Question for Rat, potato, and other X-Xtians

[Thurnez Isa]

Thanks Rat
that was very interesting

[Sheered Völva]

Ratatosk interesting info about JW. Knew some of that, but not all.

As for your conversion story, here's a suggestion:

Rewrite it to stand alone. I think it will make good reading. Somebody will probably want it for an Intermittens issue. Like maybe me?

[Iason Ouabache]

I can't believe that I missed this thread until now.

Requia I'm still stuck with my king James from high school
how is the New American translation?
worth the investment.
and by investment I mean investment in time going to the Chaplin here and seeing where i could pick up a free copy...
Im not big on reading online.

NIV or GTFO!

Thanks Rat
that was very interesting

THIS. I know that you've shared all of that before but it is still a fascinating story, Rat.  My deconversion is very boring in contrast.

As for the OP, trying to understand litearlist logic is very confusing. The best way to get into that headspace is to actually go talk to them. I can make a big list of Christian forums when I get home if you'd like. You can start with CARM since Thornie already suggested it.  For fun start off by asking them how Judas died or who visited Jesus's tomb. 

[Sheered Völva]

NIV or GTFO!

I like the NIV and its variations. They don't censor the dirty parts like some of the other translations.

http://www.getraptureready.com/appendix/chapter-four/bible-translations.php shows different translations of Ezekiel 23:20. Ezekiel has not only some proto-science fiction, it has entire chapters devoted to sexually explicit descriptions. But this verse stands out.

"For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses." (King James Version)

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." (New International Version)

"She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey's and emissions like those of a horse." (New Living Translation)

"There she had longed for her lovers. Their private parts seemed as big as those of donkeys. And their flow of semen appeared to be as much as that of horses." (New International Reader's Version)

"She was filled with lust for oversexed men who had all the lustfulness of donkeys or stallions" (Good News Translation)

"She wanted men who behaved like animals in their sexual desire." (New Century Version)

"She eagerly wanted to go to bed with Egyptian men, who were famous for their sexual powers." (Contemporary English Version)

"That whetted her appetite for more virile, vulgar, and violent lovers--stallions obsessive in their lust." (The Message)

[LMNO]

I love EZ 23:20.  My favorite passage ever.

[Corvidia]

Seems like being a size queen isn't new, hmm?

I grew up Catholic, too, and it was a non-issue. My mother had not yet sent her brain to the Pope in a jar, so she was sensible about it all. I never asked and always assumed they were mostly stories.
And then, I hit Confirmation classes. This was the first time I had ever run into a Catholic fundie. She railed against cafeteria Catholics and people who didn't take it literally. If I hadn't already been a heathen, it would have turned me.
Anyway, she was against taking it metaphorically and I was too shocked or I would have asked something about it.

[potato]

guess I got to the party late 

sorry LMNO.

Rat, I used to love to go head-to-head with your former affiliation. it was like doctrinal fencing.

the way my particular brand got around such issues was labeling apparent contradictions "apparent contradictions". they might actually be contradictions (I don't much care anymore), but some of them actually do seem to be contradictions only because of bizarre translation, or different parts of the story being highlighted by different authors so that 2 events get lumped together as one and then it looks like the timeline has been switched around. for instance, jesus' two family trees. also, we used dispensationalism to explain away a lot of the difference between the OT and NT. that was handy. it got really, really messy though when a contradiction couldn't be solved, and the MOG (man of god) got "revelation" to explain it.

[Sheered Völva]

Seems like being a size queen isn't new, hmm?

Size thing may not be new, but the part that you want big I think is.  I read that Michangelo's statute of David has relatively large testicles and a relatively small penis because there was only so much stone to work with--there wasn't enough to make both large.  So M went with what was then considered the most important, and made large testicles.  I think the ancient Greeks also went for big balls, not a whopping willy.

Ironically, it seems to be men who are obsessed with large genitals, not women.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Truth.

I sing the praises of average.

I mean, I'd take 6" over 4", but I'd also take 6" over 8".

[hooplala]

Seems like being a size queen isn't new, hmm?

Size thing may not be new, but the part that you want big I think is.  I read that Michangelo's statute of David has relatively large testicles and a relatively small penis because there was only so much stone to work with--there wasn't enough to make both large.  So M went with what was then considered the most important, and made large testicles.  I think the ancient Greeks also went for big balls, not a whopping willy.

Ironically, it seems to be men who are obsessed with large genitals, not women.

Ancient Greeks apparently considered large genitalia to be beastly and barbaric. 

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I can't say much since I don't honestly remember a lot of specifics about this topic, but as I understand it, the Baptists teach the lineages are different because one focuses on lineage from King David, and the other focuses on lineage through Mary, apparently taking different routes to the same conclusion. I seem to remember something about the OT prophesies requiring a direct line from King David to the Messiah but for obvious (theological) reasons the lineage couldn't pass through Joseph.

Mostly, though, they just tend to ignore it since it takes a lot of bullshit to explain it away and exposes the frail foundation of their faith a little too starkly.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I can't say much since I don't honestly remember a lot of specifics about this topic, but as I understand it, the Baptists teach the lineages are different because one focuses on lineage from King David, and the other focuses on lineage through Mary, apparently taking different routes to the same conclusion. I seem to remember something about the OT prophesies requiring a direct line from King David to the Messiah but for obvious (theological) reasons the lineage couldn't pass through Joseph.

Mostly, though, they just tend to ignore it since it takes a lot of bullshit to explain it away and exposes the frail foundation of their faith a little too starkly.

Yes, this is also part of the argument commonly used. To satisfy Jewish Law, Jesus would have to have come through the line of David on his father's side. Joseph's lineage gave him that credibility. However, Joseph wasn't REALLY Jesus' Dad, so he was also related to David through Mary. He had lineage on both sides which showed he was the legitimately genetic heir.

Yeah, its stupid... but its a common argument on the topic.