Is God biased?

Hmm said:

I was reading a church address by Desmond Tutu and I thought he made a very telling point. He was talking about Jesus as the good shepherd and saying that we make a mistake when we take its meaning as being He looks after the fluffy little lambs. The point of the story is that He's prepared to leave 99 well-behaved sheep to go look for a troublesome one.

The question of bias comes in because Jesus say there's not only joy when he finds and carries back the strayed lamb but there is greater joy over this one than over the 99. So Jesus shows a bias in favour of those who don't count. Tutu related this to the Last Judgement where he says we're going to be judged by how we treat the down-and-outs: the hungry, the thirsty and the naked.

He then gave what he said was the bombshell which is that Jesus isn't just saying He has a kind of solidarity with the poor and outcast, He says it is an identification. "When you do it to the least of these, you do it to me" Matthew 25:40.

The challenge is that when we look at a prostitute, a drug addict or a prisoner do we see the face of Jesus in them? I think that's a very hard thing to do but the above scripture says that's what we are called to do.

So do you think God is biased towards the hungry, the thirsty, the naked? And does that mean we should also be biased in favour of the poor, the weak and the hungry and must make an effort to help these people both in personal acts and in political engagement?

Edited: typo corrections, no dount many left

Click to expand...

Hmm said:

I was reading a church address by Desmond Tutu and I thought he made a very telling point. He was talking about Jesus as the good shepherd and saying that we make a mistake when we take its meaning as being He looks after the fluffy little lambs. The point of the story is that He's prepared to leave 99 well-behaved sheep to go look for a troublesome one.

The question of bias comes in because Jesus say there's not only joy when he finds and carries back the strayed lamb but there is greater joy over this one than over the 99. So Jesus shows a bias in favour of those who don't count. Tutu related this to the Last Judgement where he says we're going to be judged by how we treat the down-and-outs: the hungry, the thirsty and the naked.

He then gave what he said was the bombshell which is that Jesus isn't just saying He has a kind of solidarity with the poor and outcast, He says it is an identification. "When you do it to the least of these, you do it to me" Matthew 25:40.

The challenge is that when we look at a prostitute, a drug addict or a prisoner do we see the face of Jesus in them? I think that's a very hard thing to do but the above scripture says that's what we are called to do.

So do you think God is biased towards the hungry, the thirsty, the naked? And does that mean we should also be biased in favour of the poor, the weak and the hungry and must make an effort to help these people both in personal acts and in political engagement?

Edited: typo corrections, no dount many left

Click to expand...

but poor people share more among other poor people than rich share with poor
so where is the bias ?

Hmm said:

0% are sinless but I hope most people, hopefully way more than 99%, are saved.

Click to expand...

I would be happy if 1% actually was saved, by default Jesus said narrow is the way and wide gate to destruction , few will be who find it so at least less than 50% by this alone.

Hmm said:

0% are sinless but I hope most people, hopefully way more than 99%, are saved.

Click to expand...

let's say for the sake of your argument 99.9999% are saved.. Jesus puts one group as "the many" and the other as "the few". If your assumption is correct - then the many are saved.

by contrast.

Matt 7
13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it.


Gen chapters 6-7, 9 tells us that only 8 people out of all mankind alive at the tie of the flood - were saved.

In Matt 24 Jesus predicts "just as it was in the days of Noah" - everybody is surprised about how it turns out.

Is Jesus setting the stage for us to think that 99.999% are saved as compared to the lost?

Is the reality on the ground as we read the news coming in from around the world telling as that "the many are saved"??

1 Cor 4:4 - Satan is the "god of this world" according to Paul

Matt 4 - Satan says "the world has been given to me - and I give it to whomever I wish". Christ does not challenge Satan's claim on that point.

Rev 13 - "all the world" is deceived by the beast power in Rev 13 at the end of time ... according to the chapter.

Job chapter 1 and chapter 2 -- all the princes of God .. sons of God.. come to a meeting and Satan comes to that meeting representing Earth. (in that context "sons of God" is in the same context as Luke 3 regarding Adam "the son of God" because he was directly made by God not made by procreation not by a human father etc)

Luke 3: 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Hmm said:

I was reading a church address by Desmond Tutu and I thought he made a very telling point. He was talking about Jesus as the good shepherd and saying that we make a mistake when we take its meaning as being He looks after the fluffy little lambs. The point of the story is that He's prepared to leave 99 well-behaved sheep to go look for a troublesome one.

The question of bias comes in because Jesus say there's not only joy when he finds and carries back the strayed lamb but there is greater joy over this one than over the 99. So Jesus shows a bias in favour of those who don't count. Tutu related this to the Last Judgement where he says we're going to be judged by how we treat the down-and-outs: the hungry, the thirsty and the naked.

He then gave what he said was the bombshell which is that Jesus isn't just saying He has a kind of solidarity with the poor and outcast, He says it is an identification. "When you do it to the least of these, you do it to me" Matthew 25:40.

The challenge is that when we look at a prostitute, a drug addict or a prisoner do we see the face of Jesus in them? I think that's a very hard thing to do but the above scripture says that's what we are called to do.

So do you think God is biased towards the hungry, the thirsty, the naked? And does that mean we should also be biased in favour of the poor, the weak and the hungry and must make an effort to help these people both in personal acts and in political engagement?

Edited: typo corrections, no dount many left

Click to expand...

I must first point out the two groups you are referring to:

Group one: prostitute, drug addict, prisoner
Group two: hungry, thirsty, naked, poor and weak

They are not one in the same however, they depict sinners which, we know, all have sinned.
Jesus Christ of Nazareth came for the sinner. That being said, His identification is the Savior of all sinners. He has no bias.
As a matter of fact, when He leaves the fold to find the lost sheep that should tells us that no matter what condition we are in, He will find us if we are willing to be found. And if we choose not follow in His footsteps by spreading the Gospel and helping the disenfranchised, those from both groups, then we are not in His Fold and we have failed to recognize His Good News thus, His face will be hidden.
Be blessed.

Hmm said:

The point of the story is that He's prepared to leave 99 well-behaved sheep to go look for a troublesome one.

Click to expand...

I thought the point of the story was that the Good Shepherd is good, caring for all of his sheep whether they remain in the fold or go wandering off.

Hmm said:

The question of bias comes in because Jesus say there's not only joy when he finds and carries back the strayed lamb but there is greater joy over this one than over the 99. So Jesus shows a bias in favour of those who don't count.

Click to expand...

There was greater joy in finding a lost sheep in jeopardy of the dangers of the wilderness, than in the keeping of the ninety-nine other sheep safe in the fold. I don't see that the parable indicates a "bias in favour of those who don't count," however.

I watched a video on YouTube in which a bunch of people rescued a dog from a rushing river. It took great effort, coordination and risk and the dog nearly died despite the labour of those trying to rescue it. But when it was clear the dog would live, the gathered crowd cheered, congratulating those who'd risked injury to help the dog. What was the cheering for? Did the crowd hold the dog super-special, a breed above and apart from all other dogs? Obviously not. It was a stray dog, thin and ragged. No, the cheering was not because the dog was terribly valuable and had been saved, but for the success of the rescue and for the saving of a life, however humble. It seems to me this is true also of the Parable of the Lost Sheep. The joy over the recovery of the lost sheep was not indicating that the lost sheep was more important than the ninety-nine in the fold, but that the rescue had been a success and that the life of the sheep had been saved. The point seemed to me to be that, had any of the other sheep wandered off, the Good Shepherd would have gone and rescued them, too, rejoicing just as much over their recovery as over that of the lost one in the parable.

Hmm said:

Tutu related this to the Last Judgement where he says we're going to be judged by how we treat the down-and-outs: the hungry, the thirsty and the naked.

He then gave what he said was the bombshell which is that Jesus isn't just saying He has a kind of solidarity with the poor and outcast, He says it is an identification. "When you do it to the least of these, you do it to me" Matthew 25:40.

Click to expand...

