User Tag List

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6
Results 51 to 54 of 54

Thread: Christian hate thread169 days old

  1. #51
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist An Shigao's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2014-11-19
    Posts
    1,104
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Race
    Caucasian
    Phenotype
    Iranid
    Ethnicity
    Persian
    United States Islamic Republic of Iran

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    Sogdians, like all other Tajiks, have a lot more Aryan ancestry than Persians, so your quick correction is wrong.
    Only about 25-40%. They still have significantly more Neolithic Iranian.

    Moreover, Zoroastrianism wasn't even the first henotheistic religion (that would be the ancient Assyrian religion), and not even the first dualistic religion (that would be the ancient Egyptian religion)
    No, it was the first dualist religion in the sense of light/dark duality being foundational to it. I gave lots of sources to this elsewhere.

    All this doesn't matter; my point remains valid: if Zoroastrianism and/or Mithraism would have dominated Europe, you wouldn't have started this rant thread about how much you hate Zoroastrian Europe.
    That's because when Zoroastrianism gained Greek Neoplatonic influences, it became richer than Christianity. Zurvanism and Mazdakism were also more interesting.

    An Shigao logic: Christianity is wrong because it isn't Iranian. Great argument dude. Very intellectual and mind-blowing stuff. I mean that's the gist of your argument and it's a logical fallacy at best. As if ethnicity was somehow an authority to how true or false, or good or bad a religion/ideology is.
    That's not my main argument. Look at the "Problem of Evil" thread where I refined my arguments better.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by IstenmeyenTuy View Post
    Sogdians are Turk's ancestors (one of them) and also Turks have more 'aryan' ancestry than Persians
    Sogdians have nothing to do with Turks. You are a very annoying poster.
    Last edited by An Shigao; 2017-08-11 at 18:22.

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Location
    ForumBiodiversity.com
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  3. #52
    Wiki Editor
    Moderator
    The Grand Inquisitor of ABF NixYO's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2014-04-07
    Posts
    2,216
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Germanic
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Politics
    Nationalism
    Religion
    Christianity
    Sweden Finland Kalmar Union Sami Sweden Tre Kronor

    Default

    This is ABF – not TürkChan or Türkfront!

    /mod
    “And, furthermore, that some people have a sex life and others don’t just because some are more attractive than others. I wanted to acknowledge that if people don’t have a sex life, it’s not for some moral reason, it’s just because they’re ugly. Once you’ve said it, it sounds obvious, but I wanted to say it.” — Michel Houellebecq

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to NixYO For This Useful Post:

    Power77 (2017-08-11)

  5. #53
    Senior Moderator
    Plant of Life = Biological Magic 麻 EliasAlucard's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-22
    Posts
    12,735
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Y-DNA
    J1a2b2-L147+ CMH-6
    mtDNA
    H5a
    Race
    Caucasian
    Phenotype
    Alpinid
    Metaethnos
    proto-Semitic
    Ethnicity
    Assyrian/Armenian
    Politics
    Ecofascism, Radicalism
    Religion
    Secular Agnostic
    Assyria Assyria 1913-1923 Armenia Lebanon Sweden Greece

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by An Shigao View Post
    Only about 25-40%.
    That's a lot more Yamnaya admixture than Persians have (and I'm sure Sogdians/Tajiks had even more Yamnaya ancestry, during the time of Zoroaster). Which begs the question: what makes you think Zoroastrianism isn't an Indo-European religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by An Shigao View Post
    They still have significantly more Neolithic Iranian.
    Doesn't matter; Zoroastrianism isn't a Neolithic religion. And it would be impossible to prove it if it was, because no Neolithic religions survived into the historical records; perhaps ancient Semitic religions (and Sumerian etc.) could be descendants of late Neolithic religions. Arguably the proto-Indo-European religion was a late Neolithic religion, but it never made it into written documents.

    Quote Originally Posted by An Shigao View Post
    No, it was the first dualist religion in the sense of light/dark duality being foundational to it. I gave lots of sources to this elsewhere.
    Dualism isn't really about light and darkness, but rather, about good and evil, and I'm sorry to break your balls here, but the Egyptian religion preceded Zoroastrianism in that regard. Light and darkness is just a metaphor for good and evil anyway.

