13 Dec 05
1 edit
http://www.zarathushtra.com/z/article/overview.htm
This actually makes sense to me. If there's a God, then the teachings of Zarathustra explains the good and evil in the world in a way that I can accept. We make our own choices, and if we make good choices, we will bring good, bad choices will bring evil. To think about the choices we make, most seriously, before we make them is the only way to bring good into the world.
I don't believe in God, but I would be willing to accept a religion like this one. It's more or less in line with my own mindset.
The fact that apparently Zarathustra is the "inventor" of the concept of monotheistic religion makes him even more interesting. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all follow from the early work of Zarathustra.
I wonder why they didn't teach us this in school. Maybe it's hard to accept that the entire western philosophy (dualism is the foundation for christian philosophy) is based on the thoughts of an ancient philosopher from the middle east (persian empire).
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by stockenThe divine essence can go to hell?
http://www.zarathushtra.com/z/article/overview.htm
This actually makes sense to me. If there's a God, then the teachings of Zarathustra explains the good and evil in the world in a way that I can accept. We make our own choices, and if we make good choices, we will bring good, bad choices will bring evil. To think about the choices we make, most seriousl ...[text shortened]... sophy) is based on the thoughts of an ancient philosopher from the middle east (persian empire).
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by stockenCan't or won't? I don't see how we can determine either to everyone's liking, but if we are going to assume things lets not assume one of these.
If we accept what Zarathustra apparently said, that each and everyone of us carries around parts of the divine essence within us, and us making bad choices that leads to evil will condemn us to a dark afterlife existence, then yes: the divine essence can go to hell.
Very interesting, isn't it? I mean, compelling somehow. The fallen angel in christianity, ...[text shortened]... , I find Zarathustra interesting, and I'll definitely read more about him from various sources.
13 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by TetsujinYou mean, let's not assume that God can't or won't intervene with the events of the world?
Can't or won't? I don't see how we can determine either to everyone's liking, but if we are going to assume things lets not assume one of these.
Well, since God gave us free will to choose for ourselves what actions we want to take in life, then he cannot interfere with those actions. You can say he won't because it would defeat the purpose of giving us free will in the first place, or you can say he can't because he probably only exist within us all as parts of our inner selfs. That's free for interpretation. But you can hardly say that he's doing any active work either for or against bad things happening in the world, simply because, evidently good and bad things happen in the world, and mostly due to human actions.
So, if we accept the world-view the way Zarathustra has it, then I'd say God can't or won't intervene in what's happening in this world, simply because we're supposed to think for ourselves. This world becomes what it is, because we make our own choices.
Still not believing in God, per se, I think what he [edit: Zarathustra] said makes sense.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by stockenMeh, I was more concerned of sparking an off topic debate on the reconcilliation of god in the face of evil.
You mean, let's not assume that God can't or won't intervene with the events of the world?
Well, since God gave us free will to choose for ourselves what actions we want to take in life, then he cannot interfere with those actions. You can say he won't because it would defeat the purpose of giving us free will in the first place, or you can say he can ...[text shortened]... e make our own choices.
Still not believing in God, per se, I think what he said makes sense.
Whatever...
My initial question was concerning the essence itself. What makes the essence divine?
More importantly, can a divine essence err, or how much of that divine essence are we resonsible for?
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by TetsujinPlease start a new thread if you want to debate something off-topic. I beg.
Meh, I was more concerned of sparking an off topic debate on the reconcilliation of god in the face of evil.
Whatever...
My initial question was concerning the essence itself. What makes the essence divine?
More importantly, can a divine essence err, or how much of that divine essence are we resonsible for?
This is very odd for me. I'm speaking of God and divinity when in fact, I don't believe in such things. I'll keep this up though, just for the fun of it.
What makes the essence divine? I don't know if this is true, but it seems that people from various cultures all over the world shares this essence. We all have the ability to recognise and do good and evil (as it's interpreted in dualism). I think we are all born with these caractheristics, both the will to help and do good and the will to destroy and harm. It's part of us. If that's divine, I really couldn't tell. The ability to love, hate, sympathise, ignore and all that is part of who we all are. The only thing controlling it is our minds. Our ability to choose what to do. (Which brings up other considerations entirely, such as whether suppressing the darker sides of ourselves to do only good, is really healthy or not.)
Can a divine essence err? If the divine essence is in fact part of us, and we can err, then yes: a divine essence can err.
How much of the divine essence are we responsible for? I'd say we're responsible for the part of the divine essence that we carry within us. Or, to speak my own language - in english, that is 🙂 - we're always responsible for our own actions.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by stockenummm... I was under the impression that the essence of our life(soul) would be the divine factor, and that our mind would err. But, why would the soul be condemmend for the actions of a corrupted mind?
Please start a new thread if you want to debate something off-topic. I beg.
This is very odd for me. I'm speaking of God and divinity when in fact, I don't believe in such things. I'll keep this up though, just for the fun of it.
What makes the essence divine? I don't know if this is true, but it seems that people from various cultures all over the ...[text shortened]... speak my own language - in english, that is 🙂 - we're always responsible for our own actions.
Assuming that the soul is the divine essence.
Sure enough, some people are raised to be less good and more evil in the generally accepted terms. How do we deal with them?
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by TetsujinAaaah, good one. I like you Tetsujin.
ummm... I was under the impression that the essence of our life(soul) would be the divine factor, and that our mind would err. But, why would the soul be condemmend for the actions of a corrupted mind?
Assuming that the soul is the divine essence.
Sure enough, some people are raised to be less good and more evil in the generally accepted terms. How do we deal with them?
The soul being the divine factor, it cannot be disputed that the soul contain both good and bad emotions. Conveniently riding on my understanding of Zarathustra, the divine essence within us is both good and bad. So, it stands to reason, that while we have both good and bad within us, as part of us, it is through our choices that the world is turned into what it is.
A corrupted mind? I'm not sure what you mean. The mind is what it is, as is the soul. It cannot be corrupted as in broken or lead astray. We must take responsibility for our own actions. We must be aware of the consequenses of our actions, which is to say, we must think before we act and we must be willing to stand up for what we've done without lying to ourselves or to others (which of course is called living and is very, very hard).
We really can't "deal" with people who choose to perform selfish acts that lead to suffering for others. I think (and this is me speaking again) that if you feel that you are in fact part of the world - and not some puppet controlled by higher forces - you will take care not to destroy or harm the world around you, simply because you want this world, that you're part of, to be good to you; to make you happy.
If others are suffering, help them if possible, but always allow them to make their own choices, good or bad.
I feel, slightly on a rim here. I really don't know if this is me or Zarathustra speaking. Maybe I need to sleep a while and collect my thoughts.
It's been fun discussing this so far. Hope it continues. 🙂
13 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenHahaha. Trust me when I say this; when you start losing sleep to the insanity of pursuing a better understanding of this world and spend a weekend afternoon amazed by the liveliness of the grass when there is no breeze, you'll really start to love/hate me.
Aaaah, good one. I like you Tetsujin.
Now averaging under 5 hours a sleep every night for the last 8 years, my goal now is to just ride it out untill I lose the majority of my brain cells to sheer exhaustion.
14 Dec 05
Originally posted by stockenI like this quote:
So, if we accept the world-view the way Zarathustra has it, then I'd say God can't or won't intervene in what's happening in this world, simply because we're supposed to think for ourselves. This world becomes what it is, because we make our own choices.
"We are co-workers and co-creators of God. We are here to fulfill the divine plan, not to become obedient slaves of God, nor to be helpless children of God. And this is why we are given the choice. Even the choice not to cooperate with God’s plan and go against it, and that is why we find evil in the world. Because there are some who choose not to work according to God’s plan".
Very positive.
Interesting that the Persians went from monotheism to henotheism (angels, devil, with the eventual addition of a saviour, Mithras)--the reverse of the usual process).
14 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage"According to Zarathushtra, there is no Devil. We are the ones who may choose goodness or create evil. In other words, the Devil is only in our own minds. Therefore, if we truly get to know ourselves, and come to be in command of our minds, we need not fear Ahriman."
I like this quote:
"We are co-workers and co-creators of God. We are here to fulfill the divine plan, not to become obedient slaves of God, nor to be helpless children of God. And this is why we are given the choice. Even the choice not to cooperate with God’s plan and go against it, and that is why we find evil in the world. Because there are some ...[text shortened]... ls, devil, with the eventual addition of a saviour, Mithras)--the reverse of the usual process).
http://www.zarathushtra.com/z/article/zdevil.htm
It is funny, isn't? That clearly, the teaching of Zarathustra spoke of One God and noone else, yet, post-zarathustra scriptures, speak of the devil as a minor (or even equal) god.
Another thing that strikes me is that for some reason (and this pertains to most monotheistic religions) God is that which is good within us, whereas the bad within us (the selfishness, ignorance...) is really nothing (or at least invoked by a force lesser then God).
This, I think, is the main reason I find it hard to believe in God. If there is no Devil (or the Devil is less powerful than God) then why assume there is a God? Isn't it possible that God and the Devil are both equally strong omniscient beings, or that none of them exists?
I think Zarathustra was a very wise man and there's obviously a lot that can be learned from him. It's like by-passing jesus, the bible and all that, and skip straight to the source.
The only downside to all of this is that apparently very few documents has survived from the time of Zarathustra, so most of it is based on oral tradition, and we all know what oral tradition can do to the original message.
14 Dec 05
Originally posted by stockenAs far as I can tell, Zarathustra's teachings urge not to believe in God but to be God (Good) as far as we possibly can. Perhaps that is why Nietszche picked up on him.
This, I think, is the main reason I find it hard to believe in God. If there is no Devil (or the Devil is less powerful than God) then why assume there is a God? Isn't it possible that God and the Devil are both equally strong omniscient beings, or that none of them exists?
14 Dec 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYES! Exactly! Which is why I like him so much, too. If we are all pieces of God, then it makes sense. The creation is not yet finished, perhaps an ever-evolving process, and we can all do something about the world. It gives hope to a world that otherwise seem far too big for an individual to affect.
As far as I can tell, Zarathustra's teachings urge not to believe in God but to be God (Good) as far as we possibly can. Perhaps that is why Nietszche picked up on him.
(There are similarities between Zoroastrianism and buddhism, I think, but I haven't read enough about either of them to be able to pinpoint them.)
14 Dec 05
Originally posted by stockenThat sounds like a Nietzschean yes.
YES!...(There are similarities between Zoroastrianism and buddhism, I think, but I haven't read enough about either of them to be able to pinpoint them.)
The similarity to Buddhism also occurred to me--the right action program. I wonder what Zarathustra would have thought of Buddha's dharma.