Fire Worshiping

Persians were already sandniggers before the Arabs came and raped them.

File: 0155 - mCv5Zk8.png (135KB, 483x442px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 483x442px

>ywn be Zoroastrian

File: balkan pol kul.jpg (148KB, 800x820px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 800x820px

>>1833326

>>1833318

The one thing that annoys me, on an intellectual level about Zoroastrianism, is that it isn't viewed with the same degree of skepticism as other religions are.

You try to claim, in an academic setting, that Jews were monotheists from the day they went out of Egypt, or that Christianity's core doctrines concerning sin and repentance and the theological importance of the crucifixion were created by Jesus and passed down in the Gospels by eyewitnesses to the actual events, and you'll get laughed at.


But it's apparently legit to claim that Zoroastrian beliefs were exactly the same in around 1,000 B.C. when the Avestas were probably penned as they were in 300 AD when we first have mention of them independently, let alone when we actually have manuscripts of such.

What I don't get about Zoroastrianism is the fact that it is entirely dualist, but the end goal is the destruction of one side that keeps the balance - i.e. Ahriman being destroyed by Ahura Mazda at the End of Time. Being dualistic, I thought Zoroastrianism would advocate that both the Creative (Light) and Destructive (Dark) Principle were equally necessary and intertwined.

>>1833318

They don't literally worship fire, the fire is a symbol of their god the same way a crucifix is for a Christian.
>Zoroastrians believe that there is one universal, transcendent, supreme god,

No they don't, they postulate two deities who are opposites but not necessarily equals. "Evil", which for Zoroastrians includes things like death and decay, can triumph for a time, but eventually Ahura Mazda will win, and create a new Earth without sin or death for his followers. Interestingly, this new Earth will be perfectly flat, with no valleys or hills, so probably a fairly boring place to spend eternity.

>>1833349

I don't know anyone who actually knows anything about them who says that. Clearly the rites of the Parsi are not the same as those of the magoi back in the day, but there is equally clearly a direct line of succession between the two.

File: turkish-cockroach.jpg (76KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 500x667px

>>1833341
Piss off roach

File: Yajna1.jpg (148KB, 960x768px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 960x768px

>>1833318
There are fire rituals in Hinduism and Tantric Buddhism as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homa_(ritual)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yajna
https://youtu.be/--A-5Dxmf74

>>1833376
Well, it is partially solved in Zurvanism
Zurvanites claim, that Ormazd and Ahriman are brothers and their father is a neutral diety of time, Zurvan. And one shall defeat another

>>1833318
Zoroastrians don't specifically worship fire any more then Christians worship the Cross or Muslims do the Kabbla. The fire is considered symbolic of Ahura Mazda.

>fire worshippers
Triggered.

>>1833349
We have the gathas dated from around 1300 BC likely penned by Zoroaster himself which details the early structure of his life and organization of Zoroastrianism. Also the "orthodox" codification of modern Zoroastrianism starts around 180-200 AD by House Sasan, the family that founded the Sassanid/Neo Persian Empire. Under Katir, ancestor worship was stopped and he was considered the "Priest of Priests" in the same way the Great King was the King of Kings. Only non Sassanid to have his own inscriptions and relief done at the Sassanid inscription sites.

>>1833349
Skepticism is a very selective weapon. It is designed and built specifically to target Christianity, not "religions" in general.

Proof: as soon as Richard Dawkins started to say the same shit he says about Christianity, about Islam (and in far milder terms) the so-called turned on him like mad piranas.

>>1833349
With the exception, of course, of everyone who actually knows something about the religion.

>>1833376
That's because zoroastrianism is not dualistic, at least not in the sense you're using the word. This is why I dislike calling it dualistic to begin with, people evocates images about balances and equally necessary principles that make no sense at all in Zoroastrianism. Angra Mainyu is not a counterpart that Ahura Mazda needs, he's a mistake that must and will be destroyed. This is true even for the historical periods and sects where they're considered "twins". Ahura Mazda alone is the balance, Angra Mainyu destabilizes this balance.

>>1834003
>>1833826
>>1833391


With respect, I'm going to have to disagree with you guys.

For instance, you have guys like Payam Nabarz, who claim that Judaism developed monotheism from contact with Zoroastrianism; relying on a chain of assumptions both in Zoroastrianism actually having monotheistic (or dualistic, depending on how you look at it) doctrines circa 580 B.C., which largely center around back-believing later beliefs and attributing them to the older practices.

You do have people who are at the very least far more scholarly than your average 4chan poster who are claiming this kind of stuff.

>>1833386
The Malign Spirit can hardly be called a deity. He's not meant to be worshiped, he doesn't play the role of a deity in the zoroastrian faith.

If Ormuz is a god, Ahriman certainly is not. He's not even on the category of a worshipable deity like Mithra or one of the emanations and angels of Ormuz. He is his own thing or non-thing and although he is antropomorphic in some sasanian reliefs his role is more the one of a pseudo-perpetual cosmic evil force with a vague shade of personality.

>>1834036
As far as I know the Gathas are pretty monotheistic.

>>1834036
That's incorrect. Zoroastrianism has always been monothestic. Old Testament pre-Babylonian imprisonment Israelites/Jews still referred to YHVH as a "petty Jealous Lord" of other gods.

