Since Zoroastrianism is based an a series of QUESTIONS and not absolute statements, it follows as a logical consequence that Zoroastrianism is based on the attitude of creativity and co-creation and not on some mistaken idea that "the world has gone wrong because of man" and consequently "has to be corrected through divine intervention". Zoroastrianism has no concept of sin (and the following necessity of salvation), consequently truth is not objective and absolute but recognized as subjective and produced. You are your truth! The question is therefore not what is true but rather who are you? And with 6 billion of us, that means 6 billion truths. Religious pluralism is an entirely different matter, we just recognize the concept of tolerance and freedom of speech (well, we invented it!) but the concept of "religion" is itself alien to Zoroastrians. We are interested in asha vs druj, whether asha is religious or not does not really concern us. Mazdayasna means "the love of the capacity of mind", whether that is considered religious or philosophical or merely literature, is less of a concern.
Dear Mehran, Parviz,
Please can you expand on "pluralism of truths"? Are you reffering to Religious Pluralism"?
Abrahamic religions all traditionally reject Religious Pluralism on the grounds that it is contradictory.
Buddism teaches that one can only be liberated from Buddarahma through Budda's teachings although another faith may be a step towards this.
Hinduism fully accepts Religious Pluralism (and I understand the Parsees have adopted this view hence "follow your own religion") and therefore reject conversion.
Jainism is pretty unique is its belief than NO religion is completely true.
Having been raised in a religion that taught volumes of nonsense and having caused terrible damage (I am with you on this Parviz just disagree on the approach) I am loathe to accept it as "truth".
I believe Zoroastriansim is unique in it's core belief that one must accept what is truth regardless of contradiction. If there is a clear contradiction then the truth should be accepted and the falsehood dropped.
Tolerance to me means Mehran and Parviz tolerating each others views within reason (unless an opposing view is intolerant) even though it is unlikely that a "tertium datur" situation exists and that one of them is wrong. Saying they are both right is just nonsense and is a compromise designed to placate.
What are the Z views on this? My understaning is that we are searching for truth and should accept truths that may exist within these religions but not the religions themselves because their core beliefs are clearly false!