Problems - The Root Cause

[nPeace]

I'd say the highly patriarchal society of the times the Bible was written would not have considered a woman to be a candidate for authority, and thus God had to be male.

You're going to mention Esther, I know it.

No, I won't mention Esther. Oops.
Close enough though. The Jews understood the headship arrangement and orderliness of the creator, and writing for a human audience, they connected with that audience.

Imagine if God used angels to write to a human audience.
The humans 'd be like...

 

[Five Solas]

The history of salvation isn't progressive at all. It came 100% at once and during the Hellenistic occupation?

Ever heard of the Old Testament?

 

[Five Solas]

You are welcome to term it any way you like, but I am stating a fact. I understand that very well.
"Without getting your nose cut, you will not be able to see Emperor's new clothes."

Whatever! - to claim you understand all worldviews clearly remains hugely arrogant.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Whatever! - to claim you understand all worldviews clearly remains hugely arrogant.

Well, I do understand yours. You are right, because that is the truth and yet the rest of us still do it differently.

 

[Left Coast]

You didn't get an answer? Are you certain about that?
Your questions were...
Before such things become automatic and unquestioned, they ought to be questioned and reasoned out, don't you think? So again, how do we decide what the rules should be?

My answer was...
Well, if I thought like that when my dad told me not to run across the road, I probably wouldn't be alive today.
There is no need to question a dad that proves trustworthy... or do you disagree?

That looks like an answer to me.

That wasnt the question i said wasnt answered. Go back and read what I said again.

It says this basically...
Not every stated law is questioned, nor needs to be, especially if it's been demonstrated that the stated law is from a trustworthy and reliable source.

That's entirely the point. The source's reliability and trustworthiness has to be demonstrated. The way to do that is to show the work of how they arrive at their conclusions.

Does being theistic mean that one will not be or is not against God?
I think if we believe that, we will also have to believe that someone working for the C.I.A. will never betray or act against the C.I.A.
Do you believe that?
Claiming to be something does not mean you actually are.
Being among or in a group doesn't mean you actually are with the group in your thoughts and ideas.

That's what I mean about lumping all religion as one.
Some people don't seem to think that religions can belong to a system that is actually against what they claim to be for.

How would you feel if someone claimed that about your religion? Would you take that claim seriously? Would you take seriously the accusation that you aren't really an advocate of morality based on God's laws, you just say you are?

When my dad commanded that I not run or play in the street, I might not have fully understood... or even agreed, but as I gained more understanding and experience, I came to see for myself that his law was good - sound, practical. So that I even repeated it to others.

In this same way, I have come to experience for myself, that God's stated laws are indeed good... always.

What does "good" mean, there? What makes something good? What criteria are you using to make that determination?

I did have a conversation with you on this.
The subject was centered around the data showing the results of living promiscuous lives.
I'd have to search for it, but there is this one.

I think you're confusing me with @Polymath257.

Yes, but why?
Why do they make good decisions?
I'll suggest it's because of what you said earlier.
"...all the available evidence [is] that most humans through history have been theistic... And particularly in the West, have derived their morals from what they think their God has declared as right and wrong..."

So, in a nutshell, the reason people make morally good decisions is due to they having a conscience which has been trained and guided by "theistic" tenants that have been passed down through generations... which has some roots from the beginning of "theism".

Or perhaps it's because people can arrive at similar moral conclusions with or without it having anything to do with God?

It depends on what kind of parents we have, would you agree?
Because while you were saying "we begin to realize that the rules, and even the values, of our parents are sometimes flawed", I couldn't help but think of the millions of people who are living examples, who say the complete opposite... "we begin to realize that the rules, and the values, of our parents were right, and ours were often flawed".

The truth is, most of us have both experiences. We realize our parents were right about some things, and wrong about others. Much as so many of us realize about our religions. Which is precisely why it's so important to use our own critical thinking skills to draw our own reasoned conclusions about where they went wrong and where they didn't. Again, this is part of maturing as adults.

