Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[rational experiences]

In human science terms.

A thinker living on earth stated I witnessed life changed and said it was in laws broken and a God did it.

Power of God nuclear dusts.

Yet humans practice Alchemy to machine metal and had conjured a machine out of earths dusts. First. So machine type Arose the metal from earths rock dead body. From dust earth bases and gases himself.

Man first built machine.

As no one seemed to realise man conjured the machine metal body first from dead entombed mass. The topic a machine body had arisen out of earths mass. Wasn't any man human.

Man manually had manipulated all cold dusts substances first.

Ignored.

As the teaching was about how men had caused changes to earth mass themselves.

So no man arose out of earth mass. The story told men built arose an unnatural machine that transmits out of the earths mass.

As the bible doesn't explain the thesis man's designs. To first build the machine.

The bible only told why life had been sacrificed by men changing earth bases. First it was machine.

That men said he built in place of his own life. To have it removed in biology was the notated theory what I am theorising about first.

A man's scientific thesis warning. Nuclear reactions remove biology. Hence his next thesis is what safety precautions do I hence impose.

Was the origin scientists thesis. Recorded but part memory removed after attack.

Why God by terms powerful as substances hurt bio life.

Above the God that hurt life was a wandering star that hit earth. Suns mass fell to ground virtually to put man's machine back in origin sun to earth law. Yet first star mass only opened holes in earth. Sink holes.

The equals as men made holes first mining dusts to build machine first. Quote in mind it's safe it's colder. I live with water I used water to get a metal.

How he lied claiming he used life.

The star above had made sink holes. Came through water.

They then opened into the hole inside the machine body...why hole opening blew up machine the truth.

A gods law changed said humans hurt is and was man of occult science fault use of metals.

But the machine man scientist changed earths mass laws himself.

Why the science teaching taught to humans said in the end the God term destroys life by man's sin.

Being nuclear science star theories removal of mass. Sin of science men.

Hence as men taught you god did it ...it was because man broke the natural fusion laws.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you do have evidence that the majority of Christians cherry-pick. From where did this evidence come?

It came from what Christians have posted on various forums.

 

[F1fan]

It appears to you that the majority of Christians think that cherry picking and quote mining the Bible is OK to support their beliefs?

Any evidence?

Of course Christians cherry pick and choose what they like, and ignore the rest. It's a theological buffet. That's how Christianity can include super liberal churches all the way to extremists like the KKK, which claims to be a Christian organization. Jesus' sacrifice covers all these people who disagree with each other on what the Bible says.

Look how many conservative Christians will cite Leviticus to back up their anti-gay bigotry. They hide behind God. Moderate and liberal Christians don't do that. We seldom see see conservative hristians cite anything Jesus taught, but they will pick things from paul or the OT that indicates rigid belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course Christians cherry pick and choose what they like, and ignore the rest. It's a theological buffet. That's how Christianity can include super liberal churches all the way to extremists like the KKK, which claims to be a Christian organization. Jesus' sacrifice covers all these people who disagree with each other on what the Bible says.

Look how many conservative Christians will cite Leviticus to back up their anti-gay bigotry. They hide behind God. Moderate and liberal Christians don't do that. We seldom see see conservative hristians cite anything Jesus taught, but they will pick things from paul or the OT that indicates rigid belief.

Personally I like the term "Smorgasbord Religion". But then I am from Minnesota.

 

[F1fan]

That doesn’t even sound reasonable. Do you know of anybody who hires someone to work against him?
That’s illogical.

The myths of the Bible are all illogical. And it's worse than than that. Yahwah (the Creator) didn't hire Satan, God created Satan. Why? The Bible even states that God created evil. Why?

I understand believers want to defend God the best they can. but the Bible doesn't help them do that.

Adam willfully disobeyed Jehovah, aka Yahweh.

Why would Adam decide to do that, willfully? Is that a smart thing to do?

The Devil couldn’t do the same thing? Or could it be he has free will, as humans do?

It raises the question why God would create the Devil. If you want a perfect world, why create trouble?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The myths of the Bible are all illogical. And it's worse than than that. Yahwah (the Creator) didn't hire Satan, God created Satan. Why? The Bible even states that God created evil. Why?

I understand believers want to defend God the best they can. but the Bible doesn't help them do that.


