DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ZOROASTRIANISM
you are invited to join!

# 50) Q: To what extent does zoroastrianism speak of equality of both sexes and what was the position of women in the Gathas? Have other world religions been influenced on this point of view?

A: Not only Zarathushtra , but Aryans themselves, considered women on equal, or very close to equal footing with men. There are tons of burial mounds in Central Asia with the remains of Aryan women warriors, for example. In the Gathas, his only composition, Zarathushtra goes out of his way, in many subtle ways, to show he considered women on an equal footing with men.

For example, he  identifies not only some Aspects and Attributes of the Deity as female, but even the main Aspect of Deity, Mazda, by which God is named more than any other in the Gathas, is feminine. Then, he is very careful with the pronouns, either using generic ones, that imply and apply to both female and males, or using the female pronouns profusely. He never makes an exception of women. Indeed his treatment of them seems to have been the same as the one he gives men. As a matter of fact, he does not make difference among men either, but only on the basis of their righteousness, or
lack of same.

In his last song he tells of his third daughter's wedding  and he calls on both brides and grooms ( It was a multiple wedding, something very common among agricultural societies) equally and does not mention obedience, or wifely duties. Rather, he tells both to win each other in righteousness. As
a matter of fact, it is his daughter who chooses her husband, something unheard of at that time. His immediate followers seem to have followed suit, since several women are mentioned among the teachers and preachers of the religion and a fragment of a now lost book reveals, that there were women priests.

Unfortunately the Abrahamic religions never and even latter version of the good faith did not follow suit. Neither is Hinduism , that egalitarian, although it is far better than the Abrahamic faiths.

# 51) Q: Is it really true that the present day Kurds are essentially ExZoroastrians? These days we hear about the Kurds being Muslims and most of them Sunnis. I have even heard oft-times that they would willingly embrace Zoroastrianism in place of their forced religion Islam. It is quite possible, they would do so after aquiring their homeland of Kurdistan. The Kurds, to me seem fairly intelligent and free thinking souls. They will definitely fit in with the Zoroastrian way of thinking and behaving. Oneday, I hope they will rejoin their ancient faith and enrich the community and finally find their lost identity. That would be the day I will return to Kurdistan. Biji Kurdistan and Ushta te to all of them.

A: Not only the Kurds but all Iranians , Pakistanis , most of the Punjabis Tajikis, Uzbekis, Turks, Cossacks, Azeri, Armenians, Ossetians , indeed almost all Central Asians sand Bulgarians, as well as, many Iraqis, were Zarathushtrians.

The Kurds also have their own religion evolved eclectically from Zoroastrianism and Christianity its Izadism or Yazidism, and it probably started as a way to disguise their Zoroastrianism as a form of extreme Shiism. But indeed it is true that many claim to be Zoroastrian. There is no reason why any one in the world, including Kurds , perhaps even more because of their Iranian roots, should not be free to accept the Good Faith, or any other religion for that matter. unfortunately, as you probably know very well, Islam does not agree with the right of free choice in religion.

# 52) Q: I know a guy who says he is Zorastrian, but he has sex with men and warned me to not tell anyone. He is getting a divorce and he is always seeing various gay men. I told him I thoguht Zorastrian religion was against it and he laughed at me. He is also now into Scientology, is this wrong?

A: A man's or a woman's sexual orientation does not necessarily make him or her a good, or bad person.  Ahura wants righteousness, that is, choices in accord with Asha, the law that upholds and promotes the Cosmos. In its ethical sphere, this law is identified with what is right, what ought to be and it is the Universal standard for goodness, righteousness and beneficence.

It is not what a person does in his or her bedroom, as long as he does it with a consenting adult, but whether he cheats, lies, steals, does harm to others , pollutes life, or whether he or she does not , but actually seeks to do what is right .

From what you tell me, the issue with this person, is not necessarily, that he is homosexual, but the issue is, that he is not truly a Zoroastrian and is lying to you and perhaps to himself.  Discern people's true nature by what they do and not only by what they say.

# 53) Q: Why are you so hard on Jesus? It is mainly in  John's gospel (the latest one) that he claims to be the Son of God.  In earlier gospels he calls himself the Son of Man.  Much of what is reported in the gospels was obviously far from contemporary witness by the time it was written down.

A: We are not 'hard' on Jesus. Indeed we are, basically, not hard on any founder. We do not accept Xian theology. As a matter of fact, we do not accept, or consider valid any Abrahamic theology, but then Jesus is not the author of Xian theology, is he? The guy whose eye was on the sparrow, would have had no stomach for Popes, crusades,  inquisitions and the crass manipulation that is going on today in Evangelical circles.

Now as to the Son of Man / Son of God  'controversy'. If you were familiar with Jewish culture circa First Century and with Jewish traditions and religious interpretations of that era, you would know what most Xian scholars know. Son of Man is Messianic reference, He, Jesus, was claiming to be the Messiah, when he called himself the Son of Man. That is why, from the very beginning, the Pharisees and Scribes were after him. In addition, in certain circles, Son of Man was also considered Son of God. Indeed, some Jewish sects considered God the Father of All. Among these sects were the Essenes and the Ebionites,  which are seen, by many scholars, as influencing John the Baptist, Jesus and James, his brother. These sects, among others, did consider God the Father of All.

Furthermore, this concept of God as Father, is present in the Gathas, were it is used symbolically. Since the Gathas are Zarathushtrian scriptures and in the Latter day Zoroastrian religion, God was addressed by a term best translated as Daddy. We hold, that this idea of God as Father, migrated into some groups in Judaism during the Exile, together with such things as Demons, demon possession, the Synagogue etc. Of course, this does not even consider the fact that we do not truly know what Jesus said. We can either believe that the, highly selective and interpretative, 'Gospels' are truly a faithful interpretation of his words, (something hardly possible since even Xians, when pressed about inconsistencies , claim these are imperfect witness and third patty accounts), or we can read between the lines and reach a conclusion. But, in any case, we have not enough evidence to be sure what is from Jesus and what is from some one else, either the redactors or other church authorities.

We do know that the redactors of the gospels had an extensive oral tradition, from which they selected certain things and we also think that there were sayings gospels around. Possibly, another Gospel, that has been called Q, was also in the mix. The very process of gathering the information from the oral tradition lends itself to manipulation and error. Besides, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Mark's Gospel was already in existence  35 years to 40 years after Jesus' death. That would mean that the oral tradition was not so far distant as has been supposed. Moreover, there was the oral tradition and the saying gospels and perhaps even Q. These were the sources for the Gospels and bridged any gaps between them and the actual breathing and living Jesus.

The Church has suppressed and destroyed numerous writings, as is well known. The decision to do this was an institutional one and has robbed the historian, the researcher, as well as, the lay person of invaluable material, with which to make  a determination in this area. In short, historical records of the religion itself reflect, basically, only 1 view point, that of the institutionalized Xian Church. These are facts and evidences that are out there to be found by any person with an open mind. They are not an attack on Jesus, in fact , if we are correct (and we believe we are), the ones who have attacked, and indeed they twisted Jesus, is none other than the Xian Church hierarchy! For if,  as for example the Gospels strongly suggest, that Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi, then many of the Church's teachings about him are wrong.

# 54) Q: What does Zoroastrianism say about the existence of satan?

A: Zoroastrianism has been accused of 'inventing' Satan. Like most opinions in the West about this religion, it is not really true.

It depends as to which brand of Zoroastrianism one refers to. We hold only to the beliefs and teachings of Zarathushtra, the founder and Manthran ( Message Giver) of the Good Faith. These are collected in the Gathas (Songs) and in them there is no devil, no Satan, no demons and no opponent to God.

The Latter religion, misinterpreted many doctrines of the Gathas, largely because the language of the Gathas was, or had become 'dead' by the time the latter books were composed. In these latter books there is a devil , in fact an un-created devil, a spirit of evil, that opposes God, who, by this time, had been reduced to a good spirit.

So the answer is. that Zarathushtra says nothing about a Satan and there is no Satan in his doctrine.

next page