Zoroastrianism

[spike spiegel]

Hi, I don't know if this is the right category for this, but I'll post it here anyway.

Are you guys familiar with Zoroastrianism? When I began looking into the religion, I was shocked by the similarities between it, Christianity, and Islam.

I also found many references to the astral plane, or, as they call it, the "World of Thought".

That's about it.

[Xanth]

I've honestly never heard of it before... EVER.  O_o

Did some basic Googling of it and... it's just another religion.  Nothing special really.

I saw this one day:


While you *CAN* progress spiritually through religion... it's only when you cast off the shackles of religion and find your own path that your spiritual progress will begin to go sky high! 

[no_leaf_clover]

Yes, Zoroastrianism has a lot of similarities with the Abrahamic religions.  It was common in Persia at least into the early Christian era and was an ideological "competitor" with early Christianity in the ancient Roman Empire.  Zoroastrianism features the deity Mithra who was born of a virgin on December 25th.  Whereas Jesus was a symbol for the Piscean age, Mithra was apparently a symbol of the Age of Aries as he was typically depicting slaying a bull representing the age of Taurus, and Mithra is an older figure than Jesus.

Zoroastrianism is also very dualistic, giving more power to the "evil" powers in the world than modern Christianity does (though the medieval church was so focused on the devil and witches and all that, that the argument could be made that the two religions used to be a lot more similar in that regard as well).

It's also where we get the terms "mage," "magic" and "magician," from their word "magi" which also appears in the Bible in the form of the "three wise men."  The magi were ancient Persian mystics/shamans/etc.

Other than all of that I'm not sure how significant the religion is to us in modern times.  I study history so I'm sure there is lots to dig into, but how interesting it would be to most people is another question.  I actually have a folder on my computer filled with pdf scans of ebooks about Mithra, that I've yet to have a chance to look at.

[spike spiegel]

Yes, Zoroastrianism has a lot of similarities with the Abrahamic religions.  It was common in Persia at least into the early Christian era and was an ideological "competitor" with early Christianity in the ancient Roman Empire.  Zoroastrianism features the deity Mithra who was born of a virgin on December 25th.  Whereas Jesus was a symbol for the Piscean age, Mithra was apparently a symbol of the Age of Aries as he was typically depicting slaying a bull representing the age of Taurus, and Mithra is an older figure than Jesus.

Zoroastrianism is also very dualistic, giving more power to the "evil" powers in the world than modern Christianity does (though the medieval church was so focused on the devil and witches and all that, that the argument could be made that the two religions used to be a lot more similar in that regard as well).

It's also where we get the terms "mage," "magic" and "magician," from their word "magi" which also appears in the Bible in the form of the "three wise men."  The magi were ancient Persian mystics/shamans/etc.

Other than all of that I'm not sure how significant the religion is to us in modern times.  I study history so I'm sure there is lots to dig into, but how interesting it would be to most people is another question.  I actually have a folder on my computer filled with pdf scans of ebooks about Mithra, that I've yet to have a chance to look at.

I'm glad that I'm not the only person that knows about and understands the religion.

[spike spiegel]

Yes, Zoroastrianism has a lot of similarities with the Abrahamic religions.  It was common in Persia at least into the early Christian era and was an ideological "competitor" with early Christianity in the ancient Roman Empire.  Zoroastrianism features the deity Mithra who was born of a virgin on December 25th.  Whereas Jesus was a symbol for the Piscean age, Mithra was apparently a symbol of the Age of Aries as he was typically depicting slaying a bull representing the age of Taurus, and Mithra is an older figure than Jesus.

Zoroastrianism is also very dualistic, giving more power to the "evil" powers in the world than modern Christianity does (though the medieval church was so focused on the devil and witches and all that, that the argument could be made that the two religions used to be a lot more similar in that regard as well).

It's also where we get the terms "mage," "magic" and "magician," from their word "magi" which also appears in the Bible in the form of the "three wise men."  The magi were ancient Persian mystics/shamans/etc.

Other than all of that I'm not sure how significant the religion is to us in modern times.  I study history so I'm sure there is lots to dig into, but how interesting it would be to most people is another question.  I actually have a folder on my computer filled with pdf scans of ebooks about Mithra, that I've yet to have a chance to look at.

Thank you, but I already knew all that. I just wanted to know if other people knew about.

[spike spiegel]

I've honestly never heard of it before... EVER.  O_o

Did some basic Googling of it and... it's just another religion.  Nothing special really.

I saw this one day:


While you *CAN* progress spiritually through religion... it's only when you cast off the shackles of religion and find your own path that your spiritual progress will begin to go sky high! 

I am not what you would call a religious person. I am more of a "spiritual-atheist".

[spike spiegel]

Here are some links to Wikipedia articles about Zoroastrianism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster

[Xanth]

I am not what you would call a religious person. I am more of a "spiritual-atheist".

One day you'll figure out why those two terms simply don't go together.
And I'll tell you this... when you do, it'll shake your beliefs to their very core. 

