Tuesday, April 1, 2008

"CONTEXT!" The Last Refuge of a Theist in Denial

Whether it's trying to defend the hideous malevolent acts of cruelty, genocide, and murder by their "loving God"; fumbling to counter biblical contradictions; or trying to justify why their omni benevolent being failed to condemn slavery or why Jesus kills perfectly good fig trees, Christians invariably will deny all and cry "Context!!".

“Context!!” has become the trademark of Xtians who are at a loss to explain away the indefensible cruelties performed by their “loving” God ... or used to make the embarrassing statements of their saintly Church figures go away. Context has become so over used that it typically triggers laughter among Thinking People [TP] who have seen it employed so often that it is now a cliché. Here’s how it works:

TP: According to OT law, God demands that a woman’s hand be cut off if she intervenes with her husband’s attacker and grabs his genitals. (Deut. 25:11-12)Christian: "OH ... you're taking it out of context."

TP: Forty-two children misbehave, show disrespect, are cursed by a prophet and God sends bears to tear them apart. (2 Kings 2:23-24) Christian: "OH ... you're taking it out of context."

TP: God commands every human of a tribe be destroyed, and every animal, and just the virgin women to be kidnapped and kept by the Hebrews as breeding stock. (numerous examples of God suborning genocide and rape) Christian: "OH ... you're talking it out of context."

Yeah. Ok. So what I need to hear and yet never do, is the answer to this question:
In what "context” is killing children for their words; is lopping off a woman’s defending hand; is extermination of a civilization but suborning the enslavement and rape of the virgins justifiable by any supremely merciful being at anytime? Just tell me in what “context” I should be taking that scripture to make it all good?

But, they can’t. Call their bluff and they fold. Oh, some will offer an unsupportable attempt at perversion of verse to make it seem like a good and wholly wonderful thing. Failing that they will just out right reinvent meaning for scripture: “Well, yes… but… never mind what it actually says…here’s what I say it really means.” But they are deceiving themselves, as usual. We know how that works. Heck, the Muslims do it with the indefensible horrors of the Quran all the time.

Four hundred years ago, questioning biblical inconsistencies and contradictions would result in excommunication, torture, and/or execution (Christians like to refer to those as 'The Good Old Days."). But here in the West, those things are pretty much gone. The door is open for Xtians to take a deep breath, screw up their courage, and exhibit some modicum of intellectual honesty and reason and say: "Jeepers! You're right!! That IS a messed up thing that the Biblical writers attributed to God. I wonder why they did that, what motivated them."

But it rarely gets to that. They usually can't handle that bit of unabashed honesty, because once that happens, once that door is cracked open, once doubt as to the veracity of “God’s Word” comes into play their entire foundation of "faith" is subject to reexamination / rethinking. No! Better to hold the line, ignore the obvious, and like the emperor with no clothes, cling to some transparent ploy to cover the nakedness of their inane book of fable and blind belief and just dumbly mouth .... "CONTEXT!!"


Anonymous said...

Great April Fool's day post. I couldn't stop laughing at it and it really does remind me of the way atheists plough in don't let their ignorance get in the way of telling people what the Bible says.

DromedaryHump said...

Bob,(I assume) Thanks for being so avid a reader since notice of a new post hasn't even hit inboxes yet.

For Christians, everyday is April's Fool day. I thought of You when I posted this.

I guess what your saying here is I've taken 2Kings, and Deut. "out of Context". LOL.

Please,Bob... open my eyes, release me from this darkness of biblical ignorance and do tell me the true meaning of those verses, how they are infact proof of god's everlasting love and mercy for his creations. I'm sure we'd all appreciate it.

You'll probably want to access some apologetics sites before formulating your response.

DromedaryHump said...

BTW Bob, I can't help but detect a trace of hostility in your comment.
It betrays your profession of laughter. ;)

You have also made a cardinal error. Being an atheist doesn't disqualify one from being knowledgable about the bible. In fact, on the aggregate, atheists are more conversant and knowledgable about the bible than most christians. You probably are aware of that, perhaps not.

But even if you aren't privy to that, you should be aware that even "Satan" knows the scripture. Thus, being the mindless, credulous, reason rejecting Xtian sheep that you are, doesn't automatically qualify you as a biblical expert, any more than my being a thinking person disqualifys me.

