It is currently Tue Mar 19, 2019 5:28 pm


Announcement: Registrations are currently disabled. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Zoroaster, Monotheism & Christianity

Theological and spiritual discussions within the context of a religious framework.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

kiwimac

Member

Registered User

0 stars

  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: 10 June 2013
  • Location: South Island, New Zealand
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks Received: 5

Re: Zoroaster, Monotheism & Christianity

PostSun Jun 16, 2013 3:16 am

An article I wrote some years ago seems germane:

What is Zoroastrianism?

Simply put, Zoroastrianism is the name given to the religion and beliefs based on the teachings which are attributed to the Persian religious leader Zararthushtra ( in Greek Zoroaster, in later Persian Zartosht). Mazdayasna (worship of Ahura Mazda) is the name of the religion that recognizes the divine authority of Ahura Mazda, the creator who Zarathushtra discovered by studying nature and who was proclaimed by Zoroaster to be the one uncreated Creator of all (God). "Mazdaism" is a transliteration of Mazdayasna, which means " Worshipper of Mazda."

Most followers of Ahura Mazda call themselves Zoroastrians or Behdini (followers of the Good Religion.)

Who was Zoroaster?

Zoroaster is generally accepted as an historical figure, but dating just when Zoroaster lived is fraught with difficulty. The most widely accepted calculations place him near to 1200 BCE thus making him a candidate for the 'founder of the earliest religion based on revealed scripture' while there are other estimates that date his life anywhere between the 18th and the 6th centuries BCE. The Gathas and the chapter known as Yasna Haptanghaiti are all written in Old Avestan and the language used in these passages is much older than the language used in other parts of the Zoroastrian writings which are called the Avesta and which are written in what is called Young Avestan.

Old Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit are both descendants of the Proto-Indo-Iranian language and the Gathic Old Avestan is still quite close in structure to the Sanskrit of the Rig-Veda in language usage. However the Sanskrit of the Rig-Veda is somewhat more conservative in outlook and structure than the Avestan of the Gathas and so, based on the changes in the languages, scholars date the Gathas to around 1000 BCE, give or take a couple of centuries.

** But note also that the issue lies with how old is the Rig Veda, which no one seems to know with anything approximating certainty. There are also those who think the Gathas are older than the Rig Veda, Dastur Dhalla, and some other linguists see the Gaathic language as more complex and archaic. Most of what we know about Zoroaster comes to us from a variety of sources, the Avesta, the Gathas, Greek historical works, archaeological evidence and oral history.

Zoroaster was born on the cusp of history, at a time when societies were shifting from being mainly nomadic to a more settled agrarian lifestyle. He lived in an area of the Middle East then known as Chorasmia ( An area roughly occupying present day Northern Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan) He was married, he had three daughters and three sons and it was at 30 that he received enlightenment. He preached for many years before his wife and children converted with the first convert being a cousin. These statements are all based on legends that have been woven in traditions.

They probably contain some truths and facts, but there is no way of ascertaining them and thus cannot be taken as historical. The later Avestan writings make Zoroaster a kind of 'superman', wrestling with demons and being tempted by Ahriman. The Gathas, however, show him an ordinary mortal, perplexed by his call, utterly certain of Ahura Mazda and bewildered by his lack of success. Eventually he converted King Vistaspa who reigned in eastern Iran and with the king's conversion, Zoroastrianism became a force in the region and there, as well in India among the Parsees, it still survives.

Who is Ahura Mazda?

For Zoroastrians, God (called Ahura Mazda) , is the beginning and the end,the creator of everything visible and invisible. Although it is recognized that the concept of "God", like many others, is slightly different in Zarathushtrian thought. Zarathushtra might best be considered, if we are to use modern terms to describe his doctrines, a Panentheist, that is he perceives a Supreme Being Thus this Creator is immanent in Creation but also transcends it . In fact as has been said one can see Mazda Ahura as containing creation in a way.

Moreover, the very concept of Lordship and Sovereignty are different, Ahura which is often translated as lord was the name of a set of old arya Gods which were totally abstract lacking any form, they can best considered as energy since they have no body, yet they are personal. In addition Mazda does not into impose Her/His will but rather teachs, persuades etc. Thus Mazda's relationship with mortals is one of a partner, an ally, a friend and even a soul mate ) This being who is source of all that exists. The name Ahura Mazda contains both masculine and feminine elements. (Ahura, the Lord, is masculine while Mazda, Most or Super Wise or Knowledgeable, and Most or Super Giving or Generous One, is feminine.)

