{{” The archetypal Jewish hero was Joshua (the successor of Moses) otherwise known as Yeshua ben Nun (‘Jesus of the fish’). Since the name Jesus (Yeshua or Yeshu in Hebrew, Ioshu in Greek, source of the English spelling) originally was a title (meaning ‘saviour’, derived from ‘Yahweh Saves’) probably every band in the Jewish resistance had its own hero figure sporting this moniker, among others.”}}

If this is right, then Jesus Christ tanslates as Savior the Messiah.

Are you going to ban me just because I disagree with your position? You did the same thing to Josh. That’s unfair. Bill didn’t do that to me. All you’re doing is just banning people because they question your beliefs. It’s a free country. The advantage you have is defense, and more power to it if you can. Remember, DaveScot, you were almost kicked out as well from this blog. Keep in mind that Dr. Dembski gave you this priveledge. Nobody else! You shouldn’t domineer over people who disagree with you. If you want to kick me out, fine! I’d rather be on a blog where there is freedom of thought and expression, not on a Stalinist one.

Your wish is my command. I hope you find a blog more suited to you. -ds

Benjii, Professor Dembski already banned you once. I didn’t agree at the time that you deserved it but I may have been wrong.

Now back to the discussion:

“who cares about a rule, that once again, is the outcome of an evolutionary process”

Presumably the creatures who are the outcome of the evolutionary process would be the ones that care. In support of this I said that the golden rule is supported by almost all major religions (maybe all of them) and few irreligious people are not supportive of it. That’s a lot of caring.

Dostoyevsky is wrong. If this is the only chance at life we get then life is indeed a precious thing. On the other hand, if life continues on in heaven then why care if people die since it only means they’ll be moving along to a better place? As an admitted agnostic I don’t know if life somehow continues after death but it’s the possibility that this is the only shot we get that makes me sad when innocents die.

“Because if you treat others badly they are likely to treat you badly in return. What goes around comes around. That’s basically “the golden rule” ”

True, but who cares about a rule, that once again, is the outcome of an evolutionary process. Thus rendering it without a basis. “As the Russian writer Dostoyevsky rightly said, ” If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted.”{5} Given the finality of death, it really doesn’t matter how you live. So what do you say to someone that concludes that we may as well just live for self–interest, live just as we please, for pleasure?” (W.L Craig)

Benjii – “why be moral”

Because if you treat others badly they are likely to treat you badly in return. What goes around comes around. That’s basically “the golden rule” and it’s endorsed by most of the world’s major religions and few irreligious people argue with it. The golden rule is a self-evident truth sort of like all men are created equal with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

True, but if the testimony is reliable, then one is certainly justified by heeding to them. The new testament documents were no later written than 62 A.D. Almost less 30 years after Christs’ death. This places it perfectly within the eyewitnesses’ life time. Thirty years is not enough time for myth fabrication. Of course, this can occur. However, don’t historians still recall things that occured in 1977. From then till now-is that enough time for fabrication? If it is, then we should reject all historian testimony and reconstruction.

” Plus atheists can be nice people with good values. Are you seriously saying that the only way to know right from wrong is to read it in the bible? ”

No, but good values are nothing but meaningless subjective outcomes of a purposeless natural process. So why be moral? And why believe something that isn’t objective and true? Get the picture, DaveScot?