Why would Adam decide to do that, willfully? Is that a smart thing to do?


It raises the question why God would create the Devil. If you want a perfect world, why create trouble?

Christians that believe the Genesis myths have to disconnect the part of the brain the reasons rationally. If one can think properly it is rather obvious that God messed up his creation and instead of blaming himself he blamed his creation. In other words, the God of Genesis is very human in its failings.

 

[samtonga43]

Of course Christians cherry pick and choose what they like, and ignore the rest.

I don't. My friends and fellow Christians in my local church don't. But we don't live in American, of course.

Perhaps you meant to say 'some/many Christians'... ?

From my experience on this and other forums, it's non-Christians who do the cherry-picking, choose what suits whichever argument they're making, and ignore the rest

 

[samtonga43]

Christians that believe the Genesis myths have to disconnect the part of the brain the reasons rationally.

Only if they are literalists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only if they are literalists.

That is a rather odd statement. Two questions:

How could one rationally believe the Adam and Eve myth? In other words can you give a version that does not have God be at fault or contradict reality.

The second is the same question applied to the Noah's Ark myth. How do you have a flood that does the job that God needed to be done?

 

[joelr]

No it isn't.
I'm using my intelligence that God gave me.
The further we go back in time, the more difficult it is to "know" whether certain events happened or not.
You saying that we can know conclusively that something didn't actually happen a few thousand years ago, does not impress me.

So ignorance then. Assumptions. No idea what historians actually have to work with, other sources that help verify them, nothing. If you doubt history than you also doubt the Quran. Word of mouth is just as easily changed in the 7th century as back in Mesopotamia.
There are tablet writings, temples. coins and many sources to verify history.

There is a difference..

This leaves the question of when these works were created. Scholars in the first half of the 20th century concluded that the Yahwist source was a product of the monarchic period, specifically at the court of Solomon, 10th century BC, and the Priestly work a product of the middle of the 5th century BC (with claims that the author was Ezra). However, more recent thinking is that the Yahwist source dates to from either just before or during the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BC, and that the Priestly final edition was made late in the Exilic period or soon after.
Book of Genesis - Wikipedia

..but there is no such confusion with the Qur'an .. it is relatively recent.

No there is. It's illegal in Islamic countries to apply critical -historical methods but it's done in other countries. But it doesn't matter which source or period you date the OT. The myths are still taken from Mesopotamian myth and a few Egyptian.


"In the Muslim world, scholarly criticism of the Quran can be considered an apostasy. Scholarly criticism of the Quran, is thus, a nascent field of study in the Islamic world."
"Scholars have identified several pre-existing sources for some Quranic narratives.[5] The Quran assumes its readers' familiarity with the Christian Bible and there are many parallels between the Bible and the Quran. Aside from the Bible, the Quran includes legendary narratives about Dhu al-Qarnayn, apocryphal gospels,[6] and Jewish legends."
"In 2015, some of the earliest known Quranic fragments, dating from between approximately AD 568 and 645, were identified at the University of Birmingham.[8] Islamic scholar Joseph E. B. Lumbard of Hamad Bin Khalifa University in Qatar has written in the Huffington Post in support of the dates proposed by the Birmingham scholars. Professor Lumbard notes that the discovery of a Qur'anic text that may be confirmed by radiocarbon dating as having been written in the first decades of the Islamic era, and includes variations in the “under text.” recorded in the Islamic historiographical tradition "
"Quran maintains that Jesus was not actually crucified and did not die on the cross. The general Islamic view supporting the denial of crucifixion was probably influenced by Manichaenism (Docetism), which holds that someone else was crucified instead of Jesus, while concluding that Jesus will return during the end-times"

Yes it is.
The Bible and Qur'an are the major books as regards to Abrahamic belief.
Billions of people believe them to be truthful accounts, but not necessarily inerrant.
They are not "major revelations" because they are considered "fact", but because they are regarded as such by the majority of the world's population.

Yes, Christians don't believe the Qur'an is authentic [or maybe know little about it, in many cases], but most would not consider it to be "minor" .. it is accepted by billions.

HA really? You are now going with the biggest fallacy ever? Appeal to popularity? 1/3 of Christians, 1/3 of Hindu, in your view WRONG, which shows the popular opinion in Islamic views is wrong.
They are revelations. No different than Paul, Mormon, Cargo Cults or Bahai revelations. As usual they sound exactly like a person, with the exact same knowledge known at the time. Same old thing.

