Is God biased?

Hmm said:

I agree but, honestly, if you and your family were literally starving to death (and this is not hypothetical, it happens every day as you know) would you, at that moment, be more concerned about yours and your family's soul or your physical needs? We can't administer to people's souls without first dealing with the environment that is killing them or, like in our countries, throttling their souls because of a lack of education and employment.

Click to expand...

It is not either-or.

Judas expressed great concern for the starving poor when the perfume was dumped out on the floor - as it was used to wash Jesus' feet. Jesus did not join Judas in arguing that the case of the poor is sufficient to stop the meeting or any such thing. Rather He said "the poor you have with you always". We are to address the needs of the poor as part of the ministry of the church to our community but we don't put the Gospel on hold to do it. When we get to heaven we will be greatly concerned to know how many others are there because we encouraged them to go to heaven. But we will not care much at all about someone's bank account on earth and whether it had little or much, or whether they had the best education or just mediocre education.

The spiritual meaning is always the most fundamental meaning. Humanity in general is weak, poor, and wretched.

But the ones actively thirsting after righteousness are not necessarily always the homeless drug addict that has ruined his life, keeps ruining it, and utilizes every single person that helps them to fuel his destruction and thus he pushes others away from himself. he is pretty lost and so in a certain sense you could say that he is thirsting after righteousness even though he does not know he is.

Can you really help someone if they do not want your help? If that was the case then why would Hell exist in the first place? So the lowest people are those rotting in hell, and most Christians don't care about them.

So God loves non-christians more than he loves you, because you're hateful and think your so close to God and you hate your brothers. Such a person does not seem to be thirsting for righteousness. So God favors The Wretched. God wishes to save the worst the most. So he will either provoke you to jealousy or let you ruin your life... He will do whatever it takes to save you.

And the truth is he often accepts us despite our flaws even if he desires to rid us of our flaws.

So God is biased when he needs to be and not biased when he needs to be. He is whatever we need, but he's always more than that and always wanting us to be closer.

Hmm said:

agree but, honestly, if you and your family were literally starving to death (and this is not hypothetical, it happens every day as you know) would you, at that moment, be more concerned about yours and your family's soul or your physical needs? W

Click to expand...

If my family were starving to death, I would be far more concerned with where they were going than with their temporal needs - especially if there was nothing I could do about them starving which I assume would be the case if they were starving.

This isn't to say I wouldn't go to great lengths to see them fed, but I would never work to feed them to the neglect of securing their eternal destiny. And, God agrees that this is as it should be. See Colossians 3:1-3, Philippians 3:19-21; Matthew 6:19-20, etc.

Hmm said:

We can't administer to people's souls without first dealing with the environment that is killing them or, like in our countries, throttling their souls because of a lack of education and employment.

Click to expand...

So then, what about, say, the thief on the cross? What did Christ do to mitigate his physical circumstances? Even though Jesus was on the cross, he was still God incarnate. Why didn't Jesus make safe and comfortable the thief next to him, who was suffering horribly on his own cross, and then save his soul? Have you noticed that after the cross Jesus healed no one? He had accomplished spiritual, eternal healing for all mankind, the greatest healing he could provide. Having done so, he returned to heaven, doing nothing more to secure the well-being of those he knew and had the power, as God, to help. Have you noticed that all of the miracles in Acts were for the furtherance of the Gospel and the establishment of the Church, not simply to meet temporal, physical needs?

It seems Christians can and must preach the Gospel, however much or little they can aid physically those with whom they share it.

But, again, I am not suggesting that, when it is in the power of a Christian to feed, or clothe, or defend the needy and vulnerable, that they forego doing so and just preach the Gospel instead.

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 find God shows favor towards those who are lesser so they can be lifted up to the place of the greater. I recall this passage that says God will flatten every mountain and rise every valley, it gives the picture that everyone is standing on the same level ground.

So in a sense, God is biased towards being fair.

For spiritual fulfillment which is the main goal for the soul... sometimes it's the government, sometimes it's the economy, sometimes it's an individual person, sometimes it's the church. But it's always God which means that it can also be things like covid-19 which end up helping some out the most.

I don't think the goal is to give people things so that they don't kill or steal from you. Love covers a multitude of sins but it's even better if sins can be completely eradicated. I think it is well within the means of certain countries to be able to have no person starving and everyone to have a home and for there to be healthcare for all but that also means that there needs to be more education and more individual action so that the system doesn't become overburdened and collapsed.

but for some reason I believe they if trying these things too much will make the economy collapse because many are so foolish that they don't know how to do it without ruining everything else because the problem seems so complicated and intertwined.

There is no reason to have the kind of currency system that we have. There is no reason to be so enslaved to the economy. There is no reason that the government should have to take from the rich and the poor to fuel themselves to do things like help out the rich or the poor.

The government should have its own Universal basic income wherein what it does is fuel the economy and serve humans. Ideally the government should be completely a servant rather than a servant and a master. A government should be a nation's currency. It should be the backbone of guarantee for continued National survival without parasitizing its members. People should be paid for being part of the government and aiding humans. The government should not take from anyone, but only give. Human Nature and competition and acquiring of resources is always going to be a problem.

The currency of the United States is literally just made up numbers and it has the bonus of also being national debt. this currency also has Authority because of the power that the United States has. Therefore if the United States is a power then it is currency.

No need for a middleman. Instead we play this silly game with the economy that is taking from struggling people so that they can help themselves and struggling people out. So in order to help people more they have to take from them more and if they give people a boost with a universal basic income it could inflate the economy in such a hellish way that everything could collapse. I don't know if my idea would work though.

One thing is certain. Everyone having enough food, health, and a decent shelter and not having themselves to be completely enslaved to the economy is something that the future should hold, because robots, technology and AI keep on replacing more and more things that humans used to have to do to survive. And the economy we have is based on infinite growth which is seemingly impossible.

but these kinds of things are supposed to be thought about and talked about with Economist and politicians. Hopefully they will do a good job. if everything falls apart at least then maybe we can be a church more. I want to see and be part of a Christian Community rather than a community based on slavery to the economy or government.

Father forgive me for I have blog posted again.

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...

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who is well known for his part in ending apartheid in South Africa, has long been a very ardent and vocal supporter of social inclusion. When Tutu was referring to the Good Shepherd leaving the 99 sheep to go after the one that was lost, I have no doubt that his message was that every human being, including the "least of these", has a special place in God's heart, and that as Christians, our love should be generous, reaching out to all, and that true biblical justice demands that we treat all people with dignity and fairness.
I wish more people in the world would listen to Archbishop Tutu.

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...

Is God biased ? It can be defined as “does God an unfair preconceived opinion based on reason or actual experience?

This is what we have heard:
For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: "I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite and lowly spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the contrite. -Isaiah 57:15

Your question is :
“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?”

Then we should question whether for a reason or actual experience— that prostitute, that drug addict or that prisoner have a contrite heart and have been humbled to be revived in keeping with God’s words.

For your following questions:
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?

I don’t think that God an unfair preconceived opinion based on reason or actual experience in favor of the poor, the weak and the hungry. Why ?

For this is what we have heard from God who is the King:

Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, INHERIT the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. -Matthew 25:34

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, -Matthew 25:35

I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' -Matthew 25:36

There is nothing that Jesus Christ have said that is unfair in regard to His opinion for those who were hungry, thirsty, naked, sick, in prison and those who have given, visited and come to the least of these brethren.

If you are willing to do what Christ have said for those who are the poor, the weak and the hungry, you know what the Heavenly Father bless and what you will inherit.

For those who didn’t do,
this is what we have heard:
Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' -Matthew 25:45

And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." -Matthew 25:46

Have you heard what God have said and do you believe God is biased ?

Nigeria: Boko Haram killed 76 farmers in Borno State | DW | 02.12.2020

Do you think God is biased against those who can do something about it but ignore issues like this that have been going on for years?

Will God bless them?

Or does He only bless people who protect Israel as we often hear in these Forums?

Anthony2019 said:

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who is well known for his part in ending apartheid in South Africa, has long been a very ardent and vocal supporter of social inclusion. When Tutu was referring to the Good Shepherd leaving the 99 sheep to go after the one that was lost, I have no doubt that his message was that every human being, including the "least of these", has a special place in God's heart, and that as Christians, our love should be generous, reaching out to all, and that true biblical justice demands that we treat all people with dignity and fairness.
I wish more people in the world would listen to Archbishop Tutu.

Click to expand...

Good Day, Anthony

It may well be that the fine Archbishop for the sake of his sermon every human being. But what he can not escape no matter how he tries is the clarity of the text. Jesus was speaking about His sheep, the Shepard seeks sheep, and sheep don't seek Shepard's.

Now his intention may be well founded, but he has misunderstood the meaning and the application of the text he just told a really good story useful as far as a story, but missing the point of the written text of Scripture.

You know what they say about good intentions....

In Him,

Bill

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...

There is plenty of real need out there and the poor serve as a challenge to those who have more, to help supply those needs. That doesn't mean that Jesus prefers them-or hates the rich. The rich just tend to be less malleable, foolishly secure in their wealth and status as it were, too secure to leave the pride behind that amounts to the default position of fallen man, and turn and humble themselves before God instead. But He says nothing is impossible for God; He can and does still break the stony hearts of the rich. Anyway, I've come to appreciate a quote from a 16th century believe that's used as a church teaching:
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

To the extent that love is the motivation behind our obedience and behind our acts of mercy, etc, then we're living by the Spirit, under grace, and faith has fulfilled its purpose by bringing us into relationship with the God who alone can accomplish that love, that righteousness, in us. He wants us to love as He does.

Hmm said:

I believe He does need us. He doesn't have hands and so He needs us to feed the hungry.

Click to expand...

Yes, He could do without us but has determined that we serve as His hands, to the extent that we're willing.

You ask if it is possible to see Jesus in the Prostitute, drug addict or prisoner. It is possible but part of the parable of lost sheep is that they are sheep. If you've ever tried to handle a sheep in order to shear it, they will resist you at every turn and take any moment of idle hesitation to escape. Sheep are domestic but they need to handled correctly. How much we might want to apply this parable depends on the willingness of the individual.

The Prostitutes for example or maybe a better example is the only fans girl or e-girl in general who sells exposure of herself to thousands of strangers on the internet should be regarded with less pity. Rather than the woman who has been forcibly sold into Prostitution in the third world. I could not imagine Jesus going up peaceably to Bella Delphine and graciously chatting with her.

The prisoner who has made some attempts at reform should be treated with more respect than the prisoner who has only given into their nature and become more violent or evil.

As to the theological question itself. Yes, God again and again shows his preference to the downtrodden and needy. The rich have their consolations in this life while the poor have little. Though when I think of the poor i don't consider anyone with an I-phone or someone like myself who earns minimum wage to be exactly poor. I'm extremely lucky to be in the situation I find myself in, even if there hasn't been enough opportunity. Also the raising up of the poor or the lower class should never involve allowing them to feel jealous of their betters. Our social betters have often earned what they did through honest effort.