authorityresearch.com

Double Standard.
(I can judge you from my standard, but you can not judge me from yours.)

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

Karl Marx wrote: "To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')

There are two standards in your life: 'like'-'dislike' (-'unlike'), based upon how someone makes you "feel" in the 'moment, blaming them, someone else, or the situation when you are caught doing wrong, disobeying, sinning and doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, accepting the fact that you are wrong when you do wrong, disobey, sin. In the first you make your carnal "feelings," i.e., your 'likes' and 'dislikes,' i.e., your desire ("lust") for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., the situation, i.e., the thing and/or the person (imagined or real) stimulates (in you) and your hate of restraint, i.e., your hatred toward anything and/or anyone who inhibits or blocks (prevents) you from having access to what and/or who you desire to have relationship with the means by which you determine ("know") right from wrong—with anything or anyone stimulating (or potentially stimulating) pleasure (in you) being right and anything or anyone getting in the way of, i.e., inhibiting or blocking, i.e., preventing you from having access to it and/or them, i.e., pleasure being wrong, blaming them, someone else, or the situation instead of your "self" when you are caught doing wrong. In the second it is established commands, rules, facts, and truth, that are external to your "feelings," that determine right and wrong, accepting and holding your "self" accountable for doing or being wrong when you are wrong (according to those established commands, rules, facts, and truth). When you make "feelings" the standard for right and wrong, you will automatically (naturally) aim to "hurt" someone else's "feelings" when they "hurt" yours, making them wrong for "hurting" yours and you right in "hurting" theirs (their fear of 'rejection, i.e., the pain of 'rejection' moving them away from their established commands, rules, facts, and truth to their "feelings," i.e., their desire for your approval, i.e., to "humanist relationship" instead). When you make established commands, rules, facts, and truth the standard for right and wrong, you will hold your "self" as well as others accountable to them despite your "feelings," i.e., you 'like's-'dislikes,' i.e., your carnal desires (including your desire for them to 'like' you), i.e., your "self interests" of the 'moment.'

Caught between 'liking' someone and their doing wrong (according to an established command, rule, fact, or truth), you have to make a choice regarding which standard you are going to apply in the situation. If you do not 'like' them it makes the 'choice' much easier. If your "feelings" of the 'moment' i.e., your 'likes'-'dislikes' are, i.e., your "self interest" is the means by which you determine right from wrong you use their standard of doing right and not wrong, judging them by and holding them accountable to their established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., the "letter of the law," negating them by their standard in order to 'justify' your standard of 'like'-'dislike,' having a double standard ("'Feelings' for me. 'Right-wrong' for thee. So don't judge me  by your standards, holding me accountable to them, making me 'feel' bad for doing wrong, while I judge you by mine, holding you accountable for 'hurting' my 'feelings,' making you wrong.") in order to get your way, i.e., in order to get them out of your way—making others, who you do not 'like' subject to a standard you do not 'like,' i.e., that you hate (being accused of being 'wrong'), hating them and their standard at the same time (not caring if you "hurt" their "feelings," since their "feelings" do not count).

If established commands, rules, facts, and truth are the means by which you determine right and wrong, then you use them on the other person when they are wrong (whether you 'like' them or not). In this way you are willing to sacrifice the relationship (actually fellowship) you desire to have (or have had or are having) with them, in order for you (and them) to do or be right and not wrong, showing mercy on them, i.e., restoring fellowship with them if and when they admit they are wrong and repent, i.e., purpose in their heart not to do wrong again—which is the "spirit of the law." There are no double standard in doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, since they not only apply to others, they also apply to you. Establishing your "feelings" as 'truth,' i.e., making commands, rules, facts, and truth subject to your "feelings," i.e., to your 'likes' and 'dislikes' results in a double standard—judging those you do not 'like' by their standard (right-wrong) when they are wrong (needing to be punished) while judging your "self" when you are wrong by yours ('like'-'dislike,' i.e., preference where there is no wrong, therefore there is no need to be punished, only needing to be remediated at the most). Establishing commands, rules, facts, and truth above "feelings," i.e., making "feeling" subject to established commands, rules, facts, and truth does not produce a double standard since all are being held accountable to the same standard, i.e., all are being held accountable to an authority above (external to) their "self," i.e., above (external to) their 'likes' and 'dislikes,' called "rule of law." Doctrines of men, for example, come from man, i.e., from man's 'likes' and 'dislikes,' i.e., from his carnal desires, i.e., from his "self interests" of the 'moment,' i.e., come from below, which are ever changing according to the situation (engendering a double standard, i.e., they apply to thee but not to me), while sound doctrine, i.e., doctrine established upon God's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e. doctrine which comes from God's Word (weighing the Word of God with the Word of God), comes from above, i.e., is unchanging, i.e., applies to all.

