The Reality That Is Islam

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 this).

So I pointed out that Cyrus was nowhere near the end of the Ancient Persian empire.

Irrelevant.

In fact, there is no clear documented evidence at all that he practised Zoroastrianism at all (although he was certainly influenced by it).

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.

reply to post by InfoKartel

Originally posted by InfoKartel
I'm also pretty sure I've done more delving into this subject than you have.

Are you? You didn't even know about the Parsis. You seem to make a lot of assumptions. I suppose you've delved more into the subject than the Parsis themselves?

Originally posted by InfoKartel
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?

The majority of pages? And you claim to have "done more delving into the subject" than me? The Avesta isn't a single book with "pages" missing. It is an entire collection of books. The main and most important one, the Yasna, is complete (except for a couple of missing or confused words...which is not that different from the state of the Bible. You can read it here: www.avesta.org... .

It also includes the Gathas, the oldest and most significant part of the Yasna said to be written by Zoroaster himself. Aside from these physical texts, the Zoroastrians had a long oral tradition for remembering these texts as well.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
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 this).

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahaha
Oh, my breath. Ouch. I don't know if you've read any history books or anything, but Cyrus the Great was the FOUNDER of the Persian Empire. He did some great stuff, sure, but only ruled for about 30 years from 559 to 529BC. His rule was neither marked by the largest amount of land ruled, nor the largest population ruled, nor the greatest cultural phase during the First Persian Empire. In what sense was it "not much of an empire at all" for the remaining ~200 years of the First Persian Empire, never mind the Parthian and Sassanid Empires that extended into the 7th century? Where on earth do you get these books that you are reading this history from?

Originally posted by InfoKartel

So I pointed out that Cyrus was nowhere near the end of the Ancient Persian empire.

Irrelevant.

Actually, it is totally relevant. Here, I'll try explaining again:

• I originally said "Near the end of the Persian Empire, the priestly class, combined with the rulers, were greatly exploiting and taking advantage of the masses".
  
• You then replied "No! Cyrus the Great! Haha! That disproves your point!"
  
• Then I replied "Cyrus the Great wasn't near the end of the Persian Empire, he was the FOUNDER of it, and during his time, there was no evidence that he had a specific religion, and he CERTAINLY didn't have Zoroastrianism as a state religion (which later Persian rulers DID), so he doesn't really serve as a useful counterpoint to my original statement"
  
• Then you said "After Cyrus the Great, it wasn't much of an empire at all, and the fact that Cyrus the Great was not a ruler near the end of the empire is irrelevant"
  

How can it be irrelevant when that was exactly what I was talking about?