Talk:Zoroastrianism

Template:WP1.0

References in Western culture?

I was wondering if there should be a section to references in popular Western culture. I'm thinking along the lines of Nietzsche's Also sprach Zarathustra, Strauss's work of the same name, it's use in 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the reference in Heinlein's Tunnel in the Sky (Rod Walker's family are Zoroastrian). It might also include the use of Ahura Mazda's name for a car company and a brand of electric light bulbs.

Why only Western Culture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.225.250 (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Origin

Details about Zoroaster family, his belief and his reforms updated--Rahulkris999 (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 June 2012

spelling error: change 'inequities' to 'iniquities'

 Done Complete Vettrock (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

121.254.85.166 (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The 'Akkadianpractices' at the end of 'Principal beliefs' needs a space. Just a typo.79.50.247.208 (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. And could you put your request in a new section in the future? Thanks in advance. Runehelmet (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

magianism

I believe the term Magianism is only used to refer to the form of Zoroastrianism found in Iraq before Islam. It is not a term for all of Zoroastrianism. Iraqi Zoroastrianism had many differences the most well known was its overwhelming emphasis on astrology, something not nearly as important for Persian Zoroastrianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.57.51 (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That's liguistically problematic. The root would be Magh which refers to the priests of Zoroastrianism aka Magu/Maghi. Not really the religion it's self. Magic = of the Mage or Magus. Magian = of the Magi. Magianism = beliefs of the Magi. So Magianism would be a very indirect reference to Zoroastrianism. It tends to reveal more information about the speaker than what they are speaking of. The use of Magianism indicated that the speaker is more familiar with the Magi than their Zoroastrian beliefs. Otherwise they would use Zoroastrianism instead of Magianism. It's the equivalent of identifying Christianty as Preistianism or Judaism as Rabbianism. The only other useage of magian would be the ancient tribe the Magi came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagusAmathion (talk • contribs) 21:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The IDing Christianity as Priestianism would be more accurate, as Christianity is not the only religion with priests, and Zoroastrianism is arguably not the only religion with magi (and likewise, not all Christian sects have priests, not all Zoroastrian sects had magi). Zurvanism (which was developed by Zoroastrian clergy) could be seen as a different religion instead of a variation of Zoroastrianism, and Mazdakism (which was rather anti-clerical) was considered by it's followers to be purely Zoroastrian. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any other religion in antiquity that has used Magi to refer to their priests. More modernly the Golden Dawn and even Church of Satan has adopted the title Magus. But not Magi. But to the very best of my knowledge Magi refers exclusive to Zoroastrian Priests. What confuses some people is the varying titles in the heirarchcy of the priest. Aethrapati (Av)/ervad (Guj)which is the first stage of initiation into the priesthood. Magus, Mobed, Dastur and Magupaiti. All of which are Magi. You may find this link to be helpful. GLOSSARY and Standardized spelling of Zoroastrian terms

In Zoroastrianism the Temples of an area unite under a Parsis. They enjoy some autonomy. There was not the rigid structure that you find in more modern religions. It was more like the earlier Catholic Church who at one time had about 7 Popes. But all of the Parsis held the Persian Parsis to be the supreme authority. There were differing sects such and the Zurvanites and even Manicheans that arose out of that autonomy. Even though they were considered to be heretical Zoroastrians by the traditional Zoroastrians. They were still Zoroastrians because of the presence if Ahuramazda in the religion. They are also considered sects of Mazdaism. I've done a lot research on Zurvan (Timespace.) I find it interesting that the ancient Zurvanites knew Time and Space to be one. Modern Physics proves this to be truth.

MagusAmathion (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Magus Amathion

Edit request on 17 September 2012

The number of adherents at the end of the first paragraph is way off the mark. Replace "apporx. 2.6 million" with "between 124,000 and 190,000" using http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/us/06faith.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2 that nytimes article as the source. GothPigeon (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I made that change. Unfortunately, the previous reference Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents does not offer sources to verify their estimate. Jojalozzo 14:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 November 2012

I would like to note - in the section on Zoroastrianism in the middle ages and the first paragraph - that it was in fact a necessity for the muslims of Umayyad to sustain a relatively large proportion of the population as infidels(kafir), due to Islam's economic systems and funding of the theocracy. F.ex the Ottoman Empire's economic system was too built on the enormous tax burden the infidels had to bear. Odiru (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Begoon ^talk 10:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

a date is wrong

Zoroastrianism originated in the 16th century BC, not 6th century. I can city, if need be (Fisher, Mary P. Living Religions. 8th Ed. blahblahblah. p. 235. Print.)

a date is wrong

Zoroastrianism originated in the 16th century BC, not 6th century. I can cite, if need be (Fisher, Mary P. Living Religions. 8th Ed. blahblahblah. p. 235. Print.)