Zoroastrianism

So Veeky Forums redpill me on the native persian faith. Would persia be better today if it was Zoroastrian rather than Muslim?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>Would persia be better today if it was Zoroastrian rather than Muslim?

Yes. Why? Because then it wouldn't be Muslim

Better? I don't know. I hate Islam as much as the next guy, but the Shah was very much pro-Western and the photos from that time show a tendency towards Western-style degeneracy. So what is better?

Western styles are not degenerate, they are the highest culture. Islam is degenerate, as is most conservatism.

>degeneracy
>labels image "qts"
You're not fooling anyone.

Lol! The spirit is wiling, but the flesh...

Yes. Islam was the reason for Iran's climb to irrelevancy and without it, you wouldn't have a shitty oppressive government. Fuck the west for supporting Islamists.

>Fuck the west for supporting Islamists.
The opposite is true in the case of Iran.

But what about the glorious Safavids?

The pro-western, obviously. It would have resulted in them being far more advanced. Which is precisely why the USA fucked them over and sent them back to the Bronze Age.

>as is most conservatism.
Well no.

Humanity in general would be better off without Islam but in Persia’s case, it was especially disastrous, as they already had an advanced and long established culture that was destroyed.

>Fuck the west for supporting Islamists.
>Which is precisely why the USA fucked them over and sent them back to the Bronze Age.

What alt-history are you guys posting from?

The West / American's failure was not insuring the Shah remained in power and could resist both the religionists and communists so that by now, Iran would be a 1st world representative democracy with constitutional monarchy.

But post-Vietnam America had been neutered and infected with commie sympathizers so instead, we left him and the Iranian people swinging in the wind...

Wasn't one of the Shahs a Nazi sympathizer?

>Iran would be a 1st world representative democracy with constitutional monarchy.
Not really any better. Plus, Khammeni was an American plant, because a stable Iran wouldn't benefit the USA.

I think the major trouble is that a lot of people confuse the regimes with the leaders.

The Shah, for all intents and purposes was a very corrupt tyrant, but allowed for degrees of liberty which many Iranians enjoyed - as long as they kept on the good side of the regimes.

Khomeini was very brutal, but saw the Shah as another western puppet who could be disposed as easily as Mohammad Mosaddegh was, so he tried to make it so the country would have it's own proper sovereignty. But in doing so he'd basically turned Iran into a very strict and oppressive Islamic Republic.

underrated post

If there's anything degenerate about this picture, it's those eyebrows.

> oppressive bat-shit crazy Muslim theocracy
> 1st world representative democracy with constitutional monarchy.
> Not really any better.

>democracy
>ever good
Stop chugging the cool-aid, American.

He wasn't exactly an American plant, it's just that rogue CIA agents secretly supported him to get back at Carter for the Halloween massacre, and to get Bush into the presidency.

I don't like muslims, but the Islamic revolution was definitely an improvement on Iranian society.

>It's another post cherrypicked photos of the urban elite thread

Every single woman has a smug look on their title face. Literally why

>system of government that allows for the peaceful changing of hands every few years thus eliminating the constant threat of violent usurping of power when opposition to the ruling government gets too high
>bad

I think would better suit you, friend.

>System which eliminates all long term planning, and any hard choices, as only things popular with the majority of idiots can happen.
FTFY

And maybe we should go back to violent usurpation, as then we know it's more warranted than just, "The media tells us to not like the party figurehead anymore."

It's called bedroom eyes.

Not really. If you can read Farsi sources or talk to people who were at the forefront during the revolutionary period, it becomes pretty obvious Khomeini had a lot of "help" from Western sources.

Two years ago I talked to an Iranian Jazz enthusiast who was visiting various music clubs in Europe.
He said alcoholism and drug abuse is a massive problem over there, and how the repressive government effectively prevents anyone from seeking help with their issues. Everything happens underground, the booze is dangerous to consume, etc.

Honestly edgelords who think that opressive governments who try to stamp out "degeneracy" (word filter when) are a good thing need to grow the fuck up.

>Honestly edgelords who think that opressive governments who try to stamp out "degeneracy" (word filter when) are a good thing
They are, but it needs to be done the right way. Zero tolerance isn't it.

The westernised culture in Shah Iran was really only prevalent in the upper class. Lower classes still engaged in Shia Islam culture and resented the prescence of the Western foreigners, who took a discriminatory attitude to most Iranians.

Indeed true that during the Iran-Iraq war, the superpowers and western states were funding both sides, however I think the USA, Britain and the USSR predominately funded Iraq, which meant the sale of conventional and chemical weapons, which were deployed against the Iranians. Strangely enough, one of the countries that assisted the Islamic Republic, was Israel.

No, Islam didn't ruin Iran, it revitalized Persia after it was stagnating under the terrible Sassanids.

The problem is they became a theocracy through Western interference in their politics.

Like most of the colonized/semi-colonized world, he engaged in diplomacy with Hitler and paid some lip-service to the reigime as a counter weight against (in his case) Soviet and British influence. There is no reason to think that the Shah or his govenrment were genocidal or more racist than your average person of the time was.

I heard that they really like incest.

"Would Persia be better today is it were Zoroastrian?"

Hm, fun question. If, right now, the world was the same other than Iran being different by being Zoroastrian. Tough question.

I can speculate geopolitically. Let's assume that this hypothetical Iran was a constitutional monarchy like UK or Japan with an emperor. There would be a central religious figure (Moabadan-Mobad).

Watching happenings in Iran would be far more fun and exotic for modern Americans and Euros because of them having a religion exclusive to their nation rather than Islam which all Americans by now don't really view as 'interesting' like buddhism or hinduism or sikhism or daoism or whatever. The faravahar, after all, is a little bit more comprehensible as a logo than the calligraphic representation of muhammads name. Tourism would probably be high if it were internally stable.

I think them being seperate from surrounding muslims would lead to them being popularly viewed as a haven of non-extremism (assuming not many zoroastrians had comitted terrorism in the west). If alt-historians are right, the country would still likely be plunged in instablility because them having oil is true regardless of them worshipping Allah or Ahura Mazda.

(Just to talk a bit about Zoroastrianism, rather than the Shah and the revolution)

They all cucked their husbands and they didn't noticed.

Zarathustri actually invented Judaism, and gave them a comic book origin story to keep them busy. One of the few early religions to eschew animal/human sacrifice.

>And maybe we should go back to violent usurpation,
t. African

Hilarious. The point would be that it'd be far more rare, and far more drastic. You're not going to do it unless you really need to. Instead, shit just might get fixed.
On the flipside, those in power would probably not fuck up too badly if they'd end up guillotined for it.
Much better than "fuck everyone over for four years, syphon as much out of the nation as you can, then bugger off when your term is up."

Zoroastrian vs. Islam is like chocolate vs shit

Zoroastrianism is the founding religion to the Abrahamic faiths, passing down most of the good spirituality and morals we have today.

I won't speak for Islam, as it speaks for itself and is relatively new on the religious market. The rule of not making images of Muhammed is a modern distortion of do not worship graven images. They need to get a grip.

Zoroastrians believe in three main principles:
Think good.
Speak good.
Do good.


Zoroastrianism, at its core, is the only none meme religion in my opinion. It's about self improvement and then helping other to self improve.

I really wish it was the dominant religion of modern times. But alas, it wasn't designed to control people, so it has no use.

I think Zoroastrianism is more aligned with Christianity in morals than it is with Islam.

Therefore, anywhere that would be Zoroastrian would be allies of the Western (Christian) world.

Better than hearing death to america from a fifth the world.

2 Chronicles, chapter 36

"Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the Lord God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The Lord his God be with him, and let him go up."

God used Persia to get rid of the Assyrian and Babylonian kingdoms, and give another chance to the Jews.