That, demonstrates, it matters where our teaching comes from.
Is it from those who submit to God's thinking, or think that their thinking is "Oh so right".

Again, we'd have to know God's thinking to figure out whether it's rational or helpful.

​

Answered. Hope you got it.

You didn't. But perhaps you will soon.

 

[Left Coast]

So, you think no soldier should fight and kill anyone. It's immoral to do so, in your view. Yes?

Is that what I said? I don't think so.

I imagine there's a happy medium between "never kill anyone under any circumstances ever" and "slaughter people en masse" or "murder every firstborn child of an entire country," don't you think? When is it okay for angels to kill people?

No. I think you misunderstood really.
I do not simply want anymore to accept anything.
I think a person should only accept something, if they are convinced it is the truth...

Great, so we should not accept something as true just because you, or someone else, says God said so. I'm glad we're on the same page there, at least.

I'd trust the physical address, and the in person meet.
The others could still be faked.

So again, you concede that you have little to no rational reason to believe I'm not a real genuine person responding to you. Phew.

False.

Really? What is God's address? Phone number? Email? Set up a meeting between us, please.

They, singular... as in "they said".

Right, so God's pronouns as an individual are they/them. Understood.

I can demonstrate it... and we have.

No, you haven't. But I'll wait.

So now, that prompts me asking a question... or two.
We know that a blueprint for a design is drafted by intelligence beings. This we know to be a fact.

Do you know of any other way a blueprint is drafted for a design?
If you do, could you please explain what it is, and how that works?

I asked, because the cell is a marvel of design, containing functions at every level being carried out according to plan.
Alter any one of those, and you interupt the cell's function, even causing its breakdown.

Why do you think no intelligent agent was responsible for the planning that we see in all the designs in nature?

This is begging the question. You are assuming a cell is designed without demonstrating it.

Let me ask you...what is your level of biology education?

Huh?
I'm only responding to your 'if' statement.
And secondly, if she is advanced in all these ways, then she ought to be able to explain her reasoning behind her various rules and why they're the best ones. If she can't do that...yeah, people aren't just going to accept "because I said so." They're going to require an explanation. And a demonstration. I'm sure you can understand that reasonable request.

Isn't that like someone saying, if the sea doesn't reach the shore, then...
I'm showing that there is no if.

If that's what you're showing, then again...what is their reasoning?

Hold up. Wait a minute.
Why did you make that personal?
In fact, I asked another atheist this before, so maybe you can answer.
Why do atheist take every statement personal, as in, applying to them?
Your answer please.

How odd. You are speaking to someone who doesn't believe in God, and you made a generalization in that conversation about people who don't believe in God. How would you expect that to not be obviously personal? I'm pretty sure you, and most JWs, would take a negative generalization about JWs personally in a conversation with you. Most people would do so, because it's an obvious inference.

My purpose is to challenge your generalization by asking if you think it actually applies to the real person you're having a conversation with right now. If it doesn't, perhaps you ought to rethink your generalization, eh?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Whatever! - to claim you understand all worldviews clearly remains hugely arrogant.

Is stating a fact arrogance?
Also that I am Brahman, This self is Brahman (Aham Brahmasmi, Ayamatma Brahman).
No arrogance, no ego, just fact.

You are right, because that is the truth and yet the rest of us still do it differently.

I was not talking about truth. I said I understand various religions well.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is stating a fact arrogance?
Also that I am Brahman, This self is Brahman (Aham Brahmasmi, Ayamatma Brahman).
No arrogance, no ego, just fact. I was not talking about truth. I said I understand various religions well.

Well, you claim a fact that relies on the truth. But that is without truth in practice.

 

[Five Solas]

Is stating a fact arrogance?
Also that I am Brahman, This self is Brahman (Aham Brahmasmi, Ayamatma Brahman).
No arrogance, no ego, just fact.