"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

"Laws must not fetter human life [inhibit or block the child's/man's carnal desires, i.e. pleasures, "lusts," enjoyments of the 'moment,' i.e., "human nature"]; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities [carnal desires and abilities, i.e., "self interest"] of the people change [read: as the "needs and capacities," i.e., "self interest" of those in power over the people 'change'—double standard, i.e., what applies to thee does not apply to me]." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right)

When "feelings" (opinion) determines right from wrong, then established commands, rules, facts, and truth become subject to them, i.e., subjective (no longer established). When established commands, rules, facts, and truth determine right from wrong, then our "feelings" (opinion, i.e., bias), i.e., 'likes'-'dislikes' have to be set aside when someone we 'like' is doing or has done wrong, with us judging them according to established standards instead of our "feelings" of the 'moment' (i.e., not 'justifying' their wrong thoughts or wrong behavior because we 'like' them), making our response (judgment) objective. 'Like'-'dislike' is gray in nature, subject to our ever 'changing' desires, i.e., "self interests" of the 'moment,' which are being stimulated by the world, i.e., the situation (and/or the person) and anyone manipulating it (them). Right-wrong, according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, is black and white, not changed (or easily changed) by the situation.

Dialogue makes right-wrong subject to our "feelings," i.e., to our carnal desires, i.e., to our "self interest" of the 'moment,' i.e., an opinion, ever subject to 'change,' according to the situation ("What can I get out of this situation for me?" i.e., "for my 'self?'")—why it is called "situation ethics." Discussion makes right-wrong subject to external commands, rules, facts, and truth which we have been taught, which are not readily adaptable to 'change' according to the ever 'changing' situations of life. Dialogue, regarding right and wrong always results in a double standard. Discussion does not. To create a world of 'change,' i.e., a "new" world order based upon our "feelings" of the 'moment,' negating the "old" world order that is based upon obeying, i.e., doing right and not wrong according established commands, rules, facts, and truth, discussion, i.e., desiring to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth must be made subject to dialogue, i.e., to our carnal desires, i.e., to our 'likes-'dislikes,' i.e., to our "self interests," i.e., to our "feels" of the 'moment, in essence negating any command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way of our carnal desires, i.e., our 'likes,' i.e., our "lusts," i.e., our "self interests" of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., the situation (and/or person) is stimulating. Since we naturally dialogue our 'likes' and 'dislikes' with our "self," especially when we can not have our way, 'justifying' our "self" over and therefore against any established command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way, it is natural for those of the "new" world order to draw us into dialogue regarding issues of right and wrong—in their effort to 'liberate' us, themselves, and the world, from the "old" world order of our thinking contrary to our acting (called "belief-action dichotomy"), where established commands, rules, facts, and truth rule over our carnal desires of the 'moment,' making us subject to them, i.e., to who authored them (instead of to the world). This so called "new" world order is where theory (opinion, i.e., 'like'-'dislike,' i.e., dialogue) is put into practice (called "theory and practice"), negating belief (belief-action dichotomy), i.e., established commands, rules, facts, and truth that get in the way. If you have been in any meeting where you (or others) were told to be "positive" and not "negative" that is what just happened, dialogue, i.e., "feelings" were established over discussion, i.e., any established command, rule, fact, or truth that got in the way.

