Replacing the Word of God with the Opinions of Men.

Without the Word of God all we have are the opinions of men when it comes to knowing "right" from "wrong," with pleasure being "right" and pain being "wrong."  While the laws of nature are established by God, once and for all times, except when He performs a miracle, His laws regarding man's behavior (regarding his soul) have to be revealed (by His Word), since they are not of nature itself.  From birth to death man is naturally 'driven,' by the laws of the flesh, to approach pleasure and avoid pain.  Therefore he is 'purposed' in augmenting pleasure and attenuating pain, controlling the world around him in order make it more pleasurable (less painful) for him to live in.  Not knowing that the opposite is true, that the world controls him when he thinks that he has control over it, i.e., it controlling (occupying) his feelings, thoughts, and actions and his relationship with others in his effort to initiate and sustain pleasure from it and them (from the world and man).

The nature of man:

When right and wrong comes from forces outside of man's understanding, i.e., either from the laws of nature itself (unknown to him at the time), parental authority, government, and/or God he is forced to set aside his natural inclinations of the 'moment' in order to obey someone else's commands and rules as given, having to accept their facts and truth as "is," by faith (usually because of the pain, physical, mental, and/or social, inflicted upon him from nature, the parent, government, and/or God for disobedience or for doing things wrong).  This produces a "guilty conscience" in the person when they apart from the authority figure and are "tempted" (being "drawn away" by the lust of the flesh and the world) to do wrong or disobey, their conscience (the voice of the parent, who is external to them, yet now within them) pressuring them to do right, i.e., inhibiting or blocking their desire of the 'moment' to approach pleasure and avoid pain (including the pain which comes from the rejection of others).

'Changing' the child from right-wrong thinking to pleasure-pain thinking:

"The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult."  (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers)  In other words, the feeling of guilt, i.e., the "guilty conscience" which a person experiences when they comes across an object which they have been told they can not have or associate with yet by nature want to have or associate with, is usually the result of an authority figure threating to judge or punish them if they do (if they do wrong).  When the right-wrong structure of higher authority, i.e. of the parent, teacher, boss, government, ...., and God rules over the pleasure-pain structure of the child's or man's nature, "human nature" is restrained, causing division within the world, dividing individuals from one another, divided them according to the differing rules of right and wrong established by parents, etc..  Therefore, if unity is to take place among men, the "guilty conscience" (the product of authority) has to be negated.  This (the negation of the "guilty conscience") can only be done by calling the authority figure's commands, rules, facts, and truth into question (which the child has already done in his mind, in private, fearful of being reprimanded) in a "group setting," getting those under parental (or God's) authority (instead of focusing upon the "'facts' of the past," the parent's or God's commands, rules, facts, and truth, which prevent them from fulfilling their "potential," preventing them from having what it is they want in the 'moment') to focus upon their own "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., dialoguing openly with others (without fear of reprisal, without parental authority) their opinions, i.e., their personal "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' (focusing upon what it is they all want in the 'moment') with the situation of the 'moment' influencing their feelings and thoughts of the 'moment,' "helping" them to decide (for themselves and with others) what is right and what is wrong behavior in the given situation.  By negating (by not considering or respecting) laws which are external to man's carnal nature, the right-wrong structure of authority which engenders the "guilty conscience" (the catalyst for social division) is negated, the pleasure-pain structure of "human nature," the "feelings" of the 'moment' having now taken its place (called the "super-ego").  "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears."   (Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers)

When man makes pleasure "right" and pain "wrong" (right-wrong subject to pleasure-pain) he makes himself subject to the world only, i.e., subject to the situation of the 'moment,' weighing the worth of the day (or somebody) based upon the amount of pleasure vs. the amount of pain being experienced in the 'moment' or the future (whether perceived or real), i.e., the 'justification' for abortion, euthanasia, etc., making the augmenting of pleasure and attenuating of pain the issue of life.  By doing so he makes the approval of men (who agree with or can satisfy his desired pleasures of the 'moment' or the future) "right" and the disapproval of men (who disagree with or can inhibit or prevent his having the desired pleasure of the 'moment' or future) "wrong"  Thus the preaching and teaching of commands, rules, facts, and truth ("prejudice") to be accepted as is in the public arena (producing a "guilty conscience," disturbing the "peace" of the carnal individual and society) becomes "wrong."  It is this combination of approval-disapproval/approach pleasure-avoid pain spectrum that makes a person carnal-social by nature.  While the parent, teacher, boss, ..., God thinks right-wrong in structure, the child thinks pleasure-pain instead.  Thus when the parent, teacher, boss, ..., God rules (when the authority figure and their commands, rules, facts, and truth is the thesis, the starting point), the child develops a "guilty conscience" (an antithesis condition, developing a conflict and tension condition with himself, with his pleasure-pain structure of though and action) for doing wrong, i.e., for making pleasure-pain his structure of thought and behavior in the 'moment.'  Only by making the pleasure-pain nature of the child the basis of right-wrong (synthesizing right-wrong with the pleasure-pain spectrum of the child, i.e., making them one and the same) can the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, i.e., for disobeying the parent or God, be negated.

While the child looks to their parent (or parent's—when they are in agreement with one another regarding what is right and what is wrong, their position on what is right and what is wrong making them technically one) to see if they are in approval (or not) with him picking up something he wants to play with, making right and wrong subject to his parent's commands, rules, facts, and truth in regards to whether he can have or do or can not have or do what it is that he wants to do or have in the 'moment.'  This changes right and wrong from the pain-pleasure spectrum of "human nature" (plurality, dialoguing with himself or dialoguing with others his opinion or "feelings" of the 'moment' , i.e., sharing the 'truth' or his "feelings" of the 'moment' or  'discover' the 'truth' or the "feelings" of the 'moment' of others, 'truth' being subject to the "feelings," sensations, or "sense experience" of the 'moment,' i.e., his and others "sensuous needs" and "sense perception" of the 'moment') to the obedience-disobedience structure of parental authority (duality, commands, rules, facts, and truth being preached and taught, to be accepted as is, by faith), i.e., establishing doing right (obedience) and not doing wrong (disobedience) over and against the child's natural inclination to approach pleasure and avoid pain, with the child having to get pleasure out of doing his parent's will, doing right and not wrong, which requires him to set aside the pleasure-pain spectrum of "human nature" when it conflicts with his parent's right-wrong standards, which engenders a "guilty conscience" when he disobeys them or is thinking about it, the "guilty conscience" making him an anti-social(ist) (not a "team player") when he is around others doing or thinking about doing what his parents, teacher, boss, ...., or God says is wrong.

Karl Marx, understanding these structural differences (those of the parent's right-wrong structure and those of the child's pleasure-pain structure), set out to establish a world based upon "human nature," i.e., upon the child's carnal nature ("lusting" after the pleasure of the 'moment,' hating pain, including the pain of missing out on the pleasure of the 'moment') over and against parental authority (doing right and not wrong according to their established, unchanging, unchangeable standards), in order to 'liberate' man from God (having the same right-wrong structure of right-wrong ruling over the pleasure-pain structure of man).  Marx, explaining the importance of 'change,' i.e., the importance of negating the parent's right-wrong structure (which is unadaptable to 'change') in order that the child's pleasure-pain structure (which is ever subject to 'change') can become a reality, wrote: "The philosophers (those who are dissatisfied with the way the world "is," i.e., having to be obey some authority figure against their will, thinking to themselves or dialoguing within themselves about how the world "ought" to be, i.e., a world where they can enjoy the pleasure of the 'moment' without restraint, which makes you and your children, that is, all dissatisfied-thinking people who want 'change,' philosophers) have interpreted the world in many different ways, the objective is 'change.'"  (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #11)  That is, although all people have a pleasure-pain structure, they end up establishing a right-wrong, i.e., "do what I say or else," structure in order to sustain the pleasure-pain structure they want for themselves ("surplus capital"), "repressing" others, "alienating" themselves from others and others from them in the process, reestablishing (perpetuating) the right-wrong structure of parents over children (of God over man).

According to Karl Marx (following after the 'logic' of dialectic 'reasoning'), when the child willingly obeys his parents (in order to save his "self," i.e., in order to have "some" pleasure) he "creates" the parent's top-down, above-below, right-wrong (ridged, unadaptable to 'change') authority structure.  Marx wrote: "The life which he has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force."  (Karl Marx MEGA I/3)  In other words, when the child obeys his parents, he empowers them to have authority over him.  Rejecting the deceitful, wicked nature of man's (the child's) heart, i.e., building off of the "blank tablet" theory, this 'logic' has to embrace the premise that man is basically good or can become good dependent upon his upbringing—with the good person being education in a socialist environment, subject to man's pleasure-pain structure, which engenders 'change' (good), and the bad person being educated in an individualistic environment, subject to the parent's right-wrong authority structure, which engenders rigidity (bad). 