To claim that you posses such incredible knowledge and insight is arrogant whatever you claim to be...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To claim that you posses such incredible knowledge and insight is arrogant whatever you claim to be...

Yeah, but you can do it, because you know how to prove that another human is wrong.

 

[Five Solas]

Yeah, but you can do it, because you know how to prove that another human is wrong.

I wish...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I wish...

Sorry, as I recall it, you did it with me. Sorry, if I got that wrong.

 

[Alien826]

Sorry I took so long getting back to you.


Works to

1. change the lives of people, for the better
2. prevent unnecessary loss of health, and life
3. make one wise in one's dealings both with people and things
4. solves problems which at a priority for nations worldwide

Do you need actually examples. They are quite a lot. Can I send them by PM?


True. I'll show you how that's not the case here.


Yeah. You're way off the marker.

However, you just prompted me to create a thread.

Maybe I'll wait for the thread. This is a very interesting subject and has had personal implications for me. Briefly, the question is how different would these things be if they were inspired only by human aspiration (as in humanism). In other words, what does religion add?

 

[Alien826]

Since the Bushman in Africa had ancestors... who were not ape-men, by the way, they learn from those who carried the news.
(Joshua 6:27) So Jehovah was with Joshua, and his fame spread through all the earth.

Are you seriously saying that there was some kind of communication between Israelites back then and bushmen in Africa. Seems unlikely to me. And the "through all the earth" sounds more like hyperbole than literal truth.

"the vast majority of Christians" are not true Christians.
That's where the problem lies.

I'm not saying this simple because of a case of "Mine is right. The others are wrong".
The same Bible those "Christians" use says this...

Spoiler: Apostate Christians will flourish abundantly

(1 Timothy 4:1) However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons,

(2 Timothy 4:3) For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.

(2 Peter 2:1) However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These will quietly bring in destructive sects, and they will even disown the owner who bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves.

(1 John 2:18-19) 18 Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out so that it might be shown that not all are of our sort.

(Acts 20:29-30) 29 I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, 30 and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.

(2 Thessalonians 2:3) Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction.

If one is not able to see that there are apostates whom have deviated from the teachings of Christ, and they obviously are more branches today, than back then, that one is obviously asleep, and needs to wake up.
The next thing is to be able to identify the true Christians - followers, or disciples of Christ.
The scriptures do not hide the identifying marks either. One needs to be awake.

They can't all be right I guess. And that kind of prophesy is very easy to do, as it's pretty much a given that beliefs change over time. It's like the "earthquakes in diverse places" verse. Not hard to predict.

I agree, but I'm not sure how you mean.

You spend a lot of time studying scripture and most don't. The average atheist knows the bible better than the average Christian in my experience.

Fair enough.
I don't fight that... and I, nor my brothers in faith, do not think science is a religion, but certain scientists treat it as such, and their beliefs become "the Gospel of Scientist(s) X".

Be careful to distinguish between science and scientists. We are all human. The power of the scientific method is that it tends to correct human failings.

I didn't say that. Say What?

This is what you said.

The problem skeptics are having though, is that they aren't sure, That's not a problem for those who are.
All the prophets were sure. Jesus was sure. The apostles were sure. All of Jesus disciples were, and are sure... 100%.

If that isn't saying that truth is determined democratically, what is? If 100 people are sure black is white, does that make it so? How about 1000? How about a billion? Black is still black not white, no matter how many people are sure it is white.

Those who understand that the Bible is not to be read like some robot is reading it, knows that one has to take a number of factors into consideration.

For example, the perspective from which the writer is presenting his record.
There were times when the writer's perspective was from heaven.

(Isaiah 40:22) There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers. . .
From a heavenly view, the earth is circular. It has a circle.
This is a fact. Taken literally, yes.​

​

OK.

There were others, where his perspective was from earth.

