> So to sum up, yes, I believe you, and thus consider that your "religion" is basically no different than the "religion" of your contemporary Jew, Christian, or

> So to sum up, yes, I believe you, and thus consider that your "religion" is basically no different than the "religion" of your contemporary Jew, Christian, or Muslim, and thus not really worth making a distinction about. How is that for a good thought? Sure, sounds like a very good thought. > After all, what is "good"? How do you make this determination? To be a follower of Zartosht, means signing on to the cosmic battle between Ahura-Mazda and Ahriman. To aid in the "Renovation of the Creation". Yeah, as far as I've understood it, the metaphysical stuff was just a way to get the message across and as a form of motivation because the implementation is difficult. Meanwhile, the message at its core is simple: Based on modern language Zarathustra would likely define "good" as "actions that directly and indirectly reduce scarcity for every individual", and/or "abundance mentality", and/or "act as if all games are positive sum games". FWIW, this would include reducing the scarcity of serotonin and/or dopamine and/or other chemicals in the brains of individuals. With that framework in mind, do whatever you want and don't worry about stumbling from the framework, just keep trying again and again. e.g. Its understood that it takes energy to follow this (or any) framework and some days you won't have the energy. Just try to follow the framework more often than you don't. e.g. its understood that we are not able to comprehend enough into the future or retain all data simultaneously, so just make the best decision you can in an appropriate timeframe and when appropriate (like if you indirectly/accidentally hurt someone) learn from previous mistakes. One extra suggestion is to make decisions that reduce the energy it will take you to follow the framework in the future. If needed, to motivate select individuals, you can add the metaphysical stuff back to the message. However, given how much we have already climbed the hierarchy of needs and no longer need a metaphysical reason to discuss the elimination of scarcity, I feel Zarathustra would no longer find it necessary to involve the metaphysical in their message. Anyways, I don't speak to the dead, nor am I a significant/profound individual from history, so read into how I've been raised and my inference with doubt. However please note, its not just me that is like this. I know no Zoroastrians (young or old) that would put the metaphysical above the physical, and I know quite a few Zoroastrians :)