MiloCast

A common complaint among religious apologists is that quotes from the bible or other religious texts are taken out of context, and as such are unfairly scrutinized. If you ever hear that, pay close attention to the fact that they do not then provide the quotation and its full context as evidence.

For example, in Genesis, chapter 19, verse 8, Lot (who was chosen by God to be saved from the destruction of Sodom for his virtue) tells the men of Sodom to take his two virgin daughters and do to them what is good in their eyes. By the way, the context is that the men surrounded his house and demanded to have his male guests sent out to be raped. Lot responds by offering them his virgin daughters instead.

Shortly thereafter (chapter 19 verse 26), Lot’s wife is destroyed by God by being turned into a pillar of salt for the crime of looking behind her to witness God’s punishment (raining down fire and brimstone on the city). So here we have a bible story which describes how a man seen worthy of personal assistance from God himself offers his daughters out for gang rape, yet his wife is killed for simply looking behind her.

How many people who claim to believe the bible is the word of God have actually read this? The intellectual dishonesty of those who would seek to defend this story just boggles my mind. If you’re starting from the position that the bible is true and then try to find a way to prove that against any argument, you’re not thinking properly. The way rational people decide what is true is to look at the evidence and decide the result. Religious apologists decide on a result and dismiss or accept evidence based upon whether it supports their presupposition.