A Question Unanswered, When in Church...

[POI]

During the last year or so of attending church, I was still reluctant to ask probing questions for fear of 'rocking the boat'. In the back of each chair were suggestion/question cards, which anyone could fill out and turn in... I asked the same question, about a dozen times, and never received any type of response.

For debate:

Why would an all knowing and all loving God ever place favor towards one specific race, the Jews?

[JehovahsWitness]

God sent the Gospel to Europe, and as a result, Europe was Christianized.

So? So what ?!

That would only be significant if the gospel hadn't already been preached in the Middle East, and or God indicated was not also to be preach all over the known world. Is that what you are suggesting? That the Christian message was prdained to be restricted to Europe? Do you know?

[RIP]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #61]

Well, well, it is significant because Paul and his fellow missionaries were forbidden, twice, not once, concerning the direction they 'wanted' to go. And that by the Holy Spirit. (Acts 16:6-7)

Though the Gospel was being preached in the Mideast, it was not taking hold. Some were saved, yes. Churches were started yes. But the peoples, the nations in the Mideast would not receive that Gospel. But Europe would.

That is significant for the reasons I already laid out in post #(59). God was being true to the prophecy He gave to Noah in (Gen. 9:26) Japheth, Europe, the white folk, would dwell in the the tents of Shem. And so we, as a people, have. And even though Europe is today but a 'shell' of Christianity, it's Christian foundations are still present.

The Gospel was preached in Israel also. But Israel as a nation rejected it.

Rip

[Purple Knight]

Favoring one nation over another however is not racist any more than a man favoring his wife over all other women is sexist. (Or only paying college tuition for his own children is ageist). Racism is mistreatment or denial of someones rights based on their skin colour or nationality; friendship is a privilege not a right. Just as no woman is justified in demanding you have sex with her because you have sex with your wife, God's favoring the descendants of Abraham did not deny other nations their rights.

I actually agree with this. And no rights would be technically violated either (not necessarily) even if the government did it. Free stuff for white people as a policy wouldn't technically violate anyone's rights unless they violated rights to get that stuff, which they don't have to since they can print money. I think that because your example man is not powerful and doesn't affect much, and because there are other opportunities for the woman to go and make a pair, people aren't bothered by this unfairness (though they might change their tune if one man had all the penises) but they absolutely would scream bloody murder if the government did it, even though no basic human rights are being technically violated.

Such a God, if he existed, would absolutely be racist in the modern sense, the same as a powerful corporation would be if they only hired white people. Though no basic human rights would be violated.

If that particular God ends up being revealed, people will thus have to reevaluate whether this modern sense of positive obligation of fairness is justified and whether we have to keep doing it, because the guy running the universe certainly doesn't think he has to.


The more time I spend on this forum, the more I experience different threads being connected by a theme. The theme I've been seeing over the last few days is whether good - the ultimate good - is freedom or fairness. If God is real and Hell is simply the ultimate dissociation from God, then it's probably freedom, and fairness is not the overriding principle, no deep law of the universe that must be heeded, but simply something positive that happens when everyone decides to have a little empathy, even if it's inconvenient.

[JehovahsWitness]

Though the Gospel was being preached in the Mideast,.... Some were saved, yes. Churches were started yes. But the peoples, the nations in the Mideast would not receive that Gospel.

If people were saved and churches were established then the good news "took hold" in that region. That was true in Asia, that was true in the middle East and that would be true in Europe , Africa and anywhere else were the good news would be proclaimed. Unless you are suggesting that God impeded any ethnic group from receiving the good news, or that it only appels to people with a particular skin pigmentation, then your claim God is racist is more in your imagination than in the reality of the bible narrative.

[RIP]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #64]

No. There are Christians in China. But China is not a Christian nation. There are Christians in Africa, but Africa is not Christian. There are Christians in the Mideast. but the Mideast is not Christian. Israel is not Christian. Iran is not Christian. Syria is not Christian. But all have Christians in them. That doesn't make them a Christian nation.

Europe was/is Christian. Though only now in a shell. But it's foundations are Christian.

I am not suggesting, I am saying that distinctions in race are from God. I am saying that the prophecies from Noah are still in place and have to do with all peoples of the world. Shem receives the blessing. Japheth will enter into those blessings and be blessed with Shem. Ham receives no blessing and his descendants are cursed.

Hear the Word of God which is not a 'bible narrative'. (Gen. 9:24-29)

Rip

[JehovahsWitness]

... I am saying that distinctions in race are from God. I am saying that the prophecies from Noah are still in place and have to do with all peoples of the world. Shem receives the blessing. Japheth will enter into those blessings and be blessed with Shem. Ham receives no blessing and his descendants are cursed.


Rip

There is a difference between being able to see differences between national groups and being a racist ; if I'm not mistaken you accused God of racism because He eventually sent missionaries to Europe. But Jesus sent his disciples to'all nations and whether people accept the good news has nothing whatsoever to do with their skin colour or language.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #55]

I agree...people like to make Jesus and God into the image they want. Be careful not to exclude yourself in that statement.

Rather than exclude myself from that statement (I have no desire to make Christ and God into an image of my own making), I would rather just know the actual person, and by knowing Christ, I will know His Father as well. (John 14:7)

The opening post asked why does God favor the race of the Jews. Now, you can try and define race in a way that there is no such thing as race. But the fact is, God has drawn a distinction between Jew and Gentile. And He has chosen the Jews as His particular earthly people.

(Deut. 7:6) "For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth."

For the sake of accuracy, please note that this is being said to Israel. Not just to the Jews. Jews are from two tribes of Israel (Judah and Benjamin). But Israel has 12 tribes, not just two tribes.

As for the distinction between Jew and Gentile, noting a distinction is not racist.

(Please note for your own information that Jews can be black, asian, etc.)

And Jesus Christ acknowledged that distinction in (Matt. 15:21-28) when speaking to the Gentile woman. In (15:24) He says, "...I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." In (15:26) He says, "...It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs."

That distinction Jesus acknowledged did not change when He healed the woman. The woman acknowledged it also. (15:27) "And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters table." She was willing to take her place as a Gentile outside of the blessed chosen people, the Jews.

A - again, there is nothing racist in noting a distinction between peoples. The covenant was with Israel... not Gentiles... and Christ was sent to Israel (beginning with the Jews, but also Samaritans who - unlike the Caananite woman - He had no problem conversing with and performing miracles upon, because Samaritans are also Israel, from the ten tribe Northern Kingdom of Israel, while Jews are from the two tribe Southern Kingdom of Judah. If you do not know about this, then look up the time when Israel split into two Kingdoms, after Solomon died.)

B - After Christ death, resurrection, and ascension - the invitation into the new covenant opened up to the Gentiles as well. Including to that Caananite woman. Anyone now can enter that covenant - from EVERY tribe, nation, people and tongue (as pointed out in the previous post).

That distinction Jesus acknowledged when speaking to the Samritan woman at the well. (John 4:22) "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews."

Again, it is not racist to note a distinction. (though in this case, Samaritans are also Israel, they are just not also Jews. Jews are only two portions of Israel. Samaritans are from the other ten portions. Note that in the same exchange you list above, the Samaritan woman calls Jacob their father. She does this because she is also descended from Jacob/Israel.)

That salvation is offered to all, doesn't change the distinction between the Jews and the various races of the Gentiles. It doesn't change the fact of God's special choosing of the Jews to Himself. In one of the verses you gave, (Rev. 7:9), look at the versese immediately preceeding it. (Rev. 7:4-8) Here God sealed the 144,000 Jews to be especially protected during the Tribulation.

Actually this is incorrect. God seals 144 000 members of ISRAEL. 12 000 from each of 12 tribes. You can see those tribes in the listing. Jews make up 24 000 places (from Judah and from Benjamin).

And yes, 144 000 from ISRAEL are sealed. That does not change the fact that those who reign with Christ in His Kingdom for a thousand years are from EVERY tribe, nation, people and tongue.

Concerning (Acts 16:6-10) the Holy Spirit sent Paul to Europe because He wanted Europe Christianized. And it did become Christian, as I said, from pauper to King.

So goes the claim I suppose. But remember Matt 22:14; 7:21-23

Your use of (Gal. 3:28) that we are all one in Christ pertains to the believer only and to his place in Christ.

Yes...

It does not pertain to or remove all racial distinctions in the world.

Perhaps because those don't matter... (you do know that there are Ethiopian Jews, don't you? That Israel - keeping in mind the full twelve tribes - has descendants from many different places, including Ethiopia, Cush, Egypt? Did Joseph not have two sons with an Egyptian wife? Was he not doubly blessed?)

It does not pertain to even the believers position in the world.

Do you not recall that Christ said we are to make ourselves LEAST (just as He did) and to serve ONE ANOTHER? Where does that leave room for any of us to enslave our brothers? Where is the love for your brother if you enslave your brother instead of setting him free (if indeed he was not free when you came to know him)?

Do you not recall that God desires mercy? Hosea 6:6; Matt 9:13

Do you not recall that God desires that we break EVERY yoke?

"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?

Is not the yoke of slavery included under EVERY?

If you were to love your neighbor as yourself (brother in Christ or not, person of color or not), should you not try and help him if he has been oppressed? Or at least rejoice for him if he receives that help from somewhere else? Should you not rejoice if he is simply being afforded the same rights as any other 'white folk' person?

Paul said salvation was to the Jew first and then to the Gentile. (Rom. 1:16) And Paul was true to that. (Acts 17:1-2)

Because the covenant was with the Jews (and Israel), and they are loved on account of the patriarchs. But since the covenant is opened up to anyone with faith, regardless of 'race', so I don't know what point you think you are making here?

And Paul recognized Onesimus as still a slave even though he had become Christian. (Philemon) In Christ no distinction. In the Church no distinction. But in the world those distinctions remain.

Well do you wish to be in the Church (the Body of Christ) or do you wish to be in the world? You have to live in the world as it is for now, but that does not mean you have to follow the decrees or ways of the world, rather than following the WAY (Christ), including following the example that He set in that we are to serve one another.

You also appear to be taking a very selective view of Paul's letter to Philemon regarding Onesimus. I will highlight the pertinent parts that you seem not to SEE:

Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. It is as none other than Paulan old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus 10 that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. 11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.

12 I am sending himwho is my very heartback to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.


If you continue reading, you will note that Paul has said to charge anything to him that Onesimus might owe Philemon. That is love (against which there is no law). Plus, keep in mind that slavery was a practice yet going on back then. But notice that Christ did not enslave anyone. He came to SERVE. He told His disciples to SERVE. To make themselves LEAST.


Peace again to you, and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #57]

So you agree God places favor, based upon attributes they cannot control -- (see your bold statement above). Glad you agree with me.

But I do not agree with you. I did not say why God made it more difficult for his chosen people. He too would have chosen them for this very purpose based on his infinite knowledge of all time, based on his knowledge of who the people would be and for the purpose of showing us that the best people could not bring the light of God to world, so God incarnated.

If God only incarnated, humans might ask, but why not give us the chance to bring your light to the world? He did, and the best of you failed.

[POI]

But I do not agree with you.

Oh, but you did. I pointed out where.

I did not say why God made it more difficult for his chosen people.

God, making it easier/harder, based upon attributes the human has no control over, seems more like a human invented concoction. And not something an all-powerful-universe-running-agency would likely introduce.

[AquinasForGod]

But I do not agree with you.

Oh, but you did. I pointed out where.

I did not say why God made it more difficult for his chosen people.

God, making it easier/harder, based upon attributes the human has no control over, seems more like a human invented concoction. And not something an all-powerful-universe-running-agency would likely introduce.

I am unsure why I am not being understood. I have stated several times that God is not doing so based on accidental properties but based on all the choices they make through all of time.