WHATEVER

Here

I'm still here. In the mean time, in relation to your claim of a totalitarian desert deity, you can also consider the attitude of Abraham and Moses towards God. You can also think Talmud's question, why did God choose Abraham and not Noah for his covenant. I give you a hint. The answer has to do with their reaction once they were informed of the flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah respectively.

To Vahraz and Zion

I read (and am re-reading) your comments with great interest, but they demanded a more considered reply than I had time to give in the past few days. Regarding this website I was just concerned with trying to pacifyi the war that was going on under JJ's photo essay as best as I could.  Please give me a few more days to respond, I definitely intend to.  Keep checking here. And if I haven't replied yet at least leave a note so I know you're both still around.

Thanks,
Robin

Similarities

Rosie and Vahraz,

Yes it is true that Zororastrianism had an importnat influence on Judaism and its evolution. As I said, I am a fan of Zoroastrianism myself. However one has to avoid exaggerations on either side. The fact is that there was immense MUTUAL inlfuence between the two worldviews, and as Rosie said, the affinity was there even before they met. I think part of the reason becomes clear when we see the context. Judaism and Zoroastrianism both entail revolutionary worldviews. The context against which they revolted were quite similar. Egypt and India had a lot in common. Pharaoh is basically a Buddhist like enlightened king (notice the serpent comeing out of his third eye for instance), the were both obsessed with after life and they both entailed cast systems. Zoroastrianism and Judaism turned it upside down, and based the worldview on an originially anti-enlightenment (in the Hindu meaning) approach to the world. Hence it became a moral battle ground. That's who a moral world view was born, which is also a world view of exile. (Read Joseph Campbel) Now Rosie, you say the Hebrew god was a vicious desert deity demanding submission. That is not correct. The God of Torah is associated with desert because the pantheon of pagans, especially egypt, were the outcome urban agricultural systems with all its complexity. (Persians were also a desert sojourning people compared to the sophisticated Mesoptamians and the Indus valley civilizations. Ahuras were also seen as vicious demons of the Rig Veda worshipped by the uncivilized desert dwellers. There is actually evidence that there might have been a lower class revolt involved in the separation of Iran from India, similar to that of the Hebrews from Egypt. See here: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasa
The Dasa-Dehgan connection is an interesting one)
What I'm saying is that the Biblical narrative is so on purpose Rosie. Your view is quite old, nineteenth century actually with connections to theosofists biased views. They were very anti-semitic.
Thats also why God of Abraham has no name and is unknown. That's because teh enlightenment approach of Egypt and India have man reaching God within through knowledge. So this is a God without who is unknown. Is not reached, but he is one who reaches others (Abraham et al.)
I don't see that kind of rigidity in the Torah version of God either. He demands a covenant. That is an agreement, not a dictatorship like submission (unlike Islam for instance), and the Bible is very ambiguous even about the Law. See Ruth for instance. You see one can argue that the finer deities of the agricultural civilizations were at the same time the most rigid in terms of social order and cast system. Where as the Jewish God is the more humane and progressive. It's debatable.

To Rosie and Zion: Point of Interest

Point of interest on the subject of Judaism (and other Abrahamic religions) borroinwg of concepts from Zoroastroniasm: Many concepts of today’s three main monotheist religions were borrowed from Zoroastrianism, which is not surprising given the geographical proximity and the cultural and political exchanges, invasions and influences. The whole idea of dichotomy, i.e., one God and one Devil (Ohrmazd and Ahreman) were first introduced to the world by Zoroastrianism, which predates Judaism. The various religions that were around before Zoroastrianism believed in multiple gods. Many practices in Judaism (Bar Mitzvah and the string that is tied around the waist by orthodox Jews (I’m sorry I don’t know the name for it by we call it Kusti) for example) have Zoroastrian origins. You can also see the vast influence of Zoroastrianism in Islam with borrowed ideas and practices such as the five daily prayers, the idea of balance after death, where your good and bad deeds are balanced against each other, and many more concepts that are too numerous to list. Even the word “ifrit” meaning devil, that is mentioned in the Quran is a Pahlavi word. It is also note worthy that one of the main architects of Islam was a person by the name of Salman Farsi (Persian name Roozbehan or Maya), who was a Zoroastrian Persian aristocrat who left (possibly fled after an attempt to take over the Persian Throne?) Persia and after first moving to Judea and converting to Christianity, he joined the Prophet Mohamed in Medina, converted to Islam and became one of his closest advisors and confidantes. It is said that he influenced the teaching of Islam by introducing, and incorporating many Zoroastrian teachings even before the two cultures met following the invasion of Persia by Muslim Arabs. But that’s a whole different subject matter…..

