Gnosticism in BotNS

brunians at brunians.org · 09 Apr 2009, 20:04 · from 2009-April.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: brunians at brunians.org (brunians at brunians.org)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:04:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: (urth) Gnosticism in BotNS
In-Reply-To: <49DE36C2.4090304 at verizon.net>
References: <mailman.10625.1239291967.12296.urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net>
	<49DE36C2.4090304 at verizon.net>
Message-ID: <14905.67.142.130.47.1239307498.squirrel at brunians.org>

Well, not all Zoroastrians left Iran (let alone Greater Iran). The ones
that went to India became the Parsis: there are still some tens of
thousands of Zoroastrians in Iran, and thousands in Afghanistan,
Tajikistan and others of the stans (all of those countries named stan used
to be part of the Persian Empire. The Persian Empire was a huge deal for a
very long time, and maybe will be again). These various communities have
all intercommunicated and intermarried to some extent right along in
there.

There are and have been various trends within Zoroastrianism as you would
expect from any multiple thousands of years old religion: the wiki article
summarizes them well. Zoroastrians are a lot like Jews in that they love
to fight over theology, and they call each other names with a will, but
they rarely kill each other over such questions, at least in recent
centuries.





.



> My understanding was that the Parsees' religion doesn't exactly correspond
> to Zoroastrianism as practiced 5,000 or so years ago (or whatever the
> exact figure is), whichever one is deemed "true." You wouldn't expect it
> to. It could easily have absorbed common, simple concepts like dualism; it
> would have been difficult to preserve perfectly.
>
> But you're right: who studies this but Western scholars with a vested
> interest? Or was that not a bit of snark I detected? ;)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 17:46:04 +0200
> From: "Stanislaus B." <sbocian at poczta.fm>
> Subject: Re: (urth) Gnosticism in BotNS
> To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
> Message-ID: <563137189.20090409174604 at poczta.fm>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1250
>
> Hello!
>
> On 9 kwietnia 2009, brunians at brunians.org wrote:
>
>
> Each of the ancient religions even somewhat popular in the West has
> two versions: the version believed by the traditional members, and
> the version believed in by the Western converts. The Western version
> is obviously the original, true religion, freed from the accumulated
> mistakes of centuries.
>
> Zoroastrianism in the Western, true and original version is
> monotheistic. Zoroastrianism as believed in by Persians and Parsees
> is very much dualistic. Manicheism, and all other versions of Iranian
> gnosis is also dualistic.
>
> Syrian and Egyptian Gnosis is fundamentally monist, with the Demiurg
> being a fallen being of the Light.
>
>
> -- Best regards, Stanislaus B.
>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 090409-0, 04/09/2009
> Tested on: 4/9/2009 1:56:19 PM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net