The Earthly Father's/Heavenly Father's Authority.
The child's carnal nature is antithetical to the father's/Father's authority. The child's carnal nature is not only to love pleasure but also to hate the missing out on pleasure, which includes hating the one causing him or her to miss out on it—the child can not separate the two, wanting to kill the father for getting in his or her way, i.e., for getting in his or her pathway to pleasure. This is why those of the world, "lusting" after the carnal pleasure of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, hate the father's/Father's authority—trying to negate it if and when they can.
Yet, when children grow up, having children of their own, they tend to revert to the father's authority. The more they take on the duty of a father the more they love their children, chastening them when they do wrong, disobey, sin, in order for them to learn to humble, deny, die to, control, discipline their "self" and do right, obey, not sin—loving them but hating it when they do wrong, disobey, sin. Yet, conversely, the more they hold onto the child's carnal nature the more they, caring about their "self," hate (are indifferent to what happens to) their children, wanting to remove them (wanting to kill them or have them killed) for getting in their way, i.e., for getting in their pathway to pleasure.
Culture 'change,' i.e., the "new" world order is all about negating the father's/Father's authority, replacing it with the carnal nature of the child, i.e., with "human nature," with psychologists, i.e., "behavior scientist," i.e. "group psychotherapists," i.e., facilitators of 'change,' i.e., Transformational Marxists (all being the same in method or formula) leading the way—even in the "church."
By simply replacing the preaching, teaching, and discussing of established commands, rules, facts, and truth,, i.e., the father's/Father's authority with the dialoguing of opinions, i.e., "feelings," i.e., the child's carnal nature accomplishes the trick. It is what the master facilitator of 'change' did with the woman in the garden Eden (with Adam following)—Genesis 3:1-6, negating Hebrews 12:5-11, i.e., the Father's authority, negating Romans 7:14-25, the guilty conscience and the need for repentance, in the process.
The gospel message is all about the Father (the Son's obedience to the Father). The enemy of the gospel is the Serpent, hating the Father's authority. Instead of fighting against the "church" he has joined it, bringing it into dialogue (as he did in the garden) in order to make it accepting of and acceptable to the world—making God's Word subject to men's opinions for the 'purpose' of unity, i.e., "building human(ist) relationship." In the praxis of consensus, affirming the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's (man's) love of pleasure and hate of restraint (and the restrainer) the "church" has recreated itself, i.e., made itself in the image of "the children of disobedience," i.e., apostate.
"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 "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 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, dialoguing with your "self," i.e., 'justifying' your "self," i.e., 'justifying' your love of pleasure over and therefore against the father's/Father's authority, can not see your hate, i.e., your hatred toward the father's/Father's authority, as being evil because your love of "self," i.e., your love of ("lusting" after) pleasure—which the world stimulates—is "in the way," blinding you to the truth of the deceitfulness and wickedness of your heart.
Karl Marx 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)
As the transformational Marxist (Marxists who merge Karl Marx, i.e., public, i.e., society with Sigmund Freud, i.e., private, i.e., the individual and Sigmund Freud with Karl Marx),
heodore Adorno, explained it: "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." "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." "An attitude of complete submissiveness toward ‘supernatural forces' and a readiness to accept the essential incomprehensibility of ‘many important things' strongly suggest the persistence in the individual of infantile attitudes toward the parents, that is to say, of authoritarian submission in a very pure form." "The conception of the ideal family situation for the child: 1) uncritical obedience to the father and elders, 2) pressures directed unilaterally from above to below, 3) inhibition of spontaneity and 4) emphasis on conformity to externally imposed values." "The power—relationship between the parents, the domination of the subject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
In other words, get rid of the traditional family, i.e., the father's authority system in the feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in the relationship children have with one another in the home (and in the classroom) and you get rid of religion, i.e., you negate the Father's authority system in the feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in the relationship man has with one another in society. Our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, in obedience to His Heavenly Father in all things commanded, is by dialectic 'reasoning' classifiable as having an "authoritarian personality." Thus Abraham Maslow himself would have cheered with the crowd as Christ Jesus was being nailed to the cross.
