The Abomination Of Obama's Prayer - The Folly Of Social Justice
What Would Jesus Say To Barack Obama? At this years National Prayer Breakfast, Barack Obama confirmed to the American People why the First Amendment inhibits a secular interpretation of religion (see Washington Post). In his typical ideological promoting of Socialism under the banner of Marxist Social Justice, Obama quoted the parable of the talents and stated: “But for me, as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’ ” -- but is Obama's rendition of this parable valid?
The parable of the Talents is one of many Gospel teachings that is very difficult for the modern Christian to understand, because of the removal and anathema of an important teaching of Jesus that was outlawed by the Roman Emperors who ruled the Church (see Emperor Controlled Dogma). But even more important is the fact that the manner that Obama has presented this parable in his speech, is in reverse and in denial of its spiritual meaning and intent. The true meaning of the parable of the Talents presents one of the core Gospel teachings that confirm that each person is born into life in accord with their previous actions, as presented and explored in The Biblical Foundational Mindset -- which original teaching is further confirmed in the pre-Nicene teachings on Predestination. Because the Roman Emperors who ruled over the doctrines of the Church after the year 325 had outlawed the Gospel teachings on the pre-existent soul, many modern Christians have been duped into embracing a Marxist doctrine of Social Justice because they totally lack an understanding of the Conditions of Birth from an original Gospel perspective. Thus the question: The Gospels confirm that all things in this world are preordained -- and in acknowledging this well defined biblical teaching, the question then becomes: When the Laws of God drive a person into poverty, is the Christian obligated to make a person not only comfortable in their poverty -- but comfortable to the degree that they support the abandonment of First Gospel Principles? While we would be doing good if we can assist them in bringing about meaningful change in their lives, when we instead assist them in their ungodliness, then we are working against the Will of God.
As explained in the parable of the Talents, not only does each of us receive in accord with our own abilities that are based upon our actions in our previous lives i.e., "...each [is given] according to his own ability." -- but when we use our own God-Given gifts and Talents on the thinking and lifestyle of this world, as the prodigal sons we have therefore squandered away our own inheritance. When the Laws of God bring poverty upon a person because of their own actions in their more distant past -- and we make them comfortable in their poverty -- are we not then opposing the Will of God? Thus, Barack Obama's reasoning is in direct conflict with what Jesus actually taught.
In the study, Marriage: America's Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty, it is demonstrated that those who live in poverty are in fact poor, because under the Secular Progressive domain, they have abandoned biblical morality and marriage. Thus, their poverty and the conditions under which they live, are the direct result of their own choices and actions. Yet, in this culture of entitlement, they expect others to provide for them, regardless of the fact that they have brought their lifestyle upon themselves by the choices they have made and the leaders they have elected to follow (see The Folly Of Social Justice - The Counterfeit Dogma Of Jim Wallis And The Marxist Left). Yet, Paul correctly states:"But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner — not even to eat with such a person" (1 Cor 5:11 NKJV) -- and the Gospels present the cause of their poverty and turmoil in the words of Jesus: "...sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee"(John 5:14 KJV).
What Paul is stating is that it is of course a sin to support the immorality and sinfulness of those who choose to dwell in sin. If Christians are commanded by Paul to have no part in the sin of those who have abandoned biblical morality -- to the degree that a Christian should "...not even to eat with such a person" -- and Jesus warns the person who he healed to cease from sin, lest a worse thing such as even greater poverty come upon them -- then when Christians use their money and resources to indiscriminately support and promote lives of sin, then they have in fact cast themselves in the role of the servant who squandered away his God-Given Talents on the things of this world -- which is in reverse of Barack Obama's interpretation.
The poor and disenfranchised in this country is the direct result of the failed Secular Progressive agenda they have embraced. Author, and one time welfare mom Star Parker, portrays the poor as the victims of Uncle Sam's Plantation. God-fearing people are in no manner obligated to support the lifestyle of those who abandon morality and biblical standards. While it is good to provide food and clothing to those in need, to take away from those who are living by spiritual standards, to give to those who have abandoned spiritual standards, is in and of itself sin.
The objective of Marxism and their doctrine of Social Justice, is to make the whole of the population dependent upon the government. The idea that Jesus wants Christians to support those who have abandoned Gospel First Principles, and have openly embraced lives of immorality -- those who have rejected the institution of marriage and brought forth children out of wedlock -- those who have squandered away their lives on alcohol, drug abuse and addictions -- is so adverse to the Gospel teachings, that Barack Obama should be embarrassed to promote his doctrine of Social Justice as being biblically ordained. But then again, when it is realized that Obama's idea of the balance of church and state is to give the Catholic Church an extra year to abandon their teachings on reproduction and abortion, the whole idea of Obama as a constitutional law professor must be questioned. If the state can enact a law that inhibits the religious positions of the Church, then the whole concept of First Amendment Religious Protection is a bogus fraud.
The history of what has been portrayed as the War on Poverty, has proven the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin to be correct. And just as important is the fact that if you use your God-Given resources to make those who have abandoned the biblical teachings comfortable in their sin, then you are in fact yourself promoting a life of sin which is portrayed as unforgivable apostasy to the Gospel in the scriptures (see The Lie). While you should provide food and necessities to those in need, when you give indiscriminately -- and make lives of sin easy and comfortable -- then you make yourself a proponent of sin.
A wise servant will provide greater assistance to those who sincerely strive to embrace and live in accord with Gospel teachings and a biblical lifestyle. Therefore, to even promote the idea that Jesus wants you to reward those who have abandoned the Gospel teachings -- providing them comfort in lives where the Laws of God has brought tribulation upon them -- i.e., "...sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee" -- is to make yourself an instrument of sin. While it is good to feed the hungry, your greater assistance should be reserved for those who repent, and seek to change their ways.
In Reply To Barack Obama in the Name of Yeshua/Jesus
Brother of Yeshua/Jesus