Many are called, but few are chosen (Matthew 22:14).

[Shiranui117]

However, God's "gift" of salvation is essentially a SPIRITUAL concept; which has NOTHING to do with worldly success, such as wealth, honour, power, and glory, or even the type of person one is "supposed" to marry etc - which are social constructions of our human society.

Let's say, for instance, the US government has invited a foreign national to be a future leader in America; but at the same time, it wouldn't be contrary to God's "purpose" for such a person to make his career in England instead of the USA.

To reject America in this example, does not imply such a person has rejected God's "gift" of salvation; as we must be careful not to confuse, and confound worldly success with God's "purpose".

Likewise, to dissent from the government's humanistic agenda does not imply "rebellion" against God's divine purpose, nor "rebellion" against His plan of salvation for each one of us.

As indeed, it is both wrong and misguided to equate the government's humanistic agenda with God's divine plan of salvation for each and everyone of us; for if the two are co-extensive, coterminous, and identical with one another, we must think what this would imply as regarding the US Declaration of Independence in 1776 or French Revolution in 1789-1799, which are classic cases of rebellion towards the government; and by definition, it is also contrary to God's "purpose".

In other words, there is nothing "hallowed" or "sacred" about the United States Constitution, which is a legacy of REBELLION by British colonial settlers of the original thirteen colonies; for if the government's humanistic agenda is co-extensive, coterminous, and identical with God's "purpose", then there will be no other conclusion but to assume that the Constitution and Thanksgiving etc. are also contrary to God's "purpose"; and thereby, Zeitgeist of the American Revolution would have no legitimacy whatsoever in the sight of God, nor in the eyes of the Christian world as a whole.

Agreed. Politics don't mean squat, but whatever our political affiliation is, we should heed the Gospel commands to love our neighbor, clothe the naked, take care of the sick, take in the stranger, feed the hungry, visit the imprisoned and turn the other cheek.

In a sense, God's purpose will vary quite considerably according to the individual; because each individual must tread a different path to achieve the utmost happiness; but at the same time, the "greatest happiness" is the only thing which all people should be concerned with as a priority, which is regardless of one's race, creed or colour etc; and therefore, the "greatest happiness" is the only common goal, which all people will have regardless who they are.

I agree, but I'd add in the following--true happiness is being in communion with God and with neighbor--having a heart filled with love, having God dwell in us, and us in God.

Therefore, it is not necessary for one to aspire to be the most powerful man on earth to attain the greatest happiness; as it could well be achieved by attaining the office of Prime Minister in a different Anglo-sphere or European jurisdiction, rather than President of the United States.

And therefore, who is to say that the President is "more admired, loved, and respected" than Prime Ministers of other countries in the civilized world?

Likewise, to reject a higher paid job in favour of job satisfaction alone doesn't imply one has rejected God's "purpose", nor does one reject His "gift" of salvation by rejecting the offer of a job promotion.

As indeed, some people will be perfectly content to work in a factory, Wal Mart, MacDonald's or construction site etc. for the rest of their lives; and such people may well eschew any invitation to enter the world of politics; but that doesn't mean their attitude is contrary to God's "purpose", nor does it imply they have rejected His "gift" of salvation.

Now, I must therefore reiterate that for anyone to do God's will s/he should simply follow the path which will lead to the greatest happiness for the individual concerned; and such a journey as this will be invariably, psychological and SPIRITUAL in nature, which has NOTHING to do with worldly success e.g. wealth, honour, power, and glory according to public opinion etc.

Generally speaking, to follow one's heart will lead to the greatest happiness and satisfaction; and whoever applies such a formula will have fulfilled his/her "destiny" according to God's plan; but that doesn't mean one should always aspire to have the "most powerful and important job in the world".



Basically, it's a FALLACY to equate the greatest happiness with having the most powerful job in the world; that argument just doesn't wash as far as I'm concerned.

By definition, those who still argue that God's "purpose" and His "gift" of salvation are directly correlated with worldly success are nothing but Sophisters and tricksters with an ulterior motive which is purely a political agenda; which is purposely designed to control, constrain, and manipulate people who're bovine, credulous, docile, uneducated, gullible, illiterate, ignorant, naive, submissive, and tractable; which are defined by one's inability to construct a strong, persuasive or effective counter argument.

In other words, one's TRUE PURPOSE can only ever be fulfilled by following the heart's desire, which is response to God's calling within each and everyone of us; but it is NOT for the government to usurp God's authority, nor presume to know anybody's "true" purpose in life.

I agree wholeheartedly; one's occupation has nothing to do with one's happiness. I could be a shoeless beggar on the streets and be the happiest man alive, if the love of God is within me. I could be persecuted for Christ, despised and reviled by all, completely cast out and rejected by the world and subjected to much suffering, yet still be happy and rejoice in God my Savior.

Moreover, it is NOT for society at large to dictate what should be the "true" purpose or path of salvation for each and every person; but this is strictly a PRIVATE, and personal matter between the individual concerned and his Creator.

No government nor society on earth can rightly presume to know the "true" purpose or path of salvation for each and every individual concerned; for that is strictly a PRIVATE, and personal matter between the person concerned and his Creator.

Yes, the government cannot decide our walk with God--that is our own choice. And by the same token, it is Jesus Who is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and any other attempts to get to know God without Jesus are misguided and doomed to failure.

Suffice to say that the God of Christianity is basically a God of love, which is different to the God of Fear of the Old Testament (Nahum 1:2; Deuteronomy 6:15). Therefore, any deity who invokes a sense of fear, paranoia, and foreboding cannot be the same God that Jesus taught his disciples; and any God who requires Christians to do what they don't want cannot be the God of Love as we know according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New; it is the case of the Father having to be very stern with His children while they are young and rebellious, then later showing His softer and more relaxed side when they have grown more mature.

 

[XIII-Legion]

We might be called to the feast...but we might be allowed to attend.

Obviously, your interpretation of Matthew 22:14 is something you've invented; as I know of no wedding feast whereby outsiders who haven't been invited could somehow be allowed to gate crash the party.

However, that is not to say that I disagree with you.

Obviously, you have invented two distinct groups of people in this case: (1) Those who have been predestined to attend the wedding, which is regardless of individual merit; and (2) Those who might be allowed to attend subject to indivudual merit.

But here, we have a classic case of one person's "ascribed status" versus another person's "achieved status".

For instance, a person who is born to be King of England has the express purpose to be "first in the line of succession"; and even in the case of Edward VIII it would be practically impossible for such a person to discard their identity, which would be equivalent to one's true purpose in terms of Christian theology.

However, the incumbent president of the USA and all his predecessors have been tipped as future leaders of this country, based on their prior record in the world of politics, which is an achieved status, not an ascribed status as in the case of the Prince of Wales.

Basically, you have said that one group has a "true" purpose which is ascribed, but the other group is not encumbered by such a responsibility; as a person who is tipped to be future president will always be free to refuse a "destiny" which is not so strongly defined as heir to the English throne.

In other words, Obama and his predecessors do not have a "true" purpose as such; since their purpose is whatever path they have chosen.

Whereas, the Prince of Wales has expressly one "true" purpose a person who has been tipped as future president can have whatever purpose s/he chooses.

Am I right or not?

 

[Thief]

Obviously, your interpretation of Matthew 22:14 is something you've invented; as I know of no wedding feast whereby outsiders who haven't been invited could somehow be allowed to gate crash the party.

I see a word was left out as I posted the Item referred to.

In the parable the servants are sent to gather the guests to the feast.
They are known to the Master.

Each one in turn makes excuse and does not attend.

The Master is then angered.

The servants are sent out to gather anyone at all.
The feast will not sit upon the table and spoil.
It is now....a come as you are party.
Drop whatever you are doing and follow.

As the feast is in progress the Master appears.
He chooses someone at the table and wants to know.....'Why are you not properly dressed?'

Caught by surprise (told to come as you are).....the guest is silent.

The servants are called and the guest is bound hand and foot....
he is thrown out the Door ....for a weeping and gnashing of teeth.

My invention?.....listen a little more.

Maybe the fellow next to you was that poor unfortunate.
He seemed like a nice guy.
And the two of you are dressed much the same way.

Just outside the Door you can hear the plea for mercy.
He didn't go anywhere. He is bound hand and foot.

Then comes that gnashing of teeth.

What would there be outside the Door?.....
that would cause someone to gnash his teeth?

My invention?.....not at all.
I was simply paying attention as I read the terms.

No wonder the familiars of the Master made excuses!!!!!!!

 

[XIII-Legion]

In the parable the servants are sent to gather the guests to the feast.
They are known to the Master.

But according to Romans 13, the King or Master is sovereign over his own kingdom; however, he is NOT sovereign over people who lie outside his remit: as defined by the sovereign's national AND territorial jurisdiction, which under international law is the only LAWFUL remit; but the same law would be equally true of the Roman empire in Judaea, which would've been cultural backdrop to this story in the 1st century CE.

Thus, King Herod would have sovereign remit over his own people, and his own kingdom; but his authority would never extend so far as beyond the confines of his own people in Judaea.

Romans 13 is only true for those who are LAWFUL subjects of the sovereign; but it doesn't apply to others who fall outside the King's LAWFUL jurisdiction.

Just outside the Door you can hear the plea for mercy.
He didn't go anywhere. He is bound hand and foot.

Then comes that gnashing of teeth.

What would there be outside the Door?.....
that would cause someone to gnash his teeth?

Threat of damnation in this story is only true for those who lie inside LAWFUL remit of the King or sovereign; otherwise, it would be pointless, and meaningless to cite this parable.

 

[Thief]

But according to Romans 13, the King or Master is sovereign over his own kingdom; however, he is NOT sovereign over people who lie outside his remit: as defined by the sovereign's national AND territorial jurisdiction, which under international law is the only LAWFUL remit; but the same law would be equally true of the Roman empire in Judaea, which would've been cultural backdrop to this story in the 1st century CE.

Thus, King Herod would have sovereign remit over his own people, and his own kingdom; but his authority would never extend so far as beyond the confines of his own people in Judaea.

Romans 13 is only true for those who are LAWFUL subjects of the sovereign; but it doesn't apply to others who fall outside the King's LAWFUL jurisdiction.



Threat of damnation in this story is only true for those who lie inside LAWFUL remit of the King or sovereign; otherwise, it would be pointless, and meaningless to cite this parable.

I use King James 1960.
But the text is basically the same.

This post of yours attempts to add terms the parable has in it?

Not that I see.
The Lord of the feast knows where the invitation is sent.
The servants return without guests.

And the parable ends with one fellow blindsided, by getting involved in something he did not understand.

If you were invited to a 'come as you are' party....
and the host would say.....why are you not properly dressed?....

How would you feel?

And if the host should then do harshly unto you.....

How would you feel?

 

[savagewind]

It is possible the writer wrote "many are called but few choose (to obey the calling).....which is actually proved true by history.

 

[XIII-Legion]

If you were invited to a 'come as you are' party....
and the host would say.....why are you not properly dressed?....

Clearly, there is a verbal contract between the Lord and those called to the feast; but where there is breach of contract by either party, the contract is null and void.

But in this case, the Lord is legally bound to accept the guest as he is dressed; but to rescind his own word amounts to a breach of contract, which means this part of the contract is null and void.

How would you feel?

And if the host should then do harshly unto you.....

How would you feel?

Obviously, the person who is mistreated is under no obligation to honour such a "new clause" in the contract, which did not exist when such agreement was contracted; but in actual fact, the "new clause" is in breach of the original contract, and he is under no obligation to change his dress.

Although he is still obliged to attend the feast he is under no obligation to change his dress to be acceptable guest at the wedding.

 

[Thief]

Clearly, there is a verbal contract between the Lord and those called to the feast; but where there is breach of contract by either party, the contract is null and void.