The child's carnal nature is initiated and sustained via dialogue. The father's/Father's authority is initiated and sustained via (preaching, teaching, and) discussion. All counseling today, including in the "church," has gone to dialogue, i.e., to the child's carnal nature, i.e., to 'likes-dislikes' in determining right from wrong, negating the father's/Father's authority to determine right and wrong, negating the guilty conscience, which the father's/Father's authority engenders in the child when the child does wrong, disobeys, sins, i.e., "lusts," so the child (and counselor) can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., "lust" with impunity.

In discussion, you fellowship with others around established commands, rules, facts, and truth that you and they agree upon. In dialogue you build relationship with others around common "feelings," i.e., common "self interests," having to negate (suspend, as upon an cross) any command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way of, i.e., that "hurts" your and their "feelings," causing division (judgment and condemnation). Ironically division is not the issue. It is what engenders division. In the "new" world order any division caused by established commands, rules, facts, and truth is wrong, while any division between those who think 'like'-dislike' and right-wrong is right, with those thinking 'like'-'dislike' being right and those thinking right-wrong, being wrong.

If you make "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, i.e., "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" the standard for "good" than you can judge anyone as being "evil" who judges you according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth that get in the way of pleasure. "You can not judge me, i.e., hold me accountable for my thoughts, i.e., opinion ("feelings" of the 'moment' which are being stimulated by the world) and actions ('justifying' my "feelings," i.e., my desires, i.e., my "lusts" of the 'moment'), but I can judge you, i.e., hold you accountable for your thoughts, i.e., belief (established commands, rules, facts, and truth) and actions (holding your "self" and others accountable to your belief, i.e., established commands, rules, facts, and truth)." In other words, make me "feel" "good," i.e., like God and I will affirm you for affirming me, i.e., for being "right." Hurt my "feelings," i.e., tell me I am not "good," i.e., not God and I will hurt your "feelings," since I am "good," i.e., God or becoming "good," i.e., God—according to my carnal nature ("human nature") and the world which stimulates it—and you are not God, i.e., "good" for "hurting" my "feelings." "Theory and practice," i.e., the child's carnal nature , i.e., "human nature" and the world that stimulates it is antithetical to "belief-action dichotomy," i.e., the father's/Father's authority that conflicts with, i.e., gets in the way of our carnal nature, requiring us to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline our "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will.

"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50

"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

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18

"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9

"Worldly peace and socialist harmony," i.e., "building relationships upon self interest" which is based upon your carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world is stimulating, i.e., based upon what makes you "feel" "good," i.e., like God negates faith in God, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to the Father's will. Those of and for the world, i.e., "of and for self" say: Do not judge me according to God's standards—holding me accountable for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against His established commands, rules, facts, and truth, needing to repent—because I am God and will judge you, i.e., hold you accountable to my "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., judge you according to my love of pleasure and hate of restraint, which are being stimulated by the world. I can judge you for "hurting" my "feelings" but you can not judge me for hurting yours. Since your feelings are tied to doing right and not wrong according to the Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth that get in the way of my carnal desires of the 'moment' which the world is stimulating, your feelings do not count.

"Let no man deceive you with vain words ["self" 'justifying' words, i.e., words that you want to hear, i.e., words that make you "feel" "good," i.e., like God, 'justifying' your "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates (including the affirmation of men) and your resentment, i.e., hatred toward restraint, i.e., the restrainer]: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them." Ephesians 5:5-7

"But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." 2 Timothy 3:13

"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; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 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 1:28-32

In the deceived persons mind the soul is made in his image, i.e., subject to his carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world is stimulating and is not made in the image of God, i.e., subject to doing right and not wrong according to His established commands, rules, facts, and truth, with him (the deceived) choosing the pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates instead of doing the Father's will, spending life in hell, i.e., inheriting eternal death—where there is no pleasure—instead of eternal life. Pleasure is a gift from God which man, in his foolishness has chosen to worship instead of God, punishing (killing) any and all who get in his way, i.e., his "lust" for pleasure—losing his inheritance of peace, joy, love, and eternal life in the process, which can only come from God.

