There is only antithesis.
Synthesis is the great deception.


Dean Gotcher

God created man: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.  And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.  And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil." "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."  Genesis 2:7-10, 15-17

Thesis:  Doing right and not wrong according to the Father's will.

If we apply this to a system (a way of thinking and doing things) then it is the Father who creates the children and establishes the environment which they are to live within.  The children are therefore accountable to their Father's authority, i.e. recognize His right to give commands to them, commands to be obeyed without question, as well as His right to chasten them when they disobey.  Thus we have the patriarchal condition (a "top-down," Patriarchal Paradigm) as described in Hebrews 12:5-11, with our earthly father's chastening us "after their own pleasure" and our Heavenly Father chastening us "for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness."  In our father's authority, both earthly and Heavenly, we learn accountability (that there is a consequence) for our thoughts and our actions, we learn through His "Mine, not yours," to value that which is not ours (as well as that which is ours), respecting the private property of others, "Yours, not mine" (which is lacking today).

According to the Word of God, the Father has a  "top-down" authority over His children.  He has the God given right to author commands to His children, i.e. commands which the children are to obey without questioning them or His office of authority.  He also has the God given right to chasten His children when they disobey His commands.  According to Hebrews 12:5-11, if the children question their Father's office of authority (treating it with disrespect, dishonoring it, challenging His authority, treating Him as being 'irrelevant,' refusing to accept His chastening ) then He has the God given right to "cast them out."  He is therefore to direct their steps according God's will, under God's authority. He is to introducing His children to God (who alone is righteous in and of Himself, man being of flesh and God being spirit).  While the "earthly father" is not perfect (is not God, i.e. is not righteous in and of himself) his office of authority over his children is.

(The Father gives commands to His children and chastens them when they disobey.)

"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps."  Jeremiah 10:23"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.  In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."   Proverbs 3:5, 6  After making the importance of the Father (the one) and His authority clear, it must be said that children can be right and the earthly father wrong (even a tyrant).  In that case the children are to obey the father until he directs them to sin (go against God's will, against their conscience).  Here the child, under God, must not participate, explaining that, according to God and their conscience, what he is asking of them or telling them to do  is wrong, is sin, yet they must be willing to accept the Father's authority to chastening them for disobedience, honoring the office.

While the earthly father is not perfect, his office is perfect.  Those of dialectic 'reasoning' know this and set out to destroy it (annihilate, i.e. negate it).  Jesus came not to bring peace but a sword, dividing the earthly father from the son, etc., yet He did not come to negate the office of the authority of the Father.  He never once stepped outside of the patriarchal paradigm, i.e. disobeyed His Heavenly Father.  He calls all who are His to no longer call their earthly father, Father, but only His Heavenly Father, Father. "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven". Matthew 23:9  In Christ, we have a new Father, a true Father of love.  It is in Him that we, as "sons of God," come to know our Heavenly Father, His Love, His Joy, His Peace, and eternal life, through His only begotten son, Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.  "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." 1 John 3:1, 2

If the earthly father turns to wrath, to destroy those children who are his, i.e. those children who desire to be obedient to him and honor his office of authority, then they must seek escape till the father comes to his "senses."   Their escape must be to authority which recognizes and respects the father's authority or they will  be turned away from the authority of the father, the office of others being used to destroy the father's God given right of authority over his children. "Any non-family-based collectivity that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a democratizing impact on that relationship [negate the Father's God given right to have authority over his children, not only in the children's thoughts but also in their actions, turning them against not only the office of the father on earth but also against the office of their Father in Heaven]."  (Warren Bennis, The Temporary Society)

(The children obey their Father's commands.  By recognizing and honoring His office of authority they must disobey their "human nature," their "natural inclination" to approach pleasure and avoid pain.)

Antithesis: Children wanting to do what they want to do in the 'moment': the pleasure-pain spectrum of "human nature," i.e. of the children, i.e. the approaching of pleasure and the avoiding of pain being the sum of life coming into conflict with the Father's authority.

(If the child disobeys the Father's command, seeking instead the gratifying object (X) which draws him to the world, which the Father forbids, i.e. the Father restraining him during, threatening to chasten him, or getting wind of it after, chastening him.)