Achaemenids / Talmudic exegesis

Thanks for your post.  I just can't stand naeme-calling on this site, even when it's couched in prayer....There's always a better way to tell someone you don't think they're being on the ball...

Anyway I was mostly referring to the political and cultural environment which the Achaemends provided, which basically asved Jadaism from destruction and encouraged its flourishing, without which Talmudic exegesis could not have evolved.  Factually that's as far as I can go for the moment,

However intuitively I have some other ideas.  It is known that the Judaic concept of afterlife came from the Persians.  I suspect also that a large part of the propensity fr analysis did.  Don't forget that most of the books of the Zend Avesta disappeared 2000 years ago.  We don't really know what was in there, but we can allow ourselves to imagine.

Zoroastrianism seems to me in many ways an intellectual religion.  The very concept good thoughts/words/deeds is an intellectual one, there is a hidden syllogistic argument contained there, and an excellent one at that. Also, once again, the primary focus is on LANGUAGE.  Logos.  Thoughts (which are language-based) lead to words, which then manifest in action.

It's true that the primacy of language is also evident in Judaism from the early words of Geneis, "And god SAID let there be light."  And again, back to LIght, so Judaism and Zoroastrianism had great affinities way before they met face to face and fertilized each other in Babylon.

But my sense, my INTUITIVE sense of the Old Testament, is that the primacy of language, hence intellect, was overshadowed by FEAR--the fear of a wrathful, capricious,.cantankerous desert god, until it was tamed by the Persian influence, where Ahura Mazda needs US to be reasonable in order to fulfill his/our destiny, rather than WE being utterly dependent on and subservient to a tyrranical god.

That's just an intuition.  I can't prove it unless I re-read the entire Old Testament, which I haven't really been exposed to all that much since I was a child. And that would take a little while....

And as for the Zend Avesta, again, it can't be read.

Robin

Bully?

Hi Rosie,

I'm sorry you think I was behaving like a bully. But please listen, what do you want me to say to someone who after all this talk about nations and peoples and how a Jewish state is not a religious state, to repeat the same nonsense about how he is so against us having thrown the poor palestinians out of their homes because our God gave us the land. As if none of this discussion had been going on?
You might consider this elementary school bullying, but I do not have time to waste with a certain group of people who do not listen t what you say, do not understand it anyway, and only make the same old pathetic accusations with no basis as they have done in the past 60 years non stop. What's the point?

Thanks for your compliments, but i do not deserve. Unfortunately my knowledge on no field is extensive.
And for Zoroastrianism. I am a big of its great teachings. Never a bad time to remind ourselves of it. I became interested though. I knew of Achaemenid influence on the final redaction of the Torah (and the Tanach in general). You know Ezra and all that. I didn't know about Talmudic exegesis tracing back to the Achaemenids. I though the practice was a mixture of old Jewish spirit and the hellenistic debating methods. I knew of the Sassanid influence on teh Bavli, but not the Achaemenids. Could you write a bit more on this?

Isaac C.

Yahoodestaani envoy revisits Zionestaan...

Zion and others, I am fascinated by the discussion that was starting to take place here, especially concerning the use of the word "nation", not only in the Jewish context, but also because as I've said before, on this website all we have are words, and when necessary, we must imagine new languages.  So the question of language use here is of paramount importance to me both as a Jew on this thread  and as a participant in the general website discussions
I'm also extremely interested in Khazaria, and have a lot of knowledge about the on-going debate, which is by no means concluded yet, and I'd really hoped to hop on this train.  If I didn't post earlier, it was because the issues are complex and as such each post demands considerable time and thought.  So here I am, today, ready and raring to go, and what do I find...

I find that Zion, despite your obvious brilliance, and yoor display of  a knowledge of history afar too rare on this website, which has justly been termed a "tabloid," you have regressed to the level of a fourth grade schoolyard bully in both the language and intent of your insults.  You have thoroughly undermined your credibility as a debater. And although we are ideologically opposed on the question of Zionism, as a born Jew it pains  me to see a "landsman" (as I assume you are) not uding your "yiddusher kopf."

Remember please, good thoughts, good words, your words here ARE your deeds....and no harm in throwing in a little Zoroastrianism, for as I'm quite sure you know, Zion, the Talmudic rabinnical tradition of exegesis owes more than can be expressed to the Achaemenids.

Robin Goldsmith

A Prayer

I pray you get a tiny bit of brain to use and for a little bit of sanity for you.
Amen.

I did not intend to cause you any pain my HAM VATAN

I do not see any problem with ....
But please do understand it pains me to see -Palestinians - or any other human being rubbed of there home and land because you believe your God gives the right to do so ...

I wish for peace .... and Justice

We are Iranians (You and I) let us work for peace .... and Justice - Palestinians deserve to be treated better … Decent as a human Being .

Any way... I wish you a very happy new year...

Oh, not the Khazar nonsense again!

For your information (although I doubt it you have the necessary IQ to get it anyways)

//www.jewishpress.com/displayContent_new.cfm?...

And for your information, Jews are a people not a race. So genetics is basically completely irrelevant.
Iranian Jews are Iranian. OK, why not? Iran has always been a multi-ethnic land. One of the ethnicities are the Jews. (one of the oldest in Iran, actually).
If any Iranian Jew prefers to live in Israel, she can also be an Israeli. What's wrong with that? Is not as if she would be taking any piece of Iran and separate it that way.
Why don't you give up on such crappy obsessions of yours against Zionism?

85% of jews are Ashkenazi THAT IS TO SAY KHAZARS!

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed03N_rz5-Q&feature...

Your origins are KHAZAR and not "Kharistani"

But "Ben Madadi" and all Iranian Jews are IRANIANS no MATTER WHAT ARE THE origins.

Race and racial purity is a western concept and not Iranian.

Ashkenazi KHAZARS are a race and not a religion but a RACE POSING AS A RELIGION.

Jews wishing to understand their roots might do better to visit Kiev than Jerusalem.

//www.khazaria.com/

Nope

Well, based on what you've written here, they sort of correspond to Hamas and the rest of Pali-terrosrists, don't they?
Why should I object! ;)

: Zion

Okay, let's not bring Mohammad etc into the debate because they represent some people's deep convictions and it's better leaving them out ;)
Do you mind Kharistanis being relatives of Jews? Many Iraniasn got so mad at me when I said they resembled Iranians (me including, right?). So I converted them to Jewish. Is that a problem?

Conversion

You can convert, of course. If you couldn't then it would be racism!
But you can also change your nationality. You can become a citizen of the US for instance. Actually teh Jewish conversion process is much more similar to the naturalization processes of modern states. It takes at least a year of study and preparation. You have to learn some Hebrew etc. Then there would be a council who "test" you on your knowledge, values and also beliefs, and you undergo a ritualistic ceremony.
Whereas conversion to Islam or Christianity is a simple decleration of faith, much like joining the Communist party. :)
Nation is a modern term. If you prefer I say Jews are a "people". Israel is their nation state in the modern sense. The whole point is that A Jewish state is not a religious state or a theocracy.
Any old culture of a people who have retained their individual identity as a separate people includes religous ideas and elements. In Judaism, because of the people were expelled from their land many times and for somany years, the religious aspects became more dominant in order to preserve the peoplehood. But they were not the only medium. The languag was retained and taught (although not spoken daily up to modern Zionist movements revitalized it) and the ceremonies and so on.
The point is that even the religion is nation based. It has all to do with a specific piece of land, a specific temple, a specific sets of rituals all defined and dependent ultimately on that land. It is a land based religion with a universalits ideal background. Much like Zoroastrianism in old times actually.
The religous figures are also much more like mythical heros and national characters. That's why they can err, they do err, they are all human. Whereas in Christianity and Islam, who have stolen these figures and taken them out of their actual meaning and context need to have infallible godf-like objects of worship.
Jesus is a God and Muhammad can't even be depicted, or mentioned without a train of titles before and after his name.
There are just so many ways to show this essential difference.

: Zion

If I convert to Judaism now in its proper sense, contact a rabbi and do whatever he says bla bla, will I become a Jewish, nation-wise speaking? I won't. How could I? That would be crazy. It depends on how people interpret nationhood. Many Iranians will get mad at me if I say that my NATIONALITY is Azeri. It may actually be wrong to say that because my nationality is Iranian according to the most common International standards because I was born in Iran. But I personally see Judasim MORE like a religion than like a nationality because you can convert to it. If the only way to become Jewish was through birth then it was definitely a nationality :)

Jews are a nation

I'm sorry Rosie, but as another Jew I have to disagree with you. Even the nutcases in Neturei Karta ultimately agree with the rest of us that Jews comprise a specific tribe, nation, whatever you want to call it. The only disagreement is that the religious fanatic nutcases want to reduce all the nationhood into its religious aspect. As I said, they are nuts. No wonder they cuddle their lovely Mahmoud, and before that their loveley Yasser.

Islam IS a poltical ideological universalist faith. It does NOT correspond to a nation. It instead demands an evergrwong Umma that is supposed to consume the entire globe and destroy all nations and sissolve them into itself. (very much like a cancer tumpr really).

And Christianity TODAY is a secular faith. It was formed initially as a political entity umma (they called it Ecclesias ie Church, but that is what was meant) of its own under Constantine. Anything before that comrised of either Jewish sects (which were branded heretical) and other greaco-roman mystery cults. It was only gradually that Christianity was tamed by reasona nd civilisation after centuries of torture and bloodshed.
Neither Islam nor Christianity accept nationhood within their worldview. They are both based on simply defined doctrinal rules. They are and will always be ideologies.
Not so with Judaism. It is a culture of a group of people. In modern terms that would mean a nation.

Yahoodistaani envoy visits Zionistaan

There is no universal agreement whatsoever among Jews as to the legitimacy of the current state of Israel as the representative of Jewish nationhood. Indeed the MOST literal interpreters of the Old Testament, those of certain "ultra-orthodox" sects, vehemently deny the right of the current state of Israel to exist (as you probably know from their happy tea party with Mahmood recently), because the Bible states that the return to Zion will come WHEN the Meshiach comes. And, well, obviously...

he ain't come yet...so...

since there is no uniformity among Jews on the issue (although there is certainly PROPAGANDA asserting uniformity), in my opinion as a secular Jew, it IS far better to consider Judaism a faith.

Anyway, Islam too was conceived with a sense of itself as a political entity. Only Christianity, of the Abrahamic faiths, clearly delineates between church and state: Render unto God what is God's and unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
I like that.

Jews can't primarily be identified as a "faith"

Mehdi,
Listen and try , just try, to finally understand this simple fact.
Islam is a faith a religion, based on faith. Christianity is a faith. They are universal religious doctrins.
Judaism and Jews are NOT a faith. OK? They are a NATION, a Community, an old tribe, with a specific faith and religion of their own. So a Jewish state is NOT a religiou state. It is a national state. Do you understand?
This thing called "Zionism" that all you people have a deliriou sobsession against it, is simply the political statement of this simple fact. Jews are a nation, Zionism is their nationalism and Israel is ther NATION-state.
Ooof.
Is really not that complicated,

Religious Freedom

Is it possible to have religious freedom in a country that calls itself an "Islamic" state or "Jewish" state? Do we know of any democratic country that forces its people to be called the followers of only one faith? What would happen to such governments if they took out the religious enforcement? Would they exists as such? One can hope for religious freedom, where people can have any faith they choose to have, even if atheist.

Dear Ben they are going to keep.........

 No matter what you say there will always be someone that is not happy with your writing.

I for once have decided not to debate with anyone on this website for a long long time. It was getting hateful and I don't like doing hateful.  Instead I will ask questions on clarifications on any points that I do not understand clearly. I am taking notes on certain hot spots as new friend pointed out of Iranian history and culture to further my knowledge and understanding of said information.

Good luck with your writings. Also I hope you are well. Best wishes

Nadia

hey Ben

you are a disgrace to iranian azaris,,and please note that i wrote AZARI, not the way u spell it: AZERI. Azeri (azerbayjan) is the USSR pronounciation, and it looks like u like them a lot and support their hatred towards iranians too. why dont u go find urself an azeri website and write ur bullcrap over there. As for iranians (azari or not) we dont want to see ur offensive writings here anymore. ur azeri gardash need ppl like u, and as for azaris like me, we are iranians and work and write for the interest of all iranians, and we consider persians and other ethnic minorities as our siblings, not our enemies.

REPLY : Kharistan or what so ever

taking into account the followings, one must say it was not neccessary for kharistanis coming down. Just see:

US 'has no stomach for Iran war. In means, said in clear farsi words the Bushy bushy and his condolences do not have the SAHREH to behave respectless against IRI.
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:07:43
Kim Howells
UK Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Kim Howells says the US is reluctant to invade Iran, despite its rhetoric.

The Pontypridd MP warned that the ongoing standoff between Iran and the West would have dire consequences for the international community.

He added that another US-led military attack would spark opposition in the British Parliament.

“It's not fashionable to say it, but I didn't meet anybody in the States who wants to invade Iran. The US was heavily involved in Iraq and Afghanistan and could do without a further war in Iran,” the British official said in a meeting with members of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

“We certainly never threatened Iran with military action and we have no intention of doing so," he said.

"I can't speak for other countries in the world, but no one has said they think it would be a good idea to take military action in Iran, and quite frankly I don't think there is any requirement for it,” Howells concluded.
the gentleman who has brought out this "Big Secret" is not the only one who are convinced: Imperialism is lost for ever. Greeting