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36

How 'liberals,' socialists, globalists, i.e., those "of and for self," i.e., of and for the world think: I could do things "better" when I do wrong but you are wrong when you accuse me of doing wrong, "hurting" my "feelings," needing to be punished. Therefore when I do wrong I can not be punished, only needing to do things "better" (the next time), but you are to be punished for accusing me of doing wrong, i.e., for judging me according to "your" standards, i.e., "your" established commands, rules, facts, and truth (making right and wrong subject to them), i.e., for not thinking like me—who can do no wrong since all my standards are subject to 'change,' according to my "felt needs," i.e., my "self interests" ("lusts") of the 'moment.' Punishment for doing wrong is for thee, for judging me, i.e., for holding me accountable to "your" established standards, i.e., commands, rules, facts, and truth that get in my way, i.e., that "hurt" my "feelings," i.e., that inhibit or block me from being or becoming my "self," i.e., that prevent me from doing what I want, when I want, i.e., enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world is stimulating. You should only be concerned about what I have done right, right being what "benefits," i.e., 'justifies' me, i.e., what makes me "feel" "good," i.e., like God, i.e., what makes me right(eous) in my eyes.

"There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25

"And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15

The child's carnal nature, i.e., love of pleasure and hate of restraints unites mankind based upon his carnal nature, which all men have in common, while the father's/Father's authority divides man from man, based upon those who do right, i.e., who obey and those who do wrong, i.e., who disobey—according to his/His established commands, rules, facts, and truth. Those of (and for) the world choose the child's carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, wanting to rule the world (as a father/Father) but without being held accountable for their actions.

Georg Hegel wrote: "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)

In Hegel's 'reasoning' (dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., 'reasoning' from/through "feelings," i.e., from/through dialogue) the opposite of right is "badly" (which is not a crime, i.e., not punishable, only needing remediation at the most), not wrong (which is a crime, i.e., punishable)—'liberal's always go to dialogue when they do wrong, 'justifying' (excusing) their "self," but always go to discussion for 'conservatives,' judging them for doing wrong (finding them guilty without all the facts being known—since facts and truth get in the way of their "feelings," i.e., their being right). Right and wrong, i.e., "badly" are tied to "feelings" in Hegel's view (perception) of the world, rejecting right and wrong being tied to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, that get in the way of, i.e., "hurt" peoples (his) "feelings." In other words when you accuse me of doing or being wrong (holding me accountable to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., being "prejudiced") you are to be punished (for thinking wrong) since the opposite of right is "badly," not wrong.

"For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Galatians 1:10

"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

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Romans 6:16

"And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:16

Therefore you are "prejudiced" in favor of established commands, rules, facts, and truth, therefore "prejudiced" against "human nature," i.e., against humanity, i.e., the community (add community to the individuals life and "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," i.e., what the community has in common is 'justified'), needing to be punished for accusing me of doing wrong according to "your" standards (which are not yours but which you have accepted by faith, given to you by an authority above you, restraining your "feelings" of the 'moment' with you wanting me to do the same), "hurting" my "feelings," preventing me from becoming, i.e., "actualizing" my "self," i.e., becoming of the world only. For Hegel, Marx, etc., reality, i.e., what is "actual" does not reside in what is external to "human nature," i.e., requiring the person to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline their "self" in order (as in "old" world order) to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth (that get in the way of nature) but resides in nature itself, i.e., in man's love of pleasure and hate of restraint, that the world stimulates, establishing "human nature" over and therefore against any established command, rule, fact, or truth, i.e., the father's/Father's authority that gets in its way.

