Bible Story: Jesus’ Teaching of Good vs. Evil

Dinner Topics for Monday

Jesus’ Teaching: Parable of the Wheat and the Tares

Bible Story: Learning about Good vs. Evil

keyoldHe answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. ~Matthew 13:37-39

wheattaresTares—The word denotes darnel grass, a poisonous weed, which, until it comes into ear, is similar in appearance to wheat. ~Bible Dictionary, 780, KJV

Matthew 13:24-30; 36-42

24 ¶Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

enemy-sowed-tares-bible-story28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

Jesusinfield40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Doctrine and Covenants 38: 12

12 Which causeth silence to reign, and all eternity is pained, and the angels are waiting the great command to reap down the earth, to gather the tares that they may be burned; and, behold, the enemy is combined.

Doctrine and Covenants 86: 1-7

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servants, concerning the parable of the wheat and of the tares:

2 Behold, verily I say, the field was the world, and the apostles were the sowers of the seed;

bible13 And after they have fallen asleep the great persecutor of the church, the apostate, the whore, even Babylon, that maketh all nations to drink of her cup, in whose hearts the enemy, even Satan, sitteth to reign—behold he soweth the tares; wherefore, the tares choke the wheat and drive the church into the wilderness.

4 But behold, in the last days, even now while the Lord is beginning to bring forth the word, and the blade is springing up and is yet tender—

5 Behold, verily I say unto you, the angels are crying unto the Lord day and night, who are ready and waiting to be sent forth to reap down the fields;

6 But the Lord saith unto them, pluck not up the tares while the blade is yet tender (for verily your faith is weak), lest you destroy the wheat also.

7 Therefore, let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest is fully ripe; then ye shall first gather out the wheat from among the tares, and after the gathering of the wheat, behold and lo, the tares are bound in bundles, and the field remaineth to be burned.

Prophetic Meanings of “Tares”

Note: Context here for references to the word “church” are not speaking of a specific building, location, or Christian denomination. Rather, “church” is depicted in a broader sense, meaning ideas, philosophies, teachings, or doctrines, and can be either true or false.

As opposed to the way of Jesus Christ, which is love, truth, and persuasion without compulsion, Satan’s way is hate and force. The “prophet” of Islam teaches that Allah wants them to force their “religion” upon the world. “Allah” commands his worshippers to kill all those who prefer the truth to lies, and who will not accept the Islamic “religion”. Given this as their doctrine, might we reasonably surmise that “Allah” is not really God, our loving Father? If “Allah” is not Heavenly Father, who do you think “Allah” is, really?  ~ C.A. Davidson

And another angel shall sound his trump, saying: That great church, the mother of abominations, that made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, that persecuteth the saints of God, that shed their blood—she who sitteth upon many waters, and upon the islands of the sea—behold, she is the tares of the earth; she is bound in bundles; her bands are made strong, no man can loose them; therefore, she is ready to be burned. And he shall sound his trump both long and loud, and all nations shall hear it. ~ Doctrine and Covenants 88:94

 

Question: What did Jesus mean when He identified “tares” as the “church of the devil?”

Dallin H. Oaks

wolfsheep2It [Tares, or “church of the devil”]must be any philosophy or organization that opposes belief in God. And the “captivity” into which this “church” seeks to bring the saints will not be so much physical confinement as the captivity of false ideas. ~Dallin H. Oaks

Book of Mormon prophecies describe the “great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil” (1 Nephi 14:17). This “church” is prophesied to have “dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people” (1 Nephi 14:11). Called “most abominable above all other churches,” this church is also said to act “for the praise of the world” to bring “the saints of God . . . down into captivity” (1 Nephi 13:5, 9). Since no religious denomination — Christian or non-Christian — has ever had “dominion” over all nations of the earth or the potential to bring all the saints of God down into “captivity,” this great and abominable church must be something far more pervasive and widespread than a single “church” as we understand that term today.

It must be any philosophy or organization that opposes belief in God. And the “captivity” into which this “church” seeks to bring the saints will not be so much physical confinement as the captivity of false ideas.

In the Savior’s [post-resurrection] ministry among the Nephites [in ancient America], He warned against a church that “be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil” (3 Nephi 27:11). These warnings are not limited to religious organizations. In the circumstances of our day they include a multitude of secular philosophies and activities.

Doctrine and Covenants 101:65-66

65 Therefore, I must gather together my people, according to the parable of the wheat and the tares, that the wheat may be secured in the garners to possess eternal life, and be crowned with celestial glory, when I shall come in the kingdom of my Father to reward every man according as his work shall be;

66 While the tares shall be bound in bundles, and their bands made strong, that they may be burned with unquenchable fire.

Advertisements

Obama Plan: Muslim Force or American Liberty?

Mideast expert: Obama switched sides in war on terror

‘America has moved toward its Muslim enemies’

Does Obama’s Plan protect American Liberty?

Garth Kant

obama-bows-saudi

President Obama appears to bow to Saudi King Abdullah, on April 1, 2009, in London

WASHINGTON – It’s an explosive charge, one that puts the president’s motives into question.

A former CIA agent bluntly told WND, America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama.

Clare Lopez was willing to say what a few members of Congress have confided to WND in private, but declined to say on-the-record.

She said the global war on terror had been an effort to “stay free of Shariah,” or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates.

Why the switch?

Lopez explained, when the so-called Arab Spring appeared in late 2010, “It was time to bring down the secular Muslim rulers who did not enforce Islamic law. And America helped.”

And why would Obama want to do that?

As she told WND earlier this month, Lopez believed the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government.
She also came to the conclusion Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: “to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands.”
Why would Obama order the killing of bin Laden?

Because the president “couldn’t delay any longer,” once the opportunity was presented, Lopez told WND.

There were “no more excuses” available to avoid it and he “thought it might look good,” she mused.

The former CIA operative’s perspective affects her prescription for what the U.S. should do about the terror army ISIS, as she called for caution and restraint.

While there has been a sudden chorus of politicians and military experts calling for the immediate elimination of the terrorist army after it beheaded American journalist James Foley last week, Lopez believes the U.S. should have an overall strategy in place before fully re-engaging in the Mideast militarily.

Any military action would be further complicated, she told WND, if it were not clear which side the U.S. is on, either in the short term or in the overall war on terror.

Lopez’s insights are backed by an impressive array of credentials.
She spent two decades in the field as a CIA operations officer; was an instructor for military intelligence and special forces students; has been a consultant, intelligence analyst and researcher within the defense sector; and has published two books on Iran. Lopez currently manages the counter-jihad and Shariah programs at the Center for Security Policy, run by Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan administration.

EGYPT-POLITICS-UNRESTIn a previous interview with WND, Lopez described the stunning extent of infiltration of the administration and other branches of the federal government by the jihadist group the Muslim Brotherhood.

She said the infiltration began under former President Bill Clinton but really took hold under the Obama administration, which, she said, “includes various levels of understanding and misunderstanding of Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“Some in the administration genuinely appear to believe the Muslim Brotherhood can act as a foil or counterweight to al-Qaida, although with what’s going on in Syria, it’s hard to understand how they would still think that,” she observed.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/cia-expert-obama-switchedsides-in-war-on-terror/#BQL406ZxRdgRozIi.99

US Constitution Series 11: Liberty of the People vs. Government Force

US Constitution Series 11:

The Majority of the People may Alter or Abolish a Government Which has Become Tyrannical

key“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” ~Thomas Jefferson

It is important to note that our Constitutional republic does not need to be changed. Congress has 2 duties assigned to accomplish the restraint or removal of a tyrant: 1) impeachment 2) Using the power of the purse to withhold funding from tyrannical actions.

When Congress fails in its duties, the tenth amendment still gives power to the states and the people. We do not have a majority of Constitutionalists in Congress, and the majority of the voters lack the wisdom and understanding needed to fix this from Washington. Our best option is to keep our states sovereign, teach our families righteous principles so they can govern themselves, elect persons of character to all levels of government, and work in our communities at the grass roots level to rebuild our nation. ~C.A. Davidson

The Founders’ Basic Principles: 28 Great Ideas that changed the world

The practical application of this book review of Skousen’s educated wisdom is to leverage “We, The People’s” knowledge to easily expose ignorance, anarchy and tyranny, and hold the government accountable.

5000leapFrom The 5,000 Year Leap—A Miracle that Changed the World

By W. Cleon Skousen

The Founders were well acquainted with the vexations resulting from an abusive, autocratic government which had imposed injuries on the American colonists for thirteen years in violation of the English constitution. Thomas Jefferson’s word in the Declaration of Independence therefore emphasized the feelings of the American people when he wrote:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

 

John Locke

Whensoever, therefore, the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, by this breach of trust they [the government officials] forfeit the power the people had put into their hands …and it devolves to the people, who have a reight to resume their original liberty, and provide for their own safety and security. (Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, pp. 75-76, emphasis added.)

Power Rests in the Majority

However, it is important to recognize that the “government” was established by the Majority of the people, and only a majority of the people can authorize an appeal to alter or abolish a particular establishment of government. (Skousen, 149)

No Right of Revolt in a Minority

When the Founders altered the British government, they got the consensus of the majority of the American people. The abuses of Americans were perpetrated by a minority—the British monarchy. Comparing this history to today, we have abuses heaped upon us again by a minority—Obama and his army of unelected bureaucrats. ~C.D.

. . .it [is] impossible for one or a few oppressed men to disturb the government where the body of the people do not think themselves concerned in it …

johnlockeBut if either these illegal acts have extended to the MAJORITY of the people, or if the mischief and oppression has light [struck] only on some few, but in such cases as the precedent and consequences seem to THREATEN ALL, and they are persuaded in their consciences that their laws, and with them, their estates, liberties, and lives are in danger, and perhaps their religion too, HOW THEY WILL BE HINDERED FROM RESISTING ILLEGAL FORCE USED AGAINST THEM, I cannot tell. (John Locke, Ibid., p. 73 208-9; emphasis added.)

Virginia Declaration of Rights

Our best option is to keep our states sovereign, teach our families righteous principles so they can govern themselves, elect persons of character to all levels of government, and work in our communities at the grass roots level to rebuild our nation.

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people …And that, when any government shall be MAJORITY of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal. (Annals of America, 2:432; emphasis added.)

So, granted that the people are sovereign and the majority of them can take over whenever necessary to restructure the political machinery and restore liberty, what is likely to be the best form of government which will preserve liberty? The answer to this question was a favorite theme of the American nation-builders.

NEXT:

Principle 12: The United States of America Shall be a Republic

US Constitution Series 10: God and People vs. Government Control

 

People and Law: Government Force or Liberty of Opportunity?

Egalitarianism: Is it Equality of Opportunity or Government Forcing Everyone to be the Same?

Month-Defining Moment

Defining Moment: What is Egalitarianism?

keyIf we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion. ~Friedrich August von Hayek

Even the striving for equality by means of a directed economy can result only in an officially enforced inequality – an authoritarian determination of the status of each individual in the new hierarchical order. ~Friedrich August von Hayek

We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice. ~Friedrich August von Hayek

Rousseau’s Error

John Adams was in France when Jean Jacques Rousseau was teaching that all men were designed to be equal in every way. Adams wrote:

 

johnadams2That all men are born to equal rights is true. Every being has a right to his own, as clear, as moral, as sacred, as any other being has …But to teach that all men are born with equal powers and faculties, to equal influence in society, to equal property and advantages through life, is as gross a fraud, as glaring an imposition on the credulity of the people as ever was practiced by monks, by Druids, by Brahmins, …or by the self-styled philosophers of the French Revolution.

 

The answer is that everyone’s individual differences should be accepted, but be treated as equals as human beings. Constitutional writer Clarence Carson describes two ways all persons should have their equality guaranteed:

1) Equality before the law. This means that every man’s case is tried by the same law governing any particular case. Practically, it means that there are no different laws for different classes and orders of men [as there were in ancient times]. The definition of premeditated murder is the same for the millionaire as for the tramp. A corollary of this is that no classes are created or recognized by law.

