The World Mythology and Legend (2d ed.) Encyclopedia offers a few of the following helpful summary details. According to tradition, he was born when his mother was only 15, having come in contact with the sacred "Haoma plant." As soon as he was born [the story goes], he could talk, and spoke with the "good God, Ahura mazda." At the age of thirty, he had his first vision, and began to teach the "Good Religion," as it was then called.
He held that Ahura Mazda created the created the world, as was in conflict with the evil spirit, "Ahriman," over whom the forces of Ahura Mazda would gain victory in a battle of good versus evil, in which evil would be destroyed. The wikipedia article on Zoroastrianism identifes its fundamental precepts as the following:
1. There is one universal and transcendent God, Ahura Mazda, the one uncreated Creator and to whom all worship is ultimately directed.
2. Ahura Mazda's creation - evident as asha, truth and order - is the antithesis of chaos, evident as druj, falsehood and disorder. The resulting conflict involves the entire universe, including humanity, which has an active role to play in the conflict (see #3 below).
3. Active participation in life through good thoughts, good words and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep the chaos at bay. This active participation is a central element in Zoroaster's concept of free will, and Zoroastrianism rejects all forms of monasticism.
4. Ahura Mazda will ultimately prevail, at which point the universe will undergo a cosmic renovation and time will end (cf: Zoroastrian eschatology). In the final renovation, all of creation - even the souls of the dead that were initially banished to "darkness" - will be (re)united in God.
5. In Zoroastrian tradition, the malevolent is represented by Angra Mainyu, the "Destructive Principle", while the benevolent is represented through Ahura Mazda's Spenta Mainyu, the instrument or "Bounteous Principle" of the act of creation. It is through Spenta Mainyu that Ahura Mazda is immanent in humankind, and through which the Creator interacts with the world. According to Zoroastrian cosmology, in articulating the Ahuna Vairya formula, Ahura Mazda made the ultimate triumph evident to Angra Mainyu.
6. As expressions and aspects of Creation, Ahura Mazda emanated seven "sparks", the Amesha Spentas, "Bounteous Immortals" that are each the hypostasis and representative of one aspect of that Creation. These Amesha Spenta are in turn assisted by a league of lesser principles, the Yazatas, each "Worthy of Worship" and each again a hypostasis of a moral or physical aspect of Creation.
Other characteristics
The symbol of fire: The energy of the creator is represented in Zoroastrianism by fire and the sun which are both enduring, radiant, pure and life sustaining. Zoroastrians usually pray in front of some form of fire (or any source of light).
Proselytizing and conversion: Parsi Zoroastrians do not proselytize. In recent years, however, Zoroastrian communities in both Iran, Europe and the Americas have been more tolerant towards conversion. While this move has not been supported officially by the priesthood in Mumbai, India, it has been endorsed by the Council of Mobeds in Tehran.
Inter-faith marriages: As in many other faiths, Zoroastrians are strongly encouraged to marry others of the same faith, but this is not a requirement of the religion itself. Some members of the Indian Zoroastrian community (the Parsis) contend that a child must have a Parsi father to be eligible for introduction into the faith, but this assertion is considered by most to be a violation of the Zoroastrian tenets of gender equality, and may be a remnant of an old legal definition (since overruled) of Parsi.
However, to this day, some priests will not perform the Navjote ceremony - i.e. the rites of admission into the religion - for children of mixed-marriages, irrespective of which parent is a non-Parsi. This issue is a matter of great debate within the Parsi community, but with the increasingly global nature of modern society and the dwindling number of Zoroastrians, such opinions are less vociferous than they previously were.
Death and burial: Religious rituals related to death are all concerned with the person's soul and not the body. Zoroastrians believe that on the fourth day after death, the human soul leaves the body and the body remains as an empty shell. Traditionally, Zoroastrians disposed of their dead by leaving them atop open-topped enclosures, called Towers of Silence, or Dokhmas. Vultures and the weather would clean the flesh off the bones, which were then placed into an ossuary at the center of the Tower. Fire and Earth were considered too sacred for the dead to be placed in them. While this practice is continued in India by some Parsis, it had ended by the beginning of the twentieth century in Iran. In India, burial and cremation are becoming increasingly popular alternatives.
A Rational Assessment of Zoroastian Doctrines.
Zoroastrians, of course, want us to think that they do not worship fire, but only use it as a medium or channel, as a symbol and a point of focus, much like the crucifix in Romanism. This has always been the pagan excuse for idolatry in prayer, and was precisely that view against which the second commandment in the Bible is directed. No mediation of prayer by any person or instrument whatever, does the Bible acknowledge, but One. Just as it is written: "for there is but One God, and one mediator between God and man, The Man, Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy 1:15).
Various man-made religions propound a view of the world,explaining disparate aspects of human experience separately. Worldviews explain. They try to explain, as a singular unit of thought, all the various events and phenomena we experience, in a unified, comprehensive, and coherent manner.
The fundamental problem with man-made worldviews stems from the fact that they necessarily form in a piecemeal fashion, bit by bit, one explanation of one aspect of reality at a time. This means that inevitably, one explanation (of this or that feature of reality) finds itself, by logical implication, at odds with the other explained features it purports to describe accurately.
These numerous dialectical tensions, or basic and irresolvable internal conflicts, wave the man-made certificate in full view of any audience willing to notice when each such (makeshift) worldview sports its "man-made" credentials.
One, and only one, worldview is different. This is that system of theology derived by properly handling the many texts of the 66 books of the canonical Bible. It carries the sure sign (sine qua non) of divine origin, in explaining -- when presupposed all at once in its entirety -- consistently all the many parcels of reality requiring explanation. This feature of the biblical worldview shines most brightly when set over against an alleged competitor for comparison.
To that comparison, I will now proceed, in a brief and final section of this post I will call "Zoroastrianism v. The Word of God." While the conclusion is foregone of necessity, for "there is no wisdom, no insight, no plan, which can succeed against the Lord," the details are instructive enough to warrant the assessment.
Problems in the Zoroastrian worldview.
1. Theistic dualism renders it impossible to know whether the god of evil -- in this case "Ahriman" -- has in fact deceived us into believing that the "evil god" is in fact the "good God." Without a self-authorizing legal code, a standard providing a great deal of information to explain what kind of world this is (a thoroughgoing metaphysical outlook), how we know what we know (a justified epistemology), and how we should live our lives (a comprehensive ethical standard) -- which alone provides the foundations for logic, science and morality -- there is simply no way to distinguish self-consciously and accurately the two "gods" in a world like that of Zoroaster, which allows the free will and power afforded to the evil god we see in this religion.
2. Zoroastrians wander between two gods, and many gods (bi-theism and polytheism), for its Scripture names other gods allegedly on the side of either rival deity. Polytheism has its own set of unique problems in violating the explanatory principle of Ockham's razor. In the context of worldviews, this means, "never add more gods than is necessary to explain what you must." The gods of any and every polytheistic system end up with conflicting attributes, goals, and personalities sufficient to destroy the possibility of order in the first place.
Destructive titans who do not sleep, but fight continually with world-making (or destroying) power, simply do not provide the calm and serene conditions we see on our planet where the sun comes up day in and day out -- the uniformity of nature (by name) -- which forms the metaphysical basis for doing inductions in reasoning, and of the sciences.
In short, if this world were a cosmic WWE wrestling match between deified beings, if the bad guys didn't survive, what hope do we puny mortals have of dodging the asteroids one god might hurl at another? This simply does not look anything like a polytheistically conflicted world, of the sort described in the Zoroastrian (or for that matter, Hindu, Greco-Roman or Mormon) worldview.
In the biblical worldview, God has enemies, but no rivals. He is absolutely and singularly sovereign. Satan is on a very short leash, and can do nothing without God's permission, which might affect the Kingdom of God on earth, or in heaven - as the book of Job renders clear. The polytheistic (multiple conflicting deities used for explaining different aspects of reality) problem simply does not exist here.
Additionally, polytheisms can never adequately explain all the various events and phenomena we encounter since they have different numbers of gods. This represents a telling admission. Do we simply need a "god of the wind," or do we need a different god for the east wind, the west wind, or even the various territorial winds, characteristic tradewinds common to different regions, nations or even jetstreams (current existing only at much higher altitudes)? Each polytheistic faith answers these questions, differently -- thus admittedly arbitrarily -- and none in the end can explain everything (the cosmos generally and its particular phenomena).
