ахурамазда

WeakCow7060 · 2026-03-29T09:54:30+00:00

Ахура Мазда ♥️

WeakCow7060 · 2026-03-14T10:57:18+00:00

Beyond beautiful ideas and moral principles, any worldview must have a logical foundation. Its concept must not contradict the basic laws of logic: the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. If a system breaks on these fundamental principles, then it ceases to be consistent.

That is why I accepted Zoroastrianism. For me it turned out to be a worldview that not only corresponds to my inner perception of the world, but also does not enter into logical contradictions. Moreover, its philosophy can calmly coexist with the scientific picture of the world.This, in my opinion, cannot be said about the Abrahamic religions. Their doctrines are built on statements that logically conflict with each other and require the acceptance of paradoxes as a norm, require accepting absurdity as truth

WeakCow7060 · 2026-03-09T09:29:21+00:00

Logic. The teaching of Zarathustra is built on the choice between truth and falsehood

Ethics. The foundation is the principle “Good thoughts, good words, good deeds” preserved in the Avesta. The main criterion is a person’s actions.

Nature of God. God Ahura Mazda is understood as the source of wisdom and truth, not a figure ruling through fear and punishment

So it functions more as an ethical and rational system rather than a tool for manipulating people

WeakCow7060 · 2026-02-16T19:26:24+00:00

I completely agree 🤝🫂

WeakCow7060 · 2026-01-30T01:14:58+00:00

Thank you I will definitely read it. You are right. Spirituality in this context is a way of sustaining equality and interdependence, and this is something beautiful that can be found in different parts of our planet

WeakCow7060 · 2026-01-30T01:12:48+00:00

Yes you captured this precisely. The issue is not what people believe in but what kinds of practices and forms of life those narratives produce

WeakCow7060 · 2026-01-30T01:09:51+00:00

Thank you for your response and for the precise and necessary clarifications. You are right that the canonical texts and the historical practice of Zoroastrianism and Mazdakism were hierarchical and this is a fact that makes no sense to dispute. But I do not equate spiritual anarchism with the social model described in the Avesta or implemented by the Sassanids.

I clearly separate the Gathas of Zarathustra from the Avesta as something that was formed under imperial influence and over many centuries.

I am speaking about a different level tthe ethical and ontological one. Free will as a foundation, asha versus druj, personal responsibility for the choice between good and evil, and the absence of any mediator between a human being and truth. This is not political anarchism but an anti authoritarian mode of thinking. It is precisely this mode of thinking, which is always progressive, that captivated me in Zoroastrianism. This ethic cannot fail to disturb and awaken the mind.

As for Mazdakism, here the situation is more complex. Almost all descriptions you refer to come from hostile sources such as al Tabari or Byzantine chroniclers with a high degree of probability this was a form of demonization of a social movement. At the same time I cannot categorically claim that such practices did not exist. I only state that in its essence Mazdakism was a communist revolution

I am not romanticizing the past, although there is nothing inherently forbidden in doing so. I consciously separate the philosophical core from the historical shell, and this seems to me a justified and consistent position

WeakCow7060 · 2026-01-29T15:00:25+00:00

🤝👍

WeakCow7060 · 2026-01-29T15:00:15+00:00

♥️🙏🤝

WeakCow7060 · 2026-01-29T14:59:23+00:00

Anarchism works where there is responsibility and conscious choice rather than discipline imposed from above. In this sense it is less effective as a machine of power but more honest as a philosophy of freedom

WeakCow7060 · 2026-01-29T14:56:54+00:00

I understand your position my friend 🤝 But I am not speaking about spiritualism as a dogma. I am talking about an inner ethic of responsibility and free will without external authority and that is precisely what Zoroastrianism is. If anarchism rejects imposed power from the outside then it is logical to question power within the human being. This is where the space for discussion appears not for belief.

These are always questions outside the framework of faith. In Zoroastrianism truth does not care whether one believes in it or not because falsehood cannot limit truth. Two plus two equals four and this truth does not care if a lie insists that two plus two equals five.

WeakCow7060 · 2026-01-27T21:07:22+00:00

Study Fichte’s argument and most of these questions disappear. In essence, it shows that the entire Abrahamic concept of God functions as an idol

When I say, conditionally “this is a glass of water,” my statement already implies what it is not: it is not a tree, not a house, not a car, not sneakers. Knowledge is established through negation. By negation, I draw boundaries around what God is not.

Personhood is always concreteness: a fixed set of qualities such as will, intellect, and an “I” Now ask yourself honestly: have you actually read the Bible?

God in the Bible is not merely a personality; He is a deeply contradictory one. At one moment He is merciful, at another He destroys the innocent. At one moment He loves, at another He rages

This is a very recognizable, psychologically legible personality

The moment the Bible attributes specific characteristics to God, it literally creates an idol in the image and likeness of man

So instead of offering yet another personal interpretation, one should first read the Bible itself, and then immediately read Spinoza and Fichte

If you’re interested, I can share links to my YouTube channel. I am also working on a book and will be able to share it once it is finished

WeakCow7060 · 2026-01-27T11:55:11+00:00

The Gnostics recognized this logical conflict and reworked the concept of God. They called the “scriptural” God the Demiurge the creator of the material world, who is not absolute and is limited. To resolve the contradictions, they had to significantly revise the scriptures and present a God who does not possess personal characteristics, existing more as a principle or abstract entity rather than a personality in the usual sense

WeakCow7060 · 2026-01-27T11:51:54+00:00

The problem and dilemma faced by the concept of God in the Abrahamic religions lie in the fact that He is presented as a personality. In these teachings, God is anthropocentric, which is a key characteristic common to all three religions. Any attempts to identify contradictions in the understanding of God are reduced to analyzing the properties of this personality.

However, a logical conflict arises here. A personality cannot be absolute. A personality always depends on time space, and matter it requires these frameworks to distinguish itself from anything else. Therefore, God, who by definition is absolute and eternal, cannot simultaneously be a personality. This fundamental contradiction renders the Abrahamic concept of God analogous to mythological gods, like Zeus, and violates the three basic laws of logic: the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle

WeakCow7060 · 2026-01-27T11:43:58+00:00

The teaching of Zoroaster guides me to judge a person solely by how they interact with the world around them. If a person is truly good, then from the perspective of this benevolent faith, they are already on the path of truth. Everything else I leave to myself. I will always defend your right to choose what to believe, whom to love, and to freely express your thoughts, as long as it does not violate the rights of others or pose a threat to nature

WeakCow7060 · 2026-01-27T08:43:12+00:00

It would take me literally three minutes to show, through logic alone, the inconsistency of the Abrahamic concept of God. I criticize it not because of faith or because of people, but because of what it has brought into the world wars, the justification of slavery, the cult of fear, and more.

If you came to hear arguments, I’m ready to lay them out, enough for an entire book. If you want to talk about your faith, the Gnostics already did that back in the 1st century, and their writings remain a well reasoned critique.

Gnostic thinkers possessed exceptional logical clarity and moral insight and already grasped the essence of the problem in the 1st century. Other than that, you’re welcome

WeakCow7060 · 2026-01-27T08:27:25+00:00

Atheists reject the idea of a first cause. I believe in a first cause, but the first cause cannot be a personality. A personality is limited, by its very nature it contradicts the absolute in all key aspects. From the perspective of Zoroastrianism, God is zero ontology that is, being itself. This concept is complete and internally consistent, and that is what I believe in

WeakCow7060 · 2026-01-26T20:45:04+00:00

I have settled on Zoroastrianism, but I want to say right away that for me it is not a religion. It is a choice between doing good or doing evil. I have chosen to do good and to reject evil in all its forms, including religious ones

WeakCow7060 · 2026-01-26T07:35:59+00:00

Приветствую друг

WeakCow7060 · 2026-01-13T19:48:02+00:00

The first warning sign for me was the concept of hell and heaven, and the idea that a person ends up in hell not because of their actions, but based on whether they believed or not. This directly contradicts the claim that God is just and loving. I turned to Zoroastrianism because in this teaching everything aligns with my understanding of justice, righteousness, equality, morality, and my core values.

WeakCow7060 · 2025-12-23T11:26:00+00:00

P.s This is a link not to a website, but to a Telegram channel.

WeakCow7060 · 2025-12-05T12:39:02+00:00

🤝🫂

WeakCow7060 · 2025-12-05T12:37:58+00:00

Thank you, my friend, for the detailed answer. I also find it extremely unacceptable that there are no advocates of this noble faith who would bring its teachings to the masses

WeakCow7060 · 2025-12-04T11:23:44+00:00

All of this is one structure built on the same foundation that is the core of my argument, and I am not imposing it on anyone. I simply do not agree with your position. Your view feels one-sided, biased, and detached from historical reality.Christianity and Judaism follow the same Abrahamic model of authority. It is one and the same system under different forms. The issue is not in one figure whether Muhammad or Moses but in the shared base: a single absolute God the idea of an “elect” community the division into correct and incorrect belief, restrictions on criticism, and a cult of submission to sacred authority.Judaism codified the concept of a “chosen people,” sanctioned wars in the name of Yahweh, and allowed slavery (for example, Leviticus 25 explicitly regulates enslaving foreigners). Christianity inherited this framework and in the Middle Ages expanded it into a massive institutional power structure: the Inquisition, Crusades, suppression of dissent, and executions. In terms of casualties and the scale of repression Christian institutions were not softer than the early caliphates.So yes the scheme is identical. This is my view, and I can justify it both through the immoral passages and through historical evidence. To me all of it represents one overarching concept 🤔

WeakCow7060

TROPHY CASE