More like
>System in which polititians start to offer free shit to the eloctorate to win an election,and pursue populist policies,which in the long run end up hurting the economy.
Just take a look at what glorious democracy has done to Zimbabwue,Spain or Iran. Or what it did to Chile under Allende. Democracy always ends up with a huge burocratic class and uneducated people drinling the kool aid of the average polititian.

this

The zoroastrians escaped to india and continued their tradition in peace. Muslims however, are still a menace in india.

Zoroastrianism is a religion that stands for positivity and self actualization and self improvement, not self hate, being unworthy and self flagellation like Abrahamic religions, be it Judaism, Christianity or Islam

You do know Zoroastrianism was allowed to flourish by the Biblical God, right?

>"Abrahamic"
A shitty concept invented by Muslims in an attempt to garner sympathy from Christians.

The Allah of the Quran is not the God of the Bible.

God did what?
You are a fucking fagtard.
Now go tell a jew that gentiles can be a servant of god & get brow beaten to death

Yeah, but isn't Zoroastrians' fault the fact that we distinguish between good and evil and have a guilt culture based on the original sin?

You know your full of shit and fooling no one, right?

that was abrahamic autism, zoroastrianism encourages you to have sex and get drunk once in a while because life's too short to be all mopey about ahriman

What books should I read to learn more about this faith? All I know are the memes.

Source?

The Gathas

Yeah, but it wasn't always as it is today.

Any particular translation I should look out for?

Islam already absorbed a ton of Zoroastrian things. Zoroastrianism wasn't the great belief you imagine either.

>threat of violent usurping of power when opposition to the ruling government gets too high

It's one of our constitutional duties.

I'm a practicing Zoroastrian, I've posted here before. Ask me anything if you want. I'll answer tomorrow.

lmao no

that's a fairly strong statement to make in the absolute, friend.

The same virtue is found in Hindu-Buddhist tradition.

Not really.

...

i'm sure some good english ones exist but idk which are good - Avesta is probably not what you are interested in. also, really depends what you are interested in.

All I know is that (certain) Christians HATE it.

It totall undermines their narrative that all """"pagans"""" were ignorant and evil idol worshipers and Judaism and Christianity are completely unique and revealed by God. They cannot stand the fact that there were virtuous non-abrahamites that had very similar views as them with regards to the afterlife, God, Angels, demons, the end times. No, that in fact predates and has influenced the abrahamites. It's too much cognitive dissonance for them. They can't stand it. And since they can't simply suppress it like in medieval times, they either ignore them or try to falsify history, Christian style.

Iran needed Islam, just not it's Shi'i variant.

The Persian faith is definately the best of paganism.

Because it's the closest to Christianity and the Bible.

Say it after me: Zoroastrianism predates and has influenced both Judaism and Christianity, not the other way around. Christianity is not a unique, special revelation by God. Christianity is good because it is closest to Zoroastrianism, as a copy is related to an original.

What about virtuous pagans?

Well tipped, my euphoric friend. None of what you just said is true. There's a difference between not giving a shit about an extinct religion and actively suppressing its history.

You're quite incorrect.

I wouldn't call it pagan in the traditional sense (polytheistic, idol worshipping, nature gods, etc). It's certainly an exception among the non abrahamics though.

Saying something is incorrect isn't actually refuting it. Either provide an argument for your position or don't bother responding to his post.

You have seriously accomplished nothing but putting words on a screen and baiting me.

You are retarded.

The argument is simple. Zoroaster was a Persian born in the early to mid 6th century BC during the Jewish captivity in Babylon that evolved into captivity under the Medeo-Persian empire.

Zoroaster was exposed to the scriptures of the OT that the Jews brought with them into captivity, believed in them, and took them for himself, adding a little pagan fire god to appease the locals.

The complete and utter lack of any evidence showing that Zoroaster ever traveled to Israel speaks volumes. The OT came to him. He did not influence either the OT or Christianity; he merely believed what the one true God said.

The oldest copy of any manuscript you rely upon is almost 2000 years after the event took place. That you think such a document is reliable, yet the bible is not, is absurd.

>Western-style degeneracy
/pol/ is this way ->

Also
>I hate Islam
I don't know if you're aware of that, but you're no different than a taliban with your traditional viewpoint and conservative morals.