 

[joelr]

Devas, the expansions of Brahman/God into various forms, each with a certain quality. In the Vedic religion, there were 33 devas, which later became exaggerated to 330 million devas.
Brahman - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman


Yes like Yahweh created angels and devils and whatever else. Brahman is exactly what I said. Did you bother to even read the description?/??????
"Brahman (Sanskrit: ब्रह्मन्) connotes the highest universal principle, the ultimate reality in the universe.[1][2][3] In major schools of Hindu philosophy, it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists.[2][4][5] It is the pervasive, infinite, eternal truth, consciousness and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes.[1][3][6] Brahman as a metaphysical concept refers to the single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe."


ULTIMATE REALITY, cause of all that exists?

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me..
I have briefly investigated FSM, and conclude it to be satire.

That's your job investigating truth (or myths). You seem to be impressed by revelation claims. I'm not so I don't care about this guy.

I don't need to .. the above quote from wiki leads me to believe that it is in error, and I do not live in India, so why would I?
I have a more recent revelation that I find coherent.

Because Brahman creates other divinities? In the Quran there are all sorts of angels, cheribim, angels who drive the clouds, 19 angels of hell, not much different.
Also the Quran continued to believe Jewish cosmology with actual levels of heaven, each with it's own beings. In outer space.
Muhammad had a journey through the 7 heavens. This is as fictive as anything in Hinduism.

Oh, really?
Do you think that it is "comforting", the thought of going to hell?
I sincerely wish that I could die, and no longer suffer.
What a coward I am .. eh?

It's easier thinking you please a magic sky deity and live forever. Hell is such a childish concept it amazes me when people still think it's real.

I haven't got any "book" containing every event in history.
I'll leave these sorts of conclusions to you, who think that you can deduce something meaningful from ancient history about God.

No that would be you who thinks a 7th century book combining Judaism, Christianity and Arab mysticism is actually about a invisible being called God.

Historical information allows us to see where the Israelites got their mythology from.

You want to talk about ancient history, and persuade people that more recent history is garbage.

=Haven't said that. I said if you say historical information is somehow corrupt and misleading then that goes for the Quran as well. You insist on a perfect renditiuon of history for your religious book but then when history doesn't back up your mythology you want to make claims that have no evidence and dismiss scholarship based on zero evidence. Very dishonest.

Yes, you deduce what you deduce .. confirmation bias is part of the "equation" .. if you could absolutely prove that Judaism is based on false premise, the whole lot comes tumbling down.
..but you can't !!
If you could absolutely prove it, no intelligent person could be a Christian or Muslim.

Well first, no. Religious people dismiss facts by saying "Satan influenced the information or the scholars". they also use plain denial.
But yes, there is no doubt Genesis was written using older myth. There are many lines verbatim and the plot is the same?

Noah's flood[edit]

Andrew George submits that the Genesis flood narrative matches that in Gilgamesh so closely that "few doubt" that it derives from a Mesopotamian account.[67] What is particularly noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives.[68] In a 2001 Torah commentary released on behalf of the Conservative Movement of Judaism, rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: "The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling."[69] Ziusudra, Utnapishtim and Noah are the respective heroes of the Sumerian, Akkadian and biblical flood legends of the ancient Near East.

Myths

Biblical myths are found mainly in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. They are concerned with the creation of the world and the first man and woman, the origin of the current human condition, the primeval Deluge, the distribution of peoples, and the variation of languages.

The basic stories are derived from the popular lore of the ancient Middle East; parallels can be found in the extant literature of the peoples of the area. The Mesopotamians, for instance, also knew of an earthly paradise such as Eden, and the figure of the cherubim—properly griffins rather than angels—was known to the Canaanites. In the Bible, however, this mythical garden of the gods becomes the scene of man’s fall and the background of a story designed to account for the natural limitations of human life. Similarly, the Babylonians told of the formation of humankind from clay. But, whereas in the pagan tale the first man’s function is to serve as an earthly menial of the gods, in the scriptural version his role is to rule over all other creatures. The story of the Deluge, including the elements of the ark and the dispatch of the raven and dove, appears already in the Babylonian myths of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis. There, however, the hero is eventually made immortal, whereas in the Bible this detail is omitted because, to the Israelite mind, no child of woman could achieve that status. Lastly, while the story of the Tower of Babel was told originally to account for the stepped temples (ziggurats) of Babylonia, to the Hebrew writer its purpose is simply to inculcate the moral lesson that humans should not aspire beyond their assigned station.


