I have no wish to get into a lengthy blow-by-blow discussion of the finer details of Zorastorianism simply because the religion being discussed is Carmanianism, an entirely different creature.
The idea that the Carmanians engage in both light and dark comes from Nick Brooke:
CARMANIANS CAN BE BRIGHT: we are the heirs to
a civilised and sophisticated culture, which draws
inspiration from Western Chivalry, Pelandan Artistry
and Dara Happan Nobility. Within the Abode of
Peace (the wide lands ruled by the Padishah-Emperor
of Peloria), the White Laws prevail: alliances are
respected, generosity is encouraged, foreigners are
treated with courtesy, viziers and scholars study
the skies and scrolls, and even poets can prosper,
for this is the Law of Carmanos:
_Gold is fairer than Iron._
Carmanians can be Dark: we are now ruled by a
vigorous and dynamic dynasty, which sprang recently
from savage stock. Within the Abode of War (those
unruly lands which oppose the Padishah), the Black
Laws prevail: the Shah's enemies are confounded on
every hand by his forces, which spread War, Pestilence,
Famine, and sudden, unexpected Death at his command.
All but the holiest obligations must be set aside if this
serves the Shah's purpose, for this is the Law of Carmanos:
_Iron is stronger than Gold._
http://www.etyries.com/carmania/carmcust.htm
Moreoever if the Carmanians believe that Darkness is to be shunned except in the most dire circumstances, then that runs contrary to the point of the religious settlement that the Carmanians had achieved after generations of conflict between the White and Black Shahs.
>A ditheistic system ( a form of dualism) would be one in which there
>are only two gods: one god is creative, the other is destructive.
I don't really see the point for this. The Carmanians can't be dualistic because a definition of dualism that you have defined makes it impossible? Rather than craft arbitrary definitions that are open to dispute, it would be more constructive to describe the Carmanians through the interplay of the behaviour that is expected of them, their cults and the behaviour that they actually do (such as crypto-spolitism).
>We can clearly see from this passage that one god created Idovanus and
>Ganestartarus (so they are not as powerful as the One god).
>Therefore, the religion is clearly monotheistic, no matter how hard
>anyone tries to say it isn't.
Wrong. Montheism means worship of one god and one god only. The Carmanians fall afoul of this because they worship many gods in addition to Idovanus, which distinguishes them from the Rokari or the Seshnegi. Henotheism is a much better description but far from perfect. However discussion about whether Carmanian religion is monotheistic, henotheistic, ditheistic or polytheistic is ultimately pointless as none of those words nor debates about their merits actually gives any insight to how the Carmanians think whereas:
The Carmanians believe the world is the product of two
equal principles: Idovanus, the God of Truth and GanEstoro,
the Lie. Although Idovanus's worship is dominant and
his worshippers believe he will eventually be triumphant,
they also know that the Lie is still powerful, waiting to
snare the Carmanians and drag them onto the path of
damnation.
Your objection to the statement that the Carmanians cannot be dualistic because they only worship Idovanus. This is wrong. A minority of Carmanians worship GanEstoro (although in secret).
>Zoroastrianism is not considered to be a dualistic theology. It is
>considered to be one of the earliest monotheistic beliefs.
And people who consider it monotheistic are merely demonstrating they don't know the meaning of the word. In its earliest period, it was no more monotheistic than the religion of ancient Greece. Moreover the topic is about the Carmanians, not the Zoroastrians.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail