An Example of the Use of the Dialectic Argument Against

[tulsa 2011]

An Example of the Use of the Dialectic Argument Against Scripture

What is the dialectic? It is something that is not easy to understand
when the concept is new to a person.


In the dialectic as seen by Hegel, there is first the thesis and then
its opposition, the anti-thesis, and finally the synthesis.


This opposition can be seen also as absolute truth or absolute
morality being the thesis, and emotional attachments to relationships
the anti-thesis. The synthesis in Transformational Marxism is a
victory for feelings, for relationships over absolute truth and
absolute morality.


The absolute truth given to us in scripture by God the Holy Spirit is
fact. But facts, as the thesis in a debate, can threaten people's
relationships. And people have strong feelings about their
relationships. Many Christians have strong feelings toward their
churches, their pastors and priests, and have loved ones in their
congregations.


When truth conflicts with feelings, the feelings are the anti-thesis.
Among the movements within American psychology of the fifties and
sixties that the Transformational Marxism led by the professors of the
German Frankfurt School made use of was the self psychology of Carl R.
Rogers and A.H. Maslow. Carl Rogers taught that feelings are most
important, and are more important than knowing or cognitive
competence. Rogers always referred his clients back to "what do you
feel?"


When the feelings of relationships with theologies, with
denominations, churches and people in these structures conflict with
the facts of scripture, then the dialectic process of argument against
the facts often begins.


Here is an example of a possible use of the dialectic to argue against
some of Paul's doctrines as part of his revelation given him by the
risen Christ (Acts 26: 15-18).


John Darby, the father of the man made theology called
dispensationalism, said that the
"Church has sought to settle itself here, but it has no place on the
earth... [Though] making a most constructive parenthesis, it forms no
part of the regular order of God's earthly plans, but is merely an
interruption of them to give a fuller character and meaning to
them..."

John. N. Darby, 'The Character of Office in The Present Dispensation'
Collected Writings., Eccl. I, Vol. I, p. 94.


"Them" are all physical Israel. The church, for Darby exists to "give
fuller character and meaning to all physical Israel." Darby, known as
the Father of dispensationalism, thought that the purpose of the
Christian church, the ekklesia as a meeting, assembly or congregation
of Israel reborn in Christ, the Israel of God, made into The Body of
Christ like the Catholic capital C Church, was to honor all physical
Israel. The dispensationalists say that God's people the Jews are
earthy. They are involved in physical and literal things, like the
blood sacrifice of animals, a literal bloodline from Abraham,
circumcision, and a physical temple building.


Lewis S. Chafer, follower of C.I. Scofield and founder of Dallas
Theological Seminary, insists that dispensationalism: "... has
changed the Bible from being a mass of more or less conflicting
writings into a classified and easily assimilated revelation of both
the earthly and heavenly purposes of God, which reach on into eternity
to come.."
Lewis. S. Chafer, ‘Dispensationalism,’ Bibliotheca Sacra, 93 (October
1936), 410, 416, 446-447


So, Chafer tells us that the man made theology called
dispensationalism made scripture into an "easily assimilated" system.
And since this man made theology is easier to understand and remember
than the complexity of scripture, with some disagreements between
teachings under thd Old Covenant with doctrines in the New Testament.
But in simplifying the doctrines of scripture, John Darby, C.I.
Scofield and Lewis S. Chafer themselves decided that physical Israel
remains God's chosen people, a man made doctrine that does not accept
or understand the transformation of physical Israel into an Israel
reborn in Jesus Christ (John 3: 1-7).


Charles Ryrie writes in his book, Dispensationalism Today (Moody,
1965, pp. 44, 45):
"The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is
pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly
people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the
other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly
objectives involved, which is Christianity’ . . . This is probably the
most basic theological test of whether or not a man is a
dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and
conclusive. A man who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church will
inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctives; and the one who
does, will."


J. Dwight Pentecost is another dispensationalist theologian who in his
book Things To Come ( 1965) says "The church
and Israel are two distinct groups with whom God has a divine plan.
The church is a mystery, unrevealed in the Old Testament. This mystery
program must be completed before God can resume His program with
Israel and bring it to completion. These considerations all arise from
a literal method of interpretation."
(page 193, J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come, Zondervan, 1965).


Charles C. Ryrie (born 1925) says:
"basic promise of Dispensationalism is two purposes of God expressed
in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction
throughout eternity." Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today,
1966, pp.44-45.
In his book, Dispensationalism (1966), Charles Ryrie says "The
essence of Dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel
and the church."
(page 3, "Dispensationalism")


"The nature of the church is a crucial point of difference between
classic, or normative, dispensationalism and other doctrinal systems.
Indeed, ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the church, is the touchstone
of dispensationalism(and also of pretribulationalism)."
(page 123, Charles Ryrie Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press,
[1966], 1995)


In classical dispensationalism God has two groups of people, all
physical Israel, who
remain the chosen people, and the ekklesia, the meeting, the assembly,
which William Tyndale
consistently translated as congregation, and not as church.


The classical dispensationalists - John Darby, C.I. Scofield, and Lewis
S. Chafer - insist that "Israel" in scripture
always means physical Israel, the literal descendants of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob. Israel, for the dispensationalists cannot mean anything other
than all physical
Israel. And the dispensationalists do not separate the remnant of
physical Israel,
which Hebrews 11 identifies as being a small number who had faith,
from the various forms
of false doctrines and false practices of physical Israel, including
Talmudic Judaism, and the religion of the Pharisees of Christ's time.


Suppose that a Christian who wants to follow scripture instead of man
made theology points out that Jesus Christ in John 10: 16, teaches as
fact that "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them
also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be
one fold and one shepherd."


The Christian who has a love for the truth of God's word instead of
man made theology might also cite Paul in Romans 12: 4, I Corinthians
10: 17, Galatians 3: 28, Ephesians 2: 14-16, and Ephesians 4: 4 all of
which say there is one Body of Christ, not two.