Scattered through the Prophets and Holy Writings (the two latter portions of the Hebrew Bible) are allusions to other ancient myths—e.g., to that of a primordial combat between YHWH and a monster variously named Leviathan (Wriggly), Rahab (Braggart), or simply Sir Sea or Dragon. The Babylonians told likewise of a fight between their god Marduk and the monster Tiamat; the Hittites told of a battle between the weather god and the dragon Illuyankas; while a Canaanite poem from Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) in northern Syria relates the discomfiture of Sir Sea by the deity Baal and the rout of an opponent named Leviathan. Originally, this myth probably referred to the annual subjugation of the floods.

 

[joelr]

Yes, and that's my point. They don't know that .. it's based on a hypothesis. Who gets to decide what level of vitamin D is low?

Clearly, a person who develops rickets has a "serious" deficiency [calcium?], but that is not the level that argues 50% are deficient.

It would not be expected that people in a sunny country to have the same level as somebody in a cloudy country..


The jury is still out..

No it isn't hard. When someone has a low vitamin D and are symptomatic and supplement D and the disease ends and it's common among people with lower levels then it's clear that there are levels that are healthy.

A 2011 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report set the sufficiency level at 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L), while in the same year The Endocrine Society defined sufficient serum levels at 30 ng/mL and others have set the level as high as 60 ng/mL. As of 2011 most reference labs used the 30 ng/mL standard.




It might be that less than 20ng is sufficient for many people .. how long is a piece of string?

What is the point? Data came in that suggested 30ng/dl was better? So? This data is old. Recent 2011 data has evaluated studies and come to a conclusion.

..but the conclusions are not.

The conclusions are based on sound, real data. Yours are based on supernatural myths that re-write history. Hmmm, which are reliable?

Are they your gods?

Yet another non-answer. Did you think this was religiousdebates or religiousbickering?

 

[samtonga43]

The myths of the Bible are all illogical. And it's worse than than that. Yahwah (the Creator) didn't hire Satan, God created Satan. Why? The Bible even states that God created evil.
Why? ?

You assume that a myth is without truth.

I understand believers want to defend God the best they can. but the Bible doesn't help them do that.

I, a believer, have no need to defend God. That would be ridiculous.

Why would Adam decide to do that, willfully? Is that a smart thing to do?

Adam thought he knew better than God. He was free to choose his way, rather than God’s.

It raises the question why God would create the Devil. If you want a perfect world, why create trouble. The Devil couldn’t do the same thing? Or could it be he has free will, as humans do?
It raises the question why God would create the Devil. If you want a perfect world, why create trouble?

Maybe because a world full of robots would be hellish.
(The devil probably does have freewill).

 

[joelr]

You say that "the Qur'an got it from the Greeks", implying that Muhammad was the author, and he wrote it through knowledge that he possessed.
That is your belief !

I just showed you historical information from your culture. It's known that Greek science was brought into the Islamic workd, studied, incorporated into the religion and you call it "my beliefs"?? It's common knowledge? If you are going to troll without even attempting to debate I'm done. Showing yourself to be a troll is an easy win.

The sciences of only one nation, the Greeks, have come down to us, because they were translated through Al-Ma'mun's efforts. He was successful in this direction because he had many translators at his disposal and spent much money in this connection
Greek contributions to the Islamic world - Wikipedia

Scripture?
Did he have something to do with what is in the Qur'an as well?

Right so Greek art, science, astronomy, biology and more are being brought into the Arab culture and you are claiming that God also told Muhammad the same information. Wow.

Nobody is claiming otherwise..

The Quran was written using science they brought into the culture. If you think otherwise demonstrate it. Prove God and prove revelations. Ask God for a revelation, I have a 9 digit number, ask for a revelation of the number. I do not care about unevidenced claims of magic.

I'm not, actually.
This life is a spiritual journey .. it has many phases.
Our beliefs in early adulthood might not be identical to when we die.

Billions of people die in other religions.