(Joshua 10:12) . . .“Sun, stand still over Gibeon, And moon, over the Valley of Aijalon!”
From an earthly perspective, the sun stood still, yes. Literally... in that the rotation of the earth might have been slowed, so that the sun appeared to stand still.
Why would that be an impossibility for the creator? It's not. (Isaiah 28:21)

Have we not observed that the days are going by more quickly?
Earth has started spinning faster – what does it all mean?
The Earth’s rotation is changing speed
In 2020 scientists made a startling discovery. They found that, instead of slowing down, the Earth has started to spin faster. It is now spinning faster than at any time in the last 50 years. In fact, the shortest 28 days on record all occurred during 2020.

As yet, scientists are not entirely sure what is causing this increase in Earth’s rotation rate, but some have suggested it could be due to the melting of glaciers during the 20th Century, or the accumulation of large quantities of water in northern hemisphere reservoirs. However, experts predict that this speeding
up is a temporary effect and the Earth will start slowing down again in the future.

If 'nature' (claim and belief noted) can slow down or speed up the rotation of the earth, it would be cake for a super intellect, isn't that so?​

Earth is spinning faster than usual and had its shortest day ever

"The Earth is spinning faster, and recently recorded its shortest day ever, scientists say. June 29, 2022 was 1.59 millisecond less than the average day, scientist Leonid Zotov told CBS News."

Faster by 1.59 milliseconds. That's 0.00159 seconds. It's a tiny fluctuation in the rotation of the earth, of interest only to those who have to measure very small periods of time. Now lets consider what was supposed to happen in the bible story. The sun stood still (earth's rotation stopped) for a full day. Can you imagine the forces that would unleash? I suspect there wouldn't be much of the world as we know it left afterwards. But God can do anything, you say? OK, but that would involve controlling forces so huge that it boggles the imagination. Magic, you say? But what about the rest of the world? Did everyone around the world notice that the sun stopped moving for a full day? Did anyone happen to record that?

Remember too, I was talking about what was likely to be true, not what could possibly have happened given an omnipotent god. It started with you using the existence of a King as evidence for the accuracy of the Bible.

Interestingly, having read that passage, it seems that the view was that the sun and moon not only traveled across the sky (as opposed to the earth rotating) but traveled separately, as opposed to the moon orbiting the earth.

I see here, "could", and "doubt".
That... in this case, appears to equal great skepticism, and or denial.

Oh please. Logically, it could be true, that is there is a possibility of that. It doesn't indicate anything of the sort.

In the case of the Bible, it's not simply a case of "somebody wrote something years ago and someone else wrote something similar in the same book".
It's a case of the Bible having one unified message - one theme, which is like a thread that binds the books of the Bible, beginning at Genesis, and ending at Revelation, although writen by about 40 different men, during a perioud of 1600 years.
Can you explain how that can happen?

I can't even verify the truth of that statement, not having studied the subject, let alone explain it. Perhaps someone can jump in here and pick up on it?

Then you missed the point.
If someone is trying to intimidate another, so as to discourage them from saying something important that can help others, the person showing a similar attitude may be required for two reasons - 1) show the opposer that their intimidation isn't working, and 2) help the audience and encourage them not to be fearful.
So, it is valuable - very valuable.

It doesn't cut much ice with someone who is trying follow the argument logically though. It just makes you look as childish as the other person. Rudeness never advances anyone's position in a debate, It just obscures any truth that might be there. See political attack ads for examples of this.

Huh? Why would you say B is wrong, unless to point out that A is wrong?
In that case, it's great, because the person is not able to see that A is wrong... eccept his attention be drawn to the fact that B is wrong.
Super! It's referred to as an object lesson - using an object to draw attention to something else.
The viewer, or listener gets the point. They learn a lesson.
Wonderful!

You disagree?