2) Each man has an equal title to God-given liberties along with every other.

 

Related Posts

US Constitution Series 7: The Proper Role of Government is to Protect Equal Rights, Not provide Equal Things

US Constitution Series 7: Liberty, Enterprise vs. Free Stuff

procrustesWhat happens when you have Government enforced “equality?” An analogy

Censorship, Politics, and Freedom of Speech

 

Obama: The Best Crony Capitalist Since Mussolini

“Barack Obama has wrapped himself in egalitarianism all his political career and now that dissatisfaction with his goal of ‘transforming’ America …

Rush Limbaugh

fascismwndRUSH:  Well, that’s what some of them want.  Obama wants to be the dictator; the people on Wall Street want to be the subjects.  Some of these people on Wall Street actually want that.  Some of these protesters, the Occupy Wall Street Now, some of them actually want that.  Some of them actually want to be serfs.  That’s how they look at freedom and equality, and egalitarianism and so forth.  That’s what some of them want.  That’s what they’ve been taught, and it’s superior, it’s fairer, it’s better for everybody.  A lot of them are saying, “Look, go ahead and stay in business, we love what you make, just don’t make a profit.  Why can’t you make iPhones and just break even?  Why do you have to show a profit?”

That’s their mentality.  Why can’t you provide us what we want but why do you have to make a profit in the process?  That’s objectifying us, that’s taking advantage of people, that’s overcharging people, that’s just unfair, why don’t you just do what you do — this is a very naive thought, but many people have it, particularly young, idealistic people.  Why don’t you make that car and sell it to us for no more than what it cost you and then everybody would be happy. You’ll make the cars, we’ll buy the cars, we’ll be able to buy the cars at a much cheaper price and then everybody will be able to afford one.  But the minute people start putting profit into it, that’s where we have problems because that’s exploitation and unfairness.  That’s what they’re taught.  Some people are just oriented toward being slaves, natural born subservient people, and they will give away their freedom as fast as they can, at the same time trying to get you to do the same thing.

 

Did Christianity give us gay marriage?

By Alex McFarland

As long as God keeps making human beings and the Holy Spirit works among them in this world, that which is false cannot ultimately prevail.

 

bible1An editorial by religion writer Damon Linker asserts that the current push for gay marriage is really an inevitable outgrowth of … Christianity. He attempts to support this unlikely conclusion in several ways, invoking the Bible (as he understands it) and American history.

Linker insinuates that evangelicals – the prime supporters of “traditional” marriage in the U.S. at least – should not be surprised that homosexuals want to marry and are being successful in their demands to do so. After all, he reasons, Christianity (and America) are about equality.

But I find at least four things wrong with such a line of thought. These are:

1. Mischaracterization of the Bible’s concept of equality. Egalitarianism (which Linker attributes to Scripture) says that there are no inherent differences between men and women. By this definition, all social constructs related to the sexes (such as marriage and gender roles) should not be defended as unique in any way. In an egalitarian world, no social order should be preferred above another.

But this is not what the Bible teaches. The truly Christian position on men and women, gender roles, human sexuality and marriage is one of complementariansim. Men and women are complementary. Definitely equals in the sense of being made in God’s image, having equal worth, value, dignity and purpose. However, men and women are clearly unique in functions, in strengths, in abilities and in areas of interest.

2. Linker interprets advances of the gay agenda in a positive light, and supports this by referencing Alexis de Tocqueville. But to do this, he misrepresents Tocqueville’s writings that deal with American equality.

Tocqueville spoke of Christianity’s influence in America with a clarity that is hard to miss. Tocqueville does write about “the march of equality,” but this march is able to take place because of the Judeo-Christian backdrop before which America stands. A slight (and often fluctuating) equalization between the rich and poor is not the same as a deconstruction of that most fundamental human institution, the home.

America has changed the social order of millions in an economic sense, but it does not follow that a new order must (or should) come in a moral sense. Linker certainly stretches things in trying to sanction the modern gay agenda by invoking Democracy In America (Vols. I and II, 1835 and 1840, respectively).

Sermon_on_the_Mount0063. Like many today Linker invokes what I call “a Bible without boundaries.” He defends radical egalitarianism by referencing Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount. Christ’s words as found in Matthew 5-7 are a favorite text of defenders of homosexuality, relativism, religious pluralism, leftism and many other “isms.” Those who see Jesus as the ultimate egalitarian will often support their position by reminding people of the unlimited love and grace of God.

Yes, God is love (I John 4:8). And His grace has been offered to all men (Titus 3:5). God’s love prompted Him to come to earth, die, rise and make it possible for humans to be saved from their sins (John 3:16). And speaking of sin, Scripture teaches that our guilt before God is a gravely serious matter. The Bible even lists a whole bunch of sins that, if not repented of, will keep a person out of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

4. Linker’s article opens by calling widespread embrace of gay marriage “all but assured.” For about four decades now, the gay agenda has been marketed to the American people. Pro-gay messaging has been subtly introduced through entertainment, postured in scholarly terms for the classroom, and railroaded in through politics.

Fortuitous timing for the gay movement, it arose after much of the religious establishment of the West had spent a century being infected with liberal thought and Darwinian social theory. By the dawn of the 1970s, lobbyists for homosexuality were not strongly opposed by clergy whose job it was to stand for the Bible.

But let me encourage all who believe that God’s design for marriage and morality is still true and relevant. That which is morally right and factually true has a way of prevailing – even to the point of trumping propaganda campaigns that are well organized, well funded and nearly unrelenting. History has shown us this.

As long as God keeps making human beings and the Holy Spirit works among them in this world, that which is false cannot ultimately prevail.

– See more at: http://www.afajournal.org/archives/2010-present/2014/may/commentaries/did-christianity-give-us-gay-marriage.aspx#sthash.RJtqNUfA.dpuf

Obamacare Warning: Forced Home Inspection vs. Liberty

WARNING: FORCED HOME INSPECTIONS ARE COMING WITH OBAMACARE

By: Eric Odom

oamacarehomevisitsbadgeWhen the United States Supreme Court, the United States Congress, the United States Senate and Barack Hussein Obama betrayed America and her constitution with the passage of the healthcare mandate, they unleashed a monster that will, in the end, crush the rights of a once great nation. You’ll find instance after instance of this within any given daily news cycle. Most discussions involve death panels, the necessity to give up private information (such as gun ownership) and national health history databases run by the IRS and other government agencies. There is a new piece, however, that doesn’t get discussed much at all.

Forced home inspections

Thanks to a South Carolina state bill that passed the house but failed in the Senate we learn of something very, very ugly coming packaged with Obamacare. As Ben Swann reports:

“Clearly, any family may be visited by federally paid agents for almost any reason.”

According to an Obamacare provision millions of Americans will be targeted.

The Health and Human Services’ website states that your family will be targeted if you fall under the “high-risk” categories below:

Families where mom is not yet 21.
Families where someone is a tobacco user.
Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.
Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.

There is no reference to Medicaid being the determinant for a family to be “eligible.”

It gets worse. The home visits won’t be just about Obamacare eligibility. It will be about killing off private life in every way, shape or form. Take homeschooling, for example.

Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown states,

“This is not a “voluntary” program. The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks. A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to “intervention” in “school readiness” and “social-emotional developmental indicators.” A farm family may be subject to “intervention” in order to “prevent child injuries.” The sky is the limit.

Once the government has complete control over the healthcare system, families will be at their mercy. And as we’ve already seen, Congress and the Supreme Court no longer serve to protect our rights. They now serve as entities that openly violate them.

South Carolina attempted to confront this with passage of a bill that would empower state authorities to arrest feds who attempt these unconstitutional home inspections. The bill did not make it past the Senate.

– See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2013/08/forced-home-inspections-are-coming-with-obamacare/?Ref_ID=22398#sthash.Tz92rG4L.dpuf