Asha vs Druj

Dear Rory and Dino

I always avoid constructing hierarchies. There are no such hierarchies in The Gathas etc, only differences in complexity. So I don't rate between humans and animals etc but rather see each thing for itself, all being sacred.
The whole idea that we as humans are somehow more "responsible" because we can "think" is alien to me, I find that concept very Christian. We are only as responsible as we would like to be.
And Zarathushtra's point is that our reponsibility comes through our KNOWLEDGE of our condition. We simply have responsibilities when we realise how things work in feedback loops, most of all Civilization in itself.
Creation is asha manifest in Ahura, Civilization is asha manifest in Mazda. Asha is nit superior intellect as such but a willingness to be constructive and creative, a will to create!
Turn yourself into a victim and hate the world and you will live in druj.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/8/10 Special Kain
- Dölj citerad text -



Dear Rory,

You got several things totally wrong.

> I agree, we are influenced by instincts but we are much more able to choose between one course and another and especially to imagine and be creative. It is not just trial and error.

I never said so. I didn't even mention any learning techniques that we're capable of.

> I totally disagree that people just follow convenience and habit. I certainly haven't. You must be hanging around some pretty boring people if they just follow convenience and habit!!!

Ignoring conventions makes most encounters with other people incredibly complicated. It is necessary to follow the rules in order to reduce the ever increasing complexity within modern societies. But, of course, I forgot to mention the idealists in that passage, I mentioned idealism further below.

> Yes, people behave more aggressively as long as they can rationally explain the crime.

AND ALSO when they feel unobserved. That was my point.

> But what about the ones who know it is bad, acknowledge it is bad yet still go ahead and do it out of "bloody-mindedness" . I know such people well and have seen people do things that would make your hair stand on end. They don't give a toot about rationalizing it.

There are sociopaths. And there are mental hospitals.

> And your picture is wrong and certainly not what I presented. I believe people have the ability to be superior (through Asha) than animals or inferior (through druj) to animals. They are less evolved than us and we should be evolving further even if we have to do it artificially.

I disagree. People don't get inferior to animals when pursuing whatever is wrong, false and fake. What's the difference between us and other (!) animals, anyway? There are so many answers, and none of them is convincing enough these days to last more than 30 years. According to memetics, it's because we are much better imitators than them. That's probably true.

> As for your last rude comment about my choice of discussion being boring, WHY INVOLVE YOUSELF IN IT?

Oh, there's nothing wrong with your choice of discussion, dear Rory! It's just such an outdated picture that we should overcome in order to refine our understanding and come up with ever more sophisticated explanations. So I'll GRACIOUSLY ignore the rest of that passage. ;-)

Ushta, Dino

Zoroastrianism vs Secularism

Dear Rory

This is precisely why we take such a stron interest in promoting a SECULAR society as Zoroastrians.
Because the secular values are the very values that we hold as RELIGIOUS from the very beginning.
This is why so much of what we consider modern and secular has its roots in Zoroastrianism.
Regardless of what people call these values, what is important is not the names but values themselves.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/8/10 roryyoung15

I do not believe in proselytizing for its own sake but if we are going to save our planet environmentally, socially and economically then at the very least Zoroastrian principles should be promoted if not the religion itself. catholicism simply believes that its adherents must put "God" first in all things, even if this means destroying ourselves. That is why it is such a danger to the world. 1 billion people all putting the environment for one at the bottom of their list of priorities.


Ushta,
Rory

The Spirit of Zarathushtra

Dear Mehran

Having written the below in affect, I would like to add that I love you as a brother and as long as we respect each other and ALLOW different interpretations of the texts of our religion while understanding that these texts are NOT holy but merely brilliant INSPIRATIONS for us all, we are fine together!!!
Zarathushtra loved us as the future Zoroastrians. He meant well. He used his best mind (an excellent mind) to give us a VISION which we could follow and DEVELOP after him.
But the history of the world and the history of knowledge does not stop with The Gathas. The science we conduct today, the democracy we recognize is essential for human relations, are all FRUITS of his philosophy. Now we should develop this further, that is what it means wto live within the SPIRIT OF ZARATHUSHTRA.
He never meant to put an end to human knowledge or development, his texts, his words, were just the starting points for what we then develop from them. THIS is what it means to be a Mazdayasni.
No more blind faith, no more blind following, that is for the stupid and degrading desert religions, but it is not for us. We believe in our own capacity to CREATE, in the potential of all humankind to create and develop the world, for us all to be one with Ahura Mazda!!!
That is what it means to be a true Mazdayasni, don't you agree?

Ushta
Alexander

2009/8/10 Alexander Bard

Dear Mehran

Iris is right, Zoroastrianism does not require us to BELIEVE anyhting in blind faith whatsoever. So there are Zoroastrian Pantheists and also Zoroastrain PanENtheists. Both are fine and should tolerate each other.
But Mehran, you have to immediately STOP this nonsense about YOU being the only person on the planet understanding The Gathas and YOU being the only person allowed to dictate what it means to be a Mazdayasni.
It is a laughable and pathetic statement. Zarathushtra is our guide, not you.
Yes, The Gathas is important to us all, but that does not that your personal INTERPRETATION of The Gathas is a requirement to be called a Zoroastrian. We have very different interpretations of what Zarathushtra MEANT with his text.
If science proves that anything in The Gathas is wrong, then science is more important, even ZARATHUSHTRA himself believed this. Anything else would be an idiotic belief. The Gathas is NOT a holy book, Zarathushtra NEVER made such a claim.Not anywhere! So stop putting Islam into our beautiful religion! Stop your Gathas worship!
It is NOT the Gathas we are worshipping and celebrating as Mazdayasni, it is the fact that there is a world, that this world existsand is beautiful, and that there is MIND to contemplate within this world.
That is what Mazdayasna means, literally, nothing more and nothing less. Gathaist extremism is an entirely different faith. Book worship is Abrahamic, it is alien to Zarathushtra and to Zoroastrianism. We are not a desert religion! We put our wise minds before ANY book. We are intelligent and not stupid.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/8/10 MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi



Dear Iris
You are true. But them matter was begun, when some one in this group wrote that there is not any God beyond the universe, and universe is God itself.
However, the essential point is believing in God as it is taught in GAthA. Without this belief, we do not have any interior cause to be ethical.

Zoroastrianism is not an Abrahamic faith

Dear Mehran

Iris is right, Zoroastrianism does not require us to BELIEVE anything in blind faith whatsoever. So there are Zoroastrian Pantheists and also Zoroastrain PanENtheists. Both are fine and should tolerate each other.
But Mehran, you have to immediately STOP this nonsense about YOU being the only person on the planet understanding The Gathas and YOU being the only person allowed to dictate what it means to be a Mazdayasni.
It is a laughable and pathetic statement. Zarathushtra is our guide, not you.
Yes, The Gathas is important to us all, but that does not that your personal INTERPRETATION of The Gathas is a requirement to be called a Zoroastrian. We have very different interpretations of what Zarathushtra MEANT with his text.
If science proves that anything in The Gathas is wrong, then science is more important, even ZARATHUSHTRA himself believed this. Anything else would be an idiotic belief. The Gathas is NOT a holy book, Zarathushtra NEVER made such a claim.Not anywhere! So stop putting Islam into our beautiful religion! Stop your Gathas worship!
It is NOT the Gathas we are worshipping and celebrating as Mazdayasni, it is the fact that there is a world, that this world existsand is beautiful, and that there is MIND to contemplate within this world.
That is what Mazdayasna means, literally, nothing more and nothing less. Gathaist extremism is an entirely different faith. Book worship is Abrahamic, it is alien to Zarathushtra and to Zoroastrianism. We are not a desert religion! We put our wise minds before ANY book. We are intelligent and not stupid.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/8/10 MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi



Dear Iris
You are true. But them matter was begun, when some one in this group wrote that there is not any God beyond the universe, and universe is God itself.
However, the essential point is believing in God as it is taught in GAthA. Without this belief, we do not have any interior cause to be ethical.

Nik-o shAd bAshid
KhodA negahdAr,
MoobedyAr MehrAn Gheibi.
Kerman_Iran




--- On Mon, 8/10/09, irisfilpot wrote:


From: irisfilpot
Subject: [Ushta] Re: The art of NOT insulting others on a mail list
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 3:32 AM



I know the bearded God thing didn't come from you. I was trying to make the point that the word "God" is pretty open to interpetation and I tend to think most are not refering to the bearded man idea or something sitting in a cloud out of touch.

As for the necessity for an ultimate first cause creator etc I think that very well could be. I really don't have any reason to rise up in conflict with the idea.

