Syncretism
Of the below links that were removed, I would question the removal of Syncretism, because this subject is dealt with in the second sentence, and because the argument that Zoroastrianism and its offshoot/cousin, Mithraism, are at the foundation of mainstream Hebrew and Christian doctrine is one of the most popular current arguments regarding the history of religious belief. I would encourage anyone who is interested to investigate the validity of this argument. Carefully look into the known data about the ancient roots of Zoroastrianism, when Zarathustra (aka Zoroaster) lived, the nature of his religious reformation, the the way in which his teachings, in their most pure, original form, were interpreted by his first folowers, how and when those interpretations evolved, the timing of the first appearance of Ahriman and Ormuzd in written form and the timing of the first appearance of messianism in Mithraism. Also carefully look into the history of Judaism and its scriptures, both in general, and specifically, regarding the writings of Isaiah and Daniel, and the Bablyonian/Persian exile. I would be very interested if anyone were able to show overwhelming evidence that 6th C. BCE Zoroastrianism is at the root of key Judeo-Christian doctrine, and not the other way around.
--dave c
- Mithraism may have some roots in proto-Zoroastrian Indo-Iranian paganism. Zosodada 20:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Removed these links.
New Age, Syncreticism, Occultism, Cabala
I think these are irrelevent to the article. If I'm wrong, please fix.
- Syncreticism may not be irrelevant. The others seem to be. Zosodada 20:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Confuse! Angra Mainyu has his own page under the alternate name Ahriman -- but Ahura Mazda comes back to Zoroastrianism, and his alternate name Ormuzd is nowhere to be seen either. Does evil get better coverage here? :) --FOo
- Evil is cool. :) Bryan
- That must mean that in the war between the Truth and The Lie, The Lie is winning. Zosodada 20:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- :: Also note that someone has categorized Ahriman as a "Zoroastrian god";
in this case all of the "Christian gods" should be categorized as well, including Satan. Zosodada 20:13, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I added some points about endogamy, arrival in India. I think the Parsis deserve a separate page. Although Zoroastrianism defines them, they're a disproportionately important part of Indian culture. -- ESP 05:29 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
This seems contradictory to me:
- Unlike Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism does not associate matter with evil. On the contrary, material pursuits such as raising a family and creating wealth are considered to aid Ohrmazd.
Pre-Islamic Zoroastrianism?
This article seems mainly focused on Zoroastrianism since the Islamic conquest. I know sources are sparse, but shouldn't it include information on the religion at its height during the Achaemenid and Sassanian empires?
--Jfruh 22:02, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, it should.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
a lot less than 250000 zoroastrians worldwide.
i think the figures for the zoroastrian population of today given in the article are far too high. here's why:
the parsi population of india is only about seventythousand according to a recent census. the total number of zoroastrians is estimated by the Zoroastrian Trust Fund of Europe to be 6000 to 7000, ergo the total number of parsis in europe is less than 6000 to 7000. there are about 2500 parsis in pakistan (according to a pakistani parsi i met at the 2004 World zoroastrian youth congress, which was really a parsi congress in all but name) and i estimate the parsi poulation of north america and australia to be very optimistically 12000. adding a few thousand to account for parsis in the united arab emirates, oman, and other gulf countries and another few thousand (optimistically) for prsis living elsewhere and the sum total should be less than hundred thousand, probably significantly less, say ninetythousand. parsis have a serious demographic problem: over thirty percent of the parsi population is over sixtyfive (in india, certainly according to the census of the govt. of india, anecdotal evidence would support this for other countries also).
official figures concerning the irani zoroastrian population of the govt. of the islamic republic of iran are to high by a fctor of ten, according somebody from the zoroastrian trust funds of europe. according to him irani zoroastrians number in the ten thousands, most likely about thirtythousand.
i too agree that parsis should have a seperate page.
aside: ive never written a wikipedia article, so i dont know how to put links, signature etc, i might come back to this later and find better references, add links and edit the main article (and use capital letters).
- Hopefully you will soon discover the shift key. You're forgetting about the Zoroastrians in the US, Britan, the Netherlands, France &c., &c. Zosodada 19:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hinduism
Unusually among religions the Zoroastrian faith, like Hinduism, even when holding positions of power, has been tolerant and supportive of other faiths.
There are a number of reasons why I'm taking out the mention of hinduism:
- it's historicaly incorrect. As soon a the british govement gave india even limited self rule the hindus started to oppress muslims
- this ariticle is about zoroastrianism not hinduism. If you want to claim this about hinduism please do it in the hindu article
- I couldmake a pretty good case for budism and taoism to be mentioned in the same space. (along with most of the egyptian relgions) it would resuilt in the article looking silly thoughGeni 16:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's a bunch of bull. If the Muslims are so oppressed by the Hindus, how come there are 100 million of them in India and none in Pakistan. First of all, the alleged oppression was done by nationalist leaders like Nehru who care more about being the first prime minister of India than caring for Hindus. Nehru was a nominal Hindu and didn't care about Hinduism as Jinnah cared about Islam. If Hindus were so intolerant, there would be no Parsi, Muslims, and Jews in India. Secondly, Hinduvta or Hindu nationalism is not Hinduism and does not represents Hinduism.(see discussion)
- No true scotsman falicy. They are Hindus by most standard defintions. While polythistic relgions do tend to be more tolerant to other faiths than monothistic relgions this is not total
Also, in general, Muslims and Hindus have gotten along well except for the extremist kooks.
- Britian was wooried about relgius conflict even as it was leaveing
I can agree with you about not putting in Hinduism because this is a Zorastain article.
- Good.Thankyou
Are you Muslim? You seem to ignore likewise Muslim oppression against Hindus (which is far more than alleged Hindu oppression)
- My relgion is not significant but no I'm not a Muslim. Muslim wars againsts hindus were not relivant to my arguments
Secondly, Buddhism was not so tolerant as you suggest. For ages, when Buddhism was a state religion, devotional Hinduism was in decline. Only with the rise of the Advaita movement and bhakti movement, did Hinduism arise. Also Sri Lankan Buddhists have persecuted Hindu Tamils.
- They also didn't get on too well with the taoists either but those who did the oprressing were not representertive of buddists etc (you can see where I'm coming from here).Geni 17:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Secondly, Hinduism is not polytheistic but rather either monist (i.e. Advaita) , either pantheist or panenthestic or monotheistic(i.e., Vaishnavism and Shaivism). Ok, I agree with you on the Buddhist point as well.
disposal of the dead
I don't know enough about Zoroastrianism to verify this, but I'm not sure it is accurate to say that all modern Zoroastrians bury or cremate their dead. While it is probably accurate that most Zoroastrians have abandoned it, I have read that the ancient practice of placing the deceased on scaffolds for vultures is still practiced in some traditional Zoroastrian communities in India, or at least has certainly been widely practiced in modern times. I don't think this is an exclusively ancient practice anyway. Note in particular that this assertion is directly contradicted in the article Towers of Silence. NTK 00:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It's a tricky one. Most of the information in the Towers of Silence article comes from a radio program (BBC) and some cross cheaking. So it wasn't orinaly writen by an expert on Zoroastrianism. My understanding of the current situtation is that in theory the bodies are eaten by vultures. However the shortage of vultures has resulted in large mirrors being set up around the towers that focus the sun onto the bodies. Whether this counts as cremation or this mearly results in the drying out of the bodies is an issue of dispute and not one I feel know enough to comment on.Geni 01:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Perhaps using the correct word, excarnation, would help your research in this regard.
"A.C."?
In an otherwise excellent recent addition to this article, there is this sentence:
"Mardanfarrokh, a Zoroastrian theologian in the ninth century A.C..."
Should "A.C." be "A.D." (or, if you prefer "C.E.")? I think A.C. is a bit confusing here. I'm assuming we mean AD here (there wouldn't be much reason to argue for dualism over monotheism in the 9th century B.C., when monotheism wasn't on most people's radar).
--Jfruh 20:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)