A Response to Fedora

A Response to Fedora 07/04/10

A response to Fedora's assessment of Objective Morality and the Bible.

Authored by: Payton Alexander.


I have decided to write this post because I believe there to be several very important weaknesses in Fedora’s assessment of Objective Morality and the Bible.  These weaknesses are, of course, nothing more than weaknesses.  They are not all necessarily false, I might clarify.  However, the whole paper is rendered rather useless when we consider the depths of these ‘weaknesses’.  Indeed, I am allowed the liberty of fully maintaining my faith as a Christian, while not really denying much of what Fedora wrote!  This freedom is telling.

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.  I’m not saying I don’t believe they’re one and the same, but it’s an important distinction to make, insofar as we are judging the strength of Fedora’s argument.  We can say, first of all, that;

1.) The God of the Bible may not be the God of history

Right off the bat, we can see one of these ‘presuppositions’ as he calls them, which greatly damages the utility of his argument.  See, it only applies to people who would associate the God of the Bible with the God of history so fundamentally as his argument does.

Allow me to make myself clearer; this argument might only shake your faith if you believe God “does many things which all sane humans consider immoral”.  Of course this is the case, as Fedora is arguing modus ponens, but I should like to point out that this is a very big ‘if’ indeed.  If I wanted to be extreme, I would say there are no Christians at all who believe this.  But that may or may not be true, so I leave it there.

Here is an example:

“In any modern society, the expectation of a parent is not to require a sacrifice from their children after a wrong doing (Jesus).”

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.  He blows his own argument out of the water when he mentions ‘modern society’.  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.

Or — and maybe this is the right way to go — should we appraise our ‘modern society’ for its expectations, and decide for ourselves whether we are justified in not expecting children to make sacrifices for their wrongdoing?  Who is right, Jesus or ‘modern society’?  Who is right, the God of the Bible, or “all sane humans”? I make no answer, but Fedora’s argument actually hinges on such questions. (the trouble lies in his 4th premise)

If he answers ‘modern society’, or ‘all sane humans’, hasn’t he begged the question in his article?  He can’t assume God is already wrong in order to prove it to be so.

Now, to continue to our second point, let’s ask ourselves, “Why does the Bible contain seemingly-mythic tales of mankind’s encounters with a wrathful God?” Are these tales meant to be histories, or moral lessons?  Fedora addresses this point himself, when he considers a ‘metaphorical’ Garden of Eden.  But he makes it sound like the acceptance of just one or two things as metaphor will bring down the whole faith!  Let’s make a second point:

2.) One can accept the whole Bible as infallible even if one were to accept some parts as metaphor.

(I’m not going to address Fedora’s assumptions about original sin.  He has got it all wrong, and I don’t care to correct him.)

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.  It hardly matters whether they actually happened or not, in my opinion.

God does not violate His own laws.  If you get to thinking this, you have misunderstood the moral of the story, which is to say, you do not understand God’s laws.

Indeed, having said that, we might as well get to the third and final weakness of Fedora’s argument:

3.)  There is a difference between goodness and justice.

Christians hold it as a matter of fact that we are all sinners.  Secondly, we believe that all sinners deserve death.

And that is the key.

Why would we even care about the times God gave us what we deserved?  In the story of the Flood, the Bible very clearly points out that people were wicked! And I believe it! God does not do what all sane humans consider to be immoral. Ever.  He has only given us the hellfire we deserve.

This has always been a matter of great personal annoyance for me.  Why is it that we complain that “bad things happen to good people”, when there are no good people?  Why don’t we complain when good things happen to bad people, which is to say, every one of us?  Clearly, this is not justice!

Indeed, when we think bad things happen to good people, we say God is horrible, but when good things happen to bad people, we call it mercy.  We should stop thinking that one is good and one is bad. They are both two sides of the same coin.

So to conclude, Fedora’s argument hinges on questions which he either leaves unanswered, or he only barely understands.  His argument only applies to people who read the Bible in such a way as to see God as a maniacal tyrant, i.e. Richard Dawkins and all the street-preachers of Canada.  Therefore, as I believe none of these things, Fedora’s argument does not apply to me.  It could be the case that the humans in his fourth premise are simply mistaken, or it could be that these supposed transgressions on the part of the divine are merely metaphor.  I would say both.  We are mistaken about a great many moral issues.  Not only do we behave immorally, but we believe and decide incorrectly.  We must always remember who is omniscient, and who is perfect, here.  Furthermore, God has not actually done all these things some might say He has.  He has adhered to His own ethical facts rather perfectly, I might say.  And that is enough to dismiss Fedora’s assessment.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • Fedora

    I have a number of qualms with your response, which I will address in a response article. Thanks for taking the time out of your day(s) to read and consider my article, and reply to it with thought!

    Have a great rest of your day! (Evening, morning, etc.)

