DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ZOROASTRIANISM
you are invited to join!

# 55) Q: If God is utterly good how did evil come about?  Surely he must have created it, or at least been party to its creation? Much evil is of man's creation, but surely God must have known  what would happen when he created man?

A: That is the conception of Abrahamic Religion, God has to have made evil. Indeed even in Christianity , in which God is said to be love itself , he is also said to have created the devil, which the Bible calls "the Author of Evil". But we have a different view of evil. Have you ever asked yourself what is evil? Is an earthquake evil? Do you know, that without earthquakes, relieving pressure from the Earth's crust, the planet would explode? We believe that Lord Wise does not violate the laws he created , the laws of nature. Indeed, they are an essential part of his own nature an being.

To violate them, besides being totally illogical, goes against His own nature. Indeed, Jesus said as much when he claimed, according to the Gospel, that God cannot deny Himself. Furthermore, Mazda Ahura ( Wise Lord) is the God and Lord of the possible and not of the impossible. He does not make what is not possible to make within His laws and purposes and Nature. The things that are called natural evils  (and at times Acts of God), are no such thing.  For something to be called evil, it needs the presence of an ethically endowed being, to call it evil. Animals do not conceive, and cannot conceive, of ethical evil. They can judge something to be evil only, if it affects them and their immediate circle; they cannot conceive of universal evil or wrong.

When millions of years ago, man was not present in the Earth, tsunamis, hurricanes earthquakes, etc: happened just as they do now, Indeed, if one can venture to say so, it looks like these things occurred more often in the distant past.  Do animals or Amoebas have the capacity to judge whether something is ethically and universally wrong? We do not think so. Evil, then, is a word we call things that are wrongful for all.  It is not a force, rather it's a name. Many things, that we call evil, such as earthquakes, are no such thing, Moreover, our experience, observation and science  tell us, that we live in a temporal world, that by nature is unstable and goes out of balance. These also tell us, that many things that we call evil, are chance random events of nature, a result of forces that make possible life itself. If you were to fall from a 40 story building to your death, what would you call evil or wrong in that case? The building, the height, or the force that drew you to your death, namely gravity? Gravity  makes life possible, if it were not for gravity there would not be planets, suns or anything of that nature. In other words, many of these chance natural events, that we call evil , disasters etc, are the result of what we could call good things like gravity .

Fire , for example can be called good, yet, it can kill, oxygen is necessary for life yet it also fuels the fire that can kill you. Natural things, therefore, are NOT evil or wrong in and out of themselves. They are either good things, that have  some undesirable side effects, or they are merely chance events. Now, if God could  break his laws and He was All Good , then He would brake his laws and there would not be death, or temporality. But since  Mazda Ahura, God to us, is the God of the possible, we can only conclude that the unfortunate  side effects of Good, life sustaining, creations and acts, are something that He could not prevent without breaking his own laws.

This leaves us with another kind of wrong or evil, that is Ethical Wrong. This, we believe, is the only type of wrong, or evil that is unnecessary and thus truly wrong. So why does not God wave his magical wand and destroy this ethical evil, you may ask. Well the answer is, that He has no such wand. God created man according to his Laws, with all their limitations.  He endowed him with all the tools necessary, so that he (Man) could , in collaboration with Him (God)  eliminate wrong. He gave man, a mind that can discern, inform itself, think logically and scheme; an intellect to judge his own thinking process, a will to choose what to do and a conscience to choose why to do it and judge the ethical implications of his choices. Furthermore, he gave man a message, written in nature itself and another message, through the inspired songs and thoughts of one Zarathushtra Spitaman. But He (God) did not leave it there. He made available to humans some of the Aspects and Attributes of His own ethical nature, so that, if man chose to make them his own, they would indwell him and change him, a choice at a time, in to a Godlike individual. Then He made it clear, that, it it was in thoughts, words and actions that were good, that is, in harmony with His Universal Law (which ethically means Righteousness), that man could indeed live fruitfully, fulfilled and progress spiritually and ethically to likeness with his Maker.

It is, thus, not a matter of simple belief which is, after all, a form of thought,  but, rather a matter of practice, that leads man to his goal. This means that while it is easier to understand and achieve unto God's way for progress and elimination of evil, by actually following the Principles of Life, given by Zarathushtra in his Songs ( he Gathas),  it is also possible that men and women of good will, discernment and faithful practice of righteousness,  which by definition is good itself, can reach the Goal without professing either the Good Faith , or indeed, any faith at all. In other words, Evil is a choice made by humans out of ignorance and immaturity. It is spawned by a way of thinking ( Mainyu), that gets hold of one's mind, which is Akah ( meaning bad) . Thus, man, is not only as he thinks, but as he chooses. 

To put it in another way, right or  good, and wrong or evil,  are simply names we give to ethical choices, that we, as humans, make and to their consequences. From God's point of view, all choices that are according to Asha, that is to His Universal Law, (which ethically means righteousness) are, by definition, good, beneficent, constructive and therefore right and good. ALL OTHER CHOICES are wrong, evil (meaning Druj), destructive, hostile and retarding. Thus, in a sense, Evil and Good being choices of free willed beings, are not created, rather they manifest, but they are not creations, but eternally possible choices of free willed, ethically cognizant beings. That is why, the mainyus,  (the ways of thinking) are said to be primeval, that is, uncreated and always existing as possibilities.

Do not believe it? Then be sincere and ask yourself: Can I name one ethical evil, that does not require the choice, in thought word and or deed of an a ethically endowed being, for it to exist? One simple example ought to suffice. If Osama Bin Ladin had thought and talked about crashing jet planes into the World Trade Center, but either he, or his accomplices, would have not carried out their threat, would the evil manifested by the  consequences of the killing of thousands of innocent civilians, had manifested into this life? Finally, the question is not whether God knew that men would choose wrongly, the question is, that He knew that men have the potential to do good as well. He, obviously, considered the fact that good could be manifested, to be far more important than the fact that evil could also. Moreover,  He provides a way for man to eliminate his wrongful choices and thus to eliminate evil, one choice at a time. That, my friend, its the only possible way of eliminating evil without violating God's Laws and His nature.

# 55) R: In response to question #55, you say, "So why does not God wave his magical wand and destroy this ethical evil, you may ask. Well the answer is, that He has no such wand. God created man according to his Laws, with all their limitations."

If this is the case, then who or what has placed these limitations on God? If s/he placed the limitations on  itself, could s/he not also remove the limitations and therefore actually have such a "magical wand"? Or is god as defined by Zoroastrianism not all powerful?  If God is indeed not all powerful, but bound by limitations, then it would seem almost as though God weren't actually any sort of entity capable of love or being "all good" but was actually merely the athiestically accepted laws of science.  It seems that either s/he must actually not be a s/he at all but just those scientific laws, or that there must be some being higher than God who is creating these restrictions which s/he must follow.

It's just that I'm agnostic, but of all religions, this one seems to be the one that speaks most to my moral beliefs and my wants from a religion. But once again this religion has failed to answer the most important of questions... why are we here?  Or more specifically, why are we here with so much suffering?  It seems that the only ACTUALLY logical explanation would be one of a God who is vengeful and full of hate.  Or perhaps one that merely takes some sick pleasure in watching us struggle through all these decisions.

A2: You are looking at the issue from an 'Abrahamic' perspective. In Mazdayasna God is neither all powerful nor can be. To it, if s/he were all powerful, could then God make some one more powerful than Her/Him/It self? And if God could, would not the Created be greater than the Creator? And if it was, would not then it be God? Could God not also make a rock, that He could not lift? And if He could , would  it not make him into an unpowerful God, since He could not lift the stone he created?

There are many other  things we can conceive of, that makes the Abrahamic assumption of an All Powerful Deity, irrational. Mazda Ahura is the God of the Possible. It is not that He/She makes the laws, it is that She/He  IS the laws, that is, they are an Aspect of  It/Hers/His nature.  He cannot break them without braking  Her/Him self,  that is, S/He would be denying Her/Him self by breaking the laws of the Cosmos. In reality Jesus himself said as much, when he said that God could not deny himself.

Asha is the compendium of laws of the Cosmos and is an Aspect of Ahura. However, Asha is not only the physical laws , but the ethical mental and spiritual ones as well. It is what is real, correct and ought to be. Thus it is not atheistic not mechanistic. Within the possible, this is the Cosmos that can exist, there might be others , but that we do not know. If these do exist, they will also be within the possible. Mazda Ahura is the God of
the Possible, the Impossible has no God.

In 'following' , as you put it, the laws S/He created, He is 'following' Her/His own nature. He is not taking orders, She is being Herself. We are here to evolve , or, as Z put it to progress , in ethical God 'likeness'. Life is a school. The process is long for us, although not for one who is immortal , and we learn by our successes , as well as, by our failures. But the All Wise is also defined as Benignant to All the Living, thus when we fail, we get to start all over again, whether in this plane or in another, to get it right.

If you want physical proof of this, you will never find it . Abstract, spiritual and mental concepts are not subject to verification by the scientific method and must be held on circumstantial evidence, validity and opinion, not on impossible proof.

# 56) Q: What is your opinion on Arda Viraf: Visit to heaven and hell? If it is to be taken seriously, then this is just another repent or burn religion, and in my opinion, contradicts the Gathas and the nature of Mazda.

A: Arda Viraf is the product of the latter religion, at best, it dates from early Sassanian era in other words  Third Century AD , probably 2 millennia AFTER Zarathushtra. It has ZERO to do with the Gathas or with what Zarathushtra taught. We do not accept it as scripture and basically its only 'interest' is of historical and anthropological nature.

Stuff such as this, and worse, is the legacy of unknown God traders, preying and thriving on the ignorance and superstitious of others. It does not even belong in the Avesta, being even later than the Vendidad, another totally deviated and unacceptable religious book, probably finished during the Parthian era of unknown authors, claiming to be from Zarathushtra, who at that time was well over 1000 years dead!

It is stuff like this, that has forced us to reject the whole Young Avesta and the Pahlavi literature, as being 'scripture' or having any authority whatsoever. Some passages are acceptable, indeed, beautiful in many
instances, but, no religious book of the Young Avesta, or later, can be accepted in toto, as  they all contradict the spirit, or the letter of the Gathas at some point.

next page