The Marxist, Theodor Adorn wrote: "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority."  "Authoritarian submission was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth."  (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)  Notice Adorno's use of the word "conceived" in reference to God being created from the image the child has of his parents authority.  From this generalizing, Adorno incorrectly deducts that the two (the parent's authority and God's authority, or the earthly father's authority and the Heavenly Father's authority) go hand in hand, are one and the same.  While this might be true in structure (Hebrews 12:5-11), it is not true regarding right and wrong (Romans 7:14-25), the parents right and wrong being subject to their flesh, i.e., carnal, i.e., "lusting" after the pleasures of the world, engendering a "guilty conscience" for doing or being wrong, God's right and wrong being of Himself, i.e., Spirit, i.e., Holy, always right.  Only if one wants to make himself God, always right, i.e., righteous in and for himself, therefore not having a "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, will he make right and wrong subject to the pleasure-pain spectrum of "human nature," making pleasure "right" and pain "wrong," the only problem with the parent's structure is its rigidity, i.e., its un-adaptability to 'change.'

Marx (in error, i.e., in generalizing, i.e., in rejecting man's deceitful and wicked heart) wrote: "once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically." (Karl Marx Theses On Feuerbach #4)  The 'logic' is, if the concept of God resides in the child's honoring of his parent's authority, then, if God is to be negated in society, parental authority must be negated in the thoughts and actions of the child.  According to Marx, because the child is to weak in himself to do the deed, i.e., to kill the parents, it is necessary for socialists to do the deed, i.e., to killing the parents (starting with the King and all who support his authority), thus 'liberating' the child from his parent's authority ('liberating' the Proletariat from the King's and his followers and supporters, i.e., the Bourgeois' authority), 'liberating society from God's authority in the process.  By society 'liberating' the child's individual nature, carnal, of the world only, 'liberating' his individuality out from under the image he has of his parent's and/or of God's authority, society is 'liberated' as well.  Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [where the individual child is subject to his parent's or God's authority, subject to principles established by an authority above him] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him.  Society [where the individual must be 'willing' to compromise or at least for the 'moment' set aside pre-established principles, i.e. where he must be readily adaptable to 'change' in order to initiate and sustain "human relationship," i.e., "group" or "community" identity] is the necessary framework through which freedom [the 'liberation' man's carnal nature, his flesh, his "lust" for pleasure, out from under the father's/Father's authority] and individuality ['liberation' of the child's/man's carnal nature, so that the child/man can be as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth, of the world only, 'discovering' and 'creating' oneness with the world, i.e., with society only] are made realities."  (Karl Marx in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx Only by the child 'discovering' that all children think and act the same, i.e. love pleasure and hate restraint, can he find commonality with himself, the children of the world, and the world itself, uniting with them all, becoming as one in "feeling," in consensus, negating parental authority (God's authority) in the process.  By making the structure of thought (making feelings, i.e., the child's nature, sensuousness, augmenting pleasure, not commands, rules, facts and truth, i.e., the parent's authority, doing right and not wrong) the issue of life, the parent's authority structure (right-wrong/obey-disobey) is negated in the thoughts and actions of the child (with the pleasure-pain structure of "human nature" taking it place, only now with pleasure including social approval and pain including social rejection), negating God's authority structure (righteousness) in the process.

While Karl Marx (following after the pattern of the French Revolution) set out to kill the father's/Father's authority structure in society, starting with the King, Sigmund Freud (who considered the father's authority structure as being the source of neuroses) set out to kill the father's/Father's authority structure in the individual, i.e,. in his mind, one person at a time, 'liberating' the persons "ought" (as in "I ought to be able to do what I want to do, when I want to do it") out from under their parent's or God's "Not" and threat of punishment for disobedience (as in "Thou Shalt Not" and "Because I said so")  Freud's history of mankind is that of children 'liberating' themselves (by uniting as one and then killing and eating their father, leaving no trace of his existence for the next generation to know about) so that they could continue the incestuous relationship they were having with one another and with their mother, something the father cast them out of the family for doing.   "... the hatred against patriarchal suppression—a ‘barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the mother [to be at-one-with nature, i.e. following after their carnal urges and impulses of the 'moment']culminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father, and the establishment of the brother clan,"  (Herbart Marcuse explaining Freud's historiography in his book, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud)  Freud wrote: "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict [negating the father's authority over his children] and its consequences [with the father no longer telling the children what they can or can not do, i.e., the children doing as their "felt needs" direct them in the 'moment'] are the same."  "Frauds individual psychology is in its very essence social-psychology." "... according to Freud, the drive toward ever larger unities belongs to the biological-organic nature of Eros [the child's natural inclination to "lust" after the pleasures of the 'moment', i.e.,  becoming at-one-with the world in pleasure] itself."  ibid.  "Eros [the "affective domain," the heart of the child and man, which is deceitful and wicked] is the foundation of morality."  "Freud speaks of religion [where the child/man reverences the father/Father, honoring his/His authority over and against their own carnal nature, doing the father's/Father's will over and against the their will] as a 'substitute-gratification' – the Freudian analogue to the Marxian formula, 'opiate of the people [the people reverencing the father/Father, honoring his/His authority over and against their carnal nature].'" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History "As the Frankfurt School wrestled with how to 'reinvigorate Marx',  they 'found the missing link in Freud [in psychotherapy].'"  (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research) "Freud noted that  patricide and incest are part of man's deepest nature."  ( Irvin D. Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy)  If you want world unity, you can only achieve it by negating the father's/Father's authority, building it upon what all men, women, and children have in common, the "lusts" of the flesh and eyes, and the pride of life.

It was men like Theodor Adorno, Erick Fromm, Herbart Marcuse, etc., (members of the "Frankfurt School," i.e., "The Institute of Social Research," started by György Lukács and Karl Korsch), J. L. Moreno, and Kurt Lewin, who, by merging Marx and Freud, moved Marxism and individual psychotherapy into group psychotherapy.  Thus Marxism was able to hide itself within the "profession" of psychotherapy, 'changing' the American culture without alarm, with most ministers joining in.  The language of psychotherapy, basing the outcome (objective) of therapy upon opinions instead of upon established (ridged or fixed) commands, rules, facts and truth, i.e. "I know" because my parents,' teacher, preacher, boss, .... God said so, is "I feel" and "I think" (with thought being subject to the "feelings" of the 'moment' and the situation that stimulates them).  By replacing the preaching and teaching of commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as is (of the father's/Father's authority structure), with the children's/men's opinions (with their thoughts being influenced by their "feelings") of the 'moment,' 'discovered' through dialogue the opinions ("feelings") of others (which are common with one another), the individual is 'changed' from right and wrong being subject to parental authority (to one) to where right and wrong becomes subject to his (and others) feelings and thoughts of the 'moment' (to the many). all being subject to the 'changing' situation of the 'moment.'  If you preach and teach commands and rules to be obeyed, and facts and truth to be accepted as is, by faith, you 'create' a different child (and world) than if you allow them to dialogue their opinions with on another to a consensus.  "[Kurt] Lewin emphasized that the child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group."  (Wilbur Brookover, Socialization in the School)  By getting the parent's, teacher, boss, minister, etc., to dialogue their opinions with those who are under their or God's authority, instead of preaching and teaching commands, rules, facts, and truth to be accepted as "is,' by faith, since there is no authority structure in the dialoguing of opinions their authority structure is negated, i.e., they have abdicated their authority to their "feelings" of the 'moment,' making themselves and everyone else subject to the situation of the 'moment,' subject to the master seducer, deceiver, and manipulator (facilitator) of 'change,' manipulated the situation.

The Word of God:

When, in 1881, Westcott and Hort gained control over a committee evaluating the text of the Greek source being used for Bible translation, i.e., the Greek source for the Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops, King James, etc., Bibles, they were able to corrupt the Greek text, introducing the heresy sources, Sinaiticus א, Vaticanus β, and Codex X, which are from the heresy works of the Alexandrian text, and the texts of Origin, Eusebius, and Jerome, the source for the Catholic church.  Prior to Westcott and Hort's corrupting of the Greek text, while disagreement would arise to the translations from the Greek text, there were few disagreements regarding the Greek text themselves (called the Textus Receptus), with no major doctrinal differences found amongst the some 4,500 fragments, portions, and books (dating from the early church up to the 1400's).  Thus, while there might be a dialoguing of opinions regarding the translations, there were few if any regarding the source text (the Greek text) themselves.  This is important to know because with the introduction of the heresy Greek texts (as now found in the Nestle-Aland and Metzger Greek text which ministers are trained from in seminary), which are based upon men's opinions, the dialoguing of men's opinions became the format for evaluation (textual criticism), with many disagreeing (corrupt) translations from then on abounding within the "church."  In this way the church replaced ministers preaching and teaching from the Word of God, with facilitators of 'change,' dialoguing the opinions of men, making the Word of God subject to the feelings and thoughts of the men, women, and children in the "church," i.e., replacing the Word of God with the opinions of men, i.e., making it subject to 'change,' i.e., subject to the World instead.

The "church" has not responded to the Marxist takeover of America because most ministers have become Marxist themselves, i.e., facilitators of 'change.'   Ministers have become intoxicated with the pleasures of the 'moment,' including the most addictive pleasure of all, the approval of men.  They have become not only "hirelings" but "wolves in sheep skins," i.e., not only taking pleasure in being deceived, but taking pleasure in deceiving others as well.  The moment we turn our eyes away from the Lord and onto the world, seeking the pleasure of this life instead of desiring to please Him, we end up going this way, making our opinion (men's opinions and the approval of men) the standard of right and wrong, instead of His Word.

© Institution for Authority Research  Dean Gotcher 2015