Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Yezidis

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Icybrethovhecate Just because something is exotic and esoteric doesn t mean it is Gnostic . We need to be a bit critical of certain sources when talking about
    Message 1 of 9 , May 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Icybrethovhecate

      Just because something is exotic and esoteric doesn't mean it
      is "Gnostic". We need to be a bit critical of certain sources when
      talking about subjects like this. Besides, the equation of Malek Taus
      with "Lucifer" is not accurate. We REALLY have to be careful about
      glossing things in this way.

      The so called "Peacock Angel" or "King Peacock" is a motif in a
      religion that was only given "Biblical" contexts of the sort you
      mention as an attack.

      Neither the Yezidis, nor the Mandaeans (since you previously mentioned
      them), are technically Gnostic.

      PMCV

      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "icybrethovhecate"
      <icybrethovhecate@...> wrote:
      >
      > Another religion from Iraq. The Yezidis believe that God created a
      > great pearl at the begining of time and placed it on the back of a
      huge
      > bird, after this he created Lucifer(Melek Taus) and his hordes of
      > angels. He(God) then retreated from the universe and left creation
      to
      > Lucifer who broke open the pearl and made everything. Lucifer is
      > regarded as fallen but capable of redemption and is depicted as a
      > peacock because of his pride and association with the sun. As a sun-
      > god, Lucifer represents good and evil, fire as light and fire as
      burn.
      > Supposbly all humans have a piece of Lucifer in their own souls, and
      > those who follow him will be rewarded in the world to come.
      >
    • debbie wheeler
      pmcvflag wrote: Icybrethovhecate Just because something is exotic and esoteric doesn t mean it is Gnostic . We need to be a bit
      Message 2 of 9 , May 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
        Icybrethovhecate

        Just because something is exotic and esoteric doesn't mean it
        is "Gnostic". We need to be a bit critical of certain sources when
        talking about subjects like this. Besides, the equation of Malek Taus
        with "Lucifer" is not accurate. We REALLY have to be careful about
        glossing things in this way.

        The so called "Peacock Angel" or "King Peacock" is a motif in a
        religion that was only given "Biblical" contexts of the sort you
        mention as an attack.

        Neither the Yezidis, nor the Mandaeans (since you previously mentioned
        them), are technically Gnostic.

        PMCV

        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "icybrethovhecate"
        <icybrethovhecate@...> wrote:
        >
        > Another religion from Iraq.  The Yezidis believe that God created a
        > great pearl at the begining of time and placed it on the back of a
        huge
        > bird, after this he created Lucifer(Melek Taus) and his hordes of
        > angels.  He(God) then retreated from the universe and left creation
        to
        > Lucifer who broke open the pearl and made everything.  Lucifer is
        > regarded as fallen but capable of redemption and is depicted as a
        > peacock because of his pride and association with the sun.  As a sun-
        > god, Lucifer represents good and evil, fire as light and fire as
        burn. 
        > Supposbly all humans have a piece of Lucifer in their own souls, and
        > those who follow him will be rewarded in the world to come.
        >


        I would welcome a lengthier response please to the highlighted line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the Yezidis are 'technically' gnostic groups.
         
        Thanks.




        Mer248lina


        Win tickets to the 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany with Yahoo! Messenger.

      • pmcvflag
        Hey Mer248lina ... line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the Yezidis are technically gnostic groups.
        Message 3 of 9 , May 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Hey Mer248lina

          >>>I would welcome a lengthier response please to the highlighted
          line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the
          Yezidis are 'technically' gnostic groups.<<<

          Well, perhaps it is easier to raise the question of what exactly
          would make them "Gnostic" in the more technical sense. I know that
          right now it is a vogue to talk about everything esoteric
          as "Gnostic", and any kind of lesser known middle eastern religion
          gets thrown in, and anything mystical as well.

          I am not trying to be a "focus fascist" here *lol*, I think some of
          these groups certainly have enough in common to make them of interest
          here. For instance, even though the Sufis are not technically
          Gnostics, the conversation about them certainly was of interest here.
          Instead I am trying to keep the issue of categorization in the
          conversation here so that people do understand that this forum is
          much more specific than the other two hundred or so Yahoo groups on
          Gnosticism.

