"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 

About, Issues, Articles, Schedule, Material, Scheduling, Audios (New 10-4), Youtube, Radio (New 9-24), Archived, Textus Receptus, Class, Warnings, Thanks!  P.S.

When children negate the Father's authority in their feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment,' and in their relationship with one another, they bring upon themselves the Father's wrath in the end.

The following is an exposé on how America has become the nation it is today.  It is not by accident that we have arrived at this level of depravity, i.e. of abomination we find ourselves.  It is the result of a well orchestrated agenda, over a century in the making.  Researching our education system, i.e. my teacher training (in the light of God's Word), I learned more about George Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud (dialectic 'reasoning') than all the European philosophy classes I took—that Hegel's, Marx's, and Freud's agenda was to 'liberate' children from parental restraint (from the father's authority), which they correlated with 'liberating' man from Godly restraint (from the Heavenly Father's authority).  Conversely I could say, researching our education system, i.e. my teacher training (in the "light" of George Hegel, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud, i.e. their hate of the father's/Father's authority) I learned more about the Word of God (the authority of the Father) than I did from all the theology classes I took in Seminary.  Instead of preaching and teaching what "is" good and what "is not" good, i.e. inculcating facts and truth so that the next generation might know right from wrong (according to the father's/Father's standards) and do what is right (righteousness—feeling, thinking, and acting, and relating with others according to what the father/Father wills) and not do what is wrong (unrighteousness—feeling, thinking, and acting, and relating with others according to their own will, i.e. according to their urges and impulses of the 'moment'), their agenda was to get the next generation to focus upon their own (and others) "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' (sensuousness"sense experience," i.e. "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," where 'knowledge' comes from their "relationships" within the world only and not from any authority above it, restraining them), i.e. to dialogue their opinions and theories (their "self interests") of the 'moment' with one another to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness") and thereby 'liberate' themselves from right-wrong ("prejudiced," i.e. "judgmental") thinking, i.e. from the father's/Father's "above-below," "top-down," "right-wrong" authority system (ruling over their feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in their relationship with others), resulting in: "What matters is not whether people are right or wrong (good or evil) but that they are contributing to the social cause of augmenting pleasure for everybody."

Instead of graded your child (and you) upon whether they got the answer right or not (facts and truth based, i.e. faith based), the current "grading system" (based upon dialectic 'reasoning') is now concerned with how they "feel" (and make other people "feel") in the 'moment' ("relationships" based, i.e. sight based).  Dialectic 'reasoning' has not only taken over the classroom but the world (including your "community"), wanting your child (and you) to participate, 'justifying' unrighteousness and abomination.  I realize that my explaining of (exposing) the dialectic process is falling on mostly deaf ears (with people having hardened their hearts against the truth because of their love for the pleasures of this life, i.e. using dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. "leaning to their own understanding" to 'justify' themselves and their pleasures, i.e. their "self interests" rather than "trusting in the Lord with all their heart") but to be silent in the midst of unrighteousness is to condone it, making it the "norm."  If you have not weighed your feelings, thoughts, and actions, and relationship with others, from the Father's authority today, you are on the dialectic pathway.  It is not how far down the path you have gone, the issue is the pathway you are on.  I leave it up to you to identify where dialectic 'reasoning' is influencing you or has taken control over your life.

As crazy as it may sound, education has always been about the Father's authority—with you either being subordinate to it or 'liberated' (or being 'liberated') from it.  It is either about the garden experience, where the master facilitator of 'change' "helped" two children 'liberate' themselves from the Father's (God's) authority, establishing life upon their "self interest" of the 'moment,' i.e. upon how they felt and what they thought in the 'moment,' i.e. upon their opinions, i.e. upon their "sensuous needs" and "senses perception" of the 'moment,' i.e. upon "sense experience" (Karl Marx) rather than upon the commands, rules, facts, and truth of the Father—rejecting faith in the Father's authority they engendered estrangement from the Father and eternal death, or about the gospel, where the only begotten Son of God (Jesus Christ) accepted the Father's authority, who (humbling and denying himself) obeyed His Father in all things, i.e. did what His Father commanded—His righteousness imputed to men of faith in Him, i.e. who repent of their sins (their lack of faith which engenders disobedience) against the Father and follow after Christ (in faith engendered obedience to His Father), who 'redeemed' man from His Father's wrath, 'reconciling' him to His Father and eternal life instead.  While Christ Jesus reconciles us to His Heavenly Father, dialectic 'reasoning' 'reconciles' us to ourselves, i.e. 'justifies' our "lusts" for the things of the world, negating the Father's authority.  "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16

