America's Declining Sexual Morality (appeared in americanthinker.com March, 2020)

By Jeffrey Ludwig

The decline in sexual morality we see in our era did not begin in the year 2000.  Today's "sexual revolution" is expressed by our being told by the highest court in the land that homosexual marriage can and must be married and by women being encouraged to abort children as a "right."  In today's society, drag queens reading to little children in libraries is considered delightful by many.  Further, vast numbers of people consider one's sex designation psychological and not biological, and, increasingly, parents encourage their little children to "choose" which sex/gender they want to be.  As additional evidence of the "sexual revolution," the overall percentage of children born out of wedlock has risen from 5% in 1960 to about 40% the last three or four years (albeit much higher among black and Hispanic persons).

Tthese trends are the result of a series of developments that have been ongoing for more than 100 years.  Sexual fantasies and desires were depicted by Sigmund Freud as repressed, and in their repressed unconscious influence on the personality, these desires and fantasies were leading to neurotic and psychotic behaviors in society.  Deep sexual needs were being sublimated in creative activities, but many aspects of sexuality, being afforded no legitimate outlets or channels for expression, were wreaking havoc on personalities.

One of Freud's patients, referred to as "the Wolf Man," had a recurrent dream of six or seven wolves sitting on bare branches outside his window.  Although they were wolves, they had foxes' tails.  Applying the method of psychoanalysis, Freud concluded that the Wolf Man had castration anxiety.  Freud claimed to reveal the deep, unconscious significance of the Pleasure Principle in our psyches, thereby freeing us from the excessive rigidity of late 19th-century Western Civilization.

For Freud, the individual decision-making agent exercised his so-called freedom with decisions made by the "I" or ego.  But the identity of the "I" was within the context of the rules of social living.  In Freud's Vienna, those rules expressed Christian values (which included Old Testament prohibitions as well as virtues) integrated in the psyche by the superego.  However, both the ego and the operant rules of the superego were unaware of the unconscious dynamics that were significantly impacting the ego's adjustments to society and to its consciousness of itself.  These challenges emanated from that vast unconscious tier of existence referred to as the id.  In the id lay the repressed memories, dreams, aspirations, needs, lusts, and even attraction to death.  Greater acceptance of one's sexuality (i.e., the Pleasure Principle) was needed.  Further, the psycho-sexual implications of breastfeeding or toilet training also had to be factored into one's makeup.  These influences were wholly unconscious, yet they are the most powerful influences in shaping our understanding of ourselves and our "adjustment" to society.  For Freud, religion conceals rather than reveals the true foundations of morality and our interactions with others.

Influenced by Freudian psychoanalytic theory, the post-WWI world of artists and writers unlocked the door to expression of the unconscious and to sexual license as the path of freedom and creativity.  Many notable literary figures did not maintain a married, monogamous, heterosexual relationship "'til death do us part."   These included such notables as Henry Miller, a non-political iconoclast (married five times plus numerous lovers); Gertrude Stein (had a lifelong lesbian partner); Ernest Hemingway (married four times); Ezra Pound (he, his wife, and another woman had threesomes); T.S. Eliot (multiple affairs while his wife was in a mental asylum); James Joyce (had two children with Nora before marrying her); and Sherwood Anderson (married four times).  These great writers constituting the "Lost Generation" felt alienated from Western, Christian socio-political culture as being too bourgeois or too puritanical.  They were more comfortable in a European artistic climate marked by artistic freedom and burgeoning communism in the USSR with its anti-bourgeois rhetoric and policies.

Lara Feigel notes that in post-WWI Russia, "these ideals [anti-bourgeois and anti-family based sexuality] were enshrined in law in 1918 when the new Soviet government ratified its Code on Marriage, the Family and Guardianship abolishing the inferior legal status of women, eliminating religious marriage, giving children born outside marriage equal rights to those born within it, and making divorce an easy formality.  The author of the Code, Alexander Goikhbarg, looked forward to the time "when 'the fetters of husband and wife' were obsolete and love could be enjoyed freely."  Fourteen years later, in 1932, Alexandra Kollontai, founder of the Soviet Women's Department, wrote a book in which she insisted there was "neither morality nor immorality" in nature, and a sexual act should be recognized as "a manifestation of a healthy organism [much the same] as the quenching of hunger or thirst."  Although the USSR formally reversed its anti-family and pro-abortion position in the mid-1930s, the distaste for the family conceived as a bourgeois institution first stated in the Communist Manifesto of 1848 remained as a steadfast pillar of extreme left-wing thought.  The USSR backing off from its anti-family agenda in the mid-nineteen-thirties was more of a practical decision than a change in ideological commitment.

Situation ethics came into being during the 1960s regarding Christian sexual morality with the writings of Joseph F. Fletcher, an Anglican theologian.  Non-marital sexual intercourse could be accepted if the parties believed in Jesus Christ and really loved each other, even if not married.  This view is generally held by liberal churches today, even if it does not appear on their websites under "Our Beliefs."  When this writer attended a liberal United Church of Christ and Congregationalist seminary in the early 1970s, some of the ministerial candidates were shacking up with their girlfriends in the dorms, and no action was taken by the seminary's administration.  Another friend, in the 1960s, pursued his lifelong dream to become an Episcopal priest only to find homosexuality rife in the seminary as the students goosed each other as they went down the stairs to meals.  He then dropped out of the seminary to protect his body, his morals, and his sanity.

The hippie movement with its counter-culture drug and sexually "liberated" mores presented yet another challenge to 2,000-year-old Christian morality.  However, while it attracted a lot of press coverage, this writer does not believe it had the destructive effect on the unity of sex, love, and marriage as did Freudianism, the left-wing assault on bourgeois capitalist culture, and the selfish examples set by some of the greatest creative minds of the post-WWI generation.

To say these developments are a cause for concern would be an understatement.  This breakdown in the moral order regarding human sexuality is not just a difference in values between some sectors of the population and others.  Rather, it is a difference in values between fallen mankind and the Author of the moral law Himself.  If it exists in what formerly was called Christian America, then judgment is likely to follow.  It's as inevitable as the bite of a mosquito buzzing around one's body on a humid day, yet the consequences are far more serious.

AmericanThinker.com Articles By Ptr.Ludwig

 https://www.americanthinker.com/author/e_jeffrey_ludwig/

Jan. 6 Defendants Must Be Given Speedy and Fair Trials

TOPICS:ACLUChristopher WorrellD.C. Dept. Of CorrectionsEnglish LawJan 6Speedy TrialWarden Wanda Patten

POSTED BY: JEFFREY LUDWIG NOVEMBER 16, 2021

The U.S. is facing a serious constitutional crisis over the handling of the cases of defendants in the Jan. 6 so-called “insurrection” in Washington DC to protest the Presidential election modus operandi and the results. Those being held for many months without a trial are being denied their habeas corpus rights under the U.S. Constitution and even dating back to English law hundreds of years before our Constitution was implemented.  They are not only being incarcerated without having had a trial, but there is some evidence that they are being mistreated or are being held 23 hours a day in solitary confinement which is a punishment accorded only the most dangerous criminals.

What are habeas corpus rights?  According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “Habeas corpus is a fundamental right in the Constitution that protects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment. Translated from Latin it means ‘show me the body.’ Habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument to safeguard individual freedom against arbitrary executive power.”  A citizen must be charged and cannot be held indefinitely.  A charge requires a trial, and if found guilty in a trial, there is a sentence for a specific amount of time.

Even Politifact – hardly an unbiased fact checker — relates, “The vast majority of defendants have been released from custody while awaiting trial, but some [my italics] held in jail have been kept in solitary confinement.”  The fact that exact numbers of those held in solitary confinement or for how long is not a matter of public record itself suggests to this writer evasion by the Washington DC jail authorities. However despite the attempt by outlets like Politifact to minimize the problem of solitary confinement, a number of GOP Senators have voiced their concern about this problem, and even the ACLU – certainly not an outreach of the Republican Party – has become involved. However, the Republican Senators who are concerned do not have a specific number. The lack of definitiveness in this area is alarming.

Even saying that “it’s only a few bad dudes” being held without habeas corpus does not dilute the evil that suspension of habeas corpus is.  Only a couple of weeks after seven Southern states seceded from the Union in 1861, Pres. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and arrested an individual in Maryland – a state that had not seceded – for advocating secession. The U.S. Circuit Court ruled that Lincoln’s action violated the U.S. Constitution.  Although Lincoln did not rescind his setting aside of habeas corpus, John Merryman, the object of this action was allowed to post bail three monthslater, and was never brought to trial.  Charges of treason against him were eventually dropped.  This was only one case in the context of social turmoil much greater than that of Jan. 6 in Washington DC; yet the Circuit Court and many citizens who supported our fight against the secessionist states still deemed Lincoln’s action to be an overreach.

A crucial law in respect of this right not to be imprisoned without being charged was the English Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, 110 years before our U.S. Constitution was written.  That law said that no one could be held in prison except for treason indefinitely, and that failure to present the person to be charged to a court would result in officials being fined.  This law was followed by the Declaration of Right in 1689.  Among the many provisions of this 1689 foundational document which became a formative model for our own Constitution and Bill of Rights was the provision “promises of fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal and void.”  So, the earlier law was updated to include injury to the prisoner that is financial as well as removal of his freedom.

In today’s context, that 1689 extension of the earlier 1679 law extends to the health of the incarcerated person. This applies to the present Washington DC prisoners from Jan. 6 like Christopher Worrell who has non-Hodgkins lymphoma and who has not had necessary surgery on his right hand.  He is being made to suffer over and above the denial of his habeas corpus rights which additional neglect and suffering has, since 1689, also been considered illegal in English law.  Thus, we can see that the Nov. 3, 2021 ruling by U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth against Warden Wanda Patten and Director of the D.C. Dept. of Corrections, Quincy Booth that both are in civil contempt for “potential civil rights violations” is a ruling based in English common law going back 332 years! If that is not egregious conduct, what is?

On many MSM outlets, commentators are referring to the Jan. 6 protestors and/or rioters as “insurrectionists,” but so far no one has been charged with insurrection.  Insurrectionist is possibly another word for “traitor” so – going back to the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 — it would seem to justify holding someone without charging them.  However, this mindset is gripped by hyperbole. Even if the protestors are guilty of violent actions during their protest, it would be an exaggeration to say they were traitors.  Benedict Arnold a notable traitor during the American Revolution sold us out to the British for 10,000 pounds but was not imprisoned. Jefferson Davis who was President of the Confederacy during the Civil War was imprisoned for only two years and then lived as a free man. Jane Fonda denounced the U.S. role in Vietnam to American soldiers serving in Vietnam, but was never prosecuted, and John Kerry, another anti-American who lied repeatedly about the Vietnam War and about U.S. activities while prosecuting that war, became a candidate for President and is now our climate czar.

Denouncing those in jail as insurrectionists and traitors completely lacks perspective and is an attempt to generate a climate of fear and hatred for those who repudiate the administration of President Joe Biden as unworthy of this great country.

Readers should contact their Senators and Representatives a.s.a.p. to promote the cause of justice, and can link this article to provide the historical and legal context for holding the view that action must be taken to resolve the abuse of power we now see regarding defendants who have been arrested for their actions on Jan. 6.

DECADES OF COMMUNIST PUSHING WILL GET YOU A Communist America

In the late 1990s, this writer took a position teaching history, government, and economics in a New York City public high school.  After only two weeks, word circulated that I was a born-again evangelical and politically conservative.  One of the senior teachers called me aside and, without any prior argument, said, "Communism is over in the Soviet Union, but it's alive and well at this high school."  Shortly after that "welcome," it became apparent that many of the U.S. history teachers were hardcore communists.  (This is decades before so-called "wokism.")

Howard Zinn's best-selling communist textbook was not included on the list of high school textbooks because it was a college textbook, but nevertheless, this cell of commies would regularly copy pages out of Zinn's book, A Peoples' History of the United States, for distribution to the U.S. History students.

The commie hostility toward people of faith was also manifested in that department.  The thought that people of faith and people who don't believe can co-exist is alien to Marxists, for whom "religion is the opiate of the people."  The left feels threatened by the First Amendment, which leftists believe unduly encourages people to believe in God and thereby takes away from a more realistic assessment of life where one is able to see the class struggle as our top social and political priority.  On one occasion, a young female teacher began moving around in front of me in the teachers' office, taunting me by singing, "I don't have a soul, I don't have a soul."  Another older left-winger called to me from across the teachers' office, "Tell me Mr. Ludwig, is God a he or a she?"  

