DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ZOROASTRIANISM
you are invited to join!

# 94) Q:  Do you guys believe in gay marriage or homosexuality period?

A: Zarathushtra did not make any statements about sex. To put it bluntly, he did not talk about heterosex, homosex,  or ANY SEX! Sexual fixations and hang ups are not part of the Good Doctrine, that ought to be clear. Demanding a black and white, yes or no answer to a question, that is NEVER asked by Zarathushtra, is not possible. Zarathushtrian doctrine, my friend, is not about do this and don't do that, there are no shall nots, not because there are no standards, but because Mazda Ahura (God) does not order us about like slaves, indentured
servants, or disobedient sheep.

It's a different paradigm. Zarathushtra asks us to observe, think, meditate, inform ourselves and choose. He does not give commandments from a wrathful, jealous God, but principles for us to apply to life's situations. Thus there are no official condemnations or approvals of human acts set on stone tablets!

We are told that we ought to choose everything in harmony with Asha and against Druj, so we must first inform ourselves  about what is Asha like. But we can only do this according to our light, that is, our understanding.

The principle of Choice given us by Zarathushtra is deceptibly simple. It reads:
" Listen attentively with your ears, to the Highest and Best. Ponder and meditate on them with a logical and clear mind. Then let each of us, man and woman, choose for themselves ... "

FOR THEMSELVES, get it? I cannot any more give you an official position applying, and binding, to all Zarathushtrians on any issue, that I, or any one else can give you an official position, that applies to and is binding on all human beings on any subject.

Now there are different beliefs and opinions, among Zarathushtrians, as to what is Asha Like (proper and right) on a myriad of choices. We agree or disagree between us, debate, persuade, convince etc. Personally I believe that Homosexuality is not a 'sin' and not even, necessarily, an error. Why? Well because Zarathushtra condemns abuse, deceit and ethical evil,  but he never
condemns sex. Homosexuality is either a choice, or a semi-predetermined behavior (Semi, because there is no such thing as totally determined behavior)

However, we cannot find any evidence that it is not Asha like because:
1. Sexual behavior is neither sanctioned or condemned in the Gathas
2. Unless rape, deceit or manipulation is used, no human behavior that is not proven to be detrimental, can be universally condemned
3. Homosexuality is found in nature among other animal species and is thus not unnatural in and of itself
4. We can argue and attempt to persuade some one away from choices we might consider wrong, but we cannot force them not to choose what they either want to do and find good for themselves, or what they firmly believe, even after being exposed to possible alternatives. THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS OPPOSITION TO FORCING OTHERS, INVOLVES CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR AND BEHAVIOR THAT HARMS OTHERS
5. Within those who engage in homosexual behavior, one often finds persons who are ethically incapable of harming others, or committing a crime and are involved in caring relations, in much the same ways and the same % of cases as one finds in those involved in heterosexual relations
6. Marriage is a human institution, present in every culture under the sun. It is, or has been sanctioned by humans in many different forms, including polyandry and polygamy
7. There is no universally applied reason, or law, that says that marriage is to set up a family, nor is there any such definition that is applicable to what 'family' means
8. In the practical and real world, many times homosexual couples that care for each other and even live monagamously together, are left without the ability to care for each other in matters of inheritance, health etc.
9. If two people want to live together, marriage is always an option for them, if they are heterosexuals. Considering all of the above, I believe that it is sheer discrimination to deny marriage, based on sexual preference.
10. What consenting adults of any sex or sexual preference do in their privacy of mutual accord and consent, is no one else's business

However these are MY beliefs, there are many Zarathushtrians that disagree with me, just as there are many of other religions that agree with me. The point is that, while many other religions condemn homosexuality and many other sexual behaviors as 'sin' (thus providing apparent 'Divine' sanction for discrimination, and worse), Zarathushtra in the Gathas does not.

And that, my friend, does really require me to say PERIOD!

# 95) Q:  Isn't contradictory that God is omniscient and that there isn't determinism but free choice? I think that if God was omniscient, s/he would know my future actions? So my future actions would be written, and there would be determinism.

A: Knowing an outcome does not imply in any way determining an outcome. So it is not correct to infer determinism from omniscience. Moreover in the Gathas (Song 2.4) Mazda Ahura is clearly defined as MOST KNOWING, NOT ALL KNOWING. The concept of all knowing can not be reconciled with the concepts of all power and all goodness of a God (read Epicurus).

But stop and think for a minute about what you are saying. If knowing that something would happen would determine it, then if we were to (and could) go back in time, we would be determining our own actions! And as Quantum has established, scientifically, reality its dependent on an observer, but the observation of the observer is itself dependent on the observer, choosing to observe. Indeed most Quantum experts are now describing realities as probable and contingent.

# 96) Q: Is there any group or homepage in Sweden for this religion?

A: The answer is yes! http://www.webzc.com/
If you have problems accessing this page, please contact me and I will have some Swedish Hamdin (Zoroastrian) write you.

# 97) Q: A HU RA MAZDA: The HU that reflection of light belongs to him. HU is the name of GOD in Zar athush religion of the Aryan race. Followers of HU are called HU-man. The effect of Zar athush (Golden Fire) and his religion
on the Jewish religion can be briefed as such: Ya Hu Din (Yehuva, Jeshua) means a religion that calls upon HU, Ya Hu ve was the name of their GOD. All together HU is the positive being in the worl. Thats why we Hurray for
positive actions....