Children (mankind) by nature are inclined to approach pleasure and avoid pain ("lusting" after pleasure).  Thus they find themselves (along with their earthly father, i.e. both father and children under God) in an antithesis condition, caught between obeying their Father (doing right and not wrong, an of the spirit construct) and obeying their nature (seeking after pleasure and avoiding pain, an of the flesh construct).  Those who are of the flesh construct, in defense of "human nature," over and against righteousness, that which is of the spirit perceive life only in the pursuit of pleasure: "1. All human behavior is directed toward the satisfaction of needs, 2. the individual will change his established ways of behaving for one of two reasons: to gain increased need satisfaction or to avoid decreased need satisfaction, and 3. 'augmentation' in the possibilities of needs satisfaction."  (Douglas McGregor in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)  Being, by nature, drawn to "do their own thing," approaching pleasure, yet desiring to obey the Father, i.e. obey His commands (which restrain their natural inclination to approach pleasure and avoid pain), children find themselves in an antithesis (conflicting, tension) condition, i.e. by "human nature," tempted to sin.  "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.  Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin [disobedience to the Father]: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death [judgment and punishment, i.e. chastening or condemnation]." James 1:14-15

This antithesis condition, the child desiring to be-at-one with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment,' yet desiring to obey his father (who inhibits or blocks him from being at-one-with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment"), prevents him from thinking and acting according to his own "human nature," making him instead subject to His Father's law.  Romans 7:14-25 describes it as the child doing that which he does not want to do, disobey his Father, and not doing that which he wants to do, obey his Father. It is this condition which engenders and manifests the "guilty conscience" in the child, resulting from any thought or act of disobedience.  "The guilty conscience is formed in childhood by the incorporation of the parents and the wish to be father of oneself."  (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

The father, under God's authority, sets policy for the family (the "top-down" system of Hebrews 12:5-11) not only for the children but for government as well.  As the children grow up, marry and leave the home, they carry the same system into all areas of their lives, including government. They carry the system of right-wrong (under one authority) into all areas of their life and into the world, i.e. the understanding that there is only one God, only one Father, only one "begotten son of God," only one Holy Spirit, only one Word of God, i.e. that there are not many (which engenders opinions).  When correlated with the secular domain, there is only one family, one county, one state, one nation in which to be loyal.  It is here that sovereignty, i.e. "Mine, not yours." and "Yours, not mine." is engendered. "If an individual wishes to maintain a position of arbitrary authority [where children are to obey the Father's preaching and teaching without questioning or challenging His authority], then it behooves him to inhibit the development of any rules permitting reciprocal process observation and commentary [inhibiting any "freedom" of questioning or circumventing of authority, i.e. the dialoguing of opinions]."  (Irvin Yalom, Theory and Practice and Group Psychotherapy

There are not borders, i.e. no sovereignty, in the dialogue of opinions:  With the many (with the opinions, i.e. the carnal feelings, the carnal thoughts, and the carnal actions of the children) there is no certainty, only confusion (ambiguity, diversity, i.e. deviancy) and therefore only the dialoguing of opinions (the dialoguing of theories) which ends up engendering the "categorical imperative" (as Karl Marx stated it) of questioning the Father's commands and challenging His authority (negating the one) in order to "know" the "truth," i.e. the "truth" that sin is "normal," i.e. that sin is only "human nature" coming to "know" itself as it is, through its relationship with the world (with the many), i.e. that it is the child's' "natural inclination" to become at-one-with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment,' that the child can come to know himself, being in and of the world (with all the children of the world).  It is therefore "human nature" that is the 'drive' and "human 'reasoning' (being used to liberate the child and his nature from the Father's authority) that is the 'purpose' of life.  "The critique of religion [the questioning of authority, of the one] ends with the categorical imperative to overthrow all conditions in which man is (the many are) a debased, enslaved, neglected, contemptible being [sinners]."  "Criticism [questioning and challenging the Father's authority] proceeds on to praxis [the annihilation of the Father and his authority by the children, i.e. the many (in their sinful nature) uniting as "one" in their praxis of negating righteousness, i.e. thinking from what they have in common with the many, from sensuousness, they are no longer able to think from the one who is above the many, above "human nature," i.e. "righteousness"]."  (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right).  Which one he feeds (his carnal nature or the Father's authority) wins the day in the thoughts and actions of the child.  "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." Colossians 3:2

While man is 'driven' by the flesh, 'purposed' in glorifying himself (the many united as "one" below), he is directed by the Word of God, lead by the Holy Spirit, to glorify God (the one who is above, only).  With the one there is order, certainty and therefore the preaching and teaching of truth, i.e. the inculcating of categorical imperatives, the learning of and obeying of commands which are unquestionably and universal (of faith).  God is a God of order.  Satan is a god of confusion and uncertainty, desiring that all men become like him, 'driving' by their sinful (disobedient to the Father) nature, as "children of disobedience" uniting in their commonality (in common-unity), 'purposed' in negating righteousness (negating the Father and His authority).

