söndag 12 juli 2009

Pantheism in Zoroastrianism (rather than Atheism)

Dear Rory

Exactlly!!! And Blind Faith it is, nevertheless!
Contrast this with Zarathushtra and The Gathas: Zarathushtra NEVER speaks of himself as infallible, he never speaks of himself as the sole bearer of the truth. His mssage is instead a message of meta-truth, a message of how Truth can be found and then followed. So what Zarathushtra set out to do was to formulate a PATHOS for us to follow to find our OWN ETHOS through which we become the very people we are to ourselves. His message is therefore strictly ethical and never moralizing.
And when Zarathushtra was confronted with questions he could not answer, he would just throw his arms up in the air, and admit "I do not know". Followed by a curious: "But let us find out!".
You can't be further from the Judeo-Christian belief in complete revelation than that.
Yes, there is SOMETHING we refer to as The Universe rather than Nothing. And that Something is worthy of our celebration and worship precisely because it exists. Actually, that is what our very bodies, our genes, scream for us to do, to celebrate existence as such.
The question is rather: Why did anybody ever attempt to build philosophy or religion on anything else? ;-)


2009/7/12 roryyoung15

Dear Dino,

Not only does Catholicism follow the usual Christian idea of Faith to be Trust or Belief in God, but also takes the terms "A priori" and "A posteriori" and warps them to apply as well. So not only is there the usual "blind faith" but also the so-called "rational" ideal of faith. One basically has to accept revelation as being post God's "experience"! Sounds insane but that is how they do it: if a point of doctrine can be obviously/rationally explained it is "A posteriori" which they equate to the reasoned part of the belief system and if it is a point of "revelation" or "mystery" then it is "A priori" for man but "A posteriori" for God (and Angels) and therefore reasonable and to be accepted. So, they don't see it as blind faith.
Of course their definition of "A priori" and "A posteriori" are of course wrong...

Ushta, Rory

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Special Kain wrote:
> Dear Rory,
> I agree 90%!!! I'm just not that much into Catholicism, and have never been. ;-)
> As a matter of fact, we even strongly reject blind faith as part of Druj. Asha is whatever is true (science), right (ethics) and genuine (art), that is, we're ethically obliged to pursue the truth relentlessly. This pursuit of the truth goes hand in hand with intellectual integrity. So blind faith has no place in Zoroastrianism.
> Ushta, Dino

2 kommentarer:

liebera sa...

What are scientists Children of the knowledge Primal seed of cosmical machine Schemes and terms from sky laboratories Investigation‘s brought by Creator‘s wit
Physical aspect and lace of metaphysic
Supreme touch urges to create
Science wit knows sense of moving
But Divine can’t be proved by theme

Dear Alex, here is a trifle example my creation and tribute to VACUUM. I’m an author of great amount of poems that are close to your ideas, especially to NETOCRACY. And I want you to be acquainted with them. Please, give me your i-mail, where I can send you in privacy (not for all other net users) I’m real fabric of different ideas and thoughts. It’s very important for me!!! I’m very responsive person! Send your answer on ‘prototype2004@gmail.com”.
I’ll be waiting for your news!
P.S. This letter is not for public publishing!!! But you may publish my commentary in your blog.

liebera sa...

ARMY OF LOVERS’ CLONES are as French résistance. French communist Michael romances with positive lad from positive French Gestapo. Local stripper Sarah is busy worker. Female Polizei is in jealousy. Unhonest Owner of Milk Factory is only one negative person. There is no blood and horrors in the story that is the result of mobilistic philosophy. Do you want Whole Clip script, Alex? And what about the Romanovs and The communists who live in complete peace or BWO, VACCUUM and ARMY OF LOVERS members as heroes of fancy tales?

PS there may be some silliness in my first commentary. I was shy that time. It’s my explanation…