Zoroastrianism

[Picaro]

As for the claim Abraham came from Ur, that is most likely a myth, too. He came from the North, somewhere in Turkey or even further north, not the east, which leaves out Ur as a birthplace for him. The Sumerian Ur legend is a 19th century speculation by the archeologist who discovered Ur and wanted to promote his find. There is no definitive basis in the OT for the belief Abraham migrated east from Ur. Ur was a place name for several towns and regions around the ME and beyond.

Who Was Abraham and Where Did He Come From?

There are other possibilities besides this version, I didn't feel like posting 80 million links. Amuse yourselves doing your own homework once in a while.

 

[there4eyeM]

It would seem more reasonable to assume common psychological elements in our race (human). The fact that all groups in all times had language shows the strong 'hard wiring' we can have. The same is probably true for 'spiritual' concerns; all societies have them, and there are necessary similarities to such concerns. This, by itself, does not verify 'God' or any specific religion, but it is interesting.
Zoroastrianism is fascinating in how early in human history it arose.

 

[Picaro]

It would seem ore reasonable to assume common psychological elements in our race (human). The fact that all groups in all times had language shows the strong 'hard wiring' we can have. The same is probably true for 'spiritual' concerns; all societies have them, and there are necessary similarities to such concerns. This, by itself, does not verify 'God' or any specific religion, but it is interesting.
Zoroastrianism is fascinating in how early in human history it arose.

Well, again it's merely a matter of how one defines' God' and 'spiritualism'. It's become clear to people who study the brain that it is indeed hardwired, and it also serves a very practical existential purpose; if anybody doesn't believe that then go live among a group made up entirely of sociopaths. That 'society' wouldn't last long, and probably not many survivors left, either; either that or it becomes 'Islam'.

The bible wasn't' written by idiots and con men, it's a very sophisticated and constructed piece of literature and philosophy; con men wouldn't have bothered, since in the eras when paganism reigned it was easy to make up stupid shit and find followers, no need for such elaborate constructs as 'books' and theologies like Judaism and Christianity.

 

[ESay]

Do anybody have any thoughts about this religion? Or maybe there is somebody on this forum who has acquaintances who consider themselves followers of Zoroaster? Please write your opinions about main ideas and doctrines of this religion or personal experience in it if someone has one.

Long time since I studied it. It isn't 'monotheistic' as some claim, and little of it is really similar to 'Christianity', that's also a fake claim, it's very intellectually unsophisticated stuff in comparison with Jewish theology, but still an improvement over paganism, even with its obsession with demonology, with its advance from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice. It appears after Judaism and some others, not before, and its 'creed' is more than a little infantile.It doesn't have anything to recommend it over Christianity, but then no others do, either. As Hegel said, Christianity is the highest intellectual evolution of theology, logic, and philosophy, bar none.

AVESTA: YASNA: (English)

As for 'influence on Islam', Islam isn't a religion, so that claim is just silly. Islam has no theology of its own, just a claim that some illiterate mentally retarded homicidal desert bandit had some 'visions', most of which was later eaten by his family goat. Please, just stop with the ridiculous assertions already; nothing in 'Islam' is original theology, all of it came from surrounding cults.

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

 

[Picaro]

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.

 

[irosie91]

Do anybody have any thoughts about this religion? Or maybe there is somebody on this forum who has acquaintances who consider themselves followers of Zoroaster? Please write your opinions about main ideas and doctrines of this religion or personal experience in it if someone has one.

Long time since I studied it. It isn't 'monotheistic' as some claim, and little of it is really similar to 'Christianity', that's also a fake claim, it's very intellectually unsophisticated stuff in comparison with Jewish theology, but still an improvement over paganism, even with its obsession with demonology, with its advance from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice. It appears after Judaism and some others, not before, and its 'creed' is more than a little infantile.It doesn't have anything to recommend it over Christianity, but then no others do, either. As Hegel said, Christianity is the highest intellectual evolution of theology, logic, and philosophy, bar none.

AVESTA: YASNA: (English)

As for 'influence on Islam', Islam isn't a religion, so that claim is just silly. Islam has no theology of its own, just a claim that some illiterate mentally retarded homicidal desert bandit had some 'visions', most of which was later eaten by his family goat. Please, just stop with the ridiculous assertions already; nothing in 'Islam' is original theology, all of it came from surrounding cults.

Pic has made some valid points EXCEPT his puerile claim that Zoroastrianism is
"unintellectual" and his idiotic denigration of "animal sacrifice" amongst Zoroastrians. .
In fact Zoroastrianism is quite intellectual and a bit more logical than is
Christianity. Before the Christian era----Jews and Zoroastrians did have some
ideological "fights" The "ONENESS" thing was at issue although dualism can
be presented with just as much "intellectual" discussion as can monotheism. It,
certainly beats "trinity" and DA DEVIL with horns and a pitchfork. (a kind of
DUALISM----devil vs trinity.
As to animal sacrifice--------it barely exists in both Zoroastrianism and Judaism
and IN BOTH ---treatment of animals has been FAR FAR superior as compared
to that supported by Christian "philosophy" In general----animal sacrifice
even amongst the ancient greeks was an issue of food economy and not depravity.
The really depraved crap was ROMAN----and largely transferred to general
custom in Christian societies. Cock fighting is a good example of
Christian "culture"--------depravity utterly absent amongst both Zoroastrians and
jews. ------more like the ROMAN CIRCUS

 

[Picaro]

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.

 

[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)

 

[TNHarley]

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.

One of the more hilarious illogical claims is that because some historical claim in the OT might resemble some other culture's historical beliefs, it was 'stolen' or something and therefore the OT is ' all lies n stuff', as if in order to be 'true' they have to have entirely different historical claims or something, which is just weird 'logic'; the same for moral precepts and other comparisons, as if there is some requirement they all have to be completely different and not universal experiences and concepts.

Cuz, like, nobody else is supposed to have had floods or saw comets n stuff , and cuz somebody else besides Jews experienced those and wrote about it that means they faked it all and 'stole' the stories .... lol what a hoot.

And, in any case, many of those myths alleged to have been invented before the OT turn out to be later revised myths and in fact influenced by the OT and Christian beliefs by later writers, and that includes Egyptian myths.

 

[Picaro]

Hartley doesn't know modern Zoroastrianism is based on 10th century A.D. revisions, and like many other cults attempted to compete with Christianity, even 'orthodox' Judaism post- A.D. 70 'reformed' in such an attempt. I use the term 'orthodox' here to refer to the state cult that prevailed from 300 B.C. or so to the destruction of the Temple, not the dynamic and genuine Mosaic Judaism of earlier times that Jesus's Torah based ministry was reviving to get the Covenant back on track.

 

[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.

 

[HaShev]

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.

In the Apochryphon of John they admit borrowing much from Zoroastrianism.

 

[ESay]

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.

In the Apochryphon of John they admit borrowing much from Zoroastrianism.

As I can understand, the Apochryphon is Gnostic in its nature, so it hardly has something in common with Christianity.

 

[HaShev]

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.

In the Apochryphon of John they admit borrowing much from Zoroastrianism.

As I can understand, the Apochryphon is Gnostic in its nature, so it hardly has something in common with Christianity.

It's an admission that is as valid as any other admission otherwise none is valid. No selective use of texts is intellectually honest regarding writings in the name of the subject speaker.

THAT BEING SAID: Zoroastrianism uses a duality of power that Christians borrowed with it's God vs the Devil precept.
Zoroaster was first to be proclaimed first and last & thereafter borrowed by The NT and given to the
idol.
The Nazarene cult used precepts of
physical Luciferous light throughout
it's writings and if you study
teachings of the Mandeans (a sect of Sabians), who are the offspring of the followers of John the Baptist, these physical luciferous light teachings match the NT precepts. It made Rome's job combining the Babylonian mystery sun worship cults into one combined new world religion all the more easy.

 

[Mike Dwight]

Its on CK2 and who cares? But it was against slavery! hurray! Also consanguinity in the Positive like marry your sister, like who doesn't want to bone your sister? Everybody likes star reading scholars obviously, what the star chart say today.

 

[Votto]

Zoroastrian cuisine is ELEGANT. ----and similar to kosher but pork is ok. Muslim Iranians I have
known DESPISE "arab food"------"arab language"-----"arab """ART""" " and "arab music"----
and arabs, in general. It seems that they like Zoroastrian culture LOTS and kinda claim
it in a perverse way. The world would be a better place of Iranians REVERTED to
Zoroastrianism.

What do you mean saying 'in a perverse way'?

Zoroastrians are persecuted in Iran------HATED. Iranian muslims I have known,
cite aspects of Zoroastrian culture as if it is THEIR OWN MUSLIM STUFF.
They do not offer attribution------kinda like THE AYATOILETS invented it.
As to the persecution of Zoroastrians past and present----like it does not and
never existed

To be fair, everyone is treated like this by the Iranian government.

 

[ESay]

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.

In the Apochryphon of John they admit borrowing much from Zoroastrianism.

As I can understand, the Apochryphon is Gnostic in its nature, so it hardly has something in common with Christianity.

It's an admission that is as valid as any other admission otherwise none is valid. No selective use of texts is intellectually honest regarding writings in the name of the subject speaker.

THAT BEING SAID: Zoroastrianism uses a duality of power that Christians borrowed with it's God vs the Devil precept.
Zoroaster was first to be proclaimed first and last & thereafter borrowed by The NT and given to the
idol.
The Nazarene cult used precepts of
physical Luciferous light throughout
it's writings and if you study
teachings of the Mandeans (a sect of Sabians), who are the offspring of the followers of John the Baptist, these physical luciferous light teachings match the NT precepts. It made Rome's job combining the Babylonian mystery sun worship cults into one combined new world religion all the more easy.

The grave difference between Gnosticism and Z-sm and Christianity lays in perception of what our phisical world is. For Gnostics material world was created by evil force and is a prison for souls. So, I dont think that Gnostic apochryphon can be included in Christian tradition.

Regarding Christian tradition about God and devil then I dont know maybe Christians took this from Z-sm maybe not. One can draw some other parallels. But this doesnt make this religions similar in the core. As to perception of this world and the role of humankind in it these religions have almost nothing in common.

About Mandeans. I have read about them and their religion. Frankly, their stories about creation of the world seemed ridiculous for me and stopped reading. But I like their veneration ( if it may be called that) of water.

 

[HaShev]

The Followers of John as Nazarenes (i.e. guardians [of a new testament]) believed that their god was that mystical rays of light between the sun and earth. The Mandeans claim Jesus is the false prophet who had John killed (when his friend/follower and relative Salome turned him in) in order to steal John's Followers. By studying
John's followers teaching and comparing it to the NT we find the sun worship nonsense to be obvious.
They did not yet understand the science of photosynthesis, so naturally they venerated the magical process of those rays of light in sustaining their life hence they also combined Baal harvest worship as seen in their verses on sowing seeds, harvesting men, Borrowed Baal death & resurrection scene, borrowed Baal Dec 25th birthday and circle sun cross, and admitting Jesus' father was Baal at the end of the Roman Joke-
Rev 22:16 Morning Star is the son of Baal in mythology.

 

[Picaro]

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.

 

[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?