Ahura Mazda, according to Zoroastrian belief, is the Eternal, the Pure and the only Truth. In the Gathas, which are the oldest texts in Zoroastrianism and which are considered to have been written by Zoroaster himself, the teacher gives devotion to no other divinity besides Ahura Mazda.

What are the Gathas?

The Gathas are scripture written in an ancient Indo-Iranian verse form. Gatha means 'Song.' There are 17 Gathic hymns, they exist both on their own and as part of the much larger Avesta. They are the earliest of the Zoroastrian writings. What about Dualism? Perhaps the most well-known of later Zoroastrian doctrines is the doctrine of Dualism or Ditheism. This posits that Ahura Mazda has two 'emanations' called Spenta Mainyu (Good Mind) and Angra Mainyu (Bad or Evil Mind.) These became in later Zoroastrian belief Ormazd and Ahriman.

This doctrine, however, is purely a product of later thought. In Zoroaster's revelation,there is only Ahura Mazda who will ultimately triumph over the 'lie'(Yasna 48.1.) But not here and not now. For now human beings must choose which of the two 'forces' they will serve, Truth or the Lie, this choosing is a life-long affair but righteousness begins by making the first choice for Ahura Mazda and for the Truth.

Quote:"…Listen to the best things with your ears, reflect upon them with an unbiased mind. Then let each man and women for him or her self choose between the two ways of thinking. Awaken to my doctrine, before this great event of choice comes upon you…" [Avesta: The Gathas: Song 3:2 (FreeTranslation)]

What about Converts?

There are two main groups who can be considered 'cultural' Zoroastrians, they are the Zoroastrian community in Iran and the Parsee community in India. The Parsees (refugees in India from the invasion of Iran by the Muslims) do not allow conversion at all. The Iranian community does but quietly and carefully for conversion from Islam is considered a crime in Iran. But as well as these groups there are groups of 'Gathas-only' Zoroastrian converts by choice springing up throughout the world with the major centres for such groups being the US and South America. So it is indeed possible to convert to Zoroastrianism.

See also the article at: <url>http://tinyurl.com/svs5k </url>

What does Zoroastrianism teach?

This part of the article I have struggled with, the teachings of Zoroastrianism are deep and wide but I think the following quote from: <url>http://www.zoroastrianism.cc/universal_religion.html</url> is perhaps the best definition I have read.

Quote:"… Zarathushtra's is a message about a spirituality that progresses towards self-realization, fulfillment and completeness, as a good creation of a totally good God. It is a message of freedom - freedom to choose, freedom from fear, freedom from guilt, freedom from sin, freedom from stultifying rituals, superstitious practices, fake spirituality and ceremonials. The God of Zarathustra, is not a God of "Thou shalt" and "Thou shall not". God in Zoroastrianism does not care what you wear, what and when you eat or where and when you worship. God instead cares how righteous, progressive and good you are.

1. God is not about fear guilt and Condemnation.

2. God is Wisdom Love and Logic.

3. God does not have favorites and does not discriminate on the basis of nationality, sex, race or class.

4. God treats humans with dignity and respect.

5. God is not a slave master, or despot, among his serfs.

6. God is man's Soul Mate and Partner.

7. God is not Jealous, Wrathful or Vengeful.

8. Man is not sinful, fallen or depraved.

9. God has no opponent and heaven and hell are states of mind and being.

10. Man was created to progress to God-likeness and eliminate wrong from the Cosmos in partnership with God.

The Zoroastrian Religion pictures humanity as the growing and evolving creation of a God that respects it, and wants it to collaborate in the task of preserving, nourishing, fostering and refreshing this Living World and all it offers. A Zoroastrian is supposed to progress towards God (Ahura Mazda) by their own choices. Choosing to do good, and to avoid choosing to do wrong or evil. Zoroastrianism is thus the first truly ethical religion of human-kind and teaches that mortals achieve their goal of god-likeness and spiritual completeness by fighting evil through good thoughts, words and deeds. …"
The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism. Longhairs, beards, necklaces, LSD and rock, Big Sur and Woodstock come and go, but Babylon is always there.

Hugh Nibley
Offline
User avatar

Artful Revealer

Registered User

3 stars

  • Posts: 1178
  • Joined: 28 February 2013
  • Location: Realm of Veils
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks Received: 427

Re: Zoroaster, Monotheism & Christianity

PostThu Jul 11, 2013 8:33 pm

Thanks for your contribution, kiwimac.

Nice bump, Scimi. ;)

My turn to bump it now, since there still are unanswered questions.


@ Misty

MistyMountain wrote:Another excellently written and highly interesting article, Mr. Revealer. :)

Thank you, Ms. Mountain.

MistyMountain wrote:Firstly - I liked your use of the Balrog pic, lol. Controversial, but fitting imo.

I had this verse of 2 Samuel in mind when posting that picture:

    [7] In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried to my God: and he did hear my voice out of his temple, and my cry did enter into his ears.
    [8] Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations of heaven moved and shook, because he was wroth.
    [9] There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it.
    [10] He bowed the heavens also, and came down; and darkness was under his feet.
    [11] And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: and he was seen upon the wings of the wind.
    [12] And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies.
    [13] Through the brightness before him were coals of fire kindled.

:shh:

MistyMountain wrote:I've been thinking about what you said here for some time:

Church Fathers went through a lot of trouble to try and eradicate and obscure a significant aspect of Christian teachings; teachings inextricably linked to, constituting even, the origins of Christianity.

That they went to so much trouble to rid the world of Gnostic Christians and their teachings should be enough to raise suspicions in anyone's mind. Why were they so threatened if what they were trying to lead people towards was the truth?? They wouldn't need to control the message to the extent of slaughtering an entire group of people, if they weren't trying to hide something. Gnosis, being about finding and strengthening one's own connection to God, doesn't leave room for manipulators to worm their way in I guess. Highjacking the path to God has turned out to be a great way of controlling the masses.

The title of Church Father is a bit relative, since its application is merely the result of a selection process, just like gospels have been selected for the biblical canon. There were plenty more potential Church Fathers that just didn't qualify simply due to the fact that history has always been vulnerable to the subjectivity of those who make it.

But I can't exclude the possibility that more sinister aspirations were at stake, since Christianity in Rome became primarily a political institution and therefore positions of power within the religious apparatus became more relevant.


MistyMountain wrote:You mentioned the "Covenant" that certain clergy made with Yahweh - what pact are you referring to? Are we meant to view this sort of pact or covenant literally? I mean, how would one go about signing a pact with an Archdemon anyway lol?

I'm not referring to a specific pact rather than the biblical covenants that are made between the god of Israel and his chosen people. There have been several of those according to scripture (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, ...)

The point is, pacts aren't made with God. You sign deals with ... someone else. But that you knew.


MistyMountain wrote:I've seen you mention a couple of times now that the Catholic or Orthodox church is "the body of Christ". How do you mean?

Since this is probably the most delicate of things to describe, I'll link you through to a good text on this matter:

Christ and the Church

An excerpt:
    The most sophisticated theory of the Church is found in the Valentinian school. They drew on a metaphor derived from Saint Paul to decribe the Church as the "body of Christ" which is manifested in the of the activity of the Holy Spirit. Valentinians developed this metaphor and made it central to their understanding of Christology and the process of redemption.

    As the teacher Theodotus says, "The Spirit which each of the prophets received specially for his ministry is poured out upon all in the Church: therefore the signs of the Spirit - healings and prophesyings - are accomplished through the Church" (Excerpts of Theodotus24,1).

    The figure of the Holy Spirit is often refered to as Wisdom (Sophia) in Valentinianism (cf Irenaeus 1:4:1). Based on the parable of the sower, the Holy Spirit (Wisdom) is said to sow her "spiritual seed" within human beings. It is this seed which enables human beings to "bear fruit" through gnosis. All who have received this "seed" are part of the "Church" (Irenaeus Against Heresies 1:5:6, 1:8:1 cf Excepts of Theodotus 40,1). Extending the agricultural metaphor, Herakleon describes the salvation of those who have the seed as a harvest in which "some were on the point of being ready, some are near to being ready and some are still being sown" (Herakeon Fragment 32). The Church is the "assembly" of all who have been redeemed and all who will be redeemed in the future.


