Mother Nature

[Gordon]

If Mother Nature and Father Time had a kid would it be Baby Season?

 

[Davies]

Good morning Aardverk,

If you want to trust Wikipedia or even other sources that Zoroastrianism is a source for Judaism, well, who am I to keep you from that. Just because one religion is recognized before another doesn't mean it's true or that a religion exists because of a previous one. That's like saying the land of Israel belongs to the Canaanites because they lived on the land first. How do you know that Adam and Eve had no religion? What source brings you to this conclusion? Are you trusting in what man has written?

I was not joking and I'm sure WIP was not joking, but I would understand your mistrust. For as many years as you have studied the Bible, you understand the Bible teaches the first people to walk the earth was Adam and Eve. You'll remember they walked with God, and talked with God. They were without sin and had intimate conversations with God. To say they had no religion is to disregard what the Bible says. So, even if you didn't intend on attacking "any one or any thing", you should have understood that Zoroastrianism would be viewed as non-Christian. If it isn't in the Bible, it's pure speculation. If something seems to fit theologically, then you can only say maybe, again speculation. The only thing we can trust is the Bible itself.

- Davies

 

[Aardverk]

Davies, I have no wish to insult you but, I do not understand your logic. Before going any further, please look up the word 'religion'.

If you want to trust Wikipedia or even other sources that Zoroastrianism is a source for Judaism, well, who am I to keep you from that.

You really must look this up. There are many sources, I only quoted Wikipedia for convenience and to allow others to look at the same source.

Just because one religion is recognized before another doesn't mean it's true

I never claimed that any particular religion was true or false.

or that a religion exists because of a previous one.

That is of course a matter of historical study, not doctrine.

How do you know that Adam and Eve had no religion? What source brings you to this conclusion? Are you trusting in what man has written?

No, I am relying on logic. If they knew God, they had no need for religion which is a matter of faith - according to every dictionary I have read.

Try it the other way around though - what religion do you think they 'followed'? And, who started that 'religion'? I think you will now see that they did not have any religion.

For as many years as you have studied the Bible, you understand the Bible teaches the first people to walk the earth was Adam and Eve. You'll remember they walked with God, and talked with God.

I have not challenged any of that.

They were without sin and had intimate conversations with God. To say they had no religion is to disregard what the Bible says.

Really? I must have missed what the Bible says about Adam & Eve's religion. Do please give me the appropriate references to their religion -or retract your assertion and accusation.

So, even if you didn't intend on attacking "any one or any thing", you should have understood that Zoroastrianism would be viewed as non-Christian.

Of course it is non-Christian, it preceded Christianity by 6,000 years.

If it isn't in the Bible, it's pure speculation.

Eh? Are you saying that ONLY things in the Bible are true?

The only thing we can trust is the Bible itself.

Oh dear! How about trusting doctors - just as a simple example. You don't visit the pastor when you are sick, you go to your doctor - I expect.

Sorry but I am in a rush at the moment. I would love to get into this deeper in a couple of days time though.

Best wishes Aardverk

 

[Gordon]

It is called 'Mother' nature after one of the many earth goddesses, not least 'Terra' of course.

Before Zoroastrianism started the idea of there only being one God, there were far more female gods than male. Even Zoroastrian offshoots such as Judaism had both male and female gods until the male priests started their successful movement for male domination of religion.

It has taken thousands of years but we now have priestesses appearing again in major religions. I wonder where that will end?

Yhea man the implication that our religion originates from one we believe is false fits in real seemlessly to your overall point. How could that be trolling?

You don't by chance go to elementary schools and tell kids who want to be president the statistical likelyhood of that is very low do you?

 

[Davies]

Davies, I have no wish to insult you but, I do not understand your logic. Before going any further, please look up the word 'religion'.

You really must look this up. There are many sources, I only quoted Wikipedia for convenience and to allow others to look at the same source.

I never claimed that any particular religion was true or false.

You don't believe the Bible do you? Your very unbelief says the God of the Bible is a liar. You said that Judaism came out of Zoroastrianism. False. Judaism was a product of God's interaction with the children of Israel, not Zoroaster and the children of Israel.1
John 5:10New King James Version (NKJV)

<sup class="versenum">10 </sup>He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son.

That is of course a matter of historical study, not doctrine.

The truth never changes despite what we learn from books written by man.

No, I am relying on logic. If they knew God, they had no need for religion which is a matter of faith - according to every dictionary I have read.

To be clear, when I regard a relationship to God, or when it comes to knowing the truth and matters of faith, which Adam and Eve had to live by, I call that religion.
Genesis 2:15-17

New King James Version (NKJV)

<sup class="versenum">15 </sup>Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. <sup class="versenum">16 </sup>And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; <sup class="versenum">17 </sup>but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

I have not challenged any of that.

You are saying that Judaism comes out of Zoroastrianism of which people who subscribe to Judaism would hold patently false.

Really? I must have missed what the Bible says about Adam & Eve's religion. Do please give me the appropriate references to their religion -or retract your assertion and accusation.

To think that Genesis 2:15-17 is all that God talked about with Adam and Eve would not be a realistic statement. I'm sure God shared a lot of truth with them.

Of course it is non-Christian, it preceded Christianity by 6,000 years.

So, just because Zoroastrianism is believed to predate Judaism, we wouldn't say Judaism got the idea of there being only one God from it.

Eh? Are you saying that ONLY things in the Bible are true?

Oh dear! How about trusting doctors - just as a simple example. You don't visit the pastor when you are sick, you go to your doctor - I expect.

No. I'm saying the Bible is the only source that tells us the truth about God.

I hope you will have heard my responses in the light of sharing my Christian faith, and to help you understand why I believed what you said as a provocation. I'll be glad to say I was wrong, but even so, the reason I'm here is to point to the truth about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit. I'll be glad to keep sharing.

What is logical to the Christian is not logical to the unbeliever.

- Davies

 

[Aardverk]

Yhea man the implication that our religion originates from one we believe is false fits in real seemlessly to your overall point. .................

Sorry Gordon but we can't change history just to fit your point of view.

You presumably believe Judaism to be a 'false religion' otherwise you would call yourself a Jew rather than a Christian. You do know that the roots of Christianity are in Judaism - don't you?

You need to understand that there were many thousands of large and small religions and snippets of history that were passed from religion to religion to religion over thousands of years. Many religions share the same information and roots and there is much conflation. It is rather like genes.

You said that Judaism came out of Zoroastrianism. False. Judaism was a product of God's interaction with the children of Israel, not Zoroaster and the children of Israel.1 ..................

Zoroaster lived many thousands of years before Judaism started - so there is hardly likely to have been any interaction and I certainly did not say that there was. As a matter of interest, what date do you think the first Rabbi existed? Please see above.

You obviously did not bother to look up the word 'religion' - did you! When you have looked it up, try to answer my question about Adam & Eve's religion. Before you claim that they were Jewish think on this though - if there are 5 religions that claim Adam and Eve as part of their history, which religion gets priority, or none?

Don't say Jewish because there was no such religion then - was there? Just stop digging that particular hole.

All I said was that Zoroastrianism was the first religion to propose that there was only one God. That is a simple fact of history, as far as any history can be regarded as factual. From that you are making all sorts of assumptions.

Mono-theism was a novel idea in an age when every other village had it's own 'god'. Think of Moses and the people making idols!

You are saying that Judaism comes out of Zoroastrianism of which people who subscribe to Judaism would hold patently false.

That is not what I said but there is an element of truth in it. Contrary to what you say, I don't think you will find any serious student of Judaism who will deny that they initially believed in several 'gods' - not one. I don't think they will deny the influence of Zoroaster either.

