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.

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.

Routinely.

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.