The Innocent and righteous and dialectic 'reasoning.'

Dean Gotcher

"The innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked." Exodus 23:7

For those who 'reason' dialectically ('reason' via. dialogue, where right or "good" is based upon their desire for, i.e., their "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and wrong or "evil" is whoever is preventing, i.e., inhibited or blocked them from enjoying them) "innocence" without being innocent and "righteousness" without being righteous is the basis of 'reality,' i.e., their understanding of "life." Making their "sense experience," i.e., their "sensuous needs" and "sense perception," i.e., that which is of the world the basis of 'reality,' the 'liberal' (intoxicated with, addicted to, and possessed with dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification') can only perceive their "self' as being "innocent" and "righteous"—'justifying' their desire for (their "lusting" after) the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates and their hatred toward (and removal of) anyone (including the innocent and righteous) who restrain them or get in their way, preventing them from enjoying the carnal pleasures of "life" they desire.

"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

This is what Immanuel Kant meant by his statements "lawfulness without law" and "purposiveness without purpose" where the law of the flesh, without the law of God makes the 'purpose' of life the enjoyment of the flesh and the eyes, i.e., the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates over and therefore against any purpose which God has in mind. In this praxis of "self" 'justification,' i.e., dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning' the death of the innocent and the righteous is 'justified' when/since they get in the way of the pleasures of the 'moment,' i.e., "life." To the 'liberal,' man's carnal (sinful) nature is the 'drive' and therefore the 'purpose' of "life," making whoever restrains, i.e., gets in the way of "life," i.e., pleasure "evil," including God and any who have faith in and obey Him, i.e., who "initiate" and "sustain" His way of thinking, i.e., the father's/Father's authority restraining, i.e., inhibiting or blocking the carnal nature of the child, i.e., "human nature."

"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 dialectic process of "self" 'justification' leads back to the garden in Eden, where the first "psychotherapist," i.e., master facilitator of 'change'coming between "the Father" and "the children"—"helped" the children 'justify' their "self," i.e., 'justify' their carnal desires of the 'moment' over and therefore against the Father's authority, thus 'liberating' their "self" from the Father's restraint. The heart and soul of dialectic 'reasoning' is to make the world one according to "human nature" only. By using the dialoging of opinions (in an "open ended," "non-directed," "positive" environment) "psychotherapists," i.e., facilitator's of 'change' are able to "help" men, women, and children arrive at a consensus, i.e., a "feeling" of "oneness" with one another. Thus affirming themselves (their "self") they are able to 'justify' their sinful nature as being "normal," establishing themselves, i.e., "human nature" over and therefore against Godly restraint, i.e., the father's/Father's authority.

"The 'original sin' must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge ["self" 'justification'] in order to fall back into the state of innocence.'" (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud)

"To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit;" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

Innocence and righteousness, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' resides in the children, i.e., in their carnal nature seeking "oneness" with the world (nature) only—'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority. According to George Hegel, "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's/Father's authority so that he can be his "self," i.e., as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only, innocent and righteous in his own eyes]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) According to Karl Marx, the child can only be himself, i.e., "of and for self," i.e., of nature only, when the father's/Father's authority is negated in his thoughts (individual) and in his actions (social). Marx wrote: "Once the earthly family [with the children having to submit to their father's authority, i.e., having to humble and deny their "self" in order to do their father's will] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with the Son, and all following Him having to submit to His Heavenly Father's authority, i.e., having to humble and deny their "self" in order to do His Heavenly Father's will], the former [the earthly father's authority system] must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated] in theory and in practice [in the children's thoughts and social actions, i.e., in their relationship with one another and the world, "building relationship upon self interest" instead upon the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4) "It is not individualism [where the child/man is under the father's/Father's authority, doing the father's/Father's will] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society ["human relationship built upon self interest"] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority] and individuality [to being "of and for self" only] are made realities [of the world, i.e., of nature only]." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx) According to Sigmund Freud, the child can only be himself, i.e., think and act according to his carnal nature, i.e., be innocent and righteous in his own eyes when the father/Father no longer exercises his/His authority over the child—demanding that the child think and act according to his will, "repressing" the child, "alienating" him from the world, causing "neurosis" as the child is caught between doing the father's/Father's will and his own at the same time. 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 [the father no longer has (recognizes or uses) his authority in the home]." "... 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." (Sigmund Freud in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) By merging Marx (society, i.e., "the group") and Freud (the individual), 'creating' "group psychotherapy," the dialoging of opinions to a consensus (affirmation) is being used by facilitators of 'change' to 'liberate' all who participate (in thought and action) from the father's/Father's authority so they, 'justifying' their "self" before one another, can do wrong, disobey, sin without having a guilty conscience, i.e., so they, 'justifying' their "self" before one another, can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., so they, 'justifying' their "self" before one another, —can become innocent and righteous in their own eyes.

