Mithraism is just an old Western extension of Zoroastrianism anyway, with a very central role given to Zarathushtra and his philosophy, actually even more so than within Zoroastrianism.
The problem is that Zoroastrians seem to care too little about their own future and their own religion to really believe it can be a thriving and growing religion for anybody, least of all themselves.
Mithraism simply seems more suitable, in one form or the other, to take global and universal.
Zoroastrians can't seem to talk about their faith without making conversions an issue. And I have grown tired of this. There is no room for visions.
Mithraism I could even take to Burning Man and it would work wonders. It is CULTURALLY exciting, easy to turn into artistry. By comparison, Zoroastrianism is bland and unimaginative. You get the picture!
It's a change of labels, Parviz, not a change of faith!
2010/9/20 Parviz Varjavand
Mithraism also has many who claim to know it better than you, and then when they talk, they dish up loads of trash in the name of Mithraism on your plate that just looking at it will make you want to vomit. Don't go there, you are not safe there either. You are an original thinker and your original thoughts fits more within the framework of Mazda-Yasna than Mithra-Yasna. Mazda-Yasna is a living religion while Mithraism is dead. Living things have permission to change while it is very hard to bring a dead thing back to life and then make this Frankenstein that you have brought to life behave like a living creature and dance a graceful dance on the stage of world thought.
Mazdaism is a version of Zoroastrianism that you helped have a life here on Ushta. Please do not abandon your friends here, me amongst them. If you know any good teacher amongst the Mithraists that you respect, please guide us to his/her writings and teachings, otherwise, please stay here and help us raise this baby that you have helped give life to.
--- On Sun, 9/19/10, Alexander Bard
From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Mithraism or Mazdaism
Date: Sunday, September 19, 2010, 4:20 AM
I have decided to stop referring to myself as a "Zoroastrian" and instead decided to refer to myself as a "Mithraist".
Besides the fact that all my Western friends find Mithraism far more attractive and adaptable to a modern society than Zoroastrianism, it also once and for all removes at least me from any conflicts with Parsi isolationists (a pathetic conflict which I have decided to not fight anymore, just let the isolationists kill themselves as a community, I could not care less, I only care about cosmopolitan people interested in Iranian philosophy anyway).
It doesn't change my relationship to Zoroastrianism in general. And Ushta has always been open to both "Zoroastrians", "Mazdaists" and "Mithraists".
It's just that my change of label makes it easier for people to understand where I'm at, and also makes them far more interested and even engaged.
We even started a Swedish Mithraist community last week, founded by people who love to call themselves Mithraists but not interested in the label of Zoroastrians.