  • Fedora

    I have a number of qualms with your response, which I will address in a response article. Thanks for taking the time out of your day(s) to read and consider my article, and reply to it with thought!

    Have a great rest of your day! (Evening, morning, etc.)

  • http://topsy.com/trackback?utm_source=pingback&utm_campaign=L1&url=http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/response-to-fedora-on-objective-morality-and-the-bible/ Tweets that mention Response to Fedora on Objective Morality and the Bible | Urban Philosophy — Topsy.com

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by MitchLeBlanc. MitchLeBlanc said: Response to Fedora on Objective Morality and the Bible | Urban Philosophy – http://bit.ly/cuSkMY [...]

  • http://www.highschoolapologetics.wordpress.com/ Payton

    And I'm very interested to hear them! I look forward to your response

  • http://www.highschoolapologetics.wordpress.com Payton

    And I'm very interested to hear them! I look forward to your response

  • http://www.aomin.org/ Machen

    You said:
    “A lot of the stories of God’s wrath are intended to teach people not to disobey Him.”

    Can you please clarify, and show some examples?

  • http://www.aomin.org Machen

    You said:
    “A lot of the stories of God’s wrath are intended to teach people not to disobey Him.”

    Can you please clarify, and show some examples?

  • noen

    The flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, there's quite a few.

  • noen

    The flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, there's quite a few.

  • http://www.aomin.org/ Machen

    noen, are you the author of the post?

    The author of the post seemed to speak of the flood literally.

    "Why would we even care about the times God gave us what we deserved? In the story of the Flood, the Bible very clearly points out that people were wicked! And I believe it!"

    Whether he does or doesn't believe that, I'm curious what makes some stories of wrath metaphorical, and others literal.

  • http://www.aomin.org Machen

    noen, are you the author of the post?

    The author of the post seemed to speak of the flood literally.

    "Why would we even care about the times God gave us what we deserved? In the story of the Flood, the Bible very clearly points out that people were wicked! And I believe it!"

    Whether he does or doesn't believe that, I'm curious what makes some stories of wrath metaphorical, and others literal.

  • http://www.highschoolapologetics.wordpress.com/ Payton

    Machen, (I am the author by the way), I can't imagine what you would mean by asking what makes some stories real, and others not. What exactly is the problem? Either a thing did or did not happen. End of story.

    I have absolutely no patience for debates about Biblical literalism or creationism vs. evolution, just to be clear. These things are silly and only children would discuss them. They are so unimportant, I cannot imagine why anyone would care!

    But yes Noen, a lot of these common things like the Flood and Sodom. Non-Christians like to throw them out there as if Christians actually believe they happened.

    Do not get me wrong, there are some Christians who do believe that, but they are a minority. The majority of Americans, even if they have some belief in the historical accuracy of the Old Testament stories, will almost always tell you that the 'main point' of these stories is not historical, but moral.

    But let's be clear, the difference between justice and mercy is an important one. This is just an idea of mine, and I may retract it later, but it seems to me that the God of the Old Testament is a just God. Justice is His hallmark. The Christian God, on the other hand, is more concerned with mercy, humility, and selfless-ness.

    I see no reason why God cannot be sometimes just and sometimes merciful. Neither one is evil. Both are good things.

    In this way, we can say that all this 'genocide', destruction, and wrath of the God of the Old Testament are very easily justified. So their is no sense in saying that what God did was unjust, and consequently, we cannot say He was anything but good. He lived up to His own laws, which were laws of justice. The idea is that the sins described in the Old Testament bore the penalty of death, and whether He killed the perpetrators by way of meteors, plagues, or making humanity mortal after the Fall, death for the guilty was always acheived in the end.

    And Fedora, I must apologize. I lost your reference to the Crucifixion in the midst of all your vagaries and instead thought you were referring to some teaching of Jesus! Forgive me, I can't believe I didn't notice what you were talking about. Surely this was one of your 'qualms' with my response.

    I don't need to edit my post in response to this new understanding though, as I believe I already addressed things of this sort in my post already. See, I said, (rather confrontationally, mind you. so take it with a grain of salt) that if you thought God had violated His own laws, then it was likely you had misunderstood His laws! Something similar is the case here. The story of the Crucifixion is more complicated than you make it out to be, and in no way is it something unreasonable. On the contrary, it makes a lot of sense once you've heard real theologians discuss it. I will direct you to some audio, probably recordings of lectures, as lay sermons are often theologically-muddled, or worse, 'unreasonable'.

  • http://www.highschoolapologetics.wordpress.com Payton

    Machen, (I am the author by the way), I can't imagine what you would mean by asking what makes some stories real, and others not. What exactly is the problem? Either a thing did or did not happen. End of story.

    I have absolutely no patience for debates about Biblical literalism or creationism vs. evolution, just to be clear. These things are silly and only children would discuss them. They are so unimportant, I cannot imagine why anyone would care!

