Fear of certain denominations

RF, you should do what you feel is right and best, but I personally would not feel the need to get rid of any particular Bible translation on the basis of its origins. For example, I have a copy of the JW's New World Translation (currently on loan to my daughter) and a copy of the Book of Mormon on the bookshelf; sometime I may have a chance to illustrate a point or two to a member of one of these cults. I used to have a Jerusalem Bible, but we moved many times early in our marriage and I don't know what happened to it.

 

Sorry R.F. I meant to ask earlier why is this? Are you scared of another lot of Europeans wars of Atheism (early 16th Century to mid 19th Century) ? Are you scared of another lot of Atheistic inquisitors "persuading" you of the errors of your ways? Please let me know.


I see you have Henry VIII as your moniker. According to my book "The future is History" by John Angarrack, Henry judicially murdered 72000 thieves vagabonds and other undesirables. As well as these, no less than 60000 more were judicially hung, beheaded stretched, shredded, burnt or otherwise dipatched. Given England population of 2800000 a higher pro rata rate than Europe under Hitlers rule.

 

The Henry VIII is a self-deprecating joke, as is the verse in my signature that relates to it. Basically, I have tried to be pious and dedicated to the Lord, but often fall short and have looked like a hypocrite at times. Also the reason my username is 'Religious Fanatic'.

 

Now that we have Henry VIII out of the way, do you still fear atheists?

 

Yes, I had an atheist fundamentalist psychiatrist who tried to destroy my religious beliefs in a rather calloused and unsavory manner, said I was biologically determined to be miserable and should commit suicide, that sexual abuse victims were the real enemies as pedophiles are good people and helping the world by removing religious shame of destructive perversions, that we don't need to be charitable, that he didn't care if I was hurt because he didn't have to bear the burden of feeling sorry for me, etc.

The fundamentalist atheists are the most carnal and demonic people in existence, and they do harm by dressing their wicked ideas up in pretty academic language to sway gullible minds into thinking they're wiser and more loving than they really are. I do not agree that, even if there are some secular people involved in philanthropy and charity, that the ratio of Atheists doing charity is higher than the religious. There have been times in history when religious people have done harm, but now it is in the hands of Atheists in communists countries and in the secular elite 'academia' with people like Peter Singer and other corrupt 'intellects' spreading their cancer. I don't believe the people who murdered others in the name of Jesus (except in self-defense) were true Christians, but I do believe that Communists are real secular fundamentalists and that atheists who deny they were really Atheists make up the most ludicrous mental gymnastics to explain why that is. Communist belief in labor being higher than other purposes is consistent with Richard Dawkins saying all we do is breed and then die. Controlling of how many babies you can have is in accordance with a flawed humanistic reasoning and prediction on when and why it's appropriate to let someone have children. Atheists say we need abortion and less babies to preserve resources, but regardless most secular nations and people are selfish and do not have as many kids as the religious. It's an excuse to justify their selfishness like when they think they're being nice by promoting euthanasia, when that does the same thing as what killing in war does to the human conscience. It also warps the doctors' perception of human life when it comes time to evaluate other matters of concern once they've practiced this continuously and been desensitized, and exploitations and injustices due to euthanasia have already been taking place in countries where it was allowed and thought a good idea. Same with prostitution. It's just an excuse not to care and 'take out the trash'. I wouldn't want to be under their mercy.

 

I am a bit puzzled why you are quite happy having the doctrinal book of the Christian Scientists, but not the Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible?

 

I think it's because Christian Science is too inane to be taken seriously, whereas I've actually felt like I was buying into the more unsavory things Atheists and Roman apologists attempted to shove down my throat in a rather unpleasant fashion. But you're right. I have thought about getting rid of it. I've had many times in my life, especially as a teenager when I began researching these things while doubting my faith, that I would start by laughing about a cult, then after researching it, begin to gradually believe what it teaches and struggle to fend it off. Believe it or not, I found myself almost convinced at one point of the Raelian cult. They're the ones who cloned a baby and claimed the biblical prophets and God are just aliens. We survive, they say, by being cloned. But they never had a good reason to explain why there's any meaning in life other than what atheists tell us or why it even matters if we don't get cloned. That, and other alien cults, new age, materialist science, and numerous other doctrines invaded my mind and caused me to feel depressed and want to die. Everything felt like it could be true, even Islam at some point. I have a very vulnerable mind that needs to be guarded better than I let it be. I avoid keeping atheist fundamentalist books so you will not find something like Dawkins or Nietzche on my shelf. I do have Plato and Confucius for research, but I see their teachings as general wisdom confirming some of the things the bible says in a pre-Christianized culture.

 

I've sometimes thought it would be nice to have myself cloned, and the clone could do all my work. But if I did that, I just couldn't live with myself...

 

You seem to have had your opinions of atheists formed from a sample base of two or three. I suspect your psychiatrist from your story had other problems than his atheism. I suspect most atheists ( and agnostics like me) don't care if you want to believe in God or not.

What evidence have you for this assertion? And as for fund-atheists being the most carnal and demonic. This reminds me of some Christian apologists saying thing like Mormons have a higher criminal or adultery rate for example to which I think, even if they have lower morals they could have lower morals and their message could still be true.(I'm not saying Mormons or F-atheists messages are true).

You mean like the Pope does banning contraception. Now that RCs by the Popes reckoning have just about perfected natural birth control (there being not as many born lately), The latest edict I can remember is they must have a "morally acceptable" number of children.

So do; milk drinkers, over 35s, under 17s, greens, Asians, forum writers, politicians, anarchists, people over 5'3", diabetics, in fact all sorts of people, not just some atheists.

 

No- you would be beside yourself.

 

AnglicanAgnostic, I just want to let you know that I have you ignored by default and am not going to continue reading or replying to your posts until somebody confirms that it's not provocative. I had almost forgotten about my former psychiatrist, until Agnostic's post last night reignited my injury of what him and other atheopaths have said to me. I am struggling right now with anger that I thought I was making steps to get over, but now I'm back in the gutter. Please keep me in your prayers.

 

Be assured, prayers are with you. God wants you to be able to remember, but know it's in the past and won't hurt you. He said, "Peace be with you." And, "Don't be afraid."

 

Hi Religious Fanatic, I'm sorry I reminded you of your former psychiatrist, it's just that you mentioned him yourself two days ago.

R.F would seem to want assurances from others that I am not be provocative. Being provocative per se is probably not the issue many quantum physicist are provocative and I'm sure many at the time considered Martin Luther to be. It's probably my motivation that concerns R.F. I am not trying to convert him I merely object to what I consider patronising and incorrect statements about atheists.

Maybe others might want to contact R.F. (possibly by Private mail) and tell him of my sincerity, assuming you agree that I am.

Cheers all. A.A.

 

That cuts both ways though I suppose.

I don't suppose a Unitarian Universalist would have much to talk about with you either. Even if they were utterly convinced that you would be equally translated to the heavenly spheres along with them and everyone else.

 

If you don’t want your Douay Rheims Bible, I would be happy to buy it off you or trade with you, as the hardbond copy I have of the Douay Rheims is in very poor shape. It is an old fashioned RCC bible from the 1950s/60s with the silly table of indulgences (how much time in purgatory each minute of reading it is worth). That said, the Douay Rheims, as I have said elsewhere, is, I think, a great Bible, because it represents a traditional English translation of the Vulgate, which was a superb early Bible, one of the two great translations of the early Church (the other being the Peshitta, the Syriac Bible). And unlike the Peshitta, the Vulgate was chiefly the fruit of the heroic labours of one man, St. Jerome, who learned Hebrew and Old Testament Aramaic from a Jew, and carefully compiled the best versions off the texts he could find, but was of sufficient humility so that when the Archbishop of Rome asked him to translate the Psalter from the Septuagint, he did that.

 

I'ld be fascinated to have a few sample indulgence time frames from the Douay Rheims. Would this be possible please?

 

I do have a few sample times, not from that Bible version but from the RC text, "My Catholic Faith" by L.L. Morrow.
Saying the "Hail Holy Queen" prayer is good for 5 years' indulgence.
Grace after meals, 300 days.
Prayer to the Guardian Angel, 300 days.
The Divine Praises, 3 years (5 years if said publicly). (I recall reciting these at Stations of the Cross on Fridays in Lent.)
"Jesus!" 300 days.
"Mary!" 300 days. (I had to shout this many times at my daughter as she grew up, LOL)
Making the Sign of the Cross, 3 years; or 7 years if made with holy water!

