm) you." "Hurt my 'feelings', i.e., judge me for my carnal desires (thoughts) and behavior of the 'moment' and I will 'unfriend,' i.e., delete (negate) you." This is what Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud had in mind—"building relationships upon 'self' interest," i.e., 'creating' a "new" world order based upon the carnal nature of the child, i.e., "of and for self only," negating the "old" world order of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., having to humble, deny, control, discipline "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will, i.e., having to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (Hebrews 12:5-11), engendering a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (Romans 7:14-25). Diaprax, i.e., the "new" world order, i.e., the carnal nature of the child, i.e., 'justifying' (esteeming) "self" is antithetical (hostile) to the "old" world order, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., humbling, denying, dying to, controlling, disciplining "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will, negating the "old" world order, i.e., the father's/Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the children when put into praxis. It is what the media, the education establishment (via its use of "Bloom's Taxonomies"), entertainment industry, etc., are doing to you, your children, spouse, and friends, wanting all to join (affirm) them in their Godless, i.e., love of their carnal desires of the moment,' hate of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., restraining ways. If you make pleasure the standard for "good," you have to hate the father's/Father's authority, i.e., restraint, making it the standard for "evil," making the 'purpose' of life the 'liberation' of the Karl Marx in you, as well as in all the children of the world.
"The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will], and desperately wicked [hating whoever prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' it desires]: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9
"Ye are they which justify yourselves [your heart's carnal desires] before men; but God knoweth your hearts [which are deceitful, thinking pleasure is the standard for "good," instead of doing God the Father's will, and wicked, hating anyone who inhibits or blocks pleasure, preventing them from "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they desire]: for that which is highly esteemed among men ["all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life"] is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15 [1 John 2:16]
"Let no man deceive you with vain words ["self" 'justifying' words, i.e., words which you want to hear, i.e., words which make you "feel" "good," 'justifying' your "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' including the affirmation of men, and your resentment/hatred toward restraint/the restrainer]: 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
"Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5
"Every one that is proud in heart [who 'justifies' his "self," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e. who establishes "self," i.e., "human nature" above and therefore against God, i.e., the Father's authority, thus negating the Father's authority in his thoughts and actions] is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5
Although a man might have, in this life, "no fear of God before his eyes," he will "give account of himself to God" on the day of judgment. Psalms 36:1; Romans 14:12 On that day his opinion, i.e., "I can do what I want to do, when I want to do it because it is natural (common) to all men, women, and children and therefore my 'right,'" will not count.
"There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25
Through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, in "group psychotherapy," facilitated meetings, children (including those in adult bodies)—'justifying' (affirming) their "self," i.e., their carnal nature before one another (actually not just 'justifying' their "self," but 'justifying' their 'justifying' their "self," i.e., 'justifying' the praxis, i.e., that way of thinking itself, i.e., 'choosing' the sensation (sensuousness) of pleasure over and therefore against doing what is right and not wrong according to the fathers'/Father's will)—are being 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, so that they (no longer having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning), along with, i.e., following in the footsteps of the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the "psychotherapist," can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. The praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., of "self" 'justification' negates Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e. the father's/Father's authority, negates Romans 7:14-25, i.e., the "guilty conscience " in children for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, resulting in their questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking authority, i.e., rejecting the father's/Father's authority instead of honoring it. This is the hallmark of Marxism—with policies and laws being made and put into praxis through the consensus process, i.e., the soviet system.
Marxist's, i.e., facilitator's of 'change,' i.e., psychotherapist's, i.e., "children of disobedience" have become so entrenching in education, in business, in government, in the media, in the entertainment industry, etc., and even in the "church" today, to speak negative of them (expose them) automatically makes you an ausländer, i.e., an outcast (negative, divisive, hateful, intolerant, a "lower order thinker," maladjusted, controversial, a "resister to change," not a "team player," "phobic," etc., i.e., the list goes on and gets really nasty and hateful), i.e., "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant." Most people, not knowing what Marxism is, support Marxism without even knowing it. Not knowing what Marxism is you might be a Marxist yourself, like a drug addict, hating (striking out against, mocking, berating, attacking) anyone exposing and/or interfering with your Marxist ways, in denial, refusing to seek after and know the truth. Are you a Marxist?
The following (as explained in condensed form above) will answer the question, "What is happening to me (my children, my spouse, my friends, and the world around me, including the "church")?"—if you can handle it. If you are not upset, i.e., if you do not really want to know the truth, you will not last long in reading (or even attempt to read) the following. It will require you to think. If you are thinking through your "feelings," wanting to "feel good" about your "self" (of Facebook, i.e., "like" mentality) you will not last. Instead of setting aside the truth in order (as in "new" world order) to "feel good" about your "self," it will require you to humble, deny, die to your "self" in order (as in "old" world order) to come to the knowledge of the truth. While everyone is dealing with the symptoms of the problem, the following addresses the problem itself. Until you address the problem (your heart), there is no real solution, only continuous 'change'—like a dog chasing its tail, "feeling good" while doing it (thinking through its "feelings" of the 'moment'), experiencing rapid 'change,' going nowhere.
"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16 While children, by nature love the pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, and by nature hate missing out on pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, thus by nature hating not only restraint but the restrainer, i.e., the Father and His authority as well, the Father instead loves His children, hating only their bad behavior, chastening them, when they do wrong, disobey, sin in order to encourage them to do right, obey, not sin (seek Him for the solution), only pouring His wrath out upon the children who, loving the pleasures which the world stimulates over and therefore against Him, defy Him, i.e., do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity (in their minds) and attack His authority—"the children of disobedience."
"To create effectively a new set of attitudes and values [Marxism], the individual must undergo great reorganization of his personal beliefs and attitudes [what is called a "paradigm 'change'" or 'shift,' i.e., 'shifting' his 'loyalty' from the one, i.e., the Father, to his "self," and then, with the help of the facilitator of 'change,' to "the group," i.e., to society—from a Patriarchal Paradigm of stability (establishment), through a Matriarchal Paradigm of "feelings," to the Heresiarchal Paradigm of continuous 'change,' i.e., "self" 'justification'] and he must be involved in an environment which in may ways is separated from the previous environment in which he was developed.... many of these changes are produced by association with peers who have less authoritarian points of view, as well as through the impact of a great many courses of study in which the authoritarian pattern [the father's/Father's authority] is in some ways brought into question while more rational and nonauthoritarian behaviors are emphasized." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) Place the child in an environment where he is 1) seeking approval, yet required to be 2) tolerant of deviance and his reaction will determine where along the spectrum of 'change' he is at the present 'moment,' whether his 'loyalty' is to parental authority, judging the deviant (as he judges his "self," from his parent's standards), or his 'loyalty' is to his "self" only, remaining silent, caught between wanting parental approval and group affirmation (fearing rejection), or, dialoging with the deviant, his 'loyal' is to the "new" world order, rejecting parental authority. Once he has worshiped at the alter of deviancy, like a drug addict, he will "tear the kitchen apart" (have a tantrum) if or when his parents get in his way.
Separate the children from their parents. Encourage them to dialogue their opinions, i.e., their "Why's?" (in response to their parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's commands and rules, as in "Why can't I go out?" i.e., trying to get their parents into dialogue, which their parent cut off with their "Because I said so's."—in other words "Do what I say or else.") and you 'liberate' the children from their parent's commands and rules, turning them against their parent's authority, negating their having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, resulting in them questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking their parents (their parent's authority) when they get home, so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. In the "group grade," consensus, "relationship building," facilitated classroom the children learn that everyone's "feelings" of the 'moment' must determine right from wrong (instead of their parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth) if they are to become "normal," i.e., affirmed by "the group," i.e., of and for the world only.
"[We] must develop persons [students] who see non-influencability of private convictions [those student's holding on to their parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's authority] in joint deliberations [in the facilitated, consensus, "group grade" "relationship building" classroom] as a vice rather than a virtue [as being "negative," i.e., "the problem" instead of "positive," i.e., contributing to the solution]." (Kenneth D. Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
"Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the individual to the state [parental authority, local control, Nationalism], and so forth, have so frequently and, as it seems to us, correctly, been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed that a search for correlates of prejudice had naturally to take these attitudes into account." "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." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) The error in this 'logic' is that Fascism is based upon the father's/Father's authority when in truth in order to create any form of socialism, whether National (Fascism) or Global (Communism), or anything in between, you must first negate the father's/Father's authority—the paranoia of globalist's is their fear that the traditional family might turning to National government, i.e., that parent's might abdicate their authority to government in order to stop the globalist's advancement, thus forming Fascism, when in truth the children, through socialists programs in education have already been 'liberated' from their parent's' authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, establishing their 'loyalty' to "the group," in this case National instead of Global, serving "the people" without having a guilty conscience while doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., while doing unconscionable things, which is the byproduct of all forms of socialism, which are a byproduct of man's heart.
The Marxist's' agenda is to "develop persons," i.e., train children (and adults) to perceive and respond to those holding onto their belief or position (absolutes), i.e., those who refuse to compromise or set aside their faith in the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, preaching and teaching them in policy making or problem solving situations, expecting others to accept them as well, thus initiating and sustaining the father's/Father's "top-down," "do right not wrong, i.e., do what I say or else," "Mine. Not yours" authority system, i.e., propagating the traditional family structure—which demands that children submit to and obey their parents, i.e., recognize, honour, and obey authority, i.e., control, discipline, humble, deny, die to their "self" in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's/Father's will, thus engendering a guilty conscience in themselves (and in others) for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning—as being "the problem," with the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e., the consensus meeting (being "positive" and not "negative") being used in the classroom, workplace, government, church, etc., i.e., in any policy or behavior establishing environment dealing with a crisis or personal-social issues of the 'moment,' as being necessary in order (as in "new" world order) to expose, neutralize, and then negate "the problem." The preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed as given and the teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith—which initiates and sustains the father's/Father's authority, thus initiating and sustaining the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against the father/Father—is antithetical to (restrains, inhibits, or blocks) the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus—which, affirming the child's carnal nature, 'liberates' the child from the father's/Father's authority, thus initiating and sustaining the 'super-ego' (which is based upon the child's "feelings," i.e. the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment'), which negates the guilty conscience in the child for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against the father/Father, so that all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. And visa versa, the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus—which, affirming the child's carnal nature, 'liberates' the child from the father's/Father's authority, thus initiating and sustaining the 'super-ego' (which is based upon the child's "feelings," i.e. the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment'), which negates the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against the father/Father, so that all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity is antithetical to (negates) the preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed as given and the teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, which initiates and sustains the father's/Father's authority, thus engendering the guilty conscience in the child for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against the father/Father. Using one method in the classroom, workplace, government, church, etc., automatically negates the other. Either the father/Father rules or "the children of disobedience." To mingle the two only deceives those participating into believing that they are in the former, under the father's/Father's authority, when in truth they are in the latter, under the influence and control of Marxism. Marxism is based upon the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e., upon your desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' including the affirmation of others, and your resentment toward restraint, i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., that which is "of the world only." As Karl Marx explained it: "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] must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated] in theory and in practice [in the personal thoughts and social actions (behavior) of the children]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4)
"There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices [the children dialoguing their opinions to a consensus in the "group grade," "relationship building," "team building," facilitated classroom, basing right and wrong upon their "feelings," i.e., their natural (carnal) desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' (instead of obeying commands and rules being preached, as given and accepting facts and truth being taught, by faith, i.e., recognizing, respecting, honoring, and obeying authority)] are producing between parents and children [when the children get home, now questioning, challenging, disregarding their parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., defying and attacking their parents, i.e., their parent's authority]." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 2: Affective Domain) Dad and Mom are not perfect. Some can be down right tyrants. Yet their office, given to the by God, is. Those intoxicated, addicted, and possessed with dialectic 'reasoning,' instead of addressing the parent's bad behavior (who, acting like children, are using the office God gave them for their own carnal pleasures instead of doing the Father's will), seek to destroy the office itself, thus not only 'liberating' the children (and themselves) from parental/Godly restraint, but the parent's as well, the parent's now tolerating or supporting laws which are antithetical to the Father's authority, i.e., Godly restraint.
In other words: inductive 'reasoning,' i.e., 'reasoning' from the child's "feelings," i.e., from the child's "sense experiences" i.e., from the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., from the child's "self interest"—made possible by allowing all children freedom to dialogue their opinions (without being 'judged,' put down, or condemned) with the intent (with the "help" of a facilitator) of arriving at a consensus, i.e., to a "feeling" of oneness—must replace deductive reasoning, i.e., the child reasoning from established commands, rules, facts, or truth (which restrain the child's and/or other children's "feelings," carnal desires, and "self interests" of the 'moment') being preached or taught by the leader or any participant(s) in the meeting, requiring the child to recognize, accept, and/or submit to an authority figure. Therefore, while resolving any crisis or dealing with any personal-social issues, only that information (which is based upon "feelings," i.e., the "self interests," i.e., the "sense experiences," i.e., the carnal desires and dissatisfactions which all children can readily identify with and unite upon) which is "appropriate," i.e., "positive" information, i.e., which is conducive to "building relationship upon self interest" is encouraged and supported (being introduced through "suggestion" by the facilitator of 'change' or some "expert" or contributor in order to get things started or to keep things rolling, if and when necessary), with any information requiring the humbling and denying of "self" in order to do "right and not wrong" according to some authority figure, preventing, i.e., inhibiting or blocking the "building of relationship upon self interest" becoming "inappropriate," i.e., "negative" information, and therefore discouraged or unsupported by the leader (the facilitator of 'change') and therefore rejected by "the group." In this way of thinking (dialectic 'reasoning'), through the use of the consensus process, any child continuing to preach and teach "their" (their father's/Father's) commands, rules, facts, truth to be accepted as is, by faith, and obeyed (in order, as in "old" world order, to resolve a crisis) is perceived by all participants as being "irrational" ("unreasonable," "negative"), their information from then on becoming "irrelevant" ("inappropriate"), i.e., not worth thinking about by "the group," i.e., by "the people." Thinking through their "feelings" of the 'moment,' all participants become incapable of handling information which transcends their "feelings" of the 'moment,' making them blind to any information which is antithetical to the sensations of the 'moment' and the world stimulating them, satisfying Karl Marx's belief that "sense experience" is the only pathway to knowing truth (Gnosis). If you have ever witnessed or participated in a consensus meeting, you have witnessed or participated in the imprinting of Marxism into the American "psyche." Of course Marxists, i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists" would disagree—wanting you to be ignorant or remain naive about their agenda to seduced, deceive, and manipulate you in order (as in "new" world order) to use you as natural resource, i.e., as "human resource" for their own pleasure and gain, claiming all the while that what they are doing is for the "common good" (common-ism aka Communism), i.e., for the "good" of "the people" (when in truth it is all about them, i.e., what they want to get out of you, with you supporting them with your time, money, and praise, affirming them and their deceitful and wicked ways).
Marxism is alive and well in America today—in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, and even in the "church." It is marching in the streets and sitting in government chambers, making laws forcing you to support it's "self"-ish way, as "adults"—acting as sulking spoiled children in defiance to their parent's authority—demand their way—having a tantrum if they can not have what they want, when they want it—blaming anyone not supporting them, for getting in their way. For example, the difference between honest giving and Marxist (deceitfully, i.e., dishonest) "giving" is that in the former you give out of your own pocket, according to your free will, while in the latter you (and/or your comrades) live off of (get paid from) the tax dollars government forces others to give, getting pleasure (including praise) giving their money (in the form of goods, loans, grants, or cash) to the needy of the day, guided by government regulations (the consensus process) making sure there are no religious (Christian) connotations in the "gift," thus promoting a Godless state (with giving or donating to an institution or organization which, through opinions being dialogued to a consensus, prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks your "private convictions" from being advanced in the gift, having the same effect as in the public realm, i.e., "filtering" out "private convictions" in the outcome, making "building relationship upon self interest," i.e., common-ism the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of the institution or organization). Without parental/Godly restraint, i.e., "private convictions," the Siren song "I Want to Hold Your Hand" leads to "The House of the Rising Sun." To initiate and sustain 'change,' i.e., the child's carnal nature, stability, i.e., the father's/Father's authority must be negated, allowing "children of disobedience" to "feel good" about their "self" as they do wrong, disobey, sin—as pimps and pedophiles seduce, deceive, and manipulate their victims, using them as natural resource, gaining pleasure (living) off of their person, money, and time.
"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
Hebrews 12:5-11 and Genesis 3:1-6 are two political systems which are antithetical to one another. One encourages (demands) that you correct your children's behavior when they misbehave, say in a restaurant, the other intrudes (on the side of your children's misbehavior) when you do so, infringing your right of "private convictions," property, and business, thinking it owns (has ownership) of all that it touches, tastes, sees, smells, and hears, including your children, spouse, property, business, and even you. When you abdicate Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority to Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., to "self interest," i.e., to the child's carnal nature, you initiate and sustain Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., "self interest," i.e., the child's carnal nature over and therefore against Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority. When you submit to Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, humbling and denying your "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will, you prevent, i.e., inhibit or block Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., "self interest," i.e., the child's carnal nature. For example, those of Genesis 3:1-6 have a solution to hearing a child cry (being or having to be corrected). It is to kill the child before it has a chance to cry, i.e., before it has a chance to become an "inconvenience," i.e., an irritant. How this has come to pass (with your participation in tax dollars, donations, and "voluntarism") is explained in the following pages.
Even the "church" has joined in, suspending, as on a cross, the truth of the gospel, i.e., the Word of God, i.e., the Father's and His Son's, Jesus Christ's commands, rules, facts, and truth, including judgment and damnation, so as not to offend others, in order to work with (partnership with) the government, i.e., the "community," initiating and sustaining social(ist) 'change.' "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ [doing the Father's will]. 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 "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 10:32, 33
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9
Marxism is closer to you than you might think, might want to know, or might be willing to admit. Karl Marx is in your heart. Marxism has become the way of doing "business" because Marxism lies in the heart of "the people," i.e., in the heart of the child. The heart is "deceitful" in that it establishes "pleasure," i.e., the carnal nature of the child, i.e., the child's "lusting" after and "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., the child's "self interest" (Genesis 3:1-6) as the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will (Hebrews 12:5-11)—which engenders a guilty conscience in the child when doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (Romans 7:14-25)—and "wicked" in that it resents restraint, i.e., hates the father's/Father's authority when it gets in the way of pleasure, willing to annihilate it in the 'moment.' Marxism would not exist if it were not so. In Marxism, the so called 'shift' in the child's thinking and behavior (the child's paradigm, i.e., the way he thinks and acts in relation to his own "self," the world around him, and authority) is from the father's/Father's authority, to "self," to "society." "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)
"The direction which constitutes the good life is psychological freedom to move in any direction [where] the general qualities of this selected direction appear to have a certain universality." "Experience is, for me, the highest authority." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience." "The words 'seem to' are significant; it is the perception which functions in guiding behavior." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) "Social action [desire for affirmation from others] no less than physical action [desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'] is steered by perception [what can I get out of this environment, i.e., this situation for "me"—"self interest"]." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
"There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25
"Sense experience [sensuousness, i.e. the child's "feelings" of the 'moment" being stimulated by the world around him, responding to it according to his own carnal nature] must be the basis of all science." "Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception ["lust of the eyes"] and sensuous need ["lust of the flesh"], that is, only when it proceeds from Nature [from "all that is in the world"]." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) "Science," when applied to morals and ethics guarantees that only those things which are of the child's carnal nature—the child's "feelings" of the 'moment" in response to the world around him, i.e., his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and his resentment of (hatred toward) restraint—become the "norm," making any child holding onto the father's/Father's authority irrational and therefore irrelevant, i.e., the enemy of the state.
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions [Gr, antithesis] of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith." 1 Timothy 6:20, 21 Science, when applied to the child's nature is not true science since true science looks for the laws of nature which are observable and repeatable (constant), while the nature of the child is lawlessness, i.e., subject to constant 'change,' i.e., based upon the child's carnal desires of the 'moment' and the world stimulating them. Immanuel Kant, who promoted the child's carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, write of and advocated "lawfulness without law," i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., the laws of the flesh and eyes, ruling over and therefore against the law of God, 'justifying' the "lawless one" who first made his appearance in the garden in Eden and "the children of disobedience" who, instead of doing the father's/Father's will, followed after the "lawless one," i.e., the facilitator of 'change' 'justifying' and promoting his way of thinking and acting, evaluating the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in the "light" of the child's carnal desires of the 'moment'' (aufheben), engendering 'change.' (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment) "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Luke 11:35
"It has been pointed out that we are attempting to classify phenomena which could not be observed or manipulated in the same concrete form as the phenomena of such fields as the physical and biological sciences." "What we are classifying is the intended behavior of students ["a psychological classification system"]—the ways in which individuals are to act, think, or feel as the result of participating in some unit of instruction." "Educational procedures are intended to develop the more desirable rather than the more customary types of behavior." (Benjamin Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1: Cognitive Domain) "Whether or not the classification scheme presented in Handbook I: Cognitive Domain is a true taxonomy is still far from clear." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Book 2: Affective Domain) "Certainly the Taxonomy was unproved at the time it was developed and may well be 'unprovable.'" (Benjamin Bloom, Forty Year Evaluation) Marxism, i.e., making right and wrong subject to the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., the "affective domain" became the curriculum (the method of instruction) used by educators from the 50's on. All teachers are certified and schools (including colleges, universities, trade schools, military academies, etc.,) are accredited today (including private, "Christian," etc., including increasingly home schooling material) based upon their use of what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies." which (as pointed out in Book 2: Affective Domain) are based upon the ideology or "world view" ("Weltanschauung1") of men such as Theodor Adorno and Erick Fromm ("1Cf. Erich Fromm [Escape from Freedom], T. W. Adorno, [The Authoritarian Personality]"), i.e., Marxists.
"The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." "Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." John 5:30; 12:47-50 (excerpts) The gospel message is about a Father sending His only begotten Son, who, obeying His Father in all things command, shed his blood on the cross in order to 'redeem' man from His Father's wrath upon them for their sins, in resurrecting His Son from the grave, 'reconciling' man to Himself, setting His Son at His right hand, giving Him the keys to the kingdom, telling the Son when to go get His bride, that she might partake in His Holiness for all eternity. The gospel message is all about a Son's obedience to His Father, asking us to do the same. "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.." Matthew 7:21-23
"We are proud that in his conduct of life man has become free from external authorities, which tell him what to do and what not to do." "All that matters is that the opportunity for genuine activity ["self interest"] be restored to the individual [to the child]; that the purposes of society ["the group"] and of his own become identical." (Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom) "Authoritarian submission was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) "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) "In the traditional society each child is at the mercy of his parents. The 'natural processes' by which they socialize him makes him a replica of them." "The family has little to offer the child in the way of training for his place in the community." "Equality of Opportunity becomes ever greater with the weakening of family power." (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society) James Coleman's "Equality of Opportunity" report was used by the Supreme Court to remove parental authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority (traditional education) from the classroom.
"Concerning the changing of circumstances by men, the educator must himself be educated." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 3) "A change in the curriculum [method of teaching] is a change in the people concerned—in teachers, in students, in parents ....." We "must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions [those holding to their belief or position, i.e., refusing to compromise, thus sustaining the father's/Father's authority] in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." "Re-education aims to change the system of values and beliefs of an individual or a group ['changing' their 'loyalty' from the one restraining the child's carnal nature to the one(s) 'liberating' it]." "Curriculum change means that the group involved must shift its approval from the old to some new set of reciprocal behavior patterns." (Kenneth D. Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
"What we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives ['liberating' the Karl Marx in the child, thus 'liberating' the child from the father's/Father's authority] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs [challenging the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, resulting in the students questioning and challenging their parent's authority when they get home] and getting them to discuss issues [evaluating personal-social issues from their "feelings," i.e., from their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' including their desire for approval, i.e., affirmation from "the group," i.e., from the other children, and their dissatisfaction with authority instead of from their parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the father's/Father's authority]." This is done in order (as in "new" world order) "to develop attitudes and values toward learning which are not shared by the parents." "The affective domain is [the child's "feelings," i.e., his or her desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., the fathers'/Father's authority are], in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box [a box full of evils, which once opened, can not be closed].'" (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 2: Affective Domain)
"Part of the dialectics of the process of winning independence from parental authority lies in using the extrafamilial peer group as a foil to parental authority, particularly in the period of adolescence." (Bradford, Gibb, Benne, T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method: Innovation in Re-education) "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) Changing the classroom curriculum from the teacher 1) teaching commands and rules to be obeyed as given and facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, 2) blessing or rewarding those students (children) who get things right and obey, 3) chastening or correcting those children who get things wrong or disobey, 4) discussing with the students (at the teachers discretion) any commands, rules, facts, and truth they do not understand, and 5) casting out any student who questions, challenges, disregards, defies, attacks, etc., the teachers authority to do 1-5 to where the students are "encouraged" to dialogue their opinions to a consensus in a "group grade," "group psychotherapy," facilitated classroom, 'changes' the world from the "old" world order of the father's/Father's authority to the "new" world order of facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "children of disobedience" seducing, deceiving, and manipulating children (and adults) in order to 'create' a world based upon the carnal nature of the child, so that all "the people"—'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, thus no longer having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning—can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity.
"For this cause [because they "did not like to retain God in their knowledge"] God gave them up unto vile affections [let them have what they wanted, i.e., the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they "lusted" after, to their own demise]:" Romans 1:21, 25 "And for this cause [because men, as "children of disobedience," 'justify' themselves, i.e., their love of "self" and the world, i.e., their love of the pleasures of the 'moment' over and therefore against 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
"We know how to change the opinions of an individual in a selected direction, without his ever becoming aware of the stimuli which changed his opinion." "We know how to influence the ... behavior of individuals by setting up conditions which provide satisfaction for needs of which they are unconscious, but which we have been able to determine." "If we have the power or authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors will follow." "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 [children affirming each others carnal desires and dissatisfactions over and therefore against their parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's authority]—there's no restraint and no revolt." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) "We can choose to use our growing knowledge to enslave people in ways never dreamed of before, depersonalizing them, controlling them by means so carefully selected that they will perhaps never be aware of their loss of personhood." "We know how to disintegrate a man's personality structure, dissolving his self-confidence, destroying the concept he has of himself, and making him dependent on another. … brainwashing [where an environment is created which will wash from the child's brain respect for the father's/Father's authority (correlated to Nationalism), turning him against it instead]." (Carl Rogers, as quoted in People Shapers, by Vance Packard)
Marxism (despite what you might have been taught) is based upon the carnal nature of the child. Karl Marx, as did Sigmund Freud, based his life, and the lives of all mankind upon Georg Hegel's ideology that 'reality' resides in the child, i.e., in the carnal nature of the child and not in the father/Father and his/His authority. "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/Father's authority so that he can be his "self," i.e., as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life,) Therefore, whoever does not make (or have the potential of making) the child "feel good" in the 'moment,' i.e., "feel" in harmony with or at peace with his "self," i.e., his carnal nature, i.e., his carnal desires of the 'moment' and the world stimulating it, inclusive of affirmation (where his "feelings," i.e., "goodness," i.e., his carnal nature of "lusting" after the pleasures of the 'moment' is being affirmed by others, as he affirms theirs), they are antithetical to the "good life," i.e., they are the enemy of the state. Hegel then wrote, sounding more like Karl Marx than Karl Marx himself (who was not yet born): "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [their common "lusting" after the pleasures of the world, including (and especially) their desire for approval from others (affirmation)], where there is no antithesis [no "top-down," "right-wrong, "Mine, not yours" way of thinking and acting] of person to person or of subject to object, the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one." ibid. In other words your spouse, your children, your property, your business, etc., and even you are not yours but societies, i.e., subject to its "felt" needs of the 'moment.' As Carl Rogers explained it above, if it is not common to everybody, i.e., if it does not "have a certain universality" and does not initiate and sustain "psychological freedom," i.e., if it prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks the child from being or becoming his "self" it can not engender the "good life"—which is the bases of common-ism aka Communism, basing the "good life" upon how people think, i.e., 'justifying' their "self," making their "self" subject to their "feelings," i.e., the sensations or "sense experiences" of the 'moment,' i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' and the condition(s), i.e., the world around them stimulating them, whether imagined or real, making their "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," i.e., "the lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes," i.e., that which is of the world only, i.e., of nature only the foundation from which to determine right from wrong, good from evil instead of upon an external authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, which is foreign to their carnal nature, restraining them, requiring them to have faith in the father's/Father's facts and truth and obey his/His commands and rules which are antithetical to their carnal nature (preventing, i.e., inhibiting or block them from being their "self," i.e., judging/condemning them for "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment they desire, i.e., for being their "self," i.e., for being "normal").