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

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

Through dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' "belief-action dichotomy"—where belief, i.e., the father's/Father's authority conflicts with action, i.e., the children's desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates—is negated. In the dialoging of opinions to a consensus meeting belief-action dichotomy is replaced with "theory-practice"—where the children, dialoguing with their "self," 'justifying their love of pleasure, i.e., their love of the world and their hate of restraint, i.e., their hate of the father's/Father's authority—which gets in the way—become at one with one another, 'justify' (affirming) their carnal nature, making "human nature" right (righteous) and the father's/Father's authority wrong (hateful and wicked), thereby making that which is "of and for self" (humanity only) innocence and righteous.

Again: dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning' seeks to "resolve" the conflict (belief-action dichotomy) between "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23 and "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48—which requires repentance, belief/faith in the Son of God, Jesus Christ and obedience to the Father to be resolved (overcome). Conversely (in opposition), i.e., according to dialectic 'reasoning' only when the father's/Father's authority is negating in the children's thoughts ("repressing" them) thus 'justifying' their carnal actions ("human nature") can the conflict be resolved (overcome). In other words by negating the father's/Father's authority in the children's thoughts and actions, the guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning is negated, thus 'liberating' the children so they (and the facilitator of 'change'—it is really all about the facilitator of 'change') can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., without "feeling bad."

The process is not successful until no one can escape. Not until all have succumb to the process of 'change' will it be successful  Not until those who preach, teach, and discuss the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth—making others "feel bad" for being "human," i.e., for being sinners, needing to repent—are silenced or removed can "worldly peace and socialist harmony" become a 'reality' (where all can do wrong, disobey, sin, i.e., kill the righteous and innocent with impunity, i.e., without having a guilty conscience).

The issue is over inheritance—which comes from the father/Father—which the "children of disobedience," i.e., those of dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification' want to enjoy "now," without restraints (killing the father/Father in order to gain access to it, without having to do his will, without having a guilty conscience in the praxis). The two in the garden did not die because of the fruit of the "forbidden tree," i.e., the fruit did not physically kill them. They died because they disobeyed. Their inheritance (eternal life)—being the tree of life (which they were enjoying while doing "the Father's will")—was removed from them (or rather they were removed from it) because of their praxis of disobedience, establishing "human nature" over and therefore against the Father's authority. As in the garden, the father's inheritance is passed on to those children who are innocent and righteous, i.e., who do the father's will (and are therefore approved of the father). It is the "children of disobedience," i.e., those who 'reason' dialectically (via dialogue) who are cut out of the will, i.e., who loose access to the father's inheritance. Separated from the tree of life, i.e., the inheritance of eternal life, all sinful man has is death at the end of this life and—the soul being eternal—eternal death after that.

The facilitator of 'change' in the garden was not judged because the two, and through them all mankind, consented, i.e., 'justified' their "self." He could only be judged for taking the life of one who would not consent, i.e., who remained innocent and righteous, i.e., obedient to the Father unto death. Only in Christ Jesus, who, refusing to consent, obeyed the Father in all things commanded unto death—dying on the cross—is the facilitator of 'change' judged (found guilty). Only by having faith in Christ Jesus (his blood covering our sins), repenting of our sins, accepting his righteousness (which is imputed to us by faith), are we redeemed from judgment and eternal death, i.e., from the lake of fire that is never quenched—which is prepared for the facilitator of 'change' (with those following after him, consenting to his way of thinking and acting, i.e., "self" 'justification,' joining him). Only by faith in Christ Jesus and not in our "self" will we spend eternal life with the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, as innocent and righteous children.

God's word to those who "justify themselves before men," who (having no fear of God before their eyes) perceive themselves as being innocent and righteous.

"For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth. The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts." Psalms 10:3, 4

God's word to those who (repenting of their sins) seek after Him.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:9, 10

Boast not that you are approved (affirmed) by men for your works (loving pleasure, hating restraint), dying in your sins. Praise God that you are approved by Him, by His work, loving you while you were still in your sins, sending His Son to 'redeem' you, 'reconciling' you to Himself, that you might spend eternity with Him. "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." Mark 8:37-39

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2018