• VictimOfReligion@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    While I’m starting to remember what you said abour Sargon and all that as correct, the thing about Zoroastrians, is that they were in great consideration and loved and admired by a lot of people by their teachings, but never held a propagandístic teaching, and was ethnocentric,meaning that the responsibility of adoration was over the Persians themselves, but that salvation was universal, for Ahura Mazda would save everyone good enough, and who were not with redeeming qualities, sent to hell to purify themselves, and then go to Paradaija(the word Paradise is from Persian origin, yes), because the main perpetrator of wickedness is Angra Mainyu, the rest are victims (which, by the way, the notion we have of Satan is also copied from Angra, sincr Satan was literally just a god of judgement to see if people were actually good or not).

    Ah, yes. Zoroastrianism is also escathologic, and wait for a savior born from a Virgin, without sin, to form an army to destroy Angra Mainyu once and for all, so Ahura Mazda can make the Earth into a paradise. Pretty much like Deutero Isaiah.

      • VictimOfReligion@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        I mean… According to Romans, Yahweh was Bacchus, and even had commemorative coins of “Baccvs Iueus” kneeling, as a symbol of the deity admitting defeat.

        • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Yeah Romans just looked at other religions, cathegorised their gods as versions of their own and called it a day. Pretty funny actually, even if very problematic for historiography.