For example, Paul in Romans 12; 4 says "For as we have many members in
one body, and all members have not the same office:" And "There is
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is
neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Galatians 3: 28


"For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the
middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh
the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for
to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross,
having slain the enmity thereby:" Ephesians 2: 14-16


And in Ephesians 4: 4 Paul says "There is one body, and one Spirit,
even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;"


Here is where the dialectic may begin as an argument against the facts
of scripture and "it is written," in order to defend the man made
theology and its follower's feeling relationship with that theology.


The defender of the theology of John Darby, C.I. Scofield and Lewis S.
Chafer will say that God is going to save physical Israel in the
future, and then there will be one fold, and one Body of Christ. The
defender of the theology may or may not cite scripture which he thinks
proves that God will save physical Israel in the future.

And - many times, or almost always the person who defends man made theology
against scripture comes in through a side door and not through the main door. That is,
he side steps a frontal argument against a particular scripture or set of scriptures, and
instead comes against the scripture from the side.

I have an audio of a 2012 interview on an Internet site with Dave MacPhearson on the origin of the pre-trabulation rapture theory. In the interview MacPhearson outlines the history of dispensationalism from Margaret Macdonald, to Edward Irving, on to John Darby, through Darby's several trips to the U.S. and Canada promoting the theology, then to the takeover by the dispensationalists of the Niagra Bible Conference (1876-1897), and finally to C.S. Scofield and his 1909 Reference Bible, published by Oxford University Press.

The 2012 MacPhearson interview is not archived, but go to Google and type in "PRETRIB RAPTURE DISHONESTY by DAVE MACPHERSON." In the introduction MacPhearson writes that "When I began my research in 1970 into the exact beginnings of the pretribulation rapture belief still held by many evangelicals, I assumed that the rapture debate involved only "godly scholars with honest differences." The paper you are now reading reveals why I gave up that assumption many years ago. With this introduction-of-sorts in mind, let's take a long look at the pervasive dishonesty throughout the history of the 179-year-old pretrib rapture theory:"

 

[lawrenceb]

I am in the midst of a "discussion" with another, at another place, over this very issue i.e. the false doctrine of dispensationalism and its origin. May I appropriate, with credit given to tulsa 2011, your most edifying post above?

 

[DutchChristian]

Take heed not to be deceived by This LIE called: Dispensationalism!

it is of the wicked one! It is PURE EVIL! devilish and wicked false corrupt doctrine! Dispensationalism tries to let you cut the Bible into several seperate pieces in your understanding and so you will be cut in pieces together with it being drawn away from The Truth!

FLEE!!!! from dispensationalism! It is ERROR!

if you believe in dispensationalism do not be so stubborn and repent of it immediately!

Again i say REPENT IMMEDIATELY! it is a cursed thing to believe in dispensationalism.

Dispensationalism is error corrupting the Scriptures making bypasses and cuttings therefore i hate it so much.

Dispensationalism needs to be done away with!

And

pre-tribulation rapture theory is a lie too!

Jesus is Lord. Hallelujah!

Glory to GOD!

 

[lawrenceb]

Indeed.

And most are unaware that the pre-trib "rapture" theory is the marketing vehicle for the false doctrine of dispensationalism.

 

[tulsa 2011]

lawrenceb, you can use the post above and this one below

The problem for dispensationalism is that no matter what its defender
says in trying to argue against the doctrine of the New Testament that
there is one body, the New Testament doctrine that Christ has one
fold, one body,is still fact. He has not overthrown the doctrine by
his dialectic.


Romans 11: 25-26 says "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be
ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits;
that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the
Gentiles be come in.
26.And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall
come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from
Jacob:"


Is this a prophecy saying that sometime in the future all Israel,
meaning all Jews, or all living then, or some of those living at that
time will be saved as those under the influence of John Darby, C.I.
Scofield, Lewis S. Chafer and others of dispensationalism have said?
Or, do we interpret Romans 11: 25-26 by other scripture?


The issue of Romans 11: 26, "All Israel shall be saved," is which
Israel is Paul taking about? He is not exaggerating and saying all
Israel will be saved to make his point. We have to assume he means
everyone of one of these Israels shall be saved. All who belong to the
elect are of Israel reborn in Christ (John 3: 1-7), and all who are
saved are of Israel. The theology of Darby and others. however,
insists that when Israel appears in scripture, it must always mean
physical Israel.


Remember that John Darby, C.I. Scofield and Lewis S. Chafer stated as
one of the starting assumptions of their theology that the word Israel
must always mean physical Israel, and never another Israel, the one
reborn in Jesus Christ (John 3: 1-7). Paul almost always means
physical Israel when he uses the word Israel. But his statement that
"And so all Israel shall be saved" can be seen to show us that here he
is not talking about physical Israel, but the other Israel he writes
about in Romans 9: 6-8, in Galatians 4: 25-26, and supported by Romans
2: 23-29.


However, Paul is not teaching that God has two Israels as his people,
or two saved Israels. He is not saying God has two Israels, but is
talking about physical Israel as a house different from Israel reborn
in Christ. Paul is teaching that there is one saved Israel, one saved
Body of Christ, as he says in Romans 9: 8, "That is, they which are of
the flesh, these are not the children of God." And he affirms in
several texts which are listed above that there is one Body of Christ,
not two.


"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are
not all Israel, which are of Israel. Neither, because they are the
seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed
be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these
are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are
counted for the seed." Romans 9: 6-8


In I Corinthians 10: 18 he writes also about "Israel after the flesh."
Here again, he is saying that physical Israel is different from
another Israel he identifies in Romans 9: 8, in Romans 2: 28-29 and in
Galatians 4; 25-26.


"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the
one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem
which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us
all." Galatians 4: 24-24


Paul is using Jerusalem as a metaphor for Israel. There are two
Israels here to make the point that physical Israel is not the Israel
of God. The Israel of God (Galatians 6: 16) is the Jerusalem which
is above, is free, and is the mother of us all. Physical Israel is
not the mother of Paul after his conversion on the Road to Damascus
and after the risen Christ gave him the revelation shown in Acts 26:
16-18.


Romans 2: 23-29 says "Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through
breaking the law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is
blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if
thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law,
shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27. And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the
law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress
the law?
28. For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that
circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that
of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is
not of men, but of God."


Again, Paul is using a kind of metaphor, here the Jew, to stand for
Israel. And again, as in Romans 9: 6-8 and Galatians 4: 25-26 Paul
presents two Israels, one old physical Israel, and the other Israel
reborn in Christ. The true Jew, the true person of Israel reborn in
Christ is a Jew inwardly, in the spirit, but a Jew outwardly, that is,
one who is only a physical Jew, and not reborn in Christ, is not a
true Jew any longer.


The defender of dispensationalism may continue the quarrel by saying
that Paul in Romans 11: 23-24 says "And they also, if they abide not
still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them
in again. For it thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by
nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree:
how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted
into their own olive tree?" to support the theory that physical
Israel will be saved at a future time. But Paul is not talking about
the entire house of Israel being grafted back into that olive tree all
at once in the future. He is saying that individuals of physical
Israel can be reborn in Christ and saved and he welcomes them because
he has a desire for them to be saved.


In Romans 11, Paul tells us that because of unbelief those in
physical Israel were broken off the good olive tree whose root is
Jesus Christ (Romans 11: 16). Romans 11: 17, 19, 20 say that "because
of unbelief they were broken off." "They" are those in physical Israel
who rejected Christ and his doctrines, or Gospel. And in Romans 11: 5
Paul says at that time there was a remnant according to the election
of grace. He means that only a small number in physical Israel
accepted Christ. And that only a remnant accepted Christ means that
more were broken off than were made members of the elect. However,
Matthew 15: 24, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of
Israel" was fulfilled in the remnant which accepted Christ in the
First Century.


In Romans 11, when a member of physical Israel is transformed by being
born again in Christ, and comes out of the Old Covenant and its shadow
(Hebrews 10: 1, Colossians 2: 17) practices and doctrines - entry into
the kingdom of God by a literal and physical blood line from Abraham,
animal sacrifices, circumcision, the temple system, etc - he continues
being in Israel. But those of physical Israel in Romans 11: 17,
19, and 20 who rejected Christ were cut off. "Behold, your house is
left unto you desolate." Matthew 23: 38


Those as a remnant of physical Israel who accepted Christ continue in
Israel, but this is now Israel reborn in Christ, the Israel of God
(Galatians 6: 16). After this happens, there is no more physical
Israel as a people of God. Has God gone back on his promises to
Israel (Numbers 14: 34)? No, he changed Israel, and allowed all those
in old physical Israel to enter into that changed Israel who would
accept Christ.


There is an answer to the apparent contradiction in scripture between
God's statements about Israel being his inheritance (Isaiah 19: 25),
and that he will have mercy on Jacob and choose Israel (Isaiah 14: 1)
and the statements that God has divorced Israel (Isaiah 50: 1),
Jeremiah 3: 8), and that the end is come on Israel and that God will
destroy Israel (Amos 8: 2, Amos 9: 8-9), that Jerusalem (Israel) is
left desolate (Matthew 23: 38), that the children of the kingdom shall
be cast out into outer darkness" (Matthew 8: 11-12), and the
statement
of Christ in Matthew 15: 24 "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of
the house of Israel, indicating that physical Israel as a house then
was then lost.


Remember that Lewis S. Chafer said that dispensationalism has
"...changed the Bible from being a mass of more or less conflicting
writings into a classified and easily assimilated revelation of both
the earthly and heavenly purposes of God, which reach on into eternity
to come.." Part of what Chafer thought was "a mass of more or less
conflicting writings" is the contradictions between the doctrines of
the Old Covenant and those of the New Covenant. Hebrews 10: 9 says
"He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." Christ
did away with the Old Covenant and established the New Covenant, in
which physical Israel was transformed.


The theology of Darby, Scofield and Chafer leads people
away from seeing the answer to this apparent contradiction because the
theology does not acknowledge that in the change from the Old Covenant
to the New, Israel was re-defined by God and the chosen people are no
longer physical Israel but that Israel of I Peter 2: 5-9 which is a
spiritual house. The chosen people, or chosen generation, in I Peter
2: 9 are the Christians.


Physical Israel was transformed into the spiritual house of I Peter 2:
5, which can also be called Israel reborn in Jesus Christ, the Israel
of God (Galatians 6: 16) and all Israel of Romans 11: 26. God turned
Israel upside down. But the theology of Darby et al has tried to turn
it back the way it was before God turned it upside down.


Starting in II Kings 21: 13, then moving to Isaiah 29: 16, which
points to the parable of the potter of Jeremiah 18: 1-6, there is in
the Old Testament a thread of prophecy about the coming transformation
of physical Israel to what Peter in I Peter 2: 5-9 calls a spiritual
house. Hosea 2: 23 is one part of this thread on the transformation of
Israel. God said in the Old Testament that he was going to bring
non-Jews into his kingdom.
"And I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria, and the
plummet of the house of Ahab: and I will wipe Jerusalem as a man
wipeth a dish, wiping it, and turning it upside down." II Kings 21:
13


"Behold, the Lord maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and
turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants
thereof." Isaiah 24: 1
"Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the
potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me
not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no
understanding?" Isaiah 29: 16


Isaiah 29: 16 refers back to II Kings 21: 13 and forward to Jeremiah 18: 1-6.
"The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Arise, and go
down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my
words. Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he
wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was
marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel,
as seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word of the Lord
came to me, saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this
potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand,
so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel." Jeremiah 18: 1-6
In the parable of the potter God the potter made one pot on his
potter's wheel which was marred and he then figuratively took that
same lump of clay and made a different and better pot. God did not
set aside the first pot which was marred and replace it with another
pot. He re-made the first pot out of the same clay, meaning he
re-made physical Israel into a spiritual house reborn in Jesus Christ.
To say this this is replacement theology is false.