God is Wise .. He can inspire people to become a pious believer of any denomination.
However, we cannot deduce that God has actually guided any particular person to a particular belief.
Only God knows the sincerity and capabilities of a person, and their environment and relevance.

Ha, I love apologetics. They defeat themselves.
So if a person finds Islam - God.
If a person finds another religion - God
If a person finds no religion - God

OR

all those things but - not God.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. In the real world that's called random events.

I do not assume that a non-Muslim is not being guided by God.
Similarly, I do not assume that all Muslims are guided by God.

As we have established random events = God. Thank you for demonstrating God is a fiction in peoples mind.

That is contradictory. One cannot "ask" anything of something that does not exist.

HA, yes and if they are religious and ask and don't get it then - "God has other plans".....which continues until something finally happens then they say .."this is what God had in mind"............isn't confirmation bias great! Works for all Gods as well!

One cannot prove the existence of God to another .. unless they are somebody special .. which I am certainly not.

Than why debate it?

Indeed, nature is real .. part of the creation, if you believe in God.

Yes nature creates. God is fiction. Unless you can demonstrate evidence.

You are an intelligent person.
I wouldn't expect you to follow something without investigating it first.
Neither do I.

Sorry I don't buy that. You were not even aware about the apologetics that "prove" the Quran is divinely inspired because all the science that couldn't possibly be known. The videos had actual teachers of Islam, grown men saying this. And they were so wrong and had never even bothered to look into Greek science and the known fact that Arabs has taken an interest in this material early on before the Quran was written.

Yes .. I felt exactly the same when I first read it. Its descriptions of violence and hell caused me to reject it.
It took me a while before I got to understand it, and realise that we all live in different environments, with preconceived ideas.

It's very clear. Believe me or painful doom. Christians - lie, Jews. -lie. This is human writing.

God is not just there to answer our supplications .. particularly of those that doubt.
I wish that I could practice what I preach, and have a more positive outlook on life.
Have hope [faith] that "everything will be alright".

God is a made up fiction. Somehow he gets a pass in every way possible. What is the purpose of that hope, because you think God will help you or to focus your mind?

Islam does not teach otherwise.

God tells us to be thankful, and He will give you more.
..but those that are suffering are often plagued by negative thoughts .. complaining of ailments and difficulties .. human weakness.

Often people who are thankful do not get more. Why would negative thought be a human weakness? We evolve to be a way and then we are supposed to apologize for it?

 

[joelr]

I'm more of a scientist and mathematician than an historian.
I have always observed that history of an event can dramatically change, depending on which party is narrating it.

As I've got older, I am more interested in history, but in regards to "evidence", I do not rate it .. particularly ancient history.
How can that be deemed conclusive? Not for me, and my 'scientific' mind.

Again you have no idea of the complexity or the scope of the evidence. It is conclusive. If you want to see how Moses is a literary construct start with Thomas Thompson Historical Narrative of the Patriarchs.

Of course ancient history of the Quran you are completely convinced it's conclusive. So this is all B.S. None of this has anything to do with science. It's all belief in supernatural stories. You trust the Quran because you believe a claim and don't trust older history because it doesn't agree with revised history in a myth.

The Qur’an and historical criticism | David Layman[/URL]

 

[joelr]

Philosophical. The difference is that fiction is something you don't believe. Assumptions are beliefs. Theology begins with the assumption of God and then uses reason to try to determine what God's properties must be, so it is philosophical not fictional. I think of fiction as something made to entertain and educate. Philosophy is an attempt to use reason and axioms to come to conclusions.

No that is a particular type of philosophy - theology. Assume God is real. But there is no evidence and it's logically flawed. So the concept is fiction.
And all the cosmological arguments have to make ridiculous assumptions to get to a theistic deity.

I don't worry about the sound of a word. I realize that mysticism is very important in the modern world, and many people place special emphasis upon letters, sounds and phrases. I don't think it is central to a conversation about God, except that it shows God doesn't seem to correct anyone about it or give aid to the one trying put God under a camera. One says 'Jehovah' and another does not, and God doesn't try to correct either one. There are no lightning strikes over it.

The Israelite God is Yahweh. If you take the religion away there isn't anything left except a vague deism which atheists don't argue against. It's theism that looks to be false.
Also unlikely a theistic God is real but the religions are all syncretic myth?

