Critiquing: Why Are We Supposed to Love as God Loves but Not Condemn as He Condemns?

July 17, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Love and Condemnation — Jesus’ Commands — Kindness and the Gospel — The Flood and Salvation

---

Introduction

This critique evaluates the logical coherence of the content from a non-theistic perspective, focusing on moral arguments, logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and the substantiation of claims. Key points and direct quotes from the content are used to support the analysis.

Love and Condemnation

Inconsistent Application of Principles

The content suggests that humans should emulate God’s love but not His judgment: “Our job is to reflect the goodness of God in love to those who harm us and let God do what only God is allowed to do.” This division implies a selective imitation of divine attributes, raising questions about the consistency of this moral framework. If humans are to follow God’s example in love, it logically follows that they should also emulate His justice to some extent. The argument that humans are fundamentally different from God in their capacity and authority does not sufficiently address this inconsistency.

Cognitive Bias: Authority Bias

The content heavily relies on the notion that “He is God and we are not,” which appeals to authority rather than providing a rational basis for why certain divine attributes are emulatable while others are not. This can lead to an authority bias, where the argument is accepted not because it is logically sound but because it comes from a perceived higher authority.

Jesus’ Commands

Historical Context vs. Present Application

The discussion on whether Jesus would have issued a command like in 1 Samuel 15:3 reflects an attempt to reconcile Old Testament actions with New Testament teachings. The content asserts: “With a high Christology, Jesus did give this. This is divinely inspired scripture for which God is the author and Jesus is God.” This creates a logical inconsistency by attributing seemingly contradictory behaviors to the same divine entity without adequately resolving the apparent moral dichotomy between Old Testament judgment and New Testament grace.

Logical Fallacy: Special Pleading

The content engages in special pleading by exempting divine actions from the same moral scrutiny applied to human actions. For instance, the harsh command in 1 Samuel is justified by divine authority, which would be morally unacceptable if issued by a human. This inconsistency undermines the argument’s logical coherence.

Kindness and the Gospel

Unsubstantiated Claims and Dubious Arguments

The content claims that not spreading the gospel could make it easier for people to qualify for the afterlife: “This presumes that a judgment on their heart will qualify them.” However, it also states, “Hearts are deceitfully wicked,” and thus, judgment based on works or sincerity is insufficient for salvation. This claim lacks substantiation and is self-contradictory, creating confusion about the criteria for salvation.

The Flood and Salvation

Temporal vs. Eternal Judgment

The content rationalizes the flood by stating: “Even though He has a salvation plan for the world, that…doesn’t mean it was inappropriate for Him to demonstrate His wrath towards sin by judging in a temporal fashion.” This argument introduces a logical inconsistency regarding the necessity of temporal judgment when an eternal salvation plan is already in place.

Cognitive Bias: Hindsight Bias

The interpretation of the flood as a necessary action for limiting evil and creating a world conducive to God’s plan reflects hindsight bias. It assumes the outcome justifies the action without critically evaluating alternative possibilities or the moral implications of such widespread destruction.

Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

Confirmation Bias

The content selectively cites scriptures and theological interpretations that support its arguments while ignoring those that might present challenges. This confirmation bias limits the discussion’s depth and objectivity.

Appeal to Tradition

The content often appeals to long-standing theological doctrines and scriptural interpretations as justification for its arguments. This appeal to tradition assumes these beliefs are correct simply because they have been historically accepted, which is not a logically sound basis for argumentation.

Unsubstantiated Claims and the Need for Evidence

The content makes several claims without sufficient evidence, such as the inherent wickedness of human hearts and the necessity of divine judgment for maintaining moral order. From a critical perspective, every claim should be substantiated with empirical evidence or logical reasoning. The obligation to substantiate all claims is crucial to avoid accepting dubious arguments at face value.

Testing Alleged Promises of God

To evaluate the alleged promises of God, potential methods include empirical testing where feasible, historical analysis of prophecies and their fulfillment, and philosophical inquiry into the nature of divine promises. Mapping one’s degree of belief to the available evidence ensures that beliefs are proportionate to the support they have, promoting a more rational and coherent worldview.

Conclusion

In summary, the content presents several logical inconsistencies, relies on cognitive biases, and makes unsubstantiated claims. A coherent argument requires consistency, rational basis, and substantiation of claims. By critically evaluating these aspects, one can foster a more robust understanding and discussion of the topics addressed.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.