Maslow wrote: "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately." "The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)
Sigmund Freud wrote: "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization) It is not a matter whether the father is present or not (alive or dead, present or absent). It is that he no longer insists upon his authority in the home. His (and his family's) rejection of his authority 'liberates' him and his family from having a "guilty conscience" for doing wrong, creating a society of unrighteousness and abomination, i.e., "of and for self" only.
George Hegel wrote: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [as he 'liberates' his "self" from the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, i.e., as he becomes as he was before the father's first command, rule, fact, and truth, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only, negating the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong in the process]." (George Hegel, System of Ethical Life)
Once you realize that the earthly father's authority system over the home is the same authority system of God's over the creation, you realize that the only way to negate God's authority system in society is to negate the father's authority system in the home (in the individual). As long as the father's authority system remains in control in the home, social(ist) control, i.e., 'change' ('liberating' society from God's authority) will continue to be blocked or inhibited. This is due to the fact that when the child becomes a parent himself, he will initiate and sustain, by nature, the father's authority system in his home, sustaining the Father's authority system in society.
Even Abraham Maslow came to understand this nature, yet he refused to acknowledge it publically (admitting that he was wrong) fearing the lose of respect with (approval by) his peers. After having children of his own, Maslow wrote: "Who should teach whom?" (children adults or adults children) "I've been in continuous conflict over this Esalen-type, orgiastic, Dionysian-type education." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow) He admitted that taking their money (the children's allowance) away from them, i.e., removing their power of control over their lives, was the only solution to the problem. Thus the 'drive' and 'purpose' of dialectic 'reasoning' is to 'liberate' children from their father's authority system, negating the father's authority system in their feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in their relationship with one another, thus 'liberating' society from the Father's authority system, negating the Father's authority system in the citizens feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in their relationship with one another.
Only by starting with the child's (or man's) "feelings" and "thoughts," i.e. the child's opinion (circumventing parental/Godly authority, i.e. parental/Godly restraint), can world unity be attained. Only by creating an environment (an "experiential chasm," Warren Bennis) where the child can feel, think, and act and relate with other's in the 'moment,' without awareness of or fear of the father's authority, can the child become himself again, as he was before the father's first command, rule, fact, or truth and threat of chastening for disobedience, i.e., carnal, i.e., "of and for self," i.e., of the world only. 'Liberating' the child's heart (his affective domain) from the father's authority, i.e. opening "Pandora's box"—a "box" full of evil, which, once opened, can not be closed—turns the child's heart against the father and his authority. Benjamin Bloom wrote: "What we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the student's fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues." "The affective domain is, in retrospect, a virtual 'Pandora's Box.'" "There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices [opening "Pandora's box" up, i.e., 'liberating' the child to share his opinion, i.e., his "feelings" about and his "thoughts" on authority, in the 'light' of his hearts desires) in the child's classroom experience] are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain) All teachers are "certified" and all schools (public and private) are "accredited" based upon their use of "Bloom's (Marzano's/Webb's) Taxonomies."
If the father's authority system is:
1) a. to preach commands and rules to his children, to be obeyed,
b. to teach facts and truth to them, to be accepted as given (by faith), and
c. to discuss with his children (at his/His discretion—providing he has time, they are able to understand, and they are not questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking his authority) where they went wrong or give them clarification on how to do what he has commanded right
2) to bless or reward those children who obey and do things right,
3) to chasten or correct those children who disobey or do things wrong, that they might learn to obey or do things right, and
4) to cast out those children who question, challenge, defy, disregard, attack his authority.
and if the child's nature is:
1) to approach pleasure and
2) to avoid pain,
3) to dialogue with his "self", 'justifying'
his desires (what he wants to do in the 'moment') and
his dissatisfactions (his resentment-hatred toward restraint),
4) to draw the father into dialogue* with his "Why?" (in response to the father's commands and rules) in order to 'liberate' his "self" from the father's authority:
with the father either responding to the child's "Why?" with "Because I said so," cutting off dialogue,
maintaining his "top-down," "above-below" authority over the child or
entering into dialogue with the child, sharing his opinion, i.e., how he "feels" and what he "thinks,"
abdicating his authority—with the child and the father becoming "equal"—elevating the child's "feelings" over and therefore turning him against the father's authority system.
