Is God biased?

[Hmm]

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."

Well, I have worked for Oxfam on famine relief face-to-face with people and I know you are wrong.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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

I think in Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus was once again emphasizing the importance of love as He was so fond of doing quite often.

 

[Redwingfan9]

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

The poor in scripture are not necessarily financially poor. The poor in spirit are Christians, for we recognize our state of sin and misery and realize our utter moral poverty before the Lord.

One of the passages cited was Matt 25:40. However this has nothing to do with the physically poor. This passage comes after the parable of the talents and itself is part of a parabolic passage about the final judgment. It isn't about the financially poor as much as it's about separating the elect from the non-elect, the sheep from the goats. It ties in with the parable just before it.

 

[NBB]

biased? or he has mercy on those suffering and give grace to the humble.

 

[Hmm]

The poor in scripture are not necessarily financially poor. The poor in spirit are Christians, for we recognize our state of sin and misery and realize our utter moral poverty before the Lord.

One of the passages cited was Matt 25:40. However this has nothing to do with the physically poor. This passage comes after the parable of the talents and itself is part of a parabolic passage about the final judgment. It isn't about the financially poor as much as it's about separating the elect from the non-elect, the sheep from the goats. It ties in with the parable just before it.

I agree that poverty can be spiritual as well as physical but I don't agree that the passages have "nothing" to do with the physically poor. And when you talk about tbet "elect" you completely lose me I'm afraid - who are these lucky guys?

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

With in the context of the Good Shepard analogy ... Yes (they are His) as it should be.

Jesus lays down His life for His sheep.... He is a good Shepard for His sheep, he knows their names and they as being His sheep know him.

In Him,

Bill

 

[aiki]

Well, I have worked for Oxfam on famine relief face-to-face with people and I know you are wrong.

In respect to what am I wrong, exactly?

 

[Redwingfan9]

I agree that poverty can be spiritual as well as physical but I don't agree that the passages have "nothing" to do with the physically poor. And when you talk about tbet "elect" you completely lose me I'm afraid - who are these lucky guys?

The passage in question has nothing to do with the poor, it has to do with the final judgment. In the very least God is not identifying with the financially poor, which would be contrary to what we see throughout scripture. There is no virtue in financial poverty, just as there is no virtue in wealth.

As for the elect, they are those who truly believe. They are poor in spirit, recognize their spiritual inability and are utterly dependent upon Christ for salvation. They are simply put, Christians.

 

[1213]

...
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 think it is similar bias as doctors have, when they heal only sick people. After all, "Those who are healthy have no need for a physician, but those who are sick do” Matt. 9:12.

It is good to help others, but I think it would be good to be careful on what is really helpful. It is not really helpful, if the person remains “sick”. the goal should be that everyone becomes healed and rejects bad ways and learns to do good to others similarly as was done to him. I think there is nowadays too much “help” that doesn’t really make the situation better.

 

[Hmm]

As for the elect, they are those who truly believe. They are poor in spirit, recognize their spiritual inability and are utterly dependent upon Christ for salvation. They are simply put, Christians.

I agree with that

I think it is similar bias as doctors have, when they heal only sick people. After all, "Those who are healthy have no need for a physician, but those who are sick do” Matt. 9:12.

It is good to help others, but I think it would be good to be careful on what is really helpful. It is not really helpful, if the person remains “sick”. the goal should be that everyone becomes healed and rejects bad ways and learns to do good to others similarly as was done to him. I think there is nowadays too much “help” that doesn’t really make the situation better.

I agree that there are many different 'helping' industries that have a vested interest in keeping people tied into their 'help' rather than helping to make people independent. This isn't always a deliberate policy, often it's unwitting and because of an organisation's founding philosophy.

 

[Hmm]

In respect to what am I wrong, exactly?

i believe I made myself clear.

 

[friend of]

Galatians 6:10
As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

 

[aiki]

believe I made myself clear.

My question demonstrates you haven't. About what am I in error? I think you avoid answering because you don't actually know. It seems you are disagreeing merely because you don't like what I've written, not because it is mistaken.

 

[Hmm]

My question demonstrates you haven't. About what am I in error? I think you avoid answering because you don't actually know. It seems you are disagreeing merely because you don't like what I've written, not because it is mistaken.

