Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

The Sick Side of Zoroastrianism

Posted by Bob on December 4th, 2004 under General

A lot of people, both religious and philosophical, like to refer to Manichaeism.

Naturally very few of them have any idea what it is.

St. Augustine was deeply influenced by Manichaeism. So he hated women and reproduction.

Manicheism was developed by a third-century gentleman named Mani in what is now Iraq. It was a synthesis of the minor, struggling faith of Christianityand the all-powerful religion of Zoroastrianism.

It is hard to overstate how enormous Zoroastrianism, the religion of Persia, was in the third century. At that time Christianity was one of the competing sects in the Roman Empire, while Zoroastrianism had been the official religion of the equally large Persian Empire for over a thousand years.

That is why the Magi are in the Book Of Matthew. Everybody then knew what Magi were.

Everybody knew that Magi were not “wise men from the East.” That came in later transaltions of the Bible when nobody knew any real Biblical history. When the Book of Matthew was written everybody knew that a Magus was clergyman of the most powerful religion on eath, Zoroastrian, the official faith of the Persian Empire.

Have you ever heard of Thermopylae, where the Persians invaded ancient Greece?

Have you ever heard of Xerxes? Have you ever heard of King Cyrus of Persia, who was praised in the Old Testament as a non-Jew who was doing God’s work?

They were Zoroastrians. And in praising Cyrus the Jews were taking a ride on the back of a much greater religion.

So was Mani. Mani wanted to take a ride on the back of Zoroastrianism to promote Christianity.

Zoroastrianism said that there was Ahriman, The God of This World, and Ahura-Mazda, the Good God.

The New Testament says that Satan tempted Christ by offering him all the kingdoms of the earth. Did you ever wonder why everybody back then took it for granted that Satan COULD offer Jesus all the kingdoms of this world?

Of course you didn’t.

Everybody then knew that Satan was the God of This World. He OWNED all the kingdoms if THIS world. He was Ahriman.

So when Mani wrote in the beginning of the beginning of the third century, he was trying to show how St, Paul’s Christianity, which was competing for power in the Roman Empire, was the same as the religion of all-powerful Persia.

Both St. Paul and Zoroastrianism, said Mani, rejected This World, the domain of Satan and Ahriman, for the next word, the World of Ahura-Mazda and the Father Jesus spoke of.

Satan/Ahriman, the God of this World, wanted men to be obsessed with making themselves immortal by procreaing children in THIS world, the world of Satan/Ahriman.

Saint Paul abhorred both women and procreation. St. Paul and Mani wanted men to stop procreating. They wanted chastity. They demanded sterility. Every pleasure of THIS world was also condemned by Mani.

That is Manichaeism.

I have no idea how much of this is truly Zoroastriansim. After over a thousand years, I am sure there were many versions of Zoroastrianism.

But the idea that this world is evil is, to me, as sick as the Jehovism of the Old Testament.

  1. #1 by Don on 12/04/2004 - 8:17 pm

    RE: “St. Augustine was deeply influenced by Manichaeism. So he hated women and reproduction.”

    RE: “Saint Paul abhorred both women and procreation. St. Paul and Mani wanted men to stop procreating. They wanted chastity. They demanded sterility. Every pleasure of THIS world was also condemned by Mani.”

    They sound like real winners to me. And we take these dingbats seriously? Seems to me the best response to these ideas is laughter, loud and sustained. I think the world would be a better place if “Saul of Tarsus” had encountered a powerful lightning bolt on the way to Damascus, which freed him from the bonds of this world.

  2. #2 by H.S. on 12/05/2004 - 2:22 am

    RE: “St. Augustine was deeply influenced by Manichaeism. So he hated women and reproduction.”

    RE: “Saint Paul abhorred both women and procreation. St. Paul and Mani wanted men to stop procreating. They wanted chastity. They demanded sterility. Every pleasure of THIS world was also condemned by Mani.”

    With stuff like this, the guy said it would be a trip to the zoo with Uncle Bob, but watch out what we might step in. The elephant house would be a start and then there’s not enough to compare. WOW, dualing Historians! ZORO! Equating truth of Paul with propaganda? Brilliant apologetics vs. truth-mixing synthesis? Bring out another gallon of lemonade for us, Peter – we might need some of Bob’s too.

    But, checking into Richard’s Calvin history from blog posts gone by, has been quite interesting. When good men who don’t all agree on other things, but know their correct history on this better than what we’ve seen here, they pick their jaws up off the ground and next want to know where would I ever run into such misinformation. We have the Southern Poverty Law Center today, but Calvin had the Roman Catholic Church and those men were hardly the little philospher-victims the real propaganda machines made them out to be. I agree with the quote about anabaptists also, but know their history and believe with all sincerity that they died at the hands of the Roman Catholic unbelieving bureaucracy for misplaced and unfounded conviction. I also had to walk their decision path. But, it was their blood and guts belief – desperately held – the same as Bob holds his, right or wrong.

    One choice quote from a brilliant young father of many children and a hard-working man who stands shoulder to shoulder and more than proven to be with you on race, and that Biblically so (I did not ask permission to name him, but he would be more than glad to I’m sure, nor does he know where my quotes came from):

    Servetus and Castellio were criminals. This [Richard’s] is all very contradictory. The RCC branded Servetus a heretic, but the death of Servetus inspired RCC persecution of the Huguenots? That doesn’t make sense. [anything for useful propaganda I suppose -HS]

    The idea that Calvin persecuted anyone who did not agree with him is silly. He even married the widow of an anabaptist friend. I of course, agree with Calvin that anabaptists are theologically unsound. The Institutes not a Christian document? The poorest work of theology produced during the Reformation? These statements would be laughed to derision by every serious Bible scholar in the world, even non-Calvinists.

