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

[Thomas Kelly252525]

Veritas Vincit, you may look at my answers above.

You have just proved my point, as anyone reading this will see for themselves, and we're done.

Veritas Vincit,


You may think the burden of proof is on you to prove that.

[Angrboda]

I personally wouldn't interfere with the Roman justice system. Right or wrong, Jesus was duly prosecuted and thus his fate was morally justified. Before I'm attacked with a host of Godwins, I'm not sure I would interfere wit the Nazis at a personal level. It would depend on what my morals at that specific time were. There were those who opposed the Nazis and those who supported them. Just as today there are those who oppose the right to abortion and those who support it. In general, my morals align with coming down on the side of law and order regardless of individual outcomes.

[Veritas_Vincit]

I personally wouldn't interfere with the Roman justice system.  Right or wrong, Jesus was duly prosecuted and thus his fate was morally justified.  Before I'm attacked with a host of Godwins, I'm not sure I would interfere wit the Nazis at a personal level.  It would depend on what my morals at that specific time were.  There were those who opposed the Nazis and those who supported them.  Just as today there are those who oppose the right to abortion and those who support it.  In general, my morals align with coming down on the side of law and order regardless of individual outcomes.

From reading your post, it seems to me that when you say your morals align with law and order regardless of individual outcomes, that this is an a-moral position. What you're actually saying is that you hold the rule of law and order higher than the moral dynamics of any particular situation. You are granting the moral high ground to those who set and uphold the law regardless of the particular laws they set or how they enforce them. What if the law is immoral? What if the way it is being enforced is immoral?

[Angrboda]

I personally wouldn't interfere with the Roman justice system.  Right or wrong, Jesus was duly prosecuted and thus his fate was morally justified.  Before I'm attacked with a host of Godwins, I'm not sure I would interfere wit the Nazis at a personal level.  It would depend on what my morals at that specific time were.  There were those who opposed the Nazis and those who supported them.  Just as today there are those who oppose the right to abortion and those who support it.  In general, my morals align with coming down on the side of law and order regardless of individual outcomes.

From reading your post, it seems to me that when you say your morals align with law and order regardless of individual outcomes, that this is an a-moral position. What you're actually saying is that you hold the rule of law and order higher than the moral dynamics of any particular situation. You are granting the moral high ground to those who set and uphold the law regardless of the particular laws they set or how they enforce them. What if the law is immoral? What if the way it is being enforced is immoral?

Asked and answered. I prefer the rule of law, but I admit it's possible that I might perceive the law to be so corrupt that it needs to be overthrown. In that case I would work to overthrow the system. Whether disobedience to the established order would be a part of that effort would depend on context. As long as there are peaceful means of working to ensure that right is done, I would defer to those.

[robvalue]

Well, I managed to go back in time right to the point where I could save him. Error 304, Jew not found.

Hey Ignorant said he'd save him! That's cool. I respect that.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and somewhere...god drowned a box of kittens for it.

[robvalue]

He did? Oh man you can't win with that guy.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's his brilliance.

[GUBU]

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.

Again, why would a perfect being (and god is perfect per christian doctrine) allow his divine word to be tampered with?

You've brought up this "tampered with the word of god nonsense" a number* of times now, but have failed to give any kind of a response to my query every time I ask it of you. It is very relevant to what you are trying to establish.

*I was going to use "couple" here, but then I realised that the Irish interpretation of couple is pretty unique.

[Drich]

I personally wouldn't interfere with the Roman justice system.  Right or wrong, Jesus was duly prosecuted and thus his fate was morally justified.  Before I'm attacked with a host of Godwins, I'm not sure I would interfere wit the Nazis at a personal level.  It would depend on what my morals at that specific time were.  There were those who opposed the Nazis and those who supported them.  Just as today there are those who oppose the right to abortion and those who support it.  In general, my morals align with coming down on the side of law and order regardless of individual outcomes.

In for a penny in for a pound got to respect someone who is willing to follow their 'moral' relativism to hell if that's where it takes them.