Archive for category Religion
Freemasons like to point out that many of the ideas that they proclaim were suppressed by ignorant church leaders and kings who were fearful of more illuminating ideas entering the consciousness of the people.
Freemasons were persecuted, lied about, and even killed for wanting to study and advocate for ideas which were different than the conventional dogma of the day. The Freemasons were “politically incorrect” and experienced losses of reputation, economic opportunity, freedom, and even life because of their activities.
Who do the Freemasons of old sound like today?
Freemasons are proud that their once suppressed ideas eventually won out over church dogma and aristocratic rule and even ended up being the “cornerstone” of the French and American Republics.
So who’s the New Freemason?
And is BUGS the new Green Dragon? (1)
Eden consisted of a Kingdom of Animals, with a man at its head. Then Jehovah found that the OTHER animals were not enough company for Adam, King of his totally static animal Kingdom.
We weep and we wail that that static Eden is gone.
But if it weren’t, we wouldn’t BE here.
Adam wasn’t happy with Eden. He was lonely.
Eve wasn’t happy with Eden. She was curious.
I am sure the animals were happy with Eden. The lion had plenty of hay to eat before he went to bed with the sheep. The sheep had no complaints.
But the static, mindless world dissatisfied Adam and then it wasn’t enough for Eve.
If Adam and Eve hadn’t eaten the Fruit of Knowledge they would have been able to wander around forever as a pair of mindless, highly favored pets, with a physical resemblance to Jehovah but not with a will of their own. It sounds a lot like the Noble Savages Rousseau praised, except that Adam and Eve were sterile and had less personal incentive than any savage who ever lived.
The serpent told Eve she should risk the unknown.
The serpent had a point.
Let me put out what I understand about Christmas and Sunday, so anyone who wishes can straighten me out.
It is the theologians who actually say “Humbug!” about December 25. The Puritans outlawed it. Experts say Humbug because Christmas is not Christ’s Birthday. Christmas is the day we CELEBRATE the birth of Christ.
Yes, in that sense it is a “pagan” holiday. Not only do we not know the DAY of Christ’s birth, all indications are that we don’t know the YEAR of his birth. So we use the birthday of the Birth of Mithras, the day that Constantine celebrated each year.
It happens that Mithraism HAD a Birthday for Mithras, so Constantine adopted it as the date on which we would CELEBRATE the Birth of Christ. It also falls in nicely with the Winter Solstice, when the sun began to come back to us and another promise was made that each year light would be victorious.
This is no more pagan than believing that the rainbow was created after the Flood of Noah.
We also celebrate the Sabbath as SUN Day. This may relate to the words on Mithraian altars, Sol Invictus, which is translated in a number of ways. Those of us who took freshman Latin in high school assume that Sol refers to the sun, but not as “sun worship.”
Sol Invictus could mean “The Light is Victorious.”
The Jewish Sabbath is based on a premise that even most Creationists would find hard to swallow. It is the exact date, some four and a half millennia ago, when God rested from his six days’ labor creating the world. Unless you think this date is really that specific, the Jewish Sabbath is the day Jews CELEBRATE the creation of the world.
The political question is, why did Constantine impose his own SUNday and his date for the Birth of the Savior? My expertise is political, not theological. There was lot going on in Constantine’s adoption of Christianity than just his seeing a sign in the sky.
When the winning side writes a history you must deal with the politics of it. There seems to have been a major effort to adopt a Christianity which followed St. Paul’s dictum that rather than lose souls, one should be “all things to all men.”
St. Paul said that in dealing with the fact that different Christians had already adopted different forms of worship, like High and Low Church in the Anglican Communion. Paul stated flatly that a good Christian would freely adopt the OTHER Christian’s variation. That statement is in wild contradiction to two thousand years of fighting to the death over which way a person crossed himself.
Yes, Christian Christmas was developed and ADOPTED.
December 25 was adopted in order to include Mithraian. The other traditions of that day, like a Christmas Tree, was adopted so that those who had celebrated the Winter Solstice would not lose their annual day of celebration.
In other words, Christmas represents the Paulist Tradition to INCLUDE people. Puritans outlawed it for that very reason, that it was an INCUSIVE measure.
Our new established religion bans such Nazi words as “Merry Christmas” exactly the way the Puritans did. But our new established religion says Christmas is AGAINST inclusion.
Two bans, two types of Puritans.
Screw them all.
Wordism cannot adjust to reality. It is not based on truth, it is based on Truth. To paraphrase Heidelberg, every time a scientist looks down into a microscope or up into a telescope truth changes. When the Medicogenetical Institute of Moscow did a huge study of identical twins and concluded, as all such studies do, that heredity was overwhelmingly important, the head of the Institute “confessed his ideological error and was shot.” (Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate).
An old geneticist, actually a Fellow of the Royal Society, whom I knew later watched his Russian colleagues disappear. Lysenko took over Soviet genetics.
Marxism requires that man be totally changeable by Social progress into a peaceful, universal, classless being. Fundamentalism is at war with evolution here and in the Islamic World.
The one time I simply gave up arguing with commenters here was when I quoted St. Paul as advising that all unmarried women remain sterile for life and a group of Christians here said that that was just Good Old Families Values. After all, they said, Paul conceded that some women could not abstain, so they should “marry or burn,” with the fires of Hell or the flames of lust, which he did not specify.
How, exactly do you explain that that is not Good Old Family Values? Don’t marry unless you are too horny not to is not what Mommy tells her daughters.
Jesus defined Christianity, specifically and totally, as being the Golden Rule and loving God. You do your best and you depend on the Name of Jesus. In the course of history, the Church developed a lot of ways it felt would help people do that. Saint Paul added on the Zoroastrian ideas that were all the rage in his time, just as the Dialectic was the intellectual Forever in Marx’s youth.
For the Wordist, these extras constitute Christianity. In his sequel to The Screwtape Letters, Screwtape Proposes a Toast, Screwtape bitched about the QUALITY of the Modern Souls being served at the Tempters’ Banquet.
But at the end, Screwtape admitted the wine was excellent. It consisted of a mixture of those who had spent their entire lives persecuting others who did not have the Biblical Faith and others who were all hunger and vigils and ceremony. Their constant unending hatred of each other gave the mix a wonderful tang to the tongue of a Demon of Hell, and it would go on forever.
For these Religious Wordists, the Golden Rule was nothing. Their entire faith consisted of building huge altars or tearing down huge altars.
My natural tendency is toward traditionalism. I think ”adjusting” is too often to substitute one fad for another without any consideration for the faithful. That’s why I left what was once my family’s church and is no longer a church at all.
What is never noted is that it is Marxism, not the Christian Faith, that has died because it cannot deal with new truths. It is the Progressives who cannot live with progress.
New facts will always be coming at us. But the way of dealing with reality, of asking the right questions and being fully aware there is a lot we do not know, no matter what Magic Year we may live in, does not change.
END OF ARTICLE
Epiphany asked what I, or we, thought about Marcion.
Please note that I answered the question what I THOUGHT of Marcion. I have thought about Marcion and here is what I thought.
Through an oversight I cannot understand, nobody has ever nominated me for Pope, much less elected me, so what I think about Marcion is all I can give you.
Marcion was a wealthy Roman who wanted Christianity to get rid of the Old Testament and most of the New which contained references to the Old. To me, he was an example of a man who can take a bad situation, apply his intellect to it, and make it worse.
There were some six million Hellenized Jews, or anyway a major portion of the total Roman population, at the time of Jesus. As Christianity advanced they disappeared from history. Most of us have only heard of the historian Josephus as one of them.
What Mommy Professor would prefer would be to say that Christianity rose and killed those six million Jews and anyone who disagrees will go to prison. But the more likely explanation is that the Hellenized Jews accepted Jesus, a Greek name, as Christ, also a Greek name.
This may be referred to in Jesus’ pointing out that a prophet is not without honor save in his own country and the question at his disappearance from the Tomb in one of the Gospels, “Has he gone to the Greeks?”
It is my deduction that Hellenized Greek Jews looked upon their Hebrew-speaking coreligionists in Palestine as a bunch of hicks. In fact, they assembled the Septuagint, seventy-something scholars, to write a New and CANONICAL Greek version of the Old Testament. The new Greek version was considered more canonically correct than the one in the old language, which does not show a deep reverences for their country cousins’ inheritance.
This is all based strictly on my own experience with Intellectuals and their pretensions. None of THIS is canonical.
The Hebrew-speaking Jews of the Temple were, if human nature hasn’t changed, regarded a bit like South Italian monks are by theologians today, simple-minded with admirable characteristics but no idea of what The Latest Dogma is all about.
Hellenic Jews considered themselves to be out in the wide world, not a bunch of rubes stuck in a thousand years of provincialism. In The Name of the Rose it is odd to see theologians in the Middle Ages quoting Aristotle as if it were Holy Writ, but this is seldom noticed. Both were part of the Hellenic Jewish tradition.
There was another “sophisticated” tradition, that of Zoroastrianism. In the Gospel of Judas, third century, Jesus is talking to Judas and laughing with the same leer a Mommy Professor would give at a bunch of Bible Belters while he said to Judas, as one Intellectual to another Sophisticate, that the God they were speaking of was The God of this World.
That is as much of a giveaway to the writer’s Zoroastrian background as Political Correctness would be to its Marxist origins if Mommy Professor’s products were capable of thinking.
This attitude on the part of the WRITER of the Gospel of Judas is as familiar to us today as the attitude of the Septuagint Jews toward their hick cousins down in Jerusalem.
There is certainly a contrast between Jesus’ Father and the genocidal Jehovah so often depicted in the Old Testament. But for over three centuries, that was the only official Bible the Hellenic Jews had. Apparently each group had its own unique Gospel or two, but none of them were accepted by all.
Marcion was rejected in his attempt to get rid of the connection between Jehovah and Jesus’ loving and merciful Father. Or at least that is the way one COULD think of it.
But Marcion, being a good Intellectual, did not just criticize the old. Like Mommy Professor it was not enough just to point out the failings in Adam Smith. He wanted his own Marxism to replace it.
Marcion came in about the time the Gospel of Judas did. He too wanted Zoroastrian Intellectuality to replace the Rube Religion. Whereas Paul had recommended that all unmarried young women remain sterile, but admitted that some couldn’t do it, Marcion demanded that ALL Christians be sterile.
My opinion is that Marcion was a Mommy Professor of his time.
Mani, the founder of Manichaeism, said he was synthesizing the two Great Religions of his day, Christianity and Zoroastrianism, and his name has been attached to all the Christian heresies that have demanded total sterility.
I am fascinated by some of what seem to be parallels in the first centuries of the rise of Christianity, which was almost as dominated by writers as ours is, and our own. I am also aware of just how wrong a person who makes such an observation can be when he tries to make everything fit into it.
The Catholic Church has long used the term “Orthodox” as the title of the Eastern Church. At the same time it insisted that only Rome was Orthodox. The Catholic Church uses the term the Episcopal Church to describe the established faith in England.
But the term “Episcopal” has only one meaning: a church ruled by bishops. Rome does not recognize Anglican bishops as bishops: “all the surplices on earth cannot make an Episcopal minister into a priest.”
Rome refers to Jews as Jews. Yet they also declare that they, not the Jews, are the real inheritors of the Old Testament. One of the two horns on every bishop’s hat represents the Old Testament, that HE is true inheritor of Moses.
It seems obvious that the six million people in the Roman Empire who called themselves “Jews” were overwhelmingly Hellenic Jews. Before Jesus, a group of seventy-something scholars wrote THEIR Old Testament, but it was NOT a translation. It was declared THE CANON.
The Hellenic Jewish historian Josephus of whom a lot of us have heard would have gone ballistic if he heard Luther declare that only writings in Hebrew were the real Old Testament. That would be like telling a religious Catholic that only the Episcopal Church has real bishops.
As Christianity grew, the Hellenic Jews disappeared from history. There are two possible explanations of this. Either the giant Hellenic Jewish community accepted Christ, the Greek word for Messiah, as THEIR Messiah, or the Roman Empire killed six million Jews.
Either the Hellenic Jews became Christian or, for once, the Holocaust Deniers were successful.
That latter is worth thinking about. Looking at the tens of billions of dollars the last Holocaust brought in, this newly discovered Roman one could be a bonanza.
But, like Orthodox and Episcopalian, “Jews” is just a convenient title. The Jews are no more THE Jews than the Pope using the term Orthodox makes HIS orthodoxy invalid.
This is no quibble. Remember that the State of Israel and all the tens of billions of dollars and American blood shed for it rests on the undisputed claim that Israel belongs to JEWS, and that what we call Jews are actually the only Chosen People.
No, this is definitely NOT a quibble.
This “quibble” would have been of terrific importance to Luther and Calvin. In their time the people who called themselves “Jews” were the ones historically used Hebrew. In fact, the Early Church would have specifically denied that the group which did NOT accept Jesus — the GREEK version of Joshua — as their Messiah, were still Jews at all.
There were a number of attempts to remove the entire Old Testament from Holy Scriptures in the new church. But the new church hung solidly to its claim to be the ONLY inheritors of what was once called Judaism.
By the time of Luther “Jews” were called Jews. So Luther removed the entire middle of Bible from his canon because of this mistake in terminology. The Fundamentalist branch of Christianity insists that America fight and die for Israel because they do not know about this “quibble.”
Because of their ovine ignorance of history, our so-called “Christians” do not know that, in the eyes of early Christians, Judaism was a religion waiting for the coming of the Messiah. In the eyes of the early church, Jews CEASED to EXIST — Paul says that specifically.
If this is a quibble Krakatoa was a light tremor.
The end of the last article read, “And that could make ‘practicality’ in the new age a totally different thing.”
This has happened before. The development of printing made Luther’s power possible, but it did not occur in a vacuum. Western society invents things it has a need for.
By contrast, the printing press and the mechanical clock in China came on in a vacuum and disappeared in a vacuum. Printing in China, and in Korea which had an alphabetical script and only 24 letters, came and went in the same nothing.
This is why the example of the Donation of Constantine is so critical. Charlemagne’s court invented the Donation of Constantine. This is incomprehensible to accepted history, which sees Charlemagne as trying to get back to the Roman Empire ruled from Rome. Charlemagne had no such interest.
In Charlemagne’s time there was a recognized, legitimate Roman Empire, which had not had a break in its Imperial line since Constantine moved its capitol from Rome to Constantinople. It never occurred to anyone in the actual Roman Empire that moving the capitol constituted the Fall of Rome.
If it did, then the moving of the American capitol from New York to Washington would have been the Fall of America.
In his own time, the Court of Charlemagne had a practical problem. The Pope, probably against his wishes, had made Charlemagne Emperor. The Pope, who was blind and had had his tongue cut out, did not feel safe.
He desperately wanted the Imperial Power to cover the City of Rome.
This was a cosmic challenge, because the Emperor — actually Empress — in Constantinople was not only an Imperial power but a power in the religious area as well. The Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea which defined the Christian Faith, though he himself was not only not a bishop but was unbaptized. He was referred to by all bishops as The Supreme Bishop.
Today the Eastern Church still considers itself a part of the State, a subject of the Emperor.
The Pope had to redefine ALL of that. So he produced a forgery called the Donation of Constantine.
The history I have just explained is justified by the fact that this forgery was supposedly written by the EMPEROR, not by Saint Peter or Paul or any other religious authority. In the Donation, Constantine gave the Church to the Pope.
People KNOW this, but they don’t THINK about it. For centuries the Papacy based its claim to power on being given power by an Emperor. That meant the Emperor had it to give. People never THINK about that, just as they never think about the Temptation of Christ, when Satan offered all the kingdoms of the earth to Jesus.
The latter meant that it is assumed that Satan OWNED the kingdoms of the Earth, which is definitely not Old Testament, but is pure Zoroastrianism.
The Donation was discredited in the fifteenth century, when literacy was so widespread that the word could spread before, as he expected and said, it could be burned at the stake.
This was just before printing took over. And that in itself, if you THINK about it, can tell you a lot. In the West, literacy was ready for print. Print became powerful in the West because it did not appear in a vacuum and disappear in the same vacuum as it did in the Far East.
Before Zoroastrianism became the Pure Death Cult inherited in its degenerate phase By St. Paul and other genuine intellectuals when Zoroastrianism was the other main religion, it was limited to Aryans, as in the name s Iran and Erin.
