>“Zoroastrianism was ackshually le first monotheistic religion”This is untrue. Zoroastrianism believes in a bunch of lesser divinities called yazatas (hell, in several multilingual inscriptions from the Sassanid-era such as the Res Gestae Divi Saporis, the word yazata, which in Middle Persian is rendered as yazd, was literally translated to the Greek word for gods, theós). While they do mainly worship Ahura Mazda and believe him to be the supreme being, this is just henotheism, not proper monotheism.The only reason anyone claims Zoroastrianism is monotheistic is because of two reasons:>Western orientalists reinterpreting Zoroastrian texts to make Zoroastrianism seem more “exotic” to a western audience, such as Martin Haug who proposed a new interpretation of Yasna 30.3 by claiming the latter of the “twin spirits” was Spenta Mainyu rather than Ahura Mazda, and that the former (Angra Mainyu) was an emanation of Ahura Mazda rather than his binary opposite.>Parsis (Indian Zoroastrians that descend from Persian Zoroastrians who fled the Arab conquests to India) claiming to be monotheistic in the late 19th century and adopting the new interpretations of orientalists like Haug solely to get Christian missionaries to stop harassing them (which is actually kinda understandable honestly).Zoroastrianism is a kino religion yes, but it is not monotheistic and it’s stupid that people still claim it is one. If you want to actually understand Zoroastrian theology, here’s a collection of Zoroastrian literature:https://avesta.org/
>picobviously made with lost tech
>>18326937Zoroastrianism, like the Sanatana Dharma, sees God in everything, so all those deities are actually the same Abrahamic Godreligions are many, but God is One
>>18326937Ngl academics are to this day still fighting over what exactly should one classify Zoroastrianism as. SoI think it's somewhat dishonest to pretend like this is undisputable and set in stone.
>>18326937Ahura Mazda and the Yazatas are in a different rank, so this translates to more like God+angels rather than many gods. So in this regard, Christianity and Judaism could also be called henotheist.The norm is that the popular version of a religion is more at the polytheist end of the spectrum, while the educated elite is monotheist (or deist/pantheist), seeing all divine beings as aspects of a supreme deity. This is true for Hinduism, Taoism, Greco-Roman religion (their elites were basically monotheists before Christianity), even Christianity since worship of saints tends to be more prominent in the lower class, and likely Zoroastrianism too.
Christianity has a trinity, angels of varying rank and the virgin Mary. Having three individual but not actually deities of equal rank is far worse.
>>18326937why doesn't mazda have a car called the ahura
none of this matters because any random hick with a fake degree in whatever stupid religion you are thinking of can just go "Hey I bet there is also some magic stuff going on over here!" and invent a new part of your religionAnd you can't just contradict them on the facts because the facts are the same on both sides of the equationIf you are a super wizard man preaching the lore of the secret superpower fantasy rules your only recourse is just getting authoritarian, which just makes retards and primitives more stubborn.
>>18327074This is why Orthodoxy exists, so some guy can't just make shit up.
>>18327076>implying the people who made the orthodoxy weren't also making shit up
>>18326937Don't pagans believe in a greater 'Creator God' above the pantheon?
>>18326937Its a dualistic religion but so is judeo-christianity and mudslimes
>>18327074>>18327076Zoroastrianism does have an Orthodoxy though, splinter sects like the Zurvanites were branded as heretics.
>>18327316Not all Pagans, you're thinking of the Pythagorean and Neoplatonic Monad, the Supreme Divine, from which all emanates from. But the Monad isn't really a God in the Pagan sense, but the sum of all things, both profane and divine, being ranked by how close they are to the source, the Gods being the highest, the material world the lowest, our souls somewhere in the middle, rising or falling towards the Ultimate Good according to our actions. At least in the Neoplatonic view, I don't know enough about Pythagorean though to comment on them.
>>18327083It's not some guy, though. It's the arch-priestleader and high sacrificer.>>18327338Yeah that's exactly what I mean thoughie. I'm not sure it's the Zurvanites who were unorthodox. I've yet to actually find a good full book zoroastrianism, so I'm very hazy on everything.Except the incest marriage, a guy here once linked a very thorough monograph on the subject.
>>18327492>I've yet to actually find a good full book zoroastrianism, so I'm very hazy on everything.I recommend you read the Bundahishn. It’s not a holy scripture, but it does give you a general idea of Zoroastrian beliefs and cosmology.
>>18327492Mary Boyce is pretty much the go to for books
>>18326937Is the whole incest thing real or did Crusader Kings make it up?
https://www.hinduwebsite.com/zoroastrianism/sin.aspList of Sins in the Menog-i-khardZoroastrian texts provide detailed lists of various kinds of sins men should avoid. In the Menog-i-khard (Chp. 36) we find the following list of 30 grievous sins.1.Of the sin which people commit, unnatural intercourse is the most heinous.2.The second is he who has suffered or performed intercourse with men.3.The third, who slays a righteous man.4.The fourth, who breaks off a next-of-kin marriage.5.The fifth, who destroys the arrangement of an adopted son (sator).6.The sixth, who smites the fire of Warharan.7.The seventh, who kills a water-beaver8.The eighth, who worships an idol. Why the beaver? What's so special about it?
>>18327612Beavers are cute!
>>18327617
>>18327604Mistranslation or misinterpreted (purposefully or not). It means marrying into another’s group
>>18327604Cousin marriage was viewed as divine but anything beyond that was for royalty
>>18327633https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/17575821/#17577444This book seems to state otherwise. This is not an attempt at a gotcha.
>>18327604Xwedodah was real yes, but people tend to exaggerate it a bit. It wasn’t really practiced by anyone outside of nobility, which is on par with other Near Eastern societies like Ancient Egypt who also believed incest to be virtuous, yet didn’t practice it outside of nobility.
>>18327704>Ancient Egypt who also believed incest to be virtuous, yet didn’t practice it outside of nobility.I thought there was evidence from Roman Egypt that incestous marriages were actually practiced by commonfolk?
>>18327712The thread I linked >>18327696 has book excerpts about that. Ignore the OP's commentary, he was an incest fetishist. That said, I think the actual text is solid in its use of textual sources to establish the non-exclusivity of incestual marriage.
>>18327730It's weird. I only learned recently that the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus was built by the guy's sister and wife. Seems like the Eastern Mediterranean + Middle East was rife with it but most other places it was super taboo.Maybe they really did have God-Kings.
>>18327736Royal and noble incest is not that strange, actually. You can actually see it around the world, not just in the middle east. Hawaii had it (and at least according to travelers accounts, they suffered no adverse effects from their sustained 1st degree consanguinity).