A: I hate to disappoint you, but folk etymology and folk 'translation' of terms from ancient languages will lead you totally astray. Hu is am Old Avestan word, which means good. Its cognates in Indo-European languages are goot , good, bon, buen, etc. Or has nothing to do with the Herbrew and semitic names for God. Yahweh, no Yahu (which is either the name of  a web search engine, or the yell of some red kneck), is one of the names of the semitic god, others being Eloha, Allah ,Elohim , El , Baal, etc. Human is only indirectly related to Hu , which is its partial root and if
anything, a literal reading of the roots of human (hu and man), will give us  good mind and not god man.

Hu is not God in any Indo-European language. In Old Avestan, Bagah was a generic name,  that has been translated as God, but that literally means apportioner. In Old Avestan, what we call gods ( incidentally a Germanic word), are called either Ahuras, or Daevas. Ahura, literally meaning high, or exalted being and thus High Lord Daeva, literally lover, or possessor of visions,  (as in being seen) that is being loving and possessing the ability to be seen, or to be represented. In other words, gods represented anthropomorphically with idols.

The Ahuras were abstract, ethical and invisible. The daevas were anthropomorphic, amoral and craving to be material. Cognates of Daeva in Indo-European languages are daemon, dios, demon, devil, etc. So to resume, hu
has nothing to do with god, or his or her name in any language and we cannot simplify complex issues because of appearances that are totally deceiving upon closer inspection.

# 98) Q: To go against God is evil.  Yes it is a choice.  Yes it is a thing. A thing we create weather by ignorance or outright choice. God by whatever name knows good and evil, God does not go against himself thus it would be impossible for God to be evil as God defines the very thing. Its very circular. It is not his nature, it would contradict the definition. The idea of "natural evil" is and hope you agree is equally crazy, I suspect we call floods and earthquakes "acts of God" for this reason.  Baddness is not necessarily evilness. Not all things true are truth. 

A: Well to go against God is wrong, evil is a name we give to something that we find abhorrent. Whether a particular thing, we mortals call evil, is truly wrong, depends. The only one who can define what is right and wrong is Mazda, and we believe He has done so in the Gathas.

But in general is best to avoid labeling acts as evil, because, we mortals often end equating the wrongful acts to the person who commits them. If we then call these evil, then, the person also ends up being thought of as evil and the manipulators have a feel day labeling all sorts of people evil. In reality, however, the overwhelming majority of the wrongful, are ignorant and do wrong; not out of malice, but out of ignorance of Asha.

More over, when we label people as evil, how ware we thinking good thoughts or speaking good words? Having said this, I am in basic agreement with your statements. God cannot do wrong for He is the author of Right, ergo, we cannot blame God and, as you say, 'natural evils' (also called Acts of God) are no such things.

# 99) Q: This question is about religious violence. From what i have readabout Zoroastrianism, it does not seem like the kind of thing that thisreligion espouses AT ALL. but, religions like Islam have been known to havethose few "fanatics" (an extremely small proportion, all most nonexistent, in fact) of what i guess Americans would call "terrorists" who believe ina "holy jihad" , or something to that effect. MY QUESTION ABOUT ZOROASTRIANISM is has Zoroastrianism ever had a sect that any violent actions? I realize that such a sect or any such individuals would be
considered somewhat of an aberration of Zoroastrianism, or humanity ingeneral.

A: In the Gathas there is nothing that can be used to advocate any kind of religious violence. In fact the Persian Zarathushtrian empires, up to the Sassanian Dualists, were openly tolerant of all faiths, with 1 exception, that of Xerxes, who persecuted daevayasnis.

Unfortunately the Sassanians did persecute other faiths, specially the Buddhists and the Christians,  but even they reserved most of their vitriol for heresies, such as manicheism and mazdakism. In fact, it can be argued that there was no persecution of Christians and Jews, since several emperors married Christian women and also Jews. However, there were some localized persecutions of Christians, mostly in Armenia and usually as a response to Christian provocation, also during Christian persecutions of Zarathustrians in Cappadoccia (Turkey). Several emperors deported Christians in retaliation.

But having said that, the Sassanians, can hardly be considered orthodox or representative of Gathic religion. They were dualist fanatics, who carried their dualism to unheard of and actually silly extremes, such as butchering what they called "Ahrimanic" creatures, such as frogs, ants, certain birds, etc. They were virulent homophobics and condemned people to thousands of lashes for such 'crimes' as killing a pregnant bitch.

It is also true that both the Manichees and Mazdakites (Specially the latter) were considered more of a political threat than a religious one. However, even considering the Sassanian as a sect, we cannot say that they institutionalized religious violence to any degree. Their persecutions were sporadic and frequently based on political issues or retaliation against real discriminatory practices against Zarathushtrians by the Christians.

There are no concepts like Jihad in Mazdayasna, and there is no division of the world into the world of peace (Islamic nations), and the world of war (Non-Islamic nations). Zarathushtra never sais to kill the infidels, or make war against them, nor did Zarathushtrians ever tax on religious grounds.

next page