Zoroastrianism

[HaShev]

Could you elaborate why you consider Zoroastrianism very unsophisticated comparing with Judaism? And what do you mean saying 'its creed is more than a little infantile'?

I posted a link to it; it's self-explanatory. It isn't in near the same league as Judeo-Christianity, but then neither is any other religion or superstition or cult. In fact the 'modern' version of it known today was far more likely to have been influenced by Christianity, not the other way around. The distinct lack of early, pre-Christian era copies of it existing from early sources is evidence it wasn't very popular and not the 'major influence' claimed for it. The modern Persian versions only date from some 200 years after Jesus's time.

They were also enthusiastic killers of Christians along with Jews as well, yet numerous and accurate copies of Christian texts still survived in India and Persia despite the mass murders and centuries of persecutions. The Nestorians in particular managed to survive, and later played the key role in that 'Islamic Golden Age' in Baghdad we keep hearing about from Xian bashing homosexuals and other deviants. If Zoroastrianism was all that big it would be a lot bigger today, and its texts wouldn't have been lost so completely. I suppose there may be a 'Dead Sea Scroll' type of discovery re them in the future sometime, but I seriously doubt it at this point in time, and if it does, it's also a certainty what is found in the stash won't much resemble the modern versions.

The hand wave that conquers burned it and destroyed it doesn't really fly if it was indeed all that widespread and popular; Christianity was far more widely and routinely persecuted over hundreds of years and many copies of its texts are known to exist and from its beginning to boot, also a rarity in history. Compare that to the fact that the oldest known Torah is only about 800 years old.

The language itself is interesting enough; it has a strong Indo-Aryan Germanic influence that seems to originate in in the regions north of the Black Sea, with the Semitic influences coming in much later. The linguistics can be useful in historical forensics, certainly. It's probably a much bastardized cult based on the same roots as Hinduism, with its demon worship obsessions, that migrated west from India. It's the root language of the Iranian dialects and scripts, iirc. Recent ruins in northern Russia point to Aryans originating from there and migrating down to India and the northern Iranian regions.

I have read some things from Avesta recently and I completely understand what you meant when said that Zoroastrianism is intelectually unsofisticated. It is a pity for me, really. I do like its philosophy and thought that Iran could return to it as an alternative to Islam.

Well, it would be a vast improvement over Islam, certainly, but the reformed versions of Judaism, without the racist idiocy of the Chasidics involved, or some of Christan sects already present would do them much better culturally and economically. I'm an agnostic myself, but what is referred to as 'mysticism' or 'religion' seems to be hard-wired into human brains, as much new research is showing, so it exists for a reason, and the ones I mentioned have by far the best results traditionally, especially many of the Christian sects of Judaism; they are extremely dynamic and self-correcting over time.

I think that Judaism has one fundamental flaw which can hamper other nations to adopt it. And that is a perception of God. In my opinion god that is depicted there has little in common with a trancedental entity or that one which is all-kind, all-forgiving and open for all nations. That is more like a tribal god who supports only his people.

Christianity is highly valuable for its moral standards. But then again it has two fundamental flaws. First of them is perception of their god as described in Judaism. Second, it is quite illogical and historically unacceptable idea of deification of Jesus.

What Christian sects of Judaism do you mean?

How do you conclude that when it explicitely says
1) The Temple to come is for all people.
2) The word is embedded in all religions.
3) it's an Essence and ethos adopted by almost all including naturalists.

 

[ESay]

Could you elaborate why you consider Zoroastrianism very unsophisticated comparing with Judaism? And what do you mean saying 'its creed is more than a little infantile'?

I posted a link to it; it's self-explanatory. It isn't in near the same league as Judeo-Christianity, but then neither is any other religion or superstition or cult. In fact the 'modern' version of it known today was far more likely to have been influenced by Christianity, not the other way around. The distinct lack of early, pre-Christian era copies of it existing from early sources is evidence it wasn't very popular and not the 'major influence' claimed for it. The modern Persian versions only date from some 200 years after Jesus's time.