But in this case, the Lord is legally bound to accept the guest as he is dressed; but to rescind his own word amounts to a breach of contract, which means this part of the contract is null and void.



Obviously, the person who is mistreated is under no obligation to honour such a "new clause" in the contract, which did not exist when such agreement was contracted; but in actual fact, the "new clause" is in breach of the original contract, and he is under no obligation to change his dress.

Although he is still obliged to attend the feast he is under no obligation to change his dress to be acceptable guest at the wedding.

Law has nothing to do with it.....nor contract.

As my book displays it.....
The Lord called invitation.
The invitation went to those who knew Him.
They declined....while making excuses.

The servants were sent out again....come one, come all.

You have not considered.
Those who knew the Lord declined.
Those who never met Him came.

The parable doesn't end well.

 

[XIII-Legion]

Law has nothing to do with it.....nor contract.

But at least we know this is a moral if not legal problem.

You have not considered.
Those who knew the Lord declined.
Those who never met Him came.

The parable doesn't end well.

But those who knew the Lord declined for obvious reasons. All too familiar with the dress code they declined to come to the feast.

However, those who never met Him may well be construed as ignorant, and have no reservation about the feast.

Coincidentally, the majority of those who came along satisfied the dress code -- if only because it was considered 'normal' practice for them to dress as they did -- which they did without prior knowledge of the rules.

But the one fellow who was blindsided did not satisfy the dress requirement. However, it was not his fault he'd deviated from the style of dress the king would expect to attend dinner; for he had already been asked to "come as you are".

That he had been treated harshly is not his fault, for he is not familiar with the Lord, nor the unwritten rules for attending dinner.

Suffice to say that the Lord is largely to blame for failure to honour His own word, which was to "come as you are"; but also, a person who is not familiar with the rules cannot be expected to honour such rules in the first place.

But failure to accommodate those who're not familiar with the rules, and to blindside them for such reason is itself morally unacceptable.

Moreover, one could infer that the king used a certain discretion as to what he considered acceptable dress for the occasion; and so, there is a certain degree of arbitrary decision-making in regards to what he considered acceptable or not.

Due to arbitrary decisions by the king we must thereby infer that the master did not follow hard and fast rules in relation to the dress code, and the king was anything but 'fair' in regards to judgement of the fellow concerned.

As he is bound and gagged, and thrown out of the door, we can therefore read between the lines, and infer this person is effectively banished, castigated or dismissed from the presence of the king; and such a person would be far better off to attend dinner elsewhere, whereby the dress code would be far less stringent; or be invited to dinner at some other venue, whereby the rules are much more relaxed, and more likely to accommodate his preferred dress.

But of course, the parable doesn't end well because there is collateral damage for both sides involved in the dispute -- by the way, it doesn't matter if the king has more power; but such power relationship doesn't by itself rule out the fact there was most certainly a dispute between the king and guest in regards to the manner of dress.

In retrospect, the king may well regret dismissal of his guest, who may turn out to be far more important than he'd ever imagined; but on the other hand, we already know that the guest is blindsided, and treated harshly for no apparent reason.

Thus, it is not simply a case of weeping and gnashing of teeth for the fellow concerned; but also in the long term, the king may well have bitter recrimination as to His misguided judgement of the fellow concerned: This is collateral damage.

Now obviously, the guest will no longer have any role to play at the wedding banquet; and so, he has no other option but to seek an alternative venue (Matthew 21:43).

 

[XIII-Legion]

i think its only meant to be read at a personal level if you happen to be one of the 144,000 who will be ruling with Christ in heaven.

It applies to them first and foremost.

But the Bible is very clear on this point.

Only Jesus will have authority to call his chosen and faithful. (Revelation 3:21, 20:4-10; Matthew 19:28).

But those appointed to rule the twelve tribes of Israel on behalf of Jesus will be selected from every Christian denomination.

Jehovah Witnesses will not be first and foremost in the eyes of Jesus. (John 5:22, 5:27, 5:30, 14:6).

 

[XIII-Legion]

How many did he choose to be his apostles?

Many? or just a few?

For many are called, but few are chosen. (Matthew 22:14).

Doesn't mean that you will be selected.

For Christ does NOT favour Jehovah Witnesses above any other Christian church.

But how arrogant for you to presume it. (Matthew 23:12; Luke 14:11)

 

[Estro Felino]

This is a sentence that I consider not Christian. It doesn't make sense to me.
Because God can never choose anyone. There is free will, not predestination or election by God

 

[savagewind]

This is a sentence that I consider not Christian. It doesn't make sense to me.
Because God can never choose anyone. There is free will, not predestination or election by God

Many are chosen to hear the good news but few will choose to obey.
Whoever has ears, let them hear. Matthew 11:15
Can I not assume correctly that some do not have ears to "hear what the spirit says to the congregations"? Rev 2:29

 

[McNap]

Matthew 22:14 declares "Many are called, but few are chosen".

Most of you will have a good idea what this refers to.

However, it doesn't do any harm to try obtain a second opinion on this subject.

So then, what do we understand by Matthew 22:14?

What is the meaning of Matthew 22:14?

With the story of the great banguet it's important to read it in context.

At first the king sent some servants to tell the invited guests to come to the bangquet. (verse 3)
The invited guests are the Jews.

Then the kings tries it again, for the invited guests wouldn't listen the first time, but this second time the servants were killed by the invited guests. (verse 6)

Then the king says to his servants: "Go to the streetcorners and tell everyone" (verse 9).
Going to the streetcorners means "going to the gentiles"
And so they brought in everyone they could find, good and bad alike. (verse 10)

Then the king goes inside (verse 11)
This means; Jesus returns and everybody gets resurrected.

The king sees one of them wasn't wearing the right kind of clothes. (verse 12)
These clothes represent our former behaviour (from our mortal life) that suits the banquet.
Banquet = kingdom of heaven.

Many are called.
The 'many' in this verse are those who eventually decided to go to the banquet, but as we can see in verse 10 there were good as well as bad among them.

Few are chosen.
The few are the ones who were wearing the right kind of clothes.

 

[XIII-Legion]

Another parable....the grain is gathered with the undesired.
The grain is sorted....the undesired is destroyed.

The wedding feast is a parable with a dreadful ending.

I do not assume I shall escape.

But I say that your personal relationship with Christ will play a major part in your salvation, or otherwise.

Come the day of judgement, and the chaff will be separated from the wheat; the chaff will be burnt and the grain harvested. (Matthew 3:13; Luke 3:17).

As God's supreme judge Jesus Christ is a temperamental human who would more or less use his discretion and arbitrary judgement to decide who will go to heaven, and who will not.

As indeed, the supreme judge is not required to be fair or impartial in the judicial process; for it is not the rule of law, but the rule of men that will decide the outcome of judicial proceedings on the day of judgement.

Consequently, the judge will be allowed to take more than an eye for eye in retribution for the sins of Mankind against the Son of Man.

For does the potter not have power over the clay? (Romans 9:21; Psalm 2:9; Revelation 2:27; and Isaiah 30:14).

But the potter doesn't need to justify what he does to the clay; nor does God need to justify what He does in front of the creation to destroy whomever He choose, and destroy as many people as He would like on the day of judgement.

Basically, heaven and earth will be divided into two camps on the day of judgement:- (1a) Those who will go directly to heaven (1b) Those who will go through purgatory to enter into God's kingdom; which is a grey area between 1a and 2. (2) Those who are deemed unworthy, unsuitable or undesirable will be cast into the lake of fire.

Also, heaven and earth will be divided into two other groups:- (a) The few who will have a direct and personal relationship with Jesus by virtue of Fate or because of close proximity to the Son of Man (b) But most of those alive will not have direct access nor personal relationship with Jesus.

Those who belong to class (b) will be required to repent before the day of judgement to enter into God's kingdom; otherwise, they will not be deemed as suitable to enter the kingdom of heaven. Or even worse, could one imagine inviting a serial killer or rapist to their own wedding feast, or invite them to Christmas dinner; where each guest who attends will be righteous, except for the one person who has not recanted of his sins?

