Quote:1. No no no. First, Luke wrote Luke and Acts. So, no mystery there. It is well understood that the actual apostles did not pen the gospels. The names came from which apostle's group of disciples produced the books. There is absolutely no reason to think that the provenance of the gospels were unknown at the time and every reason to believe that the first century church knew exactly where they came from (they held them in high regard). Your statement shows a real lack of knowledge of what you are talking about. 
2. You are repeating crap from an internet list. We are talking about 100% Jews. They had no "mystery religions". In fact, they had one of the most stable/thorough/written/studied/developed religions in the world at the time.
3. More internet nonsense. The books of the NT go back to the first century. Even Bart Erhman agrees that the text are pretty much as they were when they were written. Political motivation...please, that is fringe nonsense only repeated in atheist echo chambers.
4. Not so. Have you ever read the actual passage in Mark leading up to the shorter ending in Mark 16:8? Tell me where Mark did not believe Jesus was raised from the dead. It is good there are differences. If there were no differences, you would be claiming a conspiracy. Same basic result in every gospel. You can't come close to showing they did not have the same understanding of the events. You mentioned Thomas as a source--this shows you really don't know what you are talking about.  Growth of legend? Paul wrote to the churches that ALREADY believed the resurrection of Jesus starting in 50AD. How do you account for that? I'll say it again: we have firm proof that people throughout the Roman empire believed that Jesus rose from the dead in 50AD. 
5. No. At best you found scholars who agree with you. Scholars with BIAS (although some try harder than others). Because really, if you do not believe in God, what spin are you going to put on the Gospels? You actually look for reasons why the authors did not mean what they said. 

Quote:This is so typical. You know practically nothing about the NT or its provenance. But that does not stop you from very clearly affirming it cannot be even considered evidence for God. Well done.

(August 30, 2018 at 4:03 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 30, 2018 at 3:50 pm)polymath257 Wrote: It goes much deeper than that. We know love exists because of chemical reactions in the brain. So you are asking that I accept that these chemicals exist only because of some deity. But, more than that, you are asking me to accept that they only continue to exist because of the existence of this deity. And, further, that nothing that is good could possibly exist unless there is an intervention by this entity.

Do you see how this is such a stretch it is hard to imagine even believing this?

Well, since truth and love are different things, that would show God is not love. And, this also fails to address how an entity can be the same as an abstract idea. Once again, the whole basis of the question is so far away from anything close to how I see reality that asking what I would do is difficult to answer.

It's like asking whether I would like pineapples  if the color red was larger than the number 6. The question itself makes no sense at all.

We believe God is all goodness. That means love and truth. Lies aren't good or loving, afterall.

---

(August 30, 2018 at 3:53 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Let's put it this way. Suppose that Satan showed up and convinced you that he was pure goodness and love and that the deity you have believed in is actually evil. Would you then follow Satan?

How about if the color yellow showed up and convinced you that it is pure love and goodness. Would you then follow the color yellow?

First question: Yes. If that happened, it would mean that I was wrong about God and Satan.  

Second question: Yes. I desire love and goodness.

....Can you answer mine now please?

(August 30, 2018 at 4:13 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(August 30, 2018 at 4:03 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: We believe God is all goodness. That means love and truth. Lies aren't good or loving, afterall.

---

First question: Yes. If that happened, it would mean that I was wrong about God and Satan.  

Second question: Yes. I desire love and goodness.

....Can you answer mine now please?

OK, you are able to make sense out of non-sense much better than I am.

(August 30, 2018 at 4:16 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I'll have to remind myself of how monstrous I'm being the next time I tell my kids their dead cat went to a farm upstate, what with there being no good or loving lies in the world.  

Why is christian belief so childish?

(August 30, 2018 at 4:22 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 30, 2018 at 4:13 pm)polymath257 Wrote: OK, you are able to make sense out of non-sense much better than I am.

Trust me, that Satan would be good and God would be bad makes absolutely 0 sense to me. And I assure you I still find the concept nonsense and impossible.

I suppose this means you won't answer my question in return?

Quote:Trust me, that Satan would be good and God would be bad makes absolutely 0 sense to me. And I assure you I still find the concept nonsense and impossible. 

I suppose this means you won't answer my question in return?

(August 30, 2018 at 2:08 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Christianity in particular, and god based religions in general, simply ascribe everything good to their God, whether doing so makes sense or not.

(August 30, 2018 at 4:25 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(August 30, 2018 at 4:22 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Trust me, that Satan would be good and God would be bad makes absolutely 0 sense to me. And I assure you I still find the concept nonsense and impossible.

I suppose this means you won't answer my question in return?

I will follow what I find to be good and true. Under the conditions you laid out, that would mean I would follow God.

(August 30, 2018 at 4:25 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(August 30, 2018 at 4:22 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Trust me, that Satan would be good and God would be bad makes absolutely 0 sense to me. And I assure you I still find the concept nonsense and impossible.

I suppose this means you won't answer my question in return?

I will follow what I find to be good and true. Under the conditions you laid out, that would mean I would follow God.

But, I want to add, this would mean that the God of Christianity is NOT the God of your proposition.