"You, atheists take Bible quotes out of context"

[vorlon13]

Apparently God is really bad at selecting writers who know how to put things so they aren't taken out of context.

I notice that they don't give the same consideration though to other religions.  They somehow know the *CORRECT* context for the Quran too.  (I wonder how many of them have actually read the Quran)

Well, so far, only a few over 70,000 instances of 'context' causing God's One True Faith a little hicup.

[Jesster]

Are you trying to lure me into exactly what the OP is warning people against? Please do try to prove his point even more, though.

So can I assume, that we are in agreement, that context and accurately representing a original speaker/writer is important.  I would also agree that shouting "context" isn't a magic get out of free card and that the one should need to explain the context which reconciles the issue.

Would you agree?

Sure. Now explain to me how the words in that passage are fine as written. Please do so without playing the context excuse. Just running to "but context!" also ignores the direct wording being presented. This one is pretty clear.

[Cecelia]

Well, so far, only a few over 70,000 instances of 'context' causing God's One True Faith a little hicup.

God's interviews for Scholars to Write The Bible:

Candidate #1: "I'll write a good bible for the people.  It'll feature scientific facts that nobody of our time will even have a clue about.  It will leave absolutely NO doubt of your existence for generations and generations, and help countless number of people, saving their lives."

Candidate #2: "I'll write a good moral bible.  Something that will be the moral compass, even for non-believers.   Ideas that are a bit radical for the time, i admit, but it'll only serve to bolster your credibility.  Things like.. treat women with respect, and not as property.  Rape is abominable, and not the fault of the woman.  It'll teach people not to wage wars, or let people starve to death.

Candidate #3: Forget about those guys.  They're crooked.  Absolutely crooked.  I'm going to make the bible great again! Trust me.  I tell you, I'm the best writer.  My words are the best.  I'm very good with the words.  My 10 year old son, he's already writing.  I'm telling you it's unbelievable.  Now the other candidates may tell you that I'm bad with context--NOT TRUE.  I'm the best with context.  I make context great.  I've got all the contexts.  ALL of them.  And we're going to make this the greatest book ever written.  

God: #3, you're hired!

[RoadRunner79]

So can I assume, that we are in agreement, that context and accurately representing a original speaker/writer is important.  I would also agree that shouting "context" isn't a magic get out of free card and that the one should need to explain the context which reconciles the issue.

Would you agree?

Sure. Now explain to me how the words in that passage are fine as written. Please do so without playing the context excuse. Just running to "but context!" also ignores the direct wording being presented. This one is pretty clear.

Would you like my answer to be in context, or not?

[Jesster]

Sure. Now explain to me how the words in that passage are fine as written. Please do so without playing the context excuse. Just running to "but context!" also ignores the direct wording being presented. This one is pretty clear.

Would you like my answer to be in context, or not?

I would appreciate an answer. Enough of the beating around the bush. I'm growing tired of you. Answer or I will move on elsewhere.

[RoadRunner79]

Would you like my answer to be in context, or not?

I would appreciate an answer. Enough of the beating around the bush. I'm growing tired of you. Answer or I will move on elsewhere.

I know what you mean,  it seems difficult to have a conversation around here.... I didn't think that asking if you agree that using context was important when quoting someone was that difficult.    But this time, I'll answer in context, and will remember for another time, that "but context" is just an excuse when quoting you (I imagine that straw man would be similar)?

The passage you asked about in 1 Peter 2, is talking about submitting to authority.  It gives three examples, one of government, concerning punishing evil, and rewarding good.  The one which you asked about, in which it is said to be more noble,  for the servant to submit, whether being treated fairly or unjust by their master.  And the third example, of Christ's behavior when he suffered and was abused, but did not return in kind.   Later, it says it is better not to repay evil for evil, and to bless those who persecute you. 

Now, I would agree, that this is a general principle, there are other instances with those who did not submit to those over them, and stood their ground.  And they are not condemned for doing this but revered for their stance.   However on an individual and personal level, I would agree, that it is better to suffer for doing good, then to return evil for evil.

What is your issue with the passage?

[vorlon13]

I could be wrong about this, but this 'context' thing seems to only arise when christers are put on the spot regarding outrageous scriptures.

The context thing never comes up when a christer is confronting someone they have a problem with and a single bible verse is deemed to be precisely what is needed.

[Jesster]

I would appreciate an answer. Enough of the beating around the bush. I'm growing tired of you. Answer or I will move on elsewhere.

I know what you mean,  it seems difficult to have a conversation around here.... I didn't think that asking if you agree that using context was important when quoting someone was that difficult.    But this time, I'll answer in context, and will remember for another time, that "but context" is just an excuse when quoting you (I imagine that straw man would be similar)?

The passage you asked about in 1 Peter 2, is talking about submitting to authority.  It gives three examples, one of government, concerning punishing evil, and rewarding good.  The one which you asked about, in which it is said to be more noble,  for the servant to submit, whether being treated fairly or unjust by their master.  And the third example, of Christ's behavior when he suffered and was abused, but did not return in kind.   Later, it says it is better not to repay evil for evil, and to bless those who persecute you. 

Now, I would agree, that this is a general principle, there are other instances with those who did not submit to those over them, and stood their ground.  And they are not condemned for doing this but revered for their stance.   However on an individual and personal level, I would agree, that it is better to suffer for doing good, then to return evil for evil.

What is your issue with the passage?

Yes, the context is generally that. That is exactly my problem with it. The context doesn't improve on the meaning behind the direct passage that I posted. It's the same kind of problem that I have with people like Mother Teresa. Suffering is supposed to be a good thing? Yes, please treat me poorly. God wants me to accept that. Enslave me, beat me, and stick me up on a cross so I can be more like Jesus.

If you want me to be okay with this kind of passage, then we are never going to see eye to eye.

[chimp3]

This passage regarding the behavior of slaves is just the kind of thing a human slave master would tell slaves god commands. Whose interest does this passage serve? 

There is no god. People wrote the scriptures. It is very easy to see what kind of person would write such a thing or continue to spread it into the future.

[RoadRunner79]

I know what you mean,  it seems difficult to have a conversation around here.... I didn't think that asking if you agree that using context was important when quoting someone was that difficult.    But this time, I'll answer in context, and will remember for another time, that "but context" is just an excuse when quoting you (I imagine that straw man would be similar)?

The passage you asked about in 1 Peter 2, is talking about submitting to authority.  It gives three examples, one of government, concerning punishing evil, and rewarding good.  The one which you asked about, in which it is said to be more noble,  for the servant to submit, whether being treated fairly or unjust by their master.  And the third example, of Christ's behavior when he suffered and was abused, but did not return in kind.   Later, it says it is better not to repay evil for evil, and to bless those who persecute you. 

Now, I would agree, that this is a general principle, there are other instances with those who did not submit to those over them, and stood their ground.  And they are not condemned for doing this but revered for their stance.   However on an individual and personal level, I would agree, that it is better to suffer for doing good, then to return evil for evil.

What is your issue with the passage?

Yes, the context is generally that. That is exactly my problem with it. The context doesn't improve on the meaning behind the direct passage that I posted. It's the same kind of problem that I have with people like Mother Teresa. Suffering is supposed to be a good thing? Yes, please treat me poorly. God wants me to accept that. Enslave me, beat me, and stick me up on a cross so I can be more like Jesus.

If you want me to be okay with this kind of passage, then we are never going to see eye to eye.

If don't think that one can seek to suffer and it be the same? And I also wouldn't agree, that God wants us to suffer. The Gospel is quite the opposite. I don't go around beating myself with a stick or anything.