That's not the motivation. If you say I break speed limits (just an example) and I respond by saying you do too, I'm not denying my own transgressions. I'm saying you don't have the right to judge me if you do the same thing, and that somehow lets me off. It's a logical fallacy.

https://fallacyinlogic.com/tu-quoque-fallacy-definition-and-examples/

 

[nPeace]

Maybe I'll wait for the thread. This is a very interesting subject and has had personal implications for me. Briefly, the question is how different would these things be if they were inspired only by human aspiration (as in humanism). In other words, what does religion add?

Well, you are late. The thread is already 7 pages long. All you had to do was click the link, in the post.

 

[nPeace]

Are you seriously saying that there was some kind of communication between Israelites back then and bushmen in Africa. Seems unlikely to me. And the "through all the earth" sounds more like hyperbole than literal truth.

No. I'm saying that news spreads.
People witness events -> People travel -> People talk -> People listen and hear. There.
Actually, right now there are foreigners in your country.
If something significant happens there, when they leave for home... or wherever they are headed to next, that news will go with them, and reach ears of all kinds.
That's how life is.

All the earth, meant just that - all the earth. Whay think otherwise... unless... "Can't believe that something can actually be the case, when I don't want it to be"?

Don't tell me you have never read the Torah.
Do you know where the people of Israel traveled and where they took up dwelling?
Do you realize where Egypt is? Why would you think the Africans wouldn't be the first to hear of the events surrounding the God of Israel?
That would be the strangest thing.

At Joshua 9:7-13, the men lied, but their claim was believable, because that's what happens in real life.

They can't all be right I guess. And that kind of prophesy is very easy to do, as it's pretty much a given that beliefs change over time. It's like the "earthquakes in diverse places" verse. Not hard to predict.

A lot of things are easy to predict. I can predict xyz.
Doesn't mean it will be fulfilled.
The point is, they were fulfilled accurately.

Predicting that there will be earthquakes in one place after another may be easy to do. Yet no one did it, but Jesus... well in advance.
Furthermore, Jesus predicted that at the same time there will be pestilences, famines, wars, a great many lacking love due to an increase of lawlessness, a global preaching work with a specific message.

To be able to predict events that would be composite, requires being able to accurately identify a "glove that can fit only one hand".
In other words, the events can only fit one (1) time period.
That's hard to do. Jesus did it.
However, not only did his words fill the whole lump-sum. Other writers added to it.

Apostle Paul - 2 Timothy 3:1-5
Apostle Peter - 2 Peter 3:3, 4
Apostle John - Revelation 6; Revelation 12
Then there are earlier prohecies concerning the last days.

No one tells a person, whom they arrange to meet, "Hey. Look out for me. I'll be driving a red Suzuki."
Oh. That's easy to do. Just look for a red Suzuki... and you will count 30, or more red Suzukis.
It's hard to pinpoint the right vehicle.

Rather, the person will be told something like, "Hey. Look for a red Suzuki with a __identifying marks__. I'll be there about __time__."
That's not easy to do, since you have to be able to make the description as distinct as possible, so that the listener isn't mistaken. It's then easy to see, and identify.

Jesus is no fool.
He made it clear for us.
It impossible to hear the sign, and not see it.
Those who don't see, want to be blind.

You spend a lot of time studying scripture and most don't. The average atheist knows the bible better than the average Christian in my experience.

The average "Christian" note the quotation marks?
That may be true, because they hardly read it. I mean, go ask 90% Catholics, how many of them have ever read the Bible.
You think I am joking. Go ask, and report back to me.

If atheist compare themselves to people who don't take the Bible seriously, what else is to be expected.
Try that boast with any minister of JWs, who has been baptized for more than 5 years.
Your experience fails there, doesn't it?

Oh wait. I don't mean ex-JWs, or those who hardly attend meetings or participate in the ministry.

Be careful to distinguish between science and scientists. We are all human. The power of the scientific method is that it tends to correct human failings.

Not all scientists would agree with you, but I have nothing against the scientific method... once it's applied without the addition of philosophy.

This is what you said.