Abraham Maslow wrote: "Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature)

'Actualizing' "self" establishes the child's carnal nature (love of pleasure—"lust"—and hate of restraint), i.e., "human nature" over and therefore against any established command, rule, fact, or truth, i.e., the father's/Father's authority (which liberals, socialists, globalists correlate to Nationalism aka Fascism) that gets in its way of pleasure, making pleasure (dopamine emancipation), which the world stimulates the standard for "good," negating the father's/Father's authority (Nationalism aka Fascism, i.e., "prejudice") in the persons thoughts and actions ("theory and practice"), negating the guilty conscience (which the father's/Father's authority engenders in the person for doing wrong) in the process—which is the real agenda. "Self" and the world are 'reconciled,' according to Karl Marx, in man's enjoyment of the carnal pleasures ("feelings," i.e., "sensuous needs," "sense perception," i.e., "sense experience") of the 'moment' which the world is stimulating, not in man's obedience to the father/Father—which divides him from his "self" and the world. (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) In this way the child's "feelings" (for pleasure) supersede the father's/Father's feelings of the 'moment' (of doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth). In essence the child's "feelings," i.e., his love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e., his "super-ego," 'justifies' his negation (disregarding) of the father's/Father's feelings toward doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, thereby 'justifying,' in the mind of the child, his doing wrong, disobeying, sinning (negation of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., hurting the father's/Father's feelings) without having a "guilty feeling." When you hurt my "feelings," accusing me of being wrong, your feelings do not count.

Georg Hegel wrote: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [once he is 'liberated' from the father'/Father's authority to become as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life (separating him from his "self" and the world), of (and now for) "self" and the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life)

"In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory) In discussion we are divided between one another based upon me being right and you being wrong while in dialogue we 'discover' common ground with one another based upon our common carnal desires ("self interests") of the 'moment.'

"For the dialectical method the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its 'obedience to laws'." "The dialectical method was overthrown—the parts were prevented from finding their definition within the whole [since the father's/Father's authority, i.e., having to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth prevents the children from 'discovering,' through dialogue, what they have in common with one another, i.e., their "human nature," i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint and the world which stimulates them, i.e., it]." (György Lukács, History & Class Consciousness: What is Orthodox Marxism?)

Immanuel Kant wrote of a world where "lawfulness without law" and "purposiveness without purpose" would prevail, negating God's authority in the thoughts and actions of men. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment) In other words he wrote of a world where the law of "human nature," i.e., love of pleasure and hate of restraint which the world stimulates would rule "without" the law of God (or parents, teachers, leaders, etc.), i.e., having to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth getting in the way (of pleasure) and where the augmentation of pleasure would prevail (become the focus of life) over and therefore against pain, i.e., the pain that comes with missing out on pleasure (from having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline your "self" in order to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth—that get in the way of pleasure).

"Freud, Hegel, ... are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

Karl Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family [with the family submitting to the father's authority] is discovered to be the secret of the Holy family [with the Son and those following Him submitting to His Heavenly Father's authority], the former [the earthly family which submits itself to the father's authority] must be destroyed [Vernunft, annihilated] in theory and in practice [in the children's thoughts and actions]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis # 4)

Anyone who stands in the way of that 'reconciliation,' i.e., of the child and the world which stimulates pleasure in him, "repressing" "human nature," "alienating" the child from the world (which stimulates pleasure within him), insisting that he do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth instead—resulting in him dividing his "self" from his "self," others, and the world—becomes the enemy of mankind, needing to be negated if the child (mankind) is to have "peace and affirmation," i.e. "actualize" his "self" according the his carnal nature and the world which stimulates it (that world including his relationship with others who affirm his carnal nature, thus affirming their "self," i.e., their carnal nature as well). In this way, through the use of dialogue (with "self" and with others) regarding issues of right and wrong, the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's "feelings" toward that which is of the world supersede (negates) the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's feelings toward doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth (and the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning which it engenders) no longer counts.