(*Dialogue and discussion are not the same. The father negates his authority in dialogue. He retains it in discussion.)
—see Diaprax Chart.
then it is the father's right to bless, reward, chasten, and cast out that keeps the child subject to his authority, the "guilty conscience" (the father's voice in the child's brain, the fear of pain, including the pain of his rejection or disapproval, i.e. the desire for his approval being therefore evident) restraining the child when the father is not present. If you begin with the father's authority system, i.e. his commands, rules, facts, and truth and his right to bless, reward, chasten, and cast out then the child, out of fear of lose of pleasure (which includes the desire for approval) and fear of pain (which includes the fear of disapproval and lose of access to the father's money, i.e. blessings), the child remains subject to the father's way of thinking and acting.
"Freud and Hegel are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression." "According to Freud, the ultimate essence of our being is erotic, and demands activity according to the pleasure-principle. The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious; 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)
"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.'" (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)
The dialectic formula (dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus) is being used in education, in the workplace, in government, in the home, and even in the church, to make global dominance, , i.e., the "new" world order, i.e., Synthesis (S) a 'reality' (R). By making the child's "feelings" (CF)—pleasure-pain—and his "thoughts"—desires-dissatisfactions—the focus of attention, i.e., the thesis (T), the Father's authority (FA) and the "guilty conscience" for doing wrong is negated. The children, in consensus with their "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' 'changes' the world.
"Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making [circumventing the father's/Father's authority system], our objective centers upon .... transform[ing] public opinion [transforming the children's personal "feelings," "thoughts," and "actions" of the 'moment,' and his relationship with the other children in the classroom] into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests [instead of to the father's/Father's authority].... 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)
The dialectic formula:
If FA = T then CF = A and S ≠ R.
But if CF = T then FA = A and S = R.
If we make the father's authority system (FA—"do right and do not do wrong, or else") the thesis (T), i.e., if we begin with the father's threat of chastening for doing wrong, then the child's feelings of the 'moment' (CF) becomes the antithesis (A), i.e., the source of conflict and tension and synthesis (S) i.e. the children uniting themselves as one upon their "feeling,' i.e., in consensus (with a "feeling" of "oneness"), i.e., socialism can not become a reality (R). But if we make the child's feelings (CF—his desire for pleasure and resentment toward restraint) the thesis (T), i.e., if we begin with the child's "feelings" (removing the threat of chastening for doing wrong, i.e., removing the father's/Father's authority) then the father's authority system (FA) becomes the antithesis (A), i.e., the source of conflict and tension, and synthesis (S), i.e. the children uniting themselves as one in consensus (with a "feeling" of "oneness"), i.e., socialism can become a reality (R), negating, i.e. "annihilated" (vernichtet) the father's/Father's authority system (FA) ("the earthly family" and "the holy family") in the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions, and in his relationship with other children participating in the process of 'change,' i.e., in the consensus process.
Because since the earthly father desires pleasure, as the child desires pleaser, the element of pleasure makes the earthly father and the child one. Since God is Holy, desiring us to be holy, it is his chastening which makes it where we can participate in His Holiness. (Hebrews 12:5-11) Negating the earthly father's authority to chasten and cast out and both fathers, earthly and Heavenly, lose their importance in the thoughts and actions of the child, negating his having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for sinning, i.e., negating Romans 7:14-25.
The key to dialectic success is: if you can start with the child's nature, i.e. his natural inclination of approaching pleasure, i.e. to become at-one-with nature in the 'moment' (Genesis 3:1-6), and of avoiding pain, i.e. to negate whatever or whoever it is that prevents him from fulfilling his natural inclination to approach pleasure (with his desire for approval from "the group," which approves of his desires, becoming more important to him than the approval which comes from his father, who does not approve of his desires), then the father's authority system, i.e. his right to bless, reward, chasten, or cast out is negated. Dialectic 'reasoning' is given birth in the child's "Why?" voiced in response to the fathers demands (commands and rules) which inhibit or block the child's carnal desire of the 'moment.' The "Why?" not only contains the child's carnal desire, i.e. his "self interest" of the 'moment,' it also contains his hatred toward authority, which is restraining it. It is in the "Why?" that dialectic 'reasoning' becomes a reality in the child's life (with the child perceiving the father's commands and rules, which restrain his "self interest" of the 'moment,' as being 'irrational,' i.e. unreasonable in his eyes). Because the father refuses to participate in dialogue (compromising his position of authority), i.e. responding to the child's "Why?" with "Because I said so." the child's only recourse (other than attempting to physically overcome the father) is found within himself, i.e. talking to his "self," 'justifying' to his "self" that he is (his "feelings" or "self interest" of the 'moment' are) right and the father (the father's authority) is wrong.
Reflecting upon how the world "is," the child being restrained by the father's/Father's authority, and imagining how it "ought" to be, i.e., the child living according to his "self interests," now resides within the child, hidden from public sight. Dialectic 'reasoning' is the "ought" (the child dialoguing within himself regarding his "self interests," privately seeking 'liberation' from the father's authority) now, through dialoguing with others, given public expression (and support). The "Why?" of the child's "feelings" (the child's "self interest" given the 'light' of day through dialoguing with others of like "self interest") now overrules the father's "Not" and "Because I said so," 'liberating' the child from the father's authority (at least in his feeling and thoughts of the 'moment.' It will take social action, i.e. praxis, with the other children in the classroom, working on a "group project," and then, in his next encounter with the father in the home, responding to the father's commands, rules, facts, and truth, when they stand in the way of his "self interest" of the 'moment,' as being 'irrational,' negating the father's authority, i.e., treating it as being "irrelevant," not only in his thoughts but in his actions as well, i.e., in his thoughts and actions, i.e., in theory and practice before his 'liberation' can become a 'reality.'
The American family has encountered this patterned of behavior (disrespect toward authority), especially from the 50's on, because of the teachers use of "Bloom's Taxonomies" within the classroom, introducing the students to dialectic process, i.e. 'liberating' their affective domain from parental authority, i.e. giving the child's "self interest," i.e. the child's "feelings" center stage (over and therefore against the father's authority), in the thoughts and actions of the children, now united as one upon "self interest," negating the father's authority in the home.
Dialectic 'reasoning' 'justifies' (to the child) the child's nature of approaching the pleasure of the 'moment' over and therefore against the father's authority to block or inhibit it, paving the way for the "new" world order of unrighteousness and abomination, 'creating' a world based upon the impulses and urges of the child's carnal nature, i.e. upon "human nature" Only. If you negate the Father's authority, His demand for righteousness, which no man can fulfill or do, you negate the need of a savior ('redeeming' man from the Father's wrath, 'reconciling' him to the Father), i.e. you negate the gospel message, making it a gospel of men (with men 'redeeming' themselves from the Father's authority, 'reconciling' themselves to the world), instead. Those who place themselves in a position of authority, yet, using the position for their own gain, 'liberate' other's from the Father's authority (from the Word of God) are as Jesus described those who put themselves in "Moses seat," i.e. as overseers of the law of God, liars, i.e. of their "father the devil," who 'liberated' man from God (from the Father) and his law (His commands) so that they could to live according to their own carnal feelings, thoughts, and actions of the 'moment,' i.e. live according to their relationship with the world, not needing a savior to 'redeem' them from the Father's wrath, 'reconciling' them to the Father, 'redeeming' themselves (through dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. self 'justification') from the Father's authority, 'reconciling' themselves to the world instead, i.e. choosing the pleasures of Caesar over and therefore against the Son of God, i.e. rejecting His obedience to His Heavenly Father authority and eternal life in favor of their own carnal pleasures of the 'moment.'
"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
While the earthly father is not perfect (he may be a down right tyrant), his office of authority is perfect—given to him by God that the child might come to recognize the Heavenly Father's authority, coming to accept Him as His Heavenly Father, through Jesus Christ, His obedient Son, Hebrews 12:5-11. Hegel, Marx, and Freud understood that by negating the earthly father's "top-down," "above-below," "right-wrong" authority system in the thoughts and actions of the child, the Heavenly Father's "top-down," "above-below," "right-wrong" authority system is negated in man's thoughts and actions, 'creating' a "new" world order which is based entirely upon the carnal nature of the child/man, i.e. 'creating' a world based upon the law of the flesh, i.e. "human nature" Only, negating the law of God, i.e. negating God's judgment upon sin (disobedience against the Father's authority) and the "guilty conscience" which ensues, thereby negating mans' need of a savior, Romans 7:14-25. The dialectic error is in the opinion that Jesus came to 'liberate' man from the law of God, i.e. from the Father's authority, when in truth Christ came to fulfill the law, 'redeeming' man from the Father's wrath, 'reconciling' him to the Father instead; the dialectic process, doing the opposite, i.e. by 'reconciling' the child/man to the flesh it 'redeems' him from the father's/Father's authority instead. While the harlot draws the child away from the Father's authority, the beast is the children, emerging as one in their feelings, thoughts, and actions which are purged of the Father's authority, i.e. freed of Godly restraint, i.e. having no "guilty conscience" regarding their praxis of unrighteousness and abomination. Hegel, Marx, and Freud understood this. While Hegel identified the father's/Father's authority as being "the social problem," and Marx set out to purge society of the father's/Father's authority by force, Freud realized that the father's/Father's authority had to be removed from the child's feelings, thoughts, and actions as well if 'change,' i.e. the "new" world order (with man becoming only of and for himself, i.e. of "human nature" only, i.e. 'liberated' from the Father's authority) was to be initiated and sustained, i.e. initiating and sustaining the praxis of Genesis 3:1-6 as the means to creating "worldly peace and socialist harmony." Yet, while Hegel, Marx, and Freud, hating God, attempted to negate the Father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of men (by negating the father's authority in the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the child), they confirmed God's Word instead.
"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
"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." "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2: 16, 15
"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
"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Romans 8:7
"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?" James 4:1-4
Hegel, Marx, and Freud understood the meaning of the Word of God more than most ministers do today, that the gospel massage (the Son) has no meaning without (apart from) the Father and His authority. "How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?" "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.John 3:30 The gospel message is the Son giving us the same pathway in which to traveled. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21
Jesus did not come to negate the Father's authority but to instill it in the hearts and souls of men instead. "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 Our inheritance is not in the father's money or property, i.e. in the things of this world (prosperity), as the prodigal son thought, but in our Father's love, i.e. in the things above (liberty from the power of the flesh and death), as the prodigal son came to understand (after humbling himself, returning home, and submitting himself to the father's authority). We are to set our affection upon our Father's will, as the Son desires, instead of our "self interests" of the 'moment,' as those of the world desire. "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." Colossians 3:2 "and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 3:1 Leaving out the Son's obedience to His Heavenly Father leaves out the Father's love and grace toward us, i.e. leaves out righteousness imputed by the Father to men of faith in His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, who was obedient to His Heavenly Father in all things commanded, that those of faith might partake in His holiness, glory, and eternal life instead of spending eternity in suffering and eternal death. "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:17-18 "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 10:32, 33
The Father's authority is made manifest in the Son's obedience, who we are to follow (denying our "self interest," facing the hate, rejection, and removal by others for exposing their "self interest" as being of the world only, i.e. evil, and following Jesus instead), "taking captive every thought" to His obedience to the Father's will, as well. "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" 2 Corinthians 10:5 7 It is the Father's authority (and anyone who submits to it) that the flesh and the world hates, hating anyone who exposes their wicked ways, i.e. their "human nature," producing a "guilty conscience" within them for their sins (for their disobedience of the Father's will). "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil." John 7:7 "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved." Mathew 10:22
But man, loving the flesh, will not see his hate as being hate, but will perceive anyone who exposes his love of this world (who preaches and teaches God's condemnation of and judgment upon it) as being hateful instead. Perceiving spirit as being man's approval of man (as in "team spirit," "community spirit," i.e. with everyone being a "team player," etc.), glorifying his carnal nature (tolerating deviant behavior), he must resist the Spirit of God, removing the knowledge of God from the face of the world, killing those who stand in their way, doing so in the name of "peace and harmony," i.e. unity, glorifying the flesh over and therefore against the Father and His authority. "And when he [the Holy Spirit, i.e. the Comforter] is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged." John 16:9, 10
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2014-2017, 2019