Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
This topic has probably been discussed before, but I was just wondering if it is possible to convert to any branch of traditional Zoroastrianism?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Conversion to traditional Zoroastrian.
- Thread starter Jeremy Taylor
- Start date
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
"Can you convert to Zoroastrianism? The official answer, which is given by the Parsi priestly hierarchy in Bombay, and supported by a large number of traditional Zoroastrians, is NO. In order to be a Zoroastrian, you must be born of two Zoroastrian parents. One is not enough." http://www.pyracantha.com/Z/convertz.html
But I do not think it is fair.
But I do not think it is fair.
However, Zoroastrians in the West are more than willing to accept converts. Whether or not said converts will be accepted by all Zoroastrians is going to depend on the individual Zoroastrian.
MD
qualiaphile
Conversion is accepted and even starting to become encouraged in the west. Iranian and Kurdish Zoroastrians encourage it.
The Parsis in India will die out and become assimilated, their opinion is antiquated. I'm speaking as a Parsi myself.
If you have any more questions please feel free to ask, Zoroastrianism (especially the Gatha aspect) is very beautiful and enlightening.
The Parsis in India will die out and become assimilated, their opinion is antiquated. I'm speaking as a Parsi myself.
If you have any more questions please feel free to ask, Zoroastrianism (especially the Gatha aspect) is very beautiful and enlightening.
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
But is this traditional Zoroastrianism in the West you are talking about or is it a liberal variety? Obviously, anyone can go around calling themselves a Zoroastrian, but can they practice traditional Zoroastrianism and be accepted by any remotely traditional Zoroastrian community?
MD
qualiaphile
I'm a Zoroastrian, there is no traditional or liberal Zoroastrianism. Just the true faith. If you live in the West you will be more welcome by the Iranians and younger Parsis. However, I went to a prayer last month and there were several Half white/ half Zoroastrian children as well as non Ethnic Parsis.
We all recognize that the only way the religion will survive in the future is if we focus less on the ethnic aspects and more on the religious part.
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
By traditional and liberal, I didn't mean set schools of thought.
Conversion could be allowed by a Zoroastrian community on completely traditional religious principles or it could be allowed because it satisfies a desire that originates in modern secular values and beliefs, with little heed paid to whether this compromises important religious principles. I just wanted to understand if the communities which allow conversion being spoken of were doing it from closer to the former perspective or the latter.
An analogy might be women priests and bishops in the Anglican Church. An argument for these based deeply in traditional Christian principles, authorities, and ethos would be quite different to one that clearly began in modern beliefs and values about sexuality and was intent on applying these to the Anglican Church whatever its traditional principles and values on the subject might say.
Conversion could be allowed by a Zoroastrian community on completely traditional religious principles or it could be allowed because it satisfies a desire that originates in modern secular values and beliefs, with little heed paid to whether this compromises important religious principles. I just wanted to understand if the communities which allow conversion being spoken of were doing it from closer to the former perspective or the latter.
An analogy might be women priests and bishops in the Anglican Church. An argument for these based deeply in traditional Christian principles, authorities, and ethos would be quite different to one that clearly began in modern beliefs and values about sexuality and was intent on applying these to the Anglican Church whatever its traditional principles and values on the subject might say.
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
Well, I can. It is one of the reasons I'm now an ex-Anglican. The admission of women priests and bishops in the Anglican Church was based almost entirely on contemporary ideas about sexual equality and interchangeability and not in perspectives deeply based in traditional Christianity principles, authorities, and beliefs. But that is a topic for another time, I think. My main point was I was interested in those Zoroastrian groups allowing conversion were doing it from traditional Zoroastrian principles and not some modern need to be inclusive.
MD
qualiaphile
It has nothing to do with faith, the Parsis in India did it to maintain our 'purity', even though genetic studies haven shown we have significant Gujarati blood.
There were no Zoroastrians in the Persian empire before Zoroaster, it was all through conversions. Iranian Zoroastrians don't convert because of centuries of genocides.
Traditions are meant to be broken if they defy logic and the true tenets of the religion.
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
I'm a Platonic universalist and perennialist. I feel that I need to practice a living, divine tradition, as Zoroastrianism seems to be. I was considering the faith, amongst others, but I wanted to make sure that conversion was allowed, as I had heard it was not. And I wanted to make sure those communities that do allow it do so from a perspective deeply based in the historic Zoroastrian faith and Scriptures and beliefs, and not just based on modernist or whatever principles that take no account of this historic faith if it is contrary to them.
To use the Christian terms again as an analogy, it is like I wanted to belong to a Church that allowed women priests and bishops, but only one that did so because of a perspective eminently grounded in traditional Christian beliefs, authorities, and ethos and not one that did so because of secular modernist principles of sexual equality that it held to whatever the religion actually says on the matter - as is the case in contemporary Anglicanism, for example.
If I join Zoroastrianism, or any other faith, I wish to practice the historic, traditional faith and not to join a community compromised by modernism. So, I wished to get a clear picture. I think what is being said is there are in fact Zoroastrian communities that allow conversion for valid historic or traditional reasons, and not either simply just to keep the religious alive or to appease modern ideas of inclusiveness. I just wanted to be very careful that, that is in fact what is being said.
Huey09
He who struggles with God
Not to detract from the Op but its rare for me to meet a Zoroastrian, do you mind if I ask you some questions as well? I promise to be on my best behavior
:angel2:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I do not think there are women priests in Zoroastrianism, Zoroaster was from a clearly patriarchal society. Of course, it was not that women were not respected, but their domain was home. You might find that actions of some of the younger Zoroastrians do not confirm to what Zoroaster had said. But young people are like that everywhere. What I would suggest is a more thorough study of Zoroastrianism.
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
It was an analogy. I'm a traditionalist and Platonic universalist and in fact one of the reasons I left Anglicanism is because I feel that in Christianity there is no place for female priests and bishops, and that those who have argued for them in Anglicanism did not ground their arguments in deep respect for traditional Christian teachings and principles but in a modernism that cared little for these if they got in the way.
MD
qualiaphile
As a non Zoroastrian I am perplexed that you push your own interpretation as correct and deny mine as 'young people not following Zoroaster'.
There are female priests, they're called mobedayars. I know one in fact. They are allowed in Iran and North America. India's Parsis are backwards. Persia was patriarchal but a lot more egalitarian than other civilizations at the time. Zoroastrianism was always meant to treat women and men equally.
A lot what Zoroaster said from the Gathas is about freedom of will and the fight between good and evil. The other parts of the Avesta is a bunch of pre Zoroastrian religious superstition, which had nothing to do with what Zoroaster said.
Last edited:
MD
qualiaphile
Not to detract from the Op but its rare for me to meet a Zoroastrian, do you mind if I ask you some questions as well? I promise to be on my best behavior
Go ahead
MD
qualiaphile
Zoroastrianism was a the religion of Persia for millennia. It spread through conversions. The no conversion thing is only with Indian Parsis. I hope I have answered your questions.
Huey09
He who struggles with God
1.)What are the rules of morality?
2.) Is there an afterlife?
3.) Is there any kind of dress code in the way that some religions promote modesty?
4.) What might be a good book to get started in learning more? Since in the Southern parts of the US I only heard of Zoroastrians in religious studies class.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I am sincerely sorry about that. Sure, your explanation will be the best. I am non-Zoroastrian with interest in your faith for the reasons which perhaps you already know. It is good to know that there are female priests in Zoroastrianism. Vedas too mention some 30 female hymn writers, but later the study of Vedas was prohibited for women.