>>1834053

But aren't the Gathas usually paired with other texts such as the Yashts, which are very definitely not? Furthermore, Zoroaster having a dialog with Ahura Mazda doesn't really preclude the existence or beliefs in other deities. You may as well say that the section of the Odyssey in which Odysseus summons the dead proves that the Greeks were monotheist believers of Hades.

>>1834146

>That's incorrect. Zoroastrianism has always been monothestic.

Explain the Gāhs and the Siroza then.


> Old Testament pre-Babylonian imprisonment Israelites/Jews still referred to YHVH as a "petty Jealous Lord" of other gods.

And how do you know that said reformations in the Judaic beliefs occurred due to influence from Zoroastrians, and not say, other Persian belief systems? Or now, that the northern Israelites were out of the picture, the Yahweh cult which was always stronger in the south began to become predominant?

>>1834197
No, since from the start Ahura Mazda is given a different category. If the others are gods, Ahura Mazda is not a god.

I'm not the one trying to convince you that jews copied this since I don't see how they couldn't develop monotheistic tendencies by themselves just like iranics did. Although it's clear that iranics didn't take it from jews either, since Zoroastrianism gets more corrupted and less obviously monotheistic during that time and after (although most probably for reasons unrelated to anything involving judaism).

>>1834258

>No, since from the start Ahura Mazda is given a different category. If the others are gods, Ahura Mazda is not a god.

That's ridiculous. You can have a hierarchy of deities. Lots of very explicitly polytheist systems have that. Does the divinity of the Aesir preclude the divinity of the Vanir? Do Scamander and Thetis not count as Greek deities because they're not Olympians? Do the other olympians not count as deities because Zeus is clearly more powerful than all of them put together? Do the different ranks in the Celestial bureaucracy imply that this far down from the Jade Emperor you're not a god (and how far down do you have to go?). Are the Hindus not polytheist because you have the Trimurti standing over other deities?

The existence of lesser deities does not imply non-divinity of the other divinities. Going back to the Jewish comparison, you may as well use that to claim that they were in fact monotheists, since Yahweh/El are definitely accorded a different category than other gods, and that's ridiculous.

Zoroastrianism has been henotheistic since Sassanian times. Here's something I wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism#Zoroastrianism

>>1833318
>later when MUDslime Sandniggers overrun Iran, spoiled it and banished this religion.
Zoroastrianism was still big among local dynasties in Tabaristan. Look up Paduspanids
and Dabuyid dynasties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paduspanids

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabuyid_dynasty

>>1834285
Then monotheism cannot exist.

>>1834285
Which one of the greek, norse, etc. gods was the sole uncreated being and origin of everything else?

>>1834412

What? Of course you can. You just assert that there is one God and only one God, however you define God. But a system in which you have one leader God ruling over a pantheon of lesser Gods usually isn't considered monotheist.

>>1834445

> greek

Chaos. Not worshipped and not really liked.

>norse

Ymir. Killed by the later generations of gods, who fashion the nine worlds out of his corpse.


What does this demonstrate?

>>1834604
by that standard you could arguably say judaism still isn't monotheistic because of angels

>>1834620


I mean, I suppose you could, but at the very least Judaism asserts that angels cannot act without God ordering them to, which at the very least I don't believe is the same sort of relationship between Ahura Mazda and beings like Yazata Zayamad. (Of course, I am speaking of modern Judaism, not 6th centuryish B.C. Judaism, which had a different picture).

You'd have a much clearer case in the other two Abrahamics, which have beings like Djinn or just angels in Christainity, which do have divine powers and are outside the direct control of the central God.

But even if you throw Judaism out, you have beliefs like Sikhism and certain pantheist notions, which declare one all powerful deity and notheing else non-material, which would clearly fit.

>>1834197
I never said Zoroastranism made Judaism explicitly monothesitic, I'm debunking the outdated and outmoded and frankly stupidly parroted claim that Zoroastrianism as a monotheistic faith came about becuse of "Jewish influence" or existed only around the 6th century BC which a lot of idiots in /his/ seem to believe despite all evidence pointing to the contrary. However my point in that post was that Jews were still polytheistic given their own scriptures and other written testimonials in the Old Testament refers to YHVH not being the sole God.

>explain the Gāhs
Its pretty clear cut why the Spentas are important but that doesn't make it polytheistic.
>Siroza
Its a common monotheistic tactic to incorporate patrons, other divinities, spirits, and so into their own to make conversion and relation more familiar to adherents. Native Indo-Iranic gods and goddesses became saints, messengers, and extensions of Ahura Mazda.

>>1834604
Ymir wasn't uncreated. Chaos was not a god.

>>1834652
Yazatas are described as literally Ahura Mazda's divine sparks. How independent can be sparks from the sun?

Of course, a religion surrounded by explicitly polytheistic faiths (or at best henotheistic) cannot be like sikhism, a faith developed during the 15th century in a context of monotheistic supremacy.

>>1834652
>I mean, I suppose you could
Dude your argument was soundly refuted. Everything you said afterwards is damage control. Give it up.

>>1836551
nu