Would Zoroastrianism have survived in Iran if it had the same religious zeal as Christianity/Islam...

>more interesting offshoots like Zurvanism, Mazdakism and Manichaeism.

LARPers plz stop

>Zoroastrianism is stupid compared to its offshoots like Manichaeism
stupider than eating watermelon and burping to save the universe?

Christianity was already a dominant force in the Middle East before the Islamic Conquests. In Iran itself, there was a considerable Nestorian minority.

Conversions are allowed.

Those guards look very European, look at those fine Arabic European weapons, and Arabic hair, they almost look like Africans but rest assured they are true Europeans wearing Arabic pyjamas they're white really honestly

Shitpost somewhere else and also:
>Arabs being a "race"

The Nestorian minority was tiny in Iran. And Christianity was already under considerable scrutiny since Shapur II's reign with Constantine making Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire.

I guess that's why the Greeks depict the Persians, Medes, and other Iranic people for the most part being of the same stock as them right?

>LARPers
Fuck off, faggot. I've studied this stuff deeply. People who normally cry about LARPers can only think of race.

That was a criticism from St. Augustine, and it's debatable if the Manichaeists really did that. Regardless, that's not the focal point of their beliefs.

Vase from Sassanian era of Persians depicting themselves.

I read somewhere that the problem was that it was too Irano-centric, and it failed to become a really inernational religion. Like how their priests were all hereditary, all spoke only Persian and made no effort to make their faith more understandable to foreigners.

>conversions not allowed
This wasn't the case before the Muslim conquests. Sassanids were actively trying to convert Armenians, for example.

“No conversions” is also only even a Parsi thing. Yeah the true Iranian Zoroastrians would be wary of a convert cause it’s an easy Muslim false flag thing to give the populace an excuse to purge the dhimmi by accusing the local Zoroastrians of trying to tempt away the faithful but it is perfectly *possible* to convert to Zoroastrianism.

The way people interpret Zoroastrianism is false.

Zoroastrian is actually a simple religion, and one can even create rituals of their own based on it, if they understand how it works. The best way I can describe is "White Magick". Take Crowley's bullshit but make it more compassionate or obsessive with morality, and you'll understand what Zoroastrianism is about. Moreover, it depends what school of thought you choose. I can't repeat that enough because the Orthodox Zoroastrianism were retarded.

Fire and chanting from Avesta is needed though, but there are not many other requirements except it depends on which school of thought you agree with.

I delineated the school of thoughts here:
Also, Achaemenids were not technically fully Zoroastrian but more Mithraists. Zoroastrianism grew more during Sassanian Empire.

Conversions occur in the Iranian diaspora, particularly in Europe. There is also a small community of converts in Russia and the CIS countries.

The only thing that's needed for most schools of Zoroastrian is to accept good and evil and the claim they manifest as a metaphysical struggle whereby the essences of good and evil are not indeterminate. However, Zurvanism is unique in that it views that struggle as relative or indeterminate within Zurvan, which is indifferent, infinite Time.

It's a simple series of question:

1. Do you accept the existence of good and evil?
If no, then you are a Zurvanite.
If yes, then continue on.

2. Which do you accept? Do good and evil exists as principles in struggle OR do they exist primarily in relation to the presence or absence of an omnipotent God?
If you agree as in relation to an omnipotent God, then you are a reformed Zoroastrian.
However, if you accept as principles as being in struggle, then continue on.

3. Does good and evil intermix without losing their essences? For example, can a being be good sometimes, bad other times?
If you say they cannot intermix, then you are a traditional Zoroastrian (Mazdayasna).
If you say yes they intermix, then continue on.

4. What is the best way to be good? Through trying to help better the social/world's condition or self-renunciation?
If you say to help better this world, then you are a Mazdakite.
If you say self-renunciation, then you are a Manichee.

I'm interested in people's responses. Check here for a description of each position:

>Arabs being a "race"
They are. Arabians cluster very closely in any PCA chart. Levantines are largely not Arabs, with the exception of Palestinians who are mostly Arabs mixed with Egyptians.
Greeks and Romans were horrible at depicting different races. The Egyptians were more intellectually aware of differences in races and thus more accurate.

North Africa and the Near East were polytheist in belief before the Christian subversion and the Roman Christian persecutions toward non Christians. The many great polytheistic faiths of the Orient were almost all eradicated by Christianity.

You can speak Arabic and not being ethnically a Levantine Semite. Its a language, not a genetic marker.
>Greeks and Romans were horrible at depicting different races.
Greek and Roman depictions of Iranians overlap with how Iranians portray themselves. So there's no issue there regardless.

>Greek and Roman depictions of Iranians overlap with how Iranians portray themselves.
Check here:
That vase are the Iranians portraying themselves. Here is another image from a mosaic.