Do understand that I have no prejudice, no preconceived ideas, I am simply stating the history of the world as I understand it. If you need to read more to tell me I am wrong, I would be pleased to hear your comment after you understand the subject. To tell me that I am wrong just because you have no knowlege of the subject is rather ..................... :halo

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I did a paper on Zoroastrianism in a college Humanities class twenty years ago. I'll dig it out this weekend.

I had been a Christian just a few years at the time. I learned that there are really only two religions: Religion where salvation is granted on the basis of good works performed, and salvation granted apart from consideration of good works performed. Christianity is distinguished as being the one religion where salvation comes through the forgiveness of sins, not through the earning power of doing prescribed works that, if they outweigh your evil works, secure salvation. All the world's religions except Christianity are lumped into this 'works' concept of religion.

Every honest person who has lived long enough knows it's impossible to live up to the Bible's standard of righteous character and that we are all slaves in our natural selves to the sin nature we inherited from Adam. Biblical Christianity recognizes this inherent evil in mankind and presents the 'good news' of redemption from the slavery of that sinfulness through the forgiveness of sins apart from the merit of good works. This is an exclusively Biblical way to be saved. It seems to be firmly resisted by all the other religions of the world. It stands alone in this matter of sin and redemption.

 

[Davies]

Do understand that I have no prejudice, no preconceived ideas, I am simply stating the history of the world as I understand it. If you need to read more to tell me I am wrong, I would be pleased to hear your comment after you understand the subject. To tell me that I am wrong just because you have no knowlege of the subject is rather ..................... :halo

Hi Aardverk,

I think you have convinced me that you have no prejudice, no preconceived ideas. And no, I don't need to say that you are wrong any more. I might have a more reasonable conversation with an oneger, just as Balaam did.

- Davies

 

[Aardverk]

I did a paper on Zoroastrianism in a college Humanities class twenty years ago. I'll dig it out this weekend. ..........

Excellent! In that case you will be pleased to hear that WIP regards you as one in a million Congratulations - we have something in common

There was also a good article on Zoroastrianism in National Geographic about two years ago, maybe someone can find that article and quote what it says about the origin of mono-theism - related to the OP of course ;)

 

[Aardverk]

Hi Aardverk,

I think you have convinced me that you have no prejudice, no preconceived ideas. And no, I don't need to say that you are wrong any more. I might have a more reasonable conversation with an oneger, just as Balaam did.

- Davies

Thanks for the retraction and your wise words Davies. I am glad you have now seen the angel :angel2

An 'oneger' eh? An onager would make some sense but I've never seen that particular translation. Which version of the Bible says 'onager' or even 'oneger' instead of donkey or ass? Is it an Asian version? Even in Job, I've only once seen onager used.

Even though you have indeed beaten me three times, I wouldn't choose to cast you as Balaam!

"Balaam answered the donkey, "You have made a fool of me! " :yes​

Remember that the words were put in the donkey's mouth by God. The donkey (onager) was no fool ;)

 

[Gordon]

Thanks for the retraction and your wise words Davies.

I retract my words as well. They were probably the most unconscious, least self aware thing I've said on here.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Excellent! In that case you will be pleased to hear that WIP regards you as one in a million Congratulations - we have something in common

I thought he was referring to a female goddess, not Zoroastrianism. Although it wouldn't be surprising that virtually no one has heard about Zoroastrianism. It has failed the test of time and practice and is virtually lost to humanity...along with so many other of man's false gods/goddesses and religions and beliefs that depend on man to keep them propped up. But to this day so many people have found the gospel to be true through the experience of it's power to change lives, and the very real intervention of a very real God who saved them. That is why Judaism/ Christianity remains to this day. If it really didn't change lives, and it were up to man to keep it going it would have failed long ago.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Zoroaster lived many thousands of years before Judaism started - so there is hardly likely to have been any interaction and I certainly did not say that there was.

You state this as absolute fact, yet it in fact a matter of great dispute. In reality, the best estimates are that he was a contemporary of Abraham, both living in the first of the second millenium BC, though it is unlikely they ever met.

As a matter of interest, what date do you think the first Rabbi existed? Please see above.

Irrelevant. The first rabbi has nothing to do with the "start date" of Judaism. The promises God made to Abraham were the beginning of Judaism, as that was specifically when God made it known to man that the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob were His "chosen people." Rabbis were not known until sometime after David, well after not only the faith of the Jews but their practices were well-defined and known outside their own culture. Priests were not named until half a millenium later when Aaron was named chief priest.

You obviously did not bother to look up the word 'religion' - did you! When you have looked it up, try to answer my question about Adam & Eve's religion. Before you claim that they were Jewish think on this though - if there are 5 religions that claim Adam and Eve as part of their history, which religion gets priority, or none?

Another irrelevancy. Many religions make claims on those associated with competing or opposing religions. There were no "Jews" until Jacob was renamed Israel. Nonetheless, Adam and Eve are the antecedents of the culture and people who became Jews and any claims by other religions on them must acknowledge themselves, therefore, as being outgrowths of the Jewish religion and culture.

All I said was that Zoroastrianism was the first religion to propose that there was only one God. That is a simple fact of history, as far as any history can be regarded as factual. From that you are making all sorts of assumptions.

Again, based on what was just said above about Adam and Eve being the keystone of Jewish faith and Israeli culture, despite not being identified as Jews, means that from the beginning the people who became Israel and the Jewish faith acknowledged only one God, and to give Zorastrianism credit for that "discovery" is nonsense.

Mono-theism was a novel idea in an age when every other village had it's own 'god'. Think of Moses and the people making idols!

Irrelevant yet again. Before they made idols, they had spent centuries worshiping one God, knowing one God, aceding to the direction and purpose God laid out for them. The idolatry exhibited by Israel in the wilderness was an aberration, not their usual practice.

That is not what I said but there is an element of truth in it. Contrary to what you say, I don't think you will find any serious student of Judaism who will deny that they initially believed in several 'gods' - not one. I don't think they will deny the influence of Zoroaster either.

Utterly ridiculous. Of course they never believed in "many gods." This statement destroys your claim of objectivity.

Do understand that I have no prejudice, no preconceived ideas, I am simply stating the history of the world as I understand it.

I would urge you to be more open minded and realize that what you have been taught or reasoned out for yourself is completely inaccurate.

 

[jasoncran]

the first sage(rabbi) was abraham. that is what the jews say. rabbi means teacher and well abraham is said to be considered by God to be that faithful that he would pass on his faith. thus a teacher/sage

 

[Aardverk]

You state this as absolute fact, yet it in fact a matter of great dispute...............
Irrelevant. The first ra...............
Another irrelevancy. Many religions.........
..that "discovery" is nonsense.........
Irrelevant yet again. ............
Utterly ridiculous............
This statement destroys your claim of objectivity.........
.... is completely inaccurate.

Wow :o You rather boldly state many things as a matter of 'fact' even whilst claiming that some are in dispute. It's a shame you chose not to substantiate anything but rely instead on statements like 'best estimate' etc.

Let's try to use a bit of logic. The period under discussion is effectively prehistory. In 6,000 BC there was no writing except maybe some primitive cuneiform and hieroglyphics. Dates for people and events can and do vary dramatically with little firm, reliable evidence for many of them. For example, dates for Zarathushtra, the 'prophet of Iran', vary between 600 B.C. and 6000 B.C. which begins to show the problems we face in dating things accurately. By the time writing had developed, the earliest texts from every known world culture make reference to Zoroaster. OK, I do accept that I can't give you a reliable date but how do you think all cultures were well aware of Zoroaster and wrote of him well before any mention of Abraham, the Jewish nation or Judaism? I include China, India, Mesopotamia and Greece. If you are going to try to answer, some references would be good. ;)

With the benefit of hind-sight and prompted by your comments, I do regret making such a simple statement about dates, I did so only to minimize the length of my post - for which I should perhaps apologize - or maybe not. Please refer to my signature line, deliberately said by Maimonides for situations such as this. He was a wise man!