[spike spiegel]

You know, not all atheists believe this is it. Why can't an atheist be spiritual?

[Xanth]

You know, not all atheists believe this is it. Why can't an atheist be spiritual?

Then you're not atheist. 

Being spiritual means you believe there is more to "this" than just this physical body/reality. 
It might not denote a direct belief in a "god"-figure... I don't believe a god-figure... or singular "creator" exists, but I'm certainly not an atheist.
I believe we are ALL one... we're ALL creators of this reality.  We create every moment.  We keep this reality in existence through our creation.

In the end, most people who identify as "atheist", think it means that they simply don't believe in a god... they don't realize it's much deeper and a much more profound statement, stronger than simply denying the existence of something and when most people are actually questioned on it, they generally fall into an Agnostic mindset.

So tell me, what do you believe?

[spike spiegel]

Then you're not atheist. 

Being spiritual means you believe there is more to "this" than just this physical body/reality. 
It might not denote a direct belief in a "god"-figure... I don't believe a god-figure... or singular "creator" exists, but I'm certainly not an atheist.
I believe we are ALL one... we're ALL creators of this reality.  We create every moment.  We keep this reality in existence through our creation.

In the end, most people who identify as "atheist", think it means that they simply don't believe in a god... they don't realize it's much deeper and a much more profound statement, stronger than simply denying the existence of something and when most people are actually questioned on it, they generally fall into an Agnostic mindset.

So tell me, what do you believe?

I'm more of an occultist I guess.

[Stillwater]

Being a "spiritual atheist" actually isn't a contradiction in terms. It would just mean the person conceived of a metaphysical realm that was not organized under a deity. In fact, many forms of Buddhism might be called spiritual atheism (a few others have a sort of creator). There is something like a negative halo effect around the word "atheist", but the word only refers to positive belief in the absence of a deity.

[spike spiegel]

Being a "spiritual atheist" actually isn't a contradiction in terms. It would just mean the person conceived of a metaphysical realm that was not organized under a deity. In fact, many forms of Buddhism might be called spiritual atheism (a few others have a sort of creator). There is something like a negative halo effect around the word "atheist", but the word only refers to positive belief in the absence of a deity.

Thank you! That was what I was struggling to explain.

[volcomstone]

As it was said, zoroastrianism has relationship to abrahamic religion. I have heard that it is the "father" of christianity,judaism and islam. Possibly the oldest religion, I guess thats in the terms of how religion is classified? I suppose it could be older than paganism and dru.

I have heard also that it is full of superstitions/mystical thinking, some of which exists to this day (evil eye).

I do not know know much for certain just whispers. I believe assassin comes from hashish, and ancient persia was known to partake in some esoteric mystical stuff. 

I remember a connection between the winged god and something something aliens. Maybe a tv show.

Not my style but pretty interesting stuff.  Just writing this makes me sad about how many past relics in the "confict zone" are being destroyed as we speak.....

[spike spiegel]

As it was said, zoroastrianism has relationship to abrahamic religion. I have heard that it is the "father" of christianity,judaism and islam. Possibly the oldest religion, I guess thats in the terms of how religion is classified? I suppose it could be older than paganism and dru.

I have heard also that it is full of superstitions/mystical thinking, some of which exists to this day (evil eye).

I do not know know much for certain just whispers. I believe assassin comes from hashish, and ancient persia was known to partake in some esoteric mystical stuff. 

I remember a connection between the winged god and something something aliens. Maybe a tv show.

Not my style but pretty interesting stuff.  Just writing this makes me sad about how many past relics in the "confict zone" are being destroyed as we speak.....

True.

[Xanth]

Being a "spiritual atheist" actually isn't a contradiction in terms. It would just mean the person conceived of a metaphysical realm that was not organized under a deity. In fact, many forms of Buddhism might be called spiritual atheism (a few others have a sort of creator). There is something like a negative halo effect around the word "atheist", but the word only refers to positive belief in the absence of a deity.

But my point, and what I found personally, was that spiritualism is finding the god within yourself.  The "you" being one small aspect of the creator of this reality.  While it's not a god in the sense of the Christian "God", it is as powerful (meaning US) a concept. 

I don't think you can progress spiritually until one realizes the truth of this existence... but that's just me. 

You can use the term "spiritual atheist" right up until the point you realize WHY it doesn't work.  Then it hits you like a tonne of bricks and the concept comes crumbling down.  hehe

[spike spiegel]

But my point, and what I found personally, was that spiritualism is finding the god within yourself.  The "you" being one small aspect of the creator of this reality.  While it's not a god in the sense of the Christian "God", it is as powerful (meaning US) a concept. 

I don't think you can progress spiritually until one realizes the truth of this existence... but that's just me. 

You can use the term "spiritual atheist" right up until the point you realize WHY it doesn't work.  Then it hits you like a tonne of bricks and the concept comes crumbling down.  hehe

I, like yourself, do not believe in labels. I only label myself because people FORCE me to do so.