My challenge to you is to be familiar with all of the Tanach and understand the laws, the concerns of the prophets and the contexts of the stories. Translation is a weakness, but its nowhere near as bad as ignorance of these other things. Hellenists have brains, can understand metaphors and symbols and tongue in cheek statements, jokes, parodies and all kinds of writing devices. They go to theater, read things. They are also trained in memorization.

The OT isn't Hellenized. It was revised during the 2nd Temple Period during the Persian invasion and we see Persian myths added to the theology.
Hellenism was the last few centuries and showed up in the NT. Mark, the source for the other gospels displays all of the traits you are explaining.
HE re-writes Kings, Psalms, uses ring structure, chiasmus, triadic inversions, cycles, parable, and more. As well as using Homer, Romulus and transfiguration.

A scholar must be willing to read the works and proposals of other scholars, too; including ones they disagree with. That is how scholarship proceeds. Since he is a scholar it is likely David Litwa proposes a model in which Jesus is a Greek deity. I'd be surprised if he were to simply point out something or declare all objections to be wrong.

It isn't a Litwa model. Every historian of the period touches on this. I posted some Carrier talking about the savior dying/rising deities and how Jesus fits exactly.
Even early apologists admitted Jesus was a Greek deity. Justin Martyr just said Satan got the Greek deities to look like that to fool new Christians into not joining. I guess that worked back then?

Dialogue 69.

I wouldn't presume to write a paper without having read up enough to matter; but anybody can look in scripture software for the word fulfill and check to see that its plainly always about Israel. For this I rely heavily upon those who have provided translations. They did this so that I could make such comparisons.

Jesus fulfills a prophecy Israel has about a messiah they picked up from Persia during the 2nd Temple Period. Yes Israel was wanting a savior of their own. But the gospel writers (who wrote in Greek) were clearly trained at the only Greek school and fictional biographies were popular as was Hellenistic theology. Jesus fits exactly.

Mary Boyce:
Belief in a world Saviour

An important theological development during the dark ages of 'the faith concerned the growth of beliefs about the Saoshyant or coming Saviour. Passages in the Gathas suggest that Zoroaster was filled with a sense that the end of the world was imminent, and that Ahura Mazda had entrusted him with revealed truth in order to rouse mankind for their vital part in the final struggle. Yet he must have realized that he would not himself live to see Frasho-kereti; and he seems to have taught that after him there would come 'the man who is better than a good man' (Y 43.3), the Saoshyant. The literal meaning of Saoshyant is 'one who will bring benefit' ; and it is he who will lead humanity in the last battle against evil.c and so there is no betrayal, in this development of belief in the Saoshyant, of Zoroaster's own teachings about the part which mankind has to play in the great cosmic struggle. The Saoshyant is thought of as being accompanied, like kings and heroes, by Khvarenah, and it is in Yasht r 9 that the extant Avesta has most to tell of him. Khvarenah, it is said there (vv. 89, 92, 93), 'will accompany the victorious Saoshyant ... so that he may restore 9 existence .... When Astvat-ereta comes out from the Lake K;tsaoya, messenger of Mazda Ahura ... then he will drive the Drug out from the world of Asha.' This glorious moment was longed for by the faithful, and the hope of it was to be their strength and comfort in times of adversity.

Just as belief in the coming Saviour developed its element of the miraculous, so, naturally, the person of the prophet himself came to be magnified as the centuries passed. Thus in the Younger Avesta, although never divinized, Zoroaster is exalted as 'the first priest, the first warrior, the first herdsman ... master and judge of the world' (Yt 13. 89, 9 1), one at whose birth 'the waters and plants ... and all the creatures of the Good Creation rejoiced' (Y t 13.99). Angra Mainyu, it is said, fled at that moment from the earth (Yt 17. 19); but he returned to tempt the prophet in vain, with a promise of earthly power, to abjure the faith of Ahura Mazda (Vd 19 .6

