Rus, your argument for eschatology misses the fact that even if everything is forgiven in the end, there's still a LOOOONG time between the time of one's death and the end of times. During THAT time, the evildoer suffers at the hands of Angra Mainyu and his daeva; thus, the main difference is simply that while Zoroastrian eschatology does describe a terrible punishment as awaiting the sinners, it also says that Ahura Mazda would never damn any of his creations for "all time"; therefore, in the end even the worst sinners, having suffered for an unimaginable amount of time, will be given the grace of release. In my eyes, this does not remove the need to "change oneself" (again - your punishment may not be eternal, but it will surely go on for a very, very long time) while at the same time showing that Ahura Mazda is compassionate enough that he would never sentence any mortal to an eternity of suffering or to eternal death.rusmeister wrote:Hi, Xar, and thank you!Xar wrote:Rus, I read the article too, but I notice that Lewis does not consider the fact that historically, the dualist nature of Zoroastrianism is a late evolution of the religion - which, at its beginning, considered Ahura Mazda as the one good deity of the universe, and did not award Angra Mainyu an equal stature. Later sects, such as Zurvanism, which rose in times of tribulation for the Zoroastrians, gave more importance to Angra Mainyu as the evil counterpart of the good Ahura Mazda, to the point of giving them the status of equally powerful brothers born of Zurvan (who represented space and time himself, and was not worshipped as a deity). Even so, Angra Mainyu wasn't evil by necessity, but by choice: according to the late Zoroastrian beliefs, for example, he created the peacock to show that it isn't that he could not create anything good, but that he would not. It is also worth noting that this form of Zoroastrianism (which, by the way, is historically the first religion providing an eschatology) still mentions that Angra Mainyu will be defeated in the end.
A side note, since the end of time has been mentioned (and personally, I always like this part): interestingly though, Zoroastrian eschatology is much more optimistic than Christian eschatology. In Zoroastrian beliefs, sinners do suffer after death, but only until the end of times; at that point, they will be cleansed of their sins (though this may sting a bit, given that it will happen by being submerged in a river of molten metal), and all of the dead will enjoy an eternity of bliss.
Anyway, even later, some Western thinkers who came into contact with Zoroastrian beliefs (in India, if I remember correctly) attempted to explain the presence of two equally powerful deities, one good and one evil, in order to reconcile it with Christian beliefs of a single Deity; this led to the interpretation that Ahura Mazda is truthfully the one true god of Zoroastrianism, and that the "two brothers" are actually Angra Mainyu (the destructive emanation of Ahura Mazda) and Spenta Mainyu (the creative emanation). In this framework, then, Ahura Mazda is responsible for both good and evil in the world, in order to give mortals the possibility to make a free choice as to where to stand, morally speaking.
Whoops, that went a bit far afield... anyway, I originally just meant to say that dualism in Zoroastrianism is a later addition. But in order to be provocative I might also point out that dualism, or the pseudo-dualism of Angra and Spenta Mainyu, isn't any less believable than the concept of the Holy Trinity - that is, if one thinks that the idea of two equally powerful deities existing alongside each other is unlikely, one might also say it is equally unlikely that one single deity would exist who at the same time is treated as one and three personas...
I'm willing to learn more about Zoroastrianism, if necessary for Christian apologetics, and appreciate what you've posted.
I think, though, that what you posted doesn't do anything to refute Lewis's point. The fact that Lewis doesn't deal with the entire history of Zoroastrianism and its permutations leaves the basic fact that a good portion of it did become dualistic - and his following arguments based on it, not as something in isolation but as a type of all dualism, remain valid.
To me it appears that you have taken details of Zoroastrianism and use them to avoid Lewis's argument - which is intended for dualism in general, which would include any part of Zoroastrianism that became dualistic (you could argue its irrelevance to parts that held Ahura Mazda as supreme, but that would be irrelevant to Lewis's argument in general).
(Hey, you wanted to be 'provocative'!
The one point on which I'll say that you are actually mistaken is on Christian eschatology. It is the kind of generalizing common among non-Christians, who primarily get exposure to radical fundamentalism which does tend to have pretty negative spins, although I won't claim that is the case with you. C.E. varies widely, depending on what the source of authority is, and I'd say that Orthodox eschatology is about as optimistic as it gets. What you describe in Z. is actually called "universalism", and it is generally considered a Christian heresy among the traditional faiths, and for a good reason - because it is not so optimistic as it sounds. Examined as a philosophy and taken to its logical conclusion, universalism basically leads to the ultimate denial of any motivation to reject selfishness - aka "sin". It focuses on love for others - a very good thing - to the exclusion of the need for metanoia, the changing of oneself. If all will be forgiven in the end, why should I try to be good in the here and now? It actually eliminates a need for repentance, a need to really be good (Although I should add that in orthodox theology, God is always ready to forgive - it is we who accept or reject the forgiveness - and acceptance requires repentance as a condition, not because God is legalistic, but because God's forgiveness is meaningless; His attempts at reconciliation useless if we have deliberately chosen to reject Him, to reject what is good, and to choose ourselves over God. That's not intended to be an in-depth expose, only as a demonstration that Christian doctrine, including eschatology, is not such a simple cut-and-dried unity that your post gives the impression of, just as Zoroastrianism is not merely dualist.
As for the point about Lewis, I think I would be rather interested in seeing how you would refute the argument I made in the end - that the existence of a single God who is at the same time one and triune is any more likely than two equally powerful beings coexisting...
Bringing logic into theological matters, sheesh!
). If in fact "God only gives us what we can handle," then it would make sense for revelations to occur in different ways to different people. And I sure don't want to be the person who picks and chooses which revelation is more correct than another. 
Let's just demonize everything mystical that doesn't fit in with our dogma. It's what Christianity has been doing for centuries, and hey, it's worked so far...