authorityresearch.com

"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

The Institution for Authority Research
Exposing the Dialectic Process.
deangotcher@gmail.com 
Notice:  This website may be down temporarily or permanently as my webserver (Webintellects) is dropping windows formatting (and therefore me) by the end of this month—if I don't use Linux.  I need to find a new server or learn Linux (quickly).   Any suggestions on a good server (without adds) or a good Linux program I can use would be helpful.

About, Issues, Articles, Schedule, Material, Scheduling, Audios, Youtube (see Audio), Radio, Archived, Textus Receptus, Class, Warnings, Thanks!  P.S.

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."  Jeremiah 6:16   "... and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death."  Mark 13:12  (Mark 13:5-13)

"As the Frankfurt School [a group of "Marxist's" (known as "Transformational Marxists") who, coming to America in the early 30's—along with Kurt Lewin and Wilhelm Reich who edited their journal, Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung (while they were all still in Germany)—set up shop in our Universities, i.e. Columbia, Berkley, San Diego, Iowa, Michigan, etc., training professors and advisors ("human resource personnel," "facilitators of 'change,'" etc.,) on how to influence Federal policies regarding education, the workplace, government, and even the "church"] wrestled with how to 'reinvigorate Marx' [since Communists ("Traditional Marxist") had entrapping Marxism within traditional, "top-down," Nationalistic tendencies, thus failing the "purpose" of Marxism, i.e. global dominance], they 'found the missing link in Freud [by circumventing nationalism (by focusing upon the individual himself, through the praxis of psychotherapy, i.e. group psychotherapy to be more exact, by utilizing "therapy groups,"  "T-groups," "youth groups," "consensus groups," etc.) they were able to bring Marxism into the American classroom, workplace, government, and even the "church," 'changing' how policies, i.e. how decisions are made, 'changing' the participants (and the world) in the process].'"  (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950)  Far fetched?  Not so—as Hegel's, Marx's, and Freud's statements will show.  After all you might be a "Marxist,"  i.e. a "child" of ("in and for") the "new" world order (where the Father's authority is negated) and not even know it.  Or you might not be willing to admit it to yourself.  At least (by reading the following) you can now know what Marxism is and if you are one (or becoming one), how it happened (or is happening), and what you can do if you want to return to "the old paths" (the "old" world order, which is under the Father's authority) and "find rest for your soul." "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 

Kurt Lewin knew that "It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately ["group dynamics," i.e. our desire for approval from others can (and often does) influences us in our decision making]."  (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Bennie, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)  It was not "the group" itself that is the issue.  It was how the members of the group are making decisions, i.e. it is how the group is being "managed."  "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)   A leader who, like a traditional father, 1) preaches and teaches rules and commands to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith), 2) blesses (rewards) the children who obey or do things right, according to his instructions and standards, 3) chastens the child who disobeys or does things wrong, to encourage him or her to obey and do things right, and 4) casts out any child who disrespects, i.e. questions and challenges his authority, in order to maintain his authority in the room will produce different children than the leader who, like a facilitator of 'change,' encourages 1) a diverse group of children—who have to include the deviant, to 2) dialogue their opinions to a consensus, 3) over social issues, 4) in a facilitated ("non-judgmental") meeting, 5) to a pre-determined outcome, i.e. that no major decision is to be made without the forgoing procedure.  The former leader produces individuals, seeking, following, and serving under overt, i.e. "top-down" authority, the latter "leader" produces socialists, seeking, following, and serving under covert, i.e. seductive, deceptive, manipulative leadership. 

While Karl Marx focused upon 'changing' society by outright force and Sigmund Freud focused upon 'changing' the individual through therapy, both based 'reality' upon George Hegel's interpretation of 'reality,' i.e. upon the child's carnal nature (as will be explained below).  Without the child's use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. his use of "self" 'justification' to 'liberate' his carnal nature—his natural inclination to approach pleasure and avoid pain, i.e. his desire to live in the 'moment'—from the father's authority—having to endure the pain of missing out on the pleasure of the 'moment' in order to do the father's will, i.e. to do right and not wrong according to the father's standards—the child (and society) would remain subject to the father's authority, with each individual child remaining subject to the father's authority (which, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' engenders "individualism," under God).  The problem was how to bring the individual (the child) and society (the group) together in the 'moment,' as one, without telling the child and the group how they are to behave—which would sustain the father's authority. 

Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [the child being personally held accountable for his actions (before the father) as a man is personally held accountable for this thoughts and actions (before God, the Heavenly Father)] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him.  Society [based upon what all children have in common, i.e. their carnal nature, i.e. "human nature," i.e. their love of pleasure, i.e., their love of the pleasure of the 'moment' and their hate of pain, i.e. their hate of missing out on the pleasure of the 'moment,' a society based upon children "building relationship" upon their "self interest" of the 'moment,' working together as "one," in the 'moment,' to augment pleasure and attenuate pain, not only for themselves, but for all the children of the world as well] is the necessary framework through which freedom [freedom from the father's authority] and individuality [with each child being himself, i.e. of "Nature" only, i.e. carnal, not having a sense of "guilty" for being "normal"] are made realities."  (Karl Marx in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx)  The Frankfurt School knew that while Marx understood "the problem," i.e. that God's authority over man was the result of society's acceptance of the father's authority over the child, it was his use of outright force as the solution that re-instilled the father's authority back into society, keeping the father's authority in the mind of the people.

The Frankfurt School's idea was: if the father's authority engenders a "guilty conscience" (the voice of the father in the child) for disobedience, i.e. for being "normal," i.e. for sinning, then instead of just killing the father's authority (religion) in society, leaving the "guilty conscience" (the father's authority, i.e. sin) still in place in the child (Marx) or removing the "guilty conscience" (the father's authority, i.e. sin) in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the individual child, leaving the father's authority (religion) still in place in society (Freud), i.e. by merging Marx and Freud, i.e. by not only removing the father's authority (the "guilty conscience") in the child's relationship with himself, but also by removing the father's authority (the "guilty conscience") in all the children that the child is relating with in the 'moment,' i.e. in "the group," then all the children (by 'justifying' themselves, i.e. by 'justifying' their love of pleasure and resentment towards restraint, i.e. by 'justifying' their love of the world and hate of the father's authority) can 'create' a "new" world order where all children can become "normal" again, i.e. can do unconscionable (abominable) things without having a "guilty conscience," i.e. can sin with impunity.   As Herbart Marcuse (a member of the Frankfurt School) wrote: "If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man [engendered by the father's authority over the child] can ever be redeemed by freedom [the child's "right" to be of his nature only], then the 'original sin' [questioning and disregarding the father's authority] must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge ['justify' "human nature" over and against the father's authority] in order to fall back into the state of innocence [so that the child (living according to his own nature) can become "normal" again].'" (Sigmund Freud as quoted in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)  The Word of God (explaining why we have become the nation we are today) says: "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

George 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, through the use of psychotherapy, the child is 'liberated' from the father's authority, i.e. 'liberated' to be himself again, i.e. carnal, i.e. only of "human nature" again, as he was before the father began 1) preaching and teaching commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith), 3) chastening the child for disobedience, i.e. for doing wrong, i.e. for choosing the pleasure of the 'moment' over (and therefore against) doing right, i.e. doing the father's will, and 4) casting the child out (cutting him out of the will) for disrespecting, i.e. questioning or challenging his authority—with 2) being the father blessing (rewarding) the child for obedience, i.e. for doing the 'job' right according to the father's directions, i.e. according to the father's will]."  (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)  Even if the father is benevolent, i.e., he blesses his children, i.e. he cloths, feeds, protects, and loves them, his authority structure itself is the issue.  It is what has to be negated.