While the earthly father is not perfect, being of the flesh, i.e. subject to the pleasures of the world, the Heavenly Father is perfect, being not of the flesh, i.e. not subject to the temptations of this world—His only begotten Son, coming in the flesh, i.e. coming in the form of a man, was tempted in all things yet without sinning (without disobedience), fulfilled his Father's will in all things, even unto death. While the earthly father is not perfect, his office of authority, given to him by God, is perfect, with him ruling over his home, in the Lord.  Our nation was founded upon having no earthly father's authority over the nation, the states, the counties, townships, or cities but leaving it in place in the home, in the father's authority over the family, i.e. the engenderer of the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, i.e. the underpinning of "civil government."  It is this "above-below," "top-down," "Spirit-flesh," "right-wrong" pattern (the engenderer of the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong), of both the earthly father and the Heavenly Father that dialectic 'reasoning' seeks to negate.  The dialectic idea being: if you can negate the earthly father's authority (which is affected by the flesh) in the feelings, thoughts, actions, and in the relationships children have with one another, then you can negate the Heavenly Father's authority (of the spirit) in the feelings, thoughts, actions, and in the relationships men have with one another.  To negate the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong/for sinning, the father's/Father's authority, i.e. the engender of the "guilty conscience" must be negated in the feelings, thoughts, actions, and relationship the children/men have with one another and the world.  While men have used the father's authority to rule over men and nations (including within the "church"), the gospel (not being subject to the nations and religions of the world) does not—something that those of dialectic 'reasoning' (and those of the "church") have overlooked for their own carnal gain—no minister is to come between the believer and the Heavenly Father and His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, only to come along side him, encouraging him in his walk with Them.  "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven."  Matthew 23:9  "and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."  1 John 3:1 

Without the father's/Father's authority and the child's/man's propensity to "lust" after  the pleasures of the world/sin (the antithesis between spirit and flesh) dialectic 'reasoning' (the child/man "rationally" 'justifying' himself over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority) would not exist—uniting children, man, and all that is of the world as one, i.e. as "equals," i.e. as god ('righteous' in and of themselves).  If you can negate the one ("religious" differences) you can negate the other (alienation between men, i.e. "civil society," nationalism, individualism, private property, private business, etc.). "The immediate task is to unmask human alienation [man ruling over man as a father rules over his children, restraining, i.e. "repressing" "human nature," getting in the way of the pleasures of the 'moment'—according to Freud, uninhibited, consensual sexual pleasure being the greatest pleasure of all, i.e. with and between men, women, children, animals, etc.] in its secular form, now that it has been unmasked in the sacred form [God ruling over man, judging man's love of "human nature," i.e. abomination as being wicked]." (T. B. Bottomore and M. Rubel, eds, Karl Marx: Selected writing in Sociology and Social Philosophy)  Thus, if you can 'liberate' the child from having faith, i.e. faith in his parent's authority, i.e. in the earthly father's authority (by putting his trust in himself and "the group" instead) you can 'liberate' man from having faith in God's authority, i.e. in the Heavenly Father's authority (by putting his trust in the facilitator of 'change' and society instead).