One person did a Google and said I was wrong. He pointed out that every single page that aims to be Modern Zoroastrian states flatly that anyone is welcome to be a Zoroastrian, regardless of race. So they couldn’t have said that.
I asked him if he had Ever seen any OTHER religion where the first thing they hammer on is how race is no barrier. I asked him WHY he thinks the Zoroastrians wannabes hit so HARD on that. He got it then. You don’t go to such huge lengths to deny something that never OCCURRED to you. They are rejecting their real history, confirming it IS their real history.
I was simply LISTENING closely. He stayed on the surface and repeated what they SAID without thinking about WHY they said it.
This was not unique to Zoroastrian Persia. At its height the original Olympic Games had the original Olympic Oath, which included the oath that “I am of pure Hellenic blood…”
Zoroastrianism went from being racist to becoming a Death and Sterility Creed. As we move away from racism, our psychology makes every crisis, from Soylent Green to Global Warming, an argument for not having children.
The Plymouth church that traces itself back to 1620 has been Unitarian for a century or two. Most of the Puritans’ children also became Unitarian. Now they are largely atheists.
The history of the Pilgrims and the Puritan is completely different from age to age, so everything I say here has a question mark after it. Whether they came here for religious freedom or to impose their religion, the point is they ended up with a doctrine the original immigrants would not have stood for.
No one notices this, but I do. I think about it a lot.
As I understand it, the 1620 Pilgrims were a different lot from the Puritans who came later in vast numbers. Backbaygrouch will be able to fill us in on this. The Pilgrims’ Massachusetts Bay Colony fought long and hard to keep our of the Puritan’s control, but they lost.
I have READ that the Pilgrims were far more genuinely in favor of religious freedom than the Puritans. The Puritans make a bad joke of that “America was founded by people who came here for religious freedom” stuff. Again I defer to backbaygrouch on the actual facts. Why have an expert around if you aren’t going to use his expertise?
Actually I have nothing against the Puritans for imposing their own religion on a place they went to to have their own population on which to impose their own doctrine. We all wish we could do the same sort of thing for an all-white area. It is the HISTORY, the LESSON that needs correcting.
The Puritans came her to impose their own religion in an area four thousand miles away from England. There are TWO lessons here. Most literate people are aware of the first, that they did NOT come here for Religious Freedom. I want to emphasize the SECOND lesson, which is almost unknown.
The second lesson is that the Puritans FAILED to impose their religion. Why?
Naturally I look at this from a BUGS point of view. One of our points here s that when an institution takes over, the PURPOSE of the institution is lost.
Jesus had no lessons about how a group of theologues should justify their absolute rule. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” would have gotten someone hanged as a heretic. So they naturally went to the Old Testament to organize their society under theocratic rule.
As time passed, even before they came to America, Puritanism became more and more about how to impose their will on THIS world. The institution talked more and more about its right to rule. The same thing happened to the Catholic Church as it put whole countries under the Interdict to collect money for the Pope.
They were both institutions USING the name of Christ. I wonder how different history might have been if we had lost at Tours and the ruling institutions called themselves Moslem. It may be that we would have had much the same history and the West would have been just as different and independent, but in the name of schism between the Moslem Branch in Northern Europe and the Moslem Branch that was based in the Middle East.
The Catholic Church was every bit as separate from and hostile to Constantinople. The name Christianity certainly did not unite them. Today Iranian Islam has the same attitude to the Sunnites. My point is that no matter what the NAME institutions appeal to, history itself goes its way and institutions are part of history, not of theology.
China’s version of Marxism versus the old Russian version has little to do with Marx. Marx considered cities to be the natural development of a proletarian society rather than peasants. Pol Pot used Marxism to DESTROY his country’s cities. Before long neither version had anything to do with Marx.
The same thing would have happened if they had all called themselves True Snake Worshippers.
Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots?
New Living Translation (©2007)
Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots?
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
“Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots?
New International Version (©1984)
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.
New Living Translation (©2007)
Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
“Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good Who are accustomed to doing evil.
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Can Ethiopians change the color of their skin or leopards change their spots? Can you do good when you’re taught to do wrong?
King James Bible
Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
Now why would anyone five hundred years or more BC talk about an Ethiopian wanting to change his color?
