Thoughts on Zoroastrianism?

Thoughts on Zoroastrianism?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Non-IE.
    I really don't care about that

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It is IE.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No
        monotheism is not IE
        where is the equivalent of apollo, zeus, ares hades in zoroastrian?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Holy frick, what a moron

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Zoroastrianism isn't monotheistic.

          >where is the equivalent of apollo, zeus, ares hades in zoroastrian?
          Yazatas.

          The descendants of the OG Zoroastrian exiles are almost dead from low birth rates now. Clearly God isn't on their side.

          Zoroastrians don't have any worse birthrates than whatever group is around them.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >monotheism is not IE
          Every time you think you've seen a moronic post on IQfy and you go "that's it, that's the dumbest post ever made, nothing will ever surpass this" you get a piece of stupidity like this proving you naively, arrogantly, tragically mistaken.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why don't you make an argument moron? Oh right you don't have one, rabbi.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It is IE.

      It as IE as Christianity is israeli. This means it depends on your perspective.

      No
      monotheism is not IE
      where is the equivalent of apollo, zeus, ares hades in zoroastrian?

      Zoroastrian rough equivalents
      >apollo
      Sraosha
      >ares
      Verethragna
      >hades
      Aeshma

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        "Both IE and Christianity are israeli. That means it depends on your perspective."
        no? IE is not Hebrew.
        Even when the Israelites were pagans, their Pantheon was not "IE"

        and again...
        Zoroastrianism is monotheistic.
        It has a dualistic cosmology of good and evil within the framework of a monotheistic ontology.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, you didn't get my point, brainlet.
          Christianity was reforming certain aspects of Judaic law. Some people claim it broke off from Judaism and can no longer be claimed as israeli.
          Likewise, Zoroastrianism reformed certain aspects of IE polytheism. Zoroaster reformed their tradition to be more ditheistic in order to ground a moral dualism. This moral dualism was used to justify more care to cattle and less cattle raids, which the IE steppe warlords were always engaging in.
          As you can see, it depends on your perceptive whether Zoroastrian is continuous or discontinuous with these Aryan/IE traditions. Am I clear?
          >Zoroastrianism is monotheistic.
          No, it is ditheistic with monist elements. Vayu-Vata is an example of such a monist element... It also explains how Zurvan late grew.

          It is more accurate to call Zoroastrianism as MONOLATRY.

          >It has a dualistic cosmology of good and evil within the framework of a monotheistic ontology.
          It is more complex than that. It requires a lot of study to figure out.

          Ahura Mazda is only latently omnipotent. Later Zoroastrian schools also became very fatalistic fyi.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Zoroaster proposed a change in the dominant pantheon towards monotheism and dualism. (NON-IE)

            From Zoroaster's perspective, the Aúras come to be seen as beings who chose good, and the daivas, as beings who chose evil. In India, the path would be reversed, with the Aúras representing evil, and the daevas representing good.
            Philosophical system according to which reality (everything that exists) can only be reduced to a single principle, with beings conditioned to it.
            Conception, doctrine or ideology, which opposes pluralism and the duality inherent to reality and beings.
            it still remains monotheistic, and has undergone a reform of the ancient IE religions.
            Unlike Christianity, which broke with traditions that had long been monotheistic, the break was not revolutionary in the theological sense, unlike Zoroastrianism.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What was the purpose of reversing the roles of devas and asuras? To be contrarian?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Zoroaster proposed a change in the dominant pantheon towards monotheism and dualism.
            he didn't
            Zoroastrianism isn't monotheistic, as they worship a series of divine being besides Ahura Mazda
            The 'monotheistic' interpretation only came after contact with islam as a way to avoid further persecution an with western schoolars trying to force it into a more familiar framework

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Christianity was reforming certain aspects of Judaic law
            Judaic law did not exist until the 5th century AD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      turkish mysticism. Irrelevant since the 6th century when islam took over. Pretty basic stuff work on your eastern esotercism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGUCMHJWwbI

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Frick wrong link

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    sisterfricking, monobrows, fire, panda-tier birth rates

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Zoroaster was a composite character made of:
    >Vedic priests in Persia.
    >The Prophet Daniel.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Low IQ garbage. Gathas makes it clear he was just a renegade priest who was critiquing Scythian-like warlords. His message grew more among Iran_N derived peoples.

      You can’t convert into it OP.

      Who cares? The sect the Parsees follow was even more brutal than Pisslam. If they had just allowed Mazdak's reforms to grow, then Zoroastrianism would have preservered. He was popular among the masses and was reforming the negative elements.
      The Parsee are just a bunch of inbred sanctimonious mongrels who fled the country because they were weak hypocrites.
      Zoroastrianism was always about purity and honesty, yet the Orthodox clergy were the most hypocritical and deceitful homosexuals in existence. The Sassanian empire didn't just collapse because of Arabs, but rather, due to corrupt priestly caste making the people fed up. All heterodoxies brutally punished to the point it made people fatigued. Likewise, we see this same pattern with mullahs making Iranians fed up with Islam.

      Another option is for Iran to try out Buddhism, which was always richer than Abrahamic and Mazdan traditions.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Orthodox clergy were a lot like the corrupt monks in Senpou Temple in Sekiro btw*

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Low IQ garbage. Gathas makes it clear he was just a renegade priest who was critiquing Scythian-like warlords. His message grew more among Iran_N derived peoples.
        Do you have any proof that Zoroaster existed?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          We don't know whether Zoroaster himself existed. But someone had to write the books, dummy.
          Whoever wrote the books was a pre-vedic priest who broke off from the worship practice of war deities like Indra.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Low IQ garbage. Gathas makes it clear he was just a renegade priest who was critiquing Scythian-like warlords. His message grew more among Iran_N derived peoples.
            Do you have any proof that Zoroaster existed?

            Yes Zoroaster existed but we don't know exactly when. Dates for his lifetime range between 1500 BCE to 500 BCE.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            Yes Zoroaster existed but we don't know exactly when. Dates for his lifetime range between 1500 BCE to 500 BCE.

            He has less proof that he existed, then Jesus.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You can’t convert into it OP.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The religion itself doesn't have anything against conversion, it's a rule of the parsi ethnic group in India.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This shit was replaced by Ali worship in the independant northern dynasties after 2 centuries. That's so pathetic

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Zoroastrianism wasn't strong in those regions in the first place

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anything but islam

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The descendants of the OG Zoroastrian exiles are almost dead from low birth rates now. Clearly God isn't on their side.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I swear the israelites in this thread trying to say Zoroastrian is IE. Lol. Lmao even. Lmfao. Trying to shill their Semitic monotheism in this thread. Lol we see you rabbis.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wouldn't that be the opposite? Wouldn't neo-rabs be arguing that Zoroastrian isn't IE?

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They seem based enough to have visited Christ at his birth.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Another israeli inversion of paganism

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I like incest so I like Zoroatrianism too on principle but I've never read about it enough to form an actual opinion.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Plagiarized by abrahamism.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *