• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science standards under threat in Arizona

ecco

Veteran Member
Jews and Christians had too many rel


I read the entire JFJ article. It supposes as fact that some prophecy is being made that had to have been scheduled by God for the first century CE. ABOUT HALF THE CHAPTER says God will kill the Messiah to take away the world's sin. If not Jesus, WHO?!
Why ask me? The experts have already stated:

This is a brief explanation of Daniel chapter 9. Any attempt to apply this chapter to Jesus is erroneous and wrought with mistranslations and misinterpretations.

I'm done beating this very dead horse.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
You are still begging the question. Atheists just a few years ago weren't claiming the moral high ground, and admitted all their concepts of good and evil are highly subjective. Even your "do less harm" is not how evolution and the animal kingdom operates.
Are you somehow under the impression that people derive their morals from the theory of evolution? Sorry, I'm not a social Darwinist.

I'm a humanist. I often wonder why some religious-minded people want to make morality so much more difficult and confusing than it actually is.

People who care about morality care about the well-being of sentient creatures. There are ways of determining whether actions increase the well-being of sentient creatures or decrease the well-being of sentient creatures.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Are you somehow under the impression that people derive their morals from the theory of evolution? Sorry, I'm not a social Darwinist.

I'm a humanist. I often wonder why some religious-minded people want to make morality so much more difficult and confusing than it actually is.
Personally, I believe they're struggling with the realization that all their professed morals were handed down from an immoral god.

.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Why ask me? The experts have already stated:

This is a brief explanation of Daniel chapter 9. Any attempt to apply this chapter to Jesus is erroneous and wrought with mistranslations and misinterpretations.

I'm done beating this very dead horse.

Do these experts have an agenda? For example, naming themselves JFJ to mock Jews For Jesus (see Wikipedia).

Do these experts have an alternative, since they say "Daniel 9 happened in the first century, but isn't about Jesus Christ, even though half the chapter says 'Messiah will die to end human sin and seal eternal righteousness...'"

Simple, really. If I attempt to NOT apply Daniel 9 to Jesus Christ, what is the logical alternative?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Are you somehow under the impression that people derive their morals from the theory of evolution? Sorry, I'm not a social Darwinist.

I'm a humanist. I often wonder why some religious-minded people want to make morality so much more difficult and confusing than it actually is.

People who care about morality care about the well-being of sentient creatures. There are ways of determining whether actions increase the well-being of sentient creatures or decrease the well-being of sentient creatures.

Okay, WHY do they care, do you think?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Do these experts have an agenda? For example, naming themselves JFJ to mock Jews For Jesus (see Wikipedia).

Actually, I see the name Jews For Jesus to be misleading. Do Jews for Jesus accept Jesus as God as you do? If that is the case, they are Christians. Since they are Christians they should not have named their organization Jews For Jesus.

And, as I previously posted, I am done beating this dead horse. Jews For Jews says your interpretation is wrong - argue with them. Oh, wait, you (allegedly) did and they told you, that you are wrong. Maybe we can ask Moses to chime in with his opinion. Nah, you would argue with him too.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Because it benefits us to care about others with whom we must share the planet. It benefits all of us. It's an unavoidable fact of life that we must interact with other human beings.

So, atheist morality is self-centered, selfish. Christian morality is others based. Thanks for clarifying.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Actually, I see the name Jews For Jesus to be misleading. Do Jews for Jesus accept Jesus as God as you do? If that is the case, they are Christians. Since they are Christians they should not have named their organization Jews For Jesus.

And, as I previously posted, I am done beating this dead horse. Jews For Jews says your interpretation is wrong - argue with them. Oh, wait, you (allegedly) did and they told you, that you are wrong. Maybe we can ask Moses to chime in with his opinion. Nah, you would argue with him too.

Christian = follower of Mashich, the Jewish Messiah

Jew = me

Jews for Judaism says the following:

1) Daniel 9 isn't about Jesus
2) It is, however, involving something/someone else from the 1st century CE
3) I note that over half the chapter says Messiah will die to eradicate/atone for human sin and save the world

Your response is what? "You're wrong" is not a response. What am I wrong about when I say, "What is the JFJudaism alternative explanation if NOT Jesus?"

That is giving you and they a chance to assert your position, from a positive place.

I'm doing a hypothetical--how I see, usually, who is true and who is false:

1) Jesus is NOT the Messiah of Daniel 9
2) JFJ says the Messiah ended human sin in the 1st century CE
3) Who is this mysterious person?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
So, atheist morality is self-centered, selfish. Christian morality is others based. Thanks for clarifying.
Not sure how you came up with that. I guess you missed the "it benefits all of us" part. o_O

And it isn't "atheist morality," necessarily. Atheists believe all kinds of different things. It is morality from a humanist perspective where the well-being of sentient creatures is paramount. It benefits everyone and yes, it benefits myself, my family and my friends and loved ones as well as everyone else's family, friends and loved ones. We all have to share this one planet together - we don't really have a choice about that. Let's make it the best it can be for everyone here.


Christian morality is based on "Do what God says." I submit that blindly following orders is an act of amorality, as one is not actually exercising morality at all. It's not "others based," rather it's "God based." You're doing what God wants, regardless of what you personally feel is right or wrong. And in so doing, I've seen you and others actually defending slavery. Sorry, but I'll take humanism over that any day of the week.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Christian = follower of Mashich, the Jewish Messiah

Jew = me

Jews for Judaism says the following:

1) Daniel 9 isn't about Jesus
2) It is, however, involving something/someone else from the 1st century CE
3) I note that over half the chapter says Messiah will die to eradicate/atone for human sin and save the world

Your response is what? "You're wrong" is not a response. What am I wrong about when I say, "What is the JFJudaism alternative explanation if NOT Jesus?"

That is giving you and they a chance to assert your position, from a positive place.

I'm doing a hypothetical--how I see, usually, who is true and who is false:

1) Jesus is NOT the Messiah of Daniel 9
2) JFJ says the Messiah ended human sin in the 1st century CE
3) Who is this mysterious person?
And, as I previously posted, I am done beating this dead horse.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Not sure how you came up with that. I guess you missed the "it benefits all of us" part. o_O

And it isn't "atheist morality," necessarily. Atheists believe all kinds of different things. It is morality from a humanist perspective where the well-being of sentient creatures is paramount. It benefits everyone and yes, it benefits myself, my family and my friends and loved ones as well as everyone else's family, friends and loved ones. We all have to share this one planet together - we don't really have a choice about that. Let's make it the best it can be for everyone here.


Christian morality is based on "Do what God says." I submit that blindly following orders is an act of amorality, as one is not actually exercising morality at all. It's not "others based," rather it's "God based." You're doing what God wants, regardless of what you personally feel is right or wrong. And in so doing, I've seen you and others actually defending slavery. Sorry, but I'll take humanism over that any day of the week.

How does the humanist perspective differ from what we see in the animal kingdom? And what is the justification for the differences?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member

'Twould be great if you ever "beat the horse" before quitting! You made NO assertions, just like JFJ, other than "bu-bu-but the Daniel 9 passage is about some other Messiah dying for human sin in the 1st century, just no-no-not Je-Je-Jesus!"
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
How does the humanist perspective differ from what we see in the animal kingdom? And what is the justification for the differences?
Is that a serious question? I mean, I've explained humanistic morality to you several times at this point. Do you not remember any of it?

From my point of view, morality is about the well-being of sentient creatures. I don't see how it could be about anything else.

What is the justification for the differences between human morality and morality found in the animal kingdom? It depends on which animals you're talking about. But the main thing would be the degree of executive functioning and cognition the creature possesses. Is that what you're asking?

Secular ethics - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
Because it benefits us to care about others with whom we must share the planet. It benefits all of us. It's an unavoidable fact of life that we must interact with other human beings.
So, atheist morality is self-centered, selfish. Christian morality is others based. Thanks for clarifying.

Wow. You’ve twisted SkepticThinker’s words to make him seem “selfish”.

If a caring about people is selfish, then what is only caring for others only because you want a one-way ticket to heaven and for the promise of eternal life as a reward? Isn’t such Christian teaching considered to be even more selfish?

If you are only caring for others because of rewards, then you are not selfless and you are being sel-centred, because you think by doing good, you would get to live forever.

You really do have twisted sense of what is selfish and what is self-centered.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Wow. You’ve twisted SkepticThinker’s words to make him seem “selfish”.

If a caring about people is selfish, then what is only caring for others only because you want a one-way ticket to heaven and for the promise of eternal life as a reward? Isn’t such Christian teaching considered to be even more selfish?

If you are only caring for others because of rewards, then you are not selfless and you are being sel-centred, because you think by doing good, you would get to live forever.

You really do have twisted sense of what is selfish and what is self-centered.

I didn't say caring is selfish, I said caring is not justified by what we see in the animal kingdom in general and evolution/survivability in specific. However, Skeptic Thinker was clear, wasn't he? "We have to help others to help ourselves." Is that a selfish or altruist idea, do you think?

You will begin to understand God's Kingdom, IMHO, when you stop assuming all religionists are wrong, always, and all materialists are always right. That's not a scientific or reasoned opinion, either.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I didn't say caring is selfish, I said caring is not justified by what we see in the animal kingdom in general and evolution/survivability in specific. However, Skeptic Thinker was clear, wasn't he? "We have to help others to help ourselves." Is that a selfish or altruist idea, do you think?

Yes, caring is justified in social species like our own. It is seen frequently in the 'animal kingdom'.

Yes, it is altruistic: it puts the benefits of others in high regard.

You will begin to understand God's Kingdom, IMHO, when you stop assuming all religionists are wrong, always, and all materialists are always right. That's not a scientific or reasoned opinion, either.

Not required to know that morality isn't God-based. Morality is a matter of how we interact with others. Focusing on a deity diminishes overall morality because it separates us from caring about other people. At least, that is what I see around me.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Wow. You’ve twisted SkepticThinker’s words to make him seem “selfish”.

If a caring about people is selfish, then what is only caring for others only because you want a one-way ticket to heaven and for the promise of eternal life as a reward? Isn’t such Christian teaching considered to be even more selfish?

If you are only caring for others because of rewards, then you are not selfless and you are being sel-centred, because you think by doing good, you would get to live forever.

You really do have twisted sense of what is selfish and what is self-centered.
^^ This :)
 
Top