Posts by Inquisitor

30

Why Joseph did not bonk Mrs Pot

by Inquisitor in

the wts loooves to harp on the story of joseph fleeing from potiphar's wife (see this week's watchtower article).

it provides a most convenient moral story with which to command young people .

i've often wondered if joseph rejected mrs potiphar for reasons other than chastity.

Inquisitor

Maybe Joseph had the hots for Mr. Pot...????

LOL!!

30

Why Joseph did not bonk Mrs Pot

by Inquisitor in

the wts loooves to harp on the story of joseph fleeing from potiphar's wife (see this week's watchtower article).

it provides a most convenient moral story with which to command young people .

i've often wondered if joseph rejected mrs potiphar for reasons other than chastity.

Thank you for your honesty. I apologize if my use of the term "hag" offends you. I was merely trying to stick to a term that captures the idea I wished to convey without having to type so many letters, e.g. "unattractive woman". Do you have a better term in mind?

While I agree with you that male chauvinism still exists in modern society, it would be ludicrous to insist that society hasn't made any progress since Potiphar's day. Feminism has made most men more conscious of injustices towards women. Feminism as we understand it today DID NOT EXIST in Potiphar's day.

INQ

30

Why Joseph did not bonk Mrs Pot

by Inquisitor in

the wts loooves to harp on the story of joseph fleeing from potiphar's wife (see this week's watchtower article).

it provides a most convenient moral story with which to command young people .

i've often wondered if joseph rejected mrs potiphar for reasons other than chastity.

Inquisitor

Hi Forscher
It slipped my mind that Potiphar possibly doubted his wife's innocence. I remember my Bible conductor teaching me this when I was 6 now that you raised this point.
I personally wouldn't dismiss the suggestion that Potiphar's wife was a hag. True, pundits may show that a man of his stature had the power to dismiss wives, but that alone should not convince us that he exercised that priviledge. He may not have been able to. Suppose Potiphar's wife was not formerly a mere slave girl. Suppose she was born into nobility, she would have known how to play her cards right to ensure that her standing cannot be jeopardized. Perhaps Potiphar's marriage to her was a political move, not one based upon his attraction to her good looks. Perhaps Potiphar could not dismiss this unattractive woman out of fear for his political standing. For all we know, Potiphar's wife may have been a formidable noblewoman. It would almost be chauvinistic retrospection to assume that her worth necessarily lies only in her looks (or lack of).

On the other hand, Potiphar may have truly loved his hag of a wife. We should not assume that true love is above an ancient civilization that condoned concubinage and objectified women.

INQ

30

Why Joseph did not bonk Mrs Pot

by Inquisitor in

the wts loooves to harp on the story of joseph fleeing from potiphar's wife (see this week's watchtower article).

it provides a most convenient moral story with which to command young people .

i've often wondered if joseph rejected mrs potiphar for reasons other than chastity.

Inquisitor

The WTS loooves to harp on the story of Joseph fleeing from Potiphar's wife (see this week's Watchtower article). It provides a most convenient moral story with which to command young people to remain celibate till marriage. The aim is noble, but is the basis credible?

I've often wondered if Joseph rejected Mrs Potiphar for reasons OTHER than Chastity. For one, she might have been a toothless, droopy old hag who compensated with heavy mascara. While the Bible described Joseph as a "beautiful" young man twice in the same sentence (Gen 39:6), it is silent on Mrs. Potiphar's looks. The hot temptress is merely the fictitious imagination of those who are trying to exaggerate the integrity of young Joseph.

Another possible reason Joseph chose not to sleep with Mrs Pot might be found in his own rejection speech:

8 But he would refuse and would say to his master’s wife: "Here my master does not know what is with me in the house, and everything he has he has given into my hand. 9 There is no one greater in this house than I am, and he has not withheld from me anything at all except you, because you are his wife. So how could I commit this great badness and actually sin against God?" - Genesis 39:8,9

While I appreciate that it is possible that the Ten Commandments have not yet been produced at that time, it is worth comparing the message of the 10th Commandment (Exodus 20:17) with Joseph's words:

17

"You must not desire your fellowman’s house. You must not desire your fellowman’s wife, nor his slave man nor his slave girl nor his bull nor his ass nor anything that belongs to your fellowman.

Having read both accounts, what I'm thinking here is: Could Joseph's concept of sinning against his master and God revolve around the concept of property ownership and NOT the concept of chastity? Could Joseph have viewed sleeping with Mrs. Pot as an act of STEALING and not an act of LUST? There is nothing in the scriptures to insist on the chastity interpretation.

Some may wonder why should this be an issue. They may reason that "Yeah sleeping with someone's wife is in effect stealing another man's wife. That's called infidelity too."

Well, the difference is that, viewed in this light, Joseph's integrity reflected the male chauvinism of his time. It isn't based on pure righteousness as the WTS would have us believe. Joseph didn't shag Mrs Pot for the same reason he wouldn't have worn Pot's linen underwear or played with Pot's golf clubs. It's all about the toys that can be played with and toys that are exculsive to the master. And if I'm correct, Mrs. Pot was merely an exculsive TOY. And if this is true, it's not the kinda moral lesson you want to teach your kids. It has nothing to do with respecting women or valuing your virginity.

