Zoroastrianism has its myths too

Via Pocket, this piece from The Guardian illustrates.

First, yes, it is likely that IF Zoroaster existed, he probably lived closer to 1500 BCE than 600 BCE. However, per that IF? It's more likely yet that ... he's much more mythical than Jesus of Jesus mythicism or Buddha of Buddha mythicism. (Wikipedia's piece claims that some scholars put him back as long ago as 6000 BCE, which would only confirm that he didn't exist.)

Second, it's omitted that Zoroastrian scriptures didn't become written until Sassanid times. Just as we probably should speak of Vedic religion, not Hinduism, in the oral period of its transmission (and probably should speak of Brahmanism or something during the period from the writing of the Indian epics to the Gupta Empire and the triumph of what became Hinduism over Buddhism and Janism), so we need another term for pre-Sassanid Zoroastrianism, like Magism, or Mazdaism. (Before Ezra, scholars speak of Israelitism or Yahwism, not Judaism, so this is not unique to one or two religions. In Christianity, we have the term pre-Nicene Christianity. Chalcedon is a better cutoff, and a separate term would be better. It's a catch-all, and it's already used for a "heresy," but calling the whole earlier belief system "Arianism" would be accurate.)

Third and on to the Parsees of India, the focus of the piece. Did they really promise not to proselytize? Given that the first history of the Parsees was written 600 years after the first move to Gujarat, hard to say, isn't it? (This is similar to other insular religious minorities, such as Jews and Alawites, making similar claims. They usually have a degree of truth, but they're not 100 percent true.)

Fourth, the author claiming that Parsees were intransigent? Actually, they ditched much of their Zoroastrian caste system after moving to India. (Side note: Shows that maybe Zoroastrianism wasn't so enlightened after all, to have a caste system.)

The likely reality is that:
A. Zoroaster never existed.
B. The Gathas probably aren't as old as claimed, given that the Vedic Sanskrit which is the uncle of old Avestan lasted into the first century BCE.
C. One or more Mazdakite priests, parallel to Ezra, codified a mix of writings and oral poetic traditions, and the mythic personage of Zoroaster, in the early Achaemenid Empire. Darius or Xerxes would be likely target periods, and could then be inspiration for Ezra approximately a century later.
D. This religion then underwent a reform during Sassanid times. The reform was driven in two ways: the royal house saw a priesthood too independent and too powerful, parallel to how in Parthian times, often, the king was like a Holy Roman Emperor with unruly nobles; and, by internal cleansing.

Arguing the bible with fundies on social media

I'm not generally a Gnu Atheist type, but I do occasionally play one on Twitter.

And, so I did a couple of weeks ago, when "Son of God" was trending. I quoted my catchphrase riff on Muhammad from this blog and added Psalm 82:6, in response to several people, including here:

"There is no god but Allah and I am his prophet" — Muhammad.
"There is no god and I am his prophet." — me.

Obviously there is no son of god.

Besides:
I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'https://t.co/YGBtqqi0dI

NEVER mess with a bible-sharp secularist.

— I come to Bari Weiss, not to praise her 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) August 19, 2020

Well, that person responded to my response. His second response tweet said I didn't quote anything from the bible, even with the link, but his third did.

His next response after that? Self-embarrassment:

Context matters, capital letters matter. pic.twitter.com/brn9Vveo7r

— SantanaBanana ✝️🇺🇸🇮🇱 (@yosantana12) August 19, 2020

As shown by my reply tweet:

I told you not to mess with a bible-sharp secularist.

You don't even know that Hebrew doesn't have capital letters.

— I come to Bari Weiss, not to praise her 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) August 19, 2020

Said fundy came back at me, with the claim that I didn't know the context, and still refusing to admit he knew nothing about Hebrew. When I checked his feed and saw he was a MAGA, too? Block.

Seriously, fundies? Even if you don't believe that the King James Version/Authorized Version is itself inerrant as a translation? If you don't want to make Apologetics 101 rookie mistakes, learn at least a modicum of actual knowledge about the biblical languages.

Besides, yes, contra Mr. Fundy Zionist, I know that it's a Psalm of judgment. It's judgment on one or more 'kings" or other rulers. Per Psalm 2, rulers in the ancient near East were generally known as "sons of god." Isaiah 9 is lifted straight from the Pharaonic coronation ritual.

So, knowing the basics of Hebrew and Greek writing is a minimum. Knowing the true details of common biblical language at the time they were used is second.

I'm against theologically based natural law, but I cite a religion oriented journal

OK, in my second most recent piece here, I talked about Massimo Pigliucci and his 30 years in America.

Well, asterisks are needed, starting with one big new one, per the header.

Massimo has a clunker, in his most recent readings roundup, on natural law. He cites a conservative Presbyterian oriented journal — John Witherspoon himself was more of a Unitarian — in defense of natural law, while admitting in comments he rejects theologically based versions of it. Myself? In parallel with the idea that I believe parts of human psychology are driven by biological evolution, not just cultural, but rejecting the phrase "evolutionary psychology" because of its baggage, I reject "natural law" as the term for legal-philosophical ideas derived from biological and cultural evolution. Wittgenstein would have a field day with this.

He also, in the same comment to me, claims I'm wrong in criticizing the piece's take on Hume. Rather, I was specifically focusing on the idea that Hume "rejected" such things as it claims. Rather, he rejected any proof that such things existed, but is well known — as I know Massimo knows — for telling people how he could live with this, that it was quite simple, and that he went to bed at night without a worry.

Anyway, he can claim to reject theologically based natural law, but ... he sure didn't look hard for a non-metaphyisical, non-theological journal of natural law to talk about first principles. I mean, Media Bias Fact Check has a page on it that says, in short, it sucks. In short, Massimo, on this? You sawed off your own limb.

Per late friend Leo Lincourt, my philosophy of life (with the addition of a variety of nature and aesthetics issues) is to be at the center of that Venn diagram at left.

I sometimes give in to temptation on acting a bit Gnu-ish, I'll confess. But I generally hold to all three of these targets.

And, Massimo?

I don't know if this is your biggest failure since defending NATO bombing the shit out of Libya, in 2011, followed by remaining unapologetic six years later, but it's up there.

And, THAT, in turn, is why he and I disagree on duopoly vs non-duopoly politics. And, linking to the Witherspoon Institute leads me to question where you're at, at times, on the lower left circle.

WRR turns 100 in a year ... and ??

Dallas', and Texas', oldest radio station, WRR, is one I listened to regularly when I lived in the Metromess in the 2000-oughts, but now that I'm close enough to get it on a lucky day on car radio, I'm more likely to want a CD.

Per D Magazine, as the station gears up for the approaching centennial, it is a "unicorn." I knew that it was one of the few commercial classical stations, or one of the few non-NPR classical stations, period. The old one in St. Louis, the FM side of the dial of the paired stations at least formerly owned by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is now contemporary Christian; a non-commercial non-NPR station of some sort has filled the void there.

More here from NBC-5, which notes it moved to the FM dial in 1948 and became all-classical in 1964. As the second-oldest federally licensed radio station in the country, one that precedes the FCC, ti's one of the few west of the Mississippi to keep a "W" rather than a "K" call sign.

And, I knew it is the almost the only, if not the only, municipally owned radio station, any format, in the US.

But the programming, and even more the announcers, have gone downhill since Scott Cantrell, classical music freelance critic and formerly of the Morning News, decried some issues there, with which I totally agreed, 15 years ago. (I interviewed one of the announcers there at this time. Lovely lady. Pretty good knowledge of the genre. Better than any of today's announcers. Probably still could have been better. I don't know about how that compares to non-commercial NPR stations that run classical, other than the packaged broadcasts from the top 10 or so symphonies in the US, whose stations do have good announcers.) Still plays "blue haired lady" music even more than the DSO, though I did hear Schnittke on there once relatively recently. (Back in the 2000-oughts, when Sundays were listener requests in the afternoon, I phoned in and got one of his "tamer" pieces played.)

Classical is being hollowed out less by syndication and web broadcasting than other genres of FM radio, but it is being hollowed out somewhat. The station has one less announcer and more canned music than before.

I also don't know how much non-classical fine arts broadcasting could be done. I do know that the Kimbell Art Museum has special nights for museum members on occasion for some of its new special exhibits and the DMA might do the same. Why not have an announcer tag along on those tours? And do NPR stations do that in other big cities? Sounds like a missed opportunity.