Critiquing: If Jesus Didn’t Come to Condemn the World, I Doubt He Sent You To

January 30, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Meme Response — Preparation for Purpose — Good News and Bad News — The Role of Grace — Human Rebellion

---

Outline and Explanation

1. Response to the Meme

The content attempts to address a meme stating, “If Jesus didn’t come to condemn the world, I doubt he sent you to.” The response begins by criticizing the meme’s fundamental premise, arguing that it demonstrates a misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. The core argument is that while Jesus came to save rather than condemn, this does not preclude Christians from acknowledging sin and judgment.

Logical Inconsistencies:

• Misrepresentation of Opposition: The content argues that critics cherry-pick favorable elements of Jesus’s teachings while ignoring the overall message. This stance itself may be accused of cherry-picking by simplifying the opposing argument and assuming critics are not acting in good faith.

Cognitive Biases:

• Confirmation Bias: The argument reflects a strong confirmation bias, interpreting all elements of the scripture to fit a predetermined theological stance without considering alternative interpretations.

2. Human Rebellion and Judgment

The argument posits that human beings are inherently sinful and thus already condemned, citing this as a reason Jesus did not come to condemn but to save. This is used to validate the idea that Christians are justified in discussing condemnation.

Unsubstantiated Claims:

• Inherent Sinfulness: The assertion that all humans are inherently sinful and condemned is a significant claim requiring substantial evidence, yet it is presented as an accepted fact without direct substantiation within the content.
• Historical Accuracy: The historical accuracy and divine origin of scripture are assumed rather than argued for, which would be critical to support such foundational claims.

3. The Role of Grace

The argument emphasizes that the concept of grace only makes sense against a backdrop of sin and judgment. This dichotomy is used to justify the perceived harshness of some Christian messages.

Logical Fallacies:

• False Dichotomy: The argument sets up a false dichotomy by suggesting that acknowledgment of sin and judgment is the only way to understand grace. Alternative interpretations of grace that do not rely on sin and judgment are not considered.

4. Intellectual Honesty and Cherry-Picking

The content criticizes those who reject parts of the scripture while accepting others, labeling such actions as intellectually dishonest. It suggests that understanding Jesus requires accepting the entire narrative, including elements of judgment and condemnation.

Cognitive Biases:

• Selective Perception: This criticism itself may suffer from selective perception, as it assumes a single, cohesive interpretation of scripture without acknowledging the diversity of theological perspectives within Christianity.

5. Claims about God’s Promises and Plans

The second part of the content addresses whether it is common for God to prepare individuals for purposes that never materialize. The response is that life often leads to unexpected outcomes, and this does not reflect on God’s plans or promises.

Testing Alleged Promises:

• Lack of Testability: The argument that God’s plans are inherently mysterious and not always comprehensible makes these claims difficult, if not impossible, to test or falsify, which is a significant issue from a rational standpoint.

Detailed Critique

Logical Coherence:
The content attempts to frame its arguments within a consistent theological narrative, but it often assumes the truth of its premises without sufficient justification. For example, the inherent sinfulness of humanity and the divine inspiration of scripture are presented as given truths, which would not be accepted by those outside the faith or those requiring empirical evidence.

Cognitive Biases and Logical Fallacies:
The content exhibits several cognitive biases and logical fallacies, including confirmation bias, selective perception, and false dichotomy. These undermine the logical coherence of the arguments by presenting a one-sided view and failing to address alternative perspectives or counterarguments.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims:
Several claims within the content are both unsubstantiated and dubious, particularly those related to the nature of human sinfulness and the interpretation of scripture. The obligation to substantiate such claims is critical, as it is essential to map one’s degree of belief to the degree of available evidence.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

The content should stress the importance of aligning one’s degree of belief with the degree of evidence available. For instance, if the condemnation of humanity and the subsequent need for salvation are central to the argument, these points should be supported with clear evidence and rational justification rather than assumed as self-evident truths.

Potential Methods to Test Alleged Promises:

• Historical Analysis: Examining historical and textual evidence to substantiate claims about Jesus’s teachings and actions.
• Philosophical Inquiry: Utilizing philosophical methods to explore and test the coherence and implications of theological claims.
• Empirical Evidence: Where possible, looking for empirical evidence to support claims about the impact of faith and religious practices on individuals and communities.

---

I invite you to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.