Guess the religion of the person above you...

[Zangetshumody]

Atheism

deism

on quote: wish someone would think that about me, lol (paradoxically its how I consider my actions).

 

[Forever]

Atheism c:

 

[rmrf]

Christian

 

[hjgbujhghg]

Protestant

 

[fetus]

Atheist.

 

[miss fortune]

70s style Jesus loves everyone christianity

 

[fetus]

70s style Jesus loves everyone christianity

Same though!

Skip me and do whatever.

 

[Galaxy Gazer]

Agnostic/doesn't really care

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Zoroastrian.

I wonder, statistically, how long this forum would have to exist with what rate of new membership for the expected odds of a Zoroastrian being here to reach 100%

 

[PikUpYourPantsPatrol]

Deist

 

[Lark]

Zoroastrian.

I wonder, statistically, how long this forum would have to exist with what rate of new membership for the expected odds of a Zoroastrian being here to reach 100%

Do you think that the zoroastarians were truly and completely Manichean or not?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Do you think that the zoroastarians were truly and completely Manichean or not?

To be pedantic, since Zoroastrianism is older than Mani, it would be a retro-active label to call it Manichean.

However, to answer the substance of that question, I'm quickly faced with how little I actually know about it. I'm not confident in this, but if I understand correctly, according to Manicheaism, the light and the dark originate from two different naturally existing worlds that came into conflict. According to Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda (or whichever spelling you want) is the original cause and truly supreme, Angra Mainyu being more a less a by product of it, and always being at an ultimate disadvantage against Ahura Mazda. This is in some ways like certain forms of Christian Gnosticism in that the dark god, the demiurge if you will, is a lesser being who's transgressions are in some ways arguably even useful to the greater god of light. I think for Mani (of which I know somewhat less) the opposition is more genuine and independent.

So does that mean one qualifies as a sub-category of the other? They certainly are more similar to each other than they are to many other religions, but like I said, we'd probably have to throw Christian Gnosticism into whatever this category is, too. I'll settle for calling all of them dualistic but I'm not sure it's useful to assign one religion to the other.

But if anyone on this forum just happens to be a real expert on these things, I'd be interested to hear what they know.

EDIT: Oh, and I'm going to take a wild guess that the guy above me is Catholic.

 

[great_bay]

atheist

 

[PikUpYourPantsPatrol]

Thanks for skipping me, pricks....

 

[Hawthorne]

Did someone already say Laveyan? I think they already did.

 

[Lark]

To be pedantic, since Zoroastrianism is older than Mani, it would be a retro-active label to call it Manichean.

However, to answer the substance of that question, I'm quickly faced with how little I actually know about it. I'm not confident in this, but if I understand correctly, according to Manicheaism, the light and the dark originate from two different naturally existing worlds that came into conflict. According to Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda (or whichever spelling you want) is the original cause and truly supreme, Angra Mainyu being more a less a by product of it, and always being at an ultimate disadvantage against Ahura Mazda. This is in some ways like certain forms of Christian Gnosticism in that the dark god, the demiurge if you will, is a lesser being who's transgressions are in some ways arguably even useful to the greater god of light. I think for Mani (of which I know somewhat less) the opposition is more genuine and independent.

So does that mean one qualifies as a sub-category of the other? They certainly are more similar to each other than they are to many other religions, but like I said, we'd probably have to throw Christian Gnosticism into whatever this category is, too. I'll settle for calling all of them dualistic but I'm not sure it's useful to assign one religion to the other.

But if anyone on this forum just happens to be a real expert on these things, I'd be interested to hear what they know.

EDIT: Oh, and I'm going to take a wild guess that the guy above me is Catholic.

I know that Manichean thinking is a stand alone faith but its also a byword for the belief in equal and opposite opposing forces of good and evil, light and darkness, you answered my question though in that you described Zoroastarianism as professing that the good/light is ontological to the evil/dark, and superior, which is actually an orthodox idea within Christianity, including RCC, in opposition to manichean thinking, although I've almost always encountered Zoroastarianism represented as an early example of manichean thinking and also, sometimes, a polytheism (even if its only two deities its not monotheism).

When it comes to gnostic christianity, my understanding of it is that it is posited that the deity of the jews or old testament is a negative force, which is superseded or defeated by the deified Jesus Christ, the man God, which is interesting in some ways but remarkably close to the Greek, Roman or Persian ideas of deified leaders or kings and probably rightly rejected as a consequence, the hebrew's particularly Maimonides thinking, about monotheism and also ontological and superior good, are very, very useful and I'd say progressive, properly understood, in comparison to all other thinking of the time and a lot since.

 

[Flybylikeahurricane]

Atheist

 

[OptoGypsy]

Worships the Grim Reaper

 

[Yama]

Catholic?

 

[OptoGypsy]

[MENTION=23583]21lux[/MENTION] russian orthodox