[Stillwater]

But my point, and what I found personally, was that spiritualism is finding the god within yourself.  The "you" being one small aspect of the creator of this reality.  While it's not a god in the sense of the Christian "God", it is as powerful (meaning US) a concept.

This is sort of a Hindu viewpoint as expressed in the Mahabharata, and condensed in the Bhagavad Gita. In this worldview, each being is animated by a small shard (Atman) of the great super being Brahman Atman.

It is something of a semantic distinction, but it is conceivable for there to be a creation which is the result of another force, rather than something with a singular identity. Perhaps creation could be in theory the result of a concert of beings which are really quite separate and distinct, but are working in collaboration.

Some modern physicists would postulate that fundamental features of any reality, such as the laws of logic, may have forced the world into existence, in order to validate them.

These are not my viewpoint, but they are logically consistent to me.

I don't think you can progress spiritually until one realizes the truth of this existence.

Hard to say for me. I am not sure if any of us are actually progressing in most senses. The idea of progress within a non-linear system has always seemed odd to me. It makes sense within the context of a single human life... it is clear to see that a person often is better than they once were, and perhaps grow closer to truth; but the greater reality is not sequential like this, and after death this logic is difficult to continue coherently to me. I think it might be a sort of anthropomorphism... expecting greater reality to resemble our experiences here.

And that aside, assuming progress does happen, it is conceivable to me that a person can grow into being greater than they once were merely by grasping personal principles. Perhaps this person conceives of a love for honor, or compassion, or defending and bettering those around them. Many religions would call this person of low worth, because they lacked training in this or that dogma system. I think you would agree with me though that this person is among to most laudable of all, because they became greater without external prompting from others, but rather because they felt it was best within themself.

The common counterargument that is offered to this line of thought is that this person "knew God in their heart but didn't realize it". Perhaps this is true, but I think it confuses the real point- that you don't need to know various facts about the structure of existence in order to do what you perceive to be good things. I think a person can get quite far on devotion to helping others alone. Interestingly, this is another of the ideas expressed within the Bhagavad Gita- that a person need know little of the actual truth in order to move closer to the greater realities.

This is all speculation for me too, even after the handful of great experiences I have had through the years, but I guess the common thread of what I am trying to express is to examine your assumptions.

What things do you know because of evidence, and what things do you merely feel to be true?


Here is an example for me personally:

When I am at what I would currently call my "up state" in a waking setting, I feel visceral connection to the entire reality around me. It is not merely an abstract intellectual reasoning, but rather a powerful knowing that there is no separation between myself and the clouds and the trees. It feels like I am bleeding into them without a boundary. On a deep emotional level, and with an intensity that I think humans rarely experience, I truly feel this connection, and it is accompanied by massive exhileration. But as odd as it must sound, I must take this serially repeating experience, and keep it self-contained within its own slot.

I think in the past folks may have taken such experiences, and derived religions or cults out of them. It might go something like this: I have this tremendous experience of the enormity of creation and its interconnectedness. From this I know that all things are one. From the knowledge that all are one, I know there to be a super conglomeration of beings I will call God. God has property A, B, C, and not D. And the person reasons on- some things being fairly close to having a basis in what they experienced, some things being derivatives of derivative statements.

But out of deference to truth, I know I cannot and should not do this. I should not derive things that seem to be true but that I cannot know to be true if I am honest with myself. I feel there to be a great oceanic current of consciousness to this world. But as soon as others start talking about this same current, start referring to it as God, I get pretty suspicious of these statements. Why? For me, it is because they are speaking with certainty about things which clearly no person could be certain. They are using language borrowed from history, and dogmas contained therein. They are relying on the assumptions of others, rather than direct experience in most cases. I have a large degree of direct experience myself, and I still know that I can say few things with authority.

I guess this is what I am saying... I think I may have had a handful of the same experiences you may have had. These experiences are tremendous in and of themselves, but I think we have to be very careful to separate what we know from what we suppose.

[Thread Killer]

 Stillwater, this is for you and I mean every word of it. Enjoy.
https://youtu.be/qiR9DFYp5AA

[Stillwater]

Ha, love you too 

You should drop by more often, TK!

Sometimes I feel like my name ought to have been "Thread Derailer", for all the skill I have with sending discussions on distant tangents.

[Thread Killer]

"It is something of a semantic distinction, but it is conceivable for there to be a creation which is the result of another force, rather than something with a singular identity. Perhaps creation could be in theory the result of a concert of beings which are really quite separate and distinct, but are working in collaboration."
This, for me, has been the most compelling idea to break the singular mould and when I came across it so many years ago I let it slip by without serious examination. Now, with a few miles under me, I can appreciate the enormity this implies.
                                                                                                                                                      Cheers,
                                                                                                                                                 Charlton Heston
   P.S. Have not found another to suit my tastes as much as Seth. Aye there's the pedagogue for me...