MistyMountain wrote:In Pathways to Bliss, Joseph Campbell says: "According to Zarathustra (or Zoroaster), a restoration of the perfect world is under way, and we can participate in that restoration. By favoring the good against the evil in our lives and deeds, we will gradually help restore the lost good world." :thumbup:

Nice. :thumbup:


MistyMountain wrote:What do 'they' have to gain by replacing the idea of the "Primordial Order or Fullness" with "Primordial Chaos"? Why is it better for them if we think life originated in chaos?

Since 'they' believe in the god of this world, the lowest of dimensions, they need to create the idea that there is nothing above him, that he is the creator of all things.

Ordo ab Chao, Masonry's 33rd degree motto, basically signifies the work of the Great Architect who created order out of chaos as well as the Masons' creed to replicate what the Great Architect did by creating order out of chaos on Earth. Their vision is to "create" the divine here below. Turning pre-creation dimension into chaos justifies the order the creator god created, just as chaos on Earth justifies our global leaders to create order. When you inverse that mental structure and explain to people that the material creation actually got us out of order into chaos, you'd change alot about how people look at things, I'd wager. At least I can speak for myself.


MistyMountain wrote:It's interesting that the same basic story has been told for 1000's of years: The Mother & The Father; An & Ki; Pitar & Matar. This ancient mythological tradition of representing the duality (male/female) seems not to have carried through to mainstream Christianity, correct? At least, I can't think of any 'Mother' equivalent. I wonder why this would be, what would there be to gain by cutting The Mother out of the equation?

I'm unsure of the answer to be honest. Might just be because of the patriarchal character of Abrahamic religion coupled with that of Greco-Roman society. The Mother-equivalent does exist in Christianity, or at least it did. Before the the Trinity became Orthodox, it was defined as the Father, the Mother and the Son by Valentinius, which you already know of course. ;) That is way more in accordance with Zoroastrianism where Ahura (male) and Mazda (female) resemble the Gnostic Father and Sophia, the feminin aspect of the Pleroma, and with other spiritual traditions that saw God as androgynous.


MistyMountain wrote:So, "Indra" is "Yahweh" too?? That's almost as mind-blowing to me as your revelation that Yahweh was the Archdemon! So Hindus have unknowingly been worshipping this being too? :eh:

:shifty:

Thx for your appreciation & contribution!
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled is convincing the world he is God.
Offline
User avatar

Tweeterfist

Registered User

1 star

  • Posts: 181
  • Joined: 28 February 2013
  • Thanks Received: 73

Re: Zoroaster, Monotheism & Christianity

PostSun Jul 28, 2013 9:00 am

Many sweet but ultimately empty words. The seducing logic of man, propelled by mere pride in the guise of spirituality.

The Lord's sheep will hear Him. His will will be done.
Offline
User avatar

enkidu2368

Praetor-

Registered User

3 stars

  • Posts: 1247
  • Joined: 27 February 2013
  • Location: Britannia-
  • Thanks Received: 285

Re: Zoroaster, Monotheism & Christianity

PostSun Jul 28, 2013 8:01 pm

Tweeterfist wrote:Many sweet but ultimately empty words. The seducing logic of man, propelled by mere pride in the guise of spirituality.

The Lord's sheep will hear Him. His will will be done.



You Christians have the enormous pride that you know the will of god?

your's is the sin of lucifer himself...
...this world is only play and amusement, pomp and mutual boasting among you, and rivalry in respect of wealth and children, as the likeness of vegetation after rain, thereof the growth is pleasing to the tiller; afterwards it dries up and you see it turning yellow; then it becomes straw. Al-Hadid (020)
Offline
User avatar

Tweeterfist

Registered User

1 star

  • Posts: 181
  • Joined: 28 February 2013
  • Thanks Received: 73

Re: Zoroaster, Monotheism & Christianity

PostFri Aug 02, 2013 4:22 pm

enkidu2368 wrote:
Tweeterfist wrote:Many sweet but ultimately empty words. The seducing logic of man, propelled by mere pride in the guise of spirituality.

The Lord's sheep will hear Him. His will will be done.



You Christians have the enormous pride that you know the will of god?

your's is the sin of lucifer himself...

I am prideful because I know the will of God is for His will to be done?
Offline

Rockstar

Registered User

0 stars

  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 26 May 2013
  • Thanks Received: 2

Re: Zoroaster, Monotheism & Christianity

PostMon Aug 05, 2013 11:28 am

Tweeterfist wrote:
enkidu2368 wrote:
Tweeterfist wrote:Many sweet but ultimately empty words. The seducing logic of man, propelled by mere pride in the guise of spirituality.

The Lord's sheep will hear Him. His will will be done.



You Christians have the enormous pride that you know the will of god?

your's is the sin of lucifer himself...

I am prideful because I know the will of God is for His will to be done?


"When confronted with a problem involving the use of the reasoning faculties, individuals of strong intellect keep their poise, and seek to reach a solution by obtaining facts bearing upon the question. Those of immature mentality, on the other hand, when similarly confronted, are overwhelmed. While the former may be qualified to solve the riddle of their own destiny, the latter must be led like a flock of sheep and taught in simple language. They depend almost entirely upon the ministrations of the shepherd. The Apostle Paul said that these little ones must be fed with milk, but that meat is the food of strong men. Thoughtlessness is almost synonymous with childishness, while thoughtfulness is symbolic of maturity." -Manly P.Hall
Your pride is based on a series of text that was deemed "true enough" by a commission made from men of questionable motives. The seducing false-logic of the church, propelled by ignorance in the guise of religion.
Offline
User avatar

Tweeterfist

Registered User

1 star

  • Posts: 181
  • Joined: 28 February 2013
  • Thanks Received: 73

Re: Zoroaster, Monotheism & Christianity

PostMon Aug 05, 2013 9:40 pm

Rockstar wrote:
Tweeterfist wrote:
enkidu2368 wrote:You Christians have the enormous pride that you know the will of god?

your's is the sin of lucifer himself...

I am prideful because I know the will of God is for His will to be done?


"When confronted with a problem involving the use of the reasoning faculties, individuals of strong intellect keep their poise, and seek to reach a solution by obtaining facts bearing upon the question. Those of immature mentality, on the other hand, when similarly confronted, are overwhelmed. While the former may be qualified to solve the riddle of their own destiny, the latter must be led like a flock of sheep and taught in simple language. They depend almost entirely upon the ministrations of the shepherd. The Apostle Paul said that these little ones must be fed with milk, but that meat is the food of strong men. Thoughtlessness is almost synonymous with childishness, while thoughtfulness is symbolic of maturity." -Manly P.Hall

I find it quite ironic that in a paragraph discussing the use of ''reasoning faculties,'' Manly P. Hall here has yet again taken Biblical scripture wildly out of context, seeming to insinuate that to be able to eat spiritual ''meat'' then one will seek ''knowledge'' in the occult sense, that of introversion and pursuit of wisdom through self.

He loosely quotes the first few passages of 1 Corinthians 3 obviously without even understanding the very paradigm by which Paul writes.

Milk is needed for the spiritually immature. Who are the spiritually immature? They are those who still give reign towards a sin drenched carnality of mind and action, which all new believers are saturated in given our natures in the flesh, thus needing ''milk'' which is the more easily digestible points of doctrine, that of such being more easily understood by ''babes'' in the faith.

When a believer begins showing evidences of a deep renewing of mind and produce of fruit given by the Holy Spirit, it can be discerned they are more spiritually mature and are able to digest ''solid food'' which are the deeper riches in doctrine.

The difference between ''milk'' and ''solid food'' here can be easily distinguished through contrasting the natures of the epistles themselves. 1 Corinthians is a letter towards the church at Corinth who, we are told, are suffering from a number of issues. Naturally then, Paul is primarily concerned with rebuking and edifying these points. Milk.

Whereas an epistle like that of Ephesians is directed towards a much more mature church, thus containing topics like the mystery of the church and it being much as like the body of Christ. Solid food.

What is clearly taught to all believers and churches though is that the ''ministering of the shepherd,'' as Manly P. Hall puts it, is essential. This in itself is a facet of the mystery of the church, the head being the Master Shepherd, Jesus Christ, of whom gave us the Holy Spirit, only through which we can even begin to comprehend spiritual wisdom.

