Why would God have favourites?

[marco]

We are told, puzzlingly:

" Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. " We undestand, too, that God favoured the Israelites. Today we have groups that claim God favours them and they'll be rewarded with the equivalent of divine sweets when the time comes.

We can understand why some nomad tribesman might favour one son over another or might hate a daughter. But why would God show the same despicable tendencies?


Is the answer - as some suggest - to say that "hate" means liking less?
Or that God, being God, can do what he wants?
Or does this indicate that the God of the Bible is modelled on men - and not particularly good men?

[tam]

[Replying to post 32 by marco]

In the province of God where justice is a commonplace one would have supposed that there are no favourites. But, as with Moses and the roses, one supposes erroneously.


Why do you think it would be unjust to for God (or anyone) to have a favourite?



Peace to you.

[William]

[Replying to post 34 by ttruscott]

We already know HE does what HE wants and only what gives HIM pleasure but we also know, from the same source that the death of any wicked does NOT give HIM pleasure ! meaning HE does not want it nor set it up nor choose it. All death is the result of the created person choosing to be evil against HIS will.

Death is just a natural thing which happens. Abramites have simply taken something natural and placed 'evil' on it because they don't 'like' it.

You seem to have forgotten there are two types of sinners, ie evil people, temporary sinners and eternal sinners (not all sinners are the same):

So on the one hand 'god does not like the death of the wicked' and on the other 'the wicked are eternal and cannot die.'


One should align ones arguments so that they neatly fit into each other seamlessly...whichever hand one uses to present them...

[1213]

23 The Lord said to her,
“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger.�

Thank you. I think that shows well that God didn’t make other better, it was just predicted what will happen, not predetermined.

Jacob as a sinner and evil through and through. The verb 'jostled' actually means "to crush (to pieces)" and the Hithpoel form of that verb used here asserts reciprocity so they were both trying to crush each other (to pieces) in the womb!

That is interesting view to this matter, but I don’t think Jacob was evil.

Why change trying to murder each other to jostle? Well the Church decided that we are all created on earth. Since GOD cannot create evil, to have those two being murderous in the womb and not innocent is to shake a theology to its roots. Therefore they tried to hide it in weasel words like jostle, wrestle etc.

“Jostling� doesn’t necessarily mean they tried to kill other. But that would also shake the atheistic view that babies are innocent, except maybe when they must be aborted.

Also, I think the idea God creates babies to womb is wrong and bad theology. But I can agree with the idea that person can be evil even before he is born.

[bluethread]

Now, why are some favored over others? This is a difficult question.

In human terms it arises from some attraction or special circumstance; the fair daughter who wins praise; or the only son who is the apple of his father's eye. Isaac was the miracle son but poor Ishmael was savagely treated; even Jesus had favourites, suggesting he was weighed down with earthly failings.

In the province of God where justice is a commonplace one would have supposed that there are no favourites. But, as with Moses and the roses, one supposes erroneously.

This presumes that equal justice is the same as egalitarianism. In common practice the overriding principle is appropriateness. Thus, everyone is treated differently based on what is appropriate with regard to personal characteristics and purpose. Equal justice refers to only considering relevant information in making a judgement. So, even under the principle of equal justice people are treated differently. It is just required that the different treatment be based on legal evidence.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 43 by bluethread]

You mean you don't think that the people of Abraham aren't just superior to everyone else?
Have some divine spark that everyone else is missing?

Or somesuch?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 43 by bluethread]

You mean you don't think that the people of Abraham aren't just superior to everyone else?
Have some divine spark that everyone else is missing?

Or somesuch?

No, not at all. The Scriptures make this clear. In fact, at least once, if not more, Adonai threatened to completely destroy Israel. Repeatedly it is made clear that it is the purpose for which they were chosen that sets them apart, not that they are inherently better than anyone else.

[marco]

[Replying to post 32 by marco]

In the province of God where justice is a commonplace one would have supposed that there are no favourites. But, as with Moses and the roses, one supposes erroneously.


Why do you think it would be unjust to for God (or anyone) to have a favourite?



Peace to you.

Justice is even-handedness. It would be unthinkable for a judge to declare that he had a favourite. Of course one may be pleased with someone's behaviour or like their good looks or their fine character but to pull one person out and favour that person seems - to me at lest - a demonstration of unfairness, since a basic principle of justice would be to treat all people the same, but apply judgment on their faults when necessary. A father who favours a son and disregards a daughter is certainly being unjust. I'm sure you agree.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 43 by bluethread]

You mean you don't think that the people of Abraham aren't just superior to everyone else?
Have some divine spark that everyone else is missing?

Or somesuch?

The only thing missing between the sinful people of Abraham and everyone else is GOD's promise of salvation to them: John 3:18 with edits; Whichever sinner believes / has put their faith in Him is not condemned, but whichever sinner has no such faith in the Son stands condemned already at birth because they have not put their faith in the name, His full character as expressed in His promises, of God’s one and only Son, the Christ.

[ttruscott]

It would be unthinkable for a judge to declare that he had a favourite.

Those judged for a crime can be exonerated for many crimes but those convicted of a capital crime will be executed. It is the nature of their crimes that separates them in HIS favour, not anything before their crimes or before their conviction which was immediate to their choice of crimes. Of course those who chose never to do crime are highest in HIS favour.

The declaration of HIS love for Jacob and HIS hatred for Esau came well after they were convicted of their crimes and sentence passed.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 45 by bluethread]

Well of the twelve tribes, only one remains, and they aren't doing so great. I mean there are many many cultures with greater longevities that have given the world considerably more.

So, it does not seems they have fulfilled any kind of divine destiny, and the surviving tribe bears so little resemblance to the originals, one has to wonder; to what are you referring?