Uh, JRigger... may you have peace!
I am not sure we 'understand' one another, here. Let's take a look:
You are one serious Bible-thumper, aren't you?
Actually, no. As many can tell you, I don't put my faith in the Bible, for to me, it is simply a compilation of many books, including but not all 'scripture'... and has been tampered with, as well as misrendered, misinterpreted, and mistranslated.
Your comments on the thread regarding Lot raise the meaning of the word "ridiculous" to a whole new level.
Well, okay, if you say so. (Didn't someone write something about 'ridiculers' and their 'ridicule'... oh, sorry, I digress...)
You said: " He was willing to GIVE his daughters,
Well, wasn't he?
which was his RIGHT to do under the 'law' they lived by at that time
Well, wasn't it? Heck, in some parts of this world, fathers STILL hold that right, dear JRig... Didn't say I AGREED with, but hey, I don't agree with a LOT of 'rights' granted folks. So what, they still HAVE the right, yes?
(and trust me, the girls would NOT have disobeyed...)"
And they wouldn't have. Uh, where you been, JRig? Isn't there a Saudi princess hiding out in the US right now because she married a US Marine against her families wishes? And isn't she in fear for her life because in HER country she could be put to death for disobeying her parents? Yes? Do I personally agree with that? No. I am I Saudi with 'rights' to disagree with that? No. Does her parents have THEIR rights under Saudi law? Uh, yep.
In other words, because the "law" and culture allowed him this option, and his daughters would have "obeyed", this lets him off the hook?
Well, YEAH! What 'law' would he have broken?
What kind of crap is THAT?
It's called 'law', JRig. We have them, here, too. Some I agree with; some I don't. Some you agree with; some you don't. If you have a right under a law and you AGREE with it... and your CULTURE agrees with it, I would say that that would pretty much let you 'off the hook', yes?
You said: "For those who like to take certain accounts and find the 'unrighteousness' in the acts of others, might I ask you why? Is that not tantamount to the hypocritical judging of the WTBTS... accusing people of unrighteousness and wickedness, when you have but one part of the 'picture'?" (bold mine)
Yep, that's what I said...
I don't think I have to list for you all of the examples where the Society has condemned other religious groups leadership for things that their own leadership is guilty of.
No, you don't.
IMO, that's a whole other topic.
You're right... your opinion...
Red herring...
Perhaps, but still true and quite RELEVANT, since condemning WTBTS hypocrisy is a lot of what this forum is about, yes? And doing the same thing that you are condemning others for IS hypocrisy, yes? No, I think it was relevant. But then, that MY 'opinion'... yes?
As to having "but one part of the 'picture'", as you put it, how much more do you need to know?
Uh, LOT'S thinking, maybe? How about God's? You have an account... the DAUGHTERS' thinking... and the folks HERE'S thinking... yes? Since the daughters' thinking is recorded, I would say we've got one side... yes, I would say that.
This man is willing to let his own daughters be raped in order to NOT incur the wrath of the locals for breaking hospitality rules!
What 'rape'? If he offered them and the daughters went willingly, what 'rape'? Aren't you jumping the gun? How do YOU know the daughters weren't tired of waiting for those prospective sons-in-law to get off the pot and would'a taken the next thing that appeared at the door seeking a woman? Heck, maybe the prospective sons-in-law were slow ABOUT marrying them 'cause they knew that they TOO were kinda 'kinky'. Who knows? You got all the details, JR? No, you've got ONE side. A side that SAYS a couple of chicks got their dad drunk and molested him. Tell me, if the dad had got THEM drunk and molested THEM... would you blame THEM?
That alone should speak VOLUMES about his CHARACTER, or lack thereof. The adjective "righteous" isn't exactly the first one that comes to mind when reading about this man...
And you're making a very sexist accusation. Read my last question to you again. Ain't it funny, though, that no one's slandering the DAUGHTERS? Yep, mighty 'funny'... oh, that's right... they were harmless little girls with a big bad WOLF of a daddy...
I think that the dillemna Bible-thumpers like you face is that BECAUSE of your fervent belief that the Bible is totally inspired by "God"
Whoooaaaa, there, Tonto. I believe NO SUCH THING. Anyone care to 'enlighten' this individual as to what I believe about the Bible? I have stated it many, MANY times. I would appreciate the clarification, if anyone is 'willing'. In the meantime, Rig... go back to step... uh, whatever number it was... above. Do not 'pass go'... and do not 'collect $200'.
it cannot possibly contain any errors or contradictions.
The BIBLE? Are you SERIOUS? Jeremiah 8:8 TELLS us it does.
So, when a Bible writer says "Lot was a righteous man", even though there are enough facts to show otherwise, you have to come up with all kinds of creative ways of defending your position that these Bible writers had "God's" inspiration.
LOLOLOLOL! No, dear one. I don't believe Lot was a 'righteous' man because the Bible writer said so. I don't believe ANY of the Bible unless my Lord backs it up for me. And HE believes Lot was a 'righteous' man, that is why Lot receives the 'reward' he does. Another subject entirely.
IMO, the fact that women are treated with so little regard by Bible writers shows that "God" had very little - if anything - to do with the Bible.
With the exception of Paul(?), who is totally taken out of context in some instances and had much to learn himself in others, I am not sure what you're referring to. Both my Father AND my Lord had/have GREAT love and respect for women. Now, the WTBTS doesn't have much and have taught its FOLLOWERS not to have much (oh, oops! There I go again tossin' out 'red herrings' again, yes? Oh, well, it's appropriate... and relevant...)
So, what kind of 'jigs' do you 'rig', JR?
I bid you peace... until time indefinite... and much better understanding of a few things... at least for now...
A slave of Christ,
SJ