"The life which he [the child/man] has given to the object [to the parent, King, or God—when the child/man humbles, denies, dies to, disciplines, controls his "self," obeying his parent's, the King's, or God's commands and rules as given, accepting their or his/His facts and truth as given, by faith ] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)
"Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man [the child] overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic." "Neurotic symptoms, with their fixations on perversions and obscenities, demonstrate the refusal of the unconscious essence of our being to acquiesce in the dualism of flesh and spirit, higher and lower ["History, almost universally, has dichotomized this higher & lower, but it is now clear that they are on the same continuum, in a hierarchical-integration of prepotency & postpotency [sub-consciousness, self-consciousness, self-esteem, self-actualization, progressively 'liberating' "self" and society from the father's/Father's authority]." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)]." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination. The foundation on which the man [the child] of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious [in the carnal nature of the child]; the foundation has to be recovered." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
'Liberation' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from "an alien and hostile force," i.e., from parental authority was explained by Georg Hegel in his concept of "particular" and "universal." His "particular" (the individual child isolated/divided/alienated from society) is the "self" in the individual child, taken captive to an authority figure who is not in harmony with and therefore is antithetical to the child's carnal nature, dividing the child from that which he has in common with society, i.e., with the rest of the children of the world, i.e., the carnal nature of the child, the father's/Father's authority with his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth not only "repressing" the child but also "alienating" him from the other children of the world, preventing him from not only having peace with his "self" but also preventing him from being affirmed by (and affirming) the other children of the world. In Hegel's mind, i.e., according to dialectic 'logic,' the child initiates and sustains the father's/Father's authority, what Karl Marx called an "alien and hostile force" when he restrains (humbles, denies, dies to) his "self," in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's/Father's will, resulting in the child, out of fear of being condemned and cast out, i.e., being rejected by the father/Father, privately talking to his "self," i.e., dialoguing with his "self" (since the father cut off the child's "Why?" i.e., the child's effort to get the father into dialogue with his "self," with the father's "Because I said so," i.e., "It is written," i.e., "Do what I say or else" response rescuing him, i.e., the father from losing his position of authority, i.e., from abdicating his "top-down" authority—dialoguing with the child would make the father's position, i.e., his commands and rules an opinion, making him and the child "equal" with one another based upon "feelings"), i.e., in privacy 'justifying' his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' in indifference/defiance to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., preserving his "self," resulting in the child resenting the father's/Father's authority as he does the father's/Father's will, in psycho-sociological terms engendering "neurosis," i.e., "thought-action dichotomy."
"belief-action dichotomy" vs. "theory-practice unity"
"In short, philosophy as theory finds the 'ought' [the way the world "ought" to be, according to the child's nature, i.e., pleasing to the child, i.e., 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority] implied within the 'is' [within the way the world "is" according to the child's nature, i.e., desiring the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' resenting restraint], and as praxis seeks to make the two [the world and the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's "feelings," i.e., carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' and the world stimulating them] coincide [removing the father's/Father's authority so that adults, in consensus, i.e., affirming one, can think and act as "children of disobedience," doing wrong, disobeying, sinning with impunity, with no guilty conscience judging/condemning them]." (Comments by Joseph O'Malley Ed. of Karl Marx's, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') Karl Marx wrote: "The philosophers [those dissatisfied with how the world "is," i.e., subject to the father's/Father's authority, thinking about how it "ought" to be, i.e., subject to their carnal desires of the 'moment' instead] have only interpreted the world in different ways [established their opinion as the only right way, thus inhibiting or blocking 'change'], the objective however, is change [the process of 'change' itself, i.e., the consensus process—there is no father's/Father's authority in the process of 'change,' i.e., in the consensus process, only the feelings and thoughts, i.e., the collective opinion of the children, i.e., common-ism—there is no father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, or truth (absolutes) in an opinion, opinions 'liberate' the children from the father's/Fathers standards (Liberté), there is no "top-down" father's/Father's authority in dialogue, dialogue guarantees the children freedom of input and therefore makes them "equal" (égalité), and the consensus process, i.e., affirming one another's carnal nature, i.e., one another's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., "human nature," makes the child's carnal nature, i.e., his love of pleasure (that which is of the world) and hate of restraint (the father's/Father's authority) the "norm" 'creating' "community" (Fraternité), i.e., common-ism aka Communism, engendering a "new" world order based upon the principles of the French Revolution, i.e., "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité," and all the common-ist revolutions following, including the so called "velvet" one's]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) "All social life is essentially practical [when relationship is based upon the child's "self interest," i.e., the child's carnal desires of the 'moment,' life is practical, i.e., relational, i.e., reasonable]. All the mysteries which lead theory [thought or opinion] toward mysticism [belief or faith] find their rational solution in human practice [in "building relationship upon 'self interest,'" i.e., in 'justifying' "self"] and in the comprehension ['justification'] of this practice." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach #8) "Uch nachdem z.B. die irdische Familie als das Geheimnis der heiligen Familie entdeckt ist, muß nun erstere selbst theoretisch und praktisch vernichtet werden." "Thus, for instance, once the earthly family [with the father's authority] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with the Father's authority], the former [the earthly father's authority] must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated] in theory and in practice." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4) "It is not individualism [under the father's/Father's authority] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society ["human relationship based upon self interest"] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority] and individuality [being "of and for self"] 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) "... once you can identify a community [where people are willing to 'compromise,' i.e., set aside their belief or faith, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to get along or solve problems], you have discovered the primary unity of society above the individual and the family that can be mobilized ... to bring about positive social change." (Robert Trojanowicz, Community Policing The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing emphasis added) "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." "Freud and Hegel are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." "Psychoanalysis, mysticism, Freud, Hegel, and Marx – the unseen harmony is stronger than the seen." "Common to all of them is a mode of consciousness that can be called the dialectic imagination." "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" (Brown, Life Against Death)
"'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 hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother—[which] culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan [socialism]." "According to Freud, the drive toward ever larger unities belongs to the biological-organic nature of Eros itself." "'The conflict between civilization and sexuality is caused by the circumstance that sexual love is a relationship between two people,... whereas civilization is founded on relations between large groups of persons ["community" or "the village"].... In no other case does Eros so plainly betray the core of his being, his aim of making one out of many; but when he has achieved it in the proverbial way through the love of two human beings, he is not willing to go further.'" "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.'" (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) "Only within a social context individual man is able to realize his own potential as a rational being." (Joseph O'Malley in Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')
"It is not the will or desire of any one person which establish order but the moving spirit of the whole group. Control is social." (John Dewey, Experience and Education) "Frauds individual psychology is in its very essence social psychology." "Freud's theory is in its very substance 'sociological.'" (Marcuse, Eros and Civilization) Marcuse, quoting Freud, wrote: "Individual psychology is thus in itself group psychology ... the individual ... is an archaic identity with the species." "This archaic heritage bridges the 'gap between individual and mass psychology.'" (Sigmund Freud, Moses and Monotheism as quoted in Marcuse, Eros and Civilization) "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs [common-ism based upon his carnal nature, i.e., "human nature"] by accepting belongingness to the group [which is affirming the child's carnal nature, i.e., i.e., the child's "lusts," i.e., "human nature" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the father's/Father's restraints]." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "One of the most fascinating aspects of group therapy is that everyone is born again, born together in the group." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) Theory put into practice, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning' put into praxis 'justifies' a culture of children thinking and acting according to their carnal nature—a culture of children thinking and acting without a father's/Father's restraint—initiating and sustain a culture of hedonism, i.e., a culture of "abomination."
"The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful. The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good. He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil." Psalms 36:1-4
It should be noted: Hegel, rejecting the father's/Father's authority, i.e., rejecting God (as did Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud), rejected "belief-action dichotomy"—where the emphasis is upon doing the father's/father's will, the child's/man's nature, i.e., the child's carnal desires and actions thus conflicting with (getting in the way of) his duty to do God's will, i.e., his feelings, thoughts, and actions conflicting with his faith or belief in that which is not of and for his nature, thus while desiring to do God's will, i.e., the father's/Father's will acting according to his carnal nature and the world stimulating it instead, thus, being unrighteous in and of himself, i.e., unable to resolve the conflict himself, needing a savior to "redeem" him from the Father's wrath (damnation), i.e., imputing His righteousness to him (according to his faith in Him), with the Father "reconciling" him to Himself (requiring the cross, i.e., the work of the Son and the resurrection, i.e., the work of the Father, the power of the Holy Spirit, and faith in and fellowship with the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ). By the child obeying the father/Father, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will—because of the child having a guilty conscience when doing wrong, after having done wrong, or when thinking about doing wrong or disobeying or sinning, fearing the consequence, i.e., rejection, which is not necessarily true, since the loving, benevolent (true meaning of the word) father/Father loves his children, hating only their doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., their "bad" behavior, chastening them only when they do wrong, disobey, sin in order that he might learn to do right, obey, not sin, rejecting them only if they reject his/His authority to chasten them, i.e., disrespecting or defying his/His authority, with the child who is still talking to his "self," i.e., 'justifying' his "self" (after having been chastened), i.e., refusing to humble, deny, die to his "self" thus correlating the father's/Father's chastening of him as hating/rejecting him (since he is unable to separate the two, i.e., the father's/Father's love for him and the chastening—the child's understanding of love being based upon pleasure instead of doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will, i.e., having to do what he is only capable, in his "self," of seeing, perceiving, or understanding as the very opposite of his nature, i.e., missing out on the carnal pleasure of the 'moment' he desires)—the child, according to Hegel (submitting his "self" to the father's authority, as did Jesus Christ to His Heavenly Father), artificially 'creates' an internal conflict between his "self," i.e., his will, i.e., his carnal desires of the 'moment, i.e., that which is of nature, i.e., of the world only and his desire to do the will of the father/Father, i.e., to please the father/Father, doing that which is antithetical to his carnal desires, i.e., that which is antithetical to nature itself, thus, in the process, giving "birth" to dialectic 'reasoning,' "self" 'justification,' i.e., dialogue., i.e., "Reasoning," i.e., aufheben.
According to the principles or 'logic' of dialectic 'reasoning,' dialectic 'reasoning' can only become actualized as the child 'discovers' his "self" and all that is of the world are one (synthesis) through his use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' overcoming (resolving) the conflict and tension (antithesis) between his "self" and the father's/Father's authority, negating the father's/Father's authority, and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, so he can be his "self," i.e., do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. Thus according to the 'logic' of dialectic 'reasoning, the child does not need a savior to 'redeem' him from the Father's wrath, with the Father 'reconciling' him to Himself, requiring the child have faith in and obey Him, but the child needs a facilitator of 'change,' i.e., a "group psychotherapist" to "help" him "redeem" his "self" from the father's/Father's authority, "reconciling" him to his "self" and the world instead, resulting in the child questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking the father/Father and his/His authority, i.e., negating the father/Father and his/His authority in his "feelings," thoughts, and actions, as well as in his relationship with others and the world—"feeling" "good" about his "self," dying in his sins).
"The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult." "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers) It is the father's/Father's authority (threat of chastening or casting out) that engenders a guilty conscience in the child when he is thinking about doing, doing, or having done what he wants (is tempted) to do, against the father's commands and rules. If the child can be placed in an environment (a "safe zone") where he can share his opinion, i.e., i.e., his "feelings," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' with other children without fear of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., judgment and condemnation, i.e., being chastened or cast out, the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning is negated, allowing him (along with the rest of the children) to do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity.
"Change in organization can be derived from the overlapping between play and barrier behavior [pleasure, i.e., affirmation from the other children approving of the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' and restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority]. To be governed by two strong goals [the child desiring to maintain approval from the father/Father while receiving affirmation from "the group"] is equivalent to the existence of two conflicting controlling heads within the organism. This should lead to a decrease in degree of hierarchical organization [a detachment from desiring approval from the father/Father, i.e., maintaining a "top-down" authority position in favor of affirmation from "the group," i.e., setting aside the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to initiate and sustain relationship with "the group"]. Also, a certain disorganization should result from the fact that the cognitive-motor system loses to some degree its character of a good medium because of these conflicting heads [the child is frozen in the 'moment' not defending his father's/Father's position while deciding what to do]. It ceases to be in a state of near equilibrium; the forces under the control of one head have to counteract the forces of the other before they are effective." (Kurt Lewin in Child Behavior and Development Chapter XXVI Frustration and Regression) By educators introducing the "affective domain" into the classroom, making the children's' "feelings" of the 'moment' a part of the curriculum, the children's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and their dissatisfaction with restraint guide them in making decisions regarding right and wrong behavior—establishes their "lusting" after the pleasures of the 'moment' instead of doing the father's/Father's will as the bases from which to build relationship with one another. In doing so they must go through a period known as "cognitive dissonance" where their belief ('loyalty' to the father/Father and his/His authority) comes into conflict with their carnal desires of the 'moment'—with the pressure of group approval, i.e., affirmation from the other children "helping" them make the "right" decision.
"Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [their belief, i.e., their faith in authority, be it in their parent's, their teacher's, their boss's, their leader(s), or God's authority] in the face of apparent group unanimity [especially when "the group," excluding, i.e., rejecting them (because of their "ridged," i.e., "prejudiced," i.e., unadaptable to 'change' "negative" attitude, i.e., their holding onto the father's/Father's restraints) is heading down the road, hand in hand, with their carnal desire of the 'moment,' "enjoying" it without them]." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)
"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." (Kurt Lewin in Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education) When the "leader" holds the children accountable to authority, the children tend to retain that way of thinking and acting (whether they like it or not) but when he encourages them to question and challenge authority, making their "feelings" of the 'moment' the foundation from which to determine right from wrong, they, with some "growing pains," i.e., having to let go of their fear of judgment and damnation, naturally go in the direction of "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' resenting restraint, receiving group affirmation—becoming socialists.
"What better way to help the patient [the student, your child] recapture the past than to allow him to reexperience and reenact ancient feelings [resentment] toward parents in his current relationship to the therapist [to the facilitator of 'change']? The therapist is the living personification of all parental images. Group therapists [facilitators of 'change'] refuse to fill the traditional authority role: they do not lead in the ordinary manner, they do not provide answers and solutions, they urge the group to explore and to employ its own resources. The group [must] feel free to confront the therapist, who must not only permit, but encourage, such confrontation. He [the student, your child] reenacts early family scripts in the group and, if therapy [if his classroom experience] is successful, is able to experiment with new behavior, to break free from the locked family role he once occupied. … the patient [the student, your child] changes the past by reconstituting it." (Irvin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)
By Hegel focusing upon the child, i.e., upon the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., replacing "belief-action dichotomy" with "thought-action dichotomy" Hegel 'shifted' the focus from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, to the child's thoughts ("feelings" or carnal desires) of the 'moment,' thus 'justifying' the child's need to be "saved," i.e., 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority ('redeeming' his "self" by selling his soul to the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., to "the prince of the power of the air") in order (as in "new" world order) to be his "self again, i.e., in order for him to be as he was before God's, i.e., the father's/Father's, i.e., the parent's, i.e., the King's authority came into his life (all being the same in structure or system of thought and action, i.e., "top-down"), thus making it possible for him to be "reconciled" to the world, no longer having to humble, deny, die to his "self" (and the world) in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's/Father's, i.e., God's, i.e., the King's or parent's will. According to Hegel, only by the child liberating his "self" from having faith in God, i.e., from having faith in the father's/Father's authority, focusing upon his and others "thoughts," i.e., "feelings" or carnal desires of the 'moment' instead, can "self actualization" (Abraham Maslow), i.e., "theory-practice" unity, instead of "belief-action dichotomy" become a 'reality,' giving the child "freedom," i.e., the right and duty to 'create' a "new" world where his carnal thoughts ("lusts") and carnal actions ("praxis") can become one and the same, i.e., according to nature only, so that he, along with the rest of children of the world can become his/their "self" again, i.e., "of and for self," i.e., of and for the world only, i.e., "normal."
"The dialectical method was overthrown—the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole [the children, prevented from dialoguing with one another, were unable to 'discover' what they all have in common, i.e., their carnal nature because they were forced to accept the preaching of the father's/Father's commands and rules to be obeyed as given and the teaching of the father's/Father's facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith instead]." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)
Hegel's "universal" (the individual/the child 'discovering' his commonality with, i.e., his identity in society/within "the group," justifying his "self justification" through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., through dialoguing with others, which 'justifies,' i.e., affirms "self," condemning the father's/Father's authority which forces the child to restrain "self," against his nature, i.e., inhibiting or blocking "human nature") is therefore the praxis of "self" 'justifying' "self," i.e., of "self" 'justification' (dialogue) becoming "universal," as children 'discover,' through dialoguing with one another, that they are all the same, "justifying their self," i.e., using dialectic 'reasoning' in order (as in "new" world order) to "save" their "self" from the father's/Father's authority, needing "help" from outside their "self," i.e., "help" from a facilitator of 'change,' i.e., a "group psychotherapist," i.e., a "savior" (of "self" from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from the father's/Father's judgment, condemnation, etc., replacing the father's/Father's love which is sure and patient with "the groups" love which is "self" seeking and fickle) in order to overcome the restraints, i.e., commands, rules, facts, and truth of the father/Father so they can become their "self" again (Genesis 3:1-6), thinking and acting according to their carnal nature, i.e., according to their carnal desires of the 'moment' (which are being stimulated by the world around them only)—being "positive"—needing to be 'liberated' from that which is not of nature, i.e., the father's/Father's authority—that which is "negative." Now, instead of dialoguing with their "self" in private ("particular"), through dialoguing with other children in public ("universal"), with the "help" of facilitators of 'change,' children are able to "'justify' their 'self' before one another," thereby, in consensus (having a "feeling" of oneness) with one another (having set aside that which divides them from one another, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., "prejudice"), they are able to work together as one, 'liberating' their "self" not only from the father's/Father's authority internally but externally as well, as they, with "group support," i.e., affirmation, initiate and sustain common-ism aka Communism, establishing "human nature," i.e., the child's carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority. In consensus (a "feeling" of oneness with one another, i.e., society or community) they are able to therefore "build relationship," i.e., community, i.e., society upon their carnal desires, i.e. the "self interests" they have in common, according to that which is of and for the world only, i.e., that which is of and for "human nature" only. They are therefore able to not only 'liberate' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority but the world (community, society) from the father's/Father's authority as well, as they establish laws upon how policies and laws are to be made—through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, (engendering freedom from the guilty conscience, i.e., 'liberation' from the father's/Father's authority), i.e., in "group psychotherapy," i.e., facilitated meetings instead of or superseding majority vote, representative (in the true meaning of the word), limited government, where those in government are dedicated to serving and protecting the father's/Father's authority, not getting in the way of or inhibiting or blocking the father's authority, i.e., local control, i.e., the father's right of private convictions (freedom of the conscience), property, and business, under God, i.e., under the Father's authority—thereby, using the consensus process, negating the father's/Father's authority in the making of policy and law so that they (and all the world) can be of and for their "self," i.e., carnal, of the world only, 'liberating' "self" from parental and/or Godly restraint, i.e., from the father's/Father's authority (so that all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity). It should be noted, if after chastening the child is still talking (dialoguing) with his "self" regarding his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and his dissatisfaction with restraint, he is 'justifying' his "self," i.e., basing life upon the carnal nature of the child, i.e., approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, making pleasure the standard for "good" and restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority the source for "evil," but if he is reproving, correcting, rebuking his "self," in order not to do wrong, disobey, sin, he has "private convictions," basing life upon doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will, making the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth the foundation from which to know right from wrong, "good" from "evil."
"Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment." Ecclesiastes 11:9
According to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., those who 'justify' their "self" before men, if it is not "of and for self" it is not worth thinking about mentally or doing physically, i.e., it is "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant," needing to be removed as it gets (or has the potential of getting) in the way of consensus, i.e., in the way of the individual, i.e., their "self" and "the group," i.e., the community, i.e., society becoming one and the same in thought and action, i.e., of the world only. Those who seek to unify "theory and practice," i.e., the child's carnal thoughts and carnal actions, i.e., that which is external to the child affecting that which is internal to the child, thus affecting the child's behavior or actions, making the child's "sensuous needs" (that which is of and for the flesh) and "sense perception" (that which is of the world only) one and the same, base the "good life" upon the child's "sense experience," i.e., upon the child's carnal nature and the world stimulating it. History to them is not what the child learns from others regarding the things they learned of the past but is his own life experience ,i.e., "sense experience," making history itself (as well as the future) subject to or adaptable to 'change,' as the child learns to 'liberate' his "self" from the lessons (restraints) of the past.
The child by nature loves the sensation of the pleasures of the moment—which objects around him stimulate—he does not love the objects themselves that are stimulating pleasure—their value or worth to him being depended upon their stimulating pleasure within him—hating and striking out against (in an effort to remove from his world) whoever (whatever object) is preventing, i.e., inhibiting or blocking him from having pleasure, i.e., access to the objects that stimulate pleasure, therefore, by nature, resenting/resisting/hating the father's/Father's authority when it gets in his way. Thus, according to the carnal nature ("lusts") of the child, the basis of dialectic 'reasoning,' , i.e., "self justification," the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life is the approaching and augmentation of pleasure and the avoiding and attenuation of pain (including the pain which comes with the removal of pleasure, i.e., the missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment' or the perceived future because the child has to behave a particular way, i.e., according to the father's/Father's standards, which results in the pain of rejection when the child refuses to accept the father's/Father's chastening, i.e., correction, reproof, rebuke for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning.
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;" Isaiah 5:20 "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Luke 11:35
Rejection (being disenfranchised, i.e., being cast out) by the father/Father applies only to "the children of disobedience," i.e., Marxists, as the father/Father, loving his/His children, hating only their bad behavior, i.e., hating what they do when they do wrong, disobey, sin, chastens his/His children when they do wrong, disobey, sin in order (as in "old" world order) that they might learn to control and discipline their "self," i.e., that they might do right, obey, not sin instead, only casting out, i.e., rejecting those children, i.e., the "children of disobedience" who reject, i.e., question, challenge, disregard, defy, attack his/His authority to 1.) give [author] commands, rules, facts, and truth to his children to be accepted as is, by faith, 2) bless or reward those children who obey, 3) chasten, i.e., reprove, correct, rebuke those children who disobey, 4) discuss, at his discretion, any issues the child wants explained further or clarified, and 5) cast out those children who reject his authority to do the preceding five things. By the child 'justifying' his "self," i.e., his love of pleasure and hate of restraint before "the children of disobedience" he becomes at-one-with them, i.e., in consensus with them. As "the group," i.e., "the children of disobedience" affirm his "feelings," i.e., his carnal nature (his carnal desires of the 'moment' and his dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., his resentment toward the father's/Father's authority—which is being reflected or represented by those being "negative" in the consensus meeting, being pressured to either be "positive," i.e., tolerant of the child's carnal nature or leave, resulting in the father's/Father's authority having no true and lasting impact in the decisions, policies, or laws being made by "the group") and he affirms their "feelings," i.e., their carnal nature (their carnal desires of the 'moment' and their dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., their resentment toward the father's/Father's authority—which is being reflected or represented by those being "negative" in the consensus meeting, being pressured to either be "positive," i.e., tolerant of the child's carnal nature or leave, resulting in the father's/Father's authority having no true and lasting impact in the decisions, policies, or laws being made by "the group") the father's/Father's authority is not only negated in the procedures, policies, or laws being made but is also negated in the child himself, negating the child's faith in and obedience to the father/Father, i.e., negating the father's/Father's authority in his feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in his relationship with others and the world, resulting in him no longer having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning as he joins with the children of disobedience, negating the father's/Father's authority in the community, the nation, and the world, engendering "worldly peace and socialist harmony" so that all children can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., be of and for the world only, i.e., be "of and for self" only with impunity.
"Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Ephesians 2:2,3
The consensus process is the formula for a police state, what we see developing all around us today, where, instead of the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (engendered by the father's/Father's authority) restraining the people—with the citizens doing right and not wrong, i.e., restraining their "self" in obedience to commands, rules, facts, and truth learned from their parents, teachers, minister, etc., in the "past"—which condition is equated to "neurosis" by "psychotherapists" (whose 'logic' falls apart since God is a living God, who speaks to us through His Word "in the here and now," with His Spirit confirming His Word, filling us with His joy, love, and peace in the present, which the world can not understand or comprehend, and is not a god "of the past," stuck in or taken captive to the traditions of men, although man has done his best to do so, making man dependent upon man, i.e., dependent upon mans words and 'reasoning,' i.e., dependent upon man's definition of God and His Word, instead of being dependent upon God and His Word alone, walking by faith, weighing "self," others, and the world according to it)—we are now experiencing the use of 1). seduction, deception, manipulation, i.e., "group psychotherapy," i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus in facilitated meetings (in the classroom, workplace, government, "church," etc.,), 2) propaganda (manipulation, i.e., selective information, referred to as "appropriate" information or more commonly "politically correct" information) by the media and entertainment industry, and 3) force (with local, county, state, national, and international forces uniting as one, crossing jurisdictional borders) in order (as in "new" world order) to re-solve the personal-social issues, i.e., the crisis of the day—which is being done (of course) for the "good" of "the people," with the worth of the individual (your worth) being based upon his (your) social-ist/common-unity/common-ist participation, i.e., support.
