Authored by: Fedora.

Firstly, I would like to thank Payton for writing an article to address the issues he found in my paper, and I appreciate the thought and effort put in! I always appreciate a calm, intellectual exchange, and thank Payton very much for keeping this civil. And with that said, on to my reply.

The first objection Payton raises is as follows;

“What I consider to be the greatest weakness of Fedora’s assessment is its shameless association of the Bible and God; this assumption that the God of the Bible and the God of reality (indeed, of history) are of one mind.”

You may bring this up as a “weakness” of my article, but it’s arguments will still fall or stand on their own merits. This shows no weakness of my argument, it simply provides a scope within which it is limited. The core of the argument, sans examples perhaps, extend to the Islamic religion as well, among others. I admittedly have not researched the Muslim faith to the depth which I have the Christian faith (be it to a large extent or otherwise), and if I am wrong in saying it does extend to the Muslim faith, I apologize for my error. It is important to note, though, that this does not invalidate the argument, it merely limits its scope, albeit to one of the largest religions in the world today.

The second caveat Payton has with my article is shown in this quote.

“Now, I’m not sure if Fedora is getting at something Jesus actually said or forbade, as I’m not familiar with the story (maybe it doesn’t exist! I’m skeptical), but that’s beside the point.”

I was merely pointing out that, as far as my understanding of the crucifixion goes after my speaking with numerous theologians, some of whom had gone to college on the subject*, that Jesus was crucified to atone for our sins. This is, in essence, a sacrifice, which, as I stated, is unexpected in modern society. Payton continues with this quote.

“If Jesus did say such a thing, then I could say He was making a suggestion or teaching relative to those times.  In those days, such things were perhaps more understandable, I would not know.  In any case, such things are silly now, so we should consider whether this particular teaching is relative.”

If this is the case, then the original argument which my article was a response to falls apart, rendering my article unnecessary by default.

Another fault Payton finds within my article is raised is in the following quote.

“Who is right, Jesus or ‘modern society’?  Who is right, the God of the Bible, or “all sane humans”?…If he answers ‘modern society’, or ‘all sane humans’, hasn’t he begged the question in his article?”

Payton fails to recognize, this is the very point I am trying to make, the bedrock upon which my argument lies! The ethical facts which God follows and humans at least recognize to be true are different, and as such one of them must be wrong. As God is morally perfect, he must follow the correct ethical facts, making humanities incorrect, thus, the conclusion of my argument.

“From [1-7], the Judeo-Christian God cannot have revealed to Human beings a true, objective, perfect, set of ethical facts.”

I again quote Payton.

“The whole question of “Fact VS Metaphor” isn’t blasphemy.  A lot of the stories of God’s wrath are intended to teach people not to disobey Him.”

If I understand Payton correctly, he is essentially saying that the stories of the flood, etc. are simply meant to teach humans to fear God. This is a threat, plain and simple. Threats are considered grounds for legal conviction throughout the United States, among many other locations throughout the world. This is again an example of God’s behavior deviating from the ethical facts humans hold to be true.

The final counter-argument Payton raises is summarized in the following quotes,

“Christians hold it as a matter of fact that we are all sinners.  Secondly, we believe that all sinners deserve death,” and “Why is it that we complain that “bad things happen to good people”, when there are no good people?”

He is saying that the stories in the Bible are justified. As sinners, the humans whose deaths were chronicled in the Bible were justified. However, Jesus himself taught that sinners are to be forgiven, with such teachings as Matthew 18:21-22.

Matthew 18:21-22, “21 Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.”

And yet, God himself does not follow this ethical law. And even so, how does this justify the grievances afflicted to Job? God himself offers Job much praise, and holds him in glowing admiration.

Job 1:8, “8 Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”

God explicitly states that Job 1) is blameless, 2) fears God, and 3) shuns evil. By Paytons own admission, someone who fits this criteria would not deserve the grievances inflicted upon him. If a government official decided to, for example, prove to a different country that Americans are tougher and did the same with an American citizen, equally praiseworthy, this act would be condemned. Is God allowed to do this simply because he is God? Does his nature as God make him exempt from objective ethical facts?

Other objections raised :

In my discussion of this article with fellow UrbanPhilosophy.net users I have come across a few things I may need to clarify. These are as follows.

1.) I am not saying that human beings follow these ethical facts, they simply recognize them to be truthful.

2.) Accepting the lesser of two evils would be included in this ethical code.

3.) Humans are obligated to follow these ethical facts, not made to.

Again, I appreciate Payton’s time and effort in replying to my article! I appreciate the criticisms, and I welcome criticisms to my reply, or to my original argument. That’s what we’re here for, right? Thanks again, and I look forward to any and all replies!

______

* these are included, but not limited to, several pastors, several theology instructors, and Christians of a more intellectual persuasion. If they are in error, I apologize.