For example: the conflict of Romans 7:14-25 (understood as a system, i.e. a way of thinking and acting) is therefore the same conflict representatives face, being caught between the will of their constituents (the citizen who voted them into office) and their own will (under the pressure of compromise in government).  Only by their conscience, forcing them to remain loyal to their constituent (out of fear of their constituent, as a father figure, chastening them), will they be able to withstand the temptations they face while in office, i.e. the temptations to increase the power of government over and against the citizen, making law according to the things they can acquire for themselves, i.e. "shifting" their paradigm from the duality of right-wrong (from the father, i.e. from the bourgeoisie) to the spectrum of pleasure-pain (to the children, i.e. to the proletariat), i.e. the pleasures of "enjoyment" of life, especially "the approval of men," drawing them away from re-presenting their constituent.  If they do not let their conscience (their constituents, the father) rule but instead abdicate their duty of office (which is to re-present the citizen, i.e. serving and protecting the rights of the citizen from tyranny, i.e. from the children, under God) and serve and protect those (those  who speak for the children, i.e. the facilitators of 'change') who promise them carnal gain over and against their constituent's, (the citizen's, the father's) right, then it is up to their constituents (the citizens, the father) to do what God did to the two in a garden in Eden who disobeyed Him, i.e. drive them out.

No one who uses dialectic 'reasoning' can represent the citizen (or the Father).  He can not make himself subject to laws which limit his carnal nature, his desire to make all men subject to the laws of the world, to all that is of the world.  Any laws he makes must usurp the citizen's inalienable rights (of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, i.e. freedom of the conscience), replacing them with "human rights," the rights of tyrants, i.e. the "rights" of  "the children of disobedience," (beginning with the pursuit of pleasure first, then liberty which initiates and sustains it and then life if it engenders the liberation of pleasure).   "No man 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." Matthew 6:24

Limited government simply means that the office of authority, the right to use chastening (to use force) is in the hand of the citizen, not in those who are in government, who are in office simply to re-present the citizen (serving and protecting the father, i.e. the citizen, from the tyranny of the children, i.e. protect the citizen, i.e. the Father and His authority from those who represent themselves, as children of rebellion and revolution, as a hostile foreign nation, serving and protecting their own carnal desires instead).  Thus the use of force (by government) is limited by what the citizen (as a father figure) allows those in government (as children) the 'liberty' to use, i.e. using the office of government and the force which comes with it to serve and protect the citizen (the father) from those who would want to take away the citizen's (the father's) God given authority to rule over his family and his property (his garden).  Limited government, guarantees the 'liberty' of the Father and his authority to rule over His family and property, ruling according to His conscience, under God.  Without the father (the citizen) retaining his God given right of authority, i.e. his inalienable rights, the children (those in government) will rule over the father and his property (rule over the citizens), doing as they will, making laws according to their unrestrained desires, serving and protecting their own rights, the rights of "the child within," i.e. the "rights of "human nature," i.e. "human rights." Humanization: " a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason." (Merriam-Webster's dictionary)

"'The philosophy of praxis [the practice of children thinking and acting over and against their father's authority] is the absolute secularization of thought, an absolute humanism of history.'  Philosophy of praxis [the child dissatisfied with the way things are, under parental authority, and thinking about how they "ought" to be, under his control, and putting his dissatisfaction, along with others of like mind, i.e. in consensus, into social action against parental authority] is both a euphemism for Marxism and an autonomous term used by Gramsci to define what he saw to be a central characteristic of the philosophy of Marxism, the inseparable link it establishes between theory and practice, thought and action [the child's thoughts and actions tied to the plurality, i.e. the spectrum of approaching pleasure and avoiding pain, the individual child thinking and acting according to the children's will (engendering socialism, social "feelings," "the approval of men") negating the father's duality of doing right and not doing wrong, thinking and acting according to the father's will (engendering individualism, i.e. "the approval of God")]."  (Antonio Gramsci,  Selections from the Prison Notes)  "Truth is a moment in correct praxis."  (Martin Jay,  The Dialectical Imagination quoting Antonio Gramsci)  Truth, therefore, is only 'discoverable' in the 'moment' of compromise between those of differing opinions, i.e. those setting aside objective truth (the Father and his commands, i.e. God and His Word), in their thoughts and their actions, for the sake of "unity" (so that "God," i.e. mankind, can know himself as he is, only of the world, i.e. only of the creation, i.e. only of nature, i.e. only of his "natural inclination" to be at-one-with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment').  "Universal Reconciliation relies on a reason that is before reason-mimesis or 'impulse.'" (Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action)