          A number of recent scholarly works, including "Rethinking Gnosticism"
          by Williams, and "What is Gnosticism?" by King have raised important
          issues with just what the historical category of "Gnosticism"
          technically is. Many groups that used to be lumped into the category,
          such as Manichaeans, Mandaeans, Marcionites and Cathars don't
          actually fit.

          The Mandaeans were thrown in the category of "Gnosticism" initially
          by E. Drower, who said she did so based on the influence of a friend.
          She stated that at the time she didn't know much about Gnosticism
          (her specialty was the Mid East, not Gnosticism), and after more
          study she realized that this categorization was false. Much of the
          categorization was based on the name "Mandaean", which was actually
          not even a name these people used for themselves. There was also a
          bit of a hasty generalization of thier soteriology that turned out to
          not be completely accurate. The initial categorization was then
          repeated by people like Robinson who specialized in Gnosticism, but
          not necessarily clear on the Mandaean belief system.

          I have heard that as they have been in diaspora, many of the Mandaean
          youth have taken up the "Gnostic" label and have actually become
          closer to Gnostic thinking by mixing the religions a little.

          Initially though, Mandaeans are not Platonists, and they don't
          believe that "Gnosis" is salvation (a critical attribute for
          something to be "Gnostic"). In the absence of such a defining
          attribute, the question would be why would we categorize them
          as "Gnostic" at all? The answer is that now scholars of this subject
          generally don't.

          Yezidis were never categorized as "Gnostic" in the first place. Why
          would they be?

          PMCV
        • icybrethovhecate
          Melek Taus is definetly Lucifer, I don t know what your talking about. His name is Melek Taus(black peacock) because he is as proud as a peacock and he s a
          Message 4 of 9 , May 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Melek Taus is definetly Lucifer, I don't know what your talking
            about. His name is Melek Taus(black peacock) because he is "as proud
            as a peacock" and he's a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tail
            feathers is a symbol of the sun). His secret name is Shaitan(Satan)
            which the Yezidis are forbidden to speak. His color is blue, as
            Lucifer's color. And like Lucifer, he is fallen and has an evil
            aspect(remember, he is fir as light and fire as burn). Read more on
            Yezidism before you make claims. And yes, the Yezidis are Gnostic,
            they believe that Lucifer(Melek Taus) is the Demiurge, and they value
            knowledge rather than faith as the means of salvation(remember, it is
            Lucifer who told Adam and Eve to eat from The Tree of Knowledge).
            Theyn also honor Jesus. And the Mandeans are included in my Gnostic
            Bible, so their Gnostic as well. Personally, I am a Luciferian and I
            like the Yezidis even if I don't agree with all their beliefs.
            http://n.webring.com/hub?ring=luciferiangnosis,
            http://home.earthlink.net/~xristos/GoldenDawn/yezidi01.htm,
            http://www.sacred-texts.com/asia/sby/,
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Church_of_the_Peacock_Angel/,
            http://www.churchofsatan.org/peacock.html


