Posted on 05/10/2011 3:03:04 AM PDT by Cronos
hmmm... where did you get that, if i might ask? And i’m talking about the present, not 1700 years ago
Well, I know an ex-Zoroastrian who despises Moslems, but he was in Bombay and that was after the 2008 Mumbai attacks
however, FARS is correct -- Zoroastrianism is based on positiveness, on light, the God of light, Ahura Mazda, quite in contrast to Al
As Fars said their DNA is based on “goodness” not hate.
I found that a problem, but one needs to realise the socio-political reasons: before 313 (when Christianity was no longer being outlawed in the Roman Empire), Christians actually had it better in the Parthian Empire rather than in the Roman Empire and they thrived and spread.
When Theodosius declared Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire, this became a problem -- if members of your empire follow the faith of the neighboring, enemy empire, that can be a problem.
The persecutions followed
however, when the Church of the East broke off contact with the Church based in the Roman Empire then the Parthian authorities went back to being benign...
The rest of your post I completely agree with
P.S. - In mainstream Zoroastrian Faith as taught by Zoroaster, there are 3 main essentials & qualities, within broader concept/philosophy of “wisdom”, in addition to the core tenets you mentioned i.e. “good thoughts, good words & good deeds”.
These are very much part of basic Zoroastrian belief & include:
- Truthfulness (honesty or aka purity incl.) in speaking, thinking & doing
- Bravery
- Gender Equality
If any Zoroastrian or ex-Zoroastrian has to despise Moslems, it shouldn't be because of 2008 Mumbai Moslem attacks.
Zoroastrians, in general, have been raped, killed, maimed & more in Moslem ruled Iran for 13 centuries, and right up to early 20th century, even in their own communities, in particular.
Yet, Zoroastrians in Iran are & have been tolerant & non-violent, because that's what their faith has always taught. Though, Zoroastrians are also human. One can't expect to be raped & pillaged and yet not be resentful, though still Zoroastrians are not violent.
So, sorry to be blunt, but Mumbai affected victims (Zoroastrian or otherwise) have only experienced the tip of the iceberg, and can go cry me a river.. call me very UN-Zoroastrian words an sentiments... but that's my point.
True. They’ve probably been toooo nice...
It’s an issue of LEADERSHIP, just like in socalled “Christian” countries. All leaders of Iran since muzzie arab invasion have been moslems & almost all too weak also to stand up to muzzie ideology, for various fears, economics & geopolitics, among them, just like the west.
The guy is highly charged in addition to lack of knowledge. That’s how ‘friendly fire’ often happens.
maybe. Maybe it’s just Zoros are Mexicans... ;-P
lol...
cronos, is your tagline in Polish now?
Tak jest! What gave it away?
It looks like Polish to me!
Btw, I’m away for most of w/e starting now, so have a good w/end!
The Talmud actually depicts Zoroastrians as being the most difficult of people, and speaks of times when lighting Hanuka candles were prohibited because of a Zoroastrian holiday that sometimes coincided with it on which no fires were permitted, and the Zoroastrians were most intolerant about enforcing this. I don’t remember the exact citation, but in terms of dealing with gentiles, in ascending order, Zoroastrians were the worst, pre-Christian(?) Europeans were considered next up, and pre-Islamic Arabs were regarded as the most affable.
I’m sure you know what the Talmud says, but I can also tell you that lighting candle(s) for any religion, pagan, jew, or otherwise has never been prohibited in Zoroastrianism. And there is no such prohibition in Zoroastrian faith due any Zoroastrian holiday . More so because Zoroastrians actually believe in Light (candles incl.) as a symbol of goodness, as opposed to darkness.
In terms of other stuff about dealing w/ “gentiles”, let me know when you remember the exact citation. I’d be interested. Thanks.
p.s. - I’ll get back to any later posts of yours in a day or two. Have a good w/e
I wish.
The exact term used was “Haber,” which referred to a religion which had a holiday in which fires were forbidden, and the Talmud speaks of emergency situations when the “Haberim” were persecuting Jews for lighting Hanuka candles, when it was permitted to light in your own home, rather than at a door adjacent to the street, as is preferred. These were people who worshiped the sun and the fire, a dualist theology, one good and one evil, perhaps a pre-Christian form of Manicheanism. Is this Zoroastrianism? Perhaps the name Haber refers to some other Persian religion. It was most definitely Persian, though, and still going strong in the post-Julian Roman Empire. To the best of my recollection, the discussion about which gentiles are the most obstreperous and which the least was somewhere in Tractate Shabbat, which is voluminous.
Sounds like a game of Yo Mama, Muslim style.
Then I must not have read the same description of the religion that y’all did, because the one that I read stated their belief that Jews and Christians were of the Devil, and needed to be wiped out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.