Imagine that you and your family are cold and hungry and on the streets. Someone comes up to you and offers you a meal and shelter in their home until you can get back on your feet. Would you still believe what you said below? Would you say that that person was showing you no love because they weren't trying to save your soul from hell? They would have saved your physical self from hell.

What love do we show when we feed the hungry but do nothing to save their soul from hell? None that I can see.

 

[GraceBro]

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

Tutu forgets that we have the Holy Spirit indwelling us. Therefore, we are not left alone, much less having any stipulation of being "well-behaved," whatever that means. When God judges me, it will be on the basis of life and death. Am I spiritually alive to Him in Christ or spiritually dead to Him, lost. You will only see the "face of Jesus" in anybody if they are saved. If they are trapped in sin (prostitution, drug addict, etc), then you restore them to who they are in Christ. God desires that all men be saved. Therefore, if by poor, weak, and hungry, you mean the lost, then He does have a heart for them. However, He wants them to know Him by faith. If they come to know Him through personal acts or political engagement, that is fine. But, that is not a requirement.

 

[aiki]

Imagine that you and your family are cold and hungry and on the streets. Someone comes up to you and offers you a meal and shelter in their home until you can get back on your feet. Would you still believe what you said below? Would you say that that person was showing you no love because they weren't trying to save your soul from hell? They would have saved your physical self from hell.

This is what I suspected you were thinking. But your objection isn't to what I actually wrote:

"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."

I'm not sure why this happens so often, but many people who hear the Gospel set as a far greater priority over the meeting of people's physical needs, run immediately to the false dichotomy that either one cares for the material welfare of the needy or to their spiritual needs. I don't hold that the two are somehow mutually exclusive, but have said (as in the quotation above) that it is both, though the eternal destiny of a person's soul is far more important than their physical well-being.

If the helping of the downtrodden is accomplished with the purposeful neglect of the sharing of the Gospel, then, absolutely, there is no love shown to those one has helped (if they don't yet know the saving truth of the Gospel).

As Jesus himself said, even if they gain the entire world, they are not profited whose souls are damned to hell forever. It matters not a whit if you are nicely comfortable on your way to hell, well-fed, healthy and properly educated, any more than it matters if you feed, and clothe, and offer a life jacket to a man who is about to be thrown into a pool of man-eating sharks. The short span of time we dwell here on earth is a fraction of an eye-blink of time in comparison to the eternity that follows. In light of this, only a fool would narrow their gaze to the here-and-now, to the neglect of eternity. And it is an evil person who knows the glorious truth of the Gospel but fails to share it with the lost be they wealthy or poor, great or weak.

2 Corinthians 4:6
6 For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

 

[Hmm]

Tutu forgets that we have the Holy Spirit indwelling us.

Such arrogance.

You will only see the "face of Jesus" in anybody if they are saved.

Okay so you don't rate Desmond Tutu. How about Mother Theresa? Quote:

"What is my thought? I see Jesus in every human being. I say to myself, This is hungry Jesus, I must feed him. This is sick Jesus. This one has leprosy or gangrene; I must wash him and tend to him. I serve because I love Jesus."

"When a poor person dies of hunger, it has not happened because God did not take care of him or her. It has happened because neither you nor I wanted to give that person what he or she needed."

 

[Hmm]

I'm not sure why this happens so often, but many people who hear the Gospel set as a far greater priority over the meeting of people's physical needs, run immediately to the false dichotomy that either one cares for the material welfare of the needy or to their spiritual needs. I don't hold that the two are somehow mutually exclusive, but have said (as in the quotation above) that it is both, though the eternal destiny of a person's soul is far more important than their physical well-being

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.

 

[friend of]

I think giving to the poor presents a perfect opportunity to share the gospel with them. They would certainly be inclined to hear you out when you meet their physical need

 

[GraceBro]

Such arrogance.



Okay so you don't rate Desmond Tutu. How about Mother Theresa? Quote:

"What is my thought? I see Jesus in every human being. I say to myself, This is hungry Jesus, I must feed him. This is sick Jesus. This one has leprosy or gangrene; I must wash him and tend to him. I serve because I love Jesus."

"When a poor person dies of hunger, it has not happened because God did not take care of him or her. It has happened because neither you nor I wanted to give that person what he or she needed."

I don't care about personal attacks or quotes, I care about the scriptures. Grace and Peace.