            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hey Mer248lina
            >
            > >>>I would welcome a lengthier response please to the highlighted
            > line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the
            > Yezidis are 'technically' gnostic groups.<<<
            >
            > Well, perhaps it is easier to raise the question of what exactly
            > would make them "Gnostic" in the more technical sense. I know that
            > right now it is a vogue to talk about everything esoteric
            > as "Gnostic", and any kind of lesser known middle eastern religion
            > gets thrown in, and anything mystical as well.
            >
            > I am not trying to be a "focus fascist" here *lol*, I think some of
            > these groups certainly have enough in common to make them of
            interest
            > here. For instance, even though the Sufis are not technically
            > Gnostics, the conversation about them certainly was of interest
            here.
            > Instead I am trying to keep the issue of categorization in the
            > conversation here so that people do understand that this forum is
            > much more specific than the other two hundred or so Yahoo groups on
            > Gnosticism.
            >
            > A number of recent scholarly works, including "Rethinking
            Gnosticism"
            > by Williams, and "What is Gnosticism?" by King have raised
            important
            > issues with just what the historical category of "Gnosticism"
            > technically is. Many groups that used to be lumped into the
            category,
            > such as Manichaeans, Mandaeans, Marcionites and Cathars don't
            > actually fit.
            >
            > The Mandaeans were thrown in the category of "Gnosticism" initially
            > by E. Drower, who said she did so based on the influence of a
            friend.
            > She stated that at the time she didn't know much about Gnosticism
            > (her specialty was the Mid East, not Gnosticism), and after more
            > study she realized that this categorization was false. Much of the
            > categorization was based on the name "Mandaean", which was actually
            > not even a name these people used for themselves. There was also a
            > bit of a hasty generalization of thier soteriology that turned out
            to
            > not be completely accurate. The initial categorization was then
            > repeated by people like Robinson who specialized in Gnosticism, but
            > not necessarily clear on the Mandaean belief system.
            >
            > I have heard that as they have been in diaspora, many of the
            Mandaean
            > youth have taken up the "Gnostic" label and have actually become
            > closer to Gnostic thinking by mixing the religions a little.
            >
            > Initially though, Mandaeans are not Platonists, and they don't
            > believe that "Gnosis" is salvation (a critical attribute for
            > something to be "Gnostic"). In the absence of such a defining
            > attribute, the question would be why would we categorize them
            > as "Gnostic" at all? The answer is that now scholars of this
            subject
            > generally don't.
            >
            > Yezidis were never categorized as "Gnostic" in the first place. Why
            > would they be?
            >
            > PMCV
            >
          • Will
            Ah comon man, where have you been studying? JoS? the color blue? The Yezidi say Melek Taus (btw, Melek does not mean black, it means king) is the demiurge, but
            Message 5 of 9 , May 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Ah comon man, where have you been studying? JoS? the color blue? The
              Yezidi say Melek Taus (btw, Melek does not mean black, it means king)
              is the demiurge, but as for Lucifer...they only say that he is Azazel,
              or Shaitan. So yes, the surrounding evironment labels them devil
              worshippers, but Lucifer is a rather elusive term... not very easily
              used here. But Yezidi as Gnostic? That's pretty silly to me. If
              anything, neo-gnostic... but even then, it doesn't really fit. Even
              though they see Melek Taus as the Demiurge, that doesn't mean
              anything. Jews and Christians believe YHWH is the demiurge, but that
              doesn't make them Gnostic. It would help your case a little if this
              demiurge was keepin the man down, especially for something Sethian,
              but that isn't the case... and even then, it would totally wipe out
              your arguement.

              As for them holding faith over knowledge, that simply can't be true.
              Think about what faith is: Even though everyone around them is against
              them, they are still faithful to Melek Taus. All the religions have
              their knowledge, but it's different with their faith. For example,
              it's hard to go to war and fight, but people look up to someone who
              fights to protect their country(I mean, pre-Iraq deal), and it can
              keep you going. But what if as a man, you dress up as a woman and walk
              around town? Everyone automatically turns against you. How much
              strength would you have then? Everyone around the Yezidi antagonizes
              them. So as you can see, faith is an integral part of Yezidi culture.
              Even more so than their "knowledge".



              http://www.judstud.se/img/events/Melek%20Taus.jpg

              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "icybrethovhecate"
              <icybrethovhecate@...> wrote:
              >
              > Melek Taus is definetly Lucifer, I don't know what your talking
              > about. His name is Melek Taus(black peacock) because he is "as proud
              > as a peacock" and he's a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tail
              > feathers is a symbol of the sun). His secret name is Shaitan(Satan)
              > which the Yezidis are forbidden to speak. His color is blue, as
              > Lucifer's color. And like Lucifer, he is fallen and has an evil
              > aspect(remember, he is fir as light and fire as burn). Read more on
              > Yezidism before you make claims. And yes, the Yezidis are Gnostic,
              > they believe that Lucifer(Melek Taus) is the Demiurge, and they value
              > knowledge rather than faith as the means of salvation(remember, it is
              > Lucifer who told Adam and Eve to eat from The Tree of Knowledge).
              > Theyn also honor Jesus. And the Mandeans are included in my Gnostic
              > Bible, so their Gnostic as well. Personally, I am a Luciferian and I
              > like the Yezidis even if I don't agree with all their beliefs.
              > http://n.webring.com/hub?ring=luciferiangnosis,
              > http://home.earthlink.net/~xristos/GoldenDawn/yezidi01.htm,
              > http://www.sacred-texts.com/asia/sby/,
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Church_of_the_Peacock_Angel/,
              > http://www.churchofsatan.org/peacock.html
              >
              >
              > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Hey Mer248lina
              > >
              > > >>>I would welcome a lengthier response please to the highlighted
              > > line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the
              > > Yezidis are 'technically' gnostic groups.<<<
              > >
              > > Well, perhaps it is easier to raise the question of what exactly
              > > would make them "Gnostic" in the more technical sense. I know that
              > > right now it is a vogue to talk about everything esoteric
              > > as "Gnostic", and any kind of lesser known middle eastern religion
              > > gets thrown in, and anything mystical as well.
              > >
              > > I am not trying to be a "focus fascist" here *lol*, I think some of
              > > these groups certainly have enough in common to make them of
              > interest
              > > here. For instance, even though the Sufis are not technically
              > > Gnostics, the conversation about them certainly was of interest
              > here.
              > > Instead I am trying to keep the issue of categorization in the
              > > conversation here so that people do understand that this forum is
              > > much more specific than the other two hundred or so Yahoo groups on
              > > Gnosticism.
              > >
              > > A number of recent scholarly works, including "Rethinking
              > Gnosticism"
              > > by Williams, and "What is Gnosticism?" by King have raised
              > important
              > > issues with just what the historical category of "Gnosticism"
              > > technically is. Many groups that used to be lumped into the
              > category,
              > > such as Manichaeans, Mandaeans, Marcionites and Cathars don't
              > > actually fit.
              > >
              > > The Mandaeans were thrown in the category of "Gnosticism" initially
              > > by E. Drower, who said she did so based on the influence of a
              > friend.
              > > She stated that at the time she didn't know much about Gnosticism
              > > (her specialty was the Mid East, not Gnosticism), and after more
              > > study she realized that this categorization was false. Much of the
              > > categorization was based on the name "Mandaean", which was actually
              > > not even a name these people used for themselves. There was also a
              > > bit of a hasty generalization of thier soteriology that turned out
              > to
              > > not be completely accurate. The initial categorization was then
              > > repeated by people like Robinson who specialized in Gnosticism, but
              > > not necessarily clear on the Mandaean belief system.
              > >
              > > I have heard that as they have been in diaspora, many of the
              > Mandaean
              > > youth have taken up the "Gnostic" label and have actually become
              > > closer to Gnostic thinking by mixing the religions a little.
              > >
              > > Initially though, Mandaeans are not Platonists, and they don't
              > > believe that "Gnosis" is salvation (a critical attribute for
              > > something to be "Gnostic"). In the absence of such a defining
              > > attribute, the question would be why would we categorize them
              > > as "Gnostic" at all? The answer is that now scholars of this
              > subject
              > > generally don't.
              > >
              > > Yezidis were never categorized as "Gnostic" in the first place. Why
              > > would they be?
              > >
              > > PMCV
              > >
              >
            • pmcvflag
              Hey Icybrethovhecate ... about. His name is Melek Taus(black peacock) because he is as proud as a peacock and he s a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tail
              Message 6 of 9 , May 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Hey Icybrethovhecate

                >>Melek Taus is definetly Lucifer, I don't know what your talking
                about. His name is Melek Taus(black peacock) because he is "as proud
                as a peacock" and he's a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tail
                feathers is a symbol of the sun). His secret name is Shaitan(Satan)
                which the Yezidis are forbidden to speak. His color is blue, as
                Lucifer's color. And like Lucifer, he is fallen and has an evil
                aspect(remember, he is fir as light and fire as burn). Read more on
                Yezidism before you make claims.<<<

                It isn't that I haven't read anything on Yezidis, it is just that
                you and I have been reading different sources. I have to side with
                Will on this one... the sources you site in order to demonstrate
                your point seem questionable to me. Melek Taus doesn't mean "Black
                Peacock", and I am not aware of any critical historian that would
                agree with the notion that the Yezidis have been around for 4000
                years. Another site you list is nothing more than a copy of Isya's
                hopelessly outdated book... again full of questionable information.