According to Hegel (and, as you well see, according to Marx and Freud as well) the "health' of a society is based upon the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions and his relationship with others in the 'moment,' i.e. how much he is 'liberated' from (and resistant toward) the father's authority, as well how much he is approving of and living in his own (and others) carnal nature (impulses and urges) of the 'moment.'  In other words, the more the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions and relationship with others is approving and supportive of the father's authority, i.e. the more he is in denial of and resistant toward his own (and others) nature, the less "healthy," i.e. the less "natural" he (and society) is.  Therefore the "health" of the person, the "group," the "community," the state, the nation, and the world is based upon to how far along (down) the spectrum or continuum of 'change' (of how much resistance against "human nature," i.e. support of the father's authority vs. how much resistance against the father's authority, i.e. support of "human nature"—resistance against 'change' vs. participation in 'change') the person, the "group," the "community," the state, the nation, and the world is at any given 'moment.'  According to Hegel, the closer the child and society are to one another, i.e. the child seeking after the pleasures of the 'moment,' which includes the approval of others, and society approving the child as he is, i.e. carnal, i.e. deviant, the "healthier," i.e. the more "pure," "perfect," or "right" (physically, mentally, and socially) the relationship between child (the Particular) and society (the Universal) become. Conversely, the closer the child and the father are to one another, i.e. the child seeking the approval of the father, doing the father's will as he commands, honoring, supporting, and propagating the father's authority ("repressing" his own nature, "alienating" himself from those who are not in agreement with his father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, which he has now made his position), the less "healthy" the child (and society) is.  Hegel explained it this way: "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)  Thus, according to Hegel, when the father quits telling his children what is wrong behavior (what is evil), when he no longer "prejudices" his children with his standards, when he no longer trains them up to live according to his right-wrong way of thinking and acting, when he (abdicating his authority) allows them to live according to their own "human nature" instead, only then can the child and society become "healthy" again.

It is therefore imperative, for 'change' to become a 'reality,' that those in control of society use "social-environmental forces to change the parent's behavior toward the child" (since the parent's would not do it on their own) in order to 'create' not only "healthy" children but a "healthy" society as well, i.e. engendering a new world order 'created' out of the child's nature, i.e. 'creating' children void of parental restraint, i.e. 'creating' a society void of Godly restraint.  (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality"Once the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in the world approaching the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken."  (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)   "For to accept that solution [basing 'reality' upon the child's nature], even in theory, would be tantamount to observing society from a class standpoint [from the child's perspective] 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."  "... as soon as the bourgeoisie [the father's authority] is forced to take up its stand on this terrain [upon the child's nature], it is lost."  (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)

In agreement with Hegel (concerning the father's authority), Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family [with its honoring of the father's authority] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with its obedience to the Heavenly Father's authority], the former [the earthly family with its honoring of the father's authority] must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically [that is, the father's authority must be negated in "theory and practice," i.e. negated in the child's, the wife's, the husband's (the individual's) feelings, thoughts, and actions and in their (social) relationship with one another and the "community"]."  (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4)    As Karl Marx (socialists) put dialectic 'reasoning' into social action, i.e. into praxis 'liberating' the people, i.e. 'liberating' the proletariat from the King's authority—removing the King, along with the bourgeoisie's (the middle-class) who honour, support, and propagate his authority, from society, Sigmund Freud (psychologists) put it into individual action, 'liberating' "the child within," i.e. 'liberating' the individual from the father's authority.  "The basic structure of Freud's thought is committed to dialectics." "His finest insights are incurably 'dialectical.'"  (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)   The key to dialectic 'reasoning' is the use of dialogue to come to know the truth, i.e. to 'discover' the 'truth,' i.e. to know what is 'real' and what is not (experientially).  There is no father's authority in dialogue.

In agreement with Hegel and Marx (concerning the father's authority), Freud wrote: "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same [the "father' can stick around as long as he no longer produces "neurosis" in the child (where the child has to do the father's will over and against his own will, "repressing" his carnal nature, "alienating" himself from the world)]." (Sigmund Freud as quoted in Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)   "Freud speaks of religion [honoring the father's/Father's authority over (and therefore against) the nature of the child/man] as a 'substitute-gratification' – the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people.'"  "If there is a universal neurosis, it is reasonable to suppose that its core is religion.... Psychoanalysis must treat religion [the father's/Father's authority] as a neurosis."  (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)  The common thread between Hegel, Marx, and Freud is that antithesis is created by the conflict and tension between the child's nature and the father's authority, with the child's nature, not the father' authority, being the "ground" from which synthesis (Universality, i.e. world unity) is to be achieved.

Dialectic 'reasoning' must begin with (and end with) the child's nature (in all of us, i.e. our ability to 'justify' our natural attraction to the pleasures of the world) or it will fall "victim" to the father's authority (correlated to making man subject to God's authority, i.e. to the Heavenly Father's authority).   Marx understood that the father's authority was "an alien and hostile force" to the nature of the child.  He wrote: "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)   According to Marx, when the child honors the father's authority he 'creates' the father's authority, i.e. he creates an "alien" body which is "hostile" to his nature and the world.  Instead of the child submitting to the father's authority according to Paul Tillich it would be better for the child to challenge it and die in the process: "Tillich suggests that it would be better to let the giver of arbitrary laws to destroy us physically than to accept the psychological destruction that would accompany submission to an alien will."  (Leonard F. Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism)   Therefore, the solution lies within the child.  If the child 'creates' the father's authority he can "uncreate," i.e. negate it as well, providing he is given the right education in how to do it as well as the right conditions, i.e. support in which to do it with.  Theodor Adorno (a member of the Frankfurt School) explained the situation and the solution this way. "Family relationships are characterized by fearful subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early suppression of impulses not acceptable to them."  "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority."  "Authoritarian submission [the child submitting himself to the father's authority] 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 [removing "right-wrong" thinking, correlated to prejudice, correlated to Nationalism, correlated to Fascism from society]."  "Techniques for overcoming resistance [overcoming those who remain 'loyal' to the father's authority], developed mainly in the field of individual psychotherapy, can be improved and adapted for use with groups and even for use on a mass scale."  (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)  

The issue for Hegel, Marx, and Freud was how to 'liberate' the child's nature, i.e. society from the authority of the father, i.e. from the authority of the King, i.e. from the authority of God (all three being the same in structure).  Yet all three had a different way in approaching it. i.e. Hegel through 'reasoning,'  Marx through social 'change,' Freud through individual 'change.'  What the Frankfurt School saw was that Hegel's Universal (the healthy society) could only be 'created' from the Particulars (from the individual children) coming together in group settings, freely (without fear of reprisal) dialoguing their opinions to a consensus, initiating and sustaining "common ground" upon their love for pleasure and hate of restraint, putting their "common-ism" into social action (into praxis), negating the father's influence not only in themselves but in society as well, in the process.  By focusing upon the child's "felt needs" over and against the father's authority, society could be turned against the father's authority, perceiving it as being a barrier to innovation, creativity, and imagination, i.e. standing in the way of the child's future, i.e. preventing 'change' and progress. 

Only by gaining access to the child's internal dialogue with his "self," i.e. his talking to his "self" about his desires of the 'moment' and his resentment towards the father's authority which restrains it, can the child within, i.e. man's affection for pleasure and hatred toward restraint be shared with others, i.e. can man become united as one (through the dialoguing of their opinions to a consensus), united not only in 'liberating' themselves from the father's authority but 'liberating' the whole world from the father's authority as well.  Adorno added: "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 or antidemocratic thought and action in crucial situations."  (ibid.)  Only by the facilitator of 'change' gaining access to the individual's desires of the 'moment' (his "feelings" and "thoughts," which are subject to his "feelings," i.e. his "self-interests," i.e. his "lust" for pleasure and his desire for approval from others—who affirm his desires) as well as his resentment toward authority which blocks him or restrains him from attaining it, 'discovering' the common desire of the 'moment' and resentment toward authority within "the group," uniting "the individuals" in "the group" upon their common desires ("self-interests") of the 'moment' and resentment toward authority, and remain within "the group's" common desires of the 'moment' (which are ever changing according to changing situations and constellation of the individuals within "the group"—thus the need for incessant consensus meetings, assessment tests, polls, surveys, feedback loops, etc.) and resentment toward authority can "the individual," "the group," and eventually "the community," "the nation," and "the world" be 'willingly' moved (seduced, deceived, and manipulated) down the pathway of 'change,' i.e. moved toward globalism without resistance, negating the father's/Father's authority along the way.  Only by "helping" the child recognize and then 'liberate' his "self-interest," i.e. 'liberate' his "feelings" of the 'moment' from his "private convictions," i.e. from his parent's standards (which he entered the room with) can he be perceived by "the group" as being at-one-with them, i.e. can he, through learning to compromise, become at-one-with "the group" and "the group" become at-one-with him, promoting the process of 'change.'  "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—which is based upon the work of  J. L. Moreno, a "Marxists" who came to America from Austria in the late 20's, who advised Freud that therapy needed to be done in a group—that people live in groups, not in isolation—introduced Role Playing and sociograms into education, the workplace, and government, and Kurt Lewin, known for his work in forced field analysis, group dynamics, and unfreezing, moving, and refreezing or changing, who helped set up the first National Training Laboratory in Bethel Maine just before he died in 1947)