In every movie I see the Children of Israel are integrated by quota. Lately, they are largely mulattoes. My problem is that as a Bible Belter I didn’t just see the
movie, I read the book.
There is at least one specifically anti-black race riot in the Old Testament.
Any movie of the BC days shows the people heavily Negroid.
I can’t find any classical statues that look the least like mulattoes.
On the documentaries now Hannibal is black. Pharaohs and everybody around them is black.
One real curse about knowing as much history as I do is that I get teed off watching documentaries. But that is also why I tend to be such a doc-watcher.
It is hard to find a subject I’m not interested in. Documentaries not only drop in some new information, they tell where Mommy Professor is right now.
It is also interesting to watch the balance between what is new and what they CAN say.
Back when there were four networks, I watched TV regularly. It was very lower-clahss, but I would ask people, “How can you NOT watch television and
know where mass thought is?” I didn’t get paid to look artistic, I got paid to keep up with politics.
Anyone who had called Hannibal a black to his face would have had less than a second to live. Anyone who had portrayed the 300 Spartans as dark as the movie
did would have lived as long as he could stay out of their reach. Part of the REAL Olympic Oath was “I swear that I am of pure Hellenic blood.” They made it more than abundantly clear what they thought of as pure Hellenic blood as an ideal in their notably non-Negroid statues.
I would love to see the Spartans’ reaction to their being portrayed, every one of them, as brown eyed and black as if there were not a drop of Aryan blood in any of them.
There is a passage in the New Testament about when the Jews become Christians. This led to Luther’s error in trying to convert the Jews and to many errors before. Luther was ignorant of the fact that “Jews” at the time the New Testament was written constituted about a TENTH of the ENTIRE Roman population, and they had nothing to do with what Luther thought of as “Jews.”
Luther also took out six hundred years of Jewish Biblical text because it was written in GREEK. “Jews” in the first century consisted almost entirely of Hellenized Jews, who did not use Hebrew AT ALL. So Luther thought the “Jews” as he defined them, Hebrew-users, were the Jews discussed in the New Testament.
In fact, Luther was the least of these gross misjudgments that the gross ignorance of history caused in the Church. Everybody is so obsessed with feeling guilty about the persecution of Jews that it never occurs to them that the Jews had a unique privilege.
Jews were the ONLY group allowed to practice anything but Christianity and stay alive. They became the ONLY group allowed to practice the local version Christianity and survive. Catholics were burned in Protestant lands and vive-versa.
When the New Testament predicted the conversion of the Jews it was, in fact, a correct prediction. The six million Hellenic Jews in the Empire became Christian. In couple of centuries later were no more Hellenic Jews. In short, I am denying the Roman Holocaust in which six million Roman Jews died.
But in a sense there WAS a Holocaust. Obviously as Hellenic Jews converted to the new faith, there was no tolerance of Hellenic Jews remaining Jews. They disappeared as totally as did the Jews in Europe during Hitler’s rule.
Nobody insists all the Hellenic Jews were killed because there’s no money in it. Someone could make a mint enforcing the Roman Holocaust.
But the point is that Church officials and Luther were ignoramuses. Their definition of “Jews” was as accurate as someone saying that the Privy Council met in an outhouse.
It is only after discussing Zoroaster many times here that I have slowly gotten some idea of why Zoroastrianism is important to our history. I got a communication from a seminary student who explained to me that only “amateurs” thought that Z had any influence whatever on Christianity. He explained that all the writings relating to it and the entire literature of Persia had been burned by the Moslems when they conquered Persia hundreds of yeas AFTER the New Testament was finalized, so it could have had no effect on those who wrote it.
This is way most people view history. The religion of the only empire Rome met and did not conquer could not have influenced the Bible because its literature was destroyed AFTER the Bible was written.
Practically nobody has the slightest historical perspective. Mommy Professor tells them only amateurs or Ignunt people say something and it is not true and that’s all she wrote.
Thinking is not allowed..
It has been noted that the Magi are in the New Testament. They are described as star gazers or We Three King, but at the time the New Testament was written if you had described them as anything but Zoroastrian clerics it would have been EXACTLY like trying to describe a Rabbi as something other than a Jew.
Manichaeism is a heresy described by the Church as being too much a renunciation of life. A Church which welcomed the Trappists at their most extreme condemned the Manicheans. Manichaeism bears the name of Mani, the man who tried to synthesized the two great monotheistic religions of his day
The two great religions of Mani’s pre-Islamic world were Christianity and Zoroastrianism, respectively the established religions of Byzantium and Persia. Not only does Manichaeism have a constant historical influence on Christianity, it is probably the most consistent source of heresy in Christian history.
The reason this is important is because, taken with Indian history, it shows a death wish lodged deep in the Aryan soul. The Hindu and Buddhist ideal is to stop being reborn, to escape the Wheel of Life as one is born again and again and again forever. The Manichaeism seeks to end human life by declaring all procreation a sin. This latter idea is what Mani drew from Zoroastrianism.
There is another parallel between the deterioration thought among Aryans in both India and in Persia. The name “caste” system was adopted in English because it was a direct translation of the Sanskrit name for the system, which means “color.” The Buddha had “eyes the color of the blue lotus” because the caste system had done its job of protecting the Aryan race for over a thousand years before Gautama Buddha came along.
But Buddha rejected the caste system for his Wordism, and presumably that was a fashion of his day as it is in ours.
Zoroastrianism made the same deterioration. Originally no one was allowed into the faith unless he was an Aryan. By the time of Mani, apparently, Zoroastrianism was against the procreation of ANY race, including the one Z meant to protect.
This is all hidden by the fact that no one even mentions the titanic gaps between the Old Testament and the New on the subject of sex. There was no condemnation of sex, and certainly not of procreation, in the Old Testament.
Jesus never said a word against procreation, only adultery.
Yet St. Paul was advising all young women not to marry, not to procreate.
Chastity has been a monomaniacal obsession with the Church throughout its history.
PCs don’t want to talk about any of this because it shows a continuity of ARYAN thought. The alliance of fundamentalism and PC is shown her once again. People like the seminary student are trained to ignore this giant gap and the natural need one would have to explain it if one THOUGHT about it.
This is not a conspiracy, it is a dovetailing of two types of hypnosis that have a common interest in preserving the rather weird version of history we have.
Our present religion of white self-hatred is directly related to the self-torture and self-denial that we got from the Wordist perversion of Zoroastrianism through Christianity. There is no other source for it.
Once you mention it, you can’t deny it. PC has whites feeling wildly virtuous for their “self-sacrifice” in hating their own. You can’t cure a disease if you do not diagnose it. And you can’t diagnose the Aryan self-hatred syndrome if you try to hypnotize yourself into not seeing it.
If you accept that the Inquisition never did physical damage to Jews, you can accept that the priesthood of the temple did nothing to Jesus. But the converse is true. If you overlook the responsibility of the Inquisition that crucified Jesus you must hold the Inquisition guiltless.
One could say that both the Inquisition and the Crucifixion were terrible mistakes in the millennia-long history of Jews and of the Church of Rome. They cannot be blamed on MODERN Catholics or Jews.
But there is a huge difference here. The Catholic Church has admitted it did wrong. The Pope has gone to Israel and groveled at the Jews’ feet for the Inquisition. He has rolled and puked and peed in his robes over the Evil the Church did to Jews.
In other words, the Church admits it was wrong and separates modern Catholics from the errors of their predecessors. The only problem is that, like other white gentiles, the Church keeps on groveling to a sickening extent.
Jewish reaction to Mel Gibson’s perfectly accurate portrayal of the Crucifixion was the exact opposite. The Jews said that if the Temple Priesthood back then did an evil thing, then that evil is still part of Judaism. This is odd, but that IS the logic..
If you insist that admitting a 2000 year old error by Jews is anti-Semitic, you are agreeing with the anti-Semites.
By the same token, Jews who insist that any attempt to save the white race is Nazi are agreeing with Hitler. They are saying that Jews and Aryans cannot survive in the same world.
Lead SF banner on Stormfront Radio:
This is a major win for the Mantra.
I have seen these major wins for each of my separate pieces of lone strategy through the years, but I had no one to explain it to. It would a gratuitous insult to David Duke, who has spent his left out there fighting for our racial survival, to say I taught him about white genocide. I didn’t.
In the same way it would be a hideous insult to Confederate leaders to say that General Lee taught them to fight the Yankees. Lee would be the first to say that his soldiers and his fellow leaders came equipped with their loyalty and courage and their knowing who was right and their willingness to die for it.
So what was LEE’S special contribution? He was one of the great military STRATEGISTS in history.
The people who hired me in politics were already IN office. I didn’t put them in office. They hired me and put me at THEIR level. They said I was a special strategist and put their money behind that judgment.
If you understand why I had to put the above four paragraphs in, it is easy to see why I cannot explain to people when I see a MONUMENTAL step forward. You and I have devoted enormous effort to putting the Mantra to center stage, and it is a reason for celebration. But the moment we try to explain what we did, the attacks will begin.
We will be told we are taking credit for David Duke’s being interested in the disappearance of his race. I get tired just thinking about it.
I did not make John Ashbrook an anti-Communist. I did not make Bill Rusher a leader in the battle to unite the Wallace vote — now the Reagan Democrats – with the regular conservative vote.
What I got paid for is an aspect of politics totally unknown to people in general. In the 1980 presidential campaign, Reagan made a crucial campaign change specifically because of my recommendation through Rusher. I did not make Ronald Reagan what he was, but I was CRUCIAL.
I did not invent the Hubble Telescope. But it would not be up there without me.
Because I had a STRATEGY.
You are now going with me through ONE of my strategic moves. It took YEARS to get SF to START talking about white genocide EFFECTIVELY instead of Zionist interests.
But that is the LAST thing anybody wants to hear about. They want to know what the Great Conspiracy had to do with the main headlines. They want to know how I am INSULTING leaders by presuming to advise them.
People want to know how often I SAW Ronald Reagan not how I was instrumental in the strategy that elected him. They want to see me in Crisis Mode in the Oval Room rather than typing out Memos at two in the morning in my apartment to people who would influence Reagan by a few words.
It took a thousand repetition of the Mantra on our start to get those two words, “White Genocide.” On the SF banner, the way it is on ours.
And I guarantee you, if you try to show how important it is, the discussion will immediately go to what the NEXT SF banner will say.
How often did I SEE Ronald Reagan? As little as I possibly could. To me, the general attitude toward power and strategy is like a person thinking that power is represented by an Eagle Scout getting his hundredth merit badge from the President Himself.
It was major step forward for me when I saw Pain and Simmons having a MUTUAL, INDEPENDENT discussion of their JOINT action in the field. To me it was a major step forward when the words “White Genocide” hit the banner of SF.
I am not insulting David Duke. I am not claiming we are the first people to ever MENTION genocide against our race.
It is ONE MORE evidence of our STRATEGIC breakthrough.
But we cannot explain it to others as long as they do not bother to understand the specific nature of STRATEGY.
But if everybody DID understand it, I would not be comfortably retired now.
Back Bay Grouch: Hmmm, you are beginning to sound very Catholic. This is a common experience to intelligent men who, freed from the daily hubbub by age, turn reflective.
That depends entirely on which kind of Catholic you mean. I am rereading Lawrence Brown’s Might of the West for about the fiftieth time, and he makes a critical distinction.
My own observation: Erasmus supported Luther at the outset, but turned against him as he began to attack the Western unity represented by the Medieval Church. But at his death, he refused all rites, something a modern Catholic would NEVER do. This puzzles the hell out of Mommy Professor.
But Brown points out, and C.S. Lewis, who was an Anglican, indicated, that both the Reformation and the reaction to it, the Catholic Church hardened at Trent, were totally different from the united church in its Medieval form. Nobody raised on the Renaissance crap has the slightest idea what I am talking about.
The Medieval Church, as I said, regarded Renaissance witches as demented old women. They did not let Wordism blind them to reality. The Medieval Church would have had no problem with Galileo.
My interpretation of Brown and Lewis is that the Reformation got the entire church, both Tridentate and Reformation, tangled in the exact WORDS of the Bible and Tradition. Tradition is a living thing, not the locked-in wordism of post-Reformation Catholicism.
In short, Tradition is Western. Neither the Reformation nor the Trent Catholics nor Mommy Professor has a hint of what that means.
Erasmus was a part of the West, part of the Medieval Church, so he did not feel he needed the hocus-pocus.
These are thought-points, not doctrine.