-
Myth and legend in the Persian period

In 539 BCE the Jews came under Persian domination and consequently absorbed a good deal of Iranian folklore about spirits and demons, the eventual dissolution of the world in a fiery ordeal, and its subsequent renewal. This introduced new elements into Jewish popular mythology: hierarchies of angels; archangels such as Michael, Gabriel, and Uriel (modeled loosely upon the six Iranian spiritual entities, the amesha spentas); and the demonic figures of Satan, Belial, and Asmodeus (corresponding to the Iranian Angra Mainyu [Ahriman], Druj, and Aēshma Daeva). There was also a preoccupation with apocalyptic visions of heaven and hell and of the Last Days. Unfortunately, no Jewish texts of this genre from the Persian period are extant, so these new elements can be recognized only inferentially from their survival in later times—notably in products of the ensuing Hellenistic Age, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[joelr]

Many people would like for that to be so, however gospel narratives show an awareness of Titus destruction of the temple which only happens as late as 70CE. Are you trying to tell me that the NT predicted this would happen before 70CE? No, of course you aren't. Therefore your dates seem ludicrous. These gospels are either supernaturally written, or they are written after 70CE. Now this ought to change the perspective for you, because we are talking about something written after the recent destruction of the temple, after 30,000 crucifixions have lined the streets of Jerusalem and a people's peaceful prerogatives have been punished with torture. These gospels are written in a time of pain and resolution to commit to peace. They are amazing because of that commitment. But you think its just hellenistic thought? I can't be persuaded.

First that was a big sect of Judaism, the peaceful teachings. Hillilite Judaism was preaching the same message Mark had Jesus teach in his gospel.


He is popularly known as the author of two sayings: (1) "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And being for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?"[4] and (2) the expression of the ethic of reciprocity, or "Golden Rule": "That which is hateful to you, do not do unto your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary; now go and learn."[5]

Hillel was born according to tradition in Babylon c. 110 BCE, died 10 CE[3] in Jerusalem) was a Jewish religious leader, sage and scholar associated with the development of the Mishnah and the Talmud and the founder of the House of Hillel school of tannaim.

Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia


The savior model was popular because it gave people hope of an afterlife. Heaven, redeemed souls that return there is also not a Jewish belief but a Greek belief -


During the period of the Second Temple (c. 515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is thought to be derived from Persian cosmology,[49] although the later claim has been recently questioned.[50] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[47] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[40]



Mark uses OT narratives, many Epistles narratives and creates an earthly setting for the savior demigod.

Your beliefs do not change the fact that that is all Hellenistic theology.

Even baptism, the logos and the eucharist and Greek religious inventions.


Baptism has been widely compared with initiation into the Mystery cults. In many of the Mysteries purification through ritual bathing was required as a prerequisite for initiation.

It is interesting to note that the early Christian writer Tertullian (c. 160-225CE) would not have agreed with this appraisal. Not only did he believe that certain of the Mysteries practiced baptism, but also that they did so in hope of attaining forgiveness of sins and a new birth. This was so striking a similarity that it clearly demanded some form of explanation. Not surprisingly, demonic imitation was the culprit.

Dying/rising demigods


In Pagan Hellenistic and Near Eastern thought, the motif of a “Dying and Rising God” existed for millennia before Christ and there had been stories of divine beings questing into the underworld and returning transformed in some way.

Eucharist.


-Perhaps the clearest point of contact between the Mysteries and Christian Eucharist, and one of which the Church Fathers were painfully conscious, lay in a sacramental meal of bread or cakes and wine mixed with water in which initiates to the cult of Mithras participated.


They seek salvation from the debased material world through a spiritual ascent through the spheres. Mithras was expected to return to earth to lead his followers in a final cataclysmic battle between good and evil.

The Relationship between Hellenistic Mystery Religions and Early Christianity:


A Case Study using Baptism and Eucharist Jennifer Uzzell

 

[muhammad_isa]

It raises the question why God would create the Devil. If you want a perfect world, why create trouble?

Mmm .. that is the big question..
Why did God create creatures like humans, who will often choose evil over righteousness?

One can only assume, that the good outweighs the bad in the long-term.

 

[F1fan]

I don't. My friends and fellow Christians in my local church don't. But we don't live in American, of course.

So how do you treat th Old Testament when what Jesus taught contradicts it?
And I take it you acknowledge that I am correct that even if you and your friends don;t cherry pick the biblke, it is a common thing among other Christians?

Perhaps you meant to say 'some/many Christians'... ?

Well having read the Bible, and listened to amny Chriztians over the decades of religious debate, I am aware the Bible can't be accepted as a whole due to contradictory parts. The Amazing thing about the Bible as a whole is the incredible personality change that God goes through. God goes from being a blood thirsty tyrant in the Old Testament, willing to kill women and Children, and grows up to be a loving Father in the Gospels. No doubt you have a clever way to make all of it consistent.

