DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ZOROASTRIANISM
you are invited to join!

# 82) Q:  I believe that Zoroaster was the first Monotheist in human history by proclaiming that Ahura Mazda is the one true God. My question refers to a recent article I read at the CAIS website, which the author tries to claim that that the Mehr Religion, founded by Mehabad was the first monotheistic religion and that Zoroaster was a follower of this religion and left it to find his own religion. Oddly the article is titled: "Zoroaster The First Monotheist Prophet". What do you think of this author's dubious claim on who the first monotheist was?

A: Well it is unfortunate that people would push forward theories, that have no evidence. But that is a sad fact of wrongful erred mentalities. Zarathushtra defined those that believed in false deities as products of a senseless mind, What can I say?

Mithra was a god of the Old Aryan Pantheon as such he was one of thousands and, as far from Monotheism as anything can be. Mithra was a daeva and some argue he was an asura, but that is false. The main characteristic of a daeva is that it needs, or craves, a physical manifestation, a body. That can be seen as one of the main differences between a daeva and an asura in the old Arya Pantheon.

A simple perusal of a composition, such as the Mihr Yasht, clearly reveals the overwhelmingly anthropomorphical nature of Mithra. He is a daeva and stands condemned and eliminated by Zarathushtra. The fact that he is depicted as a violent, blood thirsty, vengeful god, also identifies him,
clearly, as a daeva, just as Indra , Shiva, etc.

The assertion that, Zarathushtra, was a Mithraist is laughable on its face. Zarathushtra is so offended by Mithra, and other false deities, that he avoids mentioning them by proper names altogether. This 'theory' is in short, blasphemous. In the case of Mithra, moreover, he, in a famous passage, condemns the Mithraic practice of sacrificing a bull at night. Besides in any case, Mithra was never, before Zarathushtra, a One or Monotheistic god. He was always one of thousands of gods in the Arya
pantheon.

In fact the Old Avestan word muthra, meaning urine or filth, is used by Zarathushtra in a play of words to condemn both Haoma and Mithra. The legend of a Mithra born as human being is of Parthian times over a thousand years after Zarathushtra and the Mithras of Roman Mithraism, is not the only god either. How can any reasonable being come up with the idea of Mithra as a Monotheistic  God? The fact is that they can't. People who believe this fairy tale are not rational, they are erred and wrongful enslaved to ignorance and a wrongful mentality.

# 83) Q: I have read on multiple sites that Zoroastrians do not accept converts.  Does this apply to Iraninan muslims also?  Iranians were forced to convert to Islam during the Sassanian Era.  If an Iranian today decided to convert back to Zoroastrianism, would that be allowed?

A: You have heard wrong! But you do not have to take my word for it ( I am a convert and I run a convert mail list) Go to conversion page in this same web site  and also go to:
www.zoroastrian.org ,
http://www.efn.org/~opal/acceptz.html
http://www.zoroastrismo.com.br/ ( a  Brazilian  site, wrong by converts, since all Brazilian  Zoroastrians are
converts)
http://www.farvardyn.com/
http://www.efn.org/~opal/stevezphotos.html ,

There are many other  sites  for, pro, or from converts and conversion Zarathushtra's Daena Vanguhi, is a Universal Belief System for all, regardless of gender, nationality, race, or class.

Check out my yahoogroups by pressing on the link, or go to www.yahoogroups.com and search for Zoroastrian Acceptance2

I# 84) Q: I've read in an Islamic homepage that in Zoroastrianism it is (or was) allowed for siblings to marry as well as for parents marrying their own children. That cannot be true, can it?

A: That is a mistranslation of a term that means something else. However it is true that within the Maggi priesthood a sect espoused next of kin marriage. This was never normative and was stopped as a practice under the persecution of Dariush, it might have made a come back at the beginning of the Sassanian Era, but Kartir stamped out this and other practices considered heretical by him.