                I am not trying to be adversarial here, but I think we should be a
                bit more questioning of our sources... don't you? I think I would
                rather take my info from more academic sources in this case rather
                than sensationalist occult resources.

                As with the Mandaeans, much of the early direct academic info on the
                Yezidis comes from E. Drower. It is of note that she believes the
                term "seiten" (or shaytan, etc.) enters the Yezidi lingo initially
                as an attack, and the reason Yazidis are forbidden to state the name
                is partly because it sounded superficially like a name they already
                had and they did not want thier god cursed with the equation.

                "Indeed, it is possibly the Yazidis themselves, by tabooing all
                mention of the name Shaitan, or Satan, as a libel upon this angel,
                who have fostered the idea that the Peacock Angel is identical with
                the dark fallen angel whom men call the Tempter." (E.Drower "Peacock
                Angel")

                She reports posing the question to a qawwal, point blank, and being
                told that the equation was a mistake.

                If you look in Isya's "Black Book" (which we don't know to be real,
                for sure... but you gave us a link to), you will actually see that
                it directly states that the name Satan is avoided because
                it "resembles" the name of thier god.

                Now, of course it is up to you whether you believe any one resource
                here more than another, but I think that there is enough evidence
                contrary to the usual occult line to at least warrent some
                scepticism. If you don't like what I say, at least allow for the
                possibility that I may not be completely ignorant. Since you are now
                talking in a community that values some academic perspective, try to
                allow that academic perspective have a place in your side of the
                conversation as well. I question your RESOURCES, not YOU.... please
                have the same respect.

                >>>And yes, the Yezidis are Gnostic, they believe that Lucifer(Melek
                Taus) is the Demiurge, and they value knowledge rather than faith as
                the means of salvation(remember, it is Lucifer who told Adam and Eve
                to eat from The Tree of Knowledge). Theyn also honor Jesus. And the
                Mandeans are included in my Gnostic Bible, so their Gnostic as
                well. Personally, I am a Luciferian and I like the Yezidis even if
                I don't agree with all their beliefs.<<<

                The so called "Gnostic Bible" contains many texts that scholars
                don't consider to be Gnostic. Even one of the book's editors, Dr
                Meyer, would surely tell you in retrospect that some of the texts
                are not technically "Gnostic". In fact, Dr Meyer states more
                recently in his essay for the Gospel of Judas that the category
                of "gnostic" is defined by a direct relation to Sethian beliefs. In
                other words, one of the compilers of your "Gnostic Bible" has
                perhaps become even more strict than ME in using this term.... and
                obviously can not consider some of the texts in his own book to
                be "Gnostic".

                If you go around saying that just because it is in the compilation
                called "The Gnostic Bible" it must be "Gnostic", it is almost like
                the Christians who say "the Bible says it so it must be true". The
                Gnostics had NO "Bible".... so don't take the "Gnostic Bible" too
                seriously.

                BTW, "Lucifer" enters our language as a mistranslation in the Latin
                Vulgate concerning the king of Babylon in Psalms. I doubt whether
                the average Yezidi has even heard the term. The Bible doesn't say
                that "Lucifer" tempted Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of
                knowledge (not that we care what the Bible says *lol*)

                PMCV
              • debbie wheeler
                pmcvflag wrote: Hey Mer248lina ... line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the Yezidis are technically
                Message 7 of 9 , May 2, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                  Hey Mer248lina

                  >>>I would welcome a lengthier response please to the highlighted
                  line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the
                  Yezidis are 'technically' gnostic groups.<<<

                  Well, perhaps it is easier to raise the question of what exactly
                  would make them "Gnostic" in the more technical sense. I know that
                  right now it is a vogue to talk about everything esoteric
                  as "Gnostic", and any kind of lesser known middle eastern religion
                  gets thrown in, and anything mystical as well.

