onsdagen den 11:e juli 2012
Materia, Energy, Time, and Nature
Let me just add that the idea that "materia and energy" are either eternal or created are both incorrect. Materia and energy are INTERTWINED with time in physics. So there can not be any time before materia and energy, neither can we say that materia ane energy are eternal as if there was some kind of meta-time, because there is no such thing. And if the supernatural does exist, it is natural. There is no point in talking of something being supernatural. If somehting does exist IT IS PART OF NATURE, part of Ahura. So just skip all talk of the supernatural. What we should discuss is instead reality versus fantasy, Ushta Alexander 2012/7/9 Special Kain
Zoroastrianism is indeed an ethical rather than moralistic religion: we become the choices we make.
There is nothing wrong with monotheism as such, as it is compatible with monism: there is one world, and one world only, which we hold sacred (= Pantheism). Ahura (Being) and Mazda (Mind) are sacred when combined.
But you will also find many Zoroastrians who believe that Ahura Mazda is the one supreme being that once created the universe (= Abrahamitism).
> --- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, "Kenneth C" wrote:
> > Ushta!
> > I read the Gatha's years ago and really thought on an ethical level the religion was spot on. I come from a background of Nordic paganism. At the time the only thing keeping me from being Zoroastrian was the stigma that it is labeled "monotheism". However looking at the linguistics and meanings of words in the Gatha's, calling it "monotheism" might be over simplifying the view of Ahura Mazda. This is not some concept of some being that is separate from nature, but a consciousness that is within nature or is nature itself. Not too different to how I view my gods. I do not see Odin as a the one who created wind, but wind itself. To me the images and names of these god's are cultural perceptions and imaginations of nature. I just think that the imagination is a powerful thing. As I read the Gatha's closer I realized that Zoroaster seemed concerned more with unethical behaviors that may have been associated with the belief in these gods or the
> supernatural, not the beliefs themselves. Even though I am a big time skeptic because I am training to be a scientist, I do accept certain things that could be called supernatural, but feel uncomfortable calling it supernatural and say it is just natural. Spending time with some Native American tribes in my area, I have seen Healings and they may not be explained by modern science. Does not mean there will never be an explanation. Though I think a lot of these New Agers that charge ridiculous money for psychic readings and do not even use intuition but educated guesses, I am opposed to. Why? Because it is unethical to take advantage of unfortunate people. Even though I accept a possibility to certain things that could be called supernatural (won't believe it till I see it) I will take issue with it when the beliefs cause chaos in people's lives. James Arthur Ray who was in the Secret, and Killed 9 people in a sweat lodge is one example of where
> I will take a stance against it.
> > Anyway, I am rambling. I asked a Zoroastrian "Would it disqualify me from being Zoroastrian if I do have certain beliefs that may be called supernatural" The response was "Being Zoroastrian is about your own experience and your own way of reasoning, not Zoroaster's. If you have those beliefs becoming Zoroastrian, most might disagree with those views, but they would not say you are not Zoroastrian." Basically what I have been told and it seems compatible with the Gatha's is that it is not belief that makes you Zoroastrian, it is ethics.
> > Does this seem about right?
> > Kenneth