No Young Avesta book contains any reference to this practice except for a mistranslated passage in the Vendidad, which is the last book of the Avesta and compiled at a time when Young Avestan was no longer well understood, according to many Scholars such as: Zaehner, Mills, Jackson, Bode, Jafarey, Humbach, Insler and many others. Regardless, this was only a practice by a minute sect of Magians among themselves and it never was a normative practice of the religion and there is no indication it ever transcended the Magian sect.

As a matter of fact Dariush  enforced a Magophobia Day, on which Magians were not to be about anywhere in the Empire under penalty of death, while this was as punishment for Georama's usurpation of the throne, Dariush also gives one of the reasons the practice of next of kin marriage by some Magus. In the succeeding reconciliation, according to scholars , the  head of the Magus explained that the practice was not normative of the Magus, but was an aberration.

In the Gathas, of course, Zarathushtra does not know of this practice and in the Vahishta Ishyo Gatha, were his daughter gets married and he preaches to newly weds. He does not mention it either. There is no record that
Zarathushtra ever even considered this. In fact, there is no record  in the entire history of the religion that this
was ever practiced , outside the already described Magian sect , whose very name is lost in time.

I can't in all honesty say that the Islamists know this, they have basically no knowledge of Zoroastrianism and probably base this on a book, caledl Arda Viraf, which is a fictional work,  from which Dante borrowed some elements of his Inferno. But the book has never been considered  anything but a fictional story, by Zoroastrians. There is also a book written in the 12th century AD (600 years after the Islamic conquest) that makes that assertion, but this book shows heavy Muslim influence and is almost surely a forgery.

Finally, what makes this claim clearly ridiculous, is that there is no record that any Iranian Zoroastrian Emperor ever engaged in this practice. In short there is nothing behind this claim.

# 85) Q:The world contains much evil, pain and suffering. The most intelligent animal on this planet, man, is incredibly perverse and self-destructive.  If God (or Ahura Mazda) created everything, He must have known the consequences and is therefore responsible for them. How is this compatible with the idea of a perfect, loving God?  No religion gives a satisfactory explanation of this, and most ignore the problem.  Are we to trust in blind faith, accepting that there are some things mere mortals cannot hope to understand in this life?

A: The problem of evil was directly addressed by Zarathushtra. I find his answer very satisfying, but I cannot speak for others. First; what is evil and what is good? To Zarathushtra the acts of nature were not evil but either: 1. Chance events, and chance had to be included in any system in which there is free will, OR 2, actually beneficial and not evil at all. For example, earthquakes are necessary and beneficial; for they allow the planet to release pressure from the Earth's crust. If it were not for earthquakes the planet would have exploded longtime ago.

So Zarathushtra discarded  the so called natural evils but what about ethical evils? Zarathushtra  did not posit that evil did not exist, or that it was the absence of Good. On the contrary he not only recognized evil but, in fact,
taught that opposing an eliminating evil, was the purpose for man on earth. So where does evil come from and why does God 'allow' it?

The first thing that we ought to do when approaching Zarathushtra, is to put out of our minds the notions of God and evil that we understand from other religions. Zarathushtra was an original thinker and  is not to be judged by
some one else's ideas. The God of Abraham, i. e. the God of Christians, Muslims, Jews and Bahai's, created man so that man may glorify, worship and serve him. Mazda Ahura creates man to teach him that he needs to put away his immaturity, learn to do good and replace evil with it. In doing so, he will overcome wrong with right and heal the planet. For man is to partner with and become an ally of the Most Wise and not His servant. Man is good, indeed, all creation is good. Man is just immature, he is no sinner, he is ignorant and must be taught like a baby,  that is born ignorant.

Good and evil in Zoroastrian theology  are what we call the results of our choices. We manifest these through choices, which have been established by Mazda to have in kind consequences, that is, good for good choices and evil for evil ones. Thus evil and good have no life of their own, and are not created. They depend on the choices of ethically cognizant beings; with a discernment of what is good and what is bad, as well as a free will to choose and a mind to reflect in how , when, etc; we choose

No evil deed is ever committed without a man, or woman conceiving the idea, communicating the idea and/or executing the idea. At each stage he/she makes an ethical choice. Man has two possible options when faced with a choice. One way is to choose according to Asha, what is right and ought to be, thought, spoken and done, as well as also the Order of Physical and Ethical Laws of the Universe.

The other is to choose according to bad way of thinking , that is to choose to do what selfishly, and ignorantly we think its best for us, without observing or respecting the rights of others. If one way of thinking, within man, seeks to attune itself to Asha, it is called Spenta Mainyu, or Progressive, Bounteous or Creative mentality. Where
Mainyu means Mentality, or way of being.

Thus evil and good are not created they are what we call the results of our choices. The mentalities are also not created they are primeval, that is, uncreated because they are not tangible things but ways of thinking, communicating and acting, which indicate your discernment of Asha and your maturity.

God created mortals knowing that some, maybe most, were going to be wrongful some times, but he also created them with the capacity to be good and indeed, to overcome evil with good and with the capacity, to defend the small and weak. God values good above any temporal evil that man may do. Thus he was willing
to tolerate evil to achieve good through and in man. Thus, eventually, overcoming evil and making man ethically complete and God-like. While at the same time renovating and healing all creation.

Life to a Zarathushtrian is full of purpose. It is a struggle against evil, perfidy, and abuse, but at the same time it's an opportunity to heal your relations with others, by acknowledging the good they do and helping them to understand and to do more good.  In this doctrine not only is not God the author of evil; but man is a free agent and can choose  to ally himself with Ahura Mazda in the fight against druj (wrong/evil). We must all be diligent, because the more we practice, teach and spread the Thought Provoking Message, the more people it will reach, the sooner man's suffering will cease or be ameliorated, the better we will become, till eventually, we will be completely attuned with righteousness and move on to the Best Life.

True, without creating mortals, Ahura Mazda would have prevented the crimes of many, but he would also have prevented the good of many. For it is a fact that in all societies, the masses, even though unenlightened and ignorant of the need for selflessly doing good, are still, not evil. In other words, Psychopaths and Sociopaths are the exception, not the rule. Think of the Good that has been done by man and not only of the evil. For each Hitler there are, after all, thousands of Florence Nightingales and Mother Theresas. Man is capable of both sublime good and destructive evil. But it is the verdict of Mazda Ahura that the race is capable of far more good than evil. Including, when properly instructed, the very elimination of evil, one choice at a time!

# 85) R: Following your reply to question 85, this does not seem an answer to the question.  God created everything.  Creation includes evil.  How then is God not responsible?

A: It is rather simple if we abandon culture specific ideas and address the issue on its own merits.  Evil is not a thing, it lacks independent substance. It is simply what we call the results of choices, that are harmful. Natural evils are either morally neutral accidental events, that must exist in a Cosmos designed for free will, or are actually beneficial. ( Example earthquakes  prevent the planet from exploding by relieving pressure on the earth's crust by the heat and pressure that is generated at its core and mantle)

There is no ethical evil that is not associated with the choices of ethically cognizant beings, as to thoughts, words and/or deeds. Imagine if it would have been possible, for example, for Osama Bin Laden to have planned and executed the evil of 9/11 without Thoughts , Words and Deeds. What we call evil, is thus, a possible result of a choice by a creature and not a creation of God, as it is not independent from choices.

Rather than being created, Evil, exists as an eternal potentiality. Thus God is not the author of evil, because evil can only manifest, (from a possibility to a reality) as a result of choices that are against Asha. (The Right Cosmic Order) Since Asha is an Aspect of the Most Wise's Nature, S/He cannot choose against it, thus His/Her choices will always be called Good, that is why S/He is called All Good and Source of All Good, Incapable of Harm 

next page