 

[lawrenceb]

The Dragonspeak Dialogue

"And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon" (Revelation 13:11).

Although most moderns have heard of the concept referred to as the Dialectic, the overwhelming majority carelessly dismiss it as just an ancient word which they simplistically associate with dialogue. Others with a more classical education, tend to view it as a particular brand of philosophy; however, the Dialectic – that which we refer to as Dragonspeak – is actually the deadliest of threats to the entire world.

Indeed, this writer can say with all sincerity that the process of the Dialectic (sometimes called The Dialogue To Consensus) has already defeated the so called Christian "church," and the only group to escape its insidious power is the genuine Remnant of Israel. Further, I would emphatically urge all to take a very serious look at this subject before simply dismissing it as just another fringe theory:

"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him" (Proverbs 18:13).

As evidence of the power of the spirit behind Dragonspeak, I would submit the following. Just three sentences back, I said the Dialectic has already conquered the Christian church. Now honestly ask yourself the following question: As you read those words, did you, or did you not, take umbrage at such an audacious statement and, perhaps even mentally recalled Jesus Christ's words where he said the following:

"…upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18)?

If you did, you have just been processed. A response mechanism was triggered, with an intellectual retort, in which you sought to justify your position – and it can be proven that this precise pattern has been repeatedly articulated by Satanically indwelled individuals, as the ultimate system with which to subtly destroy faith in Jesus Christ.

Now before you hit reply, and post a response curtly reiterating Job's wife's horrible advice, please allow me to further examine what just occurred.

There are three stages (or phases) of this "Dialogue To Consensus." The first is the Fact, or the thesis. That is found in the rather barbed statement stipulating that the Dragonspeak Dialogue has already conquered the Christian church. It is not a theory, nor was it couched in phrasing such as "in my opinion, I believe the Dialectic has already conquered the Christian church." It was stated as a fact, as I know it to be true.

Of course, most "believers" have been conditioned to believe otherwise and, when an uncomfortable Fact is asserted, the response is one of Feelings. This is the emotional reaction to facts which disrupt, disturb, or even threaten to destroy relationships, and relationships are closely associated with feelings. We love our churches, we love our pastors and priests, and we have endearing relationships with people and beliefs which are not built on the Fact of Jesus Christ. Indeed, many of these relationships, both emotional and intellectual, are with people, places, and things which we believe to be thoroughly Christian – yet the Facts say otherwise.

Finally, as those Feelings collide with the Facts, the third and final stage of Philosophy, a rational and reasoning form of thinking and decision making, emerges. Thus, Facts collide with Feelings, and when we process the conflict, the result is to justify our Philosophical worldview. This is the heart of the Dialectic process.

Some will immediately recognize the formula under the more familiar version named after Georg Immanuel Hegel, usually dubbed the Hegelian Dialectic, which has been reduced to Thesis versus Antithesis equals Synthesis. Here we have rephrased it to Facts versus Feelings equals Philosophy.

Far from some high brow theoretical formula which only exists in some intellectual ivory tower, this "Dialogue To Consensus" actually began in the Garden of Eden, and when the 20th century finally arrived, a key group of intellectuals codified its structure, and ultimately introduced it to America's post World War II educational system.

As the underlying Philosophy of the Dialectical paradigm burrowed its way into the baby-boom generation, and those young people became the parents and grandparents of successive generations, the Dragonspeak Dialogue penetrated deeper and deeper into American, and world culture.

Unfortunately, because the majority of people have actually had their thought processes changed through this nefarious process, the Dialectic system not only perpetuates itself, it serves as a defense mechanism to insulate its intellectual prisoners from a Scripturally sound, Didactic (meaning fixed) analysis which would return us to the ways of the LORD. It is now far too late to uproot it from our social structure.

Even though this "Dragonspeak Dialogue" is most easily recognized in political applications, it is, in fact, a Spiritual virus. Dialectic expert Dean Gotcher characterizes it as intellectual witchcraft, and the terrible truth is, this formula is the key to the method which was used to leaven what most Christians believe to be the body of Christ – a body which was prophesied to be transformed into what the Scriptures identify as Babylon.

In this regard, I return to the earlier example, wherein the Scriptures themselves can be applied to seek to diminish the impact of a Fact – an elusive phenomena which is also known as the truth. I said the church has been defeated by the Dialectic process – a statement which offends sensibilities on a wholesale basis. The result is to cite a Scripture, out of context, where the LORD says the gates of Hell will not prevail against His church.

This is precisely what Satan did, when he quoted Scripture, out of context, when the truth was standing in front of him. As the devil sought to draw Jesus into a dialogue, the LORD stood firm with Facts. He said

"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4).

This is a Fact, for it is written. Next, Satan's attempt at an emotional response arrives, as he seeks to introduce doubt, which is Feelings oriented. He does this through posing a question, which was couched in language that not only seeks to ignite a dialogue with Christ, it subtly seeks to implant doubt in the mind of Jesus – clearly an emotional mechanism being used to deflect the Fact that Jesus is the Son of God. Further, in the fashion in which the devil couches his words, he subtly implies he is considering Christ's claim of deity by using the word "if" – as though he might just rethink his position if Jesus answers him adequately:

"If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down…." (Matthew 4:6).

Finally, the Philosophy is the result, as Satan then cites Scripture out of context, as a defense – which is the synthesis of the collision between the two:

"….it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone" (Matthew 4:6).

Thus, we see that Scripture, applied in order to sustain the relationship which is threatened by the truth, is heresy, and the "church" is committing this practice NOW, on a daily basis.

I am seeking to commit to print a rudimentary analysis which would outline how the insidious nature of the Dialectic process (that which the Scriptures call Dragonspeak) has already succeeded in penetrating virtually every institutional construct imaginable – including the collective churches of America. Indeed, as I sent out this particular essay to a large number of presumed believers in Christ, every single negative reply extensively utilized the Dialectic process in their response.

In other words, the truth simply bounced off their hardened hearts and, professing themselves to be wise Christians, they demonstrated they are actually fools:

"When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side" (Matthew 13:19).

Many will react antagonistically (read emotionally) to the use of this Scripture, as applied to those who refused the Holy Spirit's reproof embedded in this essay. Were it not for the fact the LORD opened this writer's eyes to the horrifying reality of how the Spirit of Antichrist is flourishing within the Dialectic system – the very phenomena I've been called to repudiate -- I would have exhibited the same response.

Large numbers of America's populace are aware the nation has gone mad in its pursuit of "political correctness," and the touchy feely group-think process which now permeates our social structure has become so pervasive that it's even become the subject of satire in secular entertainment venues. However, very few realize that America was specifically targeted, via our educational infrastructure, shortly before the onset of the baby boom; and the architects of this manipulative mind meld openly stated their goal was to transform the entire nation into a new way of thinking.

For example, everyone knows the children are taught by the teachers, yet how many know the educators themselves represented the first goal set by the social engineers, in an open conspiracy to reach the children – kids who would eventually grow into positions of authority with subtly conditioned thought processes? In fact, any teacher in the nation can tell you about a crucial book entitled Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, for it became the virtual Bible of education.

Indeed, the Taxonomy is so foundational that there is not an accredited teacher who has never seen it, and like the title says, this book provides the actual definition of education – and just what is to be the "objective" of any aspect of instruction. Since this work is foundational, and since America was built upon the foundation of the patriarchal model of God, family, and the Biblical concept of absolute truth, the worldview of Benjamin Bloom's Taxonomy should be of interest. He writes the following:

"We 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" (Taxonomy, published in 1956, with the research commencing in the prophetically significant year of 1948).

This is the wicked worldview which lurks beneath the entire educational system in America.

Such relativism should sound familiar, for we now live in a world where truth is defined by a process known as the Dialogue to Consensus. In other words, in any group setting, what we can agree upon becomes the very definition of truth. This is the bedrock lie on which America has built every educational institution – and that includes private "Christian" schools, for no institute of learning can be legally accredited without acknowledging the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.

Bloom's assertion that there is no such thing as absolute truth was taken directly from Karl Marx, who wrote the following:

"In the eyes of the dialectical Philosophy, nothing is established for all time, nothing is absolute or sacred…"

Unfortunately, when Christians hear a citation from Marx, they instantly relegate the threat to the political vein, thinking that "Marxism" is certainly a serious threat to America, in terms of our historic freedoms. Few realize the hidden goal of this way of thinking is not just to seize control of the nations of the world through Communism, it is actually an intellectual dagger aimed at the soul of the Christian believer.

The truth is, Marx only appropriated concepts which originated much earlier in philosophy (notably German), but his written work demonstrated he firmly believed that what became Marxism could never fully succeed until the world's thought processes were altered. Furthermore, Marx was well aware of the concept of God and absolute truth, as manifested in the previously dominant patriarchal, Didactic paradigm, and he was convinced that all people must be retrained through education to shift the authority away from the father figure:

"Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated theoretically and practically" (Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach #4).

The perverted psychiatrist Sigmund Freud, who believed in and promoted pedophilia, agreed that the parental, patriarchal model stood in the way of a shift in the global mindset, and he taught that the father should be emotionally "annihilated" in order for the child to more fully express himself, and reach his/her "potential." Since it was impractical for the globalists to stand up and execute every father, the group consensus came to believe the father, as the physical extension of the role of God the Father as the source of absolute truth and authority, must be rendered irrelevant, so the Beast government could be transitioned into the parental role.

By the time this Dragonspeak Dialogue had completely permeated virtually every significant institutional strata within the American social order, our schools were being driven by intellectuals such as Erich Fromm, a highly respected figure at Columbia University. The following quote from one of Fromm's hugely influential books says it all:

"In the process of history man gives birth to himself. He becomes what he potentially is, and he attains what the serpent – the symbol of wisdom and rebellion – promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself" (Erich Fromm, from the book You Shall Be As Gods).

Although most believers sigh at such apostasy, and immediately assume they and those they love are not caught up in this intellectual witchcraft, the overwhelming majority of believers are already practicing a more subtle form of the same way of thinking – so it is now just a question of time before the leavenous, progressive state of this evil comes "to the full" (Daniel 8:23). Indeed, this Dragonspeak Dialogue has already wildly succeeded in altering the very thought processes of the believers of our time, and even though they are convinced they are washed in the blood (and look like lambs), practically all the "Christians" of our time speak like dragons.

 

[DutchChristian]

Indeed.

And most are unaware that the pre-trib "rapture" theory is the marketing vehicle for the false doctrine of dispensationalism.

Amen dear brother!

And to further refute this wicked dispensationalism lie:

Galatians 3:
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 5:
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Galatians 6:
15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Colossians 3:
11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

Galatians 3:
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

Amen & amen!

 

[tulsa 2011]

What is sometimes called Western Marxism - which is really "non-violent" Transformational Marxism - was developed in Western Europe by intellectuals such as Georg Lukács, Antonio Gramsci and Karl Korsch. Transformational Marxism is not the Bolshevism led by Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin.

"Yet, at the 5th Congress of the Communist International (July 1924), Grigory Zinoviev formally denounced Georg Lukács's heterodox definition of orthodox Marxism as exclusively derived from fidelity to the "Marxist method", and not to Communist party dogmas; and denounced the Marxism developments of the German theorist Karl Korsch." From wikipedia on dialectical materialism.

In other words, Soviet Communist Party ideology rejected the Transformational Marxism of Gramsci, Lukacs and Korsch in 1924. For the Communist Party, Marxism must be violent and not the gradual takeover of the institutions of the West as advocated by the Transformational Marxists. Gramsci talked about the long march through the institutions. However, once the long march is successful, then "non-violent" Transformational Marxism may very well turn totally totalitarian and violent toward more than just a few in the country.

The ideas of Gramsci, Lukacs and Korsch went into the Institute For Social Research, more widely known as the Frankfurt School which mixed Marx with Freud and later in the U.S. with the Group Dynamics Movement, the T-Group work of the National Training Labs, personality-social psychology, the encounter group movement and several American psychologist and psychiatrist change agents. Some of these major change agents were Carl Rogers, A.H. Maslow, Eric Fromm, Norman O. Brown, Irvin D. Yalom, in addition to Theodore W. Adorno and Herbert Marcuse, who were original Frankfurters who migrated to America from Germany. These people operated from within our major universities and did not call their movement Marxist, and so it was accepted and much more. It went ballistic. The first American generation it changed were the Baby Boomers.

What is known as the dialectic was an important part of this transformation. The dialectic is a procedure of argument which undermines fixed truths and fixed morality.

Very few involved in any of the core movements of the counterculture -
the drug and hippie movements - or of its allied movements like the
New Left, feminism, the New Age Occult movement, self psychology, the sex lib, and the homosexual and lesbian movements ever realized that this "great rebellion" was not an
accident of history. It was part of what Antonio Gramsci, the
"non-violent" Marxist from Italy called "the long march through the
institutions." The Long March sought to diminish and eventually
destroy the influence of Biblical Christianity and the Father-Led
Family on American and Western society. The March of Transformational
Marxism also invaded the Christian seminaries and the denomination
hierarchical structures of the churches.

The Group Dynamics movement in social psychology provided part of the
intellectual framework for the encounter group movement of the sixties
and seventies.

Group cohesiveness is an important concept in Group Dynamics. A small
group has to be cohesive, that is, have common attitudes, beliefs,
feelings and goals in order for the group to exert pressure upon
targeted individuals to change their attitude positions and behavior.
Kurt Lewin and his student, Leon Festinger, emphasized group
cohesiveness as the tendency of individuals in a group to stick
together. Festinger, and Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back, said
cohesiveness was “the total field of forces which act on members to
remain in the group." Group cohesiveness as a concept was used in the
encounter group movement because only a cohesive group can exert an
influence upon its individual members. The group facilitator worked to
create cohesiveness and manipulated the group's attitudes and behavior
by use of the dialectic, which he or she also used on targeted
"deviant" individuals in the group. In general, the cohesive group was
used by a facilitator to move individuals with absolute truths and
absolute morality to compromise those absolutes in order to stay in
their relationship to the cohesive group.

So, the social psychology of group cohesiveness was a necessary part
of the encounter group process and of the development of the dialectic
as an effective attitude change procedure.

Back in the sixties when Carl Rogers, William Coulson and a number of
other facilitators ran encounter groups involving the nuns of the
Sacred Heart of Mary in Southern California, they did not tell the
nuns that the patriarchal authority of God must be overthrown, that
the Christian doctrine is fantasy, or that Roman Catholicism is false
doctrine.

Rogers and his crew of facilitators told the nuns they could be
themselves, and express their full potential and become
"self-actualized." They could become "fully functioning" people. Above
all, they could express their feelings which Rogerian theory put above
cognitive clarity or knowing. Rogers and his gang of facilitators ran
encounter groups using the Nuns, and processed them with the dialectic
in groups which were relatively cohesive.

The result was that these allies of the Transformational Marxist
Frankfurt School psychologists and psychiatrists destroyed the
Immaculate Heart order. William Coulson in an interview sometimes
called "The Story of a Repentant Psychologist" long after the
encounter groups were run on the Nuns in 1966 and 1967 says "Within a
year after
our first interventions, 300 of them were petitioning Rome to get out
of their vows. They did not want to be under anyone's authority,
except the authority of their imperial inner selves."The interviewer
asks "How many years did it take to destroy this Immaculate Heart
order?
COULSON: It took about a year and a half." " Of the 615, how many are
left?" COULSON: There are the retired nuns, who are living in the
mother house in
Hollywood; there is a small group of radical feminists, who run a
center for feminist theology in a storefront in Hollywood."


William Coulson's story of how Carl Rogers and a number of trained
facilitators of encounter group procedures "destroyed" the Sacred
Heart of Mary group in Southern California is an example of the power
of the dialectic as developed within American social and clinical
psychology by the mid sixties. When you have a group led by a trained
facilitator of the dialectic where the group is deliberately led to
avoid focusing upon facts as truth and absolute morality, and instead
the group is led to focus more on feelings and opinions, then you have
a "shifty" group. A "shifty" group is one in which more traditional
reliance upon facts, or truths and on a fixed set of morals are given
up and whatever satisfies man's feelings and opinions, which are
derived from feelings, or emotions, take over.

God made man in the image of God, which means man was created to have
three parts, body, mind and spirit (Genesis 1: 27). The humanism of
Marx and of psychology knows only two parts of man, his body and his
mind. Marxism, both in its classical form of Bolshevism - which went
around killing those who would not accept it - and Transformational
Marxism, not called Marxism, as well as psychology, coming out of
Freud and psychoanalysis, and out of behaviorism, promotes only man's
body and man's mind. So man under Marxism and psychology is
spiritually dead. Christ said in Luke 9: 60, "Let the dead bury the
dead." When a statement in scripture says something is not likely or
not possible, then look for its metaphoric meaning. Christ was saying
to let those who are spiritually dead, without a developed human
spirit, bury the physically dead. In Matthew 15: 24 Christ said "I am
not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." The entire
house of physical Israel was then spiritually dead; their human
spirits had not been developed by the Holy Spirit. They were living in
the flesh, that is, in their bodies and in their minds. The Pharisees
bragged that they were the physical descendants of Abraham, but Christ
said they did not follow Abraham spiritually

 

[lawrenceb]

...the Group Dynamics Movement, the T-Group work of the National Training Labs...</SPAN></SPAN>

...Group cohesiveness is an important concept in Group Dynamics....</SPAN></SPAN>

...encounter group movement...

</SPAN></SPAN>
"And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon" (Revelation 13:11).</SPAN>

We have addressed certain of the historical aspects of the process of the Dialectic, and how the global Socialists of the early 20th</SPAN> century believed the system of the Dialogue to Consensus (aka Dragonspeak, or the Dialectic) could transform the world, by modifying people's thinking processes. The European intellectuals associated with those who sought to engineer a world utopia through the process, had already universally rejected the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the best method with which to rebuild a just and good world.</SPAN>

Indeed, the behavioral scientists had long relegated religion to what Marx called "the opiate of the masses" (all the way back in 1843), so the social engineers believed that man himself was tasked with creating a just order, and the Dialectic process – that which we have dubbed Dragonspeak – was the universal formula with which to accomplish their goal.</SPAN>

Meanwhile, Christianity posits that there is a Spiritual dimension to all things which is unknown to those who reject the LORD:</SPAN>

"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" (I Corinthians 2:14).</SPAN>

The Dialectic process is most effective when applied to a group – thus invoking the "group dynamic" which early Dialectic practitioners discovered was the most effective way to transition individuals away from a fixed, or Didactic point of view. For instance, influential psychologist Kurt Lewin, writing on the impact of group-think in education, tells us the following:</SPAN>

"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 citation in Human Relations in Curriculum Change, 1951).</SPAN>

The classroom environment in education is obviously related to the concept of group psychology, and this explains why the globalist agenda is invariably hostile to home schooling, for the acquisition of knowledge via the agency of a parent negates the social conditioning inherent in the group dynamic. It's not just Christian homeschooling the world is against, it's homeschooling per se. This is because the globalist mindset, which sees all things as relative, with no absolutes such as God, Country, and Family, has intentionally and systematically sought to reshape the world through the process of Dragonspeak, and when the group dynamic is absent, the child's worldview is still being molded from within the Patriarchal paradigm.</SPAN>

Obviously, this has now moved well past the educational arena, and the group-think worldview now permeates every imaginable organizational construct, from government to business, health to finance, and even religion. Indeed, it's difficult to find any sector of society which has not been transformed through involvement in group psychology. We now see an endless parade of venues wherein groups are formed which allow opinions and/or measured input from its members. Indeed, the Internet alone has so many facilitated "chat" rooms, forums, and affinity driven groups that it would be impossible just to list them.</SPAN>

The group-think driven push towards "political correctness" is so widespread that it's almost laughable to listen to a Miss America pageant contestant blather on about her desire to contribute to "world peace" – even as we're being prodded to Think Globally, and Act Locally in response to bumper stickers everywhere. By the time we reached the 1990's, the world was ready for Hillary Clinton's book It Takes A Village – in which Wikipedia tells us</SPAN>

"…Clinton presents here a vision for the children of America. She focuses on the impact individuals and groups outside the family have, for better or worse, on a child's well-being, and advocates a society which meets all of a child's needs."</SPAN>

The concept found in It Takes A Village is the group dynamic on steroids, as it seeks to circumvent the Family/Patriarchal model altogether, by advocating government is required to effectively meet the "needs" of the world's children. Conversely, it is self evident the New Testament authoritatively teaches us that salvation only occurs when the LORD of glory is Spiritually present within, and this only occurs in individual hearts.</SPAN>

Back to the globalist worldview, there are many "spiritual" people in our world, but the vast majority of them manifest a complete lack of understanding of the true nature of all things in the Triuniverse. For instance, fast forward 128 years from the Marxist statement concerning religion as an opiate (blasphemously comparing the Gospel to a compulsive drug habit), and you arrive at the identical sentiment in John Lennon's infamous "imagine there's no heaven…and the world will be as one" popular song lyric.</SPAN>

The point is, Lennon was a very "spiritual," artistic man – but his discernment was non-existent for it was not the Holy Spirit which was manifested in his creative output. Indeed, those who are truly aware of the supernatural dimension in world culture know that Lucifer in the Sky with Diamonds is a very real entity, who periodically provides a spiritual signature to her work in vessels like Lennon.</SPAN>

Thus, there is a common denominator in spiritually sensitive mystics like Lennon (who repeatedly conducted what we might call a "magical mystery tour"), and hard-nosed atheists like Marx, in that they both extensively utilized the intellectual process wherein they believed the truth could be defined through consensus and, once again, the group dynamic is where all the transformation is taking place. Those who are unaware of the massive group of John Lennon fans who were stirred in their hearts through songs like "Imagine," are simply not paying attention.</SPAN>

The operative word is consensus, as in the Dialogue to Consensus. Note how the very word sensual is directly related to the consensus – invariably pointing us to the sensory input found in the natural man. This is fundamental to Dragonspeak, as the truth (the thesis) collides with the emotions (the antithesis, or the sensuous), and the resulting synthesis is the opinion which seeks to mingle the two perspectives. A primary example is in order.</SPAN>

In the Gospels, Jesus Christ informs us, in classic Didactic terms, that He is the exclusive avenue of salvation, both now and forever:</SPAN>

"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).</SPAN>

This is an absolutely true statement, and it is a fact. However, when we first encounter such a narrow way, it seems to be both arbitrary and extremely exclusionary. Our emotions (read senses) are immediately prodded into a reactionary mode. We start to worry about all those we love, who "just don't see it that way." We further reason that a full embrace of Christ would require us to sever ungodly relationships with persons, places, or things which are decidedly unrighteous.</SPAN>

And what about all those indigenous peoples who supposedly never heard of Him, or those "good" folks who were born into other traditions? The "one way" just seems so radical. The common denominator is every reaction is not only based on emotion, they are all relationship driven. This is, of course, the antithesis of Christ's doctrinal thesis.</SPAN>

Then, as we seek to process the conflicting phenomena of facts and feelings, our minds seek to facilitate between the two, and a synthetic philosophy begins to emerge. We mingle the two in order to create the synthesis of thesis versus antithesis, and that synthesis becomes the new thesis. In this way, we repeat the process, indefinitely. I've just described the Dialogue To Consensus, the so-called Hegelian Dialectic, the Diaprax, Dragonspeak, and a dozen of other terms which all refer to the same process.</SPAN>

The fact laden Scriptures bluntly inform us this is an attempt at serving two masters – facts and feelings, thesis and antithesis. Eventually, as the double-minded man continues his Dragonspeak Dialogue, he or she will invariably seek to diminish the facts, in order to sustain the relationships.</SPAN>

Back to the group dynamic, very few recognize the facilitated group environment so common to a plethora of self improvement or "support" groups, where individuals "share" their opinions in order to help sustain the group's collective worldview, is actually identical to any one of a thousand popular entertainment figure's global constituency – as all are functioning under the same Spiritual influence.</SPAN>

Still on the pop culture front, anyone who ever encountered the cult-like following associated with the musical group the Grateful Dead, perhaps wondered what it was that could transform so many disparate personalities into joining a body wherein they became known as a deadhead – a transformation so unique that such a person became identified with an insignia consisting of a skull and a lightning bolt. Clearly, such are more than simple "fans," as they obviously had a relationship with this band.</SPAN>

It is a rare religionist who has come to see that it is the same group dynamic involved in a Woodstock, or the Burning Man event, as that seen in the followers of the vampire craze epitomized by the Twilight films. Arguably, the group think found in all of these is the same phenomena found in Mega Churches and TV Evangelist's ministries.</SPAN>

The majority of "believers" chafe at such a comparison, because they've missed the point entirely. The fact is, as we noted in our previous installments, the Dragonspeak Dialogue is that which seeks to facilitate between polarities in conflict (usually dubbed the thesis colliding with the antithesis), and the only "sensible" solution is the resulting synthesis – a place where the absolute truth is sacrificed on the altar of relationship. Thus, you can have an entire denomination built around false doctrine – but the relationship with the group is what holds the individual in its sway.</SPAN>

In the group dynamic, the techniques used to "facilitate" between opposing perspectives is a crucial part of the Dialectic process, and since this system is being widely utilized in an allegedly "Christian" environment (usually called the "church"), we find a striking similarity to the Revelational passage, wherein the image in question looks suspiciously like the church in our time:</SPAN>

"And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon" (Revelation 13:11). </SPAN>

-- Brother James

 

[tulsa 2011]

Benjamin Samuel Bloom... was an American educational psychologist who
made contributions to the classification of educational
objectives.........The first of Bloom's Educational Goal Taxonomies
was published in 1956, as Bloom, B. S., et al, Taxonomy of educational
objectives: the classification of educational goals; Handbook I:
Cognitive Domain. His second Volume came out in 1964, Handbook II:
Affective Domain.

The fact that the Ford Foundation sent Benjamin Bloom to India in 1957
is an indication that Bloom's work on educational goals was approved
by the elite and helps to explain how and why Bloom's Educational Goal
Taxonomies had such great influence upon the American educational
system. All teachers who are certified - even in Christian educational
institutions - must learn Bloom's Taxonomies.

Dean Gotcher, the authority on Transformational Marxism and the
dialectic, says "By changing the curriculum. You change the
children. You
change the world. The change in culture, along with the language or
means of communication which initiates and sustains it, can be
accomplished by restructuring the classroom environment from the
preaching and teaching of truth and facts, i.e. where the classroom
curriculum sustains a patriarchal paradigm, i.e. engenders respect for
authority, to a classroom environment of dialoguing opinions, i.e.
where the classroom curriculum initiates and sustains a hereiarchal
paradigm of 'change,' i.e. engenders a revolutionary attitude towards
(or disrespect of) authority. "

Gotcher says ""Every teacher (certified) has to study and apply
Bloom's Taxonomies in the classroom. These works follow the very same
process Lucifer used to deceive Eve in the Garden of Eden. They are
build upon the dialectical process. I call Bloom's Taxonomies
Secularized Satanism, Intellectualized Witchcraft. That is what they
are......."

"Couched in the language of "academia" they are (Bloom's Educational
Goal taxonomies) actually the work of
Transformational Marxists, using the language of social psychological
to communicate to their agents an agenda to destroy the sovereignty of
this nation for a dream of a one world order."

Gotcher quotes Bloom as saying "“We 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)

"In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for
all time, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx)

Bloom says "Members of the taxonomy group spent considerable time in
attempting to find a psychological theory which would provide a sound
basis for ordering the categories of the taxonomy. …consistent with
relevant and accepted psychological principles and theories.”
(Benjamin Bloom, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1,
Cognitive Domain)

And Gotcher found a footnote in Bloom's Affective Domain book, on
page 166, where Bloom acknowledges the influence of Theodore W. Adorno
and Eric Fromm on the psychological theory, philosophy or ideology
contained in his two volumes, Educational Goal taxonomies. Book II
Affective Domain p. 166.

“1. Cf. Erich Fromm, 1941; T. W. Adorno et al., 1950” Benjamin Bloom,
Book II Affective Domain p. 166. This is Bloom's footnote
acknowledging the influence on his thinking from Erich Fromm and
Theodore W. Adorno. Adorno was an original Frankfurter Marxist who
posed as a personality and social psychologist in writing his 1950
book, The Authoritarian Personality, in which he claimed that the
authoritarian personality and fascism are caused by the family and
Christianity. Erich Fromm was a Transformational Marxist psychologist
and close associate of the Frankfurters.

Bloom writes that "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual
‘Pandora’s Box. It is in this ‘box’ that the most influential
controls are to be found. The affective domain contains the forces
that determine the nature of an individual’s life and ultimately the
life of an entire people”

So, Benjamin S. Bloom was an important Transformational Marxist change
agent who had a great influence on the American educational system
after the fifties and sixties because he wrote the books by which all
teachers in the U.S.. are certified.
Feelings, emotions, and desires can become the Pandora'a Box, which
was opened by Transformational Marxism in its long march through the
institutions. Feelings are placed above truth and morality by these
Marxists and their psychologist allies.