Education, government, the workplace, and even the "church" is now using psychoanalysis (group therapy, i.e. the merging of Marx and Freud) to 'liberate' children from the father's authority in an effort to 'create' a "new" world order, i.e. an order of the world which is void of the Heavenly Father's authority, i.e. void of Godly restraint (fulfilling the scriptures above).  If, through the dialoguing of their opinions to a consensus, the father, mother, and children are made as "equals" (according to their carnal nature), then, according to Hegel (sounding more like Karl Marx than Marx himself), the idea of sovereignty (the "old paths"), i.e. "Mine not yours," i.e. "My children, Not yours," "My wife, Not yours," "My property, Not yours," "My business, Not yours," "My nation, Not yours" etc., i.e. private passes away (is subjugated to public).  Hegel wrote: "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." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)  In the end, according to Hegel, Marx, and Freud (through the use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. through the 'justification' of the child's nature over and against the father's/Father's authority) facilitators of 'change' (psychoanalyst's) can live off of the children's inheritance as they "help" the children 'liberate' themselves from the father's authority, i.e. turning them against their parents authority, negating the father and his authority without having a "guilty conscience" while doing so—since they are doing what comes naturally.  If you love all that is of the world, i.e. if you love "human nature" and its "lust" for pleasure, you, by nature, have to hate the father's/Father's authority (which restrains you, i.e. inhibits or blocks you from having access to all of its pleasures in the 'moment'). "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 "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  "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."  1 John 2:15

If you like the way the world is going this website may not be for you—it will only help you better understand how policy is being made today, in education, in the government, in the workplace, and even in the "church," i.e. showing you how facilitators of 'change' are able to seduce, deceive, and manipulate you into initiating and sustaining the process of 'change.'   If you have not repented of your sins (before the Lord),  if you have not invited Him into your heart, if you are not into the Word of God (reading it daily, applying it to your heart, i.e. evaluating your "self" and the world around you from it, as Adam and Eve were supposed to do, in their case having only one "negative" command, i.e. restraining the flesh, to obey), walking in the Spirit, letting Him, in agreement with the Word, direct your paths, i.e. if you are not denying yourself (daily dying to your "self," i.e. first thing in the morning giving up, i.e. confessing to the Lord that you can not do His will in and of your "self," humbling your "self," letting Him direct your steps ["O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23], i.e. letting Him, by His Holy Spirit, do His will through you instead), picking up your cross (enduring the rejection of men, even rejection from your "friends" for preaching and teaching the Word of God, i.e. for bringing them under conviction, i.e. for making them "feel guilty" before God for their sins, desiring that they come to know and serve Him, with them, choosing to love the world, turning on you instead), and following the Lord (as His brother, sister, or mother, i.e. doing His Heavenly Father's will)—if you do not know the Lord, i.e. if the Lord does not know you—it will only be an intellectual exercise in futility—all it will do is make you "smarter," i.e. more "intelligent"—many of the books I have read (and quote in this website) are required reading for a PhD in education and management today—regarding how the so called "new" world order is 'liberating' you and those around you from the Word of God, i.e. 'liberating' your "self" and the world from Godly restraint (by 'liberating' children from parental authority), leaving you as you are, in your sins, i.e. as a "child of disobedience" walking down the broad pathway of pleasure and "group approval," i.e. seeking after "the approval of men," esteeming your "self" as God, i.e. 'righteous' "in and for your 'self,'" (your effort to 'rid' your "self" of unrighteousness, i.e. of the "guilty conscience" for disobedience, i.e. of the guilt of sin by 'justifying' your "self," i.e. 'justifying' sin, i.e. 'justifying' "human nature," i.e. 'justifying' your "lusts" of the 'moment,' i.e. 'justifying' your natural love of the world, establishing it, i.e. your "self" and the world, over and against the Father's authority) which leads to eternal death. "And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."  1 John 2:15-18  "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."  I Corinthians 8:6  "And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."  1 John 3:1 

There were those who ridiculed Jesus on the Cross.  Refusing to walk by faith, they, walking by sight, justified themselves instead.  "He saved others; himself he cannot save.  If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.  He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God."  Matthew 27:42, 43  Jesus did not come to "save himself," (he did not need salvation as he did not sin), he came, as an obedient Son to His Heavenly Father (obeying His Heavenly Father in all things commanded of Him), to 'redeem' us from His Heavenly Father's wrath upon us for our sins, to 'reconcile' us, in His resurrection, to His Heavenly Father instead.  Justifying themselves, in dialectic fashion, there are those who would seek to negate the Heavenly Father Himself, i.e. those of the spirit of the Antichrist, i.e. following after the Fatherless "Christ," i.e. the "Christ" of "socialist harmony and worldly peace," i.e. the "Christ" of the flesh and the world only.  Rejecting the Law of God they refuse to recognize that Jesus came to fulfill it, not negate it.  While the law itself can not, in itself, save anyone, it is still in place, bringing man under judgment and conviction for his sins, with faith in Christ Jesus being the only way to fulfill it, with His righteousness being imputed to those of faith in Him alone.  While you can try to obey to "prove" your faith (living in vanity), true obedience is engendered by (is the result of) faith.  It is the work of the Holy Spirit, who is in agreement with the Father and the Son (who will not break the Law of God), that empowers us to do the Father's will.

If there was any uniqueness to America it was that our framing father's limited the power of government so that the parent's (with the father being the head of the home) could train up their children under their (his) authority, with each soul (husband, wife, and children) being personally accountable to God, i.e. subject to His authority (based upon the Protestant principle of "the priesthood of all believes," with every soul "doing their best as unto the Lord"—every child (individual) who is subject to the father's/Father's authority, which engenders a "guilty conscience" for disobedience, results in a nation of men (individuals) sustaining the father's/Father's authority, having a "guilty conscience" for disobedience. "Protestantism was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." (Max Horkheimer, Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung)  While God, the Heavenly Father offers grace to the repentant of heart before Him (maintaining the individuality of the soul), Hegel's ideology can not, only being able to offer the annihilation (negation) of the individual who resists and fights against his universality with carnal man.  Instead of offering freedom of the conscience (recognition of the individuality of the soul before God), Hegel offers freedom from the conscience (where the individual can only find his identity within a society which 'justifies' the child's carnal nature) instead.

The Lord God is not interested in "saving" America (per se).  As Jesus said: "My kingdom is not of this world." John 18:36   If His kingdom was of this world He would have to rule over it according to the carnal nature of the child, i.e. according to "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e. according to that which is common to all men, instead of according to His Father's (and His) will and nature, i.e. righteous, holy, and pure.  He is interested in you.  He is looking at you (whether you are following after Him, doing His Father's will, inheriting eternal life, or "lusting" after the things of the world, doing your will, i.e. following after the carnal nature of the child, dying in your sins) to determine what to do with America.  Is it worth "saving?"  "For God [the Father] sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world [for it was condemned already]; but that the world through him might be saved [through Him be 'redeemed' and  'reconciled' to the Father]."  "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness [themselves and the world] rather than light [the Father and His Son Jesus Christ], because their deeds were evil [of, by, and for themselves]."  John 3:17, 19  "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

Back in 1996 I was invited to speak everywhere, explaining the dialectic process (the child/man 'justifying' his "self" before other children/men, i.e. 'justifying' his carnal feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment' and his relationship with that which is of and those who are of the world only, i.e. that which "only proceeds from Nature"—Karl Marx, 'justifying' his natural desire for, i.e. love of pleasure, including the pleasure or "feeling" of being "loved," which comes from the approval of other children/men—where individuality and "community" find common identity, i.e. "common-ism," and his natural dissatisfaction with, i.e. hatred toward the fathers/Father's authority when it restrains him, i.e. when it prevents him from satisfying the pleasure of the 'moment, i.e. ' fulfilling' his "self interest" and "building relationship" with those of like "self-interest"—if you loved the one who uninhibitedly grants you pleasure, you knowingly or unknowingly resent or hate the one who restrains, i.e. blocks or inhibits you from attaining it)—explaining my teacher training (which was based upon 'liberating' the students from parental authority instead of reinforcing their honoring of it, which I had to repent of)—revealing why and how teachers are being trained in dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. 'liberating' children from parental authority in their thoughts and actions, through their use of "Bloom's Taxonomies," now "Marzano's, Webb's Taxonomies" {"What we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives ['liberating the child's "feelings," i.e. the child from the restraints of parental authority] through challenging the student's fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues [discussing issues with others who are questioning and challenging their parent's "fixed beliefs" and standards, with their children "building relationship" with those who the parent's would not approve of]."  "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)}, indoctrinating their students in the ideology of Hegel, Marx, Freud, Lukács, Gramsci, Adorno, Fromm, Marcuse, Brown, Habermas, Lewin, Moreno, Bennis, Rogers, Maslow, Yalom, etc.  The dialectic process is the praxis of negating Hebrews 12:5-11 (the father's/Father's authority) and Romans 7:14-25 (the "guilty conscience") through the use of Genesis 3:1-6—'justifying' the children's/man's nature, i.e. "human nature," i.e. sensuousness, i.e. "feelings," i.e. approaching-augmenting pleasure and avoiding-attenuating pain over and against the father's/Father's authority, i.e. the Word of God, i.e. righteousness, i.e. doing right and not wrong according to the Father's will—"bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;"  (2 Corinthians 10:5). 

Whether secular ("the earthly family") or sacred ("the Heavenly Family") the pattern, i.e. the paradigm is the same for the earthly father and the Heavenly Father (called a Patriarchal Paradigm).  While the earthly father is not perfect (he might be or may have been a down right tyrant—using the office he serves/served in for his own pleasure), the office itself is perfect—given to him by God, who is perfect.  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' when you succeed in negating the earthly father's authority in the child's (in the individual's) feelings, thoughts, and actions and in his relationship with others you have succeeded in negating the Heavenly Father's authority in man (in society), or conversely, by negating the earthly pattern (in society) the Heavenly pattern is negated (in the individual).  The pattern (or paradigm) of "the earthly family," i.e. the earthly father and "the Heavenly Family," i.e. the Heavenly Father (being the same) is the father 1) giving (preaching and teaching) commands and rules to his children to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as given (by faith), 2) blessing the children when they obey (or do things right), in order to encourage them to continue doing things right, 3) chastening the children when they disobey (or do things wrong), in order to encourage them to do things right ("engendering a peaceful fruit of righteousness"), and 4) casting out the children who disrespect, i.e. question and challenge his authority, in order to maintain order (his authority) in the home.

We are made in the image of God.  Being made by God a "living soul" (Genesis 2:7-10) we are able to evaluate, i.e. to know right from wrong, good from evil.  We either evaluate according to the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth (by faith, reasoning deductively, i.e. from an established truth, i.e. according to an a priori) or we evaluate from our "self" (by sight, reasoning inductively, i.e. according to the situation, i.e. according to our "sense experiences").  In the garden in Eden, the latter became the way of life (leading to death), with Adam and the woman (and eventually their children, i.e. all of us) determining right from wrong, good from evil according to the sensations (pleasures or pains) of the 'moment,' with pleasure being "good" and pain being "bad," including the "pain" of missing out on pleasure.  Instead of repenting of his sins before God, as a child repents before his father, man has used his ability to evaluate to 'justify' his "self," making his "self " god," i.e. becoming righteous "in and for himself" in his own eyes, i.e. 'reasoning' dialectically, i.e. establishing his "self" over and against the the Father's authority.  Only Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God has overcome "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," doing His Heavenly Father's will in all things (giving us the right responses to the temptations in the wilderness; Matthew 4:1-11), doing what all of mankind can not do, i.e. not yield to sin, i.e. not yield to the temptations of the world.  "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  While those who 'reason' dialectically say 'truth' can only be known in the child's nature (approaching pleasure and avoiding pain), the truth is it can only be known in Christ Jesus, the obedient son of God, doing the Father's will in all things commanded. "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

Then I was invited to speak less often when I began exposing its language, i.e. making the dialectic process personal to my audience by explaining the "Not," "Why?" "Is," "Ought," "Thought" sequence of "self" 'justification'—which begins with the child's desire to approach or apprehend something of pleasure in the environment, being then restrained by the parent's preaching and teaching of commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truths to be accepted as is, by faith, i.e. "You can not _(fill in the blank)_," with the child's responding with "Why?" to get the parent into dialogue (there is no parental authority in dialogue, only "equality"), then the parent's "Because I said so," the parent's command, rule, fact, or truth being reinforced with the threat of chastening for disobedience, cutting off dialogue, then the child dialoguing with his "self" regarding his desire, his "ought," i.e. his opinion of the 'moment' revealing his love of pleasure and hate of restraint, then, if provided the opportunity in the classroom, his dialoguing with other children of like desires and dissatisfactions, 'justifying' his "self" in a room full of "self's," i.e. 'liberating' his-their "self" from parental authority, putting their "self" actualization into social action, i.e. praxis, negating the father's/Father's authority in society. 

It appears that even "Christian conservatives," in their effort to "save" America, don't want their 'justification' for 'compromise' (becoming like 'liberals') being exposed, i.e. their setting aside the gospel, i.e. not bringing up God's judgment upon sin and salvation through Christ Jesus, i.e. not bringing up man's need to repent, i.e. his need to change his way of thinking from 'justifying' his "self" to now putting on the mind of Christ (doing His Heavenly Father's will in all things commanded), in order to not "offend" others (bring them under conviction) and "chase" them away.  Thinking like 'liberals,' i.e. with money for (and participation in) the "cause" being the issue of the day, "conservatives" no longer see the issue of the day as being the soul of man—where he will spend eternity and with whom he will spend it (in Heaven with the Lord or in Hell with Satan).  "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 

I have come to realize that most people (including my own children and grandchildren) do not want to hear what I have to say because it would interfere with their plans for the day, i.e. "lusting" after the pleasures of the 'moment.'  Thus the statement "Only a dead father is a good father" (because when he is around he is to much of a father, i.e. preaching, teaching, and disciplining or not enough of a father, i.e. not loving, feeding, clothing, protecting, supporting enough) has been transcended (in praxis) by Irvin Yalom's statement: "The current generation is the first in the history of the world which has nothing to learn from grandparents;" (Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy) since, in the dialectic twist of things, there is no "good father" or "grandparent" "to learn from," i.e. the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions and his relationship with others and the world around him having usurped their relevance (other than the parent's giving birth to him and they, along with his grandparents supporting him in his worldly pleasures, i.e. feeding, clothing, protecting, and loving him, i.e. loving him being equated to letting him be permissive, i.e. become at-one-with the world in pleasure in the 'moment' without contaminating him with their commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e. that which is of the "past" which creates "neurosis," i.e. "repression" and "alienation").  The same is true of contemporary man (and the "contemporary church").  With the Heavenly Father and His authority (casting man into Hell for being "a child of disobedience," i.e. for being "normal") no longer considered as being rational (and therefore relevant) in man's feelings, thoughts, and actions and in his relationship with others and the world around him, the true gospel message (the Son's obedience to His Heavenly Father's authority) is negated in his feelings, thoughts, and actions and in his relationship with others and the world around him.  Hegel's "equality" of the family, i.e. turning the mother and the children over to their natural impulses and urges (inclination) to become at-one-with one another in the 'moment,' i.e. over to nature, i.e. to being "normal," negates the father's authority, i.e. negates capitulation ('liberates' the wife from the husband's authority and the children from parental restraint), engendering "common-ism," i.e. "common-unity," negating private property and business in the process.  Without the father's authority, the children, the mother, and the "humanized" (neutered) husband/father rule as "equals," 'creating' a "new" world order without any semblance of Godly restraint, i.e. a "new" world order where men, women, and children base right and wrong upon the positive or negative "feelings" they are getting from one another in the 'moment,' "right" being positive, i.e. permissive, "wrong" being negative, i.e. authoritative. 

While sin (disobedience, i.e. love of the world, i.e. love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e. hate of anything or anyone who inhibits or blocks the pleasure of the 'moment,' and "self" 'justification') comes naturally to the child/man, righteousness (obedience, i.e. doing the Father's will) does not.  We talk to our "self" regarding two things, satisfaction and dissatisfaction, i.e. what we want or desire in the 'moment,' i.e. pleasure,  and what we do not want in the 'moment,' i.e. anything or anyone who inhibits it or blocks it.   "Self" loves the pleasures of the 'moment.'  It placing hope in initiating ('creating') and sustaining the environment (the world) which stimulates it, not only throughout the day but throughout the rest of life.  It is here, in "self's" love of pleasure and hate of restraint that "human nature" and the Father's authority (doing right and not wrong, according to His commands, rules, facts, and truth) collide, with the child having to decide which world order he will embrace as reality, i.e. the world of the child, i.e. sensuousness (living by sight, i.e. disobeying the father, i.e. esteeming/actualizing his "self") or the world of the Father, i.e. righteousness (living by faith, i.e. obeying the father, i.e. humbling and denying, controlling and disciplining his "self"). 