Either the Father rules (inalienable rights) or the children rule ("human rights").   Do not be deceived. There is no in between, no compromise, no synthesis.  Those who say that there is, are liars, i.e. are "children of disobedience," 'driven' and 'purposed' in negating the Father's authority.  Note this: You are never deceived because someone lied to you.  You are deceived because you trusted them. The scriptures warn us, cursed is the man who trusts in man.  We are to instead trust in the Lord with all our heart and not lean to our own understanding (proverbs 3:5), something which those of synthesis (the deceived) can not do since they must trust in themselves (their life experiences) if they are to 'justify' themselves, thereby negating any trust in the Lord.

By man creating a middle ground between the Father and the children, i.e. between man and God, (by his use of "the ether of the brain") he convinces (deceives) himself that he himself, i.e. "human nature" is God, i.e. that his wicked and deceitful heart, when used for "good," becomes "good," with man reconciling himself to himself  "as he is" (according to his thoughts and actions), redeems himself from the antithesis condition between God and man (the Father and the children), by making man himself God, negating God, i.e. by making the children the Father, negating the Father, turning evil (his love of the world) into good and good (the righteousness of God) into evil, rejecting the absolute condition of antithesis, (rejecting absolute right and absolute wrong, i.e. heaven and hell, above and below) which, after death, is (for all men) established forever.  What I mean by that is that a man, choosing only to approach pleasure and avoid pain (making that the only 'choice') and rejecting the Father's authority, His commanding of him to do right and not wrong (the only other paradigms or ways of thinking and action), he will spend eternity in pure pain, in hell, in eternal damnation, instead of in pure pleasure (joy, peace, and love), in heaven, partaking in God's glory, having rejected 'redemption' from the Father's wrath, (redemption for his sins against the Father which is fulfilled in Christ's obedience to His Heavenly Father, to death), and 'reconciliation' to the Father, choosing instead 'redemption' from the Father and 'reconciliation' to the world. "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 "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4

Starting with the children instead of with the Father "changes" the paradigm: starting with the "feelings" of the children instead of with the authority of the Father negates the Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the children.  Until the children are detached from the Father's authority they can not 'change.'  It is what 'change' is all about.

Synthesis:  Using dialectic 'reasoning' to "justify" the pleasure-pain spectrum (plurality) of the child's will over and against the right-wrong duality of the Father's will (getting the Father to be tolerant of ambiguity, i.e. tolerant of the child's "feelings," i.e. the child's tie to the world as it is in the 'moment') negates the Father's authority in the thoughts and actions of the child, i.e. negates the "guilty conscience."  Dialectic 'reasoning,' 'purposes' in turning Romans 7:14-25 up side down, i.e. the child not being able to do that which he wants to do, approach pleasure, and doing that which he does not want to do, accept the pain of missing out of pleasure, must now be 'redeemed' from the Father, and 'reconciled' back to the world.  Instead of work being done according to the will of the Father for the glory of the Father (blessing man), work is done according to the carnal nature of man for the glory of man, i.e. for humanity only.

The list of authors and their quotations to support the dialectic agenda (to negate the Father and His authority) is endless but a few will suffice here. "Humanism asserts that the test of human conduct must be found in human experience; concern for man [the children] replaces concern about pleasing God [pleasing the Father]. Humanism elevates man [the children] to the rank of God [negating the Father's authority]."  "A stranger, even if his name were God, who imposes commands upon us must be resisted, he must be killed because nobody can stand him."  (Paul Tillich as quoted in Leonard F. Wheat, Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism) "In a democratic process [in a dialectic culture] deviation [deviancy] is welcomed as a possible source of improvement in common ways of thinking and acting."  (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)  "Group members must be able to discriminate between social "felt" needs [dependence upon common feelings, decisions need to be based upon desires which all have in common, i.e. engendering consensus] and non-social or anti-social "felt needs [dependence upon the Father, where right and wrong thought and action is dependent upon commands, given and obeyed as is, by the Father, outside of the individual-social "feelings" of the 'moment']."  "Group members must be able to synthesize individual 'felt' needs with common group 'felt' needs [circumventing the authority of the Father]."  (Warren Bennis, The Planning of Change) "Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon .... transform 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 LaszloA Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order)  To overcome "inner resistance [to overcome the conscience, i.e. the voice of the Father]... a procedure was followed by which a goal was chosen on which everyone could agree fully."  (Kurt Lewin as quoted in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) "The primal father, ... the archetype of domination, [who] initiates the chain reaction of enslavement, rebellion, and the reinforced domination which marks the history of civilization." (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud).   "Freud, Hegel, and Nietzsche are, like Marx, compelled to postulate external domination and its assertion by force in order to explain repression."   "The abolition of repression would only threaten patriarchal domination." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)

