On the "context" argument.

I listen to podcasts. Today I heard the argument from context on two different shows: The Halli Casser-Jayne Show and Dogma Debate.

The Halli Casser-Jayne Show featured an interview with Mubin Shaikh, apparently a "former militant jihadi turned undercover agent" who argued that the militants in ISIS/ISIL have taken sections of Muslim holy texts out of context in order to move their Islamic State forward. Starting around the 15:00 mark, Mubin speaks, 

... This is why we make the point of mistaken interpretations, because--I'll give you a perfect example-- Chapter 9, Verse 5: "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them." And a lot of people who, sorry, hate Islam and Muslims, they want to believe that Islam is the reason for it, they want to avoid the reality of sociopolitics, they see that and say "Look! Here's what the verse says." And it's funny, but I used to believe the same thing until the scholar said to me, "Do you normally begin reading at Verse 5?" Right? 

So If you go to verse 1 it tells you that this is in regards to polytheists who have broken the peace treaty between them. If look at verse 4 or 12, it absolves those who are not engaged in hostile acts and does not include those people in the verses that talk about fighting.

So there is a context that needs to be respected. (...)

It goes on. He insults those who "misunderstand," who do "superficial shallow readings," and "ignore contexts." It's some classic "No True Scotsman" stuff. In effect, he's saying "They get it all wrong because they hold to an ideology that doesn't respect context."
 
Later in the evening, while walking the dog, I was listening to Dogma Debate. A pastor claimed that we need to appreciate "context" in order to understand God's orders in order to understand the creation myth and whatnot. Starting around the 59 minute mark, the pastor says, 

You gotta' take everything in context.

The important thing is to take things in context. You got to realize that The Bible isn't one book with one author... so these are lots of authors writing for different contexts and different situations writing for different reasons.

I heard arguments like this a lot growing up. "You need to take the Bible in context" is how I usually heard it, and there was never any need to have discussions like this if there wasn't some serious logical or ethical confusion. This discussion took place after reading about Yahweh's many murders and massacres and whatnot. Always, when God acted like a jerk, or humans got credit for unethical behavior, somebody would say "You have to take it in context." 

There are a few problems with the argument from context.

1. Who delineates what the "original" context was? We have no way to fully grasp original context; we always read old context with the glasses of our own context.
2. Who are we to say when, how, and where the original context should be adapted, and how? To what degree are we allowed to adapt or interspose contexts?
3. Why is god so incompetent that he can't see that people will take his words out of context, if context is so important? Why can't he just clear it up?

Really, that's the crux of it. No god worth worshipping would leave it up to us to interpret so many layers of context. A worship-worthy god would just tell us. Gods who can't take "context" into account aren't worthy of praise.

The argument from context should always be a red flag: it always attempts to justify bad behavior or incompetence. I can't think of any other purpose for the technique.