You know that I have the greatest respect both for you and Ali Jafarey.
I never considered you as Abrahamic. You left Christianity and Islam respectively for Zoroastrianism precisely because you had no interest in blind beliefs.
But I do believe that your positioning of the Gathic text is an Abrahamic approach to The Holy Text. Consequently, the two of you represent a more Abrahamic interpretation of the Zoroastrian faith as a whole. Just like I assume Parviz Varjavand and I represent a more Brahmanistic interpretation of the Zoroastrian faith (without this making us Brahmanists, we are indeed Mazdayasni too).
Using our own wise minds is central to the Zoroastrian faith. I hope you agree with me that this is more important than the literal and blind following of any old text or tradition or ritual, whether it is The Gathas or The Avesta or something else.
As Zoroastrians, we follow Zarathushtra in spirit and share his enthusiasm and ambition towards existence. That is what it means to be a Mazdayasni. We can then agree to disagree about the details.
Blindly? What blindly. No one is asking to follow any one blindly!
How can you follow a man blindly when his most acclaimed teaching is
asking us to listen think and choose? How can you say that any
Zartoshti, who understands the Gaathas can follow anyone blindly?
With all due respect, you oversimplify and stereotype your way out of
discussions. It leaves the impression that you can only think in
stereotypes. There is NOTHING Abrahamic about me or Jafarey, we are
anything but, for reasons of your own you seem to think that all
theists have to be Abrahamics.
As to poetry and interpretation : There is no text in human history
or experience, that consists only of metaphors and allegories. It is
technically not possible. That is why allegorical interpretations can
never give an explanation of an over all doctrine. They can be
usefukl in emphasizing some point, but they are allegories because
they use examples of something to teach a truth . Examples , get it?
These allegories are limited to the area that a particular example
Archaic texts, like the Gaathas have to be studied philologically,
they have to be studied with grammar and they have to be studied with
syntaxt. Then you have to try to identify allegory, metaphora and
simile and look for examples of these in an outside source that is
culturally related so that you attempt to interpret the metaphora
and allegory in the way that was used, that is, in the way that the
culture of , in this case, Zarathushtra understood them.
What you and PV are doing is saying : Oh well, the Gathas are only a
metaphoric message less interpret that metaphora as we see fit
according to our beliefs. But that is not the proper way to
understand Zarathushtra or any other ancient composer
Besides what you ought to be interested in, first of all, is in
achieving to the original meaning of what Z said or, at least, as
close as it is possible. Then you can 'Perhaps' use that
understanding of the original to extrapolate something that 'might'
imply support to your theories
But from this vantage point, it seesm like you are super imposing
your beliefs unto the Gaathas and interpreting them from your point
of view. That, my friend, might be clever, it might even produce a
sophisticated system and it might even lead to some one believing it.
BUT that system is NOT Ziism. It might be better or worse but its
not Ziism. And that is why, I find your ideas so unacceptable. (Well
that and your penchant for stereotyping any one you don't agree with,
and or askikng them to leave the faith , as if you were the
authority) and basically demonizing them.
But that's OK, you are basically sowing what you will reap in that
department. But why distort Z? What has he ever done but teach
righteousness for its sake and leave us with a collection of Songs
that, whether you like it or not, addresses a deity, a creator and at
least two planes or dimensions of reality.