The dialectic process is known for its three stages or conditions, i.e. thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.   According to dialectic 'reasoning' the Father's position is regarded as an opinion amongst opinions and His facts and truth are regarded as a theory (making all things relative, i.e. situational) but to expose the deception of the process I will treat thesis as a position or an established fact or truth, the three conditions therefore being paradigms, or ways of feeling, thinking, acting, and relating with others rather than a cyclical process of 'change' (until no antithesis, i.e. no Father's authority remains), the three conditions being: position, conflict, and compromise or facts and truth, feelings, and 'justification,' where 'justification' is found in the need to compromise rather than in the Father's unchanging position, or Patriarch, Matriarch, and Heresiarch.  The conflict or tension (antithesis) between the father's authority or position (thesis) and the child's (man's) feelings, i.e. his desires ("lusts," "pleasures," "enjoyments") of the 'moment' has been the catalyst for dialectic 'reasoning' (for synthesis, i.e. the child 'justifying' his "feelings" and 'thoughts" over and therefore against his father's authority, i.e. for 'change,' i.e. for the philosophy of "Critical Theory"—critical thoughts against parental authority) down through the ages, with either the father's authority and the "guilty conscience" for disobedience (the "old" world order, i.e. Hebrews 12:5-11 and Romans 7:14-25) prevailing or the child's "self interests" of the 'moment' (the "new" world order, i.e. Genesis 3:1-6—the first praxis of dialectic 'reasoning') taking its place (either by force, i.e. killing the father, along with those who honour and submit to his authority, by the father, along those who honour and submit to his authority, abdicating his position of authority, i.e. being silent in the midst of unrighteousness, or by circumventing his authority instead).  "Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon .... transform public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests.... transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps..."  (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order)

Building community ("building relationships") depends upon synthesis, i.e. upon compromise, i.e. upon 'self justification,' i.e. 'liberating' one's self from the father's authority.  Compromise is necessary if one wants to initiate and sustain community.  Yet the father's authority is negated in the praxis of compromise.  Philosophy (Genesis 3:1-6) is simply the child, dissatisfied with the way thing are, i.e. the way the world is (antithesis), i.e. subject to the father's authority (thesis), thinking about (reflecting upon) how the world "ought" to be, i.e. in harmony with his "feelings" of the 'moment' (synthesis), i.e. 'justifying' himself, i.e. 'justifying' his urges and impulses of the 'moment.'  Putting philosophy into social action (praxis) establishes the child's feelings and thoughts, i.e. his opinion over and therefore against the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, negating the father's authority in the process, negating God as the source of life.  Rejecting God the Father, i.e. the giver of life, all that the child or man can do is worship the creation, i.e. the fountain of pleasure.   Since there is no eternity or absolute in an opinion, only that which is temporary and 'changeable,' i.e. that which is being experienced in the pleasure and/or the pain of the 'moment,' in dialectic 'reasoning' it is not the creator or even the creation that is the source of '"life" but man's opinion of it, which is ever subject to ('changing' according to) the conditions of the 'moment.'  As Karl Marx explained it: "The philosophers [the children] have only interpreted the world in different ways [how they believe the world "ought" to be], the objective however, is change [is to initiate and sustain the 'change' process itself, keeping 'change' (the dialectic process and the facilitators of 'change') in place forever, through praxis (community action, i.e. sight) preventing parental restraint (the father's/Father's authority, i.e. faith) from reappearing]."  (Karl Marx, Feuerbach #11)

By starting with the child (that he is "good" or has the potential of becoming "good" through proper upbringing and education, i.e. the "blank table" theory), i.e. by making the child's nature, i.e. his "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. his opinion, i.e. his "self interest" of the 'moment,' his "lust" for pleasure the thesis, the father's authority or position (that the child by nature is wicked or evil if left to his own desires and deeds, therefore needing direction and correction), restraining the child's nature, becomes the antithesis, i.e. the source of tension, controversy, or conflict.  While dialectic 'reasoning' (self consciousness) is conceived within the conflict or tension (the antithesis) between the father's authority and the child's desires of the 'moment,' i.e. the child only being able to dialogue within himself his pique toward the father's authority, it can only be given birth when the child 'discovers' common identity with other children of like "self interest," 'justifying' himself (along with them) over and therefore against the father's authority.  With the children now being able to "rationally" unite with one another (through the dialoguing of their opinions to a synthesis or consensus) upon what they have in common with one another, i.e. their carnal nature (their "self interest" of the 'moment') and their resentment toward parental authority which restrains it, and putting their newly 'discovered' 'liberty' into action, i.e. into social action (praxis) 'liberating' other children from the father's authority, the father's authority is negated in their feelings, thoughts, actions, and relationship with others, i.e. a "new" world order is 'created' within the children themselves—now "equal" in thought and in action (in theory and in practice), not only within themselves but also amongst themselves.  The problem, according to dialectic 'reasoning' is that once the children, 'liberated' from the father's authority, become parent's themselves (have children of their own) they revert back to the father's authority, restoring the father's authority again, ruling over their children as their fathers ruled over them.  How to break this return to the father's/Father's authority, i.e. how to negate the "guilty conscience" for disobedience/sinning against (for not having faith in) the father/Father—which "creates" the father's/Father's authority within the child—is the 'drive' and the 'purpose' of dialectic 'reasoning' (there is no "guilty conscience" in dialogue, only 'justification').  As Karl Marx explained it: "The life which he [the child] has given to the object [to the father/Father, by honoring his authority, i.e. having faith in him/Him and obeying his commands and rules and accepting his facts and truth as give] sets itself [the father's/Father's authority] against him [against his carnal nature] as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)

Negating the father's authority within the feelings, thoughts, and actions, and the relationship children have with one another and the world, i.e. 'changing' the way the children think (how they decide what is right and what is wrong for the 'moment,' i.e. from knowing by faith, i.e. because the father, the teacher, etc. said so, to knowing by sight, i.e. "sense experience") is therefore the goal of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. 'liberating' not only the children from the father's authority but the world from the Father's authority in the process.  For centuries, colleges and Universities (as well as all learning institutions) held their students accountable to learning the commands, rules, facts, and truths of the "past," i.e. recognizing and honoring the office of the father/the Father (the parent, the teacher, the employer, the landowner, the legislator, the minister, etc. correlated with recognizing and honoring God's authority, i.e. His Word) and obeying his/His commands and rules and accepting his/His facts and truth as given (by faith).  They have now become institutions of 'change,' i.e. of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. of questioning the commands, rules, facts, and truth of the father/Father and challenging his/His authority.  No longer holding to the traditions of the past, i.e. recognizing and honoring the father's authority, educational institutions are now 'purposed' in 'liberating' the next generation from the father's authority, 'creating' a "new" world order of 'change' in the process, 'liberating' man and child from Godly restraint.  As you will see, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' the father's authority and Godly restraint are the same in pattern or structure (engendering individualism, parochialism, nationalism, i.e. correlated to fascism, and religion, under God, i.e. that which "represses" man and "alienates" man from man, i.e. separates man from his carnal nature, turning him against that which he has in common with all men—unrighteousness and abomination).

Dialectic 'reasoning' (synthesis) is children (including those in adult bodies), with the "help" (the expertise and cunning) of facilitator's of 'change,' "rationally" 'justifying' their feelings, thoughts, actions, and relationships with one another and the world over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority.  By 'liberating' themselves from the father's authority, i.e. from parental restraint, they 'liberate themselves from the Father's authority, i.e. from Godly restraint.  The synthesis of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. children dialoguing their opinions with one another, 'discovering' what they have in common with one another, and building relationship (consensus, i.e. a "feeling" of "oneness," i.e. "community") upon it, negates the thesis-antithesis , i.e. the father-child conflict of the father's authority ruling over the child, restraining the child, dividing the child's thoughts (thinking about and desiring to fulfill his own "self interests") from his actions (obeying the father, doing the father's will instead, i.e. capitulating to the father's authority—engendering private property and private business, i.e. "Mine. Not yours," "Do what I say or else," i.e. capitalism, i.e. "neurosis"—where the child obeys yet having doubts, {faith engendered obedience has no doubts}).  Instead of killing the father, i.e. the capitalist (the private property and private business owner), as Traditional Marxist (Communists) do, the "new" world order draws him into participation within the process of 'change' itself, making him subject to socialism (to socialists).  By getting him to focus upon "community," i.e. upon public causes (through tax breaks, voluntarism, community pressure, i.e. shaming, etc.), as Transformational Marxist (social-psychologists, facilitators of 'change') do, and by his 'willing' participation in public-private partnerships, i.e. working for the "good" of the "community," i.e. for the "common" or "greater good," he will negate (abdicate) the private in property and business, i.e. making "the peoples 'felt needs,'" i.e. "the groups 'felt needs'" (or "self interests"), i.e. the children's "felt" needs (their "self interests") his own "felt" needs (his "self interests") in the process, and visa versa. 

In this way of 'reasoning' (evaluating life from the child's "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e. from his "self interests" of the 'moment,' instead of from the father's commands, rules, facts, and truths of the "past"), and putting them into "group," "community," social action (into praxis), i.e. working with other's of like "self interest," the child (man) is able to negate the father's (the Father's, i.e. God's) authority within his feelings, thoughts, actions, and relationship with others, i.e. he is able to reunite his feelings, thoughts, actions, and relationship with the world again, i.e. become as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth and threat of chastening, "whole," i.e. "normal" again, i.e. finding his identity within himself and society, no longer finding it in an authority figure external to his "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' blocking or restraining him from actualizing himself, becoming at-one-with the world, according to "human nature."  Karl Marx put it this way: "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)] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him.  Society [man's carnal nature, i.e. "human nature," i.e. man's "self interests" of the 'moment' (that which all men have in common)] is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities."  (Karl Marx in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx)

In dialectic 'reasoning' identity is found within the commonality of "the group," i.e. within society, not in the singularity (uniqueness) of the father/Father and his/His authority. "All that matters is that the opportunity for genuine activity ["self interest"] be restored to the individual; that the purposes of society and of his own become identical." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom) "Part of the dialectics of the process of winning independence from parental authority lies in using the extrafamilial peer group as a foil to parental authority, particularly in the period of adolescence."  (Bradford, Gibb, Benne, T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method: Innovation in Re-education "In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence."  (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)  "A tendency to transmit mainly a set of conventional rules and customs, may be considered as interfering with the development of a clear-cut personal identity in the growing child." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

By "helping" children compare themselves with themselves they are able to become "reconciled" to themselves, i.e. reunited with their flesh and the world, i.e. they are able to become as they were before the father's first command, rule, fact, or truth and threat of chastening (or condemnation) for disobedience or doing things wrong.  'Esteeming' themselves, i.e. their carnal thoughts and actions of the 'moment' they are able to "redeem" themselves from the Father's authority.  Working together as "equals," i.e. united as "one" they are not only able to negate the father's authority within themselves (individually), they are also able to negate the father's authority within "the group," within the "community," within the nation, and within the world, 'creating' a "new" world order of and for themselves (of and for "human nature") Only.  'Liberated' from the Father's authority all they have left is a world of abomination—calling evil (the child's carnal nature, i.e. "human nature") "good" (or potentially becoming "good" through dialectic 'reasoning') and good (the Father's authority) evil.  The obedient Son of God defined us in our use of dialectic 'reasoning.'  "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

After earning a teaching degree based upon the use of "Bloom's/Marzano's/ Webb's Taxonomies," i.e. the dialectic process in the classroom (the basis of Common Core), using the affective domain, i.e. the student's "feelings" or "self interest" (where the student's "thoughts" are taken captive to his "feelings" of the 'moment'), by my encouraging the use of "appropriate information," i.e. discouraging the use of "inappropriate information" in the classroom to guarantee my desired outcome, to "facilitate" the 'changing' of his values, "helping" him (along with the rest of the class) 'liberate' his "feelings," values," or "self interests" from parental restraint, i.e. from "prejudice," through the use of "group dynamics," i.e. the desire for the approval of "the group," and "cognitive dissonance," i.e. the fear of rejection by either the father or the "group," having to choose one over and therefore against the other, establishing his "feelings," "thoughts," "actions," and "relationship" with "the group" over and therefore against parental authority, neutralizing, marginalizing, and either converting or removing him if he resisted 'change,' i.e. if he refused to be a "team player," i.e. if he persisted in bringing "inappropriate information" into the "group discussion," i.e. if he initiated or sustained parental authority, i.e. if he "judged" other students thoughts and actions according to his parent's standards, thereby making him (along with all the other students) subject to the 'changing' situations of the 'moment,' thus making him seducible, deceivable, and therefore, like natural resource, manipulatable by facilitators of 'change'—which I had to repent of; then attending seminary (which was based upon the same process, i.e. basing 'truth' upon men's opinions rather than the Word of God itself); then taking years of classes on European history (while raising my family and running my construction company); then spending five years reading over six hundred social-psychology books (with the Holy Spirit bringing to my remembrance, in the midst of my research, God's Word, exposing the process for what it is, i.e. the negation of God's authority from the hearts and souls of men by negating the father's authority in the hearts of the children); then teaching in a University, and now, having spent the past eighteen years traveling across America speaking on (exposing) our education system and its agenda of 'liberating' children from parental (the father's) restraint, thereby 'liberating' man from Godly (the Father's) restraint (finding it more difficult to get speaking engagements, i.e. being censored by the "churches" and "Christian Universities" and turned away by conservative group, because of my preaching the gospel, i.e. speaking on righteousness), it all boils down to this:

The purpose of life is either (according to God) honoring the father's authority, restraining the child's nature (above all honoring the Father's, i.e. God's authority, restraining man's nature, i.e. "human nature") or (according to facilitators of 'change,' i.e. dialectic 'reasoning') honoring the child's nature, negating the father's authority (honoring man's nature, i.e. "human nature," negating the Father's, i.e. God's authority).  According to Hegel, Marx, and Freud man must honor his own nature ("human nature") if he is to negate the Father's authority (Godly restraint) in his life.  Thus, instead of "the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." (1 Corinthians 10:26) with man having "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26),  "the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality).  If you do not evaluate your feelings, thoughts and actions, and your relationship with others in the light of the father's/Father's authority, then you are dialectic in your 'reasoning,' i.e. 'justifying' your self over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority.  Don't fight against the father/Father, 'justify' the child's carnal nature instead, and the father's/Father's authority becomes irrational and therefore irrelevant in the process. 

Dialectic 'reasoning' negates private family, property, and business, under the father, along with inalienable rights, under God, i.e. the "old" world order (where the father has authority over his children, as God, i.e. the Father has authority over man, engendering individualism, under the father and/or under God/the Father), replacing it with public-private partnership and "humanist" rights, i.e. the "new" world order (where the children are 'liberated' from the father's authority, thereby 'liberating' man from the Father's authority, i.e. 'liberating' "human nature," i.e. man's "self interest" from Godly restraint, engendering common-ism, i.e. socialism-globalism-environmentalism, with the student becoming accountable to "the group" and the citizen becoming accountable to the "community" Only, "tolerating" deviancy (abomination) along the way.  While the father's/Father's authority reprimands 'compromise,' "community" necessitates it.  What you "tolerate" (when you are silent when confronted with what you know is wrong, for the sake of initiating or sustaining "self interest") becomes the "norm"—when you are silent in the midst of unrighteousness, i.e. not reproving, correcting, or rebuking it, unrighteousness becomes the "norm."  The right of religious freedom is the right to preach and teach righteousness in the public domain, i.e. from the classroom to the highest offices of the land.  "Tolerance" negates that right, negating freedom of speech in the process.  God does not tolerate unrighteousness as a father does not tolerate disobedience, condemning (chastening) it instead.  God the Father is patient in the hope that man will receive the truth being preached and taught and, through fear of judgment and eternal death, repent and be saved to spend eternity with Him instead, as the father is patient in the hope that the child will receive the truth that is being preached and taught and, through chastening be restored to his authority, receiving his blessing again.  Continued

© Institution for Authority Research  Dean Gotcher 1997-2014