As explained by Herbert Marcuse, Sigmund Freud believed (advanced the same ideology—as Kant, Hegel, and Marx): "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same." "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother—[which] culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan [socialism]." "According to Freud, the drive toward ever larger unities belongs to the biological-organic nature of Eros [the child's carnal nature] itself." "If the guilt accumulated in the civilized domination of man by man can ever be redeemed by freedom, then the 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge in order to fall back into the state of innocence.'" (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)

Instead of the prodigal son coming to his senses and returning to the father/Father, accepting the father's/Father's authority, according to Freud, he, through dialoging with his "friends," i.e., coming to a consensus, i.e., a "feeling" of "oneness" with them—based upon their common carnal nature (desires), i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint—returns home with them, "collectively" killing the father, negating him in their thoughts and actions, claiming what is his is "actually" theirs, taking what is his for their "self." Luke 15:11-32 Since pleasure, to him would be the 'drive' of life, and its augmentation the 'purpose,' his deed (praxis) would be 'justified' in his mind.

"The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will, i.e., having to set aside pleasure, i.e., having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline "self" in order (as in "old" world order) to do the father's/Father's will, i.e., in order to do right and not wrong according the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth], and desperately wicked [hating the father's/Father's authority which "gets in the way," i.e. which prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—which the world stimulates]: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 You can not see your hate of restraint, i.e., hatred toward the father's/Father's authority as being evil since your love of pleasure, i.e., love of "self," i.e., "lust," including your "lust" for the approval of men (affirmation) stands in the way. Affirmation, i.e., others approving of your carnal desires of the 'moment' which the world is stimulating is not only intoxicating, it is addictive and possessive as well, blinding you to the wickedness of your thoughts and actions against any and all who get in your way (of pleasure).

If pleasure is the standard for "good" than anyone (or any law) standing in the way of pleasure (insisting upon doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth) becomes "evil." It is not that God is against pleasure, he created it. It is that when it supersedes His authority, it becomes "lust," i.e., man establishing pleasure over and therefore against doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., according to the Father's will. When parents give their children toys (pleasure) it is not that they hate their children when they tell them to put them up, i.e., set aside the pleasure of the 'moment' and do their chores (chastening them when they disobey), it is that they want them to learn to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., holding their "self" accountable to their authority.

"And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." Hebrews 12:5-11

When right and wrong are made subject to "feelings," i.e., the child's carnal nature, anyone accusing others of doing or being wrong, thereby hurting their "feelings" are to be punished. When those in power hold this ideology they can do unconscionable things with impunity, not having a guilty conscience (not being wrong) for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning—there is an indifference to (uncaring of) what happens to those who are "removed" for getting in their way, i.e., who get in the way of "progress," i.e., their carnal desires ("self interests") of the 'moment.' When the "purpose" of life becomes the "building of relationships," "driven" by man's desire for pleasure, i.e., "peace and affirmation" then anyone who gets in the way of humanity, i.e., humanism becomes the enemy, i.e., is to be punished, i.e., negated.

Sounding more like Karl Marx than Karl Marx himself (who was not yet born) 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." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life)

In other words: your spouse is not yours, your children are not yours, your property is not yours, your business is not yours (under God) but the "collectives," becoming the property of those in power who now have you overseeing (paying taxes, dues, i.e., "contributing" your time and money, etc., for) that which is "theirs"—what they see they own.

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Romans 6:16

Whoever established the rules, i.e., whoever you yield our "self" to obey, the child's carnal nature in you (and anyone manipulating it) or the father's/Father's authority, rules. Those of double standards, who want to rule without being held accountable for being or doing wrong, want the child's carnal nature in them to rule over and therefore against Godly restraint, demanding that you affirm them, i.e., their carnal ways. When you are "asked" to be "positive," i.e., tolerant (acceptant) of the child's carnal nature and not "negative," enforcing the father's/Father's authority you are being forced to 'justify' the child's carnal nature over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority—tolerance is for me, but not for thee.

The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious [in the child's carnal nature]; the foundation has to be recovered." "In the words of Thoreau: 'We need pray for no higher heaven than the pure senses can furnish, a purely sensuous life. Our present senses are but rudiments of what they are destined to become.'" "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

"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 [words which 'justify' your carnal nature, i.e., your love of pleasure (your love of "self" and the world) and hate of restraint (hate of the father's/Father's authority) that gets in the way of pleasure]: 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

In dialogue, unlike in a discussion, there is no wrong, only the persons' "self interest," i.e., "feelings," i.e., love of pleasure and hate of restraint (hate of established commands, rules, facts, and truth that get in the way of pleasure). When laws (right and wrong) are made subject to "feelings," i.e., to dialogue the perpetrator of a crime becomes the victim, with anyone "hurting" his "feelings," i.e., judging him (according to established laws) becoming the perpetrator of a crime instead. The "feeling" of doing right and not wrong (not having a guilty conscience) is negated in dialogue, where the "feeling" of pleasure and hate of restraint reside. Dialogue, in an environment of right and wrong, negates established commands, rules, facts, and truth, 'liberating' all who participate from accountability (punishment) for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, 'justifying' the punishment (negation) of anyone who gets in their way, i.e., who prevents dialogue, i.e., who prevents 'change.' We "juxtaposition" (in our mind) between discussion (doing right and not wrong according established commands, rules, facts, and truth) and dialogue (doing what we want to do) in order to create in our "self" what is called a state of "homeostasis," i.e., internal harmony between "self," the world, and authority.

"Few individuals, as Asch has shown, can maintain their objectivity [their belief, i.e., their faith in authority, be it in their parent's, their teacher's, their boss's, their leader(s), or God's authority] in the face of apparent group unanimity [their desire for group approval (affirmation), i.e., their fear of rejection (fear of missing out on pleasure, including the pleasure with comes with affirmation) pressuring them to go with "the group"]." (Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)

"The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs ['liberation' from the father's/Father's authority so he can be his "self" again, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only, as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life] by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) It is not "the group" that is the issue. It is how "the group" is being lead. Deciding right from wrong behavior through discussion, where established commands, rules, facts, and truth prevail is different than through dialogue, where "feelings" prevail.

"The child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group." (Kurt Lewin in Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education)

In a group setting, deciding right from wrong action, when your focus is upon discussion, having to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline your "self" in order to do right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, the father's/Father's authority prevails but when you focus upon dialogue, your carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., "self interest" which the world (the situation, i.e., "the group") is stimulating prevails. By placing you (or you spouse, children, leaders, etc.) in an environment of dialogue, deciding right from wrong in a group setting, which is being lead by a facilitator of 'change,' you (they) are pressure to choose between doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will (and being rejected by "the group") or following after "the group," doing your (their) will instead (being affirmed by "the group," ) .

"It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23

When laws are made though discussion, where lessons of the "past" teach you right from wrong, you end up doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., resulting in the father's/Father's authority directing your steps. But when laws are made through dialogue, your (your representatives) carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., your (their) "self interests" direct your (their) steps.

Karl Marx wrote: "Laws must not fetter human life [inhibit or block the child's/man's carnal desires, i.e. pleasures, "lusts," enjoyments of the 'moment,' i.e., "human nature"]; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities [carnal desires and abilities, i.e., "self interest"] of the people change [read: as the "needs and capacities," i.e., "self interest" of those in power over the people 'change']." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right)

There is a cost to this way of thinking (making right and wrong subject to dialogue, i.e., to the child's carnal desires of the 'moment,' which the world is stimulating, i.e., to "self interest"). When leaders and legislators become corrupt, i.e., make law subject to their carnal desires, i.e., their "self interest" of the 'moment' there is still hope in the court system. But when judges become corrupt, i.e., above the law, making the law subject to their "feelings," i.e., subject to their "self interests" (supporting those who think like them) there is no hope for the people. In fact those who think this way do not see their "self" as being above the law, they see their "self" as being the law, with any law getting in their way (of the past, not subject to 'change,' i.e., not being subject to their "felt needs" of the 'moment,' i.e., refusing to participate in dialogue) being wrong.

