Was Jesus Radicalised?

[Hope]

We'd need some evidence for that

In the same way that we would need evidence for the opposite.

[Hope]

Indeed! If "God" had had the intelligence not to create evil, he would have saved us all a lot of heartache.

Would we have a 'heart' to have heartache in?  After all, what you are asking for is a robot creation.

[Shaker]

In the same way that we would need evidence for the opposite.

Er, no, actually.

[Hope]

They can't be! So many of the beliefs of believers are contradictory.

So, perhaps that shows that they are the enlightened - that reality is multiple and far more diverse than that which you espouse.

[Shaker]

Would we have a 'heart' to have heartache in?  After all, what you are asking for is a robot creation.

Not necessarily - this is a non sequitur.

[Leonard James]

Would we have a 'heart' to have heartache in?  After all, what you are asking for is a robot creation.

It's a figure of speech, Hope! Sometimes I wonder if English is your first language.

[Hope]

That applies to the whole of the Bible texts. Hence the countless factions.

Perhaps that also explains why secular historians and scientists look at the same documentation and reports and come up with differing explanations.   

[Shaker]

So, perhaps that shows that they are the enlightened - that reality is multiple and far more diverse than that which you espouse.

And your methodology for supporting this unsupported belief is what?

[Shaker]

Perhaps that also explains why secular historians and scientists look at the same documentation and reports and come up with differing explanations.   

They have a methodology to work with, for starters.

[Hope]

Er, no, actually.

Do you have any evidence for why we wouldn't need such evidence you feel we wouldn't need?   

[Leonard James]

So, perhaps that shows that they are the enlightened - that reality is multiple and far more diverse than that which you espouse.

A splendid reality! Riddled with contradictory arguments!

At least non-believers are consistent in it.

[Shaker]

Do you have any evidence for why we wouldn't need such evidence you feel we wouldn't need?   

Len was right to wonder about English not being your first language.

[floo]

Sorry, Floo, but not only does the word 'apocalypse' have a pretty narrow meaning in ordinary language, it also has a pretty narrow one in a religious sense.

As for the use of it in the OP, I'm not sure that JtheB even referred to the apocalypse.

Its possibly also worth pointing out that, though JtheB was 6 or 7 months older than Jesus, as cousins they would probably have met each other on several occasions before the 'baptism' event (remember that John's father was one of the Temple priests).  John would likely have been aware of Jesus' precociousness - especially his facing up to the teachers in the Temple when he first went to Jerusalem (Luke 2).

If he had been my son he would have been in trouble BIG TIME for wandering off like he did. It certainly wasn't to his credit!

[Hope]

And your methodology for supporting this unsupported belief is what?

My 'methodology' - not sure about anyone else - is by observation.

[Shaker]

My 'methodology' - not sure about anyone else - is by observation.

That's only ever part of a methodology, not the whole thing, but it's unlike you to answer a straight question so let's run with what little bit we've got so far. Observation of what?

[Hope]

If he had been my son he would have been in trouble BIG TIME for wandering off like he did. It certainly wasn't to his credit!

I think you will find that he got into a great deal more trouble than your 'BIG TIME' would account for.  After all, it appears to have happened in front of the senior Jewish rabbis.

As for whether it was to his credit or not, it depends on whether one believes that challenging authority is a good thing or not.  Clearly you don't.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They have a methodology to work with, for starters.

Yes Shaker and science gives us facts about matter energy and that's it.....as those poor saps the Vienna logical positivist a found out.

As Mae West would have said....stop tryin to make out ha own science ya big sap.

[Hope]

Not necessarily - this is a non sequitur.

Which is the non-sequituur - the reference to a robot creation or to the lack of a 'heart' to have heartache with?

[Shaker]

Which is the non-sequituur - the reference to a robot creation or to the lack of a 'heart' to have heartache with?

The former.

[Hope]

Len was right to wonder about English not being your first language.

Which is ironic as my question was perfectly legitimate grammatically, and the meaning of it was also perfectly valid.

[Hope]

A splendid reality! Riddled with contradictory arguments!

At least non-believers are consistent in it.

And the contradictory arguments are what?  That reality is far more complex than you and others care to accept?

[Hope]

The former.

Are you arguing that evil might have entered the system independentally of God?

[Shaker]

And the contradictory arguments are what?  That reality is far more complex than you and others care to accept?

Although you keep drearily boring on about reality being more than that which is amenable to scientific investigation, I'm sure I'm not the only one to have noticed that each and every time you've been politely asked to back up this claim, you have refused to do so.

Nothing new there at all, of course.

[Shaker]

Are you arguing that evil might have entered the system independentally of God?

Well, any atheist would say that not only might it have entered 'the system' independently of God, it did so, or they wouldn't be atheists.

But as a matter of fact, no, that wasn't what I was arguing at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Although you keep drearily boring on about reality being more than that which is amenable to scientific investigation, I'm sure I'm not the only one to have noticed that each and every time you've been politely asked to back up this claim, you have refused to do so.

Nothing new there at all, of course.

But the there is another question which you dismiss in what is to you a humorous put down but in reality a sign of gutless ness and that is demonstrate philosophical materialism from methodological materialism. Philosophical materialism is the assumption you are showing in this reply namely that the only reality is that which is amenable to scientific investigation.