If a RC were to make the Sign of the Cross with holy water upon entering the church and again upon leaving (as was customary) at every Mass, that would provide over 700 years' indulgence from Purgatory every year. If performed consistently for 50 years, that's 35,000 years subtracted from one's time in Purgatory! Which makes one wonder why they bothered having a Purgatory doctrine in the first place, if it were so easy to avoid.

I'll be interested to hear if the Douay Rheims records any different times. The text I cite from had the official Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat of the RCC, so it should be accurate.

 

The Pope and Magisterium have totally changed their ideas on indulgences since that was published. What they teach now and practice about them are in the current catechism on something like Vatican .org.

 

Indeed, further to this point, I have A New New Testament, which is Hal Taussig’s blend of select Gnostic apocrypha with the 27 canonical books of the NT. Of course, the Gnostic works are carefully selected to avoid any message liberal readers might find distressing; for example, in a rare bit of morality, one Gnostic sect believed abortion was wrong, and consequently their apocryphal text is nowhere to be found. I purchased this book on sale via iTunes as part of my effort to understand the intersection between neo-Gnosticism and contemporary liberal Christianity, as these works of Gnostic apocrypha are known to pop up in mainline Christian parishes with increasing frequency. I have several other books and ebooks which I classify as heretical; indeed, there is a folder in my iBooks library labelled “Heresy”, which at present includes both heretical works and the writings of esteemed heresiologists, like Sts. Irenaeus of Lyons, Athanasius of Alexandria, Epiphanius of Salamis beloved of myself and @Stalwart , St. John Damascene, Fr. Seraphim Rose, and Fr. Andrew S. Damick, among others.

I am really trying to find an ebook of The Kingdom of the Cults to add, but Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future by Fr. Seraphim Rose is decent (Fr. Andrew’s Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy on the other hand gets tiresome, as the man has a tendency to oversimplify non-EO beliefs and to exaggerate differences or overlook smaller minority movements with are doctrinally compatible with Orthodoxy, and his blog, although entertaining most of the time, has the misfortune of featuring Nicholas Marinides as a guest author, and Marinides is in my opinion a raging hypocrite who expends enormous energy attacking Oriental Orthodox Christians on the basis of their alleged monophysitism (which is untrue), without ever, as far as I am aware, bothering to write a polemic against the Church of the East for their ostensible Nestorianism (of course, the Church of the East is not functionally Nestorian from a Christological perspective, but I digress). At any rate, I have a Heresy folder and into it are placed a vast selection of heretical texts, ranging from neo-Gnosticism like Robert W. Funk’s The Five Gospels and the works of Elaine Pagels, to even more unpleasant and dangerous material like Liberation Theology, by the Latin RC priest who came up with that dreadful concept.

In like manner, I have a beautiful KJV Study Bible given to me when I was 15. Alas, this volume was edited by predominantly Presbyterian and Calvinist Baptists, with a token United Methodist contributor. All of them can be described as iconoclastic, crypto-Nestorian Premillenial Dispensationalists. Instead of the Deuterocanonical Books, there is an illustrated essay on “What happened between the Testaments”, which reviews the apocrypha in brief, making sure to stress how inferior it is compared to the 22 books of the protocanon. It would have been easier, better and more honest marketing had the authors simply included every book originally included in the King James Version, but this subtlety was lost. However, despite the numerous theological errors, the Young Earth Creationism and the strictly Antiochene-Literal exegesis, I still am happy to have the book, because as an example of Antiochene-Literal scholarship, the commentary is incredibly detailed; indeed it has the most detailed annotations of any study bible I have seen, exceeding to a vast extent the otherwise richly annotated Orthodox Study Bible. Indeed, if there is a study bible with more detailed notes, I have not found it.

It also is extremely useful in that it represents the other strand of conservative Christianity; it is doctrinally as far removed from the Eastern Orthodox churches that produced the Orthodox Study Bible as possible without descending into the heretical waters of liberal Christianity and neo-Gnosticism. So, where the doctrinal positions of the KJV Study Bible and the Orthodox Study Bible are in agreement, which is the case much more of the time than many people would think (most of the time, even; the main differences of opinion relate to the interpretation of the Torah and of the eschatological passages and prophecies), one can rest completely assured that this indicates a definitive Christian doctrine, one which further investigation will generally show to be incontrovertible.

 

There really isn’t anything specifically Roman Catholic about the Douay Rheims however, other than some of the doctrinal footnotes, and these are low density. If they bother you, you could take a marker to them.