Likewise, the kingdom of God is a holy place which cannot, and will never be tainted by undesirable people, who may not enter into God's kindgom.

For those who belong to class (b) who have no direct access nor personal relationship with Jesus, they will be judged solely on the basis of repentance, or lack thereof on the day of judgment; but those who belong to class (a) may also belong to class 1a, 1b or 2.

However, the most important criteria in this case will be whether or not one has pierced the Son of Man to the extent that there will be no other option but to have such a person trialed, condemned, and executed on the day of judgement. (Zechariah 12:10; Isaiah 53:5; Psalm 22:16; John 19:37; and Revelation 1:7).

Judgement will be decided by whether or not such individuals' very lives would be a threat, or their actions have sought to undermine the reputation, authority, and power of the One who was sent by God:-

1. Queen Elizabeth I executed Mary Queen of Scots because Mary had a better claim to the throne than she did.
2. Adolf Hitler ordered the arrest, detention, and execution of his longstanding friend and ally Ernst Röhm, who was leader of the SA Storm Battalion until July 1934; since Röhm was widely considered a threat to NSDAP, as well as threat to Hitler's part in the Weimar government at this time.
3. Fictitious vampire elder, Viktor had no choice but to execute his own daughter Sonja after she publicly declared her relationship with Lucian the First Lycan, as well as declare the fruit of their relationship. However, Viktor was ultimately more concerned about his own reputation than the mere fact his daughter had contravened the Law of the Coven by having such a relationship with Lucian.

Consequently, on the day of judgement the first and foremost criteria will be to consider whether or not a person of class (a) would be incessant threat to the reputation, honour, power, and authority of Jesus Christ. Such will decide the outcome of judgement; and whether a person should be assigned to class 1a, 1b or 2.

Mens rea, or lack thereof -- or one's ulterior motive -- will be a major element to decide the outcome of judgement; and whether one should be deemed a friend or foe of Jesus Christ (and thereby, Anti-christ).

Although on the earth, we are not privy to the musing and motivation of others, once the soul is duly departed to the spiritual afterlife every thought, memory, and motivation will become known to Jesus Christ the Son of God. (John 2:24-25).

Therefore, mens rea will be a certain indicator as to the extent of one's guilt -- or lack thereof -- which will be taken into account to decide the Fate of hundreds, if not thousands of potential friend or foe on the day of judgement.

Despite allegations of Jesus performing miracles, whilst on earth, not even the Son of Man will be able to establish mens rea in many examples of class (a) individuals -- perhaps up to 50% of such individuals -- unless the motive is so clear and obvious one does not require telepathy to establish "guilty mind", which will be applicable for about 50% of class (a) individuals.

But unless one's "guilty mind" is clear and obvious like some people are you may thus assume your chance of escape will be significantly better than such individuals who are preordained to be destroyed by the last judgement. (Revelation 13:8, 20:15).

 

[Desert Snake]

This is a sentence that I consider not Christian. It doesn't make sense to me.
Because God can never choose anyone. There is free will, not predestination or election by God

There is free will in Christianity, holy guacamole it's in that context.

 

[Thief]

But I say that your personal relationship with Christ will play a major part in your salvation, or otherwise.

Of Himself He did say.....brother and fellow servant.

If that much I can do....then all is well and fine.
If not....

 

[McNap]

"Many are called, but few are chosen" it provides insight into the contrast between false and true brothers.

 

[Hyksos]

We go back to the source of our spirit.
We take with us what we have learned of life and conduct.

We are allowed to follow.....or we are left standing where we fell.

I take your cue, but thanks for the info.

Obviously, Obama et al have played on the wishful thinking of XIII-Legion who all along has been misled into thinking he is the "second coming of christ"; whereas in actual fact, the government's agenda is wholly a political one, which has nothing whatsoever to do with "God, Jesus Christ, and the apocalypse".

But at least we know that "God" is not part of the equation in the sense that the government or secret service have misled him to think; and by definition, the government's agenda is not significant enough to warrant further consideration.