Manly P. Hall should have continued reading 1 Corinthians 3, to verse 18, which reads, 18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; [a] 20 and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.”[b] 21 Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours: 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come—all are yours. 23 And you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

Rockstar wrote:Your pride is based on a series of text that was deemed "true enough" by a commission made from men of questionable motives. The seducing false-logic of the church, propelled by ignorance in the guise of religion.

But you are comfortable to quote something which itself is comfortable to quote and misconstrue a point from a text you see as ''false-logic...propelled by ignorance in the guise of religion.'' Is this to be true-logic?

You mistake trust and joy for pride.
Offline

Rockstar

Registered User

0 stars

  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 26 May 2013
  • Thanks Received: 2

Re: Zoroaster, Monotheism & Christianity

PostSat Aug 10, 2013 7:14 pm

I find it quite ironic that in a paragraph discussing the use of ''reasoning faculties,'' Manly P. Hall here has yet again taken Biblical scripture wildly out of context, seeming to insinuate that to be able to eat spiritual ''meat'' then one will seek ''knowledge'' in the occult sense, that of introversion and pursuit of wisdom through self.

He loosely quotes the first few passages of 1 Corinthians 3 obviously without even understanding the very paradigm by which Paul writes.

Milk is needed for the spiritually immature. Who are the spiritually immature? They are those who still give reign towards a sin drenched carnality of mind and action, which all new believers are saturated in given our natures in the flesh, thus needing ''milk'' which is the more easily digestible points of doctrine, that of such being more easily understood by ''babes'' in the faith.

When a believer begins showing evidences of a deep renewing of mind and produce of fruit given by the Holy Spirit, it can be discerned they are more spiritually mature and are able to digest ''solid food'' which are the deeper riches in doctrine.

The difference between ''milk'' and ''solid food'' here can be easily distinguished through contrasting the natures of the epistles themselves. 1 Corinthians is a letter towards the church at Corinth who, we are told, are suffering from a number of issues. Naturally then, Paul is primarily concerned with rebuking and edifying these points. Milk.

Whereas an epistle like that of Ephesians is directed towards a much more mature church, thus containing topics like the mystery of the church and it being much as like the body of Christ. Solid food.

What is clearly taught to all believers and churches though is that the ''ministering of the shepherd,'' as Manly P. Hall puts it, is essential. This in itself is a facet of the mystery of the church, the head being the Master Shepherd, Jesus Christ, of whom gave us the Holy Spirit, only through which we can even begin to comprehend spiritual wisdom.

Manly P. Hall should have continued reading 1 Corinthians 3, to verse 18, which reads, 18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; [a] 20 and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.”[b] 21 Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours: 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come—all are yours. 23 And you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

Rockstar wrote:Your pride is based on a series of text that was deemed "true enough" by a commission made from men of questionable motives. The seducing false-logic of the church, propelled by ignorance in the guise of religion.

But you are comfortable to quote something which itself is comfortable to quote and misconstrue a point from a text you see as ''false-logic...propelled by ignorance in the guise of religion.'' Is this to be true-logic?

You mistake trust and joy for pride.


Hall decided for himself, not without some amount of research, that St.Paul was very likely an initiate of the Dionysiac Mysteries, which would place this passage in an entirely different light. Now whether or not such assumption is without merits is entirely irrelevant since none can really tell for sure with the scant amount of concrete information we have, and Hall did all what he and countless other researchers - Catholic, Rosicrucianistic or otherwise - could do, to take a wild guess. What I can say for sure that I was not "comfortable to quote something which itself is comfortable to quote and misconstrue a point from a text you see as ''false-logic...propelled by ignorance in the guise of religion.''" for 1:the inclusion of anything in the official Bible have never made it inherently false or true, it only makes it official and 2:the lack of intention to take something out of context make your entire analogy redundant.