The problem skeptics are having though, is that they aren't sure, That's not a problem for those who are.
All the prophets were sure. Jesus was sure. The apostles were sure. All of Jesus disciples were, and are sure... 100%.​

If that isn't saying that truth is determined democratically, what is? If 100 people are sure black is white, does that make it so? How about 1000? How about a billion? Black is still black not white, no matter how many people are sure it is white.

Try reading it in the context of what it's addressing, rather than reading it as though it's an isolated response, or a response to something else.
Furthermore, try not separating text from it's body. That creates problems.

I said this...

The problem skeptics are having though, is that they aren't sure, That's not a problem for those who are.
All the prophets were sure. Jesus was sure. The apostles were sure. All of Jesus disciples were, and are sure... 100%.​

That's body of text, wher one statement connects to the other.
This is the main point - The problem skeptics are having though, is that they aren't sure, That's not a problem for those who are.
Followed by the components or properties.
All the prophets were sure. Jesus was sure. The apostles were sure. All of Jesus disciples were, and are sure... 100%. Sure

​

It's hard to believe that you actually think I am making a point about numbers, when I am pointing out facts regarding those who know for sure - Jesus; the apostles; his followers - disciples.

The point is, Being unsure about truth is not a problem for any true servant of God.
That's the point. It has nothing to do with numbers.
It contrasts the position of skeptics with true disciples.

 

[nPeace]

OK.

Earth is spinning faster than usual and had its shortest day ever

"The Earth is spinning faster, and recently recorded its shortest day ever, scientists say. June 29, 2022 was 1.59 millisecond less than the average day, scientist Leonid Zotov told CBS News."

Faster by 1.59 milliseconds. That's 0.00159 seconds. It's a tiny fluctuation in the rotation of the earth, of interest only to those who have to measure very small periods of time. Now lets consider what was supposed to happen in the bible story. The sun stood still (earth's rotation stopped) for a full day. Can you imagine the forces that would unleash? I suspect there wouldn't be much of the world as we know it left afterwards. But God can do anything, you say? OK, but that would involve controlling forces so huge that it boggles the imagination. Magic, you say? But what about the rest of the world? Did everyone around the world notice that the sun stopped moving for a full day? Did anyone happen to record that?

If you want to dogmatically claim that it was a complete stop, go right ahead.
I do not submit to that assumption, for a number of reasons.

1. The Bible did not just say the sun stood still. It says the sun stood still over Gibeon. (Joshua 10:12) . . .“Sun, stand still over Gibeon, And moon, over the Valley of Aijalon!”
2. I don't read the Bible for the sake of reading, just to take words off the page. I read it to understand what's really taking place. The focus is not on the sun and moon not moving, but on the fact that the day was extremely long because it allowed time for Joshua and his men to annihilate the enemy. It says, at Joshua 10:13-14 So the sun stood still and the moon did not move until the nation could take vengeance on its enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? The sun stood still in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to set for about a whole day. There has never been a day like that one, either before it or after it, when Jehovah listened to the voice of a man, for Jehovah was fighting for Israel.
3. When reading the Bible, I take into consideration the perspective from which the writer presents the information. From the writer's perspective, the sun stood still, and did not move. If I were an observer in the universe, the earth would be rotating. In fact, from my perspective, the sun, moon and stars do not move for minutes at a time, but the earth is rotating. It just looks that way to me.

Yes. It was recorded.
Was it recorded by others?
The Bible mentions the Book of Jasher.
If people in other parts of the world recorded the phenomenon, it was lost, like much of everything written on perishable material.
It's a marvel the Bible books we have survived, though writen on perishable materials.
We know the reason for that.

Remember too, I was talking about what was likely to be true, not what could possibly have happened given an omnipotent god. It started with you using the existence of a King as evidence for the accuracy of the Bible.

Interestingly, having read that passage, it seems that the view was that the sun and moon not only traveled across the sky (as opposed to the earth rotating) but traveled separately, as opposed to the moon orbiting the earth.

I guess you would have a problem with these verse then.
(Ecclesiastes 1:5-7) 5 The sun rises, and the sun sets; Then it hurries back to the place where it rises again. 6 The wind goes south and circles around to the north; Round and round it continuously circles; the wind keeps making its rounds. 7 All the streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the streams flow, there they return so as to flow again.

(Isaiah 11:12) . . .he will gather together the scattered ones of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

I don't. We use the same language today. Perspective is key.
Four corners of the earth
Rising and setting of the sun
I take that into consideration. I don't dismiss it.

Oh please. Logically, it could be true, that is there is a possibility of that. It doesn't indicate anything of the sort.

...

I can't even verify the truth of that statement, not having studied the subject, let alone explain it. Perhaps someone can jump in here and pick up on it?

...

It doesn't cut much ice with someone who is trying follow the argument logically though. It just makes you look as childish as the other person. Rudeness never advances anyone's position in a debate, It just obscures any truth that might be there. See political attack ads for examples of this.

That's your opinion. Noted.

That's not the motivation. If you say I break speed limits (just an example) and I respond by saying you do too, I'm not denying my own transgressions. I'm saying you don't have the right to judge me if you do the same thing, and that somehow lets me off. It's a logical fallacy.

Tu Quoque Fallacy - Definition and Examples - Fallacy In Logic

Huh? What? I say you don't understand.
Or maybe I don't understand a word of what you wrote above. "If you say I break speed limits (just an example) and I respond by saying you do too, I'm not denying my own transgressions."
Huh? Could you rephrase that.

Edit
After eating something, I understand.
You don't understand, because that's out the ball park... far from what I am saying.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, you claim a fact that relies on the truth. But that is without truth in practice.

Why? As far as I know, I am what constitutes all things in the universe, 'physical energy'. That is what we started with at the time of Big Bang, and nothing else existed. Therefore, it is the truth. That is 'Brahman' to Hindus. Tell me how is this wrong?

To claim that you posses such incredible knowledge and insight is arrogant whatever you claim to be...

Give your reasons to support what you say.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why? As far as I know, I am what constitutes all things in the universe, 'physical energy'. That is what we started with at the time of Big Bang, and nothing else existed. Therefore, it is the truth. That is 'Brahman' to Hindus. ...

You don't know that, because there is no strong scientific theory of everything in physical terms.

 

[joelr]

Ever heard of the Old Testament?

Personal salvation from a savior figure, often a dying/rising demigod isn't from the OT.
The OT (canonized in 5 BCE) wrote predictions of a messiah when the Persians occupied them during the 2nd Temple Period because they borrowed that myth from the Persians:

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. Mary Boyce

The NT uses Greek Hellenized ideas of salvation. The Hellenistic Greeks occupied Israel in 300 BCE.


The basics of Hellenism - Hellenistic religion
-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.

-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.

-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.
-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme

-The temples and cult institutions of the various Hellenistic religions were repositories of the knowledge and techniques necessary for salvation and were the agents of the public worship of a particular deity. In addition, they served an important sociological role. In the new, cosmopolitan ideology that followed Alexander’s conquests, the old nationalistic and ethnic boundaries had broken down and the problem of religious and social identity had become acute.
-Most of these groups had regular meetings for a communal meal that served the dual role of sacramental participation (referring to the use of material elements believed to convey spiritual benefits among the members and with their deity)

-Hellenistic philosophy (Stoicism, Cynicism, Neo-Aristotelianism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and Neoplatonism) provided key formulations for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophy, theology, and mysticism through the 18th century

- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.

-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.
-Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)
-and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)
- Particularly noticeable was the success of a variety of prophets, magicians, and healers—e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Paphlagonian, and the cult of the healer Asclepius—whose preaching corresponded to the activities of various Greek and Roman philosophic missionaries