Fucking how?!

>religion that encourages incest
>good

>What is Genesis

>incest
>bad

Gathas pre-date 1000 BC which the ink used to write them were dated to on those goat skin parchments, so Zoroaster being a "6th" century prophet is fucking retarded. The fact there is no testaments or mentions of the Achaemenids and the overwhelmingly ignorant belief Darius claims his great-grandfather was a patron of Zaruthustra is valid is retarded.

Otherwise, Zoroastrianism influenced both Christianity and Judaism, but neither played any significant role on it in turn.

> I don't like muslims, but the Islamic revolution was definitely an improvement on Iranian society.

Ayatollah, please.

Islam was a disaster for the Persians and the Iranian Revolution only further acerbated it. It set them back a 100 years and destroyed the Iranian people’s chance to become a 1st world nation, a path that the Shah had put them on and which they had been steadily working towards.

>Zoroaster was exposed to the scriptures of the OT that the Jews brought with them into captivity

Is there ANYTHING the Jews don't claim to have created or invented?

I remember reading a Wiki article and it said the British _didn't know_ how to dry fish, until the Jews showed them how...

Are you retarded?

Abraham = 2000 BC
Moses = 1500 BC
Israel & Judah = 1000 BC

Persia = 500 BC

Cyrus had a vision from God who told him to conquer all the lands and free the Jews from Babylonian captivity. It's in the 2nd book of Chronicles.

> fry fish

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster

>In modern scholarship Zoroaster is often dated to the 10th century BCE

Uh-oh, looks like someone's been lying for Jesus again

>wikipedia
>""""modern scholarship""""

Uh-oh, looks like someone's been lying for Darwin again

Zoroaster = 1000 BC > or earlier.

Also see with the bit about the Gathas dating from the 10th century.

Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, 23Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.

Book of 2nd Chronicles, chapter 36

>Abraham
>real
>Moses
>real

If you are arguing Cyrus the Great for whatever reason felt he was compelled to liberate the Jews in 539 BC when he defeated and conquered the Neo Babylonian Empire, then sure. If you are arguing THAT Judaism played any role on Zoroastrianism, then you are being ignorant.

>Cyrus
>real

See I can shitpost too.

Zoroastrianism was the official religion of the Achaemenid dynasty by 600BCE.
Zoroaster taught the tennets of the faith long before then, and it already had adehrants that probably transmitted doctrine via oral tradition.
Judaism and Zoroastrianism probably mutually influenced one another's ideas.

Cyrus was always a great politican, yes. Again, what does this have to do with the formation of Zoroastrianism in Greater Iran that predates any Iranian encounter with the Jews?

Cyrus wasn't real? I'd love to see proof because his corpse and tomb are certainly real.

Cyrus is real you fucking moron, there is no actual scientific or physical evidence of Abraham or Moses.

Where are you from and how does Zoroastrianism play into the daily life of a follower, at least in your case? As in what rituals do you practice, what doctrines and virtues does it bring to your pondering in a normal day, how does it affect day to day decisions... That sorta thing.

Thanks for offering yer experience.

Que? Its commonly accepted that Moses alone was likely a conglomerate of a bunch of possibly real individuals that were merged into a single mythological figure at best.

Cyrus not being real is kind of fucking dumb as a riposte response though, man.

>there has to be physical evidence for someone to exist

I guess billions of people never existed then!

>I have to most goal posts this badly

Says the delusional atheist who believes he came from a rock by pure chance and that the world is billions of years old.

>atheist
Nope.
>came from a rock by pure chance and that the world is billions of years old.
Nice databait.

As opposed to the creationist who believes we were all made by magic.

It obviously did.

The power of God is not magic.

Magic is far inferior.

Nigga, it's magic. There's no other way to explain speaking something into existence.

It didn't.

not realy tho, its the same thing by definition

even by evocation and authority etc... read some grimoire, the fundamental part is to evoke the will and power of god, without that you dont even go near demons or whatever