XIII-Legion has made it explicitly clear he has no wish to be President of the USA; nor does he wish to be role model for any minority group in America.

And why would any sane/reasonable person go out of their way to immigrate to your country, when they have everything they want in their own country?

Also, your interpretation of Matthew 22:14 doesn't apply in his case; as the parable of the wedding feast makes it clear that the King invited more than a few dozen people to the dinner table; but in his particular example, the government have gone out of its way to single one person from the crowd, which would not apply to any member of Congress.

As indeed, all politicians without exception are left to their own device to make their own career in politics without being led on by the government; but any departure from the social and political norm is completely unacceptable.

Thus, your reference to Matthew 22:14 is not an appropriate, relevant or suitable analogy to describe Obama's secret agenda to "recruit" such a person, who cannot be compared with other guests who've been invited to the feast.

For on the contrary, people take initiative, and take it upon themselves to become lawmakers; but they are not "recruited" by any outside, extraneous, and untoward influence by the government. Such interference amounts to nothing less than discrimination* by the government, which cannot be tolerated under any circumstance.

Suffice to say, there is nothing unfamiliar, unusual or original about "weeping and gnashing of teeth", which you've referred to in your correspondence with Legion; as if to say he isn't already clued up about the consequences of refusing President Obama's invitation.

Last but not least, it's a relevant question to ask why a successful trial lawyer who enjoys litigation in England should somehow leave his career behind to immigrate to the USA, whereby he wouldn't qualify at all for legal reasons.

So, thanks. But, NO THANK YOU.

NOTE*: Any form of discrimination for whatever reason is completely unacceptable, e.g. race, religion, ethnicity, gender, class, disability, sexual orientation, and gender reassignment etc.

 

[Thief]

I take your cue, but thanks for the info.

Obviously, Obama et al have played on the wishful thinking of XIII-Legion who all along has been misled into thinking he is the "second coming of christ"; whereas in actual fact, the government's agenda is wholly a political one, which has nothing whatsoever to do with "God, Jesus Christ, and the apocalypse".

But at least we know that "God" is not part of the equation in the sense that the government or secret service have misled him to think; and by definition, the government's agenda is not significant enough to warrant further consideration.

XIII-Legion has made it explicitly clear he has no wish to be President of the USA; nor does he wish to be role model for any minority group in America.

And why would any sane/reasonable person go out of their way to immigrate to your country, when they have everything they want in their own country?

Also, your interpretation of Matthew 22:14 doesn't apply in his case; as the parable of the wedding feast makes it clear that the King invited more than a few dozen people to the dinner table; but in his particular example, the government have gone out of its way to single one person from the crowd, which would not apply to any member of Congress.

As indeed, all politicians without exception are left to their own device to make their own career in politics without being led on by the government; but any departure from the social and political norm is completely unacceptable.

Thus, your reference to Matthew 22:14 is not an appropriate, relevant or suitable analogy to describe Obama's secret agenda to "recruit" such a person, who cannot be compared with other guests who've been invited to the feast.

For on the contrary, people take initiative, and take it upon themselves to become lawmakers; but they are not "recruited" by any outside, extraneous, and untoward influence by the government. Such interference amounts to nothing less than discrimination* by the government, which cannot be tolerated under any circumstance.

Suffice to say, there is nothing unfamiliar, unusual or original about "weeping and gnashing of teeth", which you've referred to in your correspondence with Legion; as if to say he isn't already clued up about the consequences of refusing President Obama's invitation.

Last but not least, it's a relevant question to ask why a successful trial lawyer who enjoys litigation in England should somehow leave his career behind to immigrate to the USA, whereby he wouldn't qualify at all for legal reasons.

So, thanks. But, NO THANK YOU.

NOTE*: Any form of discrimination for whatever reason is completely unacceptable, e.g. race, religion, ethnicity, gender, class, disability, sexual orientation, and gender reassignment etc.

I was quoted and this post followed....
Not sure if this post followed my previous work.

Don't really see the connection.