From my experience on this and other forums, it's non-Christians who do the cherry-picking, choose what suits whichever argument they're making, and ignore the rest

Do you mean how thre are parts of the Bible that contradict what Christians will believe? If not, then clarify what you mean, because I have not seen this myself in three decades of debate. It's notable that the Bible as a whole is not very coherent. It was assembled by bishops during the 4th century from a collection of over 200 books, and whittled God's Word down to 66 or 72 books. I'll give Muslims credit for keeping the Quran consistent over the centuries.

Only if they are literalists.

So you don't interpret the Genesis stories literally? Do you not interpret the Gospels literally, either?

You assume that a myth is without truth.

I said no such thing, did I?

Myths are not factual at face value, do you agree? How people will interpret the symbolism of mythgs varies. Is it necessary to value myths in our modern age? No. We have knowledge from many other sources and these ancient myths only tell us about how ancient people thought, and what they created for their own meaning as peolpe that lacked broad knowldge about how things are in the universe.

I, a believer, have no need to defend God. That would be ridiculous.

Of course what we mean by "defending God" is defending the belief some humans have that any number of Gods exist.

Adam thought he knew better than God. He was free to choose his way, rather than God’s.

So why did God create Adam with such an arrogant attitude? If God wanted a humble and obedient person don;t you think God could have done it? According to you God either screwed up, or deliberately created Adam with a big head. Remember, A&E did not have the advantage of knowledge, so whatever mental tools Adam had it was what God put there.

Maybe because a world full of robots would be hellish.
(The devil probably does have freewill).

I notice you didn't offer an explanation of why God created the Devil. No doubt this probably confuses believers too, since the Bible offers no explanation. I suggest none of this is true at face value, as Christians assume, rather the idea of God represents the ideal good of humans while Satan represents the bad in humans. Of course leaders will teach to follow God, and be careful of Satan. This makes vastly more sense than to pretend there's an actual God and an actual Devil. It remains absurd that God would create evil deliberately when all it does is cause problems.

I suggest believers are the closest thing we have to robots since they believe in sets of non-factual and non-reasoned concepts, and can't articulate why it is rational to believe in religious concepts. Of course this is explained as a result of how the human brain evolved, and that we are motivated to conform to social/tribal norms even when the concepts are irrational, and even harmful to some of the community. It feels really good to the human brain to conform and belong. That is the emotional and reward centers of the brain being fired up, not the frontal lobes being used, as fMRI scans reveal. To resist this temptation requires mental disipline and reasoning skills, along with excellent self-awareness and self-monitoring thoughts. This skill set is demonstrated more in non-theists than theists.[/quote]

 

[F1fan]

Mmm .. that is the big question..

And it goes unanswered, even by you.

Why did God create creatures like humans, who will often choose evil over righteousness?

Because God created the option of evil, as the Bible admits. And as we see, God created humans without the natural ability to reason from facts, which is evidenced by so many theists. If humans want to be rational they need to learn a set of cognitive skills, such as logic, recognizing bias, being self-aware of how the self is adopting cultural/tribal/social norms that appeal to emotions, yet are not factual or true.

These debates are not about facts, evidence, truth. These debates are a contrast between those who can reason via facts, and those who hold non-factual, non-reasoned beliefs. Beleievrs are not swayed by arguments, they remain committed to ideas that are not only devoid of evidence, but also contrary to evidence and reasoning. Believers simply can't see their own need to believe, and how their brains do not function rationally as they defend what they believe.

That believers can't explain why God created evil or the Devil is an example of an important elelment of their belief goes unchecked and unquestioned.

One can only assume, that the good outweighs the bad in the long-term.

Tyically this is out of self-interest, not because humans are largely well informed and rational. I suspect USA citizens voted Trump and republicans out of office the last two elections not because of reason, but because many centrist voters recognized the threat MAGAs pose. Herschal Walker got 48% of the votes, and he is grossly unfit for the job. That illustrates that 48% of Georgia voters are not rational thinkers. No rational person would support Walker. I see a huge correlation between religious belief and support for very bad candidates. These are emotional decisions, not reasoned conclusions.