Nice answers. The fact that I do not know the names of ancient countries match uop with modern ones on a one on one basis threw me off. Not to mention the fact that Farrokh Pluto Bulsara, a.k.a. Freddy Mercury is said to be ethnicaly persian. The wiki entry on Iran/persia is quite interesting.
Oh, and there is so much I disagree with in BrainGluttons posts, but instead of me repeating my points, could I ask you to read my links in post 5, and post 12.
mswas, you brought up a point that totally escaped my mind.
When my father would visit Iran, he’d tell me that Iranians are very proud people: proud of their language, proud of their history, proud of their ethnicity. I guess I got so used to thinking of Iranians/Persians as Shia Muslims that I forgot that Zoroastrians are almost without exception of Persian descent, and that this unique feature would factor in their reluctance and/or refusal in accepting converts.
Maybe this might explain why Parsi Zoroastrians cling to their tradition: being a group of Persians in a land with so many different, other ethnicities must have made them very insular indeed.
When in high school, a teacher there came and gave a presentation on Zoroastrianism to our class. Later, I went to talk to her about her religion. (This was after a little more reading on the religion with what limited resources were available.) When I asked her about their attitude to conversion (and how rejecting that might doom the faith to oblivion), she gave a fascinating explanation why Parsis do not accept converts. Since Parsis agreed not to accept converts as a condition to settle in Gujarat, as people who feel breaking one’s word is a major sin they have no choice but to abide by the promises of their ancestors. They cannot break their promise. Zoroastrianism being based on goodness, to do something wrong like this would be a desecration of Zoroastrianism rather than its salvation.
WRS
[Hijack] I would state that to Muslims it would be anathema for the natural world to have some inherent value independent of God. The Qur’an calls nature “ayaat” (signs) of God. It is interesting that each verse of the Qur’an is an “ayah” (singular of “ayaat”) - hence the natural world is, in a sense, like the Qur’an in that it is supposed to act as signs of God’s presence, power, authority, goodness, mercy, etc.
The universe does not exist for humanity but rather for God and by the order of God; humans are viceroys, as it were, of God in the universe, but in the end the universe exists as a sign of God and to fulfill His purposes. [/Hijack]
WRS
All I find in those links is that Christianity was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism by way of Mithraism – which doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said here, does it? The fact remains that Christianity is not Zoroastrianism. In Christianity (and Islam), Satan is not a being coequal with God, he is a mere rebellious angel. (In Judaism, he’s even less than that. The “Satan” in the Book of Job is a servant of God who sometimes plays a “prosecuting attorney” role.)
I strongly disagree. A causal link has never been adequately demonstrated. In fact, it is more likely that Zoroastrianism borrowed these elements from ancient Judaism. Angels, for example, are mentioned way back in Genesis – long before Zoroaster was even born.
I’d say that Satan is more the advocate of Paradox than anything else.
In Christianity Satan may not be coequal with god, but I’d say there is a strong argument that he is coequal with Christ, and a dualistic relationship is thus derived.
I think saying that Satan is a “mere rebellious angel” creates a hierarchy of valuation that can hinder a deeper understanding of the story.
If Angels have no free-will, how can Satan rebel against god out of jealousy of humanity’s free-will?
Erek
Who ever said angels (in Christian theology) have no free will? And the way the story is usually told, Satan did not rebel out of jealousy of humans, but out of jealousy of God. He wanted to be God.
It was Gabriel who rebelled out of jealousy of humans. 
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114194/
It wouldn’t, but those left in Iran are members of a minority religion, and the Iranian government doesn’t allow them to seek converts.
In traditional Christianity Christ is God, so if Satan isn’t equal with God, there’s no way he can be equal with Christ.
DtC: Vedic Hinduism predates Zoroaster by more than a thousand years.If there were any influences it went from Hinduism to Zoroaster. Sacred fire may have come from Vedic traditions where fire was deified as Agni, the messenger of the gods who carried sacrifices.
Actually, I think both the Vedic rituals (AFAIK they can’t really be called “Hinduism” at that stage; what we know as “Hinduism” is pretty much an early-common-era synthesis of Vedic ritual, heterodox reform traditions such as Buddhism and Jainism, and devotional traditions exalting minor Vedic or non-Vedic deities such as Shiva and Vishnu)—where was I? oh yeah:
Both the Indian Vedic traditions and the early Iranian ones are considered to descend from a common Indo-Iranian source (with separate innovations along the way, of course). Some passages in the Veda and the Avesta are practically identical: e.g., tam mitram yajamahe/tam mithram yazamaide, “we shall worship that Friend (Mitra/Mithra)” [excuse lousy transcription with no diacriticals]. You’re right that the actual date of Zoroaster is considered to be later than the earliest Vedas, but I’m not sure it’s as much as a thousand years later (the Vedas may not go back before the later half of the second millennium BCE). The Avestan Atar and Vedic Agni are probably both descended from the “divine fire” of the Indo-Iranians.
By the way, isn’t modern Zoroastrianism an endogamous religion (at least among Indian Parsis)? That is, doesn’t someone have to be the offspring of a father and mother who are both Zoroastrians in order to be considered Zoroastrian? (This is even stricter than Jewish law, which considers any child of a Jewish mother to be Jewish, but not the child of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother.)
Strict endogamy + rejection of conversion + assimilation pressures from the outside world = shrinking religion, demographics-wise.
By the way, if you’re interested in a theistic religion with a strong humanitarian moral message that’s a little more accessible to outsiders than Zoroastrianism, how about Sikhism? You can do the whole hair/beard/turban thing if you’re into that, or you can be more conventional in your practices but still be generally accepted as a Sikh.
I wouldn’t think the concept of angels and demons is particularly unusual or requires some sort of borrowing. Angels and demons arose because the ancestors of all monotheistic religions were first pantheistic, then polytheistic, then henotheistic. Angels are the old gods now reduced to servants of the ruling god, and demons are the gods your heathen neighbors worship.
Still, the “old gods” themselves had to come from somewhere, and given the age of the Vedas, trade routes and military history of that part of the world, that makes as much sense as any other source (no cite, this is bald speculation).
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
By the way, if you’re interested in a theistic religion with a strong humanitarian moral message that’s a little more accessible to outsiders than Zoroastrianism, how about Sikhism?
Established c. 1499 by Guru Nanak Devji, also encoded universal equality among races, castes, classes and gender. Sikhis consider themselves pretty progressive even today (www.wso.org). And yeah, I’ve converted. ;j
Waheguruji ka Khalsa! Waheguruji ke Fateh!
Um, make that http://www.worldsikh.org. The other one gets you to the Wichita State Orchestra, which I’m sure is a fine organization but perhaps a lousy religion.