My simple answer is, I would never go back in time and rewrite history. To do so would itself be immoral and presuming take the pen from the author of history and rewriting it to my own liking (as if I could do better). Claiming such sovereignty would be claiming my own deity . . . which is, of course, the core temptation in the Eden scenario.

I’m curious why the author of this cute little hypothetical would focus solely upon the injustice of Jesus’ crucifixion? Why would he be any less culpable for selectively rescuing “the poor b*stard in a heartbeat” while ignoring the millions of other injustices occuring throughout human history? Would it be moral to go throughout time and just start patching up every unjust occurence you deem worthy?

A man dives into an icy river to rescue several people in an airplane accident, and sacrificially dies in the process. Maybe you could do a better job than the availed forces around to rescue him? Or maybe you could prevent him from going in in the first place, since he is such a noble soul.

I have no qualms to morally insisting, “No.” And it’s a shame his opponents don’t seem to see the logical reasoning. This is far from a difficult problem, not to mention a hypothetical fallacy on the order of God creating a rock too big for him to lift.

Sorry . . . unimpressed.