Another favorite argument from Bible or Quran or any other holy scripts apologist:
"We have to put everything in context."
Or in similar spirit:
"You got it wrong. That is not what it say in original language."
They argue that the "universal message" and "perfect moral code" in the scripture is so good that everyone can use it, as long as the context of each verses is correctly assessed.
Oh, you want to talk about context? Yippee, sounds like fun!
Oh, you want to talk about context? Yippee, sounds like fun!
1) Thou shall not kill! Thou shall not steal!
Remember the 10 Commandments? We have to put that in context. Just like the whole book, it is basically a screw-up moral guidance, omitting many important morals while disregard freedom of religion. But that is not all! The context of the #6 and #8 commandments is actually "Thou shall not kill fellow Israelis! Thou shall not steal from fellow Israelis! So, if you put it in context, we shall not kill anyone who believe in God, but we have to fight EVERYONE who refuse to worship Him! Oh yeah, don't forget to loot them too!
Why the context is like that? Hey, this is 3 thousand years before our current time, people at that time are TRIBAL. They don't speak about humanities. Not yet. They speak about their small tribes in the Levant. Gary Blecher has a say about tribal mentality: "My tribe YAY! Your tribe BOO! As simple as that."
Oh yeah, don't forget, after giving the 10 Commandments, God ordered the Israelis to kill everyone in the promised land, and of course loot their lands, livestocks, etc. Actions speaks louder than words folks! Q.E.D., the context of the 10 commandment is "Those non-believers are sub-human!"
You see ... even your precious 10 commandments IS A TRAVESTY if you put it in context! You still want to put everything in context? I am all game!
You see ... even your precious 10 commandments IS A TRAVESTY if you put it in context! You still want to put everything in context? I am all game!
2) What is the context?
You may argue that I put the 10 Commandments in the wrong context. Okay, what is the correct context? To know the correct context, you have to know the ancient language of that time, their daily life, the geo-political situation of that time, the Zeitgeist of that era, etc.. IF you know more about those things than me, than you can argue that my "context" is not that accurate. That means ... you have to be an ancient historian to exactly know the context. That means ... at least 4 years in college, studying all existing documents in all forms from that era.
What? I thought you said that your holy scripture is a universal moral guidance? How come it is UNIVERSAL if you have to be an ancient historian to know the context? Silly me, when we talk about religion, FAITH reigns supreme, LOGIC is tossed from the discussion from the beginning!
3) Another context: the history of the Scripture.
Bart D. Ehrman explained eloquently the history of the new Testament. Basically, it was copied BY HAND, and in many cases BY ILLITERATES. Is he kiddin me? No, he is serious. Since Christianity is a religion for the low class at its infant stages during the ancient Roman time, where literacy was defined as "able to write your own name," it was understandable that most of the people who copy its document were actually illiterate.
You see where this is going right? If you ask illiterates to copy a text, rampant omissions, errors, and redundancies were INEVITABLE!
That is the context of the Bible. Every single chapters and words were copied for hundreds of years by illiterates. Only after Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, experts started to do these important duty. So ... you expect me to be 100% sure that this text is IDENTICAL to the ORIGINAL one wrote by Paul, Peter, John etc.?
Oh, the Quran was better, but not much. You see, the Quran was COMPILED after the death of Muhammad SAW. Wait ... so ... you say that the people who compiled it were PERFECT and couldn't make a mistake? Sorry, as far as I know, in Islam, only Allah is perfect. Don't expect me to put those compilers above criticism.
4) What language again?
Oh, mistakes in copying is not the only context to doubt the authenticity of any historical script. There is a language barrier too. You see ... many of the texts written in ancient language. Everyone who master more than one language know that THERE IS NO PERFECT TRANSLATION! Even when the language is close, like English and German, when you translate it from one to the other, in many cases it is very tricky. Here I have to give credit to the Quran, since it insists to use Arabic!
But that open another problems. First, I can easily say that means God is not fair, since he favor the Arabs. Isn't that a cultural imperialism at its best? The people who were subjugated never felt it since they thought it is God's will. YAY, important note for all tyrant and dictator wannabe:used religion to subjugate and control people! It works! Wait a minute, they already did that repeatedly! Silly me.
Second, you may preserve the authenticity of the script, but in the end, the laymen, the mass has to translate it IN THEIR HEAD to get its message. That means, we have to master Arabic in order to get its LITERAL meaning perfectly. So ... you have to spend HOURS in learning a foreign language only to get the correct moral guidance? So ... what is so universal about this book again?
5) How they wrote it?
Fine, I suspend my disbelieve. I give modern translators the benefit of doubt that they PERFECTLY can translate it, just like modern translators translate English to German or to Mandarin perfectly. The problem is, many of those original texts written in scriptio continua, which means they didn't use spaces, and only used capital letters. Oh yeah, forget about comma, period, question mark, and exclamation mark too! Scriptio continua is literally continuous script, without any break.
But that open another problems. First, I can easily say that means God is not fair, since he favor the Arabs. Isn't that a cultural imperialism at its best? The people who were subjugated never felt it since they thought it is God's will. YAY, important note for all tyrant and dictator wannabe:used religion to subjugate and control people! It works! Wait a minute, they already did that repeatedly! Silly me.
Second, you may preserve the authenticity of the script, but in the end, the laymen, the mass has to translate it IN THEIR HEAD to get its message. That means, we have to master Arabic in order to get its LITERAL meaning perfectly. So ... you have to spend HOURS in learning a foreign language only to get the correct moral guidance? So ... what is so universal about this book again?
5) How they wrote it?
Fine, I suspend my disbelieve. I give modern translators the benefit of doubt that they PERFECTLY can translate it, just like modern translators translate English to German or to Mandarin perfectly. The problem is, many of those original texts written in scriptio continua, which means they didn't use spaces, and only used capital letters. Oh yeah, forget about comma, period, question mark, and exclamation mark too! Scriptio continua is literally continuous script, without any break.
ARE YOU FREAKIN KIDDIN ME? Even modern English in scriptio continua, is troublesome! Ehrman gave an example: "GODISNOWHERE" It can be "God is nowhere." It can also be "God is now here." Which one is the case? And you used text like this for your moral guidance?
You see, when you start to put "everything in context" you open a Pandora box. That only open thousands of ways to criticize your holy scripture. The context often makes the verse invalid in our time, because OUR MODERN CONTEXT involve human rights, scientific progress, etc. You know, shit that God of the ancient time FORGET to write, so secular-humanist, philosophers, and other non-believers have to figure by themselves. Once you read it "in context," that means you actually FILTER your holy scripture. You know "Look, at that time genocide is normal, so God order His people to genocide, but today it is not acceptable anymore." Err ... that means you put that filter above the words of God. Hey, here is a think, forget your scripture, JUST USE YOUR FILTER as your moral guidance. That is what Deist, humanist, atheist, agnostic, and free-thinker do all the time!
"The context" prove that your holy scripture is a horrible moral guidance. Most likely it is not authentic. Definitely it is not universal. Don't like it? Blame your God who is a lousy writer since He forget to put coherence, human rights, and so many other important traits of a good moral guidance. Blame God who refused to write any of His scripts in universal language, understood by every humanbeings. I never created this mess, I only point it out.
"The context" prove that your holy scripture is a horrible moral guidance. Most likely it is not authentic. Definitely it is not universal. Don't like it? Blame your God who is a lousy writer since He forget to put coherence, human rights, and so many other important traits of a good moral guidance. Blame God who refused to write any of His scripts in universal language, understood by every humanbeings. I never created this mess, I only point it out.
No comments:
Post a Comment