(June 15, 2016 at 8:25 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: This is for both theists and atheists to answer.

Imagine you travel back in time, and have the opportunity to save Jesus from being humiliated, tortured horribly, dying a slow painful death, having his body desecrated by the Roman guards, etc.

There is no question that your attempt would be successful. 

Would you?

Of course.

(June 15, 2016 at 8:45 pm)Thomas Kelly252525 Wrote: What if you compared

Christians, would you have saved Jesus, if you had the chance?

To

Would you have saved the Allied soldiers from death in World War 2 or was the death of many Allied soldiers necessary to win the war ?

What's with the constant barrage of nonsense questions?

Is it simply you preferred way of avoiding having to answer questions?

(June 15, 2016 at 8:25 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: This is for both theists and atheists to answer.

Imagine you travel back in time, and have the opportunity to save Jesus from being humiliated, tortured horribly, dying a slow painful death, having his body desecrated by the Roman guards, etc.

There is no question that your attempt would be successful. 

Would you?

absolutely not!

His whole purpose was to die.

Never stand between a fundy christer and lynching a jew.  Shit's important to them. 

(June 15, 2016 at 9:40 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(June 15, 2016 at 9:22 pm)Godschild Wrote:  Here the atheist go again assuming they can do something like go back in time. That's one reason I find most unreliable in what they say, they want to pretend instead of dealing with the facts, this pretending stuff sounds most illogical. Those who answered they would do something are just spouting off like their something, you would have coward at the knees of the Romans like everyone else except Jesus. He accepted the Father's plan and carried it to the very end and beginning.

GC

Okay. So there is no time travel involved.

You are there, and you have a chance to successfully stop Jesus from being horribly tortured. Would you?

It's a f'n thought experiment. 

Are you that unable to imagine the scenario?

I think it is more a case that GC is afraid to contemplate the scenario. Because the christian answer "let him die" is the immoral answer in this case. Who can say it is right that an innocent man die for the wrongs you do?

God says so...but more for the wrong you -are-, than do.

Thomas,

You aren't getting it. You have the burden of proof, until you demonstrate your claim that someone tampered with the Bible, I do not believe it. I am not saying that I know that it is false, just as I can't necessarily prove that any number of pseudoscientific claims are false - and it doesn't matter! Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I have read the Bible. I know what it says - but take the example of Abraham and his son - I submit that it is evil to ask someone to kill their child. If you heard a voice you thought to be God ask you to kill your child, would you just do it?!

(June 17, 2016 at 8:59 am)Veritas_Vincit Wrote: Thomas,

--You aren't getting it. You have the burden of proof, until you demonstrate your claim that someone tampered with the Bible, I do not believe it.--

What may you think proves I wasn't willing to put forward for your consideration the truth about The Bible ?

If you thought you could prove to someone that The Bible would still be imperfect even if all the bad parts were taken out, do you think the burden of proof is on you if someone claims otherwise ?

--I am not saying that I know that it is false, then I don't know that any number of  matter! Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.--

Do you think I was saying you know that it's false ?  Do you think I've not been willing to give you the evidence ?

--I have read the Bible. I know what it says - but take the example of Abraham and his son - I submit that it is evil to ask someone to kill their child. If you heard a voice you thought to be God ask you to kill your child, would you just do it?!--

I think we both think that the example of Abraham and his son was bad in what you talked about above.  So you may consider it was inserted maliciously.

Veritas Vincit, you may look at my answers above.

Thomas I have edited my previous post, I did it on my phone and some of the text didn't come through...

---

In response:

I wasn't saying you aren't willing to present evidence for your claims, I am saying that so far you have not. You are welcome to, but the point is that nobody needs to disprove your claims to disbelieve them, rather they should not believe them in the first place until you can demonstrate that they are true. By all means, do so.

As to taking out the 'bad parts' it depends on your definition of bad, we may not agree on which passages are bad and which are not. I don't think the Bible has much good in it and you would have to cut out whole chunks and chapters to get to something morally acceptable, but then that negates the whole religion. ]

But all of this is irrelevant until you actually present some evidence to entertain the idea that the Bible was tampered with and that all the bad bits were added. On face value it sounds crazy, but go ahead, prove it.

(June 17, 2016 at 10:01 am)Veritas_Vincit Wrote: Thomas I have edited my previous post, I did it on my phone and some of the text didn't come through...

---

In response:

--I wasn't saying you aren't willing to present evidence for your claims, I am saying that so far you have not.--

Do you think I've not been willing to start all along ?

--You are welcome to, but the point is that nobody needs to disprove your claims to disbelieve them, rather they should not believe them in the first place until you can demonstrate that they are true. By all means, do so.--

Do you think I asked you to disprove without you having the ability to do so ?  Again, if there is a need, do you think I've not been willing to start all along ?  I've been willing to start all along.  I need somewhere to send you the information.

--As to taking out the 'bad parts' it depends on your definition of bad, we may not agree on which passages are bad and which are not.--

We may not agree which parts are bad and which parts are not.  We may find out about that after going through the evidence.

--I don't think the Bible has much good in it and you would have to cut out whole chunks and chapters to get to something morally acceptable, but then that negates the whole religion. ]--

Have you ever thought of the possibility that parts may have been maliciously taken out ?

--But all of this is irrelevant until you actually present some evidence to entertain the idea that the Bible was tampered with and that all the bad bits were added. On face value it sounds crazy, but go ahead, prove it.--

Again, if there is a need, do you think I have not been willing to start all along ?  We may agree some things may sound crazy to some people and be true.  We may agree some things need thorough investigation to learn the truth. 

Veritas Vincit, you may look at my answers above.