They were also enthusiastic killers of Christians along with Jews as well, yet numerous and accurate copies of Christian texts still survived in India and Persia despite the mass murders and centuries of persecutions. The Nestorians in particular managed to survive, and later played the key role in that 'Islamic Golden Age' in Baghdad we keep hearing about from Xian bashing homosexuals and other deviants. If Zoroastrianism was all that big it would be a lot bigger today, and its texts wouldn't have been lost so completely. I suppose there may be a 'Dead Sea Scroll' type of discovery re them in the future sometime, but I seriously doubt it at this point in time, and if it does, it's also a certainty what is found in the stash won't much resemble the modern versions.

The hand wave that conquers burned it and destroyed it doesn't really fly if it was indeed all that widespread and popular; Christianity was far more widely and routinely persecuted over hundreds of years and many copies of its texts are known to exist and from its beginning to boot, also a rarity in history. Compare that to the fact that the oldest known Torah is only about 800 years old.

The language itself is interesting enough; it has a strong Indo-Aryan Germanic influence that seems to originate in in the regions north of the Black Sea, with the Semitic influences coming in much later. The linguistics can be useful in historical forensics, certainly. It's probably a much bastardized cult based on the same roots as Hinduism, with its demon worship obsessions, that migrated west from India. It's the root language of the Iranian dialects and scripts, iirc. Recent ruins in northern Russia point to Aryans originating from there and migrating down to India and the northern Iranian regions.

I have read some things from Avesta recently and I completely understand what you meant when said that Zoroastrianism is intelectually unsofisticated. It is a pity for me, really. I do like its philosophy and thought that Iran could return to it as an alternative to Islam.

Well, it would be a vast improvement over Islam, certainly, but the reformed versions of Judaism, without the racist idiocy of the Chasidics involved, or some of Christan sects already present would do them much better culturally and economically. I'm an agnostic myself, but what is referred to as 'mysticism' or 'religion' seems to be hard-wired into human brains, as much new research is showing, so it exists for a reason, and the ones I mentioned have by far the best results traditionally, especially many of the Christian sects of Judaism; they are extremely dynamic and self-correcting over time.

I think that Judaism has one fundamental flaw which can hamper other nations to adopt it. And that is a perception of God. In my opinion god that is depicted there has little in common with a trancedental entity or that one which is all-kind, all-forgiving and open for all nations. That is more like a tribal god who supports only his people.

Christianity is highly valuable for its moral standards. But then again it has two fundamental flaws. First of them is perception of their god as described in Judaism. Second, it is quite illogical and historically unacceptable idea of deification of Jesus.

What Christian sects of Judaism do you mean?

How do you conclude that when it explicitely says
1) The Temple to come is for all people.
2) The word is embedded in all religions.
3) it's an Essence and ethos adopted by almost all including naturalists.

I read some parts of the Bible (both NT and OT) and I got this impression. Frankly, I dont have the patience to read the Bible from the beginning to the end. And I can easily admit that I missed some points.
Can you name the parts of the Bible where the first two points are described?

 

[irosie91]

Isaiah says NUMBER 1

 

[Picaro]

I think that Judaism has one fundamental flaw which can hamper other nations to adopt it. And that is a perception of God. In my opinion god that is depicted there has little in common with a trancedental entity or that one which is all-kind, all-forgiving and open for all nations. That is more like a tribal god who supports only his people.

You aren't the first to not have actually read the books.

Christianity is highly valuable for its moral standards. But then again it has two fundamental flaws. First of them is perception of their god as described in Judaism. Second, it is quite illogical and historically unacceptable idea of deification of Jesus.

What Christian sects of Judaism do you mean?

Why is it 'unacceptable'? The Trinity is a valid concept. Jesus and God are the same entity. As for the history, the NT is entirely contemporary with the times it claims to have been written in, and it's an entirely 'Jewish' theology, despite the whinings of racist Jews whose sects got left behind to obsess over themselves. Moses and many of the OT prophets state explicitly that after a time they were to move Judaism to a universal religion to all the world. The post-exilic Babylonian Jews just returned to Palestine and immediately oppressed the Jews living there, faked themselves some genealogies, and ignored the covenants ever after, which is why Christianity was so popular when it came along; the 'Orthodoxy' as invented by the Babylonians to promote their own interests had no appeal to most Jews, being merely a hoax and fake, so when a sect came along that intended to carry on with the Torah's original goals it exploded.

 

[Picaro]

Isaiah says NUMBER 1

"A light unto the Nations"

Of course, quite a few racist Jews think that means they're chosen to rule over the world, but sane people know better.

Mathew has a much better concept of Isaiah, so does John, 16:15 and 8:12, respectively.

 

[HaShev]

I posted a link to it; it's self-explanatory. It isn't in near the same league as Judeo-Christianity, but then neither is any other religion or superstition or cult. In fact the 'modern' version of it known today was far more likely to have been influenced by Christianity, not the other way around. The distinct lack of early, pre-Christian era copies of it existing from early sources is evidence it wasn't very popular and not the 'major influence' claimed for it. The modern Persian versions only date from some 200 years after Jesus's time.

They were also enthusiastic killers of Christians along with Jews as well, yet numerous and accurate copies of Christian texts still survived in India and Persia despite the mass murders and centuries of persecutions. The Nestorians in particular managed to survive, and later played the key role in that 'Islamic Golden Age' in Baghdad we keep hearing about from Xian bashing homosexuals and other deviants. If Zoroastrianism was all that big it would be a lot bigger today, and its texts wouldn't have been lost so completely. I suppose there may be a 'Dead Sea Scroll' type of discovery re them in the future sometime, but I seriously doubt it at this point in time, and if it does, it's also a certainty what is found in the stash won't much resemble the modern versions.

The hand wave that conquers burned it and destroyed it doesn't really fly if it was indeed all that widespread and popular; Christianity was far more widely and routinely persecuted over hundreds of years and many copies of its texts are known to exist and from its beginning to boot, also a rarity in history. Compare that to the fact that the oldest known Torah is only about 800 years old.

The language itself is interesting enough; it has a strong Indo-Aryan Germanic influence that seems to originate in in the regions north of the Black Sea, with the Semitic influences coming in much later. The linguistics can be useful in historical forensics, certainly. It's probably a much bastardized cult based on the same roots as Hinduism, with its demon worship obsessions, that migrated west from India. It's the root language of the Iranian dialects and scripts, iirc. Recent ruins in northern Russia point to Aryans originating from there and migrating down to India and the northern Iranian regions.

I have read some things from Avesta recently and I completely understand what you meant when said that Zoroastrianism is intelectually unsofisticated. It is a pity for me, really. I do like its philosophy and thought that Iran could return to it as an alternative to Islam.

Well, it would be a vast improvement over Islam, certainly, but the reformed versions of Judaism, without the racist idiocy of the Chasidics involved, or some of Christan sects already present would do them much better culturally and economically. I'm an agnostic myself, but what is referred to as 'mysticism' or 'religion' seems to be hard-wired into human brains, as much new research is showing, so it exists for a reason, and the ones I mentioned have by far the best results traditionally, especially many of the Christian sects of Judaism; they are extremely dynamic and self-correcting over time.

I think that Judaism has one fundamental flaw which can hamper other nations to adopt it. And that is a perception of God. In my opinion god that is depicted there has little in common with a trancedental entity or that one which is all-kind, all-forgiving and open for all nations. That is more like a tribal god who supports only his people.

Christianity is highly valuable for its moral standards. But then again it has two fundamental flaws. First of them is perception of their god as described in Judaism. Second, it is quite illogical and historically unacceptable idea of deification of Jesus.

What Christian sects of Judaism do you mean?

How do you conclude that when it explicitely says
1) The Temple to come is for all people.
2) The word is embedded in all religions.
3) it's an Essence and ethos adopted by almost all including naturalists.

I read some parts of the Bible (both NT and OT) and I got this impression. Frankly, I dont have the patience to read the Bible from the beginning to the end. And I can easily admit that I missed some points.
Can you name the parts of the Bible where the first two points are described?

• (Is.11:10): This is for all cultures and Nations...

• (IS 56:3-7): "for My House shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations"

• • From my coming together as one site: The Bible says God's will is One-(Zechariah 14:9)-It's important that the people find themselves coming together as One in Micah 4:1-2 or Genesis 11:6 message of one language.
    We all know the many verses about G-d being one, but also the secret wisdom of the name of YHWH exposes that we must become as one in doing his will.
    Seemingly there is this problem with Life's success or failure, it requires everyone as a whole to work together. A little analogy I like to use;
    Say you're in an attached complex sharing one roof over your head and a storm comes and most of your neighbors and you board up your windows responsibly, but one clown decides it's not important to and irresponsibly does nothing to prepare. The storm hits and blows just his windows out and no-one else’s, however it uplifts his roof that's attached to all the other roofs in the complex, thus even the ones who were careful still get their roofs ripped off damaging the interiors anyway, due to the CONNECTED roof which allowed the elements in.
    The logic is no matter how much you do your part responsibly, it only takes a few or one irresponsible people to cause havoc for the whole. Thus we succeed as one or die as self concerned separatists...for we are very much connected.
    The world will have to start stressing, teaching, and recognize that this planet and it’s people are a whole that makes up God which is in it through all creation. Therefore striking at one portion of people in this whole organism is like striking a part of your own body and only damaging yourself and God who’s part of everything
    [ We already proved that we are interconnected and affecting each other ], so that’s fact. In an analogy, if we see the whole as a body, then we see that removing a portion of it would be like chopping off a hand or arm, and damaging the earth would be like stabbing your own heart, and all these things are done unto God.
  • • • The word being embedded in almost all culture's religions is on my similarities of religions essay site and these forums under my Sunday Sermons similarities series which can hopefully be found by search.

 

[HaShev]

Sample of similarities that might be missing from my sermons in this forum.
REMEMBER 7=Sheva in Hebrew
We are to "remember the name" by keeping the Sheva day holy (Shevot)
Many don't know but the Holy name
In the name of the Holy city
Shalem/ Shelim is in it's original Canaanite transliteration as
SHV(prefix witheld) as found on ancient stone. Shalem is
the Evening Star (Michael)
Similarity therefore to Hindi techings on
Shiva which is sometimes referred to as Shiva Nataraj (Lord of the dance) and is often portrayed as a dancing figure.
He dances on a dwarf, who represents ignorance. Just as in Judaic traditions where Michael steps on the lord of darkness (ignorance & lies).
By treading the dwarf underfoot, he is attempting to overcome ignorance in the world. Just as Michael is the Shiloh who overcomes and over turns the darkness (lies /ignorance) that is the work of this adversary Lucifer(morning star).
The circle of flames in which he dances represents the cycle of time with no beginning and no end.
The dancing figure of Shiva represents the eternal energy which flows through the world. This continuous dance causes the pattern of day and night, the changing of the seasons, and the cycle of birth and death. He holds in one of his hands a drum on which he beats out the rhythm (frequency)of the universe.
The third eye (in the middle of his forehead) saved the world from darkness. Just as it's Moshiach who lifts the veil, so we might see the truth (Isaiah and Dan 10:21)
The symbols associated with Shiva point to the fact that he has power over evil:
Clearly Shiva is the Archangel Michael.
In Hindu, "Shiva" is the witness, consciousness, vibration (Ma/heshv/ar).
Similar to my previous post that in Christianity: "Holy Spirit" (Pentecosts call Evening/Night Messenger like in Judaic traditions).
All three are symbolized by the Moon or Night reflection and 8 ray Evening Star (crossed out cross/Union Jack=symbol for birth and life).
Hence Daniels Vision of the NIGHT=Evening Star.
In a 7th century icon of the archangel Michael has a third eye on his forhead, similar to Hindu custom dot as a third eye represents the Pineal Gland (intuitive eye) hence symbols of the Father in Heaven, the watcher with the eye (which is what the gland looks like an eye of ra symbol with the attached stems)
The Hindu 'Yantra' Portrays a Star of David in the center of a flower with eight pedals, the same number of points of Light in the Hebrew Messiah, and where the Arch(Messiah) and his seven angels(messengers)=8,
& were always symbolized by the same 8 pedal rossette.
BUDDHIST use this 8 point cross in their 'Wheel of Righteousness' and so does the CHURCH OF WORLD MESSIANITY (Izunome)for their symbol of faith.
In ancient Sumeria this symbol of the 8 ray star was the symbol for G-d, and the earliest Islamic symbols used this same eight ray star with the crescent moon to represent their faith under the Evening Star.

Mahesha or Maheshvar-the great Lord, 'conqueror of death', is symbolized by the crescent moon (NIGHT), which brings us to next Sundays Sermon on similarities in Muslim expectations of the Groom (Imam Mahdi).
Remember the Muslim Symbol was originally the 8 ray evening star with moon and the Al Isra expects the Night ascension to the city in his name to bring peace, so they to seek the ascension of the Head of Hosts they also call Michael as the head Imam.
In fact you said you don't like reading the full book, the irony is if you only knew the legend and definition to thw name of the Holy City you would have all you need in that name as cliff notes to the Bible.

The legend in how yeruShalem becomes city of Shalom is in
the Night (evening star Michael)removing (overturning) the day(morning star/ lucifer Jesus
-rev 22:16)

I said many times everything you need is in the HaShem (the name) of the Holy City-Yeru"Shalem".
It's essential to define that power & source of Life (God) in order to know our purpose, place, path, and thus know if we are in line (doing good) or going against the grain (doing evil).
The Torah tells us God's Essence is in the city's name, Shalem means completeness -wholeness, Stability, which is why Genesis says God creates order out of chaos, not out of nothing.
Knowing/describing that essence in life helps discern from subjective opinions on what is in line or against the grain (right or wrong, good or bad).
So ask yourself is that Shalem(stable,becoming complete) or opposition to Shalem(chaotic & divisive) to know good from evil without it being mere subjective opinion.
Like I said many times, the holy name is like cliff notes which is why the city is our focus and Iris of the Eye of God.

Sources:
YeruShalem would carry the name. (1 Kings 11:36 &
in dead sea scrolls: Words of the Archangel Michael scroll 4Q529, 6Q23)
The Gemarah (Baba Batra 75) Tells us Jerusalem is named after G0D and is the place commemorating his name and essence. In Sefer D’varim (12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21; 14:23,24, 25; 15:20; 16:2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11).the place that I will choose to place My Name. That is referring to YeruShalem because Sifri identifies the place which Hashem will choose (12:18) as “Yerushalayim”.

Type: "David named 2 sons after Shalem"
in google search.

 

[irosie91]

Rosie's brain damage is apparently permanent.

And, as I actually said, moving from the normal pagan practice of human sacrifices to animal sacrifice is notable progress and cultural advancement. The Romans loathed the Celts and Carthaginians (Phoenicians)_ because of their cults' using human sacrifice, same as Jewish tribes did re their early neighbors in the Med. Try reading what people actually say before parroting what those dumbass racist Chasidics fed you for once.

the notion of a "progression" from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice as the natural
"PROGRESSION OF HUMAN INTELLECT" is one of the most idiotic notions I
have encountered in MY LONG DULL LIFE. Animal sacrifice is not a convenient
SUBSTITUTION for human sacrifice. Animal sacrifice is LUNCH in agrarian
societies. HUMAN sacrifice is not "CHARACTERISTIC" of "pagan societies"
The romans had no problem at all with human sacrifice so long as it was NOT
their own asses involved------they CRUCIFIED humans as an entertainment and
for even more fun-----fed them to Lions. Pic has no idea what "chassid" means
or how it developed or what it is. In fact----that which is called "CHASSIDISM"
today developed from the Christian custom of SACRIFICING JEWS (especially on
holidays)

Picaro's evalulation is tantamount to ------the AUTO DE FE entertainment was
"funny"

 

[irosie91]

There are over a billion followers of zoroastrianism. They are called Jews and Christians.

It is highly doubtful. The philosophy of Christianity and Zoroastrianism are quite different.

It was a poke.
Seems to me like a lot of their stories were ripped off from them.
Sumerians too.

very superficial knowledge is a dangerous -----THINGY

I read what i read rosie. It is what it is.
Obviously details are different but the themes are all the same. It would be like an author changing words up from a previous publication.
The stories are extremely similar. You know that.

the themes are very similar---------the ethics of HUMAN BEANS is hardwired in
the brain---------it is actually an evolutionary thing