Human Rights Negate Unalienable Rights. by Dean Gotcher

"Human Rights" Negate Unalienable Rights.
(Personal note.)

by
Dean Gotcher

"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

"Humanist rights" negate rights given to you by God. When you make "human rights," i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" the law of the land unalienable rights, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., individualism under your parents authority/under God is negated.

"lawfulness without law," (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment)

When you make your carnal desires, i.e., your "lusts," i.e., your "self interests" of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., the current situation and/or people are stimulating the law of the land you reject God your creator making your "self" God, i.e., an "enemy of God," facing his wrath at your death, i.e., after your last breath being cast into "the lake of fire which is never quenched" for having choosing "human rights" over and therefore against His unalienable rights—because you wanted to enjoy the carnal pleasures of this life, which included the praises of men rather than repent of your sins and do His will. When you bring dialogue, i.e., "I feel" and "I think" into an environment determining right and wrong behavior you make your "self" God, breaking the first commandment, choosing "human rights," i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" over God. In discussion you retain the father's/Father's authority. Being able to persuade others of the truth (who will listen) you are able to stand alone with truth. In dialogue you are subject to those manipulating the environment which stimulates pleasure, i.e., "lust" in you, caring only of their "self," making you their servant. Caring nothing of your soul they are able to use you for their carnal desires, casting you aside when you no longer bring them pleasure and/or get in their way, doing to you what you do to those who no longer bring you pleasure and/or get in your way.

For example: the difference between the 'liberal' and the 'conservative' members of the Supreme Court of the United States is the 'liberal' judges use dialogue as the means to deciding their opinion, making "human rights" their agenda, 'liberating' themselves and "the people" from the restraints of the Constitution, i.e., from their unalienable rights while the 'conservative' judges use discussion as the means to deciding their position, keeping the Constitution and our unalienable rights in place. Individualism, under God comes from the electorate, making those in government subject to the citizens, i.e., to individuals, under God, restraining government, retaining the citizens unalienable rights while "human rights" makes all citizens, i.e., the electorate subject to those in government, mandating that all citizens become like them (that is, perceiving their "self" as being the personification of "the people," they require all citizens to "lust" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., the current situation and/or people are stimulating), negating their unalienable rights so they can "lust" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., the current situation and/or people are stimulating without having a guilty conscience, with impunity, with affirmation. Reject God's authority in your life and "human rights" is the form of government you have got. Crying out to a man or men to save you from "human rights" only 'justifies' "human rights." Since unalienable rights come only from God, crying out to God (that he might have mercy on you) is the only hope you have in retaining your God given rights. God looks at the heart of the people to determine whether to raise up or bring down a nation, i.e., turn it over to its own demise. He is looking at your heart. Is this nation worth saving.

"whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4

"Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Ephesians 2:2,3

"Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them." Ephesians 5:5-7

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain ["of and for self"] in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:21, 22, 28, 32

"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

Facilitators of 'change,' i.e., psychologists, i.e., behavioral "scientists," i.e., "group psychotherapists," i.e., Marxists (Transformational Marxists)—all being the same in method or formula—are using the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (affirmation) process, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning' ('reasoning' from/through the students "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., from/through their "lust" for pleasure and their hate of restraint, in the "light" of their desire for group approval, i.e., affirmation and fear of group rejection) in the "group grade," "safe zone/space/place," "Don't be negative, be positive," soviet style, brainwashing (washing the father's/Father's authority from the children's thoughts and actions, i.e., "theory and practice," negating their having a guilty conscience, which the father's/father's authority engenders, for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process—called "the negation of negation" since the father's/Father's authority and the guilty conscience, being negative to the child's carnal nature, is negated in dialogue—in dialogue, opinion, and the consensus process there is no father's/Father's authority), inductive 'reasoning' ('reasoning' from/through the students "feelings," i.e., their natural inclination to "lust" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—dopamine emancipation—which the world stimulates, i.e., their "self interest," i.e., their "sense experience," selecting "appropriate information"—excluding, ignoring, or resisting, i.e., rejecting any "inappropriate" information, i.e., established command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way of their desired outcome, i.e., pleasure—in determining right from wrong behavior), "Bloom's Taxonomy," "affective domain," French Revolution (Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité) classroom "environment" in order (as in "new" world order) to 'liberate' children from parental authority, i.e., from the father's/Father's authority system (the Patriarchal Paradigm)—seducing, deceiving, and manipulating them as chickens, rats, and dogs, i.e., treating them as natural resource ("human resource") in order to convert them into 'liberals,' socialists, globalists, so they, 'justifying' their "self" before one another, can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., "lust" with impunity.

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken." Jeremiah 6:16, 17

Home schooling material, co-ops, conferences, etc., are joining in the same praxis, fulfilling Immanuel Kant's as well as Georg Hegel's, Karl Marx's, and Sigmund Freud's agenda of using the pattern or method of Genesis 3:1-6, i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning," i.e., 'reasoning' from/through your "feelings," i.e., your carnal desires of the 'moment' which are being stimulated by the world (including your desire for approval from others, with them affirming your carnal nature) in order to negate Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, i.e., having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline your "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will, negating Romans 7:14-25, i.e., your having a guilty conscience when you do wrong, disobey, sin, thereby negating your having to repent before the father/Father for your doing wrong, disobedience, sins—which is the real agenda.

"And for this cause [because men, as "children of disobedience," 'justify' their "self," i.e., 'justify' their love of "self" and the world, i.e., their love of the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) which the world stimulates over and therefore against the Father's authority] God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie [that pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will]: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth [in the Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ], but had pleasure in unrighteousness [in their "self" and the pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates]." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12