    Moral dualism began as a theological belief. Dualism was first seen implicitly in Egyptian Religious beliefs by the contrast of the gods Set (disorder, death) and Osiris (order, life).[2] The first explicit conception of dualism came from the Ancient Persian Religion of Zoroastrianism around the mid-fifth century BC. Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic religion that believes that Ahura Mazda is the eternal creator of all good things. Any violations of Ahura Mazda's order arise from druj, which is everything uncreated. From this comes a significant choice for humans to make. Either they fully participate in human life for Ahura Mazda or they do not and give druj power. Personal dualism is even more distinct in the beliefs of later religions.

    The religious dualism of Christianity between good and evil is not a perfect dualism as God (good) will inevitably destroy Satan (evil). Early Christian Dualism is largely based on Platonic Dualism (See: Neoplatonism and Christianity). There is also a personal dualism in Christianity with a soul-body distinction based on the idea of an immaterial Christian Soul.[3]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism#History

    ^^ So even there, you're wrong, twice, because the dualism in Christianity, isn't necessarily from Zoroastrianism, but from Platonic dualism. More importantly however, dualism per se was already present in the proto-Indo-European ideology, namely, the distinction between the left hand (evil) and right hand (good), so now you're wrong thrice, because the monotheist reformation of Indo-Iranian religion into the dualism of Zoroastrianism, clearly has its roots in Indo-European ideology, and not some Neolithic ancestry of prehistoric Tajiks nonsense you're trying to sell us.

    But let's say you're right: let's say, Zoroastrianism was a non-Indo-European religion developed by a Neolithic tribe with little to no Yamnaya ancestry, and this tribe somehow weren't influenced by the religious world-view of the proto-Indo-Europeans, whose language they spoke a descendant of... how would that be a valid reason to hate Christianity? To the extent that one should love or hate religions, it should be based on how beautiful/good or ugly/evil these religions are, not over some silly ethnic copyright stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by An Shigao View Post
    That's because when Zoroastrianism gained Greek Neoplatonic influences, it became richer than Christianity. Zurvanism and Mazdakism were also more interesting.
    To you. More interesting to you, and the only reason you think Zoroastrianism is more interesting than Christianity, is because it's an ethnic religion, practiced by ancient peoples of similar ancestry as yourself. That's the only reason you find Zoroastrianism interesting in the first place. Just like some north European white nationalists find Asatro more interesting than Christianity; because Asatro is connected to their ancestry. The ethnic appeal is what they find interesting, not because it's such a fascinating religion otherwise. And likewise, to the extent that white nationalists dislike Christianity, it's largely because Christianity is a non-ethnic religion, that replaced their ethnic religion.

    It's no coincidence that you're basically the only member who keeps glorifying Zoroastrinism on this forum, and that's only because your ancestry is Persian. Had Zoroastrianism been theologically exactly the same, but originally developed and practiced exclusively by Bantus or something, you probably wouldn't be talking much about Zoroastrianism.

    To summarize: your penchant for Zoroastrianism is simply a matter of ethnic bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by An Shigao View Post
    That's not my main argument. Look at the "Problem of Evil" thread where I refined my arguments better.
    I did, and if I remember correctly I even replied to that thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by An Shigao View Post
    Sogdians have nothing to do with Turks. You are a very annoying poster.
    This is all off topic, and will probably be deleted later. Thread is about hating Christianity, not whether Sogdians are Turks or not. Stop posting about this stuff in this thread, and start a new thread about Turkic Iranians or whatever, if you guys wanna discuss that.

    //mod
    ReactOS <--- support this project so that we can get rid of Windows!
    Ubuntu MATE 16.04.1 LTS | PRISM-Break! | Windows7sins

    “A wise man makes his own decisions; an ignorant man follows public opinion.” ― Chinese proverb

    “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.” ― H. L. Mencken

    “The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.”Socrates

    “Damnant quod non intelligunt.” ― Latin proverb

    Quoted for truth:
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaron View Post
    Anatolian Urhemait supporters are mostly butthurt Meds.
    For the lulz:
    Quote Originally Posted by drgs View Post
    Poland is a misunderstanding. It is a country which lies on the frontier between western and slavic world, and which combines elements of both.
    In fact, they are not even the Europeans in strict sense, meaning European as in bearing the responsibility and understanding of European interests. Poland has always been an subordinate country, on one side sucking German dick, on the other side -- Russian one, some kind of "novice" europeans, who are full of inferiority complexes, hysteria and obsessity neuroses. This is also true for all Baltic countries

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to EliasAlucard For This Useful Post:

    Power77 (2017-08-11)

  7. #54
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist An Shigao's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2014-11-19
    Posts
    1,104
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Race
    Caucasian
    Phenotype
    Iranid
    Ethnicity
    Persian
    United States Islamic Republic of Iran

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    That's a lot more Yamnaya admixture than Persians have (and I'm sure Sogdians/Tajiks had even more Yamnaya ancestry, during the time of Zoroaster). Which begs the question: what makes you think Zoroastrianism isn't an Indo-European religion?
    This is beginning to become annoying. Indo-Iranian polytheism was developed by different various peoples into different religions like Mithraism and Zoroastrianism. Just because one gives the platform of beliefs that were developed into drastically different ideologies does not make their common root decimate their differences.

    Also, I do not know how much Proto-Indo-Iranian ancestry the Sogdians had, probably around 25-40 percent like I surmised, but PCA autosomal DNA plots show they were still on the order of Neolithic Iranians.

    Doesn't matter; Zoroastrianism isn't a Neolithic religion. And it would be impossible to prove it if it was, because no Neolithic religions survived into the historical records; perhaps ancient Semitic religions (and Sumerian etc.) could be descendants of late Neolithic religions. Arguably the proto-Indo-European religion was a late Neolithic religion, but it never made it into written documents.
    Zoroastrianism was a reformation by either a Bactrian or Sogdian magus, Zarathustra, into becoming more henotheistic and dualistic. Some scholars argue it was monotheistic, but I disagreed with that. Granted, that is contentious.

    Dualism isn't really about light and darkness, but rather, about good and evil, and I'm sorry to break your balls here, but the Egyptian religion preceded Zoroastrianism in that regard. Light and darkness is just a metaphor for good and evil anyway.
    The idea of a "transcendental" good and evil that a God, or dynamic of God vs. Evil Satan, gives foundation to came by way of Zoroastrian influence.

    I talked about more influences here:
    http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=47586


    "The first explicit conception of dualism came from the Ancient Persian Religion of Zoroastrianism around the mid-fifth century BC. "

    Some people debate on the year. Some people say 1000 BC, etc.

    ^^ So even there, you're wrong, twice, because the dualism in Christianity, isn't necessarily from Zoroastrianism, but from Platonic dualism.
    Is that why the idea of Satan was borrowed from Zoroastrianism?

    More importantly however, dualism per se was already present in the proto-Indo-European ideology, namely, the distinction between the left hand (evil) and right hand (good), so now you're wrong thrice, because the monotheist reformation of Indo-Iranian religion into the dualism of Zoroastrianism, clearly has its roots in Indo-European ideology, and not some Neolithic ancestry of prehistoric Tajiks nonsense you're trying to sell us.
    Listen, have you even read books on this because I am starting to get a headache and annoyed. I am saying Indo-Iranian polytheism was developed into other religions by the people it was passed onto. It's like how if you give x religion to y people, then they will turn into z religion based off their own influences and state.

    But let's say you're right: let's say, Zoroastrianism was a non-Indo-European religion
    Never did I argue this. I am saying Zoroastrianism is like Hinduism in that it derived from Indo-European religion while retaining strong Indo-European characteristics. Its metaphysics simply shifted elsewhere.

    To you. More interesting to you, and the only reason you think Zoroastrianism is more interesting than Christianity, is because it's an ethnic religion, practiced by ancient peoples of similar ancestry as yourself.
    Annoying straw man. I find Zoroastrianism more interesting because I find the way it grapples with the Problem of Evil very interesting. It goes to extreme lengths to rationalize evil without contradiction.

    It's no coincidence that you're basically the only member who keeps glorifying Zoroastrinism on this forum, and that's only because your ancestry is Persian. Had Zoroastrianism been theologically exactly the same, but originally developed and practiced exclusively by Bantus or something, you probably wouldn't be talking much about Zoroastrianism... To summarize: your penchant for Zoroastrianism is simply a matter of ethnic bias.
    I am a Ch'an Buddhist, which was developed by the Chinese. I gave long lectures on this already.
    Last edited by An Shigao; 2017-08-11 at 22:53.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6

Similar Threads

  1. Christian Identity
    By Durcherrs in forum Nationalism & Fascism
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2016-04-02, 13:15
  2. Christian Lindner
    By M16 in forum Classification Requests
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2011-04-04, 12:50
  3. Christian Gross
    By M16 in forum Classification Requests
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2010-10-13, 13:30
  4. Claudia Christian
    By M16 in forum Classification Requests
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2010-01-02, 14:51
  5. Christian Slater
    By Sohigh!!! in forum Classification Requests
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2010-01-02, 14:45

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<