                  I am not trying to be a "focus fascist" here *lol*, I think some of
                  these groups certainly have enough in common to make them of interest
                  here. For instance, even though the Sufis are not technically
                  Gnostics, the conversation about them certainly was of interest here.
                  Instead I am trying to keep the issue of categorization in the
                  conversation here so that people do understand that this forum is
                  much more specific than the other two hundred or so Yahoo groups on
                  Gnosticism.

                  A number of recent scholarly works, including "Rethinking Gnosticism"
                  by Williams, and "What is Gnosticism?" by King have raised important
                  issues with just what the historical category of "Gnosticism"
                  technically is. Many groups that used to be lumped into the category,
                  such as Manichaeans, Mandaeans, Marcionites and Cathars don't
                  actually fit.

                  The Mandaeans were thrown in the category of "Gnosticism" initially
                  by E. Drower, who said she did so based on the influence of a friend.
                  She stated that at the time she didn't know much about Gnosticism
                  (her specialty was the Mid East, not Gnosticism), and after more
                  study she realized that this categorization was false. Much of the
                  categorization was based on the name "Mandaean", which was actually
                  not even a name these people used for themselves. There was also a
                  bit of a hasty generalization of thier soteriology that turned out to
                  not be completely accurate. The initial categorization was then
                  repeated by people like Robinson who specialized in Gnosticism, but
                  not necessarily clear on the Mandaean belief system.

                  I have heard that as they have been in diaspora, many of the Mandaean
                  youth have taken up the "Gnostic" label and have actually become
                  closer to Gnostic thinking by mixing the religions a little.

                  Initially though, Mandaeans are not Platonists, and they don't
                  believe that "Gnosis" is salvation (a critical attribute for
                  something to be "Gnostic"). In the absence of such a defining
                  attribute, the question would be why would we categorize them
                  as "Gnostic" at all? The answer is that now scholars of this subject
                  generally don't.

                  Yezidis were never categorized as "Gnostic" in the first place. Why
                  would they be?

                  PMCV
                   
                  Thanks pm, now you've given me a load of work to do lol. Have to verify what you've said about Salvation, gnosis and mandeans.





                  Mer248lina


                  Switch an email account to Yahoo! Mail, you could win FIFA World Cup tickets.
                • Will
                  ... http://www.judstud.se/img/events/Melek%20Taus.jpg ---take a look This depiction of Melek Taus shows his tail feather eyes extending out in a solar symbol
                  Message 8 of 9 , May 2, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, other guy <no_reply@...> wrote:

                    >> >>...he's a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tail
                    >> feathers is a symbol of the sun).

                    http://www.judstud.se/img/events/Melek%20Taus.jpg ---take a look

                    This depiction of Melek Taus shows his tail feather eyes extending out
                    in a solar symbol because of the number of eyes (twelve). The roots of
                    the eyes of the feathers are seven in number, and denote the planets
                    of the ancients, which are numbered from the supernal triad - the
                    three feathers springing from the birds head. dividing the image in
                    half, is the Moon, representing opposites, while He stands on the
                    Earth symbol as a foot stool. The Sumerian symbol to the left, the
                    star, represents a god. The rest of it says something like, "created
                    in light and darkness" or something of that nature.

                    >>His secret name is Shaitan(Satan) which the Yezidis are forbidden to
                    speak.

                    You're forgetting these are Iraqi Kurds. That word is probably not in
                    their original vocabulary from "4,000 years ago, when they started
                    this religion" as one of your sources says(*snicker*). It's probably a
                    label that an outside culture gave their deity. Probably somewhere
                    from a short distance west? Speaking of origins, Most scholars agree
                    that the Yezidi are an evolution of Zoroastrianism and Mithraism. Want
                    sources? Go find them, there's plenty of material out there. Try not
                    to use keywords like "Lord Lucifer" in the search though...just a tip.

                    >> And like Lucifer, he is fallen and has an evil
                    >> aspect(remember, he is fir as light and fire as burn).

                    How is that evil? Those are just attributes of the Sun (the whole
                    "fire as light and fire and burn").
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.