reply to post by babloyi
Since they'd know better about their religion than you, and they themselves claim to be Zoroastrians, I'd say I'd go with them.
That's a logical fallacy. There is no competition between "them" and "me". And I'm sure their brightest would agree with the points I'm making. I'm
also pretty sure I've done more delving into this subject than you have.
If I followed your logic, Nobody is a "Real Christian" today, because the Q documents are entirely missing (not to mention all the other
documents the Vatican supposedly has hidden away).
There's a slight difference. But yes. If half the Bible was missing, either there would be no Old testament or New testament. Either way, it would
lead to incomplete knowledge about the Bible. Now do the same with Zoroastrians and their holy text, the Avesta, of which the majority of pages
are missing. Are you getting the picture now?
Or nobody today is Jewish, because the texts must have been mutated in the last 3000 years. It seems a remarkably Abrahamic-centric point of
view that religion cannot exist without scripture.
It seems LOGICAL. You might have a case if you're arguing about faith. But what shapes and molds faith? Religious context , ie scripture.
You used Cyrus the Great as an example against my point that near the end, Zoroastrianism wasn't used to exploit the masses.
There is over 1000 years of difference. My argument is that Zoroastrianism, as it was and had been taught, had long disappeared from this planet, even
before the end of the Persian empire - which after Cyrus, was not much of an empire at all(if you'd care to read the history that's written about
So I pointed out that Cyrus was nowhere near the end of the Ancient Persian empire.
In fact, there is no clear documented evidence at all that he practised Zoroastrianism at all (although he was certainly influenced by
There sure is. But then again, Zoroastrianism back then was different than the "sun worship" it was dubbed by the Arabs 1000 years later, or "magi(c)"
as it was referred to by the Greek.
In fact, it was during his dynasty (Achaemenid) that Zoroastrianism became combined with the rulership of Persia.
Because, the writings say, he was taken up with the ideals of Zoroastrianism. Everything he did fell in those lines. We don't have a complete picture
of Zoroastrianism, but of the parts we do: "good deeds, thoughts and actions", we see reflecting in his rule. As we look upon Cyrus's rule; first
human rights charter, no slavery, paid gold&silver coins to foreign workers - male and female - according to the work they did, freedom of religion,
freedom of governance in conquered territories. These were all matters unheard of in those days of conqueror kings.
edit on 28-4-2012 by
InfoKartel because: (no reason given)