Summations Only

Maybe empathize is the wrong word. Maybe "identify as" or "think like" a Christian is better. I am the same...former Christian, everybody I know is Christian. I am not suggesting,therefore, I empathize better than you by the way. Not at all. I'm trying to think like I use to think is all.
When I discovered, as a Christian, apostle John did not write gospel John. I felt deceived, betrayed even. I mean the priest in church would even say the gospel according to the apostle John. I believe most Christians believe the gospels were written by the names on the gospel. They fight it when told otherwise. I think deceit is the correct word.

Well, hmm, who exactly was Mark Twain before Clemens wrote as Mark Twain?

Never mind. I understand what you say know. I need " think" time now. You " almost" make sense now. Don't take that wrong.

I am suggesting what is written misses the point. The text is separate from the issue. I realize what is written should be judged on it's own merit. I accept that now. It changes nothing whether it's believable or not, no matter the exact writer.
But the point is it's still deceit.Edited by Golffly, : Screwed up

John 21:24King James Version (KJV)24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.Those that still believe disciple John wrote the book and was an eye witness, site this passage.
Sometime in 1800's some scholars questioned authorship. But I would suspect most Christians, by a long shot, still believe apostle John is the writer.

GDR,
Take a look at the passage I quoted John 21:24.
You suggest I didn't quote the entire verse, so you then quote it in it's " entirety".
Well, you must have been excited because Santa is coming and missed the fact they are "essentially" identical. ))) Anyway, I'm excited too so no big deal.I don't know if I'd call it claiming to be John either. Maybe, maybe not. I think, for me, it seems to be the book is often a sort of eye witness account. So the reader gets the impression the writer was right there...and has a fantastic memory not to be rivalled. ))
The point which seems to be dwindling over time. ( I no longer believe it matters to text at all). Is that by some means, for the better part of 2000 years, Christians believe apostle John wrote the book John. It has been reinforced through out history and wasn't until some time into 1800's, some scholars questioned the validity. It's so accepted, that today the vast majority of Christians still believe it. Every Christian I know does.So now it seems we debate whether the actual writer himself was being deceptive. Or whether the " Christian organization" itself attempted a hood wink. Or whether they even knew they were hood winking. Because, effectively, the hood wink isn't significant to the book anyway.
At some point, I start to forget exactly what I am or was saying. I think I stick with Gospel John, not written by John, is deceptive. The questions brought up here seem endless and if I started out as certain about many things, I sit now less certain of many things. I still think it " smells" bad though.

Well it's education through science. I consider the bible an attempt by very, very superstitious people to explain what they couldn't understand. It wasn't malicious. The guys didn't, couldn't know. They tried to explain it as best they could. Astrology, casting lots, fortune telling, necromancy, evil spirits etc. all superstition. They were just unknowing and superstitious.
The fact people still believe the literal bible today, that part is being deceived by, what do you call it " Club Christian". That and/or purposeful ignorance based on complete delusion driven in to people, born to the correct parents, in the correct geographic region.

Flat mate? Is that me. I'm a guy. I like Tangle but not that way. I'm married, to a women.
Not that It matters a whit, but if you call me a flat mate.. then I'm going to give a shit.)))

Faith,
Are you cognizant that most evil spirits in the bible come from god?

Can you show me where in the bible you get this?
Evil spirits in the bible generally come from god. If mental illness is caused by evil sprints, generally caused by god, what do you think the individuals did to warrant the evil spirit injection, generally from god?Edited by Admin, : Fix first quote.

Faith who gives a damn what some professor thinks is the cause of anything? Did he offer proof? That's a rhetorical question, of course he didn't. Most likely you were drawn to this because you like what you heard. So you want to believe it's true. The guy had letters behind his name and thus you believe it's credible, but mostly because you want to believe that stuff. Well I have all kinds of letters behind my name and you're not going to believe what I say. Nor should you, based on that alone.I brought up the god causing evil spirits not as a red herring, but because the natural assumption of Christians is the devil causes them. Now, I don't believe any of it, but you do and if you do, the bible shows god is causing most evil spirits. So factor that in to the demon/ mental illness thing and you get an unexpected answer.

Okay, if you were startled that smart people can think stupid thing then I understand.
If you were startled a smart guy can believe absurdity with no evidence, I understand.
There is a show on TV about finding Bigfoot. I am startled as well people can believe that stuff.
What were you startled about?

How do you get god is good, loving and kind, out of the bible?
It seems, feel free to correct me, Christians learn all this from being told. It's driven in from parents, priests, friends, whatever. Then a person must come up with some pretty amazing juggling to reconcile when they actually, eventually, thoroughly read in the bible. Effectively, you can't believe what it actually says or use enough rationalizing to make it seem to say something it doesn't actually say or just cherry pick what feels good.

Phat, I'm not Theodoric, but how many problems to you want 10, 20.. I think I could get many more than that actually.
There are many, many issues in John. Anything actually in the bible is riddled with issues be it contradiction, errors, inconsistency or absurdity.Edited by Golffly, : Screwed up, again. )

I agree with everything, however, how do you get that rational conclusion. We don't know if John existed, we don't know who wrote about John. The gospel of John is riddled with contradiction and absurdity, no matter who wrote it. Some parts are thus highly suspect, to some level of rationality. So your conclusion is: we should conclude it's authentic until disproven? ( which is impossible). Is that what you say or no? How about we conclude it's not evidence at all and when evidence is presented it can be treated as evidence because it smells bad so far. :-)))