"Jurisprudence of terror takes two forms; loosely defined rules which produces unpredictable law, and spontaneous changes in rules to best suit the state [those in power]." (R. W. Makepeace and Croom Helm, Marxist Ideology and Soviet Criminal Law)

This applies to lawyers as well. When lawyers represent (re-present) their "client," they hold themselves accountable to their "client's" principles, but when they mediate (dialogue) with other lawyers, they "re-present" their own "self interest." This holds true for any public office.

"All lawyers are trained in semantics, which makes us all liars. How skilled you are in semantics will determine how successful you will be as a lawyer." "If your client is loosing on principle, talk him out of principle." (John Whitehead, in a class I took under him—on Constitutional Law)

We have rejected "the rule of law" ("self" restraint),

George Washington wrong: "The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them."
"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield." (George Washington Farewell Speech)

and, through the dialoguing of opinions ("feelings") to a consensus (to a "feeling" of "oneness," 'justifying,' i.e., affirming the carnal nature of man, making man's carnal nature the law of the land), have embraced "rule of man" (despotism) instead, fulfilling Immanuel Kant's dictum: "lawfulness without law," where the law of the flesh rules over and therefore against the law of God. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment)

"Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon transforming 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)

"Education" has embraced the double standard of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., 'reasoning' from and through your child's "feelings," i.e., from and through your child's carnal desires of the 'moment,' which the situation is stimulating (his or her desire for affirmation from/by the "group" and fear of rejection—from/by "the group"), pressuring him to suspend, as upon a cross, your established command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way of his"building relationship" with the other students based upon their common carnal desires, i.e., "self interests," i.e., love of pleasure and hate of restraint.

Paraphrasing Karl Marx (who wrote: "In the eyes of the dialectic philosophy ['reasoning' through dialogue, i.e., 'reasoning' from ones "feelings", i.e., from ones carnal desires ("lusts") of the 'moment,' which are being stimulated by the situation (by "the world"), which includes ones desire for approval from others, i.e., "the groups"(affirmation)—fear of rejection], nothing is established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred."), Benjamin Bloom stated: "We recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and all places." (Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1: Cognitive Domain)

In other words, according to Bloom (and Marx), established commands, rules, facts, and truth must be subject to 'change,' i.e., negated if the child is to be "of and for self" only, i.e., "self actualized," 'liberated' from his parent's i.e., the father's/Father's authority system—the "top-down," "do right-not wrong," "above-below" authority system. All "educators" are certified and schools accredited today based upon their use of "Bloom's Taxonomies," i.e., dialogue, i.e., the children's carnal desires ("feelings") of the 'moment' (including their desire for group approval, i.e., affirmation—fear of group rejection), i.e., the "affective domain" in the classroom, establishing in their students a double standard, where they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., without being held accountable but you (the parents) can not—doing wrong, disobeying, sinning now being subject to (defined by) their carnal desires ("lusts") of the 'moment' which the world is stimulating, i.e., their opinion of the 'moment,' instead of from established commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., your standards. They can judge and punish you (for getting in the way of their carnal desires of the 'moment' which the world is stimulating, i.e., for "hurting" their "feelings") but you can not judge and punish them (for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, i.e., for "hurting" your "feelings")—while your feelings are tied to doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth their feelings are tied to their love of pleasure and hate of restraint, making your feelings irrelevant when it comes to theirs.

"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 student's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., their love pleasures and their hate of restraint, in the "light" of their desire for group approval 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 child's thoughts and actions, i.e., "theory and practice," negating their having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning in the process—called "the negation of negation," since the father's/Father's authority, and the guilty conscience which it engenders, is negative to the child's carnal nature), inductive 'reasoning' ('reasoning' from/through the students "feelings," i.e., their "lusting" 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 information, i.e., established command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way of their desired outcome—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-ist resource") in order to convert them into 'liberals,' socialists, globalists, so they, 'justifying' their "self" can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity.

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

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2019