Hi SJ,
You are one serious Bible-thumper, aren't you? Your comments on the thread regarding Lot raise the meaning of the word "ridiculous" to a whole new level.
You said: " He was willing to GIVE his daughters, which was his RIGHT to do under the 'law' they lived by at that time (and trust me, the girls would NOT have disobeyed...)"
In other words, because the "law" and culture allowed him this option, and his daughters would have "obeyed", this lets him off the hook? What kind of crap is THAT?
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)
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. IMO, that's a whole other topic. Red herring...
As to having "but one part of the 'picture'", as you put it, how much more do you need to know? 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! 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...
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", it cannot possibly contain any errors or contradictions. 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.
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.
Jigrigger