Young Followers of Christ?

by AGuest 78 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  NewChapter

  Please... men do worse than that today, as do some women. Sometimes other men aren't even involved. Sometimes it's mom's boyfriend... and/or his friends. Don't try to make Lot out any worse than other men. No one's saying that what Lot offerred was right. It's just an account of what took place. And given what his daughters later did... sleeping with their own father... your obvious assumption that they were, well, pure as the driven snow seems ridiculous. Lot's daughters were saved because of Lot... not because of themselves. For all you know, they could have been Sodom skanks. If they were willing to get their father drunk and then sleep with him... EACH of them (not one or the other - ewwwwww!)... I don't suspect they were any kind of "princesses."

  THIS is your defense? That people do worse? Sodom SKANKS? So it’s fine to offer up what you call a SKANK for rape? Well that’s rather disgusting of you. She deserved it. She was a SKANK. Oh---how we pick and choose. The bible says they were virgins, but the great Aguest determines that they were SKANKS, and therefore, their rape is no biggie. Your assumption that is it okay to rape a woman because she is what you have decided is a SKANK is more ridiculous (and disgusting) than anything I could ever think to say.

  What a horrible value system, but right in line with your god!

  As to what they did afterward---yeah---sounds f**ked up that two virgins would have sex with their ‘poor defenseless father’ who was too drunk to realize, but not too drunk to perform. Yeah right. He raised them. Obviously he screwed them up big time.
• 

  still thinking

  I mean, I wouldn't necessarily concluded that they were untouched, pristeen, sweet, and innocent virgins. And I think assuming so is... well, an assumption and an erroneous one at that.

  Of course....why didn't I see it...this gives a righteous man PERMISSION to have sex with his daughters....

  He was drunk...it wasn't his fault....
• 

  NewChapter

  Yep, much like folks like you and I sitting pretty... while men slaughter children in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Darfur, Rwanda, the Sudan, Libya, Egypt, Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, etc., etc., etc. Now JAH had a reason, both as to the Flood... and as to Sodom. What is the reason for these particular slaughters?

  The Israelites wanted the land, and said their god gave them the go ahead to run swords through teeny, tiny, infant bodies. But I see you only hold your god to the human standards of what they do in human nations.
• 

  NewChapter

  Au contare. Not for those who perished, perhaps. But certainly for Lot and his household. And that was fair. Remember, JAH promised not to bring destruction if FIVE decent people could be found in those cities. Unfortunately Lot, his wife, and two daughters... number 4. One too few.

  Don't you mean Lot and his two SKANKS whose rapes would have been no big deal? You know, the ones the righteous man went on to have sex with and impregnate?
• 

  still thinking

  I wonder why god saved the SKANKS?
• 

  NewChapter

  Of course....why didn't I see it...this gives a righteous man PERMISSION to have sex with his daughters...

  Oh, it's a common Christian concept. Women are responsible for their own rapes, cuz they were probably whores anyway. No big deal. We aren't talking about legitimate rape afterall.

  And the other concept, which started in the garden, that those evil women, those skanks (again, I'd like to point out that the bible says they were virgins---so maybe skanks-in-training would be a better term) corrupted the poor, innocent pure man. He's just not responsible !
• 

  still thinking

  Yes...thats a reasonable conclusion...he wan't responsible...it was the SKANKY virgins...and the alcohol. (devils juice) LOL

  But that bloody wife of his, looking back...terrible...she really should have been stoned. Turning her to salt was too good for her. Especailly since it was probably her fault her daughters were SKANKY virgins.
• 

  tec

  lol... there's that reading comprehension thing maybe?

  No one said their rape would have been no big deal (or even that it would be rape), or that it would be justified. No one said that women are responsible for their own rapes. No one said anything about legitimate rape. (that's just pushing your politics, lol) And no one said that even if they were 'skanks' that this would give Lot permission to have sex with them. If you're going to change the meaning of what was written, you can't really call someone else to account for thinking they're doing the same thing, can you?

  This is a perfect example of how you sometimes twist things. All those times that you don't understand what one of us is talking about... what twisting?... here is an example. Because this will follow onto other threads... 'oh, skanks deserve to get raped, its no big deal... Aguest said so'...

  Just sayin'.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  NewChapter

  That's probably not what happened at all. Lot probably clubbed her in the head when she tried to stop the pervert from throwing their young virgin daughters out to a crowd that was sex crazed and violent. Afterall, it wasn't women they came looking for. It was men. Lot could have offered himself up, but then he had those skanky virgins daughters handy---so---their rapes wouldn't count. They were so skanky they probably wanted to go.
• 

  zed is dead

  When Jesus talks to someone and they share it, this is probably the source: