Read God's Word the Holy Bible Daily

by Nicodemus 41 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  outnfree

  Tina, Farkel, Dana: (((((((MY HEROES))))))))

  Marvin,

  Whether those acts of intoxication made Lot an unrighteous drunkard is another question.

  For me, the question of Lot's righteousness or unrighteousness was settled in verse 8, of Genesis 19: "Listen, I have two daughters who are virgins. I am ready to send them out to you, to treat as it pleases you. But as for the men, do nothing to them, for they have come under the shadow of my roof."

  Yes, yes, I've heard the explanation of how important it was to show hospitality to one's guests back in those days.... But one would think that a/ if Lot truly loved his daughters he wouldn't be willing for them to be harmed sexually or b/ since they were promised to two of the town's young men already, he would want to honor that promise (which I assume he made on their behalf, being the patriarch and all).
  But no. He is concerned neither with his promise nor his daughters' well-being (and wouldn't throwing his daughters to the crowd make them unfit as wives -- damaged goods? Then again, maybe not, in Sodom.)

  As was discussed in chat by some last night, Lot was saved as a favor to Abraham. (See verses 16 and 25) Jehovah understood just where Abraham's concern lay when he went begging mercy for ten just (righteous) men that could possibly be found in Sodom and Gomorrah! Abraham's concern was for his family! And the angels inquired of Lot for his family AND friends (if any) to spare them. Who did Lot come up with? Only his wife and his two daughters because his prospective sons-in-law would not take him seriously. (There goes the mythical concubine account -- the scripture clearly tells us who left with the angels. -- Verse 15)

  The scripture also clearly tells us that Lot "was unaware of [his daughters'] coming to bed or of [their] leaving." We find this hard to believe because, as others have stated, Lot could not have performed well enough to impregnate both if he were really, truly in a drunken stupor. Also, he did not have to get so very drunk. AND, it is also true that the girls bear some responsibility for coming up with their hare-brained scheme.

  That said, LOT was the grown-up here. The supposedly righteous man.
  But he was given to not caring very much about his daughters (as previously evidenced), and he did not practice self-control when it came to imbibing alcohol. (One would think that if he had drunken himself practically into a coma so that he was not consciously aware of having had sex with his elder daughter overnight, the next day he would have had such a hangover that he would have been careful not to repeat the abuse -- for his own sake! So he was none too bright, either. ) Why should one think that a man who was reluctant to leave Sodom despite its depravity would exercise self-control when it came to incest, either?

  IMNSHO, Lot proved himself an unrighteous drunk, alright! And, it DOES take two to commit incest, so the daughters bear some responsibility, too. After all, he was so very, very drunk and "unaware" so it wasn't as though he forcibly raped them. However, he should never have put himself in the position he did, him being the Father, and all, and so he bears the greater blame.

  Also, have we never heard "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me?" Hmmmmmmmm?

  The incest should never have taken place between Lot and his second daughter at all!

  Now. If you want to believe "all Scripture is inspired of God" that's fine. But you may also want to remember that it was written down by a righteous man, Moses. Whom I'm sure could never have conceived of Lot being wicked enough to have violated his own virginal daughters. Therefore, he may well have tried to excuse this bad behavior away by making Lot "unaware of her coming to bed or of her leaving" when he wrote down the account. (Otherwise why would Jehovah have rescued this scum?)

  However, I am beginning to believe that this little story is just what the Jerusalem Bible explains it to be: "The origin of the Moabites and the Ammonites." A folk tale, as the very etymology of the names of the children incestuously conceived explain. The footnote to Verses 37 and 38 says: "Moab is explained as from me.ab 'from my father'; Ben-ammi, 'son of my knsman,' is associated with 'sons of Ammon.'

  ------------

  Now may I apologize to Nicodemus for taking this off-track (again! apparently

  Your good heart in wanting to bring others comfort when they feel beaten down by the WTS's constant litany of reasons why they are not "doing enough" is truly appreciated.

  outnfree
• 

  cnn77

  Nicodemus you wrote:

  "The second question asks whether the candidate clearly understands that their baptism identifies them as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Since there can be no disputing that their baptism does so identify them, simply asking them whether they understand that does not strike me as particularly heinous. Perhaps one of our astute ex-Bethelites can shed some more light on this issue. I suspect that there may have been legal reasons for this. I honestly don’t find it as offensive as some do."

  A different slant on the issue with the new baptism question has to do with the words "spirit directed". Is it spirit directed? What does that mean? I asked that to an elder and their explanation was:

  "Since the Bible was inspired by God's Spirit and since we follow the Bible as an organization we are a spirit-directed organization...."

  Is this an acceptable explanation? Or is it a twist and a stretch? Why make the statement which infers that god's spirit is directing the organization? The action is wrong - is it a pull or a push action? I don't know if this jumps out to everyone like it does to me....

  If it is a spirit directed organization and the spirt is doing the directing (not the Society's interperetation of the spirit inspired scriptures) then how do we explain the fact that the light needs to get brighter? What doesn't the spirit know?

  Ok lets anticipate the answer "it's not a person - its God's active force". Well - if its God's Active Force then God is responsible....Why does God need the light to get brighter? Why doesn't he stop incorrect light from getting through and being published if it is his spirit that is responsible for the words? Surely his credibility is at stake?

  Or is it just a phrase?

  Please help me understand this correctly.

  Thanks
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hello, Outnfree.

  For me, the question of Lot's righteousness or unrighteousness was settled in verse 8, of Genesis 19: "Listen, I have two daughters who are virgins. I am ready to send them out to you, to treat as it pleases you. But as for the men, do nothing to them, for they have come under the shadow of my roof."

  I think your conclusions stemming from the incident at Sodom of Lot offering his daughters to the crowd is somewhat lacking. You assume Lot would have followed through with his offer. Can you prove that? Have you considered Lot may have been insincere in offering his daughters?

  According to the story Lot felt his household was in danger by a threatening mob. As head of his household Lot did the right thing by trying to deal with the threat. He went outside and closed the door behind himself. He was all alone facing a violent mob. He put himself in that dangerous position. He did not have to go out at all. For all we know Lot offered what he did to have an opportunity to get back inside with his family and think up other defenses. Significantly Lot had to be pulled back inside. He apparently was willing to defend his household over his dead body.

  If Lot was such a bad father, why didn’t he send one of his daughters out to confront the mob? Who went out and faced the mob, alone? Why did he go out at all, if he was such a perverted weenie?

  In the face of a violent crowd, can any of us conclusively prove that Lot was serious in his offer to send out his daughters?

  I would agree that Lot might have been serious, but we will never know because Lot never gave them over. I would also agree that under similar circumstances any one of us might disingenuously offer outrageous things to calm a crowd down and maybe, just maybe, get an upper hand. Lot might have been acting this way. Concluding Lot was serious is an assumption.

  The scripture also clearly tells us that Lot "was unaware of [his daughters'] coming to bed or of [their] leaving." We find this hard to believe because, as others have stated, Lot could not have performed well enough to impregnate both if he were really, truly in a drunken stupor. Also, he did not have to get so very drunk.

  If Lot did indeed impregnate his daughters then he was not stone cold drunk AT THE POINT OF INTERCOURSE. As I have already said, and you agree, such a condition would have rendered him useless for sexual intercourse. If Lot did impregnate his daughters then he had SOME awareness, which brings into question the text you quote from. Does that portion of the story mean Lot was unaware AT THE TIME OF INTERCOURSE or that he DID NOT REMEMBER because of continued drinking afterwards? Like others have, I believe you assert more than the text can support. I believe there are other possibilities.

  I don’t want anyone here to get the wrong idea. I am not defending the story of Lot. The story of Lot says what it says, and nothing any of us asserts changes it. My replies and questions have been toward showing that some unsound conclusions have been made. It is possible that Lot was a perverted lunatic who would give his daughters over for sex, or have them himself if given the opportunity. But it is also possible that Lot was a heroic defender of his family and, at the time, had no idea he had impregnated his daughters. Which one is the case? All we know is that the Bible record paints Lot as a righteous man. We also know the record is explicit that Lot did not know he was impregnating his daughters. Keep in mind that knowing is a state of mind while saying may not be. What Lot said in Sodom may not be a reflection of his state of mind. What Lot knew at the time his daughters were impregnated is a statement of Lot’s state of mind.
• 

  worf

  I'm just expressing my agreement with the comments in this thread about the wt publications.Its true that so much focus was placed on reading the publications.As mentioned though, we never needed them.When I started reading the Bible itself, I also learned how dishonest the borg always has been with the scriptures.The Bible is all inclusive.It says what it has to say w/o the help of some wt publications.
  And in addition to that Proverbs 30:5,6 says:"Every word of God is flawless;He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.DO NOT ADD TO HIS WORDS, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."
  Wt publications have always added to God s word, the very thing he said NOT to do.
  The wts has been proved to be a liar and they will pay for it. Let them burn for what they have done.
  worf
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Wt publications have always added to God s word, the very thing he said NOT to do.

  Amen!
• 

  outnfree

  Hi, Marvin,

  I concede that Lot may, indeed, have been lying when he offered his daughters to the ugly mob. Other Biblical characters deemed righteous have been known to lie -- David comes immediately to mind.
  However, I contend that Lot went out to protect his visitors who were the object of the crowd's original desires.

  If Lot did impregnate his daughters then he had SOME awareness, which brings into question the text you quote from.

  Yes, the text I cited is verse 36 from the Jerusalem Bible: "Both Lot's daughters thus became pregnant by their father." I believe that to be unambiguous.

  Thus it seems you think I assume too much, and I feel you assume too much, also. I, too, usually advocate not imputing bad motives to anyone. I learned that in the Borg, trusting soul that I am, and also learned how to rationalize bad behavior there, too, on the part of those in positions of power/responsibility.

  Shall we agree to disagree?

  outnfree
• 

  RipVanWinkle

  Nicodemus

  Your post was positive and well thought out. Thank you.

  I am convinced that no matter what experiences a person has had, going back to the Bible and reading and re-reading it helps us to see new things from a different vantage point. This can benefit ourselves and it should make better people out of us in that we can relate to others going through difficulties and offer some compassion.

  Then when we find that we can't do it all by outselves - can't change or improve our condition - it becomes easier to "throw our burdens on Jehovah". Then he gives us peace.

  It reminds me of the poster that says:

  As children bring their broken toys with tears for us to mend,
  I brought my broken dreams to God, because he was my friend,

  But then instead of leaving Him in peace to work alone,
  I hung around and tried to help with ways that were my own.

  At last I snatched them back and cried: "how can you be so slow--"
  "My child," He said, "What could I do? You never did let go."

  I've carried this around as a reminder for 3 decades. I've had my share of disappointments, but I've let them all go. I haven't the time or energies to carry around those loads.

  Again. Thanks for your meaningful post..........RVW
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Dear Outnfree:

  If you feel I have assumed essentials in our discussion, please say what they are. This is the courtesy I would extend and think I have extended. I expect the same. Though I appreciate having your opinions I would like a few specifics, if you want the discussion.

  Agreeing to disagree is something all adults do. I am an adult so agreeing to disagree is something I do all the time. But that is beside the point made. The point is one about sound thinking. I have yet to see anyone from a sound argument in support of the negative assertions about the biblical Lot, that he knowingly participated in incest. This should be important to thinkers concerned with the biblical Lot.

  The best argument I have come upon supporting your view uses a premise focused on Lot’s intoxication. The argument basically says either Lot performed intercourse or he did not. If he performed intercourse then he could not have been so inebriated to have no idea of what was happening, so he must have realized what was happening and with whom. The problem with this argument is multiple: 1) it assumes visibility in a cave, at night, 2) it assumes Lot was either totally inebriated at the time of intercourse or not inebriated at all that night, and 3) it assumes Lot had no romantic relationship that could have been faked. Assuming all those elements then the argument succeeds. This is why satisfying each of those assumptions is important to the argument, an argument interested thinkers would want satisfied. If these elements cannot be satisfied then the conclusion is not a sound one.
• 

  blondie

  I have always been disturbed the the account of Lot offering his daughters to the mob as well as the account of his daughters getting him drunk so he would have intercourse with them.

  But during all of this was a contemporary of Lot who was married to his half-sister (Sarah) by whom he had a son (Isaac) who became the forefather of Jesus Christ. Abraham's wife was his half-sister. Later on, a Levite married his aunt and they had 3 children, Miriam, Aaron, and Moses. All these unions would be considered incestuous under the law as well as today.

  I have nothing to infer just more to add to the situation. I have never understood why it was such a wonderful thing for Joseph to flee from immorality although there was no law against it but Judah could have sex with a prostitute and the explanation is that it was fine because there was no law yet. I guess adultery is worse than fornication.
• 

  Tina

  (((((((out fark dana and all)))))))))Thanks for the informative input! Luv,T