Another point I would like to make is that, if exclusive ownership was the basis of Jospeh's abstinence, who knows how Joseph would have behaved if the enthusiastic gal was not Potiphar's wife, but Potiphar's daughter who's old enough to attract suitors. Potiphar's single daughter is still the exclusive property of Potiphar, but would necking and petting be out of the question if Joseph and daughter were mutually attracted to each other?

Joseph's rejection of Mrs. Pot because she was another man's property should not be used ( as the WTS does) to preach chastity to young single men and women who're mutually attracted to one another. I'm not arguing against chastity, I'm arguing about the basis of such a sermon. We do not know that Joseph would NOT have hanky-pankied with a single woman he fancied of Potiphar's household, ESPECIALLY if the property ownership interpretation is true.

It is time to expose the stretch in the interpretation made by those with a conservative agenda.

INQ

20

Comments You Will Not Hear at the 7-30-06 WT Study (REMINDERS FOND)

by blondie in

or what should we do if humans put their laws above god's?.

we should appreciate god's reminders.

(b) which episodes from the scriptures will be considered in this article?.

Inquisitor

Excellent job Blondie. I especially liked your repartee for the Joseph-Potiphar's wife moral lesson with the account of Judah's solicitation. If Judah did not transgress due to the absence of a written moral code as the Watchtower claimed, then by the same logic, Joseph could have had sex with Potiphar's wife and not done anything morally wrong either. Following from that, if having sex with Potiphar's wife wouldn't have been morally wrong, then choosing not to do so would have had no significance whatsoever. It would have been no more righteous than if Joseph had chosen not to eat dates that day.

INQ

2

Looking for 2006 Convention Program / Schedule

by alias in

jw
friends

has one been posted for the us?

i'm interested in knowing the start times each day in the morning and after lunch/intermission.

alias

Inquisitor

Blondie made a thread on this previously. Click here > 2006 District Convention Schedule (compact) It's great when you can pick and weed out the boring talks. And there's nothing like making a grand entrance at the Convention.

INQ

17

Why Friday for a DC?

by Inquisitor in

i've been wondering why the gb chose to include a weekday for the district conventions.

is it to test how loyal the members will be if they have to choose between their religion and work?

or are there other reasons?

Inquisitor

Great posts everybody!

And thanks for the insight on the Biblical festival period, Blondie.

That was a very persuasive conclusion about the need to cut a day each out of the other assemblies if Friday DC was scrapped. I wonder if it was really the intention of the GB to keep the assemblies days to a nice 3-2-1 formula. DC 3, Circuit 2 and SA 1.

Personally, I don't see why DC should necessarily run longer than the Circuit Assembly. I mean the difference is in the size of the gathering. Must that necessarily translate to a longer assembly period? Will JWs feel the DC is less special if it was of the same length as the CA? Perhaps, who knows?

INQ

20

Witnesses View - Council of Nicea (serious thread)

by Confucious in

.

ok.... just trying to find a better understanding here.... no stupid posts like, "...because it's the governing body.

" - please.. ok.... how do the witness justify the bible and at the same time condem catholicism et all.... i mean, the books in the bible were picked by the council of nicea - which according the the witnesses - were part of the great appostasy and sanctioned by the same group of religious leaders they condemn..

Inquisitor

I don't know if the JWs in your neck of the woods are as ignorant as the ones I know. But back when I was a good JW, I was unaware of the history of the Bible's canonization. And I wasn't alone. We were contented with the knowledge that Catholic church betrayed God and the Bible by suppressing it's translation, chaining Bibles, and burning reformers etc.

So in answer to your question, I think JWs would be stumped if you popped this question in their face. But when push comes to shove I reckon they would probably use the "Well Jehovah can use wicked people to accomplish his means..." line. And you already know that.

"Then why can't he still do that today and use Christendom..."

Hmmmm... I suppose a JW would say that God has forsaken them now because He has since gathered the desirable ones into His organization. Those ecumenical councils were called a long long time ago you know. Now God dwells in the house that Watchtower built.

INQ

20

Witnesses View - Council of Nicea (serious thread)

by Confucious in

.

ok.... just trying to find a better understanding here.... no stupid posts like, "...because it's the governing body.

" - please.. ok.... how do the witness justify the bible and at the same time condem catholicism et all.... i mean, the books in the bible were picked by the council of nicea - which according the the witnesses - were part of the great appostasy and sanctioned by the same group of religious leaders they condemn..

Inquisitor

the books in the Bible were picked by the Council of Nicea

I had the impression that the Bible's canon was the agenda of the Council of Trent and not so much in the Council of Nicea.

INQ

17

Why Friday for a DC?

by Inquisitor in

i've been wondering why the gb chose to include a weekday for the district conventions.

is it to test how loyal the members will be if they have to choose between their religion and work?

or are there other reasons?

Inquisitor

Do ya think they take in more $ in three days than two?

Fair point garybuss.

But if money was the main reason, shouldn't they have stuck with a 4-day assembly then?

I remember when they were 8 days long

You're pulling my leg right, foundfreedom?

INQ