The question that arises in my mind over this discussion is this: Is it necessary to explain where the Universe "came from" in order to be a Z? Is this a question that NEEDS to be answered in a definitive way? Or is the Z "faith" really an ethical religion, in which case the answer to that question is only as important as far as it inspires one to do good and stay in the Good Mind? Either view seems to be helpful for some and detrimental to some.

So that is the question. It the answer to this question essential to be a Z?

Suffering - and Kant!

The answer to your question, Rory, is not to ask Zoroastrianism, which is not particularly preoccupied with suffering, but to ask biology (science). And then the answer is that suffering exists to make us to do what we need to do but would otherwise not do (pain forces you to take action etc). And perhaps just to irritate us this does not include all suffering, there is also suffering which is absolutely meaningless. Seeing killer whales torturing a seal for hours in the Norwegian Sea before finally killing it has no meaning, it is just the suffering of the seal being the fun of the killer whale colony. That's just how the world works and as such also a part of asha.
Ushta
Alexander/does not hate Kant, loves his ethical rather than moral imperative, but sees Kant properly as inferior to Hume, Hegel, Nietzsche and Spinoza, and thereby as grossly overrated...

2009/8/9 roryyoung15



Dear Dino,

No, Catholic priests certainly can't explain suffering. Which is why they need "original sin" and the Devil, and the first temptation, etc. ad nauseum. However, these explanations are enough for them because they are based on "Revelation" by God and if they don't make sense then are "mysteries" beyond our capability to understand. Very neat but not based on reason.Suffering is only punishment.
The purpose of understanding suffering? As you say it may be in vain, if that is the truth then we should accept in regardless of the suffering it causes us to do so! I am reading Kant right now and will move onto Nietsche next. It seems that every time I visit this forum my reading list doubles! :-)
I really would like to know more about how Zoroastrianism and different Zoroastrians explain suffering? The reason I ask is because if one removes Dualism and accepts Monism then it NEEDS to be explained. It is the logical next question because if there is no "baddy" causing all the suffering, yet there is only "nothingness" other than Asha, then what is it? Why does it exist?
Ushta,
Rory

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Special Kain wrote:
>
> And I think that Catholic priests can't explain suffering. But what's really the purpose of explaining suffering, anyway? Suffering alone is still better than knowing that suffering doesn't pay off. Given that existence as such is contingent, suffering may very well be in vain. And this is what breaks most people's necks. Anyone who can cope with such purposeless and meaningless suffering is extraordinarily strong (see Nietzsche's "Übermensch").
>
> Ushta, Dino

Suffering doesn't pay off

Dear Dino and Rory

I would go so far as to say that with Zoroastrianism, the whole point with suffering et al being meaningless is that it is meaningless precisely to force US to INVENT meaning. There is no subjective meaning since meaning is not prophetically GIVEN but humanly PRODUCED. Meaning was never an issue for Zarathushtra. Not even not-meaning as it was for Nietzsche. Zarathushtra rather ENJOYED being a co-creator of existence, of manifesting Mazda within Ahura, precisely as to take the MAKING OF MEANING as an ENJOYABLE DUTY! Nietzsche deals with a rotten heritage and opposes it. But don't forget that Zarathushtra wrote an incorrupt philosophy before the whole process which Nietzsche is (rightly) reacting against had even started! In this, Zarathushtra is even more Spinozist than Nietzsche!

Ushta
Alexander

2009/8/9 Special Kain



And I think that Catholic priests can't explain suffering. But what's really the purpose of explaining suffering, anyway? Suffering alone is still better than knowing that suffering doesn't pay off. Given that existence as such is contingent, suffering may very well be in vain. And this is what breaks most people's necks. Anyone who can cope with such purposeless and meaningless suffering is extraordinarily strong (see Nietzsche's "Übermensch").

Ushta, Dino

--- roryyoung15 schrieb am So, 9.8.2009:


Von: roryyoung15
Betreff: [Ushta] Re: Pascal's wager and a book for Alexander
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Sonntag, 9. August 2009, 12:45



Interesting. I was taught by Catholic priests as a kid that "Eastern Religions" cannot adequately explain suffering.
Ushta,
Rory

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups. com, Special Kain wrote:
>
> In folk Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda is benevolent only, but not almighty: since a wholly benevolent god can't cause any harm, that god can't be almighty.