    But yes Noen, a lot of these common things like the Flood and Sodom. Non-Christians like to throw them out there as if Christians actually believe they happened.

    Do not get me wrong, there are some Christians who do believe that, but they are a minority. The majority of Americans, even if they have some belief in the historical accuracy of the Old Testament stories, will almost always tell you that the 'main point' of these stories is not historical, but moral.

    But let's be clear, the difference between justice and mercy is an important one. This is just an idea of mine, and I may retract it later, but it seems to me that the God of the Old Testament is a just God. Justice is His hallmark. The Christian God, on the other hand, is more concerned with mercy, humility, and selfless-ness.

    I see no reason why God cannot be sometimes just and sometimes merciful. Neither one is evil. Both are good things.

    In this way, we can say that all this 'genocide', destruction, and wrath of the God of the Old Testament are very easily justified. So their is no sense in saying that what God did was unjust, and consequently, we cannot say He was anything but good. He lived up to His own laws, which were laws of justice. The idea is that the sins described in the Old Testament bore the penalty of death, and whether He killed the perpetrators by way of meteors, plagues, or making humanity mortal after the Fall, death for the guilty was always acheived in the end.

    And Fedora, I must apologize. I lost your reference to the Crucifixion in the midst of all your vagaries and instead thought you were referring to some teaching of Jesus! Forgive me, I can't believe I didn't notice what you were talking about. Surely this was one of your 'qualms' with my response.

    I don't need to edit my post in response to this new understanding though, as I believe I already addressed things of this sort in my post already. See, I said, (rather confrontationally, mind you. so take it with a grain of salt) that if you thought God had violated His own laws, then it was likely you had misunderstood His laws! Something similar is the case here. The story of the Crucifixion is more complicated than you make it out to be, and in no way is it something unreasonable. On the contrary, it makes a lot of sense once you've heard real theologians discuss it. I will direct you to some audio, probably recordings of lectures, as lay sermons are often theologically-muddled, or worse, 'unreasonable'.

  • http://www.aomin.org/ Machen

    "I can't imagine what you would mean by asking what makes some stories real, and others not. What exactly is the problem? Either a thing did or did not happen. End of story."

    Perhaps it's my roots in Sola Scriptura, but since you claim to be an apologist I find this troubling. I'm simply asking for how you determine what is historical in the OT and what is not (regarding stories of people with names etc etc… not the obvious visions/prophecys/psalms etc etc…

    Perhaps I should start by asking this.

    As an apologist, if you view the Bible as stories that could or could not have happened. Then what compels you to defend it?

  • http://www.aomin.org Machen

    "I can't imagine what you would mean by asking what makes some stories real, and others not. What exactly is the problem? Either a thing did or did not happen. End of story."

    Perhaps it's my roots in Sola Scriptura, but since you claim to be an apologist I find this troubling. I'm simply asking for how you determine what is historical in the OT and what is not (regarding stories of people with names etc etc… not the obvious visions/prophecys/psalms etc etc…

    Perhaps I should start by asking this.

    As an apologist, if you view the Bible as stories that could or could not have happened. Then what compels you to defend it?

  • noen

    "Do not get me wrong, there are some Christians who do believe that, but they are a minority. "

    Assumes facts not in evidence. I am not at all convinced that those who hold biblical literalism are a minority.

  • noen

    "Do not get me wrong, there are some Christians who do believe that, but they are a minority. "

    Assumes facts not in evidence. I am not at all convinced that those who hold biblical literalism are a minority.

  • http://www.highschoolapologetics.wordpress.com/ Payton

    I view the Old Testament as stories that could or could not have happened. It is easy to say which ones are which, and I know you understand me, so I refuse to humor you.

    I'll answer your question with one of my own. Am I a Christian apologist who defends Christ, or a biblical apologist who defends the Bible? Which have I said that I am?

    Historicity is almost never relevant, especially when it comes to the OT. If it is impossible for a biblical story to have occurred, then it did not occur. Apply reason to the stories: that is how we judge them

  • http://www.highschoolapologetics.wordpress.com Payton

    I view the Old Testament as stories that could or could not have happened. It is easy to say which ones are which, and I know you understand me, so I refuse to humor you.

    I'll answer your question with one of my own. Am I a Christian apologist who defends Christ, or a biblical apologist who defends the Bible? Which have I said that I am?

    Historicity is almost never relevant, especially when it comes to the OT. If it is impossible for a biblical story to have occurred, then it did not occur. Apply reason to the stories: that is how we judge them

  • noen

    I don't see how it would be at all easy to know which stories are true and which not if one believes in an active God and that Christ was his son. The virgin birth? Walking on the water? The resurrection? The miracle of the wine or the loaves and fishes? The flood? Talking animals? A human turned into a pillar of salt? What about the Nephilim, did they really exist? Which creation story in Genesis is the correct one? Was the garden of Eden real? The Snake?