At another point in time, I was saying to another leftist colleague that if we promote a particular political ideology in the classroom, we are advancing our bias, not actually teaching.  He replied that "everyone has a bias, so it is better to acknowledge our bias and defend it openly rather than pretend to be more objective."  "But is it not a teacher's duty to be as impartial as possible in order to communicate with and for all the students?" this writer asked, adding, "There are a range of personalities and viewpoints in our classes."  To this, the communist colleague replied, "So what?"

At one point, that same teacher who had welcomed me with his poisonous comment about the USSR spent an entire month in his teaching of AP European History explaining and extolling the virtues of the Communist Manifesto, published in 1848 by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.  A group of students complained to the chairlady of the department, but she did nothing.  Another member of the cell regularly distributed to students free copies of the newspapers of the Progressive Labor Party.  A third member of the cell became the faculty adviser to the Gay and Straight Alliance.  A fourth member advised a left-wing student political club.In the late 1990s, there were a variety of textbooks so individual teachers could choose to use their preference when teaching.  Each of these were written by either one or two authors and attempted to be balanced.  Although some were clearly more "liberal" than others, this writer was able to find one or two that were coherent, informed, and relatively balanced and presented America as a unified culture, not as a hodgepodge of grievances, conflicts, and unresolved hostilities.  However, after only a few years passed, a single U.S. history text was bought for all teachers to use entitled The Americans.  This 1,000-plus-page textbook was written by so-called scholars, but they were all from sub-specialties of U.S. history.  One specialized in geography, another was from ethnic studies, another had written many text prep books, the fourth was an African studies professor, and the fifth specialized in women's history and was the only woman of the group (surprise!).  In addition, there was a long list of "contributors."  Thus, clearly, this was a textbook-by-committee production coordinated and managed by Holt McDougal, publisher of the volume.  

It seemed that the book covered every protest march and strike that ever happened in the United States, yet there was almost no reference to the impact of Christianity on our country either during the colonial period or during more recent centuries since the creation of our Constitution.  Thus, we have a picture of the country as a divided or balkanized mess.  The sense of and picture of a nation with unifying themes, such as Frederick Jackson Turner seeing westward expansion as defining our growth, are entirely missing.

What about innovation?  Love of nature?  Transition from agriculture to manufacturing?  What about the life-and-death struggle to assure that there could not be slaves in a country founded to promote liberty and rights?  What about the integration of large and diverse immigrant groups despite some resistance?  While The Americans does not lift up Karl Marx or commies like William Z. Foster, it does fail to call Albert Rosenberg, who sold the secrets of the atomic bomb to the USSR, a traitor.  There is no treatment of the use of the term "progressive" by today's communists in order to connect their re-ordering of today's society with the icons of American history Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican and independent) or Woodrow Wilson.  Although those presidents had some socialist themes insofar as they supported unduly expanding the power of the federal government, they still were not as firmly united with today's communists as are the present leaders of today's Democrat party. 

Remember that Pres. Harry Truman distanced himself from Henry Wallace, who was too sympathetic with Josef Stalin and the communists and ran for president against Truman on the Progressive Party ticket in 1948.  Today's Democrats have not similarly distanced themselves from the Democratic Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders.  Instead, the Biden people came out with a joint statement with Sanders in 2020 that was 110 poorly written pages before coming out with the Democrat party platform.  The Democrat party platform, when subsequently published, although only 90 pages, was totally in sync with the earlier signed agreement.  Sanders, who calls himself a Democratic Socialist, is neither a Democrat of the Truman or Kennedy variety nor a socialist.  He always finds a way to justify the communist countries because he adheres to that philosophy. 

What today's political pundits are calling woke (or some form of communism) has been on the march for decades.  It was alive and well in the late 1990s and had already been in place for decades.  It has gone mainstream in recent years and openly is embraced by many who were more careful not to be seen as sympathetic to Marxist ideology.  It is anti-God at its core, and it clearly wants government to take over the means of production.  The radical hope is to dignify the move toward undermining our republic, natural rights, private property, and the family by painting the words "anti-racism" and "gender equality" on the hammer and sickle.  Then talk about electric cars and reducing carbon footprints, and hope the fear generated will change our society forever.

AMERICA IS INVITING DIVINE JUDGMENT

Is there any doubt that the USA is under judgment?  We are enjoying a pandemic and hyper-inflation.  Leadership at the highest levels is being puppetized (hidden players are pulling the strings of decision-making), and national defense crises are arising at our border and in remote Afghanistan.   Social chaos is occurring as we see that rampant looting is causing revulsion by fans of Luis Vuitton and Walgreens. At the same time, repeat offenders like Darrell Brooks, the Waukesha maniac who killed five people and terribly injured many others, are released without bail which enabled the subsequent mayhem he produced.

Academic standards are down the toilet as any honest teacher will tell you.  Even in the 1990’s this writer, who was teaching at that time, was told that no grades below 50 could be assigned even if the student only showed up three times out of 90 days.  Lastly, but not least, communist teachers coast-to-coast are telling kids that America stinks and that a new “collective” economic and social order is the answer.  Yes, this is Hillary’s “it takes a village” with a vengeance.

In the meantime, as we ready for commie collectivity, different ethnicities are to have different seating areas in the college cafeterias, in our recreation areas, in graduations, and in dorms. In these various settings, they will live, eat, and sleep apart from their ethnically different confreres. The 1954 Supreme assertion that “separate is inherently unequal” is disparaged as naïve and self-serving.  Apparently, it was a bogus dictum to allow for continued white hegemony. BLM is all so-o-o-o “collective,” but the justification is that until the revolutionary order is implemented, minorities must be protected from white exploitation and dominance.

One of the best sections in Holy Scripture describing the “last days” is found in 2 Timothy 3:1-5 which states, “But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.”  Let’s look at some of these criteria for showing that we are not living according to godly principles.

 1.Disobedience to parents.  What could be more disobedient to your parents than telling them you are not a boy or a girl.  They conceived you. Your mother birthed you. They designated you based on state-of-the-art assessment of your body parts, which assessment has been around since the beginning of time, that you were a boy or a girl. This acute designation was made in good faith by one’s parents along with a physician.  Yet, the child rejects this designation and even at a young age is presumed able to challenge that designation made at birth and listed officially on their birth certificate.  Before they have reached the age when they are considered under law to be responsible actors capable of independent judgment and full personal responsibility, they are increasingly allowed to deny their gender specification, and can “convert” to the other sex without parental consent in many states.

2.Without self-control. Self-control begins with faith in and adherence to one’s faith in Almighty God in Christ. Why do I say this? Answer:  In order to control self, one must adhere to a standard other than self to which self is accountable. The Oprah Winfrey understanding that each can speak of “my truth” as a valid category that takes mere opinion beyond opinion into the more durable realm of “truth” is mere assumption.  One has an opinion and then one, in an attempt to be more persuasive, elevates that opinion supposedly to a higher status of validity by calling that opinion “my truth.”  It is pure hubris that cuts against the grain of all science which demands that inductive protocols be followed before one has ascertained a scientific truth.

Further, philosophy from Aristotle forward affirms that truth is not only inductive but must meet various logical criteria. For example, there is the law of non-contradiction that states either A or not-A.  An abortion counsellor once said to this writer, “The baby is better off being dead than being born into the same family as the teenager who is pregnant with that baby.”  It is a logical fallacy as well as a moral offense to say that someone is “better off” dead than being in family X.  Being “better off” is only an expression that applies to the living, so, logically speaking, you can’t be both dead and “better off.”  Death and life are two mutually independent categories.

3.Lovers of self and unholy.  We have been facing an onslaught of transgender propaganda which includes in its agenda the most awful child abuse imaginable – namely chemical castration.  Specialists are able to prevent the actual production of testosterone or estrogen in growing children. The procedures are begun as early as age six. For a long time this writer followed the fate of a Mr. Younger one of whose twin sons at age six identified as a girl, and his mother – incredibly – a pediatrician was supportive of his receiving chemical treatments to prevent the boy from ever producing testosterone during puberty.  The boy’s father was fighting this tooth and nail, and was finally told by the courts he could not publicize it.. It was a horror show of state intrusion in parenting as well as showing the results of having a mother with a morally diseased outlook on life (yes, though parenthood should be honored, some parents are off the wall).  This writer is happy to report that after continuous pressure from an organization called Mass Resistance, the clinic to which his son was going for “treatment” closed its doors in Dallas, TX.  That clinic called itself Genecis, which name was to mock the Bible account of creation and the cisgender people who resist the transgender agenda.

Friends, this transitioning movement is a moral scourge in our land that strains the foundational thinking (metaphysical and theological) of every moral person still committed to Judeo-Christian values.  Are we ready to see children treated like guinea pigs in a sinister experiment aimed at redefining life itself at its biological essence?

How can any right thinking person  be anything except a zealot against chemical castration of little boys.  We know that 65%-94% of youth who claim to believe they are a different “gender” re-appropriate their birth and organic gender by the age of 18 or 19.  As adults if they want to proceed through chemical treatments and surgery and dispense with other pro-gender therapies, I respect their right to do so, but will never consider the “new self” to be “normal.” But transitioning young children is a last day scourge that is crying out for Divine Judgment.

HAVE YOU BEEN PRAYING FOR THE LORD TO BRING MORE JEWISH PEOPLE INTO THE KINGDOM?  THANK YOU DEAR FRIENDS FOR CONSIDERING THE FOLLOWING PASSIONATE REFLECTIONS.
It is imperative that all Christians pray for the salvation of the Jewish people.  Do not rest comfortably with the thought that the Lord has re-established Israel as the Jewish homeland. Miraculous and wonderful though this post-WWII move of God has been, the true Kingdom of God is the City of God (term used by Augustine).  The City of God exists in its purest form as Heaven. The Earth is the City of Man. However, for born again Christians, we belong to the City of God while still alive on this Earth.  Our lives share still in some of the fleshly activities, attitudes, motives, desires, etc. of sinful humanity.  But we consistently and daily repent of our misplaced orientations, propensities, and loyalties, and ever seek to lead more holy lives.  The Scripture speaks of seeking righteousness. And we are told to be holy as He is holy. 

How are we going to bring more Jews to salvation?  The first and most important avenue for leading Jews to faith in Christ, for seeking Jews whom God has already elected for Christ, is to be in constant prayers for these lost souls.  God will also give us opportunities to witness in a convincing but non-threatening way to the lost souls of Israel. He will call them out from the radical secular humanist and/or Marxist ideological orientations that dominate so much of the Jewish people in the USA today.  Most Jewish persons, like myself before I was saved, do not attend synagogue, do not read the Old Testament, do not believe in God. They have some superficial understanding of the Ten Commandments and generally are law abiding citizens.  However, they ignore the Commandments that refer to exclusive worship of the Lord Our God Creator of the Universe. Thus, they only obey those of the Ten Commandments that refer to their earthly role.  However, if one truly reflects on such commandments as honoring one's father and mother, as well as not stealing and its corollary which is not coveting, how many Jews or anyone else for that matter, say they have kept those commandments all the time?

Pray for the Jews you know.  Pray for them individually if you know their names, and collectively. Pray for the Jewish people living in Israel.  Pray that they will become interested in the Bible, in the question of who is the Messiah, in learning about their spiritual heritage, and that they will be open to and curious about that "taboo book" the New Testament.  Pray for me as a thirty year Jewish convert to Christ that I may be able through the work of the Holy Spirit to lead Jews to faith in Jesus (called Y'shua by the Messianic movement of which, however, I am not a member).  Please pray for me and for the Jews earnestly and often in this regard.  Thank you dear friends.  Thank you.

Today was an incredible day of worship.  The sermon was from Acts 3. The miracle of the man crippled from birth who walks shows the power of Almighty God to those assembled.  The apostles didn't heal the man, but it was Almighty God by the power of the Holy Spirit. Hey you unbelievers, you scoffers. Pick up your Bible, somewhere, anywhere you can get your hands on it (but don't steal it), and read the gospel according to John. Read Psalms 23, 24, 34 (especially v.6), 91, 139, 142.  Jesus Christ is the "I AM" revealed at Mt. Sinai in the Old Testament. Don't buy into any other doctrine. Please.