On evolution (hopefully for the last time) - The art of deception

Dear Rory

I know I know, I share your sentiments and I agree with you 100%.
And I never spoke about Darwinism, only about evolution as principle.
Catholic Dogma is still focused on the horribly mad creationism. But they try their best to look modern by accepting the principle of evolution, but only that far. It is still a creationism with merely a dash of evolution thrown in to be able to include dinosaur bones etc in the mythology. That's what John Paul II was up to.
Catholicism has been fundamentally anti-science since Copernicus, and still is, very much so!
If only Europeans and Latin Americans knew that there is a religion which was always pro-science and pro-truth. We need to tell them!

Love
Alexander

2009/8/9 roryyoung15

We're on the same page! Unlike Catholicism, in Zoroastrianism it IS a sacred principle which is why I abandoned the former and was drawn to the latter. Forgive me, I went off on a tangent. I get very nervous when discussing the Catholics Church and in particular the Popes because Parviz is very wrong; they are not stupid, they are very clever - and totally dedicated; and I assure you they are real enemies of what we all here believe!

Ushta, Rory

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Alexander Bard wrote:
>
> I know.
> But this was not my point.
> My point was that if even The Catholic Pope has accepted Evolution as
> principle (true) then there is ni point in any Zoroastrians going on about
> the issue anymore.
> We have always believed in Evolution, it is even a sacred principle to our
> religion!!!
> Ushta
> Alexander
>
> 2009/8/9 roryyoung15

>
> >
> >
> > Again. Yes, he did speak out FOR Evolution, but his stements were NOT made
> > "EX-CATHEDRA" meaning that it is NOT church doctrine. And there are very
> > large numbers of Conservatives in the Catholic Church who do not accept
> > Evolution or the Big Bang. I have had many arguements with them. Some accept
> > evolution except with man. Others accept evolution completely and believe
> > that man gained an immortal soul when the first man gained a free will.
> > But... there are many who simply do not accept it at all and as explained,
> > although the Vatican may accept it, it has not been made a part of doctrine
> > by any pope whilst using the "formula" for an "infallible" declaration and
> > therefore Catholics are not obliged to accept it and many don't.
> >
> > Ushta,
> > Rory
> >
> > --- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com , Alexander Bard
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I know, and that's precisely my point.
> > > Pope John Paul II spoke out FOR evolution and even for the big bang
> > before
> > > he died.
> > > This is precisely why this is now church doctrine.
> > > The opposition to all kinds of evolutionary theory in Christianity now
> > comes
> > > from the American Evangelicals. All other branches of Christianity have
> > > accepted evolution as a principle for creation.
> > > Ushta
> > > Alexander
> > >
> > > 2009/8/9 roryyoung15
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Alexander,
> > > >
> > > > I agree with you 100% on evolution. However, with regards the Catholic
> > > > church you have been deceived. Such a position has never been
> > "Ex-Cathedra".
> > > > In order for anything to become doctrine the Pope has to announce it;
> > as
> > > > Bishop of Rome, as head of the church, as successor of Peter, to the
> > whole
> > > > church and state that it is truth.
> > > > Popes are very careful NOT to make Ex-Cathedra statements. Especially
> > on
> > > > such issues as they would alienate large numbers of practising
> > Catholics. By
> > > > making a statement, even including words such as "sacred" they appear
> > to be
> > > > making it an article of faith but educated Catholics know that these
> > are not
> > > > "infallible" statements and they are therefore not obliged or ordered
> > to
> > > > accept them.
> > > > Ushta, Rory
> > > >
> > > > --- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com
> > 40yahoogroups.com>, Alexander Bard
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I agre with Dino.
> > > > > Even The Catholic Church - the possibly most conservative of all
> > > > Abrahamic
> > > > > institutions in the world - has accepted and even endorses Evolution
> > as a
> > > > > sacred principle.
> > > > > I don't ever want to hear Evolution questioned again. It is bordering
> > on
> > > > > idiocy. Gladly we have no such propaganda here on Ushta. And neither
> > > > should
> > > > > we, the CYCLE of existence is sacred to us, our scriptures are packed
> > > > full
> > > > > of celebrations of the cycle of existence, Evolution in other words.
> > > > > Ushta indeed
> > > > > Alexander
> > > > >
> > > > > 2009/8/7 Special Kain
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Zaneta and friends,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Evolution is an empirically reproducible fact. The theory of
> > evolution
> > > > is
> > > > > > something entirely different. So please don't confuse them: there
> > is
> > > > > > evolution (1) and there is the theory of evolution (2). Most
> > theories
> > > > of
> > > > > > evolution work perfectly well without assuming that there was The
> > > > Almighty
> > > > > > Creator or The Flying Spaghetti-Monster.
> > > > > > What does this tell us? Anyone who is ever making up a conflict
> > between
> > > > > > creationism and evolutionism is a complete idiot who has never
> > gotten a
> > > > firm
> > > > > > grip on the notion of evolution anyway. Creationists nurture their
> > > > ignorance
> > > > > > through erasing evolution as an empirically reproducible fact and
> > > > discussing
> > > > > > the theory of evolution only. Evolutionists simply shrug their
> > > > shoulders and
> > > > > > go about their business.
> > > > > > Please visit the TalkOrigin Archive for further infotainment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ushta, Dino
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- Zaneta Garratt ** schrieb am *Fr, 7.8.2009:
> > > > > > *
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *
> > > > > > Von: Zaneta Garratt
> > > > > > Betreff: RE: [Ushta] Re: Pascal's wager
> > > > > > An: ushta@yahoogroups.com
> > 40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > > > > > Datum: Freitag, 7. August 2009, 0:24
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * * * * * * *
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Hi Parviz, Even if you do believe in Dawin's theory of
> > Evolution-why
> > > > > > could Ahura Mazda as Creator not be behind the organisation of
> > > > Evolution
> > > > > > which is what some modern Christians believe . As for me, I am not
> > sure
> > > > > > about evolution as it is just a THEORY, so if it is true or not, I
> > do
> > > > not
> > > > > > know, but, if it is true, then Ahura Mazda must be behind it as a
> > > > > > Creator-Power in the beginning, Kindest regards from Zaneta (and
> > about
> > > > the
> > > > > > Jinn, I do not know whether they exist or not either but I
> > definately
> > > > > > believe in angels!)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *
> > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > *To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
> > > > > > From: solvolant@yahoo. com
> > > > > > Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 08:11:44 -0700
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Ushta] Re: Pascal's wager
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * * * * *Dear Mehran,
> > > > > > In our books we have Ahoora "That which has existence" and we have
> > > > Mazda
> > > > > > "That which has the power to Think". I believe in Ahoora and Mazda,
> > > > Ahoora
> > > > > > Mazda, or Mazda Ahoora. I do not believe in a big old man in the
> > skies
> > > > who
> > > > > > sits there designing and making creatures such as sparrows and
> > humans
> > > > with
> > > > > > a pre-thought- out design. I have evolved from an ape, God did not
> > > > design me
> > > > > > in my present shape and MAKE me the way I am from scratch. That is
> > > > > > the difference between what you believe in and what I believe in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Parviz Varjavand
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- On *Wed, 8/5/09, MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi > > yahoo.com
> > > > >*wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Ushta] Re: Pascal's wager
> > > > > > To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
> > > > > > Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2009, 9:36 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Parviz
> > > > > > dorood
> > > > > > I have studied *GhorAn/Koran, *Motahari's books, sharia'ti's books,
> > ...
> > > > > > but I did not find them in line of my beliefs. I am perplexed, why
> > are
> > > > you
> > > > > > insisting in calling such beliefs a Moslem one. Did not you study
> > > > Sassanid
> > > > > > books that are written some hundreds of years before EslAm? Did not
> > you
> > > > > > study *haft hAt* some thousands of years before EslAm? Please read
> > and
> > > > > > then write.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Nik-o shAd bAshid*
> > > > > > *KhodA negahdAr,
> > > > > > MoobedyAr MehrAn Gheibi.*
> > > > > > *Kerman_Iran*
> > > > > > **
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- On *Thu, 8/6/09, Parviz Varjavand *
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Parviz Varjavand
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Ushta] Re: Pascal's wager
> > > > > > To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
> > > > > > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 12:28 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mehran,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The BOOK that dictates exactly the way you like to think is called
> > the
> > > > > > Koran, so why do you not go become a Muslim and leave us alone.
> > > > > > (I was impolite to you because you were impolite to Alex. It is too
> > bad
> > > > > > that you do not recognize how impolite you are to others at times).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- On *Tue, 8/4/09, MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi > > yahoo.com
> > > > >*wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Ushta] Re: Pascal's wager
> > > > > > To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
> > > > > > Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009, 8:35 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Alexander
> > > > > > dorood
> > > > > > I sent you more than 20 evidences that prove the believe in a wise
> > > > creator,
> > > > > > before creation and after the end of creation from gAthA. But you
> > call
> > > > them
> > > > > > nonsense, without any logic reasoning. I do not sell any story to
> > be
> > > > bought
> > > > > > by any one including you. You just put your favourite words in
> > mouth of
> > > > > > ashoo Zartosht, and I try to say well dear Alexander write your own
> > > > words in
> > > > > > your own book.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Nik-o shAd bAshid*
> > > > > > *KhodA negahdAr,
> > > > > > MoobedyAr MehrAn Gheibi.*
> > > > > > *Kerman_Iran*
> > > > > > **
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- On *Wed, 8/5/09, Alexander Bard *
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Alexander Bard
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Ushta] Re: Pascal's wager
> > > > > > To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
> > > > > > Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2009, 1:36 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exactly, Clint!!!
> > > > > > There is not a single word about this carpenter that mehran talks
> > about
> > > > all
> > > > > > the time in The Gathas.
> > > > > > Simpy because Zarathushtra was wise enough not to have opinions
> > about
> > > > > > things he did not know.
> > > > > > I believe THAT is the right approach for us as Zoroastrians. Stop
> > > > making up
> > > > > > nonsense and instead spend our time and energy on finding out what
> > > > really is
> > > > > > asha.
> > > > > > The reason Iäm not buying Mehran's story, at all, is because Mehran
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > > talking about a carpenter. He is talking about the universe as if
> > it
> > > > was a
> > > > > > atble deisgned bu Santa Claus and not by any carpenter.
> > > > > > It takes something far bigger than a mere carpenter to create a
> > > > complete
> > > > > > universe. The metaphor of the carpenter is just so poor, so
> > limited, so
> > > > > > unimaginative.
> > > > > > Not Mehran, but the metaphor. So itäs not an insult, it's just a
> > > > > > questioning of a poor idea, a bad metaphor.
> > > > > > Ushta
> > > > > > Alexander
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2009/8/4 wagnerian1 > > > > http://us.mc325.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wagnerian1@>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ushta,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is wise to remember that words like "carpenter", "maker",
> > "creator",
> > > > > > etc. are all metaphors for something entirely bigger and more vast
> > than
> > > > we
> > > > > > can imagine, and to get bogged down in literalism in a situation
> > where
> > > > words
> > > > > > fail is frankly theologically dangerous. Science, and by that I
> > mean
> > > > careful
> > > > > > observation and application of the scientific method, will tell us
> > how
> > > > the
> > > > > > Universe is made, and how it runs. We can be awed by the beauty of
> > it
> > > > all,
> > > > > > and how it works so well...but we cannot forget the parts that
> > don't
> > > > work so
> > > > > > well either, parts like two-headed babies and other birth defects,
> > or
> > > > the
> > > > > > tooth-and-claw suffering of the food chain that in a perfectly
> > designed
> > > > > > world might not be so brutal. This leads me to believe that Ahura
> > Mazda
> > > > as,
> > > > > > like the Freemasons would say, The Grand Architect of the Universe
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > > quite the kind of image, or Icon even, that allows for the
> > complexity
> > > > of the
> > > > > > Universe. There's something not yet grasped, something not yet
> > > > understood
> > > > > > and maybe never will be, that is more useful in describing Ahura
> > > > Mazda's
> > > > > > role concerning the Cosmos. Since Zoroastrianism doesn't dictate
> > such
> > > > > > imagery, but only asks us to continue to refine our theology, then
> > > > maybe as
> > > > > > our nascent community begins to increase and diversify we will make
> > a
> > > > useful
> > > > > > and Spenta contribution to the language and symbolism of theology.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --Clint
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In Ushta@yahoogroups. com<
> > > > http://us.mc325.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Ushta@yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > Special Kain wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There's one difference, dear Mehran. While we actually can track
> > down
> > > > the
> > > > > > local carpenter, none of us has ever seen The Greater Carpenter who
> > is
> > > > > > mysteriously hiding behind the clouds far, far away. And while the
> > > > carpets
> > > > > > that we can buy were made some time ago, nature is "work in
> > progress"
> > > > and
> > > > > > always "under construction" .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ushta, Dino