According to dialectic 'reasoning,' it is not the Father who creates the children, it is the children who create the Father (by recognizing and honoring His authority).  According to dialectic 'reasoning' it is society which creates the individual and therefore it is government, i.e. socialist government, which creates the citizen, i.e. the individual.  In this way of thinking and acting, the soul of man, that which is accountable to God, is replaced with the carnal nature of man, i.e. the soul of man replaced with that which all men can understand and identify with, i.e. that which is common to all men of the world, i.e. the flesh, i.e. "human nature."  As Carl Rogers (following the same dialectic, i.e. communist "logic" as Karl Marx, as you will see) wrote:  "Life, at its best, is a flowing, changing process in which nothing is fixed."  "The more that the client perceives the therapist as empathic, as having an unconditional regard for him, the more the client will move away from a static, fixed way of functioning, and the more he will move toward a fluid, changing way of functioning."  "Consciousness, instead of being the watchman over a dangerous and unpredictable lot of impulses, becomes the comfortable inhabitant of a society of impulses and feelings and thoughts."  "Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity, though such a process is indeed possible. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process."  (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)  Marx wrote:  "The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in each particular individual."  "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations."  (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach # 6"It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities, [they are made 'realities'] only in a socialist society."  (Karl Marx)  "Only within a social context [all men in consensus with "human nature"] individual man is able to realize his own potential as a rational being [freed from the Father's authority, to "think" for himself, according to his carnal nature]." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right)  According to Carl Rogers: "Doing what ‘feels right' proves to be a competent and trustworthy guide to behavior which is truly satisfying.  Thinking [dialectic 'reasoning'] starts at that point." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience." "Experience [which, according to Karl Marx, is "sensuous needs,"  "sense perception," and "sense experience," which can proceed "only from Nature"] is, for me, the highest authority."  "The individual in such a moment, is coming to be what he is. He has experienced himself. He has become what he is."  "Existential living is to say that the self and personality emerge from experience. It means that one becomes a participant in and an observer of the ongoing process of organismic experience."  (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)  In the consensus process "both parties recognize their rigidified position in relation to each other as the result of detachment and abstraction from their common life context [thinking and acting according to the established commands of their Fathers, doing right and not wrong according to His will, rather than thinking and acting according to that which they have in common with one another, the spectrum of avoiding pain and approaching pleasure].  And in the latter, the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)

 According to dialectic reasoning, man, when he is separated from society, creates God.  It is the child, under the Father's authority, isolated from the "feelings" and "thoughts" of the other children of the "community," who recognizes, honors, and supports the office of  his Father, i.e. obeys His commands and accepts His chastening of him when he disobey, who creates the Father's authority, and thereby engenders a "top-down" system which "represses" his "human nature" and alienates" him from associating with others of the same "human nature," preventing him from becoming united with them and them with him, i.e. uniting as "one" upon that which they have in common, i.e. "human nature," preventing them (man) from engendering an "equality system" of socialist harmony and worldly peace.  "Equality of Opportunity becomes ever greater with the weakening of family power. " (James Coleman, The Adolescent Society)

This is a secular formed of Gnosticism, i.e. demythologized Gnosticism, i.e. secularized Satanism, i.e. intellectualized witchcraft (as first put into praxis in Genesis 3:1-6).  Karl 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"Every form of objectification ... results in alienation. Transcending alienation involves transcending objectification.;" (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)  In essence, democracy, socialism, communism, communitarianism, democratization, synergism, etc. can not work if the citizen still has a Father figure (God) directing his thoughts and actions.  As Erick Fromm explained it: "In the process of history man gives birth to himself. He becomes what he potentially is, and he attains what the serpentthe symbol of wisdom and rebellionpromised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself."  (Erick Fromm, You shall be as gods)