Is it adequate to have a god like Poseidon, who rules the seas - what of the lakes, rivers, resevoirs, tributaries, aqueducts and the like? Polytheisms either overdo it, naming over three hundred thousands gods -- as with Hindusim -- rendering the faith highly impractical since no one can sacrifice to ALL of them, without going bankrupt in attempting to corner the cattle qand goat markets - and (according to the faith) this may arouse the wrath of the overlooked deities - or else they do not appoint enough deities and leave many aspects of human reality simply unexplained and unexplainable -- an admission that the worldview cannot do what others could (if they had more gods).
Also, religions like these seem confused at what to do with man-made phenomena like the internet. Is there a god of the internet? Should there be? Or has the divine council simply appointed no one to the post yet? When appointed,will the god of the internet also rule ethernet connections, and wifi portals, or merely ordinary landline connections with all software also outside his proper jurisdiction.
A comparison of the various domains left unguarded and unexplained in one polytheism, with those of another quickly illustrate the haphazard and piecemeal fashion in which such religions are composed. They regard "gods" who do not exist, who biographies are pseudo-pious fictions at best, and superstitious lies at worst (deadly idolatry). This is evident both from what they do, and do not attempt to explain in their defined roles, as reveled by any quick comparison.
Some religions, like Jainism, instinctively recognize the need for unity among the diverse "gods" as explanations of this or that feature of the real world, and so offer the patchwork explanation that these are each merely "forms," or "emanations" of the one True God.
This obviously belies the point since the gods in the systems mentioned have mutually incompatible histories and attributes. If they are all merely aspects of the One True God, then this one God is grossly self-conflicted (multi-schizophrenic in the extreme) with more personalities than Cybil raised to the 35th power. This band-aid rescue mission does more harm than good.
Since neither bi-theism, nor polytheism, can in fact explain why the world is as it appears, how we know what we know, and how we ought to live our lives, this leaves only one remaining option: Ethical monotheism, and one with a comprehensive legal code sufficient to provide, by implication and explication, to guide us properly in all possible human relations. The Christian worldview alone provides this.
Zoroastrianism then, provides conflicting explanations of various features of the world, arbitrarily chooses which to attempt to explain (i.e. the problem of evil) and which not, offers a bi-theistic explanation incapable of even defining evil accurately (since we do not have an objective way in which to distinguish Ahura Mazda's ethical character from Ahriman's with any confidence), and thus even if one destroys the other, we do not know which one met an end, the good God or evil demon.
Additionally, there is no guarantee that some other deity will not later turn against the victor, putting us right back at square one (no discernible or final solution to the problem of evil). And this faith simply offers no comprehensive legal code sufficient to govern all aspects of human relations -- nor does it even claim to -- at the personal, familial, national, ecclesiastical and international levels. Thus, it is by implication, a self-admitted failure as a world-view, and religion, since in the end it explains nothing, creates problems it cannot solve, leaves us with no ultimate knowledge of anything, and offers not ethical help either.
This is true with all man-made, or nonbiblical, religions. And yet some world-view must be true and knowable, since the contrary claim could not be true and knowable, on its own terms. The claim that "nothing is true" (or any view that implies this) cannot itself be a TRUE claim. If one admits truth but not knowability (or holds any view which implies this), then the claimant cannot KNOW that his claim to final indeterminacy is in fact true. He doesn't know, and yet he KNOWS that he doesn't know "the final answer." This leaves him affirming and denying the very same proposition. "No one knows for sure" simply cannot be known by anyone for sure. So the truth both exists and is knowable and at least someone (the Bible says in fact everyone) knows the truth about God to some extent, since the light of nature which reveals him clearly and effectively portrays His goodness, wisdom, power and eternity.
God cannot fail and so any attempt on His part to reveal himself to all necessarily succeeds. All men know that he exists and has these attributes, but they insist on distorting and redefining what these mean, by placing them within the context of a false worldview which they just made up as the epistemological soup du jour.
Nevertheless, the Christian worldview shows itself by the self-authorizing Word of the Living God, to be the one true religion, and that the contrary to its claims (in each and every case) proves logically impossible -- arbitrary and self-eliminating -- self-deceived Persian mystics nothwithstanding.
For "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Christ" (Col. 3:2).
No comments:
Post a Comment