Since, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the child's world is sensuous, i.e. since his nature (what is is talking to his "self" about—since "self" ties us to the surrounding environment of the 'moment') is influenced (stimulated) by sight (by all that is of the world, i.e. stimulating the child's "feelings" of the 'moment') it is imperative that the Father's authority be negated (be removed from the world, i.e. be removed from sight, i.e. be removed from influencing the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions and his relationship with others, removing who he is talking to his "self" about or who's commands, rules, facts, and truth he is preaching to and teaching his "self" about, i.e. reproving, correcting, rebuking his "self," humbling or denying his "self" to obey) if the child is to become "normal" again, i.e. if he is to be uniting with all the children of the world in the praxis (social action) of initiating and sustaining "worldly peace and socialist harmony," i.e. uniting with all the children of the world in "actualizing" their "self" (self-actualization, conscietization, democratization, etc.), basing 'reality' upon "human nature," with his unrighteous feelings, thought and actions (his 'relationship' with his "self") and his relationship with others and the world, 'justifying' abomination, i.e. "tolerating deviancy," i.e. what he is doing "in his self" already (in defiance to the father's/Father's authority).  "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: .... There is no fear of God before their eyes." "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"  Romans 3:10-18 (excerpts), 3:23  The child/man is no longer concerned with where he will spend eternity because he is infatuated with filling the next 'moment' with pleasure. 

We are not righteous in and of our "self," righteousness has to be imputed to us by faith in the Father and His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, i.e. the obedient Son, whose obedience to His Heavenly Father, i.e. dying on the cross, i.e. shedding His blood to cover our sins, 'redeems' us from the Father's wrath upon us for our disobedience, with His resurrection 'reconciling' us to His Heavenly Father.  The gospel message (why Jesus came, i.e. why He was sent by His Heavenly Father) is clearly stated in scripture and it has to do with the Father's authority and His Sons obedience to it.  It is in essence the Son saying: I want you to know my Father.  I want you to know His love for you—His wanting you to spend eternity with Him in His glory and holiness.  "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."  "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."  "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."  Matthew 7:21, 12:50, 23:9 

Now, not even "the church" (its leadership) will let me speak within its walls since I began exposing the dialectic process for what it is, i.e. the praxis of unrighteousness, i.e. of man 'justifying' himself before men, i.e. making himself as god, i.e. 'righteous' in his own eyes, as a child 'justifying' his desires makes himself "equal" with (and therefore greater than) the father's authority, i.e. establishing his "feelings," i.e. his opinion (aufheben) of the 'moment' over and against the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, negating the father's authority, i.e. negating (setting aside or disregarding as irrational and therefore irrelevant) any command, rule, fact, or truth which inhibits his feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment' (thereby overcoming "repression") and which interfere with his relationship with others (thereby overcoming "alienation").  The "churches" "drive" and "purpose" is now based upon dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. upon man's opinion, i.e. upon his "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' interpreting (cutting, rearranging, and pasting) God's Word in the 'light' of men's opinion, i.e. in the 'light' of his "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e. exonerating "sensuousness" ("sense experience"), i.e. augmenting pleasure, i.e. promoting "human relationship" and "human 'reasoning,'" i.e. basing 'righteousness' upon man's approval of man, i.e. upon consensus. 

Thus, God is no longer God because He says "I Am that I Am" (righteous in and of His self) but because the "church" says He "is" (made in his, i.e. in man's image, i.e. concerned about pleasing his "self," pleasing man, i.e. participating in man's social agenda of augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain), i.e. subject to 'change,' i.e. subject to man's "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e. subject to his opinion of the 'moment,' i.e. subject to "I think, therefore I am [god]," or rather "I can talk to my 'self,' therefore I am [god—since no one on the face of the earth, (only God) can hear what I and my "self" are talking to one another about in the 'moment']," or in context to "the group," "We can dialogue with one another, therefore we are [god—since sharing with one another what we are talking to our "self" about in the 'moment' makes "the group experience," i.e. the sensation of "oneness" (the consensus 'moment,' i.e. the sacrificing of "self" to the group, i.e. the worshiping of "self" as a thing "in and for itself") god]."   The "contemporary," i.e. the dialectic "church" is growing itself through its use of polls, surveys, feasibility studies, and feedback loops, i.e. basing "truth" upon "group approval," i.e. upon what man has in common ("self's" love of pleasure and hate of restraint AKA common-ism) instead of upon faith (with us evaluating, i.e. reproving, correcting, and rebuking our "self," i.e. our feelings, thoughts, and actions, i.e. our desires of the 'moment,' and the world around us according to the Lord's commands, rules, facts, and truth, with His righteousness being imputed to us by faith, i.e. according to His work alone, 'redeeming' us, by His blood, from His Heavenly Father's wrath upon us for our sins, 'reconciling' us, by His resurrection, to His Heavenly Father instead, with us weighing our "self," others, the world, and His Word with His Word, with His Holy Spirit confirming it, directing our steps, i.e. directing us to warn others of the wrath to come, to repent of their sins, to turn from their ungodly and unrighteous ways, and, following after the Lord, inherit eternal life instead).  "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."  Romans 5:9  "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."  John 3:36  "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;"  Romans 1:18

Likewise, after years of speaking on radio programs across the nation (at both conservative and liberal stations), I have not been invited to speak on any radio shows since I spoke on the father's/Father's authority and righteousness some two years ago.  Speaking on righteousness (the father's/Father's authority) in a dialectic world (where man 'justifies' himself before men, seeking man's approval, i.e. where the child's "feelings" are 'justified' over and against the father's authority) is like speaking into an empty barrel, not even hearing your own voice come back.  The hatred toward righteousness these days is palpable, i.e. manifested in laws created by men in order to 'justify' abomination, i.e. to "esteem" "self" over and against God's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e. negating the authority of His Word in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of men, i.e. 'liberating' "self" from Godly restraint. 

It is impossible to please God without faith.  It is impossible to keep your faith (to be justified in Christ, i.e. to be approved of the Father based upon your faith in His Son, with you repenting of your disobedience, i.e. of your sins, with the Son's obedience to His Heavenly Father in all things, i.e. His righteousness being imputed to you by faith, i.e. finding joy and peace in His Word, by His Spirit) and 'reason' dialectically (to 'justify' yourself, i.e. to be approved of men, based upon approaching-augmenting pleasure and avoiding-attenuating pain, i.e. establishing pleasure and enjoyment as the "drive" and "purpose" of life).  Despite your best effort to serve the Lord (dying to yourself daily, individually before God) and serve man at the same time ('justifying' your "self" through the approval of men), trusting in the Lord (being justified by faith in the Lord, i.e. basing truth upon His Word—confirmed by the Holy Spirit, i.e. having the Father's approval) and leaning to your own understanding (being 'justified' by sight, i.e. basing 'truth' upon "sense experience," i.e. finding consensus with self, others, and the world, according to nature—conforming yourself to the world, with the approval of men) are anathema to one another.  Dialectic 'reasoning' can only 'justify' "self," i.e. the carnal 'moment,' negating the soul, i.e. eternity in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of men.  The word of God, when shared as your opinion becomes just some more noise (another opinion) in a noisy room (in a room full of opinions).  Not until you silence (humble and deny) your "self" and share the word of God as is (preaching it as is, not dialoguing it as an opinion), can those in the room hear it for what it is, i.e. the truth, more than likely turning on you for preaching to them.  The "brilliance" of dialectic 'reasoning' (if you want to call it that) is that it does not reject the Word of God itself outright (although it does), it rejects the means by which it is to be received, i.e. having to believe it as is when hearing it preached"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."  Romans 10:17   "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness .... it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." (excerpts of 1 Corinthians 1:18-29)   "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."  Romans 12:2

It is impossible to "serve God and mammon," i.e. to be subject to the father's/Father's authority and the child's nature at the same time.  If we start with the father's/Father's right and wrong, then we have to make our "self's" natural "lust" of pleasure, i.e. natural inclination to approach pleasure and avoid pain subject to the father's/Father's authority.  Since his/His right and wrong are unadaptable to 'change,' i.e. unadaptable to our "feelings" of the 'moment,' "self's" love of pleasure and hate of pain is negated as the foundation from which to determine right and wrong from.  But if we start with pleasure, i.e. with our "self's" natural inclination to love pleasure and hate of pain, we have to make right and wrong subject to our desires, i.e. making right and wrong adaptable to 'change,' i.e. subject to our "felt needs" of the 'moment,' i.e. subject to the given situation), negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e. his/His right and wrong in the process.  In dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. in the sense of invincibility, i.e. in the pride of life which, comes with "self-social-worldly" 'justification' (consensus), you can not see your lose of eternal life, i.e. your inheritance (in Christ Jesus, i.e. in His obedience to His Heavenly Father) because you (as a "child of disobedience") are getting what you want in the 'moment' (at least in your imagination), i.e. the pleasures of this life, including and especially the approval of men (that which makes you "complete" in this world only).   "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 [the one above, i.e. the truth established forever] and mammon [the many below, i.e. your "feelings" which are forever 'changing,' i.e. subject to the environment around you]."  Matthew 6:24  Why would a "minister" turn to the methods of the world (dialectic 'reasoning') to promote (market) the gospel?  Because he is still in love with the things of the world, i.e. serving "mammon." 

Dialectic 'reasoning' deceives us into believing that we can have it both ways, i.e. serve God (refusing to compromise His Word, doing right and not wrong according to His Word, despite the given situation, i.e. reproving, correcting, or rebuking unrighteousness in our "self" and in others despite the rejection, i.e. despite the persecution which comes from them, i.e. humbling, denying, controlling, disciplining our "self" in order to be approved of God, i.e. being "ridged," "negative," "unadaptable to 'change'" when it comes to the Word of God) and serve man (willing to compromise to be approved of men, i.e. doing "right" and not "wrong" according to the given situation, i.e. being silent in the midst of unrighteousness, i.e. not reproving, correcting, or rebuking unrighteousness in our "self" and in others, i.e. esteeming our "self" and their "self" in order to be approved of them, being "flexible," "positive," "adaptable to 'change'" when it comes to the flesh and the world), only leaving us with "mammon" ("human nature" and "human 'reasoning,'" i.e. self 'justification,' i.e. "self-actualization," i.e. aufheben, i.e. dialectic 'reasoning') in the end.  It is not just the loving of "mammon" that is the problem it is the hating of God (and those who believe in Him) that ensues (if you love "mammon," i.e. your "self" and the world, you have to hate God, i.e. the Father's authority), with those of dialectic 'reasoning' 'justifying' in their minds the negation (killing) of those of faith in the Lord (at least turning their heads the other way as others do it), in the name of 'creating' "worldly peace and socialist harmony."   "Making the world safe for democracy" (safe for the tyranny of the masses, safe for the flesh) would not be such an issue in this life (being just some rhetoric) if it was not for the violence and bloodshed that ensues, i.e. the lack of tolerance that it engenders, i.e. that it 'justifies' in the name of 'change.'  

Behind love is hate.  If you love God you hate sin.  If the child loves the Father he hates his sinful nature to disobey.  If you love sin, i.e. your "self" and the world, you hate God.  If the child loves his sinful nature he hates the Father's authority.  In the former God has taken care of sin by faith in Him, i.e. in Him and in His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.  In the latter (making the world "safe for democracy," i.e. safe for sin, i.e. safe for the augmentation of pleasure and the attenuation of pain as being the only foundation from which to determine right from wrong from, i.e. thinking and acting according to the given 'moment') you have to kill those who love God (who preach and teach right from wrong according to God's Word), or at least let others do it for you as you turn your head the other way as though nothing has happened, doing so without having a "guilty conscience," since that comes from love of the father's/Father's authority, which you have negated in your feelings, thoughts, and actions and in your relationship with others (seeking the approval of men over and against the Lord God, i.e. rejecting, persecuting, and negating those who believe in God, i.e. who deny their "self," pick up their cross, i.e. willingly face the rejection of men, even their own "friends," and follow the Lord, in obedience to His, now, in faith in Christ, their Heavenly Father).  For example: Roe vs. Wade was based upon the Supreme court's 'shift' from right-wrong (Christianity, i.e. accountability to God, the eternal consequence of one's thoughts and actions) to pleasure-pain (Stoicism, accountability to man, the sensuous 'moment' of pleasure) as being the foundation from which thought and action (theory and practice) is to be based.

When you negate (set aside or no longer recognize, i.e. perceive as being "irrational" and therefore treat as "irrelevant") the father's/Father's authority, i.e. no longer do right and not wrong according to his/His standards, which engenders a "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, i.e. where the soul (righteousness/doing right and not wrong and eternity/inheritance) is the concern of life, replacing his/His authority with facilitators of 'change' "helping" children actualize their nature, i.e. approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e. which engenders the "super-ego" where the flesh (sensuousness and the carnal 'moment,' i.e. "self" and the world) is the concern of life, making the "drive" and "purpose" of life the augmentation of pleasure and the attenuation of pain (including the pain of missing out on pleasure—because of having to submit to the father's authority, doing right and not wrong according to his will, i.e. which is "negativity" to the flesh, i.e. inhibiting or blocking you from your carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e. that which is of nature) you end up doing unconscionable things in the flesh (putting into praxis "self" 'justification,' that which all children/men have in common, making it "self-social" 'justification') which "war[s] against the soul," with the universal (that which of the world, i.e. the child's carnal nature, i.e. the flesh of man) negating the heavenly (that which is of the father/Father, i.e. God, i.e. His law, Word, and Holy Spirit and the soul of each individual man accountable before God) in the feelings, thoughts, and actions (in the values) of men.  "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 man, which is temporary, in the 'moment' only, passing away], and lose his own soul [the approval of God, which is eternal]?"  Mark 8:36 

Once the universality (the commonality) of all fruit is learned, the individuality of each particular fruit (the almond, the apple, the orange, etc.), according to Karl Marx (The Holy Family), is never seen the same way again, the individual fruit only being perceived through the universality of "The Fruit" from then on.  In the same way the child (in "group therapy," i.e. in psychoanalysis) no longer perceive himself as being under the father's/Father's authority, individually isolated from the universal, i.e. "alienated" from all the children of the world, i.e. with all children being divided from one other according to their father's/Father's standards (commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e. belief, i.e. bearing the fruit of righteousness), but now perceive his identity as being "equal" (common) with all the children of the world, i.e. with their desire for pleasure and dissatisfaction with restraint, i.e. 'liberated' to openly share their theory or opinion of the 'moment' without reproof, correction, or rebuke, i.e. bearing the fruit of unrighteousness and abomination over and against the father's/Father's authority (correlated to parochialism, individualism, nationalism, i.e. isolationism).  Thus individuality (the soul of man, i.e. the child/man doing right and not wrong according to the father's/Father's will, engendering the "guilty conscience") is sacrificed to universality (the carnal nature of the children, i.e. with all children/men augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain, engendering the "super-ego"), 'liberating' the child/man to do unconscionable things in the name of universality, i.e. "Making the world safe for democracy."

There was a time when we were horrified when we learned of German solders killing our soldiers (after our soldiers had surrendered to them) as well as their own solders (who were wounded), because they were perceived as being a drain on their resources, but today we are not horrified when we kill the innocent and the helpless (the unborn and elderly) because they are perceived as being a drain on ours.  Socialism, whether national or global, has this common epitaph, "I was simply doing my job" (without a conscience).

Mimesis (dialectic imagination, "dialectic phantasies," Martin Luther) is man's ability to take something and make it into what it is not (as a child, in his mind, turns a broom into a horse, man can, in his mind, turn another man's wife, another man, a child, etc. into his object of sexual pleasure, imagining them as his, i.e. turning good into evil and evil into good) in order to get pleasure out of them for himself, 'justifying' his feelings, thoughts, and actions (based upon pleasure as being the 'drive' and 'purpose' of life) in the process. "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."  Genesis 6:5  "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man." Luke 17:26  "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;"  2 Corinthians 10:3-6

It is difficult to see the dialectic process ("self" 'justification') for what it is, i.e. evil, because it is such a big part of your life, i.e. your ability to talk to your "self," which draws you to the world, for example: talking to your "self" while crossing a steam, i.e. deciding which rocks to step on so as not to fall in—which is not evil (unless someone is telling you which rocks to step on, who knows, and you, in defiance, refuse to listen), or talking to your "self," i.e. deciding for yourself how you are to relate with your "self," others, the world, and God, i.e. 'justifying' your "self," i.e. 'justifying' your carnal desires of the 'moment' over and against the father's/Father's restraints, negating the father's/Father's authority, i.e. the "guilty conscience" in your feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in your relationship with others in the process, which is evil.  The dialectic process is the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6—where the first facilitator of 'change' "helped" two "children" 'justify' their heart's desire of the 'moment' over and against the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, negating Hebrews 12:5-11 (the father's/Father's authority) and Romans 7:14-25 (the "guilty conscience") in their feelings, thoughts, and actions and relationship with one another in the process.  The "guilty conscience" can only be resolved through Christ Jesus' obedience to His Heavenly Father, His obedience (righteousness) being imputed to us through faith in Him.  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' if you can negate the "guilty conscience" (for disobedience to the Father), you can negate the Christ of the gospel, keeping only Christ the man—'liberating' the oppressed of the world, leaving man's hope in the world only, seeking after pleasure only.

When you talk to your "self," 'justifying' your feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment' (disregarding Godly restraint in the 'moment,' i.e. refusing to talk or fellowship with the Lord in the 'moment' for direction, i.e. refusing to humble, deny, control, discipline your "self" before the Lord in the 'moment' to listen to what He is telling you, i.e. not reproving, correcting, rebuking your "self" in the 'moment' regarding what you have done, are doing, or are thinking about doing that is wrong or evil, i.e. not weighing your "self" in the 'moment' according to His Word) you become "as god" yourself, weighing your "self," others, the world around you, as well as God Himself and His Word according to your "felt needs" ("feelings") of the 'moment,' i.e. from your "lusts" of the flesh and eyes, and pride of life, i.e. from the world (your flesh, i.e. the law of the flesh and sin), which the "self" loves, with you directing your own steps in the 'moment' instead of the Lord.  Your soul is eternal, i.e. you are eternal, i.e. subject to God.  Your "self," left to its "self," is subject to the environment in which your body finds itself in the 'moment.'  Unless you humble, deny, control, discipline your "self" under God, i.e. reproving, correcting, rebuking your "self," making it subject to God (doing right and not wrong according to His will), your "self" will make you subject to the world alone ('justifying' itself, i.e. seeking after pleasure and avoiding pain, including avoiding the pain of standing alone for truth, i.e. missing out on pleasure as well as having to endure the pain of rejection).  

Your ability to talk to your "self" in the 'moment' makes you an individual in the world ("a particular in the universal," i.e. a "thing in itself" according to Hegel), i.e. the center of concern, weighing what is going on around you from your "self," making you as a god, 'righteous' in and of your "self," determining right from wrong according to your nature, i.e. according to your natural inclination of approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, i.e. according to the sensuous 'moment.'  The same is true for every person who is on the face of earth at this very 'moment,' judging all the world around them (including you) from their talking to their "self," 'justifying' their "self," making themselves as god, weighing what is going on around them in the "light" of whether it will bring them pleasure or pain.  Apart from God, i.e. the Father's authority, man perceives himself as being god, determining right from wrong based upon the survival of his flesh.  But man is not god (singularly or collectedly with others, i.e. "thing for itself," or universally, i.e. "thing in and for itself"), being by his nature, i.e. his flesh, subject to this world only, i.e. "Only from Nature" (Marx).  God is God, i.e. "I Am that I Am," with man (his soul) depending upon God and His Word for eternal life.  "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  While man seeks to find life in the world, which is temporary, i.e. of the 'moment' only, which leads to eternal death, God seeks for man to find life in Him, who is eternal, i.e. who is everlasting, i.e. "the same yesterday, today, and forever" with "no shadow of turning," which leads to eternal life.

'Justifying' your "self" with "group approval," even "in the name of the Lord" does not change a think.  Every one you meet today (who is not walking in the Lord, not having "fellowship with the Father, and with His son Jesus Christ") is talking to their "self" in the 'moment,' i.e. 'justifying' their "self" in the 'moment' (thinking about what they or others have done, are doing, or are planning on doing that might affect them "positively" or "negatively"—bring them pleasure or pain) according to their "felt need" of the 'moment' (concerned with how other's are feeling or what they are thinking about them that can affect their pleasures of the day—especially the pleasure that comes from the approval of others who are providing pleasure in the 'moment' and/or have the potential of providing pleasure in the future for them).   Everyone is running to and fro, seeking to control the world so that they can have pleasure, including the pleasure which comes from the approval of others, making their "self" the center of the world, becoming as god in their own eyes (in their imagination).  The truth be known no man controls the world, the world controls him, making his feelings, thoughts, and actions subject to it.  When the "feeling" of pleasure which comes from the approval of men (made manifest though dialogue, i.e. where everyone is openly sharing what they are talking to their "self" about, uniting on a common opinion, i.e. the common desire for pleasure and hate of restraint—where the individual is transformed from being a god in himself alone to where the "group," including him, becomes as god collectively, or rather the facilitator of 'change' becomes god in the eyes of all 'willing' participates), i.e. the "feeling" of "group" approval, i.e. the "feeling" of consensus, i.e. the "feeling" of "oneness," i.e. "We working for Us," i.e. "We working for 'God'" becomes the "drive" and the "purpose" of life, the "church," even doing "wonderful things in the name of the Lord," becomes apostate, approving (esteeming) its "self" according to the approval of men instead of letting the Lord God direct its steps (with each individual member doing God's will in the body, i.e. thinking and acting) according to His Word, lead by His Holy Spirit with God getting the glory.  The individual (talking to his "self") who finds his identity in "the group" is 'liberated' from the Lord.  He is no longer humbling and denying his "self" under God, but "esteeming" his "self" (even doing "wonderful things in the name of the Lord") with "group approval" instead.  "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished."  Proverbs 16:5

If you start with the child, i.e. with "human nature," i.e. with the "feelings" of the 'moment,' instead of with the father's/Father's authority, i.e. with his commands, rules, facts, and truth, then the father's/Father's authority (restraint) is negated and abomination (the child's carnal nature) rules.  If you are silent in the midst of unrighteousness, i.e. refusing to reprove, correct, or rebuke those who are unrighteous, in order to initiate or sustain relationship with them, unrighteousness rules (becomes the "norm").  If you are silent in the midst of the child's rebellious nature, i.e. refusing to reprove, correct, or rebuke him, in order to initiate and sustain relationship with him, the child's rebellious nature rules (becomes the "norm").  The Antichrist loves pleasure, i.e. including the approval (the worship) of all men, and hates Godly restraint.  Only by 'liberating' "the child" within all men can he 'create' a world where he can do as he pleases, with no "guilty conscience," i.e. with the approval of (the worship of) all men.

Dialectic 'reasoning' follows the line of "progression" ('reasoning') from the child's 1) consciousness of the world of pain and pleasure, becoming aware of the pleasure of the world (approaching it) and the pain engendered by the father's authority, i.e. learning to avoid the pain (chastening) which comes from the father by avoiding the pleasure which comes from the world, 2) self-consciousness, where the child privately talks to his "self" about his desire for pleasure, i.e. desiring that which comes from the world and his resentment toward pain, i.e. resenting the father's authority which restrains him, and 3) self-actualization (true 'reasoning,' Selbstveränderung, i.e. self-transformation) where the child is united with the children of the world in common "discourse," with all children openly dialoguing their opinions to a consensus with one another, 'justifying' themselves with one another (their love of pleasure and hate of restraint), to become at-one-with their nature, one another, and the world, in pleasure, in the 'moment,' thereby 'liberating' themselves from the father's authority, i.e. negating the father's authority (rigidity, negativity) in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, as well as in their relationship with one another and the world in the process, putting "class consciousness" (consensus) into social action, i.e. into praxis, i.e. uniting theory (opinion) and practice (social action), negating the father's authority from society (from the world), creating a "new" world order where facilitators of 'change,' ruling over ("guiding," "coaching") the children instead of the father, live off of the children's labor and inheritance ("surplus capital"), without having a "guilty conscience."

The "new world order" is initiated and sustained by facilitators of 'change' "helping" children 'liberate' themselves ('liberate' their "self" by esteeming their "self"), i.e. 'liberate' their affective domain (their "feelings," i.e. "felt needs" of the 'moment') from the father's authority, using what is not theirs, i.e. what is the father's (the children's inheritance) for their own pleasure in the end.  It is the praxis of psychoanalysis (the idea that when a child is forced to suspends pleasure, i.e. to set aside his carnal desire of the 'moment,' i.e. to reprove, correct, rebuke his "self" according to his father's/Fathers commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e. to suppress his impulse or urge to become at-one-with the world in pleasure in the 'moment' in order to do the father's will, i.e. to satisfy someone else's pleasure, i.e. to capitulate himself to a foreign entity instead, he engenders capitalism, i.e. "neurosis," "repression," and "alienation").  Note: void any understanding (acceptance) of the work of God on the heart of man (with regenerated man walking in the spirit instead of according to the flesh) all that those of the world have to work with is man's carnal nature.  Starting with man's carnal nature all they can end up with is the 'justification' of man's carnal nature.  Psychoanalysis is the praxis of "helping" children learn how to use dialectic 'reasoning' in order to 'liberate' themselves (their "self") from the father's authority, from having to do right and not wrong (according to the father's standards)—where the children sustain the "old world order" based upon righteousness (at least the semblance of it) doing what is right (established by the father) despite the pain of missing out on the pleasure of the 'moment,' where they must set aside their nature, i.e. the pleasure (the temptation) of the 'moment' to become at-one-with the world, i.e. resist the "eternal present," i.e. resist 'change' to do the father's will.  The "new world order" is based upon the seduction, deception, and manipulation of the child's carnal nature in order to get them to do their carnal will instead, i.e. moving them from approaching pleasure and avoiding pain while still submitting to the father's authority of right and wrong, engendering a "guilty conscience" for approaching pleasure, i.e. for doing wrong, to the augmenting of pleasure and attenuating of pain only (negating the father's authority) in the process, i.e. 'creating' a "new world order" based upon sensuousness only, i.e. based only upon the child's natural love of pleasure and hate of restraint (the affective domain).

When facilitators of 'change' teach children dialectic 'reasoning' (critical thinking, i.e. "higher order thinking skills" in morals and ethics) in order to "help" children 'justify' their carnal desires of the 'moment' over and against the father's authority, i.e. 'liberate' themselves from the father's authority, they "help" them negate (overcome) the father's authority (the "guilty conscience") in their feelings, thoughts, and actions and in their relationship with one another, gaining jurisdiction over his property and business (in the name of "the people," i.e. in the name of "community," i.e. in the name of society), using it for their own carnal pleasures instead, doing so without having a "guilty conscience."  When children have no parental restraint (no father's authority) in their lives, i.e. when they have no "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, thinking through their "feelings" of the 'moment' instead (having a seared conscience, i.e. a "super-ego" instead, i.e. where "right" and "wrong" is based upon the "feelings," i.e. the "sensuous need" and "sense perception" of the 'moment'), i.e. 'justifying' themselves ('actualizing' their "self"), i.e. 'justifying' their "feelings" (their impulses and urges) of the 'moment' (being old enough to know the difference between right and wrong but refusing to recognize that what they are feeling, thinking, and/or doing is wrong), doing what they "feel" like doing in the 'moment' instead (disobeying their parents with impunity, i.e. with no fear of or concern regarding judgment, i.e. perceiving their parents commands, rules, facts, and truth as being irrational, i.e. out of touch with their carnal desires of the 'moment,' therefore treating them and their authority as being irrelevant), they end up tolerating or doing unconscionable/abominable things, i.e. praxis-ing dialectic 'reasoning' (diaprax).  By the facilitator of 'change' "helping" the children, i.e. "the group" 'liberate' themselves from the father's authority, the children, i.e. "the group" (united in consensus, i.e. united in a "feeling" of "oneness') will praxis negating (removing) the father and his authority from society (without having a "guilty conscience").  Our inheritance is found in the father's/Father's authority.   When we negate the father's authority we negate our inheritance, turning our lives (and our inheritance) over to those who helped us 'liberate' our "self" from the father's authority, having to spend the rest of our lives with them controlling our lives, doing unconscionable things to us (with no "guilty conscience").

The greatest barrier to compromise, i.e. to 'change,' i.e. to community, i.e. to socialism, i.e. to globalism is the child's "guilty conscience," i.e. the father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the child, interfering with his relationship with those who are seeking after pleasure over and against the father's will.  If the father's authority (the "guilty conscience") remains in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in his relationship with others, the "new world order" can not be initiated and sustained.  It is therefore imperative, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' that the father's authority (the "guilty conscience") be negated in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in his relationship with others, if a "new world order" is to be initiated and sustained.

If you want to initiate and sustain world unity (globalism), diaprax is the procedure which is to be followed, i.e. teaching children how to build unity (how to "build relationship") upon what they all have in common, i.e. their love of pleasure ("self interest") and hate of restraint, 'justifying' their canal desires of the 'moment' (the "feelings" of the "present") as well as their resentment toward parental restraint (the standards of the "past").  With the help of facilitators of 'change,' children, doing what comes naturally, i.e. talking to themselves, i.e. 'justifying' their love of pleasure (including the pleasure which comes from others approving, i.e. getting pleasure out of their having pleasure) and their hate of restraint (their hate of the pain which comes from missing out on pleasure, i.e. including the pain which comes from being rejected by other children who they want approval, i.e. 'justification' from), can be united as "one."  By sharing (dialoguing) their desires (opinions), 'discovering' their common love of pleasure and hate of restraint (where they are willing to 'compromise'), they can (with the "help" of a facilitator of 'change'') learn not only how to 'discover' and unite upon their "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e. come to a consensus but also how to put their common "feeling" (consensus) into social action (praxis), negating the father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions and in their relationship with one another (as well as in society), taking that which is not theirs to take (taking that which is the father's) for themselves, having no "guilty conscience," in the process.  "A democratic society repudiates the principle of external authority [negates parental, i.e. the father's/Father's authority]."  "In fact self and interest are the same fact [focuses us upon nature only, i.e. upon the world only]; the kind and amount of interest actively taken in a thing reveals and measures the quality of selfhood [humanism-environmentalism-socialism-globalism] which exits."  (John Dewey, Democracy and Education)  "Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture [have been 'liberated' from parental authority]. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens [subject to man's carnal nature and the world only], members of the human species [globalists] first and foremost." (Abraham Maslow, The Further Reaches of Human Nature)   "In a democratic society a patriarchal culture [parental authority] should make us depressed instead of glad; it is an argument against the higher possibilities of human nature, of self actualization." "In our democratic society, any enterprise—any individual—has its obligations to the whole [supporting the principles of "common-ism" and "human-ism"]." "Tax credits [money taken from private business] would be given to the company that helps to improve the whole society [guaranteeing that private business, i.e. "pop and mom business" can not compete and survive], and helps to improve the democracy by helping to create democratic individuals [only socialist ideology, i.e. only "tolerance of deviancy" will be promoted and enforced in the workplace, i.e. the parent's or original owners standards, beliefs, or principles will no longer be allowed, i.e. be promoted and enforced over the employees]."  (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)

When children negate the father's authority (parental restraint, i.e. the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong) in their feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment,' and in their relationship with one another, i.e. when they refuse the father's chastening of them (to restore them to doing what is right), thinking that they can do wrong with impunity, i.e. doing what they think ("feel") is right in their own eyes instead, i.e. evaluating themselves, the world, and their father's commands, rules, facts, and truth according to their "feelings," i.e. "desires," "lusts," "enjoyments," pleasures," i.e. their opinion of the 'moment,' they bring upon themselves the father's wrath in the end (being cast out of the home as a "child of disobedience," i.e.  being "cut out" of the will—that is, unless the father's authority is rejected by society, i.e. superseded by "community needs," with the community focusing upon the children's "felt" needs of the 'moment' (the children's "self interest"), with facilitators of 'change' uniting the children and the community ("building relationship") upon the social action (praxis) of 'liberating' the children and the community from the father's authority, i.e. taking what is the father's for themselves, forcing the children to follow them if they are to have access to what was the father's, i.e. his property and business (which was to become their inheritance), now in the hands of the facilitators of 'change' ("the children of disobedience"), being using for their own carnal gain instead.

What is true for the child is true for man.  Without Godly restraint, i.e. without Godly sorrow, repentance, and turning from his sins, man (as a child who 'justifies' himself over and therefore against his father's authority, i.e. sinning with impunity) engenders a world of unrighteousness and abomination, bringing upon himself God's judgment (the Father's wrath) in the end (being cast into Hell as a "child of disobedience," i.e. being "cut out" of the 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 words [with words your fleshy/carnal mind wants (desires) to hear, 'liberating' yourself from Godly restraint]: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.  Be not ye therefore partakers with them."  "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.  For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret."  Ephesians 5:5-7, 11, 12  "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   "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.  Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.  To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."  Revelation 3:19-21

A persons use of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. 'justifying' themself according to their "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e. according to their desire for pleasure and their desire to relate with (not be rejected by) those they get pleasure from, i.e. who approve ('justify) their compromising of the truth in order to initiate and sustain that pleasure, prevents them from hearing you as you warn them of what is happening to them.  It is why they give you that "deer in the headlights look" when you share the truth with them, with them excusing themselves, having something (more) important (they just remembered) they have to do, "having eyes which are human eyes, and ears which are human ears" (Karl Marx), interested only in that which makes them "feel" good in the 'moment,' hating anything which might prevent them from having their carnal way.  Every effort is made to silence those who speak of righteousnessreproving, correcting, rebuking sensuousness—using dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. self-social 'justification,' to silence anyone who might arouse a "guilty conscience" within them for their wicked ways. "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  "And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."  Matthew 13:14-16

Karl Marx (as did Sigmund Freud) knew ...  (Continued)

© Institution for Authority Research  Dean Gotcher 1997-2015