According to dialectic 'reasoning,' (according to "the children of disobedience") by the child submitting his will to the Father's authority he abdicates his socialist, i.e. his worldly duty of initiating and sustaining the system of "equality" (so that "God," that is society, can come to know itself as "one"so that all of mankind, i.e. humanity, could come to know itself as "one").  The child, whose nature it is is to  become at one with the world in pleasure in the moment, abdicates his "freedom" (and the freedom of humanity) in his submitting to the Father's use of commands (obeying Him without question) along with the acceptance of His use of force in "initiating and sustaining" His "top-down" position of authority, keeping man from knowing himself, i.e. man made in the image of mankind, according to his own carnal nature, and not made in the image of God (in the image of the Father, evaluating himself and the world from the Father's commands).  Man, made in the image of man (the child 'discovering' that which he has in common with all the children of the world, i.e. according to "human nature") can only evaluate the world, including the father's commands, from that which he has in common with the world, when all the children are united as one, discovering that which they have in common, thereby, through dialectic 'reasoning' able  negate the father's authority and his commands in their thoughts and actions, i.e. negating the "guilty conscience."  From there-on abomination rules over the thoughts and actions of all men.  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' without the antithesis (the Father's commands and restraint, the threat of judgment and condemnation against the child's carnal nature, i.e. the system of righteousness), the thesis (the child, i.e. "human nature," i.e. the system of unrighteousness) would not be "pressured" into turning to synthesis, i.e. out of hate for authority, turning to dialectic 'reasoning' and then putting 'reasoning' into praxis (social action) negating the antithesis (negating the system of righteousness, i.e. the Father and his authority) so that the child (man) could become thesis (himself) again, only this time not as an individual child, but as a child united in synthesis with all "the children of disobedience" of the world.

Until the children could come together and unite as one (according to their own carnal nature), the Father and His authority (the "guilty conscience") could not become negated in the child's thoughts and actions.  The police state ("sight based management") must follow in suit, in order to keep incest, murder, and other crimes under "control."  "In psychology, Freud and his followers have presented convincing arguments that the id, man's basic and unconscious nature, is primarily made up of instincts which would, if permitted expression, result in incest, murder, and other crimes."  "The whole problem of therapy, as seen by this group, is how to hold these untamed forces in check in a wholesome and constructive manner, rather than in the costly fashion of the neurotic [where the child is still under the Father's control via. the "guilty conscience," continuing to experience Romans 7:14-25, keeping him subject to Hebrews 12:5-11, bringing judgment, i.e. the fear of God into society]."  (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy"The community of interest generated by crime, disorder and fear of crime becomes the goal to allow the community policing officer [communists] an entree into the geographic community.... The theme underlying much of the research is that once you can identify a community [where the parent's are willing to come together and compromise to solve a common problem], you have discovered the primary unity of society ABOVE the level of the individual and the family that can be mobilized to take concerted action to bring about POSITIVE SOCIAL CHANGE [negating the Father's authority in the traditional home and therefore its influence upon society]."  (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, The meaning of  "Community" in Community Policing"Work done by Horkheimer in the thirties identified 'neurosis as a social product, in which the family was seen as a primary agent of repressive socialization.'"  (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists"The major implication . . . was the transformation of the family's role in the process of socialization."  (Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination) "Social environmental forces must be used to change the parents behavior toward the child." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)

(According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the children "create" the office of the Father when they obey Him, i.e. when they fear God and love His word, accepting it as is, i.e. loved their Father more than they loved their own "human nature," i.e. the pleasures, "enjoyments," "lusts," "sense experiences" of the life of the 'moment.')

Hegel wrote: "The child ["human  nature"], contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality." (George Hegel, System of Ethical LifeOnly when the children (isolated from one another, subject to their Father's authority) can come together (isolated from their Father's authority, freed from his threat of chastening) and, united as one, 'discover' their commonalty (referred to as "class consciousness"), and apply their "new" world order (with the children united and ruling as "one") in the social action (praxis) of negating the Father and His authority, can they initiate and sustain the system of "equality" (the "new" world order) in the thoughts and actions of all the children, "ruling" the world according to "human nature," i.e. augmenting pleasure (the will of the children) over and against the righteousness of God (the will of the Father).  The scriptures warn: "Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment. Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh: for childhood and youth are vanity." Ecclesiastes 11:9, 10   "Flee also youthful lusts:" 2 Timothy 2:22a  "... for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;"  Genesis 8:21

Not until the children can come together in a non-patriarchal environment, in a "non-hostile" (Fatherless) environment, in synthesis (in commonality, in consensus) and realize that the antithesis condition was not engendered by their disobedience to their Father's will, but on the contrary, by their not thinking and acting according to their own "human nature," according to the world, i.e. according to their "natural inclination" to be at-one-with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment.' Because of their obedience to the Father's will, thinking and acting in disobedience to their own "human nature," the antithesis condition was a result of their own making, their obedience to the Father prevented them from becoming united as one with the world.  Through dialectic 'reasoning' the children come to 'realize' (believe) that they were not wrong (according to the Father's reasoning), but that it is the Father who was wrong, i.e. who was 'irrational.' Therefore it is the Father and His authority which must be regarded to as being 'irrelevant'—as was first put into praxis in Genesis 3:1-6.  According to dialectic 'reasoning,' the child's identity is not found in the Father, in the Father's will (which "restrains" the child's nature, the world, and society), but is instead found within the child's own will, in his own nature, in that which he has in common with himself, the world, and society.  Therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' only when the child is able to unite his will (to approach pleasure and avoid pain) with society (with other children of like feelings and thoughts, in an environment freed of any awareness of the Father or fear of the Father's authority), can he come to know himself as he is, i.e. "human."

Not until the children are able to come together, in thought and in action (in a group grade, i.e. consensus experience) united as "one," united according to their own "human nature," according to that which they all have in common, i.e. 'liberated' from their Father's authority, can they come to know themselves as they really are, "socialist animals." "Do we dare to generalize from this type of experience that if we cut through deeply enough to our organismic nature, that we find that man is a positive and social animal? This is the suggestion from our clinical experience."  "Maslow puts up a vigorous case for man's animal nature."  "The innermost core of man's nature, the base of his 'animal nature,' is positive in nature." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)   "So it looks as if nudism is the first step toward ultimate fee-animality-humanness.  Must encourage it." (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow"Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself  'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of therapy the individual comes to ask himself 'What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy "The ability to promise involves the loss of the natural animal forgetfulness of the past, which is the precondition for healthy living in the present."  "Freud's later writings attribute to the ego [the will of the child] a basic tendency to ‘reconcile,' ‘synthesize,' ‘unify' the dualism and conflicts [the will of the Father and the will of the child] with which the human being is beset." 

The 'purpose' of psychology is therefore, according to Brown: "To rediscover the animal in man."  (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)   According to psychology, history is not the lessons of the past, as told by the parents, but the life experiences of the child, while under parental authority. The role of the facilitator is to help the child 'liberate' himself from his Father's authority (helping him to become detoxified of his fear of his Father's authority, the fear of His Father's chasten of him  for disobeying His 'irrational' commands) so that he can be himself again, united as one, thinking and acting according to his own "human nature," thinking and acting in the 'moment,' along with all the children of the world (along with all mankind) unrestrained by the standards and rules of the past (as two in the garden in Eden began).  "To experience Freud is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit; and this book cannot without sinning communicate that experience to the reader."  (The March 23-30, 2005 issue of Metro Santa Cruz, an article written by Mike Connor, "Apocalypse Now A new book about radical UCSC philosopher Norman O. Brown sheds light on the Freudian scholar of the Dionysian apocalypse.")  Connor added: "But Brown believed that the payoff was worth the price of sinnamely, that alienation would be overcome, and the return of the repressed completed, rendering problems of sin permanently moot."  (ibid.)  Karl Marx, in his book The Holy Family, wrote: "Not feeling at home in the sinful world [the child not happy being subject to his father's authority, i.e. subject to the "guilty conscience"], Critical Criticism [the child questioning and challenging parental authority] must set up a sinful world ["human nature," i.e. mans "animal nature"] in its own home." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family Chapter VII Critical Criticism's Correspondence 1; The Critical Mass)

Not until the child can free himself of his Father's authority can he negate his "guilty conscience," can he "feel" at-one-with the world, i.e. be at peace with a world of abomination, not only in his thoughts but also in his actions. Hegel's "lawfulness without law" and "purposiveness without purpose" will, from then on, rule over his life, where all laws and all purpose of life will be from (and for) "human nature" only (engendered through the dialoguing of men's opinions to a consensus), being no longer of the Father's authority. (Hegel as quoted in Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud).  Marx wrote: "Laws must not fetter human life; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities of the people change." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right)

  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)   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: A philosophical inquiry into Freud

(According to dialectic 'reasoning,' only when the the Father's authority is negate in the thoughts and actions of the children can the children become "normal" again, as they were before the Father's first command and threat of chastening.)

"According to the philosopher Hegel, truth is not found in the thesis [in the Father, in God], nor the antithesis [in the individual child], but in the emerging synthesis [in the compromising effect of human 'reasoning,' i.e. in dialectic 'reasoning' being used to bring all the fathers and all the children together as one, uniting them in the praxis of consensus] which reconciles the two [which negates the authority of the father and the individuality of the child at the same time (both their thoughts and actions of accountable to their Heavenly Father being negated at the same time)]."  (Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to Love.)  According to the Transformational Marxist Max Horkheimer: "Protestantism ["the priesthood of all believers," all individual soul being accountable to God (the Father) for their thoughts and actions] was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism." (Max Horkheimer Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung, as quoted in Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: The History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research)

By simply changing the system of learning (the classroom environment) from a preaching and teaching format, i.e. using chastening to inculcate "top-down" rules, to a system of learning where the dialoguing of opinions of all the children to a consensus, which produces "equality," and then putting that "equality" into socialist action (praxis), the Father's "top-down" authority is negated in the thoughts of the individuals in the group and in their actions in the group.  "Freud commented that only through the solidarity of all the participants [of all the children] could the sense of guilt be assuaged [the "guilty conscience," the product of the Father's authority, be negated]." (Norman O. Brown,  Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)  It is "faulty" to begin by recognizing the Father's authority in a room aiming at negating that authority.  The "feeling" and the "thoughts" of the children must come first before any talk about their father and his authority. "The life instinct also demands a union with others and with the world around us based not on anxiety and aggression but on narcissism and erotic exuberance."  (ibid.)  "Thinking through the process it is dialectically faulty to start with the negative, with anxiety [with the Father's authority, i.e. his 'right' to chasten for disobedience, engendering the "guilty conscience"]."  (J. L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive )

"And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.  And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable." "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."  "Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin:"  Isaiah 3: 4, 5, 12; 30:1

There is no synthesis, only antithesis:  "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thessalonians 3:3-12  The synthesis of the Father and the children (through the use of dialectic 'reasoning)' only negates the Father's authority (His thesis, the antithesis, i.e. the barrier to the child's carnal nature) in the thoughts and actions of the children, 'justifying' their deceitful and wicked hearts, engendering a world of abomination, with man, acting like a bull deer in rut, intoxicated with himself and that which gives him pleasure, following after ('driven' by and 'purposed' in attaining) his lust of the 'moment.'  But then, after the directorate (the tyranny of children ruling, i.e. democracy) a Napoleon (a dictator or despot) always follows, ruling without a conscience.

The Antichrist is a "Christ" made of "pure human nature" ('driven' by the pride of life, 'purposed' in augmenting pleasure).  He is created by "the prince of the power of the air," i.e. of pure human 'reason.'  He offers no hope of 'reconciliation' to the Father, therefore he offers no hope of 'redemption' from the Father's wrath.  He is mankind (wrapped up in himself, wrapped up in one man, 'justifying' himself before himself) 'driven' with no other 'purpose' than to 'redeem' himself from God, 'reconciling' himself to "human nature," to the world in pleasure. Therefore there is no such thing as a Christian psychologist, unless you live in a state of deception, mentioning the Gospel message of 'redemption' from the Father's wrath and 'reconciliation' to the Father, while manifesting, in your thoughts and actions, the antichrist socialist gospel message of man becoming "one," uniting himself with himself, uniting himself with others according to his opinions, according to how he "feels" and what he "thinks" in the given 'moment,' in the process of 'change.'  This is the message of the "contemporary church," the apostate "church" lead by its ministers of 'change' (facilitators of 'change,' as Satan in Genesis 3:1-6), working under the influence of dialectic 'reasoning,' "helping" mankind unite himself as "one," becoming "as he is," according to his carnal "human nature."  Then the Father will return, as He did in the garden, as He did "in the days of Noah," as He did at the tower of babble, as He did at Sodom, etc, and judge the "children of disobedience," both the "great and small," according to His authority, according to His righteousness, according to His perfect will, in His wrath.

    "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;" Romans 1:18
    "If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.  Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."  Revelation 14:9-12
    "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them." Colossians 3:5-7 

Don't be deceived.  There is no synthesis. There is only antithesis.  The Father (thesis) ruling over His children.  With those children who refuse His chastening (with those children who reject antithesis, seeking instead a Fatherless world of synthesis, perceiving themselves, collectively, as being God), eventually knowing the Father's wrath.  There will always be the Father and His children, with those children who refuse to be His children, as Hegel, Marx, and Freud (and all those who follow in their dialectic, Genesis 3:1-6 way of thinking and acting), i.e. "the children of disobedience," being cast out into utter darkness.

"But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.  Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.  But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;  And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;  Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:  Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;  But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.  These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.  For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.  While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.  For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.  For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.  But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."  2 Peter 2:10-22

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2012-2015