Even very well know physical things, such as Stonehenge, can not be dated accurately, nor can we even know with certainty what they were for. Imagine then the difficulty of dating something as nebulous as an early religion or a well known 'charactor' such as King Arthur or Merlin? However, if we look at the differing 'dates' for Zoroaster, we find one 'paper' claiming he lived "around 1500BC" and that same 'paper' has appeared in lots of guises making it appear that there was a lot of support for that one particular date. It is however rather difficult to find any independent studies that agree with that date. It would be most interesting to hear how you so confidently 'rubbish' my suggested date. Is it just from that one, oft repeated article? :gah

I thought the 4 gods (one female & 3 male) in early Judaism were common knowledge.

I am quite happy to go along with your suggestion of Abraham being the start of Judaism although it would not have been called that of course. Anyone and anything pre-dating Abraham could not therefore have been Jewish, which was the point I was making; thank you.

You state that Adam and Eve are the antecedents of those who became the Jews, as if that somehow makes them Jewish or gives Jews a greater claim on them than anyone else Who then are you suggesting are the antecedents of everyone else right around the world? :dunno I think you will quickly see the fallacy of that particular idea. Add to that rather strange idea the location of the Garden of Eden, usually claimed to be in Mesopotamia, and you make a Jewish claim to Adam and Eve tenuous in the extreme - don't you think? Now, what religion do you think was based in Mesopotamia? :yes Yes, that one ;)

Hopefully someone will dig out that National Geographic magazine from a couple of years ago and tell us what it says about the earliest mono-theistic religion. Whilst NG are by no means 'the oracle', their articles are generally well researched and should not therefore be dismissed as lightly as you seek to dismiss me.

Perhaps I should just have said that the answer to the OP question is the goddess Terra

Any facts that you may have to support your bold statements really would be gratefully received. I do love being proved wrong because it means I am learning something and learning is one of the greatest pleasures left open to me in my old age.

 

[jasoncran]

the gods mention there as male and female are false gods. if they were worshipped by any jew and the priests were doing their job they were to kill them. baal, chemosh and adonis et all are gods you wouldnt want to have around today. they involve sacrificing babies.

 

[for_his_glory]

What it all comes down to is the various cultist religions that use many names for their gods and goddesses and Earth became Mother Earth to them as Earth being fertile like a women and keeps reproducing to nourish from it to feed her people. The worship of Mother Earth is they worship the fertility of it as they give back to her by cultivation or reseeding her to continue her nourishing.

 

[Davies]

What it all comes down to is the various cultist religions that use many names for their gods and goddesses and Earth became Mother Earth to them as Earth being fertile like a women and keeps reproducing to nourish from it to feed her people. The worship of Mother Earth is they worship the fertility of it as they give back to her by cultivation or reseeding her to continue her nourishing.

You know, when a person attributes to Mother Nature what should be attributed to God, they are worshiping the creation rather than the Creator. I imagine those who worship the fertility gods will find reason to dispose of unwanted babies.
Romans 1:24-25

New King James Version (NKJV)

<sup class="versenum">24 </sup>Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, <sup class="versenum">25 </sup>who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.


- Davies

 

[joep222]

No such entity called "Mother Nature". Only a false idol to those who reject God's sovereignty in all things, including weather phenomena.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

What it all comes down to is the various cultist religions that use many names for their gods and goddesses and Earth became Mother Earth to them as Earth being fertile like a women and keeps reproducing to nourish from it to feed her people. The worship of Mother Earth is they worship the fertility of it as they give back to her by cultivation or reseeding her to continue her nourishing.

This is how I've understood it. Earth is like a womb from which life springs forth from to feed the creatures of the earth.

Sacrifices are made in the religions of the pagans to appease the 'god' or 'gods' of the earth to ensure an abundance of life and prosperity from the earth.