But we aren't judged so much on the basis of how we treat others but on how our neglect of others reflects a lack of love for Christ. What is the First and Great Commandment? To love God with all of our being. (Matthew 22:36-38) When we obey this commandment, we find ourselves inevitably fulfilling the Second Great Commandment which is to love others. So, then, a failure to love others is a failure, really, to love God who loves and died for those we neglect. (1 John 4:10-13) It is this lack of love for God, for Christ, that is the fundamental reason for many being cast out at the Final Judgment. Neglect of others is just a symptom of this absence of love for the Saviour.

Hmm said:

The challenge is that when we look at a prostitute, a drug addict or a prisoner do we see the face of Jesus in them? I think that's a very hard thing to do but the above scripture says that's what we are called to do.

Click to expand...

Why is this hard to do? If the love of God fills your heart, as it should if the Holy Spirit dwells within, it will be very natural to extend His love to the "least of these." It is not us loving them, but God loving them through us, after all.

Hmm said:

So do you think God is biased towards the hungry, the thirsty, the naked? And does that mean we should also be biased in favour of the poor, the weak and the hungry and must make an effort to help these people both in personal acts and in political engagement?

Click to expand...

No, Christ died for the sins of all mankind - the rich and the poor, the mighty and the weak. He loves them all. For God so loved the World, not just the lowly (John 3:16-17). And we are salt and light, first and foremost, not by alleviating their material lowliness, but by showing them how to become eternal sons and daughters of the Most High. What love do we show when we feed the hungry but do nothing to save their soul from hell? None that I can see.

Matthew 16:26
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Hmm said:

I was reading a church address by Desmond Tutu and I thought he made a very telling point. He was talking about Jesus as the good shepherd and saying that we make a mistake when we take its meaning as being He looks after the fluffy little lambs. The point of the story is that He's prepared to leave 99 well-behaved sheep to go look for a troublesome one.

The question of bias comes in because Jesus say there's not only joy when he finds and carries back the strayed lamb but there is greater joy over this one than over the 99. So Jesus shows a bias in favour of those who don't count. Tutu related this to the Last Judgement where he says we're going to be judged by how we treat the down-and-outs: the hungry, the thirsty and the naked.

He then gave what he said was the bombshell which is that Jesus isn't just saying He has a kind of solidarity with the poor and outcast, He says it is an identification. "When you do it to the least of these, you do it to me" Matthew 25:40.

The challenge is that when we look at a prostitute, a drug addict or a prisoner do we see the face of Jesus in them? I think that's a very hard thing to do but the above scripture says that's what we are called to do.

So do you think God is biased towards the hungry, the thirsty, the naked? And does that mean we should also be biased in favour of the poor, the weak and the hungry and must make an effort to help these people both in personal acts and in political engagement?

Edited: typo corrections, no dount many left

Click to expand...

Actually, in its context, the parable is not about God's bias toward and command to love those who don't count.

In chp 15 of Luke, Jesus gives three parables to justify the charge (v.2) of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law that "this man welcomes sinners and eats with them" (v.2), of which the parable of the lost sheep is the first (also in Mt 18:12-14).

They were angered by the repentance of publicans and heathens, but there is more rejoicing in heaven at the salvation of one repentant than there is at those who feel no need to repent because they are righteous, as was their case.

God's "bias" is toward the repentant, rather than those who are righteous.

Hmm said:

I was reading a church address by Desmond Tutu and I thought he made a very telling point. He was talking about Jesus as the good shepherd and saying that we make a mistake when we take its meaning as being He looks after the fluffy little lambs. The point of the story is that He's prepared to leave 99 well-behaved sheep to go look for a troublesome one.

The question of bias comes in because Jesus say there's not only joy when he finds and carries back the strayed lamb but there is greater joy over this one than over the 99. So Jesus shows a bias in favour of those who don't count. Tutu related this to the Last Judgement where he says we're going to be judged by how we treat the down-and-outs: the hungry, the thirsty and the naked.

He then gave what he said was the bombshell which is that Jesus isn't just saying He has a kind of solidarity with the poor and outcast, He says it is an identification. "When you do it to the least of these, you do it to me" Matthew 25:40.

The challenge is that when we look at a prostitute, a drug addict or a prisoner do we see the face of Jesus in them? I think that's a very hard thing to do but the above scripture says that's what we are called to do.

So do you think God is biased towards the hungry, the thirsty, the naked? And does that mean we should also be biased in favour of the poor, the weak and the hungry and must make an effort to help these people both in personal acts and in political engagement?

Edited: typo corrections, no dount many left

Click to expand...

God shows bias in favor of his elect, whom he chose before the foundation of the world according to Ephesians. In that sense he shows bias.

In scripture we see examples of those who are clearly living in public sin, brought low by God and saved. We see them recognize their sin and wickedness and they realize their state of sin and misery and pray for forgiveness.

There are plenty of saved people in scripture though who do not fit into this pattern per se. We see sin in their lives but not necessarily a life devoted to sin. Job, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were wealthy servants of God who generally lived Godly lives and repented when sin was discovered. Joseph was saved and yet was sold into slavery by his brothers before ultimately becoming wealthy and powerful. I'm sure we can come up with a dozen other examples.

Point being is that we shouldn't expect that God will show favor to any particular group of people. We are all poor in spirit, all those who believe that is. Those whom he called to election come from all walks of life, backgrounds and nations. We shouldn't go looking to one group or another expecting God to show favor only to them.

[Q="Hmm, post: 75558676, member: 422818"]I believe He does need us. He doesn't have hands and so He needs us to feed the hungry.[/QUOTE]


Well, 'His right hand' was mentioned a considerable number of times in the Bible, He does have hands

Hmm said:

I don't know though. Did Jesus make the distinction you're making? Wasn't He the friend of everyone in all these categories?

Click to expand...

The point I am making is there is NO distinction because we are all sinners.

Hmm said:

Why did He identify with the poor and heartbroken then and not the "elect", whoever they might be , in the passages quoted above?

Click to expand...

The repentant are the elect, as are the righteous (justified).
.

Hmm said:

I was reading a church address by Desmond Tutu and I thought he made a very telling point. He was talking about Jesus as the good shepherd and saying that we make a mistake when we take its meaning as being He looks after the fluffy little lambs. The point of the story is that He's prepared to leave 99 well-behaved sheep to go look for a troublesome one.

The question of bias comes in because Jesus say there's not only joy when he finds and carries back the strayed lamb but there is greater joy over this one than over the 99. So Jesus shows a bias in favour of those who don't count. Tutu related this to the Last Judgement where he says we're going to be judged by how we treat the down-and-outs: the hungry, the thirsty and the naked.

He then gave what he said was the bombshell which is that Jesus isn't just saying He has a kind of solidarity with the poor and outcast, He says it is an identification. "When you do it to the least of these, you do it to me" Matthew 25:40.

The challenge is that when we look at a prostitute, a drug addict or a prisoner do we see the face of Jesus in them? I think that's a very hard thing to do but the above scripture says that's what we are called to do.

So do you think God is biased towards the hungry, the thirsty, the naked? And does that mean we should also be biased in favour of the poor, the weak and the hungry and must make an effort to help these people both in personal acts and in political engagement?

Edited: typo corrections, no dount many left

Click to expand...

Thanks for reminding me of the wonderful parable. Thank God for His Grace.

Hmm said:

I know what you mean but aren't we showing the love that Jesus commanded in this parable? Did He say anything about saving their souls when He was talking about administering to their broken hearts and bodies? I loved your story about the dog btw

Click to expand...

The quotation at the end of my last post was from Christ. He is the one who said that a man is not profited if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul (in eternal hell). If this is true, then no amount of dealing with the material needs of the lost matters if they are not also given the Gospel and urged to trust in Christ as their Saviour and Lord.

Many Christians get caught up in what is called a "social Gospel," working hard to attend to the physical needs of the weak, and oppressed, and impoverished, but neglecting to share with them the saving news of the Gospel. "We are loving as God loves!" is the virtue-signaling claim they make about the work they do, but there is no real love, no agape love, I think, in taking care of the immediate, temporal needs of the sick, hungry and oppressed but failing to tell them of their sin-sickness, eternal jeopardy and need of a Saviour. Certainly, care for the physical well-being of the lost, but also and more importantly, tell them of the wonderful news of the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."