I'm going to stray away from Bible verses [specifically] right now and discuss something that is currently on going. It involves me and a close friend, and of course the Bible. :) (You didn't think I'd go way off topic did you?). This will be a 3,4, maybe 5 part series depending on how much response it generates. Hopefully I will lend insight on how to successfully debate Christians, which will closely relate to debating creationist, but that is a whole different animal.
So, anyways what I wanted to talk about, in this first part, is a situation I am currently in, in an actual debate, and the usual tactics you can expect to face while debating a Christian. I will use the exact verse that the debate; or opinionated discussion if you will, is centered around; Deuteronomy 23:1, which states:
"No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."
A little bit of background on the verse:
This section of "The Fifth Book of Moses; Deuteronomy" is classified as the 3rd sermon, which contains the Deuteronomic Code. The sermon is given by Moses and he specifies a series of mitzvot (in Hebrew; the plural for mitzvah, meaning: commands) given by the Lord, to the Israelites.
Now it is not necessarily the specific verse that has meaning to what I want to talk about, rather the use of "context error" that [most] followers of the bible [whilst involved in a debate] use to avoid being seen as wrong. While it is a clever tactic, which is intended to make the listeners believe the user and throw you off as the opposition, I myself have learned to spot it, immediately, and expose it at it's worst.
I will explain to you how to spot this while debating and what you can do to turn the tables quickly and use this elementary technique to your advantage.
Now it isn't hard to spot when somebody uses this against you because most of the times they will say something like: "you're not looking at the context" or "you have to pay attention to the context of the verse". Either way, most of the time they will use the word context; and in the rare case your are speaking with a well educated Bible scholar, you might hear the phrase "frame of reference" HA! give me a break.
Moving onto turning the tables on your opponent; it is very simple might I add. I will use an example of the debate I am currently in. Let us refer to myself as person A and my friend, person B. The discussion is about a very obvious contradiction in the bible. God says that he is a loving caring God who cannot sin, yet He is willing to kill His own creations? and deny them access to His Kingdom for ridiculous reasons. (Read my post "Deuteronomy 23:1" for a more detailed description on this specific verse.)
A- Deuteronomy 23:1 states: "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord." How is God a loving deity if He is willing to kill His own children for such ridiculous reasons?
B- You are not understanding the context of the verse. Moses is speaking to the Israelites not everybody else.
Okay, lets break this down. I stated the verse and asked a simple question. Now regardless of what the answer really is (God is not a loving deity!) he avoided the question and through the "context" word out there. Now a listener will naturally follow person B because he avoided the question and put the pressure on person A. Everyone in the audience has most likely forgot about person A's original question and is now expecting person A to rethink his position.
A- I completely understand the context; Moses was given commands by God to tell the Israelites the laws that structure the promised land. Moses spoke to the Israelites, and explained the laws word for word as God had instructed him. Therefor Deut 23:1 is the Word of God. Now I will ask this question again that you failed to answer. How is God a loving deity if He is willing to kill His own children for such ridiculous reasons?
B- He was talking to the Israelites! No human will know why God does what He does because he is God.
Once again person B avoided the question, but since person A completely described the context of the verse and pointed out that person B dodged the question the audience is now on person A's side and should expect and answer from person B. As you can see person B was not expecting such a detailed, witty response and has fumbled his opportunity to gain the edge which in turn has given person A the advantage.
So in a few easy steps:
1- Make sure you ask powerful questions. Things like why has God done"___" when earlier in the Bible he says "___". Bible scholars hate this question and almost immediately use the next most famous tactic; the "God is not a human" tactic, which will be discussed in part 2.
2- As soon as they use the context tactic exploit it by explaining in detail to the audience what the context of the subject matter is. This will bring the audience to your side of the debate.
3- Lastly if your opponent dodges your questions (which is almost a guarantee) call them out on it. Tell the audience they have not answered your question yet, your opponent will feel stupid and it will put him/her on the spot.
That, is really all you have to do to turn the tables on someone who has used the "context" tactic. As you can see person B followed up with the "God is not human" tactic which will be discussed in part 2 of this series. As always, make sure you study up, and know your stuff before getting into a debate with somebody. Your best weapon is your brain so make sure you use it.
Subscribe to my blog and follow along for part 2 of this series "Debating a Christian".
Interestingly enough, your main weapon of choice is to tell us Christians that we can't present our data in context even though it must be taken in context to be completely understood. Meanwhile, you offer yourself the ability to take anything from the Bible out of context and compare it to a modern day social more. Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.
ReplyDeleteCase in point:
"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul."
Now the homosexual activist jump all over this as being proof that King David was gay.
The original Hebrew word for "love", in this passage, is "'ahab". This can mean love between a husband and wife, sexual love, love between friends, love for a country and love of the law. It must be taken in context to glean the actual meaning of the word.
In this case, only an activist with an agenda could come to the conclusion that David and Jonathan were gay lovers.
Before you jump on the bandwagon of "no context any time", you need to temper it with a bit of logic and fairness.
"No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."
How on earth you got "kill them" out of this, I'm not sure. When the Bible said to kill people, it says "kill", "put to death" or "destroyed". We have none of that here.
It says "shall not enter the assembly of the Lord." In context, the "Assembly of the Lord" is referring to office, or leadership roles.
Why would God restrict someone without man parts from being in a leadership role? I'm glad you asked.
At this time in the Israelites history, they were surrounded by pagan cultures. As a part of these cultures, men were often castrated in order to take part in their pagan rituals. The law was made to forbid them from being in leadership roles.
Would it also apply to those who were born without and have lost it in an accident? Yes it would. "That's not fair", you say. Maybe by current social mores, but not by the mores of that time.
If I wish to grow my group of people so that it can contend with the groups around it, should I place a person in a leadership role whose decisions may be influenced by his lack of genitalia? No, I would want people who were willing to obey the directions I have given and procreate. A person without genitalia could very well make decisions that were contrary to that goal based solely on his lack of genitals.
Think this is far fetched concept? Not really. Look at our court system today. We have judges who read laws and interpret them to mean almost the exact opposite. No logical person could read these laws and arrive at the conclusion these activist judges came up with. They are imposing their own will, through a liberal interpretation of the law instead of upholding what the law clearly states. So it is with the Israelites and God.
So there is the explanation of Deuteronomy 23:1.
Going on to your "debating a Christian"...
Christian detractors love to quote Old Testament laws, something Christians are no longer bound by. If one wishes to continue to follow it, well, more power to them, but as a Christian, I choose to follow Jesus, who fulfilled the law for us; something we could never do by ourselves.
By the way, there is a misnomer above. You say that some Christians will claim "Moses is speaking to the Israelites not everybody else." Not to burst your and their bubble, but no, God is talking to all of us. It's His law and it is forever.
Thank Goodness for Jesus who took care of it for us.