    I now have hard-copy of some of that era history describing how badly the reknown faith in Jesus, and brilliant honesty of Calvin was begged for – and he stayed with them. Lastly the man commented and I already heartily agreed:

    This guy is correct about one thing, though. Calvin is very Augustinian, and so was the Reformation (the real Reformation, not the Radical Reformation of the anabaptists). Read Augustine’s debate with Pelagius and you’ll see why the five points of Calvinism begin with man’s total depravity. Pelagius believed that man is basically good, not dead in his sins. The truth is that we’re not floundering in the waves waiting for Christ, who is standing on the shore, to throw us a life preserver. We’re cold and dead at the bottom of the lake before He breathes new life into us.

    Do you know what’s inside of you? If someone came to you and said, “I’d LOVE to get into your mind, your soul, and really see and know what you’re thinking and what you’re all about.” When it’s dead quiet and you’re all you have, and you think until you can’t anymore – you know what you really are.

    Jesus said to the Pharisee secretly (and also why a baby in a manger that the Magi bowed down to “is of no consequence,” but the risen dead man who holds all power and justice and mercy in His word IS):

    For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.

    Where do the Zorastrians worship today?

  3. #3 by Bedford on 12/05/2004 - 2:23 pm

    Well, this religion stuff is not my forte, but where would islam be at the time mentioned above? On the subject of Mexico, I think that Vincente Fox has mostly Spainish blood like a majority of the minority of long ruling families of Mexico. Fox is very pleased by the billion dolars plus being sent to Mexico every month by the Mex who have invaded the US. This is like a deflationary force in Mexico where inflation has long ruled – Fox is rid of a lot of the population who were a burden in Mexico but now are a distinct asset by virtue of the billion plus per month. Fox wants more. The population numbers game is similar to the bank loan game where banks make a huge loan to some S. American country and if the loan is in jeporady, it is a problem for the banks and not the country. All these Mex in America are our problem now, not Mexico’s. The Catholics in Mexico and their no birth control has no doubt helped create the huge population explosion in Mex.

  4. #4 by Richard L. Hardison on 12/06/2004 - 7:17 pm

    The Zoroastrians are pretty much confined to India these days.

    I have no idea where the guy who thinks Servetus and Castellio were criminals got his ideas, but they are amusing for their abject ignorance. Castellio was the director of Calvin’s Bible college for pete’s sake. Add Calvin’s reputed honesty – what a maroon. Ignoramus may just be the best descriptor. I laugh at men who speak as above. I hate to tell them, but I do at every opportunity I have to deal with their blatently abberant theology – Calvin did not add to scripture any more than Ellen White did (If you are reading this, whoever you are, you are as slavishly devoted to Calvin as the Seventh Day Adventists are to White and know scripture no better than they). They need to set Calvin and Gill aside and live “sola scriptura” instead of simply paying lip service to the idea. But then what can we expect of a group that thinks creating people specifically for hell vindicates God’s holiness and brings Him glory. God’s word begs to disagree with Calvin and his hellenistic philosophy.

    Augustinianism deeply affected the Roman Catholic Church. When one looks at Augustine one sees the root of some of the behavior that characterized the middle ages after the old Catholic Church became the Roman Catholic Church. Augustine, to take just one example, bribed the emperor to pressure the pope to declare Pelagius a heretic (80 stallions raised and trained at the churches expense was a pretty large bribe at the time – the equivaent of several 100 thou today). Augustinianism is also the reason Calvin and Luther were never able to break entirely with RCC doctrine. An important note: Two different regional councils and two Popes declared Pelagius orthodox. Only the Carthage council declared him abberant. We have only Augustine’s word for what the man believed. Pelagius’ “Letter to Demetria” is the only writing from Pelagius that survives and is too sketchy to give us any systematic idea of what he believed and taught. There is enough known abouit Augustine to question his status as an honest historian of the controversy.

    Mani was a strange character. Sex is kinda hardwired into mankind and organizations that forbid marriage tend to die out. The Shakers are down to a group less than 8 people, last I looked. Men and women live in their communes, but no marriage and no sex. That’s just the opposite of the Apostle Paul had to say about the matter. See 1 Corinthians 7:1 thru 9 if you doubt it.

    Paul viewed celibacy as a good thing for a very small number of people. He stated specifically that marriage is honorable and “the bed undefiled” in such situations. Christ never condemned sex, or families (where do families come from is sex is taboo?). Augustine, after he got saved, went back to N. Africa and established a monastery – routine for a man who cut his teeth on Mani’s ravings.

    I wonder if the man quoted above can tell anyone why Augustinianism had such a heavy effect on the “reformation.” Christ was lifted up and, as He said He would, He is drawing all men unto Him. he sets life and death before them and the Spirit woos them to to make the same choice placed urged upon Israel by Joshua – choose life. God isn’t as stupid as Calvin and Augustine thought He is. He doesn’t require something they are unable to do, before or after they accept Christ as Lord and Saviour.

  5. #5 by E. Walker on 12/08/2004 - 4:54 pm

    I am not sure if this question fits in with this topic but I would like to here anyones response on this. I recently viewed a showing of National Treasure with Nicholas Cage and they mentioned Freemasory which interested me. Does anyone know anything about them, good or bad? There are many theories about them but I just wanted to hear some sort of truth about them. Thanks
    E. Walker

Comments are closed.