". . . 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 'logic' of contemporary Marxism is: you can kill ("Vernunft," i.e., negate, annihilate, destroy) the fathers/Father in society, in order to initiate 'change' (as in Traditional Marxism, i.e., "dialectic materialism," where what Karl Marx wrote becomes the standard for making decisions, i.e., is preached and taught to be accepted as is, by faith, and obeyed as given, reflecting the same pattern of thought and action as the fathers/Father's authority—which is to be remove from society—resulting in Communism becoming "Nationalized," following after an authority figure, i.e., becoming stagnant), but if you do not negate the guilty conscience in the children (for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against the father/Father), through the use of psychology, i.e., "group psychotherapy" replacing it with the "super-ego," i.e., with the children's carnal "feelings," i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' (as in Transformational Marxism, i.e., "historical materialism," where the children's "feelings," i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' become the "ground" from which to determine right from wrong, but in this case in a group setting), the father's/Father's authority—prejudices, i.e., the standards of the past—will be retained in the children's feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with other children and the world, resulting in them passing the father's/Father's authority—prejudices—on to their children, i.e., the next generation, inhibiting or blocking 'change,' i.e., preventing the 'creation' of a "new" world order based upon the child's carnal nature, i.e., a world where all children, 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., be "of and for self" and the world only. The only successful method for accomplishing the 'changing' of the children and the 'changing' of society at the same time is through the praxis (social or group action) of children (and adults) dialogued their opinions to a consensus i.e., 'discovering' through dialogue with one another their common identity (common-ism), that of loving pleasure and hating restraint, in a facilitated meeting affirming their "self," i.e., affirming the carnal nature of the child, thereby not only 'liberating' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority and the affect it has had upon their life in the past, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, but also desiring the same for all the children of the world, i.e., 'liberation' not only from the father's/Father's authority but also 'liberation' from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying sinning, so that all children (and adults) can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. The tree of "the knowledge of good and evil" did not get its name because it was evil. It got its name in that to eat of it you had to reject the Father's authority. Refusing to base knowledge upon His commands, rules, facts, and truth, you make your desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., your "feelings" of the 'moment' the foundation from which to know good from evil, establishing pleasure as the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will, making the Father's authority evil. This is the foundation of Marxism, 'justifying' man's carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority.
"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
Money, i.e., capital, i.e., stored up pleasure plays into this when the father/Father is recognized by the children, as not only being the providing for their life in the present but also, through inheritance, a provider for their life in the future, providing they obey, do things right, do not sin, i.e., do not think and act contrary to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., question, challenge, disregard, defy his/His commands and rules and attack his/His authority. The "children of disobedience," i.e., the cast out ones, i.e., the "disenfranchised," i.e., those children who, in their "lusting" after the things of the 'moment,' i.e., that which is of the world only, i.e., rejecting the father's/Father's authority, i.e., questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth, attacking his/His authority, are not only excluded from the father's/Father's blessings in the present but are also excluded from his/His blessing in the future. They can only gain access to the father's/Father's money, i.e., stored up pleasure by gaining access to his children, turning them against his/His authority as well, 'liberating' them from the father's/Father's authority so they can disobey, do wrong, sin with impunity, living off of the father's/Father's money, i.e., the children's inheritance in the present, doing so in the name of "the children," i.e., for the sake of "the people." How far are we in debt? There is no children's inheritance in debt, only "the children of disobedience" in control, using "the children," i.e., "the people" as natural resource, living off their and their children's lives. While capitalism rewards good work, socialism rewards bad, 'justifying' "the children of disobedience."
Marxist's, i.e., globalist's are paranoid, fearful that the traditional family will turn to government to rescue them from Marxism, i.e., from globalism, giving their authority over to government, creating Fascism, i.e., National Socialism in the process. Therefore any movement by traditional minded citizens to sustain their traditional way of doing things is responded to as being the source of controversial, promoting prejudice, labeled, by the media, as a being a hate crime, engendering Fascism.
This is why 'liberals' (and "so called" conservatives), acting like sulking spoiled children in defiance to their parent's authority, demanding their way, are having a tantrum if they can not have what they want, when they want it, blaming anyone not supporting them, i.e., not supporting their carnal desires ("self interest") of the 'moment' (emotionally, "academically," socially, i.e., financially), for getting in their way. While voicing that what they are doing is for "the children," i.e., for "the people," in truth what they are doing is all about them (as spoiled "self"-ish children) 'justifying' and apprehending the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which they desire without having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning. This is why you can not reason with Marxists, 'reasoning' (understanding, knowledge) to them being dialectical, i.e., based upon their "feelings," i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions ("sense experience," i.e., opinion) of the 'moment' only—"Make me feel good, i.e., 'justify' my carnal thoughts and actions [by setting aside, suspending, as on a cross, your commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to build relationship with me] and I will listen to you."—requiring you to 'reason' from your "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., from that which is of the world only, affirming ('justifying') their way of thinking (that 'truth' lies within you, i.e., within the world only), in order for you to be 'rational' and therefore 'relevant' in their eyes. It is no different than 'reasoning' with a child who is having a tantrum because he can not have his way. The only problem being, he may be in an "adult" body, with authority to use your credit card, putting you into debt, claiming all the while that what he is doing is for "the children," i.e., for "the people," when in truth he is doing it for his own pleasure and gain. As you will see it all begins in the "classroom" (whether in the home, in the public/private "schools," in the workplace, in government, or even in the "church") where children (including those in adult bodies) learn to either honor and respect the father's/Father's authority or through the dialoguing of their opinions to a consensus, i.e., through the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies," learn to question, challenge, disregard, defy, attack it instead.
"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
To make it as simple as possible, dialectic 'reasoning,' the basis of Marxism, is simply you talking to (dialoguing with) your "self" about how the world "is" (keeping you from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' you desire), how it "ought" to be (giving you whatever you want, when you want it—Now), and how it "can be" (once whatever or whoever is restraining or preventing you from having and enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' you desire is removed from your life, i.e., negated). The only one who knows what you are talking to your "self" about, regarding your carnal desires of the 'moment' and your resentment toward restraint, other than your "self," is God. When you remove God from your conversation with your "self," no longer letting His Word restrain you, i.e., reprove, correct, reprove you when you do wrong or are thinking about doing wrong or encourage you into doing what is right, according to His will, requiring you to humble and deny your "self, i.e., die to your "self" daily, letting Him direct your steps (according to those of dialectic 'reasoning' a condition equated to capitalism, i.e., capitulation to a higher authority than "self," where the individual is submitting his "self" to an "alien force," i.e., an authority or government that is "hostile" to his "self" in thought and action), all you have is you talking to your "self," making your "self" god, i.e., the center of the universe, making pleasure the 'drive' of life and the augmentation of pleasure its 'purpose'—a clear definition of "self"-isness. According to those of dialectic 'reasoning,' the only way for you to overcome the condition of submitting your "self" to an "alien force" ("authoritarianism") or "self"-ishness ("anarchy") is to 1). 'discover,' through dialoguing with others, i.e., "justify[ing] yourselves before men," that everyone else has the same natural condition as you, talking to their "self" about the carnal pleasure of the 'moment' they desire as well as about whoever is standing in the way of their apprehending and enjoying it, resenting (hating) them, and, and thus 2). finding common identity with them, 3). work together with them as one, i.e., in consensus, removing any condition in the world that prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks children from becoming "of and for self," i.e., of and for the world only, which ironically is an "either-or" condition (either you are adaptable to 'change,' i.e., "You are with us," 'liberating' your "self" and the world from the father's/Father's authority or you are refusing to be adaptable to 'change,' i.e., "You are not with us," i.e., holding on to and supporting the father's/Father's authority, needing to be "converted," neutralized, or removed—French Revolution, Communist Revolutions [violent and "velvet"], Globalism—in the consensus meeting, when you are told that you will not be judged for what you are sharing, so that all can share freely, you are being lied to, you will be judged and condemned by "the group" if you do not think and act like them, i.e., turn belief into theory and facts and truth into opinions so all can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, making the facilitator of 'change' god, and the consensus meeting a worship service to him).
In dialectic "language," not Georg Hegel's, but Johann Fichte's and those following after Hegel, Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis became the formula for understanding and resolving the dilemma of "self," God, and the world—which are antithetical to one another (at least God and the world, with "self" caught in between, with you either submitting your "self" to God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, humbling, denying, dying to your "self" daily, rejecting the world or "justify[ing] yourselves before men," becoming at-one-with, i.e., in consensus with the world, rejecting God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ). Unlike those of dialectic 'reasoning,' where man and the world become united as one in the carnal 'moment,' with God there is no Synthesis, only above-below, light-dark, heaven-hell, sheep-goats, right-wrong, good-evil, righteousness-unrighteousness, saved-lost, redeemed-damned, Spirit-flesh, faith-sight, "love of the world"-"love of the Father," etc., i.e., either-or.
"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:15-17 "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 "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 "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin [your "self" and the world, i.e., "human nature"] unto death, or of obedience [to the Father, and his Son, Jesus Christ] unto righteousness?" Romans 6:16 "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." Colossians 3:2 "And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." Galatians 5:24 "Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee." Isaiah 26:3
WHOEVER YOU PUT IN THE THESIS POSITION DETERMINES THE ANTITHESIS AND THE OUTCOME.
When you put God in the Thesis position, placing Him in the middle of your conversation with your "self," with His Word and His Spirit controlling your conversation with your "self," i.e., your thoughts, He directs your "steps." Even Karl Marx understood this, writing: "The unspeculative Christian also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, i.e., of faith, of true love, i.e., of love of God, of true will-power, i.e., of will in Christ. Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh, but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) Of course Marx wrote this with the intent of placing "self" and the world in the Thesis position instead of the Lord, i.e., writing what he wrote with the understanding that you first have to know what it is you want to destroy, i.e., negate, in order to make sure you destroy, i.e., negate it, in order to get it out of your way. It is quite sobering to know that all (including "ministers") who are of dialectic 'reasoning,' as Karl Marx was, are set upon negating "faith," "love of God," and "will in Christ" from the face of the earth—even if they deny it, the process they use makes it so. When you put your "self" there (in the Thesis position), making you god, i.e., the 'creator' of the universe (in your imagination, i.e., in your thoughts making the world subject to satisfying your carnal desires of the 'moment'), you become "self"-ish, of and for your "self" only. But if you put others, of the same "self" there, 'discovering' through dialogue with them, your and their "common identity" (communism), i.e., 'discovering' with them that the natural 'drive' of life is pleasure, you can, uniting with them in consensus (being affirmed by and affirming them), determine that the 'purpose' of life is not only the augmentation pleasure (for "self" and them) but the negation of any condition inhibiting or blocking it, i.e., God, i.e., the father's/Father's authority. Then, working together with them (as one), in order to 'create' a "new" world order based upon the child's carnal nature, 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, you can make sure that all the children of the world can become their "self" again, carnal, of the world only, as they were before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into their life, having to be accepted by faith and obeyed. Again, but now adding the Antithesis resultant, when you place the father's/Father's authority in the Thesis position (as Karl Marx explained above), the child's carnal nature ("sensuality") becomes the Antithesis, requiring the child to humble, deny, control, discipline, reprove, correct, rebuke his "self" in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's/Father's will, preventing 'change.' But if you put the child's carnal nature ("sensuality," i.e., the child's carnal "feelings," i.e., the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment') in the Thesis position, making the father's/Father's authority the Antithesis (as Karl Marx intended), all children, being one and the same in nature, i.e., in consensus (Synthesis) can 'justify' the negation of the father's/Father's authority (Antithesis) in their lives and the world, 'liberating' their "self" and world from the father's/Father's authority in order (as in "new" world order) to be "of and for self," i.e., of and for nature and the world only instead. The very essence of Marxism is the negation of the father's/Father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the children, as well as in their relationship with others and the world. By placing the children's carnal nature ("sensuality," i.e., "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," i.e., "sense experience," i.e., that which is only of the world) in the Thesis position Marx 'justified' the children's' resentment (hatred) toward the father's/Father's restraints, turning the children against the father/Father (author) and his/His authority. If you place the children's carnal nature ("sensuality," i.e., the "affective domain") in the Thesis position, as Karl Marx did (and contemporary education does), i.e., weighing the worth or value of life based upon the child's (your and/or everyone else's) carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' (negating the father's/Father's authority in the process), you are a Marxist—no matter what you say.
Children (including those in adult bodies), under the influence (intoxication, addiction, possession) of affirmation, i.e., the consensus process are being 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority today, negating the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., the Patriarchal Paradigm i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's command and rules in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with one another, others, and the world, resulting in their questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking, etc., the father/Father (and his/His authority) without having a "guilty conscience" when he/He (it) gets in their way, i.e., when he/He does not give them what they want, when they want it, as they participate in the opinions being dialogued to a consensus, French/Communist/Globalist Revolution, "team building," "relationship building," facilitated, "group psychotherapy" classroom. Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud understood this would take place when we focus upon and affirm the child's "feelings," i.e., the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., the child's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and his dissatisfaction with restraint over (and therefore against) the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth which restrain, i.e., which prevents 'change.' While their words differ, calling the children's carnal nature the "proletariat" and the father's authority the "bourgeoisie," the structure of thought and action are the same.
If you look at structure of thought and action, Marxism is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, "self" 'justification,' negating Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority and Romans 7:14-25, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, so that children/mankind can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity. By "helping" children dialogue their opinions to a consensus in a facilitated, "group psychotherapy," i.e., "group grade," "team building," "relationship building on self interest," etc., classroom, the outcome is the same, children questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking, etc., their parent's authority when they get home—manifesting the presence and 'liberation' of Karl Marx in the child's heart. "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) All teachers are certified and schools accredited today (including "Christian"—as well as, increasingly, home school material) based upon their use of what are called "Bloom's Taxonomies" in the classroom, opening "Pandora's box," i.e., making the "affective domain," i.e., the children's "feelings," i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' the focus (core) of the curriculum, i.e., the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of education (life), turning the children against their parent's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority in the process. Their disrespect (contempt/hatred) toward the father's/Father's authority is now not only manifest in the attitude of those in "authority" in education, but also in those in "authority" or in a position of influence in the media, in entertainment, in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in government, etc., and even in the "church." (See diaprax and affirmation charts in Links.)
Marxism has always been here (it is closer to you than you might think, want to know, or may be willing to admit) but was blocked or inhibited, i.e., restrained by parental authority. In the past it was referred to as the "tyranny of the masses," now it is called "civil disobedience," i.e., "Making the world safe for democracy," i.e., "Building relationship upon self interest," i.e., "being your self (without restraint)." If you do it in the name of "the people" and/or for "the environment," with affirmation, i.e., through the consensus process (which makes you, and "the people" who are participating with you in the consensus process, both now the same, "feel good") it makes you "good," making anyone apposing you, i.e., apposing "the people" or standing in your, i.e., standing in "the peoples" way "evil," including your parent's and God.
The sovereignty of this nation has always been based upon the parent's authority in the home. Negate the parent's authority in the home and you negate the sovereignty of the nation. That is what 'change,' i.e., Marxism has always been about—negating the father's/Father's authority thereby negating the idea of sovereignty, i.e., "Mine. Not yours," as in "My property. Not yours." "My business. Not yours." "My children. Not yours." "My nation. Not yours." Karl Marx wrote: "The philosophers [children (including those in adult bodies) who are dissatisfied with how the world "is," subject to the father's/Father's authority, thinking about how it "ought" to be, subject to their carnal desires of the 'moment' instead] have only interpreted the world in different ways [establishing their opinion as the only right way, thus, making themselves sovereign, inhibiting or blocking 'change'], the objective however, is change [the 'change' process itself, i.e., the consensus process—there is no father's/Father's authority (sovereignty) in the process of 'change,' i.e., in the consensus process, only the feelings and thoughts, i.e., collective opinion of the children, i.e., 'discovering' through dialogue that what they all have in common is their love of the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and their hatred toward restraint, i.e., their resentment of the father's/Father's authority, telling them what they can and can not do and say, making all children one and the same when 'liberated' from parental restraint, of and for "human nature" only—the basis of common-ism]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) Karl Marx understood that the child, submitting his "self" to the parent's authority, stood in his own way, preventing 'change,' i.e., preventing him from becoming "of and for self." "The life which he [the child] has given to the object [to the parent—when the child, humbling, denying, disciplining, controlling his "self," obeys his parent's commands and rules as given and accepts their facts and truth as given, by faith ] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) "Once the earthly family [where the wife submits her "self" to her husband and the children obey their parent's, doing the father's will] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [where the Son obeys the heavenly Father, doing the Father's will], the former [the traditional family] must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically [the father's/Father's authority must be negated in the child's/man's private thoughts and social actions, i.e. negated in his relationship with his "self," others, and the world]." (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4) Look around you today and witness the 'change,' i.e., children questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking their parents, doing as they please, having a fit if anyone gets in their way, with children (in adult bodies) in government and social programs and institutions supporting (propagating) their deviant (abominable) ways.
Marxism exists because Karl Marx is in the child's heart (believing pleasure, i.e., that which the child naturally craves, i.e., "covets" is the standard for "good," making restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority which blocks or inhibits him [or her] from being his "self"—keeping him from "enjoying" (becoming at-one-with) the world which stimulated pleasure within him—the source of evil, i.e., the object of hate) just waiting to be released, i.e., 'liberated' from restraint, i.e., 'liberated' from your authority as a parent, i.e., 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority system of "doing right and not wrong" according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth. By simply creating an environment, i.e., a "safe zone" where children can be their "self" without parental restraint, they will discover that the Karl Marx in their heart makes them one and the same. In that collective 'moment' they will be 'changed'—making their carnal desires of the 'moment' the standard for "good" instead of their parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth which restrain—questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking their parents, i.e., their parent's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority when they get home.
Deceive in believing pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will, they become wicked, treating the father/Father and his/His authority with disrespect, contempt, and hate. This is why those caught up in 'liberalism,' claiming that what they are doing is for "the people," when in truth it is for their "self," hate those in authority, saying and doing anything to get them "out of the way"—treating authorities business and property as theirs, including their children, so they can use them for their own pleasure and gain—in the name of "the people." This is Marxism in its essence, i.e., the praxis of 'change.'
While fathers (in the true meaning of the word) love, i.e., do not hate their children, hating their bad behavior instead, children, loving pleasure, hate not only the father's restraint but the father who restrains them as well—both, to the child, being the same. While children, being to weak (and not willing to die) to accomplish the deed, strike out at the father/Father on their own in order to get rid of the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts and truth, fail (traditional Marxism), according to contemporary Marxists (Transformational Marxism) if children, i.e., "the people" are to be 'liberated' to do what they want to do, when they want to do it, i.e., to be "normal" they must first, with the "help" of a facilitator of 'change,' get rid of the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., "negativity" in their verbal and physical actions, i.e., in their "self," negating the father's/Father's authority to enforce them in their feelings and thoughts, thereby negating their having a "guilty conscience" for disobeying them, doing wrong, or sinning, i.e., for questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking, etc., the father and his authority when they get home (or in public office, or on the streets, or in the media, or in the workplace, or at the town hall meeting, or on "social media," etc.). When children, i.e., "the people" embrace the voice of "the people," i.e., "the group" affirming the Karl Marx in their heart, their "self" is 'liberated' from the voice of the father/Father, i.e., from "self" restraint, allowing them to do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., to seduce, deceive, and manipulate others for their own pleasure and gain, i.e., to lie to, steal from, destroy, and/or kill whoever gets in their way without having a "guilty conscience," doing it (or rather initiating and/or sustaining, i.e., passing and/or supporting laws and/or disregarding, bypassing, or circumventing laws, "allowing" others to do it for them) in the name of "the people," defending the Karl Marx in their heart—loving pleasure, hating restraint and the restrainer. "Tyranny of the masses" has now become the law of the land, doing its deed under the banners of "civil disobedience," "Making the world safe for democracy," "Building relationship on self interest," Synergism, etc., ad nauseum, doing so in the name of "the people," for the sake of the environment, making sure the Marxists, i.e., the facilitators of 'change,' i.e., the "group psychotherapists," i.e., the seducers, deceivers, and manipulators of children, men and women get paid, i.e., are well taken care of and praised for their service to mankind.
While dad and mom are not perfect, they may be or may have been down right tyrants—acting as children, placing their love of pleasure over and therefore against their love for their children—the office they serve in is perfect, given to them by God to serve Him in. If you make pleasure the standard for "good," making your desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' the 'drive' of life and the augmentation of pleasure the 'purpose,' then you must hate the father/Father and his/His authority, responding to it as being "evil." As you will see, Karl Marx (Georg Hegel, Sigmund Freud, etc.) understood this, establishing the child's nature, i.e., "human nature" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, 'creating' a "new" world order where all can be "human," i.e., "of and for self," 'liberated' from Godly restraint.
Marxism is the child within you, i.e., your desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., "youthful lust" which the world around you is stimulating, and your dissatisfaction with whatever or whoever is preventing you from "enjoying" it, being put into praxis, i.e., into social action. All I have to do is 'liberate' the Karl Marx in your child's heart in the classroom and he or she will, by nature, question, challenge, disregard, defy, attack, etc., your authority when he or she gets home. Your children (as well as you) must "Flee" "youthful lusts:" following after "righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart" instead (2 Timothy 2:22), or they (you) will have "no fear of God before their eyes." (Romans 3:18), i.e., thinking and acting, as Karl Marx, that ('justifying' their/your "sensuous needs" as Karl Marx would say, i.e., "the lust of the flesh," and their/your "sense perception" as Karl Marx would say, i.e., "the lust of the eyes," basing all that there is, i.e., 'reality' upon "sense experience" as Karl Marx would say, i.e., "all that is of the world") they/you can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity—the attitude that most have today, even in the "church"—treating the Word of God as being "irrational," i.e., out of touch with man's "felt needs" (the consensus process can ONLY deal with man's "felt needs," making it necessary to set aside, i.e., suspended, as on a cross, anything in the Word which interferes) and therefore "irrelevant" when it comes to matters of importance in these 'changing' times. (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3 vs. 1 John 2:16)
George Hegel sought to 'change' the world by 'liberating' the child/mankind from the father's/Father's authority through the use of philosophy (philosophy is your thinking about how the world "is," subject to the father's/Father's authority, how it "ought" to be, subject to satisfying your carnal desires of the 'moment,' and how it can "be" once everyone's carnal nature is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., 'liberated' from the father's/Father's restraints, i.e., subject to continuous 'change'). Karl Marx sought to 'change' the world by 'liberating' society from the father's/Father's authority through the use of violent force, 'changing' society by killing the fathers in society outright. Sigmund Freud sought to 'change' the world by 'liberating' the individual from the father's/Father's authority as well, through the use of psychology, i.e., asking them for their opinion (there is no father's/Father's authority in an opinion), making their opinion, i.e., their "feelings" of the 'moment' the standard for right and wrong, killing the father's/Father's authority in the individual's feelings, thoughts, and actions in the process, 'changing' the individual ('changing' the world one individual at a time)..
By merging Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, i.e., merging the individual and "the group," i.e., society, making them one and the same (in the 'moment'), 'changing' them both at the same time, i.e., by 'creating' "group psychotherapy" (J. L. Moreno said he kept telling Freud to do it in a group, you get greater results for your time), and using it, i.e., the consensus process, i.e., the facilitated "team building," "relationship building" process in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, and even in the "church," not only is the individual 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority, "the group," i.e., society is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority as well, both being 'changed' at the same time. The dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process is Marxism (Transformational Marxism) being put into praxis, 'liberating' you and society from the father's/Father's authority. It is children (in adult bodies) 'justifying' their "self" before one another, i.e., 'justifying' their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and their resentment toward restraint, establishing man's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature" over (and therefore against) the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's restraint.
Our highest court has been putting Marxism into praxis since the 50's, 'liberating' the schools, the workplace, government, and even the "church" and the family from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., negating private convictions, property, and business, under God, by making all citizens subject to "building community," i.e., focusing upon "social-ist needs" (the "need" to think and act with no sense of God, i.e., no fear of God in their lives) with legislators and presidents joining them hand in hand. The seeds of destruction lay in the document itself, as pointed out by men such as Patrick Henry who warned "We the people" should read "We the states," the area of sovereignty, under God (the state of Hawaii being the only state with a constitution not recognizing its sovereignty as being under God), with "more perfect union" reading "in order to prevent war between the states" instead, the intent of the meeting in the first place, retaining the recognition of States rights, where the citizens could have greatest control over government policy (whether it be good or evil). F.D.R.'s "New Deal"—sending money's into the states from the Fed's to "the people"—was not readily carried out by many States, who did not accept and disperse Fed money to its citizens out of fear that their citizens might grow dependent upon Fed money, circumventing 'loyalty' to the State, undermining the citizens recognition of and support for States rights. All Fed money carries with it a circumventing of State rights—which carry with it a recognition of sovereignty, under God—bypassing the ability of the citizens to protect their homes, communities, counties, and state from Fed (and now international, i.e., globalist, i.e., Marxist) control. "Making the world safe for Democracy" 'liberates' "the people" from Godly restraint. The courts simply pushed the agenda into high gear, with legislative, presidential, media, and citizen support (now addicted to and dependent upon Fed money), leaving recognition (fear) of God, i.e., the father's/Father's authority out, i.e., in the dust, preparing America (a nation of "Facebook" mentality children—under the influence of, intoxicated with, addicted to, and possessed by affirmation, i.e., the approval of men—being seduced, deceived, and manipulated by "children of disobedience," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists") for judgment day. When we 'justify' our "self," especially with the approval of others, i.e., when we reject, i.e., set aside (suspend, as on a cross) God and His Word in the praxis of "building relationships" based upon "self interest," we abandon our children to the world, with God turning his back not only us but on them as well. "[S]eeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6 "Every one that is proud in heart [who 'justifies' his "self," i.e., who establishes his "self" above and therefore against God's restraints] is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5
"Children of disobedience" and "self" 'justification,' i.e., dialectic 'reasoning' ("reasoning" through dialogue) go hand in hand. Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' "before men," while claiming to be academic, i.e., "higher order thinking skills" (in morals and ethics) is spiritual instead. It is Georg Hegel's dialectic process, i.e., the "scientific method" being applied to "the group", i.e., society and "the individual." It is "group psychotherapy" (Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud) being used (put into praxis) in all venues of life, from the classroom to the highest offices in our land, justifying the carnal nature of the child, i.e., "human nature" over and therefore against the authority of God, i.e., 'liberating' children from parental authority, i.e., the earthly father's authority and men and women (as well as children) from God's, i.e., the Heavenly Father's authority, at least in their thoughts and action, i.e., in "theory and practice" (that is until judgment day)—engender the "wrath of God" upon all who participate, i.e., who walk "according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air." "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Ephesians 2:2,3 "Let no man deceive you with vain words ["self" 'justifying' 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 Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., the consensus process is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., "self" 'justification,' negating Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority and Romans 7:14-25, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning.
Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self 'justification' before men," i.e., the consensus process, i.e., affirmation is like a drug, i.e., intoxicating, addictive, and possessive, making it impossible for a person to see their "SELF" as it really is, i.e., from the father's/Father's perspective. The so called "new" world order, with children refusing to listen to their parents, i.e., doing wrong, i.e., disobeying with no sense of guilty—who, not only question and/or challenge their parents, i.e., question and/or challenge their parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth when they get in the way of their carnal desires of the 'moment' (which is natural with all children at some point in their life, expressed in their "Why?" in their response to their parent's restraining command, with the parent's "Because I said so" sometimes, if not always, following, and the threat of chastening if "Why?" is asked again, cutting off dialogue, preventing the child from getting his way, i.e., from being his "self," i.e., from thinking and acting according to his carnal nature, resulting in the child having a guilty conscience or "fearing 'judgment'" if he disobeys), but also, ignoring, disregarding, circumventing, defying, attacking, etc., the parent's i.e., the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., the Patriarchal paradigm itself as well (a paradigm is the way a person thinks, acts, and relates with his "self," others, and the world, as well as responds to authority—see diaprax chart), which is not natural with children, who use the father's/Father's authority system themselves, demanding others listen to and obey them, replacing it, i.e., "shifting" it or rather negating it with a Heresiarchal paradigm of 'change,' making not only pleasure the standard for "good," instead of doing the father's/Father's will, but the negation of the father's/Father's authority the standard for "good" as well—is the result of children being programed, i.e., seduced, deceived, and manipulated i.e., lied to by facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists," learning how to (through the "teacher's" use of "Bloom's Taxonomies," i.e., basing "education" upon the students "feeling," i.e., their affective domain, i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint, "encouraging" the students to dialogue their opinions to a consensus in the "group grade," "team building," "relationship building" classroom) put dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., the consensus process, i.e., affirmation into social action, i.e., into praxis, through "group projects" uniting "theory and practice" (what I call diaprax) in order to initiate and sustain a world of 'change.', i.e., a world 'driven' by (ruled by) the child's carnal nature (George Hegel), with children "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., their heart's desire 'purposed' in augmenting pleasure over and therefore against their parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's authority system (Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud), creating a "new" world order of "worldly peace and socialist harmony," i.e., a world where all children can 1). 'discover' through dialogue that their carnal nature, that which all children have in common (the basis of "common-ism"), makes them equal (égalité), 2). and coming to a consensus, i.e., experiencing a "feeling" of "oneness," i.e., affirmation (see affirmation charts), engendering a "feeling" of Fraternité, they are able to 3). 'liberate' their "self" (Liberté) and everybody else (society) from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from parental/Godly restraint, i.e., from having to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, ignoring, disregarding, circumventing, defying, attacking, etc., their parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's authority without having a guilty conscience. No longer having a guilty conscience when they do wrong, disobey, sin, they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, putting into praxis (personal-social action, i.e., theory and practice) all the elements of the French Revolution, i.e., "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" in their "group grade," "team building," "relationship building" classroom—dialoguing (égalité) their opinions (liberté) to a consensus (fraternité). The dialectic "logic" (dialectic 'reasoning') is: if everybody who participates in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process, i.e., the soviet system does it by nature, i.e., does it naturally, i.e., dialogue with their "self" in order (as in "new" world order) to 'justify' their "self"—attempting to wash their brain of the father's/Father's authority (brainwashing)—then it must be OK, i.e., the "norm," i.e., 'justified,' making all who refuse to participate, resist, inhibit, or block the consensus process "the problem," needing to be converted (programed) or at least silenced (become tolerant)—or be removed (negated) if they get in the way.
All who participate in the dialectic, i.e., consensus, i.e., "relationship building," i.e., affirmation (fraternité) process, including and especially the facilitators of 'change,' are deceived, taking pleasure in deceiving others by telling them that what they are doing is for "the people" when in truth it is for their "self," i.e., their "self interest," i.e., their carnal desires of the 'moment,' seducing, deceiving, manipulating all who come their way, i.e., who enter their lair, i.e., who listen to their lie, negating (dismissing as irrelevant, i.e., of no importance) any who resist or refuse to participate, having no sense of guilt when they remove any who get, or they perceive as getting in the way (including the unborn child and/or the elderly). Kurt Lewin's three conditions for 'change' come into play in this praxis of seduction, deception, and manipulation by the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., 1) his "force field analysis," with "positive" forces being the child's nature, i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' including the pleasure which comes with being affirmed ('justified') by others, and "negative" forces being the father's/Father's restrains, i.e., inhibiting or blocking the child ("human nature") from having its way. 2) his "unfreezing, moving, and refreezing," with "unfreezing" being the removal of the father's/Father's restraints (liberté) in sharing opinions, "moving" or 'change' being the act of dialogue (égalité) itself, and "refreezing" being group affirmation, i.e., consensus (fraternité), and 3) "group dynamics," the desire that all naturally have for affirmation over and therefore against the father's/Father's restraints, i.e., naturally loving and approaching pleasure, i.e., doing their will, i.e., the "positive," which includes being affirmed by others, which (as mentioned above) is not only intoxicating, but addictive and possessive as well—blinding them to the consequences, i.e., dangers of their actions—and naturally hating and avoiding the "negative," i.e., the pain of being reproved, corrected, reprimanded, i.e., restrained, which includes being rejected (or the fear of being rejected, i.e., cast out by the father/Father and those in agreement with his/His authority) for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for refusing to do right, obey, repent, i.e., for doing their will, which is of and for nature, i.e., "of and for self" only, instead of doing the father's/Father's will (which goes against their nature, preventing them from satisfying their carnal desires of the 'moment,' especially when they go against the father's/Father's will). In the end, the intended purpose of consensus, i.e., affirmation is to negate the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, allowing the person to be "human," i.e., do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity.(PowerPoint presentation in PDF format on the affect affirmation (the consensus process) has upon the students in the classroom, resulting in children defying their parent's authority when they get home, without having a guilty conscience.)
While the American Revolution removed the father's/Father's authority in the general government, limiting the power of government, it left it in tact in the home, guaranteeing private convictions, property, and business, engendering a generation of citizens and leaders who (generally speaking) had a guilty conscience when they did wrong, disobeyed, sinned. We have now embraced the structure of thought of the French Revolution, i.e., the ideology of Georg Hegel, as well as Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, negating the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, not only in the general government but in the home as well, i.e., negating individualism, under God, making the individual (and therefore the home) subject to the "group," i.e., to the "village," i.e., to the "community," i.e., to society instead. As Karl Marx explained it: "It is not individualism [under God's and/or parent's, bosses, etc., authority] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning] and individuality [to be one's "self," i.e., "of and for self," i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only without having a guilty conscience] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx) "Once the earthly family [where the wife does the husbands will and the children do the parent's, i.e., the father's will] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [where the Son does the Father's will], the former [the traditional family] must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically [in the child's/man's private thoughts and social actions, i.e., in his relationship with his "self," others, and the world]." (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4) For any who might think Karl Marx did not fully understand what he was doing, the following statement by Marx reveals that he did. Karl Marx wrote: "The unspeculative Christian [the Christian of faith] also recognizes sensuality as long as it does not assert itself at the expense of true reason, i.e., of faith [remember Karl Marx is writing this, understanding that, for the believer, "true reason" is grounded upon "faith," i.e., faith in the Father and in His obedient Son Jesus Christ, i.e., reasoning from the Word of God instead of from your own "sense experience"], of true love, i.e., of love of God [that "true love," for the believer, is grounded in the Son's love of the Father, where love of and for the Father and the Son is greater than (must supersedes) our love "of and for self"], of true will-power, i.e., of will in Christ [that "true will-power," for the believer, is grounded in the Son's will to obey His Heavenly Father, i.e., that we (as He) are to do His Father's will in all things commanded. Karl Marx recognized, as most ministers do no today, that apart from faith in, love for, and will to obey the Father, above all else, all we have is sensuousness, i.e., our love of "self" and all that is of the world, i.e., all that is "of and for self"]." Karl Marx therefore clearly understood as well that the husband-wife relationship, according to the Word of God, was "Not for the sake of sensual love, not for the lust of the flesh," i.e., not for "self," "but because the Lord said: Increase and multiply," i.e., that the husband-wife relationship was to do the Father's will as well, affecting the home, the neighborhood, and society. (Karl Marx, The Holy Family) He then set out, as a scientist, knowing what it was he had to do, to destroy the traditional marriage and home (under God), focusing upon man's "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," negating faith in God for the sake of "the people," i.e., for his own "self interest." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) Norman O. Brown, in his book Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History:, explained the "problem" Karl Marx was seeing in society and its solution (through the use of psychology, i.e., Sigmund Freud, in the form of "group psychotherapy," i.e., merging Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, who both saw, as Georg Hegel, the "problem" of the individual and society being the same, i.e., the father's/Father's authority): "Adult sexuality, restricted by rules, to maintain family and society, . . . leads to neurosis [doing the father's/Father's will in opposition to your nature, i.e., your carnal desires of the 'moment']." "Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." "Human consciousness can be liberated from the parental (Oedipal) complex only be being liberated from its cultural derivatives, the paternalistic state and the patriarchal God." "Psychoanalysis offers a way out of . . . neurosis [the father's/Father's authority]." "The key to the nature of dialectical thinking may lie in psychoanalysis, more specifically in Freud's psychoanalysis of negation [negation of the father's/Father's authority]." "If there is a universal neurosis, it is reasonable to suppose that its core is religion [God, the Father's authority]." "Psychoanalysis must treat religion as a neurosis." "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 be assuaged."
Once Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité' , i.e., the consensus process become a reality, returning to the father's/Father's authority becomes an impossibility. Warren Bennis explained it this way: ". . . 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)
According to Marx, in the name of "the people," i.e., "self interest," laws must be readily adaptable to 'change,' allowing those in control of the consensus meeting, i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' along with those following him (or her), to have their own way, i.e., to "do their own thing" without having a guilty conscience—resulting in children/adults, 'liberated' from parental/Godly restraint, having sexually relations with one another, removing the unwanted (as well as censoring any who object to their adulteries/abominations) when they get in the way. Marx wrote: "Laws must not fetter human life [inhibit or block the child's/man's carnal desires, i.e. pleasures, "lusts," enjoyments of the 'moment,' i.e., "human nature"]; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities [carnal desires and abilities] of the people change." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right) Such praxis results in laws become unpredictability, i.e., ever 'changing,' making all subject to the "self interest" of the facilitators of 'change' and those following after their adulterous/abominable ways—doing so in the name of "the people." As history has taught us, with other nations trying the same praxis: "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) But who is interested in the lessons of history today, especially when they get in the way of everyone's "enjoyment" of the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—which the world stimulates—doing that which seems right in their own eyes. The scriptures warn us: "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25
This 'change' in how children respond to authority has not happened by accident. The classroom has played an essential part in this process of 'change,' i.e., in the engendering of the French Revolution in America, negating the father's/Father's authority in the hearts, minds, and actions ("theory and practice") of the children (cutting the father's/Father's head off in their thoughts and actions in the classroom) by "teachers" "encouraging" the students to be "positive," sharing, i.e., dialoguing their "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e., opinions of the 'moment,' which are subject to their "feelings," i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' without fear of being "judged," "condemnation," or "put down"—making "feelings" the foundation of evaluation—and not "negative," i.e., preaching and teaching the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is, by faith and obeyed, restraining, i.e., inhibiting or blocking, i.e., "hurting" others "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., making them "feel bad," i.e., feel guilty for their carnal thoughts of the 'moment' and actions—resulting in their rejecting, attacking, defying, disregarding, etc., their parent's authority, i.e., questioning and challenging, etc., their parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth which are "negative" to them in the 'moment' (when they get home), not only 'changing' the environment of the home, but the "community," the nation, and the world as well. "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) The idea being, if 'change' does not take place in the home (requiring outside support) it can not be initiated and sustained in society. Therefore the agenda was (and still is) to "use social-environmental forces to change the parent's behavior toward the child," negating the father's/Father's authority in the home., thereby negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, for disobeying, for sinning, in the "community," the nation, and the world. (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
Assisted by facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists," i.e., "educators," i.e., "youth ministers" (in the "church") children are learning (in the classroom, via. the use of "Bloom's Taxonomies") how to evaluate (aufheben) the world and rule it according to their carnal desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., according to their "self interests" of the 'moment' ("self" and "interest," which, by nature, are the same, are antithetical to the father's/Father's authority), negating the "old" world order of 1). the father's/Father's authority and 2). faith (which requires resisting the carnal pleasures, i.e., temptations of the 'moment' in order to do right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will, in order to receive a reward/inheritance from the father/Father in the future—the very structure of capitalism, where people capitulate their carnal desires, i.e., their "self interests," at least for the 'moment,' in order to do a job right and not wrong according to the one in authorities' desires, i.e., conditions, in order to receive a reward or pay from them later on—"Humble yourselves [your "self"] therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:" 1 Peter 5:6—otherwise "self" will "exalt" you, i.e., 'justify' you, i.e., 'justify' your carnal nature, i.e., your carnal desires and dissatisfactions, i.e., "interests" of the 'moment,' i.e., in the "here-and-now" instead), 3) negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process, so they can ('living in and for the 'moment,' i.e., "of and for self") do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity—"feeling good" about their "self" in the praxis.
The world has become as the saying "Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink," i.e., "Children, children everywhere but not a father's/Father's restraint." Whether two or ninety-two, or anywhere in between, i.e., whether in the daycare center, the classroom, the workplace, government, or even in the "church," the behavior is the same, children, men, and women—enamored with their "self," others, and the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—thinking and acting with "no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:18
In the experience of "group" affirmation , i.e., the consensus process, with "the group" affirming their carnal nature, i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' the child learns that his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' are his guide to what is "right" in the present situation, i.e., in the 'moment,' bypassing or circumventing his parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., perceiving them as being "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant," negating the father's/Father's authority (system) in the process. Affirmation (consensus) replaces the father's/Father's' authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning with the child's carnal nature, i.e., the nature of the child, i.e., "human nature," i.e., the voice of the "village," 'justifying' his carnal nature, i.e., his love of the carnal pleasures of the moment' and his hate of restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, making him at-one-with, i.e., at peace with his "self," the "group," i.e., the "village," and the world in the process. For the sake of "relationship," i.e., "peace and harmony" ("worldly peace and socialist harmony"), those who cause tension and conflict in the room, i.e., those who insist upon being "negative," insisting upon everyone doing right and not wrong according to their parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's will, obeying their, i.e., his/His commands and rules (as given), accepting their, i.e., his/His facts and truth as given (by faith) must either become "positive," i.e., silent (tolerant), participate (abdicate), or leave the room (being labeled as being "not a team player," a "resistor of 'change," "negative," "divisive," "maladjusted," a "lower order thinker," "hateful," "intolerant," "prejudiced," "unadaptable to 'change,'" "psychological," "judgmental," "phobic," " in denial," a "dinosaur," etc.,). It is an either-or situation no matter which direction you go or pathway you choose. "... 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 "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
Chasten your child (when he or she disobeys you) in any public arena and you will quickly find out how many "children" in adult bodies hate the father's/Father's authority, defending your child's (and their) rebellious, i.e., carnal nature over (and therefore against) your God given authority as a parent over your family, negating your right of private convictions, property, and business. It is all about how policy is established, i.e., politics, affecting the issue of rights, either the parent's, i.e., sovereignty and jurisdiction (borders), following after the Lord, i.e., "the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." (1 Corinthians 10:26) or the child's, i.e., anarchy and revolution (borderless), following after Rousseau, i.e., "the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality). How you respond to your children's behavior (doing the father's/Father's will or the "villages" will) determines what form of government your children will serve and protect. While the earthly father is not perfect, he may be a tyrant, his office is, given to him by the Heavenly Father to serve Him in, doing His will in. Karl Marx understood this (as quoted above, i.e., "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret ..."). Negate ("annihilate") the father's/Father's authority and all you have is a world of 'change' (Karl Marx's dream), i.e., a world of and for the child's carnal nature, i.e., "of and for self," subject to the powers that be, i.e., facilitators of 'change.' Karl Marx wrote: "The philosophers [those dissatisfied with how the world "is," subject to the father's/Father's authority, thinking about how it "ought" to be, subject to their carnal desires of the 'moment' instead] have only interpreted the world in different ways [established their opinion as the only right way, thus inhibiting or blocking 'change'], the objective however, is change [the process of 'change' itself, i.e., the consensus process—there is no father's/Father's authority in the process of 'change,' i.e., in the consensus process, only the feelings and thoughts, i.e., collective opinion of the children, i.e., common-ism]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11) Georg 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 [once he is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority so that he can be his "self," i.e., as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) Therefore sounding more like Karl Marx than Karl Marx himself (who was not yet born) Hegel could write: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child, ... the surplus is not the property of one of them ... all contracts regarding property or service and the like fall away ... the surplus, labour, and property are absolutely common to all, inherently and explicitly." ibid.
The "new" world order is the result of facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists," i.e., "educators," i.e., "youth ministers" (acting as a "big brother" with his "self interest" in mind) seducing, deceiving, and manipulating children (men and women), i.e., "helping" them—through the dialoguing of their opinions with one another to a consensus, i.e., to a "feeling" of "oneness"—1). to affirm their "self," i.e., their "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and their resentment toward restraint, which all children have in common, making the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., unrighteousness the "norm," 2). to 'liberate' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority, so they can enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., become at-one-with the world in pleasure, living for the "sense experiences" (sensuousness/sensation) of the 'moment' only, and 3). to disobey the father/Father, i.e., negate the father's/Father's authority, so they can do wrong, sin without having a guilty conscience (no longer have a sense of contrition, brokenness, remorse), no longer needing to repent for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., no longer abhorring evil, only 'justifying' their "self," blaming someone else or the situation they happened to be caught up in, if they get caught for their problems or the problems of life, so they can be 4). used (as "natural resource") by facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists," i.e., "educators," i.e., "youth ministers" for their own pleasure and gain (getting them to negate the father's/Father's authority so they can have no sense of guilty, i.e., a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning as well). It is not enough that the father dies or is killed (or is no longer in the home), the guilty conscience in the child, for doing wrong, which is engendered by the father's/Father's authority (in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in his relationship with others) must be negated as well (that is, the child's guilty conscience for disobeying the father/Father must be replaced with the "super-ego," i.e., the child's "feelings" of the 'moment, i.e., his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' as well as his desire for affirmation from others, affirming him, i.e., his carnal nature and therefore affirming their "self," i.e., their carnal nature, i.e., "human nature" as well), or, according to dialectic 'reasoning' "repression," "alienation," and "neurosis" will remain in the child, resulting in the child re-introducing the father's/Father's authority back into society when he (or someone else he is following, i.e., obeying) gets into a position of authority, expecting everyone to obey him, i.e., do what he says "or else."
The very praxis (act) of affirmation by "the group," i.e., the consensus process replaces the child's conscience with the "super-ego," i.e., replaces the father's/Father's authority (the voice of the father/Father in the child, restraining his carnal nature, i.e., his natural "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the moment') with "group" approval (with the voice of the other children, i.e., the "village," approving/affirming his carnal nature, i.e., his natural "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' along with his dissatisfaction with restraint) negating his fear of, respect for, and honoring of his parent's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, questioning, challenging, disregarding, disrespecting, defying, attacking, etc., his parents and their authority instead, when he gets home, i.e., when his parents, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth get in the way of his carnal desires of the 'moment,' including their coming between him and his relationship with "the group," with relationship with others, i.e., "the group," i.e., "the community," etc., now being based upon "self" interest, i.e., pleasure, i.e., "self" 'justification' instead of upon his parent's, i.e., the father's/Fathers' commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., doing right and not wrong, replacing his 'loyalty' to the one (doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will), with 'loyalty' to the many (finding his identity—common-ism—in "the group," thereby 'justifying' his and their carnal nature, i.e., his and their love of pleasure and hate of restraint in the praxis of affirmation, i.e., through the consensus process). In the praxis of affirmation, i.e., in the consensus process, fellowshipping with those who are 'loyal' to his father's/Father's authority is replaced with "building relationship" with "the group," 'liberated' (or 'liberating' its "self") from the father's/Father's authority, following after the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., his way of thinking and acting instead. To "build relationship" with diversity, i.e., deviancy requires setting the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth aside, i.e., compromise, i.e., 'change.' Affirmation is simply the outcome of such praxis, i.e., the uniting of thought (theory), i.e., a persons "self interest," i.e., his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and his resentment toward restraint and action (practice), i.e., his desire for relationship with (affirmation by) others of like mind, i.e., desiring the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and resenting restraint as well. In the praxis of affirmation, you can not have the love without the hate, i.e., the "lust" (love) for the pleasures of the 'moment' without resentment toward (hate of) the father's/father's authority. Putting affirmation into action (praxis) simply means negating the father's/Father's authority (restraint), not only in the individual but in all of society as well—so that all can sin with impunity. "Civil disobedience" is the praxis of putting disobedience, i.e., rebellion against the father's/Father's authority (revolution) into social action, negating the father's/Father's authority in the citizens feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with one another and the world.
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48), i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the Father's will is negated in the "feeling" (sensation) of "oneness" with others who deviate from, i.e., disagree with the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., in the "lets be positive and not negative" meeting, with differences being set aside, i.e., disregarded, i.e., suspended (as on a cross) in the 'moment' for the sake of unity, i.e., affirmation, i.e., "human nature," 'justifying' your "self" and others in the "group hug," "feel good," "I'm OK. You're OK" 'moment,' elevating your carnal "feelings" above, i.e., over the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (they can never be equal with the father's/Father's authority), turning you, by nature, against the father's/Father's authority in the process. By making your "feelings" equal with (above) the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (putting the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth aside for the sake of the "feeling" of unity, i.e., affirmation), the father's/Father's authority (your private convictions, i.e., guilt for thinking of doing wrong or disobeying the father/Father) is negated in your feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in your relationship with others, turning you against the father/Father and his/His authority. This can take place in one "youth group" meeting in the "church" (to your child), one subcommittee meeting at the capital (to your legislator), one "team building" meeting in the workplace (to your spouse), one "in-service" training session (to your teachers, policemen, servicemen), one "community," i.e., common-unity project (to your neighbor, minister), etc.,. "Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [their belief, i.e., their position, i.e., their faith (trust) in authority, be it in their parent's, their teacher's, their boss's, their leader(s), or God's authority] in the face of apparent group unanimity [especially when "the group" is heading, hand in hand, down the road of your carnal desire of the 'moment,' i.e., your "self interest," "enjoying" it without you, turning on you, i.e., rejecting you (or your child) for not joining-affirming them, i.e., for not being a "team player"]." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) When "tolerance of ambiguity," i.e., deviancy/unrighteousness, i.e., your carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' (which you are dialoguing with your "self" about, i.e., "tolerating" privately) are made public (through your dialoguing, i.e., sharing them with others) and are approved (by "the group," i.e., affirmed in the consensus process—becoming a part of "the project"), you are in the process of 'change,' being asked to sell your soul for the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., for "group approval," i.e., for the experience of affirmation. "Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;" 2 Peter 2:11 "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world [the approval of men, i.e., affirmation, which is temporal, i.e., of the 'moment' only], and lose his own soul [which is eternal]?" Mark 8:36 You are of no worth to "the group," i.e., to the facilitator of 'change,' it is your affirmation that creates worth, i.e., you setting aside your private convictions (the father's/Father's authority) for the peace of mind of others, i.e., for the sake (peace of mind) of "the group," i.e., for the sake (peace of mind) of the facilitator of 'change.' Where you spend eternity is no longer an issue when you (or your children, spouse, legislator, minister, etc.) participate in the consensus process, i.e., in the praxis of affirmation.
When, for the sake of affirmation, i.e., consensus, i.e., i.e., a "feeling" of "oneness" with "self" and "the group,"—out of fear of being rejected by the other children (and missing out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment')—the child remains silent in the midst of unrighteousness (diversity/deviancy), i.e., not reproving, correcting, rebuking others (the deviant) for doing what he knows (by his father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth) to be wrong, unrighteousness ("human nature") becomes the "norm," turning "the group" (and progressively the child) against any who try to expose them for their wicked ways, 'justifying' their deceitful and wicked hearts (searing their conscience) in the process. It is therefore essential, through dialogue, to 'discover' the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions (what the child is already, in private, talking to his "self" about), for without knowing them, i.e., the child's "self interests," i.e., going beyond them or not incorporating them in "group discussion," the child, resisting (fearing) 'change,' i.e., remaining subject to the father's/Father's authority will not join in with "the group" in 'justifying' (affirming) them, i.e., his "self" and "the group," collective/common "self interest," putting them into praxis (collective action). "The individual may have 'secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it. To gain access is particularly important, for precisely here may lie the individual's potential for democratic ["positive," i.e., socialist, globalist, i.e., adaptable to 'change,' anti-"authoritarian"] or antidemocratic ["negative," i.e., individualist, nationalist, i.e., unadaptable to 'change,' pro-"authoritarian"] thought and action in crucial situations." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
In the praxis of questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking, rejecting, etc., the father's/Father's authority in the "group grade" classroom, the child or children who refuse to affirm "the group" in the "group grade" classroom, i.e., who continue to hold onto (have faith in) the father's/Father's authority are questioned, challenged, disregarded, defied, attacked, rejected, etc., as well, thus preparing the rest of the children, for the sake of affirmation, i.e., in order to initiate and sustain the consensus process, to question, challenge, disregard, defy, attack, reject their parent's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority when they get home. Without the praxis of martyring (questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking, rejecting, etc.,) those who resist 'change' in the classroom (without having a "guilty conscience"), martyring (questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking, rejecting, etc.,) those outside the classroom (without having a "guilty conscience") can not take place. In this way the classroom becomes the laboratory (the halfway house) for 'change.' The praxis of affirmation not only 'justifies' the child's "lust" for pleasure (including the pleasure which comes from being affirmed by others) it 'justifies' his praxis toward authority, i.e., his hate of restraint and the restrainer as well, i.e., it 'justifies' his questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking, rejecting those who do not affirm him and "the group," i.e., "the people" as well. The consensus process is the biggest bully session on the face of the earth (being done behind closed doors in the "group grade," "relationship building," "team building" classroom). The same praxis affects (changes the way) your legislator in the consensus subcommittee, your spouse in the "teambuilding" workplace, etc.,. thinks and acts, i.e., respond to you as well. "Tolerance of ambiguity (deviance)" requires you to suspend the truth, as on a cross, for the purpose of "affirmation," i.e., consensus., i.e., "building relationship upon self interest." It is not just disobedience to parental authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority that the facilitators of 'change' are after, it is no one telling them that what they are doing is wrong, i.e., that they will be damned for what they are doing in their "make me feel good" meeting, so they can do wrong, disobey, sin, including seducing, deceiving, and manipulating others, i.e., buying and selling their souls (as "human resource") for their own pleasure and gain with no sense of "guilt," i.e., so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity with group support, i.e., affirmation—with those they are seducing deceiving, and manipulating following, praising, defending, and supporting them, as god.
"And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." 2 Peter 2:3 By using double speak ("feigned words," i.e., plastic words in the Greek), i.e., words you (or your children) want to hear (vain, i.e., "self interest" words) which have more meaning than you (or they) understand or are willing to see or admit (out of fear of missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment' and the affirmation of others, approving of your "lusting" after, i.e., "coveting" them), facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists" are able to seduce and deceive you (and/or your children), i.e., get you (your children) into dialogue, i.e., into revealing your (their) "self interest" (carnal desires) of the 'moment"—thinking they have your (their, i.e., your children's) best interest in mind—whereby they can manipulate you (them), i.e., turn you (them) into "human resource," (turning them against you) using you (them) for their own carnal pleasures and gain. By rejecting the authority of God's Word in their lives, i.e., refusing to let the Lord direct their steps, children, men, and women become subject to the warnings they provide (the Lord gives them), resulting in their paying the price, i.e., facing the consequences of their praxis, i.e., seduction, deception, and manipulation in this life and "damnation" in the next, as well as missing out on the peace and joy the Lord provides in this life and in the life that lies ahead. "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceedeth from the mouth of God," Matthew 4:4 "Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee." Isaiah 26:3
What all socialist revolutions, including the national ones, have in common is their negation of the father's/Father's authority in the home. The American revolution, although removing the father's/Father's authority from the general government left it in tact in the home, guaranteeing the right of private convictions, family, property, and business, as well as guaranteeing a guilty conscience in the next generation for doing wrong/sinning. If you do not see your elected "representative" as being your child, sent by you to the store to purchase your goods, he will spend your money on his (and his friends) own "self interest," taking that which is yours and using it for his (and his "friends") own personal pleasure and gain, putting you into debt (with no guilty conscience)—all the while 'justifying' his "self," claiming that what he was doing was for the "good" of "the people." All of history, from the garden on, manifests the child's animosity toward the father's/Father's authority, with the child "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' instead of doing the father's/Father's will. "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life [the child 'justifying' his "self," i.e., 'justifying' "human nature," i.e., 'justifying' his propensity to "lust" after the pleasures of the world, i.e., the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' in disobedience/defiance to the father's/Father's will], is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16 "Worldly peace" and "socialist harmony," i.e., the "new" world order can not be initiated and sustain until children, dialoguing their opinions to a consensus (affirmation) in a facilitated meeting, learn how to 'liberate' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority, and, putting it, i.e., their consensus, i.e., their "feeling of oneness" (affirmation) into praxis (into group, community, and/or social action), negate the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong/sinning not only in themselves but in the community, society, and the world as well. If the "new" world order is to be successful, it must 'liberate' the children from the father's/Father's authority, negating the father's/Father's authority in the home, negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong/for sinning in the process. After all it is the guilty conscience for doing wrong, which is engendered by the father's/Father's authority that (according to dialectic 'reasoning') engenders "repression," "alienation," and "neurosis" in and between the children around the world. The idea being, negate the father's/Father's authority in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in his relationship with the other children of the world, with the other children's affirmation, and his guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying the father/Father will disappear.
The so called "new" world order is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., "self" 'justification,' negating Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority and Romans 7:14-25, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong/for sinning. It is antithetical to the gospel message. It is not a matter of whether the father/Father is autocratic (dictatorial, uncaring, and unforgiving) or benevolent (caring, merciful, and forgiving) or anywhere in between, it is the father's/Father's authority system itself, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will that is under attack, i.e., being negated in the "new" world order. The "new" world order is Immanuel Kant's "lawfulness without law" and "purposiveness without purpose" world order ("Zweckmäßigkeit ohne Zweck; Gesetzmäßigkeit ohne Gesetz,"), where law is 'discovered' in the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., in the carnal nature of the children, i.e., in the consensus 'moment' negating the laws of the "past," i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the laws of restraint and the "purpose" of life is living in the 'moment,' 'liberating' the world of the restraints of the "past," i.e., the father's/Father's authority. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment) It is a world where the lawless one rules, along with the "children of disobedience," making laws ever subject to 'change' (unpredictable), until the "wrath of God," i.e., judgment comes their way. Dialogue makes all people, parents and children, man and God, branches of government one and the same, i.e., subject to the "felt needs" (crisis, i.e., carnal desires and dissatisfactions) of the 'moment,' stimulated by the information people are receiving and sharing (experiencing in the 'moment'), being manipulated by the facilitator of 'change.' While everyone is going after individuals, organizations, institutions, etc., they all miss the problem, the process of 'change' itself, being used to 'change' how children respond to their parent's authority, i.e., how parents raise (train up) their children. Change the parent-child relationship, i.e., negate the father's authority in the home, under God, i.e., the Heavenly Father's authority and you 'change' everything. The agenda is to "use social-environmental forces to change the parent's behavior toward the child." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) God (and those who are His) will not cooperate with, i.e., participate in the process of 'change,' with the Lord judging all who do, on judgment day.
Despite its advancement by men such as Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, who built their ideology upon Georg Hegel's ideology of the child, the "new" world order first took place in the garden in Eden, where, with the "help" of the master facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the master "psychotherapist," two "children" were able to 'liberate' their "self" from the "Father's" authority (God's restraint), deciding right from wrong according to their carnal desires ("self interest") of the 'moment' ("building relationship upon self interest") instead of from the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, making knowledge subject to their "feelings" (carnal desires, i.e., "felt needs") of the 'moment' (and the world stimulating them, and the facilitator of 'change' manipulating it, therefore manipulating them) instead of subject to God, who created the world, making it subject to established laws (limits and measures) and them, with the ability to choose between being subject to His will, i.e., subject to His commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., doing right and not wrong, or subject to their will, i.e., subject to their "feelings," i.e., their carnal desires of the moment,' i.e., doing what they please, making them subject to the world, making them subject to the seduction, deception, and manipulation of the master facilitator of 'change.' The woman was absolutely correct in her "scientific" evaluation of the world, i.e., her reasoning that there was nothing in the "forbidden" tree that would hurt her (that it was not dangerous to her in and of itself). It was not the tree that was the issue, i.e., the tree did not kill her, it was her making knowledge subject to her "feelings" of the 'moment' (the affective domain) instead of subject to the "Father's" commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., it was her use of dialectic 'reasoning' (making science, i.e., the facts and truth of nature subject to her carnal desires of the 'moment') to 'justify her "self" over and therefore against the Father's authority, i.e., it was her disobedience to the "Father," i.e., her disobeying the Father's command, rule, fact, and truth that resulting in her (and Adam—for abdicating his office of authority, under God, to follow after her) being removed from the garden, prevented them from having access to the tree of life (the Father's blessing/reward). They were both judged and found guilty for their praxis of "self" 'justification,' i.e., for putting the "new" world order into action, i.e., for putting theory (their opinion) into action (as children, in a "group grade," facilitated, dialoguing their opinions to a consensus and putting it into action in a "group project" classroom do today) over and therefore against the Father's authority, i.e., commands, rules, facts, and truth. Just because (in your perspective/perception/mind/opinion) you can do something you desire without it "hurting anyone" or "someone," especially with everyone's (or the other persons) approval (consent), i.e., with everyone (or the other person) affirming you does not make it right. A million (or seven and a half billion and counting) wrongs, with everyone doing it, i.e., affirming you (and everyone else) does not make it right, i.e., does not make you (or anyone else) righteous, i.e., "good."
The "new" world order is based upon the same dialectic pattern of "self" 'justification' Adam and the woman used to 'justify' themselves before God, blaming someone/something else, i.e., something in the environment for their "bad behavior"—the idea being, if you remove what is bad from the environment you would/could/should become "good" (again), the problem being, for that to happen, you have to remove God, i.e., the "Father" (who says you are not good in and of your "self"). The so called "new' world order is that "new," enticing you and your children to join in: 'justifying' your "self," i.e., 'justifying' your enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world is stimulating ("emancipating," "liberating") in you, in defiance to the father's/Father's authority, i.e., God's will—till judgment day. "And for this cause [because men, as "children of disobedience," 'justify' themselves, i.e., their love of "self" and the world, i.e., their love of the pleasures of the 'moment' more than God] 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 "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life ["human nature"], is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16 "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Ephesians 2:2,3 "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 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 "Jesus 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 call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Matthew 23:9 "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
Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' is man, deceived in believing that he is "good" or has the potential of becoming "good" by doing "good works" (for others), taking pleasure in deceiving others by making them "feel good" (therefore perceiving him as being "good"—making him "feel good"), establishing the child's nature, i.e., the child's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—which are stimulated by the things of the world (which makes them ever 'changing,' i.e., ever subject to the changing situations and carnal desires, i.e., "felt needs" of the 'moment')—as the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's (God's) will, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (which are established for all times and places). "Self" 'justification' is Georg Hegel's "Universal," what all children have in common (the basis of common-ism). His "Particular" is how far, i.e., how much or little the child has learned to 'justify' his "self" (along with others), i.e., to "actualize" his "self" (Abraham Maslow's "Self actualization" theory), i.e., to 'liberate' his "self," i.e., his carnal nature, i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' from the father's/Father's authority (along with others). The "grading" system of today is based upon the child's use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., how much he or she has embraced (or resists) the dialoguing of his or her opinion with other children—in order to arrive at a consensus, i.e., in order to "build relationship" with them based upon the "Self interests" they have in common (instead of upon the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts and truth they have in common), thereby 'liberating' their "self" from preaching the father's/Father's commands and rules to be accepted as given and teaching his facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith (which divides them not only from their own carnal nature, "repressing them," but "alienates" them from one another when their fathers commands, rules, facts, and truth conflict with one another; a child holding onto his father's authority, obeying his father's commands and rules which conflict with the other children's father's commands and rules, yet wanting relationship with the other children, according to their common "self interests," is classified as being "neurotic"—what György Lukács meant when he wrote: "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?) According to dialectic 'reasoning' it is the father's/Father's authority that divides, i.e., causes "repression," alienation," and "neurosis." Thus as long as the father's/Father's authority remains in place not only will the person be divided against his "self," the world will be divided against its "self" as well. Negate the father's/Father's authority and the child can become his/her "self" again, as he/she was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his/her life, carnal, i.e., of the world only—making it possible to unit all children (the world) as one, upon what everyone has in common, i.e., their carnal nature, i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint (the "seedbed" of rebellion and revolution).
Our culture today is established upon Georg Hegel's ideology of the child, i.e., upon the carnal nature of the child, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' instead of upon the father's/Father's authority. It is enamored and intoxicated with (and addicted to) the pleasures of the 'moment' instead of doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will. Education has been at the forefront of this 'change,' making "knowledge" subject to the child's "feelings," i.e., the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., the "affective domain"—instead of subject to truth which is established for all times and in all places. Training manuals for teacher certification and school accreditation (referred to as "Bloom's Taxonomies") read: "[W]e recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and places." (Benjamin Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1, Cognitive Domain, p. 32) "The affective domain [the child's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'] is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box [a box full of evil, which once opened can not be closed—the lid being the father's/Father's authority (restraint)].'" The objective of education today is to open the lid, i.e., 'liberate' the child's carnal nature, negating the father's/Father's authority in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions as well as in his or her relationship with others and the world in the process, resulting in the child (when he or she gets home) questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking his or her parent's authority. "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) The word of God warns us of the consequence of this way of thinking, i.e., making knowledge subject to our "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., subject to sensuousness instead of to the truth, i.e., righteousness: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6 "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness [doing the Father's will], and going about to establish their own righteousness [thinking and acting according to their own carnal nature, i.e. their "felt" needs, i.e. pleasures, enjoyments, "lusts," carnal desires of the 'moment'], have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." Romans 10:3 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness [who make the truth subject to their "feelings," i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment'];" Romans 1:18
What I am sharing here explains the conflict and tension that is found in you and in every one you meet today (or have ever met or will ever meet) and therefore is found in the home, in the classroom, in the neighborhood, in the workplace, in government (politics), in entertainment, in the media, and even in the "church," i.e., the antithesis between the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "doing right and not wrong" according to the father's/Father's will, i.e., obeying the father's/Father's commands and rules, having faith in his/His facts and truth, which engenders a "guilty conscience" in you for doing (or for thinking about doing) wrong or for disobeying/sinning and the carnal nature of the child, i.e., "doing what you want to do, when you want to do it" ("Now!"), i.e., approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e., loving pleasure, i.e., "lusting" after the carnal ("natural") pleasures of the 'moment' and resenting/hating restraint, i.e., having to do the father's/Father's will—missing out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., your "self interest" in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's/Father's will instead. "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:15
You either have the love of the child (for the things of the world; approaching pleasure avoiding pain, i.e., living for the 'moment') or the love of the Father (for the child; insisting he does right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will). You can not have it both ways. You either humble/deny your "self" before the Father, doing the Father's will or consent to the child, doing your will, 'justifying,' i.e., esteeming your "self" instead. "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
If Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud understood this (and they did), so should you. Government, business, education, and even the "church" has embraced their ideology, their way of thinking and acting—the way of the child. It directly affects you today. It definitely will in the future, i.e., on judgment day. But then, who thinks about that any more. According to their way of thinking judgment day is "irrational," making it "irrelevant" in todays "new" world order—a world where everyone, like a child, lives for the 'moment,' i.e., lives in the "eternal present" without considering the consequence of their actions (praxis). The scriptures inform us: "[E]very one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12 "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." Matthew 12:36 But then you might say: "Why be so negative? "Why spoil my day?"
Politics and history is wrapped up in this conflict between either obeying the father/Father, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will—missing out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' you desire—and receive the father's/Father's blessing (approval/reward/acceptance) or disobeying the father/Father—enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' you desire—and face the father's/Father's chastening or wrath (disapproval/punishment/rejection). In other word: humble, deny, control, discipline your "self" in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's/Father's will and you will miss out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' you desire. Go for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' you desire, in disobedience to the father/Father, and you will have a guilty conscience for disobeying the father/Father. Get caught by the father/Father and he/He will chasten you. Defy the father/Father, i.e., question, challenge, disregard, and/or attack the father/Father and his/His authority and he/He will cast you out, i.e., reject you.
According to those who praxis dialectic 'reasoning' i.e., who "justify their self before men," i.e. who do the dialectic process—dialogue their opinions with one another to a consensus—and put it ("self 'justification'" and their "feeling of oneness," i.e., affirmation) into social action (praxis), i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists," i.e., Transformational Marxists (all three being the same) there is a "third way." Start with the child's carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., make pleasure itself (the child's nature, i.e., his love for the carnal pleasure the 'moment' that the world stimulates within him and his resentment toward whoever or whatever is preventing him from "enjoying" it) the standard for "good" and the father's/Father's authority (inhibiting or blocking the child from "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' he desires, i.e., preventing him from becoming at-one-with the world) will become the source of pain, i.e., "evil." By "helping" the child 'justify' his "self," i.e., 'justify' the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' he desires, 'justifying' his resentment toward restraint—negating the father's/Father's authority in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in his relationship with others and the world—and the child, along with others (including the facilitator of 'change'), can enjoy the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they desire, i.e., do wrong without having a guilty conscience., i.e., sin with impunity. In the "brew" of the child's "likes and dislikes" is the child's desire for affirmation, either receiving approval from the father/Father (for doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will) or affirmation from other children, affirming his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' affirming what he and they have in common, i.e., their carnal nature, i.e., their love for pleasure—which the things of the world stimulate—and their dissatisfaction with restraint—which the father's/Father's authority engenders. It is the conflict and tension between these two desires (approval from the father/Father for doing right and not wrong and affirmation from the other children, affirming his and their carnal desires of the 'moment,' making right and wrong subject to the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., ever 'changing,' instead of the father's/Fathers' commands, rules, facts, and truth, which inhibit or block change) that the process of (desire for) 'change,' dialectic 'reasoning' emanates.
When the child's desire for approval from the father/Father and affirmation from other children is brought into conflict (in an environment, such as in the "group grade" classroom, where the child, along with the other children, is free to dialogue his carnal desires and dissatisfactions without fear of reprimand—absent the father's/Father's authority) "cognitive dissonance" is engendered. The child is then "pressured" (internally) to choose between the two, either adhering to the love of the father/Father, i.e., his belief and faith, engendering restraint, i.e., the guilty conscience for doing wrong or embracing the love of the child, i.e., his love for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world, i.e., the current situation, i.e., the other children stimulate. With the other children affirming his and their love for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' "helping" him "choose" between the two, he finds it easier to 'discover' his identity (common-ism) in them, i.e., in "self" and the other children instead of in the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, which inhibit or block him from "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' he desires, i.e., which prevent him from being his "self."
This tension between the love of the father/Father (doing the father's/Father's will) and the love of the child (doing his will instead) is what engenders the process of 'change.' Dialectic 'reasoning' (dialogue) resolves this tension (for the 'moment'), resulting in the child choosing the children of the world ("human nature") over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority (godly restraint). It is what is happening around you and to you today. It is called the dialectic—dialoguing opinions to a consensus, i.e., the consensus—process. The so called "new" world order (Globalism) could not exist without it. As the song might go: "Where have all the fathers gone? Off to consensus every one," i.e., they have all been sacrificed on the alter of "group approval," i.e., affirmation., 'justifying' the child's carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's restraints. By affirming the child's carnal nature you negate the guilty conscience in the child for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying the father/Father, negating the father/Father of the future in the process.
Politics, history (which is being rewritten—history is the preaching and teaching of the events of the past—and what lead up to them, i.e., what engendered them—in order to learn from them, in order not repeat the bad ones, while social(ist) studies incorporates the students opinion, i.e., their "thoughts" of the 'moment,' which are subject to their "feelings" of the 'moment,' in interpreting them instead, making them subject to 'change,' i.e., manipulation), education, and even the "church" is traveling down the dialectic pathway, i.e., the pathway of dialogue, i.e., of dialoguing opinions to a consensus, i.e., the "third" way (and the "fourth" way; making it a religion of and for itself, i.e., "of and for self" only), trying to take you, your family, friends, etc., with it. The issue is not how far down the dialectic pathway you have gone (or not gone), it is that you have stepped in it in the first place. Take one step in it, as in a pig pen, and your "in it." The 'moment' you set aside (suspend, as on a cross) the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in order—as in "new" world order—to receive "group approval," i.e., affirmation, i.e., "build relationship with others upon self interest"—dialoguing your opinion with others to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness")—you are "in it." "He that keepeth his mouth keepeth his life: but he that openeth wide his lips shall have destruction." Proverbs 13:3 "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:13, 14 "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5
The "negation of negation," i.e., "Don't be so negative. Be positive," i.e., setting aside (suspending, as on a cross) the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth in order to "get along" (build relationship), "good time," "Facebook" mentality of today (making the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will) is the broad path "that leadeth to destruction." "And he [Jesus] said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." Luke 9:23
The gospel message is not about us doing "good works," i.e., "growing the church," i.e., "building relationship," it is about the Father—sending His obedient Son, Jesus Christ, to redeem us from His wrath upon us for our disobedience/sins (by the Son shedding His blood on the cross, taking our place, covering our sins), reconciling us to Himself (by raising His Son from the grave), with us (living and walking in the Spirit, sent by Him and His Son) doing His will, as His Son. Apart from the Father, i.e., apart from His directing, all that follows (in thought and action) is vanity. "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceedeth from the mouth of God," Matthew 4:4 The Apostle Paul wrote: "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
It is the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed as given and the teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith that changes us and thus the world we live in, engendering a "guilty conscience" in us (and in others) when we (and/or they) do wrong/sin. Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., dialoguing our opinion with others to a consensus, affirming our carnal nature, i.e., our desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and resentment toward restraint negates the father's/Father's authority, thus 'changing' us and the world we live into the image of the child, 'liberating' us from the father's/Father's restraints, i.e., 'liberating' us from having a "guilty conscience" when we do wrong/sin. It is what the "group grade," "building relationship upon self interest," "team building," "Be Positive. Not Negative," dialoguing opinions to a consensus classroom/workplace/town hall/"church"/youth group/neighborhood etc., meeting is all about these days.
A "group," i.e., a committee dialoguing their opinions must leave the father's/Father's authority out of the room (why "representatives" must leave their constitutes position out of the room) if they are to come to a consensus. Putting their consensus , i.e., collective "self interest" into social action (praxis) they are able to negate the father's/Father's authority (their constituents position) in establishing policy, 'changing' the world, transforming it into the image of the child, with everyone thinking and acting according to their carnal nature, "lusting" after or "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they desire, which the world stimulates (offers)—resulting in them being seduced, deceived, and manipulated by pimps, pedophiles, etc,. i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists," i.e., Transformational Marxists, i.e., "children of disobedience," "transforming" them (as natural resource) into "human resource" for their own pleasure and gain. It is how the directorate of the French Revolution and the soviet of the Communist Revolutions worked, i.e., made law.
The consensus process is such a powerful procedure (now being put into practice, i.e., praxis in our classrooms and government) that over 570 "representatives" at the famous tennis court oath (Serment du Jeu de Paume) of the French Revolution, with only one (1) abstention, cast aside their constituents ballets and came to a consensus to kill the King, i.e., to negate the father's/Father's authority. In the American Revolution we separated from the King, creating a Constitutional Republic, limiting the power of government instead. Yet, instead of negating the father's/Father's authority, we via the "Bill of Rights" left it in place, in the home—with the father ruling over his family, property, and business (with his private convictions), engendering a guilty conscience in the next generation for doing wrong/disobeying/sinning—why the liberal court, with its dialectic 'reasoning' judges have worked so hard to undermine, i.e., pervert, i.e., negate (bypass, i.e., circumvent) it. There is no representation in the consensus process, only the perception, i.e., an illusion of it.
It is how "bipartisan government"—government establishing policy through the consensus process, i.e., affirmation—works, i.e., makes law today. It is why the education establishment, using "Bloom's Taxonomies" (or modifications of them) as their curriculum, has removed the preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed as given and the teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, replacing it ("old school") with the students dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, i.e., "group grade," "team building," "relationship building (on self interest)," "Don't be Negative (prejudiced, preaching the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, hurting our "feelings"). Be Positive (tolerating deviancy for the sake of everyone's "feelings," making everyone "feel good"), i.e., "Make me 'feel good' and I will listen to you," i.e., "'like' or 'friend' you" system (who would dare speak against that these days), preparing them to embrace the directorate/soviet (brainwashing, i.e., washing from the brain the father's/Father's authority) system of the "new" world order, i.e., preparing them to be the "grave diggers" of the "old" world order, negating parental authority, i.e., removing the father's/Father's authority system not only from their own thoughts and actions but from the world, i.e., the "community" as well. (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)
The dialoguing of opinions to a consensus process does the trick. It is less messy then shooting/beheading/hanging/etc., the fathers (and those who adhere to their authority system) outright (as in the French and Traditional Communist Revolutions). As Sigmund Freud (the "father" of psychology) put it: "'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 insists upon his children obeying him, doing his will over and therefore against their carnal nature, 'discovering' "common ground" with them through dialogue, therefore thinking and acting according to the child's nature, i.e., "human nature" only, instead]." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) "Group psychotherapy," i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e., facilitated meeting is the result of Marxists (Transformational Marxists) merging Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud—their common ground being the negation of the father's/Father's authority. One in society. The other in the individual. Using the consensus process (in order to establish policy, i.e., make law) and putting it into social action (praxis) does both (negates the father's/Father's authority in the individual's feelings and thoughts and in his relationship with others, i.e., in his social actions, i.e., in how he establishes policy) at the same time. "The basic structure of Freud's thought is committed to dialectics [where the child's thoughts and actions are 'liberated' from parental authority, i.e. man's thoughts and actions are 'liberated' from Godly restraint, i.e. where the child and man is purely of and for himself, i.e. of "human nature" only, individually and socially]." "Freud's finest insights are incurably 'dialectical.'" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "Part of the dialectics of the process of winning independence from parental authority lies in using the extrafamilial peer group as a foil to parental authority, particularly in the period of adolescence." (Bradford, Gibb, Benne, T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method: Innovation in Re-education) "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) In their effort to initiate and sustain social-ist harmony in the "here-and-now," facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapist" 'liberate' the child's/man's thoughts from where he will spending eternity in the "there-and-then." To "purge [man] of sin with all the aids of the dialectics, therefore, is to rob him of true salvation, of his eternal destiny." (Rene Fulop-Miller, The Power and Secrets of the Jesuits, p.468)
As the Transformational Marxist György Lukács explained it: "the Communist Manifesto makes the point that the bourgeoisie [those initiating and sustaining the father's/Father's authority] produces its own grave-diggers [their children, i.e., the "proletariat"].'" Everyone thinks the Berlin Wall came down because Communism was defeated—it was in its Traditional form—when in fact it came down because Communism had succeeded—in its Transformational form ("group psychotherapy," i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, facilitated meeting).
If you love the father/Father you hate your "self" when you do wrong or disobey/sin, repenting of your disobedience/sins, asking for forgiveness from the father/Father. If you love your "self" you hate the father/Father and his/His authority when he/He (it) prevents (inhibits or blocks) you from enjoying the pleasures of the moment' you desire, 'justifying' your "self," questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking the father/Father and his/His authority. The antithesis condition can only be resolved by you either humbling your "self" before the father/Father, doing the father's/Father's will (Hebrews 12:5-11) or using dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' negating the father's/Father's authority in your feelings, thoughts, and actions and in your relationship with others and the world, so that you can be your "self," i.e., "of and for self" only, doing your will instead (Genesis 3:1-6) without having a guilty conscience. While the Christ (the obedient Son of God) redeemed us from the Father's wrath, reconciling us to the Father (imputing His righteousness to whosoever believes upon Him), the anti-Christ, i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the "group psychotherapist" "redeems" man from the Father, "reconciling" him to his "self" and the world only, instead.
The father's/Father's authority and the child's carnal nature is an either-or (antithesis) situation, you either accept the father's/Father's authority, humbling and denying your "self" under it, or 'justifying' your "self," you reject it, thinking and acting "of and for self" only, instead. Synthesis (the consensus process), of dialectic 'reasoning,' only means the negation of the father's/Father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the child, i.e., in his relationship with his "self," others, and the world, so that he can be at "peace" with his "self," being "affirmed" by (and affirming) that which is of the world only, i.e., "human nature", that is until death and judgment. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25
"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
Apart from the deception of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., the child 'justifying' his "self " before other children, all the child can do is obey the father/Father—doing the father's/Father's will, missing out on the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' he desires—or disobey the father/Father—"doing his own thing," having a guilty conscience for disobeying/sinning afterwards (Romans 7:14-25). According to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., the consensus process, when you 'justify' your "self" with others (Genesis 3:1-6), negating the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11) in your feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in your relationship with others and the world, the guilty conscience for disobedience/sinning (Romans 7:14-25) disappears.
If you do not have the love of the Father, humbling your "self" before the father/Father, doing His will, then all you have (and this includes the earthly father who has not humbled his "self" before the Father, doing his will instead, i.e., using his office of authority, given to him by God to do His will in, to attain the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' he desires for his "self" instead) is your "self," i.e., the love of the child, 'justifying' your "self" before men, blaming the environment, i.e., something in it for your problems (like Adam, blaming the woman and the woman blaming the serpent—both loving the creation, i.e., the pleasures of the world more than God and therefore 'justifying' their "self," in essence blaming God, who created them before they sinned, i.e., before they (with the "help" of a facilitator of 'change,' i.e., a "group psychotherapist") 'justified' their "self," i.e., before they established the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they desired, i.e., doing their will over and therefore against Him, i.e., His authority, i.e., doing His will). Instead of recognizing the problem as being their heart, which is deceitful—thinking that pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will—and therefore wicked—hating the Father for getting in the way of their carnal desires, i.e., their "lusts" for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulated, they blamed something or someone in the environment instead. The dialectic idea (way of thinking and acting) being: identify (aufheben) whatever it is in the environment that is preventing you from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' you desire and 'change' or remove it and life will be "good" again, i.e., the world will be a "better" place to live in. Apart from the Father, i.e., humbling and denying your "self" before Him, having His love in you, doing His will, all you have is the nature of the child, loving the things of the world that stimulate pleasure, 'justifying' your "self," identifying and removing whatever it is in the environment that is inhibiting or blocking you from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' you desire—which includes the Father's authority—placing your "self," i.e., your "lust" for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' in His place. This is the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of all the "ologies" of men—basing life upon the carnal nature (carnal desires and dissatisfactions) of the child, i.e., upon "human nature"—'liberating' children, men and women, and the world from the Father's authority so that all can be their "self," i.e., be "normal," i.e., can sin with impunity (without having a guilty conscience).
The "old" world order is based upon the father's/Father's authority i.e., "doing right and not wrong" according to his/His will, i.e., thinking and acting according to the father's/Father's standards, having a guilty conscience for doing wrong or for disobeying/sinning, while the so called "new" world order (the "new age") is based upon the carnal nature of the child ("human nature"), i.e., the child "lusting" after the pleasures of the 'moment,' striking out at restraint, i.e., hating the father/Father and his/His authority, "'justifying' himself before others"—considering the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth as being "irrational," i.e., out of touch with his "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., "out of touch with the times," therefore responding to his/His authority as being "irrelevant," i.e., of no worth in his eyes, i.e., in the 'changing' times—resulting in the child having no guilty conscience as he does wrong or disobeys/sins. Georg Hegel, in defence of the child's carnal nature over (and therefore against) the father's/Father's authority, 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." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) It is what is going on today, i.e., the child/man 'justifying' himself before other children/men, i.e., using the consensus process in order to "build relationship upon self interest," which is antithetical to the father's/Father's authority. "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 "Every one that is proud in heart ['justifies' his "self"] is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5
The antithesis between the father's/Father's authority and the child's nature is explained in scripture. While man attempts to resolve the conflict and tension in this life (by 'justifying' the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., synthesizing the children's carnal desires of the 'moment' with the world, making their thoughts and actions the same—to where there is "no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:18—negating the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing disobeying/sinning in the process), the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11), which engenders the "guilty conscience" for disobeying/sinning (Romans 7:14-25), and the child 'justifying his "self" (Genesis 3:1-6), will be once and for all time settled by God on judgment day. "[E]very one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12 "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." Matthew 12:36
If you go with the father's/Father's authority there is inheritance in the end, i.e., in the "there-and-then"—providing you set aside your will, i.e., your "self interest" in the "here-and-now" in order to do the father's/Father's will, making your will, i.e., your interest to do his/His will, i.e., his/His interest (living according to his/His principles/Word) instead. If you go with the carnal nature of the child, i.e., your "self," following after "the children of disobedience," following after the facilitator of 'change,' all you get is the "here-and-now," loosing your inheritance to whoever, coming between you and the father/Father, manipulates you out of it—by getting you into dialogue, i.e., into sharing with him (and with others) your "self interest" instead. Dialogue, i.e., sharing your "feelings," i.e., you carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' opens you up to manipulation (since there is no inheritance in dialogue, all you get is in the "here-and-now"—whoever gets you into dialogue detaches you from your inheritance, getting your inheritance instead, putting you into debt, supporting them), while discussion requires persuasion, i.e., facts and truth, holding you to a position, preventing you from being readily adaptable to 'change' i.e., easily manipulated. Dialoguing your opinion, i.e., your thoughts—which are subject to your feelings of the 'moment'—moves you into disobeying the father/Father, i.e., questioning, challenging, disrespecting, defying, attacking, etc., the father/Father and his/His authority, i.e., refusing to do the father's/Father's will, especially when done with "group approval," i.e., with affirmation via the consensus process. (In the consensus process Republicans and Democrats become one and the same, i.e., Democrats, subject to their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' instead of doing "right and not wrong" according to the father's/Father's will). Dialogue negates the father's/Father's authority in your feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in your relationship with others and the world, doing your will, i.e., living for the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., following after your "self interest" in the "here-and-now" instead—thereby negating the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying the father/Father, negating the antithesis (at least in the "here-and-now," i.e., in the 'moment') until judgment day. Leave the father's/Father's authority out (in order, as in "new" world order, to negate the conflict and tension, i.e., the antithesis condition, i.e., "negativity") and all you have is the carnal nature of the child ruling the world, until the Son's return—who was, is, and will always be obedient to the Father, doing His will in all things commanded, calling all to deny their "self," i.e., to die to their "self interests" daily, to endure the rejection of men (because they refuse to affirm their "self," i.e., the child's carnal nature), and follow Him—doing the Father's will. "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 ["self interest"] 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 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18
The child's nature is wrapped up in dialogue—the core of dialectic 'reasoning'—talking to his "self" about his carnal desires of the 'moment' and his dissatisfaction with or resentment toward restraint (focusing upon the "here and now," finding his identity in the things around him, i.e., the things of the world that bring him pleasure), while the father's/Father's nature is wrapped up in preaching, teaching, and discussing (at his discretion) established commands, rules, facts, and truth, holding to his position of authority, insisting upon things being "done right and not wrong" according to his/His directing (focusing upon the lessons of the "past"—which were relevant in the past, are relevant in the present, and will be relevant in the future—and the rewards of the future, i.e., the "there and then"—providing the lessons of the "past" are learned and applied in the "here and now"). As the child's nature is antithetical to the father's/Father's authority, dialogue is antithetical to discussion, 'liberating' the child's nature from the father's/Father's restraints, negating the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying/sinning in the process.
Those of dialectic 'reasoning'—having no respect for the father's/Father's authority—dialogue with the children (about their carnal desires and dissatisfactions), come between the father/Father and his/His children, while those of the father's/Father's authority—respecting and honoring the father'/Father's authority—preach, teach, and discus (at their discretion) the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth to the children, to be learned and obeyed, maintain the father's/Father's authority in the children's feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with each another and the world. If those in a position of authority—in order (as in "new" world order) to negate the conflict and tension—dialogue with the children, encouraging them to do the same with each other, they 'liberate' the children, i.e., their carnal nature, i.e., their desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and their dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, turning the children against the father/Father and his/His authority, negating the father's/Father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with each other and the world, questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, and/or attacking the father/Father and his/His authority (referred to as "theory and practice," where the child's personal thoughts and his social actions become one and the same). If those in a position of authority—in order (as in "old" world order) to negate the conflict and tension—preach, teach, and discuss (at their discretion) the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth to the children, demanding the children accept and/or obey them, they sustain the father's/Father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the children, as well as in their relationship with each other and the world, respecting and honoring the father's/Father's authority (referred to as "belief-action dichotomy," where the conflict between the child's nature and the father's/Father's authority is resolved, at least externally, via the child submitting his will, i.e., humbling and denying his "self" to the father/Father and his/His authority, doing the father's/Father's will instead). "[Kurt] Lewin emphasized that the child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group." (Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education)
"The group" experience is an essential part of the process of 'change.' The child's desire for affirmation, i.e., approval of his (or her) "self," i.e., of his carnal desire(s) of the 'moment,' i.e., his carnal nature of "lusting" after the pleasure(s) of the 'moment' and his resentment toward restraint, i.e., hate of the retainer (which is common with all children) is the dynamo that makes him readily adaptable to 'change,' i.e., willing to compromise his learned standards (which are not "of and for his self") in order to initiate and sustain relationship with those of common "self interest," i.e., "building relationship" with those who are of and for his carnal desires of the 'moment' as well. In the quest for affirmation, i.e., group consensus, any preaching and teaching of the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth must be set aside, i.e., suspended (as on a cross) in order for dialogue, i.e., the child's nature to have its way. "It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately." "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Bennie, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "Individualism," the result of the father's/Father's authority (rewarding or disciplining each child—individually—according to his behavior, i.e., for "doing right" or "doing wrong" according to the father's/Father's standards), is sacrificed in "the group" experience, where the child is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority in order to be his "self," i.e., becoming what he has in common with all the children of the world, i.e., his carnal nature, i.e., that which is of Nature only. Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [the child under the parent's, teacher's, boss's, ... God's authority, being personally held accountable before them/Him for his behavior] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society ['compromising' for the sake of affirmation] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority] and individuality [to do what he wants to do, when he wants to do it, without having a guilty conscience] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx) "The group" experience, i.e., "group" affirmation 'liberates' the child from the conflict and tension which, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' is initiated and sustained by the father's/Father's/ authority "repressing" the child, preventing him from being his "self," i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only, "alienating" him from the other children who have the same carnal nature, i.e., who are of the world only as well.
Since our "feelings," i.e., or carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' tie us to the world, we, according to dialectic 'reasoning' are of nature only, and therefore can be evaluated scientific, making all things, including us, material. Karl Marx, affirming the carnal nature of the child over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, wrote: "Sense experience [sensuousness, i.e. the child's "feelings" of the 'moment" in response to the world] must be the basis of all science." "Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception and sensuous need, that is, only when it proceeds from Nature." (Karl Marx MEGA I/3) The Apostle Paul warned Timothy (and us) about taking this pathway. "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions [Gr, antithesis] of science falsely so called:" 1 Timothy 6:20 Benjamin Bloom ("Bloom's Taxonomies") was warned about taking this pathway of "so called science" as well, but took it anyway, applying it in the classroom. "It has been pointed out that we are attempting to classify phenomena which could not be observed or manipulated in the same concrete form as the phenomena of such fields as the physical and biological sciences." (Benjamin Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1, Cognitive Domain) "Whether or not the classification scheme presented in Handbook I: Cognitive Domain is a true taxonomy is still far from clear." David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom Book 2 Affective Domain) "Certainly the Taxonomy was unproved at the time it was developed and may well be 'unprovable.'" (Benjamin Bloom, Forty Year Evaluation) In applying this "scientific process" on children in the classroom, Benjamin Bloom's "Educational Objective" was the same as Karl Marx's, to produce children who were loyal to their carnal nature and the world only. Applying this "scientific process" in the natural sciences has wracked havoc as well. "Thomas S Kuhn spent the year 1958-1959 at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavior Sciences, directed by Ralph Tyler [who Benjamin Bloom dedicated his first Taxonomy to], where he finalized his 'paradigm shift' concept of 'Pre- and Post-paradigm periods.'" "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." "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." "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." "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; the last quotation is Max Planck's famous dictum)
I will repeat it again and again, i.e., the conflict and tension between the father's/Father's authority and the child's carnal nature (it is what happened in the garden in Eden and has been happening ever since—which, in the case of the Father, can only be resolved by a mediator, 'reconciling' the child/man with the Father or, in the case of the father, can only be "resolved"—according to dialectic 'reasoning'—by the father abdicating his authority or the children killing the father, having a facilitator of 'change,' i.e., a "group psychotherapist" "help" them negate the father's/Father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with one another and the world), adding new information along the way—including quotes from Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and many others associated with the dialectic process, as well as verses from the Word of God, which is antithetical to dialectic 'reasoning,' the Word of God exposing and condemning dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., not only explaining the problem but also giving us the solution, since it is the solution to the problem, which we can not understand since we use our 'reasoning' ability, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., our opinion, which is set in motion by our "sensuous need," i.e., our "felt needs" of the 'moment' and our "sense perception," i.e., our ability to evaluate the situation, i.e., aufheben in order (as in "new" world order) to 'justify' our "self," i.e., 'justify' our enjoying or "lusting" after the object(s) of pleasure that we desire in the 'moment' (or rather "lusting" after the pleasure the objects of natures stimulate within us), i.e., having the "I'll just die if I can't have (or do) it now" 'moment,' overcoming, i.e., negating any obstacle, real or imagined, that inhibits or blocks, i.e., prevents us from enjoying the object of pleasure now or "lusting" after it, which blinds us to what the problem is, i.e., our use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., "the pride of life," i.e., the wisdom of men, i.e., philosophy, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc., which can never understand, much less address and/or overcome the problem, since it is the problem—coming between the father/Father and the child (or the children), 'liberating' the child, i.e., the child's carnal nature from the father's/Father's authority (restraints), i.e., synthesizing the child with his carnal nature (thus synthesizing him with all the children of the world—since all children have the same carnal nature), turning the child (children) against the father/Father and his/His authority (since, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the father's/Father's authority is the initiator and sustainer of antithesis, i.e., conflict and tension, coming between the child and his carnal nature), negating the guilty conscience in the child for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying the father/Father in the process, engendering peace within the child (between his "self" and his carnal nature and the world which stimulates pleasure in him) and affirmation (being approved by all the children "of and for" their "self" and the world which brings them pleasure). The Word of God warns us of our use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., of "self" 'justification and the consensus process, i.e., of the affirmation of men. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 Our heart is deceitful in that it establishes pleasure as the standard for "good" and wicked in that it establishes anyone who (and anything which) inhibits or blocks it (us from having the pleasures of the 'moment' we desire) as being "evil," resulting in us, as a defiant child, hating and striking out against it, i.e., the father/Father and his/His authority. Marxism would not exist if Karl Marx was not already in you, i.e., in your (or your child's) heart, waiting to be 'liberated,' i.e., with the "help" of a facilitator of 'change' 'liberating' your "self" from the father's/Father's authority, negating the father's/Father's authority in your feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well in your relationship with your "self," others, and the world, thus feeling no guilty in questioning, challenging, disregarding (perceiving as being "irrational," i.e., not in touch with your "feelings of the 'moment,'" and therefore being "irrelevant," i.e., of no worth), defying, and/or killing the father (and any who support, i.e., who submit, i.e., who humbly and deny their "self" before him/Him and honor and respect his/His authority). "Freud noted that patricide and incest are part of man's deepest nature." (Irvin Yalom, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy)
The father/Father (enforcing his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth, requiring the child to humble, deny, discipline, and control his "self") and the child ('justifying' his carnal nature, i.e., esteeming his "self") are two political systems which are at odds with (are antithetical to) one another. Both systems determine how policy is to be established, i.e., how policy is initiated and sustained, one system or paradigm upon obeying established commands, rules, facts, and truth (faith) and the other system or paradigm upon the person's "feelings" of the 'moment'—in the "light" (illumination or enlightenment) of the current situation (imagined or real)—(sight). "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Luke 11:35
The "Heresiarchal Paradigm" of 'change,' i.e., the child's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., pleasure (and the augmentation of it), which is "of and for self" is antithetical to the "Patriarchal Paradigm," i.e., the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will—having to miss out on the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., not yield to the "lusts" of the 'moment.' "Paradigm" means a system or way of thinking and acting, i.e., how you respond to or relate with your "self" (either humbling and denying your "self," i.e., dying to your "self" daily in order to "do right and not wrong," i.e., in order, as in "old" world order to do the father's/Father's will—which is "negative" to your "self"—or 'justifying' and esteeming your "self" in order, as in "new" world order to do "what you want to do, when you want to do it"—which is "positive" to your "self") and how you relate with others and the world around you, as well as your feelings, thoughts, and actions, i.e., your attitude toward authority. "Paradigm 'shift'" simply means 'changing' the way you think and act, away from obedience toward authority, i.e., from respecting and honoring authority (Hebrews 12:5-11), thus having a guilty conscience for disobeying/sinning (Romans 7:14-25), to the questioning and challenging, i.e., disregarding, disrespecting, defying, and attacking of authority, i.e., doing your will instead (Genesis 3:1-6).
It is not that the father/Father is against pleasure. God, the Heavenly Father created pleasure and the world that stimulates it, with the earthly father, as the Heavenly Father, giving his children gifts that they might enjoy them. It is that "doing right and not wrong," according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (requiring, on the part of the child, faith in the father/Father and his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth) must come first and foremost in the child's life. Children come into this world with their carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., approaching pleasure and avoiding pain (with pleasure being "good" and pain, including chastening and/or the pain which comes with missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment,' in order to do the father's/Father's will, being "bad—in their eyes). As explained in the link, the carnal nature of the child, the child/man, by nature is not in love with the object stimulating pleasure, he is in love with the pleasure, i.e., dopamine emancipation the object stimulates ('liberates') within him, choosing pleasure (stimulated by the object the father/Father gave him—or the object the father/Father told him he is not to play with or become at-one-with) over (and therefore against) the father/Father who gave the object of pleasure to him (or told him it is not his to have or play with or become at-one-with). The child's nature ("human nature") is made manifest when the father/Father tells the child to put the object of pleasure the child carnal desires aside or up ("now") in order to do what he/He commands, i.e., in order (as in "old" world order) to do his/His will instead.
The father's/Father's authority is introduced into the child's life along the way with the child learning to "do right and not wrong," according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth—which sometimes requires the pain of chastisement and/or the pain of missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment.' While we, as children, could readily identify with approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, we could not readily identify with doing "right" according to the father's/Father's authority when it got in the way of pleasure and/or engendered pain—pleasure being "right" or "good" and pain (including the pain of missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment' we desired) being "wrong" or "bad" in our eyes—hating the father/Father who got in its (pleasures) way, i.e., our way. It is upon the nature of the child that dialectic 'reasoning' (the so called "new" world order) is based (and defends), intent upon 'liberating' the nature of the child ("human nature") from the father's/Father's authority, negating the father's/Father's authority which gets in its way. A culture and its leadership, based upon and defending the nature of the child, i.e., "human nature" does not love you. It and its leadership loves the pleasure you and all that is yours, i.e., your wife, children, property, business, etc., stimulates within it, thinking they own everything they see (anything, imagined or real, that engenders pleasure within them), turning on you when you claim they (your wife, children, property, business) are yours and not theirs, taking that which is yours, negating you when and if you get in their (the "communities," i.e., "the peoples," i.e., the facilitator of 'change's') way—refusing to share with them that which is yours, refusing to join with (become at-one-with) them "building relationship upon common self interest." This is the common core of Hegel's, Marx's, Freud's, contemporary ideology. "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;" 2 Timothy 3:1-4
Both (the father's/Father's authority and the child's carnal nature) are political systems, i.e., systems that shape how policy is initiated and sustained. One according to faith in authority, denying "self," "doing right and not wrong" according to established standards (in plurality requiring majority vote to resolve differences), the other by trusting in man, 'justifying' "self," "building relationship upon self interest" (requiring consensus in order to overcome, i.e., set aside, i.e., suspend differences, i.e., "I'm right and you are wrong"—as on a cross), working together as one according to what everyone has in common, their natural desire to "enjoy" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' resenting/hating (thus working together as one in fighting against and overcoming—negating) that which stands in the way.
In the end it comes down to this, what you did today—with the Father directing your steps or you directing your own steps. This is to hard for contemporary man to comprehend, much less accept (even in the "church"). "It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23 If what you did today was according to your own understanding, you can only glorify your "self," i.e., the works of your hands, trusting in your "self" instead of in the Lord. "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil." Proverbs 3:5-7 We can either humble and deny our "self," giving our heart to the Lord, letting him direct us or trust in our "self," i.e., our heart's carnal desires, 'justifying' our carnal nature, i.e., our "lust" for the pleasures of the 'moment,' letting it deceive us into 'justifying' our "self," i.e., its wicked ways.
Since the heart is deceitful (above all things)—perceiving pleasure as being the standard for "good"—and wicked (beyond measure)—hating anyone who gets its, i.e., pleasure's way—man can only perceive the father/Father and his restraints as being "evil," resulting in him trusting in himself, "building relationship" with those of like mind, i.e., of like "self interest." "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5 Trusting in his "self" and those of like thought and action ("theory and practice"), man can only glorify the flesh, the works of his hands, and the things of the world (which engender pleasure), turning his thoughts and actions against the father/Father and his/His authority, which restrains/condemns him. "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:17 You can only let one direct your steps. You can not have it both ways, trusting in your "self," i.e., in man, i.e., in the flesh (in sight, in that which is of and for the world, i.e., "of and for Self," i.e., "building relationship upon self interest") and in the Lord (by faith, trusting in He who is not of and for the world. i.e., not "of and for Self," i.e., doing the Father's will instead) at the same time, deceiving your "self" and all who trust in you. In essence God's way, i.e., the Father's way of thinking and acting is not man's way of thinking and acting. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8, 9 "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
These are two paradigms, i.e., ways of feeling, thinking, and acting, and relating with your "self," others, and the world, as well as responding toward authority that are antithetical to one another. While the father has a semblance of the Father's authority he still has the nature of a child, which is antithetical to the father's/Father's authority, making all that are of nature antithetical to God, the Father and His authority. Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., of "self" 'justification,' i.e., "of and for" "human nature" ("of and for Self") can only think and act to 'liberate' the child/man, i.e., "self," i.e., "human nature" from the father's authority, 'liberating' mankind (collectively—based upon what all men and women have in common), i.e., "Self," i.e., "human nature" from God, the Father's authority. In their love of "Self," i.e., driven by pleasure, having "no fear of God before their eyes" (Romans 3:18), those of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., facilitators of 'change,' 'justifying' their "self," are purposed in negating the father's/Father's authority from the face of the earth, placing their "self" in his/His place. "The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful. The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good. He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil." Psalms 36:1-4
These paragraphs may be tmi—to much information—for you right now, so I placed them in a link (Individualism vs. Collectivism) so as not to interrupt the flow of thought. Suffice it to say, individualism, under God, i.e., the Father's authority is antithetically to collectivism, under man's authority—one (the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ) being holy, pure, and righteous (in and of Himself) the other (man) not (no matter what man thinks and/or deceives others into believing—being "of and for Self" only [righteousness and holiness being what Christ does for us alone, imputing His righteousness to us by faith in Him alone, not something we can ever be or earn by doing "good works," in and of ourselves). As Martin Luther stated: "By believing in a Christ who is good, I, even I, am made good: his goodness is mine also, for it is a gift from him and is not my work." (Luther's Works: Vol. 44, The Christian in Society: I, p.300) No amount of "good" a man does (even for the Lord) can make him good or righteous or holy. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:21-23 As quoted above but bearing repeating here, pointing to the importance of the only begotten, obedient Son of God, reconciling us to the Father: "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 "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 "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 "For after that in the wisdom of God [His Word revealed by preaching, accepted by faith, confirmed by His Spirit] the world by wisdom [leaning to its own understanding, trusting in the flesh and sight, i.e. the sensuous 'moment'] knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." 1 Corinthians 2:21 "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world ["leaning to his own understanding"], let him become a fool ["trusting in the Lord with all his heart"], that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." 1 Corinthians 3:18-19 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14 "And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law [which condemns me], but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith [which redeems me]:" Philippians 3:9 "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
While the father/Father does not hate his/His child, hating only his (or her) bad/wicked behavior/thoughts and actions, chastening him for disobeying/sinning that he might do what is right (casting him out only when he refuses to accept his/His authority to chastise him for disobeying, i.e., when he refuses to repent and change the way he is thinking and acting), the child, by nature hates the father/Father, who is the author of the commands and rules he must obey and the facts and truth he has to accept as is, by faith, hating the father/Father when he enforces them, inhibiting or blocking him from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' he desires (murmuring within himself against the father, i.e., dialoguing with his "self," i.e., 'justifying' his "self" when he can not have his way). The child/man, made in the image of the father/Father—with the ability to evaluate, i.e., determine what is "good" and what is "evil"—loves "good" and hates "evil." But instead of loving the father/Father, evaluating his "self" and the world from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will, i.e., doing that which is "good" (no matter what), the child/man, loving the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., that which is "good" in his eyes, i.e., thinking and behaving according to his carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," hates the father/Father and his/His authority which gets in his way (I am explaining Hegel, Marx, and Freud, i.e., the mindset of the so called "new" world order here). A society based upon the father's/Father's authority to 1) give commands and rules to be obeyed, 2) bless the children (citizens) who obey, 3) chastise those who disobey, requiring repentance (engendering a guilty conscience in them for disobeying/sinning), and 4) cast out those who reject his/His authority, i.e., who refuse to repent, is antithetical to a society based upon the nature of the child, i.e., "human nature," enamored with the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., "lusting" after the things of the world, which must negate the father's/Father's authority, i.e., kill the father, i.e., the King (and all who support his way of thinking) in order to initiate and sustain its way of thinking and acting ("theory and practice"). While the French Revolution killed the King, i.e., the father's/Father's authority (along with all revolutions since, including the so called "velvet" ones, following after its system of "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité," i.e., the consensus process), the American Revolution left the King, i.e., the father's/Father's authority in tact, not in the general government itself (breaking it up into three separate branches, limiting the power of government instead), but, thanks to the bill of rights (inalienable rights), in the home with its private convictions, property, and business, engendering a guilty conscience in the next generation of citizens for doing wrong or for disobeying, i.e., for disrespecting authority, knowing they will be held accountable before God for their thoughts and actions.
That has all 'changed' since the 50's (actually a long time before then, but it really took hold then), when we made "having a better life" (focusing upon the child's/our "feelings") rather than "doing right and not wrong" (doing the father's/Father's will) the purpose of life in the thoughts and actions of the next generation. Education, by removing "the fear of God," i.e., the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., the traditional curriculum (teaching method) from the classroom, replacing it with dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., the child's "feelings" (carnal desires) of the 'moment (injecting the "affective domain" in the classroom curriculum), changed' the way the next generation of citizens felt, thought, and behaved toward authority. The classroom of twenty individual students, with fathers of differing positions on issues, instead of learning to obey commands and rules and accept facts and truth being taught as is by authority, holding their "self" (individually) accountable to the father's/Father's authority, began (in the 50's) to dialogue their opinions (their carnal, i.e., natural desire for the pleasures of the 'moment' along with their dissatisfaction with/hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority) to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness"), making "self interest," i.e., pleasure, including the pleasure of approval, i.e., affirmation (by "the group," i.e., the "community") the drive and purpose of life (instead of doing right and not wrong, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will), 'liberated' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority, negating the father's/Father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with their "self," one another, and the world—no longer having a "guilty conscience" for disobeying the father/Father, i.e., for questioning and challenging the father's/Father's authority—in the process. "Bloom's Taxonomies" were at the heart of this 'change,' 'changing' how the next generation of citizens thought and acted toward authority in the classroom—taking their 'liberated' "feelings" back into the home, challenging parental authority.
One paradigm (way of thinking, acting, and relating) is structured upon those with authority preaching, teaching, and discussing (at their discretion), i.e., persuading with commands, rules, facts, and truth (of the "past"), with morality and competence, i.e., "doing right and not wrong" according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth leading the way ("directing their steps"), inhibiting or blocking 'change,' especially rapid 'change,' while the other is structured upon everyone's "feelings," i.e., carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' dialoguing their opinions to a consensus (affirmation), i.e., being seduced, deceived, and manipulated (by the facilitator of 'change, i.e., the psychotherapist) with their "feelings," i.e., their "sensuous needs" of the 'moment and their "thoughts," i.e., their "sense perception" of the current situation, with the way they "think"—subject to their "feelings," i.e., their "sense experiences" of the past and present, i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' (making them subject to "nature [human nature] Only" instead of to the commands, rules, facts, and truth of the "past"—leading the way ("directing their steps"), initiating and sustaining 'change,' especially rapid 'change.' (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) 'Change' is a process which is based upon the satisfaction of (or hope of satisfying) one's carnal desires of the 'moment' ('justifying' "self")—which is ever changing—instead of true and lasting change, i.e., change of the heart, i.e., repentance for doing wrong (humbling and denying "self"). The merging of the two only leads to the latter's outcome in the end—making commands, rules, facts, and 'truth' subject to the child's/man's "feelings" of the 'moment,' materializing him, making him of (and for) the world only, negating the father's/Father's authority, replacing it with the nature of the child, i.e., "human nature," initiating and sustaining 'change,' i.e., "self" 'justification' and the "eternal present." "Ye are they which justify yourselves [your "self," i.e., "human nature"] before men; but God knoweth your hearts [which are deceitful—classifying pleasure as the standard for "good"—and wicked—hating anyone who gets in the way of pleasure, classifying them as being "evil"]: for that which is highly esteemed among men["human nature," i.e., "self" 'justification'] is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15
The agenda (there is an agenda) is to 'liberate' the child from the father's/Father's authority, 'creating' a so called "new" world order based upon the carnal nature of the child, i.e., "human nature." By "esteeming" the child's nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., the child's carnal desires of the 'moment' over (and therefore against) the father's/Father's authority in the classroom (removing respect for the father's/Father's authority in the child), the child is simply being "shifted" back to the way he was, carnal, of the world only, as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, and truth came into his life—the idea (agenda) being, don't attack the father/Father outright, engendering his/His wrath against you (the "educator"), 'liberate' his/His children from his/His authority in the classroom and (since he/He is "out of touch with the times," i.e., "their feelings of the 'moment'") they will attack him/Him and his/His authority when they get home instead, with your approval and support (of course). In this way the nature of the child ("human nature," i.e., the child's carnal nature, void parental/Godly restraint) is increasingly becoming the law of the land, negating, in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in his relationship with others and the world, respect for the father's/Father's authority. By the "educator" replacing the preaching, teaching, and discussion (at the teacher's discretion) of the father's/Father' commands, rules, facts, and truth, becoming a facilitator of 'change' instead, "helping" the children dialogue their opinions to a consensus in the "group grade" classroom, working on personal-social/community project, the "guilty conscience"—for doing wrong or for disobeying—is being replaced with the so called "super-ego"—which is based upon the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' negating parental/Godly restraint in the child in the process. What you see going on around you today it is not happening by accident. The following information will explain how it is being done and why.
While the earthly father is not perfect, he might be (or might have been) a down right tyrant, his office is—given to him by the Heavenly Father, who is perfect, in which to do His will. The conflict and tension (antithesis) has always been between you doing Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., (with the "help" of a facilitator of 'change') 'justifying' your "self," and Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., respecting and honoring the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will, resulting in Romans 7:14-25, i.e., you having a guilty conscience for doing wrong or for disobeying, i.e., for doing your will instead of the father's/Father's, i.e., for sinning, needing to repent, (because God is perfect) needing a savior, one who is perfect to take your place, paying for your sins ('redeeming' you from eternal damnation), 'reconciling' you to the Heavenly Father. This is the difference (antithesis) between you reasoning from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, doing the father's/Father's will and 'reasoning' from your own carnal "feelings," i.e., your carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' doing your will instead, engendering covetousness (even though you might claim to be doing it in the name of the Lord), making you subject to facilitators of 'change,' i.e., seducers, deceivers, and manipulators of children, men, and women, i.e., "group psychotherapists" using you, as "natural resource," for their own pleasure and gain, resulting in you facing damnation along with them. "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." 2 Peter 2:3
Not only is the situation or crisis of the 'moment' the issue (more importantly) so is the way it is being dealt with and/or being resolved. One leads to freedom from the flesh, i.e., thinking and acting according to the Father's will, i.e., "doing right and not wrong according to established facts or truth" (according to the Word of God, with the Holy Spirit confirming it; see John 16 and John 17), the other to bondage to it, i.e., to the flesh and to the world stimulating it, i.e., thinking and acting according to the child's "feelings," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., "human nature"—negating "belief-action dichotomy," where the father's/Father's authority restrains the child's carnal nature, replacing it with "theory-practice unity," where the child's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' i.e., "human nature" rules the day instead. One disciplines, controls, humbles, and denies "self" in order to produce (manifesting the nature of a father, being responsible and accountable, i.e., dependable, i.e., mature), the other 'justifies,' i.e., esteems "self" in order to consume (manifesting the nature of a child, being irresponsible and unaccountable, i.e., undependable, i.e., immature). Merging the two only makes the immature appear ("seem" to be) mature, like "a wolf in sheepskin," deceiving all who follow them in their deceitful and wicked ("self-ish") ways.
The dialectic agenda of dialoging opinions (where everyone openly shares—with no "put downs," i.e., "fear of God," i.e., judgment—their personal "feelings" and "thoughts," regarding the current situation, with one another) to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness," with everyone affirming one another) is to negate the earthly father's authority, thereby negating the Heavenly Father's authority. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the Heavenly Father and His authority system of "above-below," "top-down," "Do what you are told, i.e., what I say, or else" "Mine. Not yours" system of control is "created" (by the children) when the children obey their earthly father's commands and rules (without question) and accept his facts and truth as given (by faith), i.e., when they "humble" and "deny" their "self" before the father/Father (missing out on their carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., going against "human nature" in order to do the father's will), thereby 'creating' the "old" world order of the father's/Father's authority (system) with its "top-down," "do right and not wrong, according to my commands, rules, facts, or truth, or else," "Mine. Not yours" way of thinking and acting—keeping children from being their "self," "repressing" them, "alienating" them from the other children of the world. According to the 'logic' of dialectic 'reasoning,' only through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' with all children dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, can a "new" world order, based upon the child's carnal nature only, i.e., "human nature," become the law of the land—with facilitators of 'change' "helping" all children become their "self" by 'liberating' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority system through the dialectic process of dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, putting their consensus ("class consciousness") into social-ist action, i.e., praxis., negating the father's/Father's authority, not only in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, but in their relationship with others, i.e., in society as well, in the process.
If you do not understand the information in the links above—explaining the "conflict and tension" (antithesis) between father's/Father's authority system ("doing right and not wrong," according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., obeying his/His commands and rules without question and accepting his/His facts and truth as given, by faith) and the carnal nature of the child ("lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., loving the "dopamine emancipation" an object—perceived or imagined—stimulates, i.e., being stimulated by the world around him, responding to it in accordance to his carnal nature, i.e., doing what he wants to do when he wants to do it, hating restraint, i.e., hating that which gets in his way, i.e., in nature's way) with the father's/Father's authority being reflected in the preaching of his/His commands and rules, to be obeyed as given and the teaching of his/His facts and truth, to be accepted as is, by faith, and the child's nature being reflected in his dialoguing with his "self," i.e., his talking to his "self" internally, i.e., privately (out of fear of being punished and/or rejected for sharing what he is thinking about openly) his carnal desires of the 'moment,' along with his dissatisfaction with restraint (having to do the father's/Father's will, missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment'), internally resenting (hating) the restrainer (the father/Father) for getting in his way, preventing, i.e., inhibiting or blocking him from "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' he desires,
with the Lord Jesus Christ stating (in obedience to the Father, advocating the Father's authority): "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do," "I can of mine own self do nothing: ... I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." "[W]hatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." John 5:19, 30; 12:47-50 therefore stating: "I and my Father are one." and, since no man has seen God the Father ("No man hath seen God at any time." 1 John 4:12), "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;" (John 10:30; 14:9), that His kingdom is not by appearance ("The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:" "for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:20, 21 excerpts) and is not of this world ("Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." John 18:36), insisting that we do His Heavenly Father will as well, with the scriptures giving us the same pattern (or system) in the home, "God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness." (excerpts from Hebrews 12:5-11), yet establishing the Heavenly Father and His authority over (and therefore against) the earthly father's authority, "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Matthew 23:9) "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me:" (Matthew 10:32-37),
Georg Hegel stated (in defiance against the father's/Father's authority, deferring to the carnal nature of the child instead—in order to negate the guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying the earthly father in order to negate the guilty conscience for sinning, i.e., for disobeying the Heavenly Father, his idea being, negate the one and you negate the other in the mind and therefore the actions of the child, 'liberating' man and society from Godly restraint, i.e., from being judged and condemned, therefore feeling guilty for being "human," i.e., for being carnal, i.e., for being "of and for Self," i.e., for being of and for the world only, needing to repent): "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/Father's authority so that he can be his "self," i.e., as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life), with the affirmation of the child's nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., that which is common to all people, the father's/Father's authority (with it's "do right and not wrong," judgmental, prejudiced commands, rules, facts, and truth), according to Hegel, is left out of the picture, engendering in a world of peace: "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),
Karl Marx stated (in defiance against the father's/Father's authority, i.e., following after the ideology of Heraclites, who suggested that children, i.e., "minors" should rule, i.e., that the "adults" of his city should "hang" themselves for casting out someone greater than them, i.e., a thinker who created unity, i.e., common-ism out of opposites, requiring 'change,' i.e., advocating that if there is any constant, it is 'change'): "Once the earthly family [with the children being subject to the earthly father's authority, preventing 'change'] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with man being subject to the Heavenly Father's authority, preventing 'change'], the former [the traditional family with the father's "Do what I say or else" authority system] must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically." (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4), "theoretically and practically" means that the father's/Father's authority ("prejudices," i.e., judgment or condemnation for doing wrong or for sinning, i.e., for disobeying his/His established commands, rules, facts, or truth) is to be negated (no longer rule or exist) in the children's thought (privately) and in their practice (publically), resulting in both "theory and practice" (the child's thoughts and actions) becoming united (as one) based upon that which is common with all children, their carnal nature, i.e., their desire for the pleasures of the 'moment' (which initiates and sustains 'change') and their dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., dissatisfaction with the father's/Father's authority ("Do what I say or else" system) which inhibits or blocks 'change,' thus Marx concluded: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways [established their opinion as the only right way, thus inhibiting or blocking 'change'], the objective however, is change [the process of 'change' itself]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11), (have you heard the word 'change' recently?),
and Sigmund Freud stated (in defiance against the father's/Father's authority): "'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 insists upon his children obeying him, doing his will over and therefore against their nature, 'discovering' common ground with them, according to "human nature" only, instead]." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization)
Merging Karl Marx, i.e., society and Sigmund Freud, i.e., the individual, resolved the problem which comes with politically attacking the father/Father and his/His authority outright—leaving his/His "top-down" authority system in place. By children dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, i.e., through the children's participation in "group psychotherapy," i.e., the "group grade" classroom, they come to realize that the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth are "irrational" (do not fit) in a rapidly 'changing' world, in their thoughts and actions making the father's/Father's authority system "irrelevant," resulting in their treating him/Him the same, i.e., "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant"—in defiance, i.e., in indifference to his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth doing what they want to do, when they want to do it instead.
Irvin Yalom, in his book The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy, summed up the merging of Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud as the praxis, i.e., the seduction, deception, and manipulation of "group psychotherapy" (in defiance against the father's/Father's authority): "Freud noted that patricide [the children, by nature, hating (wanting to kill) the father/Father when he/He gets in the way of their "enjoying" the carnal (natural) pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., being stimulate by and responding to the world around them, i.e., becoming at-one-with it instead of with the him/Him, by nature hating and fighting against the father/Father and his/His authority when he/He and it gets in their (nature's) way] and incest [the children, by nature, doing what they want to do, when they want to do it, "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' with whoever/whatever is stimulating it, i.e., "dopamine emancipation," i.e., the pleasures of the 'moment'] are part of man's deepest nature."
Herbart Marcuse, in his book Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud (from where we get the phrase "If it feels good, just do it"), explained the essence, i.e., the drive and purpose of Freud's psychology (in defiance against the father's/Father's authority) as "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother—[which] culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan." Freud noted, according to Marcuse, that the "brother clan," feeling "guilty" for their deed, memorialized the father. Thus, restoring the father's "top-down" authority system, i.e., engendering "civil society," they prevented man from being his "self" again. It was therefore Freud's agenda to use the language of dialogue, i.e., the language of "I feel" and "I think," i.e., the language the woman in the garden in Eden used, in order to overcome the affects (the restraints) of the father's/Father's "thou shalt not," i.e., "It is written," "Because I said so," in order to overcome (negate) the "neurosis" of "civil society." "Neurosis" is 'created' when the child is caught between doing his will or doing the father's/Father's will, doing the father's/Father's will, despite it going against his will, in order to not be punished and/or to gain his/His approval, resulting in him feeling guilty when he disobeys (or is thinking about disobeying), i.e., for being "normal," thus becoming "neurotic." When the "brother clan" established "civil society," by creating a council or a select group of people to rule over "the people," they sustained the fathers'/Father's "top-down" authority system over "the people," sustaining "neurosis." Thus according to Marcuse (explaining Freud's agenda), "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 [disregard the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., disregard the father's/Father's authority] in order to fall back into the state of innocence.'" ibid.
Normal O. Brown, in his book Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History, explained the "neurosis of civilization" this way: "Neurosis is an essential consequence of civilization or culture." "The bondage of all cultures to their cultural heritage is a neurotic construction." "The core of the neurosis of individuals lay in the 'memory-traces of the experiences of former generations.'" According to Brown, as the child's parents indoctrinate him with their belief, he becomes less of his "self," therefore "neurotic," "Parental discipline, religious denunciation of bodily pleasure, . . . have all left man overly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced, and therefore neurotic." "If there is a universal neurosis, it is reasonable to suppose that its core is religion." "Psychoanalysis must treat religion [denying your "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will] as a neurosis." Therefore the agenda of psychology (in defiance against the father's/Father's authority) is to overcome "neurosis," i.e., the fathers'/Father's authority in the child, "helping" the child to overcome that which is preventing him from being his "self." Brown, commenting on his book, stated: "The entry into Freud cannot avoid being a plunge into a strange world and a strange language—a world of sick men, ....It is a shattering experience for anyone seriously committed to the Western traditions of morality and rationality to take a steadfast, unflinching look at what Freud has to say. To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit; and this book cannot without sinning communicate that experience to the reader." "Our real choice is between holy and unholy madness: open your eyes and look around you—madness is in the saddle anyhow." "It is possible to be mad and to be unblest, but it is not possible to get the blessing without the madness; it is not possible to get the illuminations without the derangement," "I wagered my intellectual life on the idea of finding in Freud what was missing in Marx."
and Mike Connor, at Brown's funeral, stated: "But Brown believed that the payoff was worth the price of sin—namely, that alienation would be overcome, and the return of the repressed completed, rendering problems of sin permanently moot. Life Against Death established Brown, along with his colleague and friend Herbert Marcuse, and later Charles Reich, as an intellectual leader of the New Left …. a Marxist mode of Freudian analysis." (March 23-30, 2005 issue of Metro Santa Cruz)—
you will never understand what is happening in you, to you, and in the world around you today, i.e., in the home, in the neighborhood, in education, in the workplace, in entertainment, in government, etc., i.e., in the nation, around the world, and even in the "church." It is simply the nature of the child ("human nature," i.e., man's sinful nature) becoming the law of the land, negating the father's/Father's authority in the process—rejecting the Son's reason for coming (not only to 'redeem' us from our sins, i.e., our "human nature," thus saving us from eternal death, i.e., damnation but also to 'reconcile' us to His Heavenly Father, that we might inherit eternal life). "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." James 1:14, 15
When policy is established through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (children/men and women seeing their "self," i.e., what they have in common with in one another, 'justifying' and thus affirming "self" as being "normal," thus making "self interest" the way of life, "building relationship upon self interest," i.e., building "worldly peace and socialist harmony" upon "common-ism," i.e., their carnal nature, i.e., "human nature"), the father's/Father's authority (fear of God and judgment) is negated in the feelings, thoughts and actions of the children/men and women, turning every fact or truth (belief) into an opinion (theory), making all things subject to 'change'—in order to satisfy the child's/man's or woman's carnal desires of the 'moment.' In the consensus process of "self" 'justification,'—'justifying' the carnal nature of the child (including children in an adult bodies) so that (having no fear of judgment and damnation, i.e., void of the Father's authority) all can sin with impunity—a "new" world order of unrighteousness and abomination is engendered (of course to the Godless and the "contemporary Church"—rejecting the deceitfulness and wickedness of man's heart, the wrath of God upon "the children of disobedience," i.e., upon those affirming man's carnal nature, and eternal damnation, in order for man to "feel good" about his "self," living in world of his own 'creation,' initiating and sustaining "worldly peace and socialist harmony"—that is a dream come true). The consensus process is in fact a religious service, with man ('liberating' his "self" from God) making his collective "self" god, worshiping the creation, i.e., the thoughts (opinions) and actions (praxis) of men instead of the creator.
Synthesis (the consensus process) is not about reconciling the child with the father (or man with God, the Father), keeping the father's/Father's authority in tact, it is about reconciling the child/man with his carnal nature, negating the father's/Father's authority in the process. Put another way synthesis reconciles the child/man with his carnal nature, making his (and everyone else's) "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' ("covetousness," i.e., "self interest") the standard for "good," negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will (making the father's/Father's restraints, i.e., his inhibiting or blocking, i.e., preventing the child from "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—in order to do right and not wrong according to his/His will—"evil"), in his feelings, thoughts, and actions, i.e., in his relationship with ("love" of) himself ("self"), others, and the world, as well as in his response (hatred) toward the father/Father—questioning, challenging, disregarding, defying, attacking the father/Father and his/His authority. Synthesizing the child with his carnal nature automatically, i.e., in harmony with "human nature" engenders hatred toward the father/Father and his/His authority—which restrains him.
While Hegel did not use the terms thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, they are the common descriptive of the dialectic process. The synthesis of the dialectic process is not between the father/Father, i.e., the father's/Father's authority (the thesis) and the child/man (since the child's/man's nature is antithetical to the father's/Father's authority—the father's/Father's authority being "negative" to the child's carnal nature, preventing him from "enjoying" his carnal desires of the 'moment') but between the child and his nature, so that the child can satisfy his carnal desires ("self interest") of the 'moment'—become "positive"—thereby making all children/mankind one, i.e., united in their carnal nature as well as in the "common cause" ("common-ism") of negating the father's/Father's authority system (called "the negation of negation"). The "duty" or role of the facilitator of 'change' is not to bring peace and harmony into the home/nation/"church," i.e., into the traditional home/nation/fellowship, i.e., between the parent's and their children, the leaders and the citizens, the believers and God, supporting (serving and protecting) the father's/Father's authority over his/His children, but that of 'liberating' the children/man from their parent's/leader's/God's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's "autocratic" authority ("authoritarian") system, doing so in the name of "the children," i.e., "the people," i.e., "growing" the "church" (in the name of the Lord).
When the facilitator of 'change' ask you to be "positive" (and not "negative") he really means leave the father's/Father's authority out of the decision (policy) making procedure, allowing him to 'justify,' i.e., "enjoy" his "self," using that which is the father's/Father's for his own "enjoyment." When the facilitator of 'change' says he is doing his 'job' for the sake of "the people" (the children) he really means he is doing it for his own "self," i.e., for his own pleasure and gain. When the facilitator of 'change' says to you "It's not about you," he really means "It's all about me," i.e., his "self." Don't be deceived. By submitting your "self" to his "self," becoming "at-one-with" him (and those following him, i.e., 'justifying' their "self," and therefore him) he simply wants you to leave the father's/Father's authority out of your communication (relationship) with him (and with your "self" and with others) so that he (and you and others) can do wrong, i.e., take that which is not his (negating the innocent [doing "co-lateral damage"] and the righteous—those submitting their "self" to the father/Father, sustaining the father's/Father's authority system), without having a "guilty conscience," so that he (along with you and all others, as Karl Marx, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, etc.,) can sin, i.e., disobey the father/Father with impunity.
While Karl Marx proclaimed: "The proletariat [the "child of disobedience"] thus has the same right as has the German king when he calls, the people his people and a horse his horse." (Karl Marx, Critique of 'Hegel's' Philosophy of Right—while the American Revolution removed the father, i.e., the king from having authority over the citizens, unlike the French Revolution, which killed the father, i.e., the king, we left him in tact in the home, protecting him, i.e., his private convictions, home, property, and business with the bill of rights), in essence (according to Karl Marx), "The King's horse is my horse," as two children in a garden in Eden, i.e., as "children of disobedience", proclaimed, in essence: "God's tree is our tree," as town councils today, using the consensus process to initiate and sustain policy, proclaim "Your property is our (my) property," saying in essence, "What we (I) see we (I) own," 'justifying' their praxis (socialist action) in the name of "building community," as Jean-Jacques Rousseau proclaimed: "[T]he fruits of the earth belongs to all of us [to me], and the earth itself to nobody [and no one has the right to restrain me]." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality)—thus whatever the facilitator of 'change' sees, and those following after him see, they own, i.e., they act as though they own it (as the children of today behave)—the Word of God says: "For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." (1 Corinthians 10:26), with God giving man "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26), with man behaving toward one another according to His will, "Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked." Exodus 23:7 (which describes what the facilitator of 'change and those who follow him, i.e., the "children of disobedience" do).
By starting with the child's carnal desires (individual-social issues, i.e., how the child "feels" and what he is "thinking" about in the 'moment, i.e., his "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment') as the focus of "discussion," making the child's "feelings" and "thoughts" (of the 'moment') the thesis—thus making the father's/Father's authority, i.e., his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth (of the "past") the antithesis, i.e., the source of conflict and tension—the antithesis (the father's/Father's authority) is negated in the outcome, synthesizing the child/man with his carnal nature, making him "at-one-with" that which is stimulating it, i.e., the world (thus making him subject to the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the manipulator of the environment, i.e., establishing how policy is, i.e., decisions are to be arrived at—not through the preaching of commands and rules to be obeyed and the teaching of facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, inhibiting or blocking 'change,' but through the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e., being "positive," i.e., "building relationship upon self interest" initiating and sustaining the process of 'change,' i.e., sustaining, i.e., supporting the facilitator of 'change' in the process). The facilitator of 'change's' tool of manipulation is his emphasis upon everyone being "positive," uniting the child with his carnal desires of the 'moment,' thereby uniting him with the situation, i.e., the world, i.e., "the group" which is stimulating them, negating the "negative," i.e., the father's/Father's authority which inhibits or blocks the child from being "of and for self," preventing the child from becoming "at-one-with" his carnal nature and the world ("the group").
In truth there is no synthesis, only the antithesis between the father's/Father's authority and the child's/man's carnal nature, with the father/Father directing the child/man, i.e., the child/man having fellowship with the father/Father (by the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ's perfect obedience to the Father, i.e., 'redeeming' us from the Father's wrath upon us for our sins, i.e., for our disobedience, covering our sins with His blood, shed at the cross, imputing His righteousness unto all who place their faith in Him, i.e., believe upon Him—denying their "self" daily, enduring the rejection of men, and following after Him in His obedience to His Heavenly Father, doing the Father's will—'reconciling' us to His Heavenly in His resurrection from the grave, that we might have fellowship with His Father and with Him, not only now, but throughout all eternity) or the child/man living a life of illusion (lie), thinking and acting as though he will not be held accountable for his carnal thoughts and carnal actions. "[E]very one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12 "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." Matthew 12:36
Instead of fighting against the father's/Father's authority, keeping the father's/Father's authority system in tact, Hegel's agenda was to negate the father's/Father's authority system in the child's/man's 'reasoning,' with the child 'reasoning' from his "feelings," i.e., from his carnal desires (along with others with the same carnal desires) of the 'moment' (instead of from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth), making the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth "irrational" in the "light" of his own understanding, i.e., according to his own experiences ("sense experiences"), therefore making the father's/Father's authority "irrelevant" in regard to his daily life, i.e., his daily decisions—needing no savior, repentance, or reconciliation with the father/Father in order to be "right," i.e., in order to become "righteous," being sufficient in (of and for) his "self," i.e., "righteous" in his own eyes—according to his carnal nature and the world stimulating it. While Karl Marx put Hegel's "scientific method," i.e., the dialectic process into social action, killing the fathers outright (leaving it still in tact in the individual) and Sigmund Freud put it into individual action, killing the father's/Father's authority in the individual's thoughts and actions (leaving it in tact in society), facilitators' of 'change,' i.e., "group psychotherapists" merged the two (Marx and Freud, society and the individual, i.e., "the group" and the student), killing the father's/Father's authority in the individual (in the student) as well as in society (in "the group") at the same time, as policy was being established through the consensus process and put into social action (praxis; what I call "diaprax"). "Human rights," i.e., the rights of the child (loving pleasure and hating restraint and the restrainer) negates inalienable rights, the rights of the father, i.e., private property, business, and convictions (with his/His children, having faith in him/Him, loving him/Him, doing right and not wrong according to his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth).
While dialectic 'reasoning' "reconciles" man to his carnal nature, the gospel reconciles him to his Heavenly Father. That has been the conflict and tension since the garden in Eden—where the master facilitator of 'change' came between the "children" and the "Father," "helping" them 'justify' their carnal nature, i.e., their carnal desires of the 'moment' over and therefore against the Father's commands, rules, fact, and truth, 'liberating' themselves from the Father's authority. Leave the father/Father out of the equation (the decisions you make today) and all you have is your "self," the world around you stimulating you, and the facilitator of 'change,' seducing, deceiving, and manipulating you (as natural resource) for his own pleasure and gain. While the father/Father persuades, the facilitator of 'change,' "group psychotherapist" manipulates. As far as I am concerned, I would rather be persuaded with the Father's facts and truth than manipulated by the master facilitator of 'change's' lies (which "seem to" be true, i.e., which make you "feel good" in the 'moment'). The "great psychotherapist," Carl Rogers, wrote: "The words 'seem to' are significant; it is the perception which functions in guiding behavior." "Experience is, for me, the highest authority." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) Where you spend eternity depends upon which one you turn to for direction. While the facilitator of 'change' motivates you into living in the "eternal present," i.e., what "seems to" be right to you in the 'moment,' he is, in the end, leading you down the pathway of eternal death. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25
Moving communication away from the preaching of the father's/Father's commands and rules to be obeyed as given, and the teaching of his/His facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith), with the discussion of them being subject to the father's/Father's discretion ("old school"), to the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus ("new world order school"), moves the establishment of policy away from the father's/Father's authority, toward the carnal nature of the child, 'liberating' both the child and society (all children—including those in adult bodies) from the father's/Father's authority, negating the father's/Father's authority (in the thoughts and actions of the children and society) in the process. It is the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning being used in the classroom to determine right from wrong behavior ("life choices"). Deductive reasoning is in essence the child evaluating his "self" and the world around him from the father/Father perspective, i.e., from what the father/Father brings into the room—doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, with obedience being "good" and disobedience being "bad"—inhibiting or blocking the process of 'change.' Inductive reasoning is, on the other hand, the child evaluating (aufheben) his "self" and the world around him, including the father/Father himself, from his own perspective, i.e., from what he (the child) brings into the room—his own life experience of approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, with pleasure being "good" and its restraint being "bad"—initiating and sustaining the process of 'change.' The latter (inductive reasoning) is the bases of Hegel's, Marx's, Freud's dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' synthesizing the child's carnal nature with the world around him, making all subject to their carnal nature (their natural desire for pleasure of the 'moment' and their natural dissatisfaction with restraint—inhibiting or blocking them from "enjoying" it) and the world around them which stimulates pleasure within them—'liberating' their "self" from the father's/Father's "do right and not wrong" authority system, negating their having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, so they can be "of and for self" only, i.e., so they can sin with impunity.
As the Transformational Marxist (Marxist's who merge Karl Marx, i.e., "the group," i.e., society with Sigmund Freud, i.e., psychology, i.e., the individual, creating "group psychotherapy") Theodor Adorno explained it: "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." "Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them." "Authoritarian submission was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." "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." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) According to the 'logic' of Transformational Marxists, the "problem" is the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "authoritarianism" which engenders "prejudice," i.e., "right-wrong" thinking and acting, engendering Nationalism (Isolationism), i.e., "Us vs. them," i.e., "lander-ausländer" (ingroup-outgroup), which (when globalists, i.e., Transformational Marxists attempt to negate the father's/Father's authority in order to overcome Nationalism, the fathers turn to government to protect their authority, which then) engenders Fascism, i.e., totalitarianism, inhibiting or blocking Globalism, i.e., worldly peace and socialist harmony. Transformational Marxist, i.e., "group psychotherapist" 'logic' is: if the father's/Father's authority is created by children, abdicating their carnal nature to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (going against their carnal nature in order to do the father's/Father's will—as Karl Marx explained it: "The life which he [the child] has given to the object [to the father] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." Karl Marx, MEGA I/3, pp. 83-84), then 'liberating' the children's mind and actions ("theory and practice") from the father's/Father's authority in the classroom (cafés), i.e., "helping" the children, i.e., the next generation of citizens "transcend" their parents customs, traditions, boarders, differences, beliefs, etc., negates, in the mind and actions of the children, the father's/Father's authority in the home, negating, in the mind and actions of the children, the father's/Father's authority in "society," 'liberating' the children and all of "society" from "the fear of God," i.e., from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying the father/Father—so that all can sin with impunity. i.e., be human, i.e., be "of and for self" and the world only, instead.