(ps: Please remember to use your name on future posts, albeit Brit grammar is always a dead giveaway. Thks)

bugsoup said...

anonymous said: "Great April Fool's day post. I couldn't stop laughing at it and it really does remind me of the way atheists plough in don't let their ignorance get in the way of telling people what the Bible says."

Are you saying there is a proper way to interpret the order to stone unruly children or adulterous women? One that shows the True Grace of a hyperinterested, voyeuristic, blood thirsty maniac? Please share this with the rest of the class, oh anonymous one.

DromedaryHump said...

it seems "anon" or "bob" shot his wad.

He hasn't a defense for his off hand and dim comment, neither here, nor in the "Mithras" comment section where I challenged him on prayer, and on his reinvention of scripture, as to why god doesnt grant all prayers by the faithful.

Infact, by trying to inject prayers must be " in accordance with god's will", into the prayer convo he did exactly what I said Xtians do in the "CONTEXT" blog... reinvented scripture and ignored the actual verses I provided in quantity. so typical.

he's got nothing...but then.. did they ever?

Anonymous said...

I'm not bob (nor was it I who whipped your arse on the Mithras thread) but I'll give you a clue (here) You'll find you get a mention on that page....I thought April Fools day was time for a bit of fun

Both those arguments have been dealt with a million times before and so if you really wanted to know the answer then I'm sure you would be able to Google one.

DromedaryHump said...

Well anon, one credulous superstitious man-god worshiping medieval brit is as good as another. If you plan to visit, try using a name so avert confusion, albeit, a state of confusion is the norm for you folks isn't it? :)

Thanks, but I don't go to blind links from people i don't know. But I'm sure whatever mention you made of this site was in the best sense of Christian decency and respect. Afterall, that's the Jebus way.

Yeah..a guy who invents scripture to justify the uselessness of prayer, and then runs like a beaten dog when presented with scripture that contradicts his invention, thats what you Brit/death-cult worshipers call kickin ones "arse". Heheh.. My guess is you also refer to England's ass kicking by the Yanks, and subsequesnt lossof the "colonies", to GB's magnanimous gesture of emancipation.

Every religious argument has been brooched millions of times. theres very little new under the sun when it comes to theist superstitons and the idiocy of theist dogma. Afterall, you people havn't allowed your minds or dogma to develop or evolve in almost 2,000 years. Its still the same stagnant mindset of 2nd century cultist death worshippers.

But hey..whatever floats your canoe.

DromedaryHump said...



DromedaryHump said...

This is great.

I was looking for apologetics answers to the Paul / road to damascus contradictions. He told three different stories. I found this. Note that he nevcer answered the question, but opted to scold the guy instead. LOL

[note the capitalization in the apologists 3rd paragrpah is mine]

Acts 9:7 vs. Acts 22:9 vs. Acts 26:14 - Paul's legitimacy as a witness
Paul of Tarsus lies each time he tells the story of meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul, a liar, wrote over half of the New Testament. The Apostles considered his preachings falsehood.

Answer: [well, not exactly]

I would challenge this claim made outright. To call Paul a liar and to say "The Apostles considered his preachings (sic) falsehood" flies in the face of everything we know about the early church. In fact, Peter calls Paul's New Testament writings Scripture and puts them on par with the Old Testament scriptures (see 2 Peter 3:15-16).

Where does the accuser get the idea that Paul was rejected? This type of objection requires proof before it can be taken seriously. Since Paul's letters are the earliest manuscripts we have of New Testament documents, since we know that the early church copies and circulated them along with other Scriptures, and since we have the writings of the early church fathers quoting from Paul as authoritative there is no evidence that the apostles or the early church felt his teaching was false.

I have said that CONTEXT is a very good way of determining the meaning of the passages written. I believe the last statement made by this person who put forth these so-called contradictions is telling. He seems to have an axe to grind against the Bible and simply asserts certain passages to be contradictory without even a fair reading of the passages in question. He offers no historical context for any of them and he ends his list with a vitriolic assertion against Paul. That tells me much. It seems this is a very childish way to treat any text and is inherently unfair, whether the text is Christian, Muslim, or another faith.

I pray that this discussion has helped you to read the Bible in a more mature fashion. If you diligently seek Him, He will be found.