    I don't see where one draws the line.

  • noen

    I don't see how it would be at all easy to know which stories are true and which not if one believes in an active God and that Christ was his son. The virgin birth? Walking on the water? The resurrection? The miracle of the wine or the loaves and fishes? The flood? Talking animals? A human turned into a pillar of salt? What about the Nephilim, did they really exist? Which creation story in Genesis is the correct one? Was the garden of Eden real? The Snake?

    I don't see where one draws the line.

  • Payton

    Okay, you mention a load of New Testament stories, and I never, ever, ever doubted their historicity.

    I specified in the beginning of the very post you replied to that I view that the Old Testament as stories that may or may not have happened. I do not know whether they did or not. I don't care.

    I believe in an active God, and that Christ is His son. Of course, I believe in miracles as well.

  • Payton

    Okay, you mention a load of New Testament stories, and I never, ever, ever doubted their historicity.

    I specified in the beginning of the very post you replied to that I view that the Old Testament as stories that may or may not have happened. I do not know whether they did or not. I don't care.

    I believe in an active God, and that Christ is His son. Of course, I believe in miracles as well.

  • noen

    I don't know if you're replying to me or not. But you were the one who said "It is easy to say which ones are which". I don't know how one does that. How does one tell which Biblical story is to be taken as history and which as metaphor? Or do you take the entire Bible as metaphor?

  • noen

    I don't know if you're replying to me or not. But you were the one who said "It is easy to say which ones are which". I don't know how one does that. How does one tell which Biblical story is to be taken as history and which as metaphor? Or do you take the entire Bible as metaphor?

  • Payton

    Don’t talk about the Bible as a whole. I have made it quite clear that all of the New Testament stories (specifically those of Acts and the four gospel books) are true, because I have historical and logical reasons for believing them.

    I have also made it quite clear that the Old Testament is a different story entirely. I accept that some of the OT stories are true and some not. I do not know which are which. It does not matter which are which.

    All I have said as to how to tell which OT stories are true is to apply reason to them. We can do nothing else, they happened too long ago. It will only be able to prove that some did not occur, and only that it’s possible some did. Do you understand this point?

    I’m trying to be plain, forgive me. :) It seems like we’ve been talking past each other :/

  • Payton

    Don’t talk about the Bible as a whole. I have made it quite clear that all of the New Testament stories (specifically those of Acts and the four gospel books) are true, because I have historical and logical reasons for believing them.

    I have also made it quite clear that the Old Testament is a different story entirely. I accept that some of the OT stories are true and some not. I do not know which are which. It does not matter which are which.

    All I have said as to how to tell which OT stories are true is to apply reason to them. We can do nothing else, they happened too long ago. It will only be able to prove that some did not occur, and only that it’s possible some did. Do you understand this point?

    I’m trying to be plain, forgive me. :) It seems like we’ve been talking past each other :/

  • 8DC

    It sounds like you are assuming that they are true until it becomes blatantly obvious that they are not.
    Why? Wouldn't it be much more rational to be sceptical of a claim until evidence is found to support it?

    I would also be interested in hearing your “historical and logical” reasons for believing that the New Testament stories are true.
    The named places and setting are true, sure. Anyone writing in that time or shortly after could correctly provide that information.
    There isn't much evidence that the main characters existed, despite the miraculous events described in the gospels and the Romans being meticulous record keepers (you would think that someone would have at least have mentioned something of the more public events) there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus.
    As for logic, what logical explanation can be given for virgin births, walking on water, turning water into wine, returning to life after being dead for three days, and ascending into the sky to heaven (we can now see that there is no heaven in the 'heavens above', just vast expanses of space)? The claims of the New Testament are as improbable as those of the Old, so what leads you to the conclusion that one is patched together with metaphors and the other is completely true?

  • 8DC

    It sounds like you are assuming that they are true until it becomes blatantly obvious that they are not.
    Why? Wouldn't it be much more rational to be sceptical of a claim until evidence is found to support it?

    I would also be interested in hearing your “historical and logical” reasons for believing that the New Testament stories are true.
    The named places and setting are true, sure. Anyone writing in that time or shortly after could correctly provide that information.
    There isn't much evidence that the main characters existed, despite the miraculous events described in the gospels and the Romans being meticulous record keepers (you would think that someone would have at least have mentioned something of the more public events) there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus.
    As for logic, what logical explanation can be given for virgin births, walking on water, turning water into wine, returning to life after being dead for three days, and ascending into the sky to heaven (we can now see that there is no heaven in the 'heavens above', just vast expanses of space)? The claims of the New Testament are as improbable as those of the Old, so what leads you to the conclusion that one is patched together with metaphors and the other is completely true?

blog comments powered by Disqus
mugen 2d fighting games