Abraham Maslow's response toward the "authoritarian" reveals the underlying contempt (hatred) Transformational Marxist's, i.e., social-psychologists, i.e., "group psychotherapists—seducers, deceivers, and manipulators of children, men, and women," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., "children of disobedience" have toward what they call "authoritarians," i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority and those who, as the Lord Jesus Christ, do the father's/Father's will "in all things commanded"—holding onto their faith (belief) in the father/Father, his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth, and his/His authority, refusing to become at-one-with the world around them. "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, Maslow on Management) "Yet nakedness is absolutely right. So is the attack on antieroticism, the Christian & Jewish foundations. Must move in the direction of the Reichian orgasm." "I must put as much of this as is possible & usable in my education book, & more & more in succeeding writings." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of A.H. Maslow)
Kurt Lewin, in typical social-psychological, i.e., "group psychotherapy," i.e., Transformational Marxist language, explained the "problem"—regarding the child's faith in the father's/Father's authority, i.e., "authoritarianism"—and its solution: "The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult." In other words, the guilty conscience is the result of the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, along with his/His threat of chastening/punishment/judgment for disobeying/sinning, preventing the child/man from enjoying the carnal (natural) pleasures of the 'moment' he desires, i.e., preventing him from being "normal." According to Lewin, if we start with (communicate with) the father's/Father's "can not," "must not," "Because I said so," "Thou shalt not," "It is written," "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceedeth from the mouth of God," (Matthew 4:4), i.e., commands, rules, facts, and truth, along with his/His authority to chasten/punish/judge (typical of the traditional classroom) the guilty conscience (the father's/Father's authority in the thoughts and therefore the actions of the child) is sustained, inhibiting or blocking the child from being "normal," i.e., preventing him from being his "self' when he is apart from the father/Father being tempted to do what he wants to do, when he wants to do it, i.e., in the 'moment,' along with others. But, according to Kurt Lewin, if we start with the child's/man's "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e., introduce the "affective domain" ("Pandora's box," see Bloom's Taxonomies) into the child's classroom experience, i.e. allowing him through dialogue to freely share his opinion—with no fear of being chastened or being cast out for sharing his feelings and thoughts of the 'moment,' 'liberating' his feelings and thoughts from the father's/Father's authority (the child will instead be pressured, i.e., bullied by or cast out of "the group," i.e., rejected by "the group" if he persists in holding to the father's/Father's authority, preaching the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth to "the group," refusing to suspend truth, as on a cross, in order to become at-one-with, i.e., create peace and harmony within "the group")—the "negative valance," i.e. the "guilty conscience" for disobeying the father/Father or for doing things wrong is negated, "freeing" the child to be his "self," i.e., of (and for) the world only, 'liberating' society from the father's/Father's authority in the process, i.e., engendering "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité. "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers) According to Kurt Lewin, it is in the child's desire for, i.e., his thinking about the "forbidden object," which is antithetical to the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (the thesis) that dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' resides, with synthesis (between the child and his carnal desires of the 'moment') becoming the resolution to the conflict and tension (the antithesis) between the father's/Father's authority and the child's carnal nature, the child's ability to 'justify' his carnal desires (that which is of and for nature, i.e., "self" only) as being "reasonable," i.e., "rational" and therefore "normal," negating the father's authority, making the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (the original thesis) "unreasonable," i.e., "irrational" and therefore "abnormal," making the father's authority (or anything that stands between the child and his nature, i.e., his carnal desires of the 'moment') "irrelevant," i.e., of no value in an ever 'changing' world (where the child, stimulated by the world before him, responds according to his carnal nature, i.e., according to his carnal desires of the 'moment,' only , instead)—what "values clarification" and "situation ethics" were, and still are, all about.
It is the child's "desire" for the "forbidden object"—that the child keeps to his "self," dialoguing only with his "self" about (out of fear of the "field of force of and adult," not sharing it with anybody else)—that is of interest to the "group psychotherapist," i.e., to the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., to the Transformational Marxist. "The individual may have 'secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it. To gain access is particularly important, for precisely here may lie the individual's potential for democratic ... thought and action in crucial situations." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) Without gaining access to the child's "secrete thoughts," i.e., his "private convictions," in order for him to participate in the process of 'change,' he will remain loyal to the father's/Father's authority, inhibiting or blocking the process of 'change.' The objective is, therefore, to the 'liberate' the child's "secret thoughts" (in order to negate his "private convictions") in the classroom, initiating and sustaining 'change' not only in the classroom, but in the home, in the workplace, in government, and even in the "church" in the process, turning both children and adults against those who, holding onto the father's/Father's authority system, inhabit or block the process of 'change,' especially when it affects public policy, i.e., society. "We must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)
The "group" experience ("group dynamics") is an essential element in the process of 'change,' with the child's desire for approval, i.e., for affirmation by the group 'changing' how he thinks and acts, especially when "the group's" goal is to achieve consensus (a "feeling" of "oneness"). "Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [their belief, i.e., their faith (trust) in authority, be it in their parent's, their teacher's, their boss's, their leader(s), or God's authority] in the face of apparent group unanimity [especially when "the group," excluding (rejecting) him (because of his "ridged," i.e., "prejudiced," i.e., unadaptable to 'change' father's/Father's position), is heading down the road, hand in hand with his carnal desire of the 'moment,' "enjoying" it without him]." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) "The individual is emancipated in the social group." "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants could the sense of guilt be assuaged." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) By simply moving the classroom away from the preaching and teaching (and discussion, at the teachers discretion) of commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as is (indicative of the father's/Father's authority) to where the students are free to dialogue their opinions (how they themselves are "feeling" in the 'moment' in the "light" of the current situation, i.e., what they are thinking about in the 'moment' regarding personal/individual-social issues—the social issues or crises of the times being authoritarian leadership, i.e., nationalism oppressing "the people," associated to children being oppressed by their parents, i.e., the father's/Father's "top-down," "do what I say, or else" authority system, needing 'liberation' from "authoritarianism," i.e., needing democracy in order to be their "self") to a consensus, initiates and sustains the deed. In the scriptures, the Kingdom of God is advanced by the preaching of the gospel, not through dialogue, i.e., children/men and women finding common group with one another based upon their common carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment.'
The classroom environment (curriculum), i.e., how the teacher and the students relate (communicate) with one another initiates and sustains, i.e., engenders the outcome. "[Kurt] Lewin emphasized that the child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group." (Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education) For example: a group dialoging their opinion, i.e., their "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' regarding the Word of God, basing their interpretation of it upon their own "sense experience," questioning and challenging it when it does not "make sense" to them, i.e., when it conflicts with their "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment,' i.e., "sense experience" (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3), produces a different outcome, i.e., a different way of thinking and acting than a group hearing the Word of God preached and taught, accepting it as is (by faith), submitting ("humbling") their "self" to the father's/Father's authority (Hebrews 12:5-11). The law (of God the Father) which is perfect, reveals to man that he is not perfect, who is to be perfect ("Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48; "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:17) needing a savior (Romans 7:14-25). In dialogue, i.e., "self" 'justification,' law (external to man's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature") is negated, 'liberating' the child/man from his need of a savior, having saved his "self" instead, actualizing his "self" ("self-actualization")—with the "help" of a facilitator of 'change'—from the law and the law maker, i.e. from God the Father, 'liberating' his "self" from the father's/Father's authority (Genesis 3:1-6). Immanuel Kant's "lawfulness without law," i.e., the law of nature without the law of God, i.e., the law of the child's/man's carnal nature without the law of the father/Father restraining it, sums up the child's classroom experience, where he, dialoguing his opinion with the rest of the class, to a consensus, 'liberates' his "self," along with the rest of the class, from his parent's and/or God's restraints, from then on finding his "purpose" in life, i.e., Kant's "purposiveness without purpose," 'liberating' others ("Self") from the father's/Father's authority system as well, ' creating a "new" world order "of and for Self" only—with everyone, through dialogue, seeing their "self" in each other, becoming as one in the process. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment) "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves [your "self," i.e., "human nature"] before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men["human nature"] is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15
All of philosophy, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc., i.e., contemporary education, i.e., "group psychotherapy" (the "group grade") is based upon "resolving" this conflict between "self" and the laws restraining it, i.e., between the children and their parents, i.e., between the child/man and the father's/Father's authority, i.e., between man and God (in the home and in society). They are all based upon the child "thinking" about how the world "is" (subject to the father's/Father's authority), how it "ought" to be (subject to his "felt needs," i.e., his carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment), and how it "can" be (if he, along with all the children of the world—all having the same desire for the pleasures of the 'moment,' and dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., being equal in nature—united their "self" as one, 'liberating' their "self" from the father's/Father's authority, negating the father's/Father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, in their relationship with one another, and in the world in the process). As Abraham Maslow explained it: "We have to study the conditions which maximize ought-["self interest"] perceptiveness." "Oughtiness is itself a fact to be perceived." "If we wish to permit the facts [our "feelings" of the 'moment' and the world stimulating them] to tell us their oughtiness, we must learn to listen to them in a very specific way which can be called Taoistic." "Here the fusion comes not so much from an improvement of actuality, the is, [the child/man getting what he wants only, making the world subject to his "self" only] but from a scaling down of the ought, from a redefining of expectations so that they come closer and closer to actuality [closer to what "the group" needs (to how "the group" feels and thinks), i.e., to what society needs] and therefore to attainability." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature)
By 'liberating' the children's/man's "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment," i.e., what the children/men are "coveting" in the 'moment,' from the father's/Father's threat of chastening (for disobedience) or wrath (for defiance to his/His authority), the children/men are 'liberated' (in their mind, i.e., in their dialogue with their "self") from the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (in the "group grade" classroom/in the consensus meeting), so they can be "of and for self," i.e., "of and for" that which is of the world (sensuous) only, instead, i.e., subject to the facilitator of 'change's' seduction, deception ("feigned words," i.e., doublespeak, saying "It is not about you" when it is really all "about him," i.e., what he wants to gain from the "situation" for his "self"; when he says what he is doing is "For the sake of the people'" he really means "For is own 'self's' sake"), and manipulation (turning you into "merchandise," i.e., "human resource" for his, and his fellow facilitators of 'change,' own financial gain, i.e., carnal pleasures) instead. "And through covetousness [wanting what is not yours, that which belongs to someone else, i.e., that you are told you are not to have] shall they with feigned words [doublespeak, i.e., Gr. "plastic words"] make merchandise of you ;" 2 Peter 2:22 "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 The Apostle Paul warned Timothy to avoid this process, i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus, i.e., Hegel's so called "scientific method" of men "justifying' their 'self' before men": "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions [Gr, antithesis] of science falsely so called:" 1 Timothy 6:20
As the students dialogue their opinion with one another to a consensus, they overcome (negate in their thoughts and actions, as well as in the thoughts and actions of the facilitator of 'change') the father's/Father's "Because I said so," "It is written" (preaching), which cut off their "Why?" (their attempt to get the father/Father into dialogue), i.e., their effort to overcome the father's/Father's commands and rules (authority) which got in the way of their carnal desires of the 'moment,' in the "past." By student's being allowed to finish their dialogue (their "Why?") with one another (since the father would not "cooperate") they are able to 'justify' themselves, i.e., 'justify' their carnal desires of the 'moment' with one another, negating the father's/Father's authority system (the threat of chastisement/judgment/damnation and therefore the "guilty conscience" for disobedience/defiance to the father/Father and his/His authority) in their thoughts and actions in the process, going home, i.e., living life with a new frame of mind—instead of obeying their parents, i.e., the father/Father (and therefore missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment' in order to do what they are told to do by their parents) they question, challenge, disregard, defying, and attack their parent's/God's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's authority instead, especially when it gets in the way of their carnal desires of the 'moment.' "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices [in the classroom] are producing between parents and children [when the children get home]." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 2: Affective Domain, p. 83) You do not have to attack the parents, i.e., their authority, in the classroom, 'liberate' the children's carnal desires (thoughts) of the 'moment' in the classroom, with "group approval," i.e., affirmation (consensus) and they will do that when they get home.
Even though the parents, i.e., the father is not perfect, they/he may be a downright tyrant (the office is given to them/him by the Father to serve Him in, who is perfect), there is a price to pay when you negate the father's/Father's authority, i.e., when you 'liberate' the child from the father's/Father's authority system. Hegel, sounding more like Karl Marx than Karl Marx himself (who was not yet born), stated: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [their common "lust" for the pleasures of the world, including (and especially) their desire for approval from one another (affirmation)], where there is no antithesis [no "top-down," "right-wrong, "Mine, not yours" way of thinking and acting] of person to person or of subject to object, the surplus is not the property of one of them, since their indifference is not a formal or a legal one." (Hegel, System) When the child's nature ("human nature") becomes the foundation for "rights," private property, private business, inalienable rights, all fade away, with those in authority (children in adult bodies) having no guilty conscience in how they respond (what they do) to those who do not "co-operate," i.e., who make them "feel" bad, i.e., who get in their way—preventing them from having their way, i.e., enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment.' Capitalists, i.e., those who capitulate to authority—as a child capitulates the pleasures of the 'moment' in order to obey his parent's, doing their will instead of his, doing his best, as unto the Lord, being rewarded and rewarding others for doing good work, i.e., for doing "right and not wrong" (morality and competence being of issue)—mind their own business, recognizing, respecting, honoring, and protecting other peoples right of property, while Communists, i.e., the children of the world (of disobedience), i.e., those "of and for self"—as children insisting that whatever others say to them and do to them makes them "feel good," even when their work is done "badly," i.e., done wrong, being rewarded and rewarding others for bad work, even for not working (the way others think and act being of issue)—make everybody's business their business, thinking (and behaving as though) everything they see (everybody's property) is their property (describing most town councils and government departments, agencies, and institutions today).
The scriptures warn us: "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 "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken." Jeremiah 6:16, 17 "... and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death." Mark 13:12 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:3, 4 "From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts." James 4:1-3 When children, loving the toys their parent's buy them more than their parent's, no longer receive toys from their parent's, because of their (the children's) bad behavior, the government steps in making the parent's buy them toys or purchases them for them (with the parent's tax dollars)—'justifying'' the children's disrespect toward their parent's authority in the process.
Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud set out to use the conflict between the child's nature, i.e., the child's natural desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment, i.e., that which is of the world and his (or her) natural resentment toward the father's/Father's restraints (which all children have in common—the basis of "common-ism" AKA Communism), and the father's authority, i.e., directing the child's steps, teaching him to do right and not wrong according to his/His commands, rules, facts, and truth (which, according to Transformational Marxists, i.e., "group psychotherapists," divides the child from his own nature, "repressing" him, "alienating" him not only from his own "self" but from the other children of the world as well [engendering individualism, under God, i.e., associated with nationalism, i.e., "Us vs. them," leading to Fascism], preventing him from finding ('discovering') common ground, i.e., common-ism with the world [globalism, i.e., "We working for us"] in the process—"The dialectical method [globalism] was overthrown―the parts [the children] were prevented [by the father's/Father's authority] from finding their definition within the whole [within their nature and the world]." György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness; What is Orthodox Marxism?) in order to negating the father's/Father's authority, thus allowing the children to become as one, i.e., "of and for self," uniting their "self" as one through the dialoguing of their opinions i.e., their feelings and thoughts, i.e., their carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' 'discovering' common ground, i.e., synthesis (consensus), 'creating' a "new' world order based upon their nature, i.e., the child's nature, i.e., "human nature" only, negating the "old" world order of the father's/Father's "top-down," "do right and not wrong, according to my will, or else" authority system in the process. As Abraham Maslow explained it: "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 Further Reaches of Human Nature) "Marxian theory ["the group"] needs Freudian-type instinct theory [the child's carnal nature] to round it out. And of course, vice versa." "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." [Since the 'drive' of "the group" is the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's love of pleasure (including affirmation) and his hate of restraint, the 'purpose' of "the group," as well as the individual, becomes the augmentation of the child's carnal nature, i.e., the "lust" for pleasure and hate of the father's/Father's authority, with the 'purpose' of life being the 'liberation' of "human nature" from the father's/Father's authority—at all cast, i.e., costing "much blood."] "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 & metaneed centered (or based), moving toward basic-need gratification & metaneed metagratification—that is, toward full-humanness, SA, psychological health, full-functioning human fulfillment, i.e., toward human perfection as the limit & as the direction [making the limits and measure of life the pleasures of the 'moment' instead of doing right and not wrong according to established standards of the "past"]." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of A.H. Maslow)
In essence Karl Marx lies within your child (as well as in you, your spouse, your friends, you neighbors, your educators, your boss, your legislators, your judges, your minister, etc.,) revealing his "self" when he can not have his way, wanting to be 'liberated' from the father's/Father's restraints—doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth—so that he can do what he wants to do, when he wants to do it—"Now!" He is your child dialoguing with (within) his (or her) "self," regarding his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (that which is of the world) and his dissatisfaction with (resentment /hatred toward) restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority, needing a "savior," i.e., a facilitator of 'change' (Genesis 3:1-6) to come along and rescue him, i.e., "help" him 'liberate' him ("Self"), i.e., the Karl Marx in him, from the father's/Father's "top-down," "do right-not wrong," "preaching-teaching," "obey or else" authority system (Hebrews 12:5-11), negating the guilty conscience for doing wrong/for sinning (Romans 7:14-25), i.e., for disobeying the father/Father, i.e., for questioning, challenging, disregarding defying, attacking, and removing the father/Father and his/His authority (as well as those submitting their "self" to him/Him, propagating his/His way of thinking and acting) in the process.
"It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately." "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Bennie, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) When you dialogue with others, what you are dialoguing (murmuring) with your "self" about, i.e., your "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment'—thinking about how the world "is," subject to the father's/Father's authority, with you, having to do his will, missing out on the pleasures of the 'moment,' how it "ought" to be, with you being able to do what you want to do, when you want to do it, and how it "can" be, "of and for "self," if/when it is 'liberated from the father's/Father's authority—'justifying' your "self," i.e., your carnal desires of the 'moment' and your dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., your resentment or hatred toward the father's/Father's authority, you are revealing what you have in common with them (the world) and what they have (the world has) in common with you—the carnal nature of the child, i.e., "human nature," i.e., "self" 'justification.' In that 'moment' of consensus ("feeling" of "oneness" that results from setting aside that which divides—"doing right and not wrong" according to the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth—suspending the truth, as on a cross, in order to "build relationship" with others, i.e., in order to initiate and sustain "common ground," i.e., "common-ism" with them and the world—with you seeing your "self," i.e., Karl Marx in them and them seeing their "self," i.e., Karl Marx in you), you and they are in essence 'justifying' (affirming) the Karl Marx in each other, "building relationship" upon "Self interest,'" i.e., upon your and their deceitful and wicked heart, in praxis negating godly restraint (the Father's authority) in the marriage (in the parents), in the home (in the children), in education (in the teachers), in the neighborhood (in "the people"), in the workplace (in the boss), in government (in the legislators, judges, and leaders), in the world, and even in the "church" (in the minister, elders, deacons, and members). When you 'justify' your "self" you no longer need a savior—the Karl Marx in you 'liberating' you from any fear of God, i.e., judgment and wrath, i.e., damnation for your sin's, i.e., for being "human." When you do it ('justify' your "self") in "the group," i.e., "before men," i.e., when you receive "the group's" approval, i.e., affirmation for being "normal," i.e., for being carnal, i.e., for being of the world only, the leader of "the group," i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the "group psychotherapist," i.e., the seducer, deceiver, and manipulator of children, men, and women becomes your new "savior" (referred to as "big brother"), engendering a "new" world order 'created' in his image, i.e., "of and for self," i.e., "of and for the children of disobedience," i.e., "of and for human nature," i.e., of and for the world only, instead.
"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life ["human nature"], is not of the Father, but is of the world." "If any man love the world ["human nature," the children loving the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—which are stimulated by the world around them—hating anyone who gets in their way, i.e., inhibiting or blocking them from enjoying the carnal pleasure's of the 'moment,' and the world that is stimulating them], the love of the Father [loving the children, not what they are doing that is wrong, chastening them when they do wrong, that they might do what is right (righteousness)] is not in him." 1 John 2:16, 15. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 ["Deceitful" in that you, by nature, establish your heart's carnal desires, i.e., the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' as the standard for "good" and therefore "wicked," since you, by nature, establish that which inhibits or blocks you from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., the father's/Father's authority as being "evil."] "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves ["human nature"] before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men["human nature"] is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15
The essence of Marxism is in the nature of the child, i.e., in their love of the world—the pleasures that are stimulated by the world—and their resentment/hatred toward restraint, i.e., toward the father's/Father's authority. How the child respond to the world around them—what they see that is not theirs (that stimulates pleasure in them), with them either thinking and acting as though they own it, i.e., coveting and "taking ownership" of it, or recognizing it as not being theirs, i.e., belonging to someone else, respecting, honoring, and protecting their, i.e., the other child's (persons) ownership of it—and how they respond to the father's/Father's authority—recognizing, respecting, and honoring it or questioning, challenging, defying, and/or attacking it—reveals where they are in regard to either embracing or rejecting Marxism. The question is, are your children Marxists (or becoming Marxist). How they respond to your authority reveals the answer. The next question is, Are you a Marxist? How you respond to your children reveals the answer.
The Marxist agenda for America, from the 50's on, was to "use social-environmental forces to change the parent's behavior toward the child." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality) It appears to have worked. The reason America has become a Marxist nation (including the "Church") is because its citizens (leadership and members) are 'justifying' their "self," i.e., "esteeming" their "self," i.e., in consensus doing what they want to do, when they want to do it—letting someone come between them and their children, rescuing them from their authority, i.e., letting someone come between their "self" and the Father, rescuing their "self" from the Father's authority—instead of humbling their "self," denying their "self," 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 call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 While Jesus Christ (by his death on the cross covering our sins by His blood, imputing his righteousness to us according to our faith in Him) came to 'redeem' us from His Heavenly Father's wrath upon us (damnation) for our sins, i.e., for our love of "self," i.e., "human nature" and the world, He also came, and was raised from the grave, to 'reconcile' us to His Heavenly Father—that we might have fellowship with His Heavenly Father, as well as with Him. "[A]nd truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 1:3 All fellowshipping (between believers) stems from their fellowshipping "with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ" first and foremost—otherwise their "fellowshipping" is apostasy. Placing anything (including the "church") or anyone (including your "self," i.e., your carnal desires of the 'moment' and your dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e., the Karl Marx in you) between you and the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, cuts off the fellowship. That is why you must die to your "self" (refuse to 'justify' your "self," thereby putting Karl Marx in his place) daily, endure the rejection of others, i.e., "the group" (for your not 'justifying,' i.e., affirming, i.e., esteeming the Karl Marx in them) and, following after the Son, Jesus Christ, do His and your Heavenly Father's will. "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
The fellowshipping of believers is called ἐκκλησία, i.e., the "called out ones" for a reason: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 Fellowshipping with believers and "building relationship" (which is of "self" and the world) are not the same thing. When your "fellowship" "builds relationship" with that which is of the world, in order to "grow itself," it's members (and leaders) are no longer fellowshipping "with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." When you are silent in the midst of unrighteousness, not reproving, correcting, and/or rebuking it (as according to the Word of God), in order to "get along," i.e., in order to "build relationship," unrighteousness becomes the norm. "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 True believers can handle the chastening (by the Word being preached as is—untainted by man's "wisdom," i.e., men's opinions—and the work of the Holy Spirit, bringing them under conviction), repenting of their sins, while those "of and for self," i.e., of the world can not, leaving (refusing to repent), therefore no longer supporting the minister and the building project. Instead. believers are leaving (being excommunicated without writ), i.e., coming out of her, because the "fellowship," i.e., the "church" is growing itself upon the "building of relationships," i.e., according to its will, instead of the Lord adding to it, according to His. It is not that believers have forsaken the "assembly," it is that the "assembly" has forsaken "the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."
When the dialoguing of opinions ("feelings" regarding personal-social, i.e., self-relationship issues) to a consensus (affirming that which is of nature, i.e., of the world only, i.e., material and therefore manipulatable) came into the fellowship (making God's Word subject to man's opinion, i.e., to man's feelings and thoughts of the 'moment' instead of man being held accountable to it, i.e., to the Father's, and His Son's authority) it became a "church" (an institution of and for the state, i.e., of and for the world), i.e., subject to your feelings (carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment') and thoughts (opinion), i.e., subject to the Karl Marx in you. Instead of Karl Marx fighting against the "church," covered with the cloak of psychology he joined it instead, 'changing' it from the inside out through your and others feelings and thoughts of the 'moment,' seeking peace and unity, i.e., consensus, i.e., affirmation, making it subject to "human nature." Karl Marx wrote of your nature, the same nature as the woman's in the garden in Eden: "Sense experience ["human nature"] must be the basis of all science ["Reasoning"]." "Science ["Reasoning"] is only genuine science ["Reasoning"] when it proceeds from sense experience ["human nature"], in the two forms of sense perception [what the woman saw in the garden in Eden, i.e., what you see (or imagine) in the world around you] and sensuous need [what she desired in the 'moment,' i.e., what you desire in the 'moment'], that is, only when it proceeds from Nature [from her "self," i.e., from her carnal desires of the 'moment' and the garden which stimulated them, i.e., from your "self," i.e., from your carnal desires of the 'moment' and the world around you which is simulating them]." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [the child under the parent's, teacher's, boss's, ... God's authority, being personally held accountable to them/Him] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society ['compromising' for the sake of affirmation] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority] and individuality [to do what they want to do, when they want to do it, without having a guilty conscience] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx) The praxis of consensus (affirmation, i.e., the 'justification' of "human nature" over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority) is the manifestation of Marxism ("Self" 'justification'), even in the "church." When it rejects, i.e., negates the father's/Father's authority, all that it has left to work with is "Self," making the "drive" and "purpose" of life "of and for Self," i.e., of and for the Karl Marx in all children, men, and women. As the Marxist Jürgen Habermas explained it: "If the 'restoring of life' of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation [where children, men, and women have faith in and obey the Father, doing the Father's will, becoming individuals, accountable to Him alone], then Marx [with children, men, and women 'justifying' their "self," uniting as one according to their common carnal nature] must collapse into a bottomless abyss [be cast into the lake of fire that is never quenched]." (Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice) After all, as the Marxists know, all of life is about the father's/Father's authority and the carnal nature of the child, with them trying to convince you (and your children, your spouse, your friends, etc.,) into choosing the nature of the child, i.e., the pleasures of the 'moment' of this life over and therefore against the Father's authority, disregarding (not carrying a bit about) where you (your children, your spouse, your friends, etc.,) will spend eternity in the next. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 1997-2022