And with that we have gone back full circle. I wanted a well thought out argument on why Artful Revealer's words are "sweet but ultimately empty words. The seducing logic of man, propelled by mere pride in the guise of spirituality", instead I got this. Not only did you not have the spine to back up your own world view with logic and reasons, you instead tried to nitpick non-existent gap holes in others' criticisms towards your own. You are supposed to preach the good news, not act like school children and try to derail religion threads that don't agree with you. This is against the very point of this forum, not to mention the very thing Christianity is all about.
Offline
User avatar

Tweeterfist

Registered User

1 star

  • Posts: 181
  • Joined: 28 February 2013
  • Thanks Received: 73

Re: Zoroaster, Monotheism & Christianity

PostSat Aug 17, 2013 3:59 pm

Rockstar wrote:Hall decided for himself, not without some amount of research, that St.Paul was very likely an initiate of the Dionysiac Mysteries, which would place this passage in an entirely different light. Now whether or not such assumption is without merits is entirely irrelevant since none can really tell for sure with the scant amount of concrete information we have, and Hall did all what he and countless other researchers - Catholic, Rosicrucianistic or otherwise - could do, to take a wild guess.

Simple exegesis towards even just 1 Corinthians as a whole should clearly refute that notion. The Greek is condemned in his pursuit of wisdom (Obviously referring to the Grecian Mysteries and philosophy) and clearly distinguished from Paul and the message of Christ (1 Cor. 1:22-23). This alongside many other examples that clearly contradict the Dionysiac Mysteries, from denouncing pagan morality (1 Cor. 5, 6:12-20) to the nature of spiritual wisdom (1 Cor. 2:6-13) to the glorifying of genuine Israel and denouncing of idolatry (1 Cor. 10:1-22). I could have included even more from specific verses.

What I can say for sure that I was not "comfortable to quote something which itself is comfortable to quote and misconstrue a point from a text you see as ''false-logic...propelled by ignorance in the guise of religion.''" for 1:the inclusion of anything in the official Bible have never made it inherently false or true, it only makes it official and 2:the lack of intention to take something out of context make your entire analogy redundant.

I just thought it to be nice to show the irony and absurdity of a quote proclaiming ''reasoning'' and ''strong intellect'' while a gross case of eisegesis blemishes the whole paragraph.

And with that we have gone back full circle. I wanted a well thought out argument on why Artful Revealer's words are "sweet but ultimately empty words. The seducing logic of man, propelled by mere pride in the guise of spirituality", instead I got this.

Did you? I simply assumed you wanted to send off a quote that condemns my thought processes and then turn my words back at me, so I returned it in kindness.

Not only did you not have the spine to back up your own world view with logic and reasons, you instead tried to nitpick non-existent gap holes in others' criticisms towards your own.

So I am expected to back up my world view with logic and reasons so that you can not hear them and drop a bomb of words back at me, and on and on until one of us get's tired and just leaves... yeah, I've done this before. Many times. I have debated current members here in the past on this and related subjects to have much of what I was saying ignored entirely and it not getting anywhere...

Indeed my world view can be backed up with logic and reason and I've spent years debating people through those means on forums like this. People who really actually didn't give a damn to hear what I have to say but simply wanted to see what they could try to refute. People with their minds darkened by sin, people who let their desperately wicked and deceitful hearts reign, even as they had called themselves a ''free'' and ''logical'' thinker, not knowing that we are all slaves and depraved.

I assume you are not Christian so let me ask you, if you were ever to be converted towards Christ, would logic and reasons do it? What would?

You are supposed to preach the good news, not act like school children and try to derail religion threads that don't agree with you. This is against the very point of this forum, not to mention the very thing Christianity is all about.

Maybe you haven't discerned but I have been preaching the good news so far. Some just don't find it to sound all that good. But know that it is by God's love I type on this keyboard to you. If you have found me acting like a child then I apologize. I came in with a condemnation and a proclamation but that need not mean we personally attack each other, as can easily happen here.

You are right about derailing however. That is not fair to Art. If you wish to continue this conversation through private message then by all means. I hope to talk and share more with each other. :) May the Lord make it so.
Offline
User avatar

jashutson13

Funnyfarm escapee

Registered User

2 stars

  • Posts: 706
  • Joined: 28 February 2013
  • Location: middle earth
  • Gender: Female
  • Thanks Received: 145

Re: Zoroaster, Monotheism & Christianity

PostMon Jan 20, 2014 11:16 pm

Right now I am reading a book called creation by gore vidal, fiction in a sense, it is a story told by cyrus the great, grandson of zoroaster. Thought maybe we could open up this discussion again.
    Loki: Well when a man loves another man....
PreviousNext

Return to Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron