Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Alincolnism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    I often find it's a mixture of motives, and you have to use your judgement of the person asking.

    I would keep in mind that the bible's books were assembled ~400 AD. The assembly process would not have been a neutral historical collection, but one to "clean up" the various differing sources so that they DID agree with each other, (and likely to solidify any church politics they had at the time).
    Aside from being a different subject which I'd be glad to discuss in another thread, the point is that we do have far, far more of the exact sort of "extraneous corroborative evidence" for Jesus and other early Christians. That would include many of the texts deemed heretical except that they are all considerably later than those accepted as Scripture (though some argue they may contain older elements).

    There is also secular references that Habermas and Licona point to in order to illustrate how much we have from that period compared to a well-known Roman Emperor who would have had enough written about him and perhaps by him to fill a small library.

    In Habermas' The Case for Christ's Resurrection, he mentions how ancient historian Paul Maier remarks that "Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable." I mentioned Chandler previously, and in the same work he observed "Major contours of history hang on much thinner wires than the events of the New Testament and nobody doubts them!" [*emphasis in original*] These are undoubtedly true and yet we still can find unremitting choruses from skeptics proclaiming it still isn't enough and continue with their demands for more! More! MORE!

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Stoic View Post

      I don't have a problem with the idea that there was a person who fit the description in the bible, for the most part. It's the attribution of miracles that I find (literally) incredible.

      It would be as easy to believe that Lincoln really was a zombie fighter or vampire hunter.
      And yet it was the witnessing of those miracles (primarily the Resurrection) that convinced a bunch of previously terrified and utterly disheartened followers to do an instant 180 and put everything they had including their very lives on the line promoting it.

      That sort of switch is hard to account for. Especially given that there isn't even any vague suggestion that any of them recanted (both the Jews and the Romans would have made hay of it had such a deconversion ever took place).

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Aside from being a different subject which I'd be glad to discuss in another thread, the point is that we do have far, far more of the exact sort of "extraneous corroborative evidence" for Jesus and other early Christians. That would include many of the texts deemed heretical except that they are all considerably later than those accepted as Scripture (though some argue they may contain older elements).

        There is also secular references that Habermas and Licona point to in order to illustrate how much we have from that period compared to a well-known Roman Emperor who would have had enough written about him and perhaps by him to fill a small library.

        In Habermas' The Case for Christ's Resurrection, he mentions how ancient historian Paul Maier remarks that "Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable." I mentioned Chandler previously, and in the same work he observed "Major contours of history hang on much thinner wires than the events of the New Testament and nobody doubts them!" [*emphasis in original*] These are undoubtedly true and yet we still can find unremitting choruses from skeptics proclaiming it still isn't enough and continue with their demands for more! More! MORE!
        I'll be honest, the overall topic is just not one I'm interested in. :) I am an atheist, but, it's honestly not really a part of my life and/or interests. I go through my life with as much general interest in Christianity as most of the US does with regards to the religion of Ancient Greece. This means I'm not about to jump into what I call the "bible trivia game", as, to be frank, I don't know enough of the bible to "win", and even if I did, "winning" doesn't really serve any purpose. I'm not seeking to convert you to Atheism, and "showing you up" with bible trivia would likely do more to drive up hostility towards myself and that message if I was trying to deliver it.

        Do I think there is validity in seeking external sources to biblical stories and events? Yes. Do I think people misuse that validity? Absolutely. I particularly think that H_A, like in many of her topics, is not asking from an "honest" position. But, at the end of the day, the topic itself doesn't interest me enough to deep dive into, and I honestly don't have the knowledge to contribute anything to it.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          I never said I believe in Lincoln. I said I don't believe in Alincolnism! I am an Lincoln-agnostic.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            And yet it was the witnessing of those miracles (primarily the Resurrection) that convinced a bunch of previously terrified and utterly disheartened followers to do an instant 180 and put everything they had including their very lives on the line promoting it.

            That sort of switch is hard to account for. Especially given that there isn't even any vague suggestion that any of them recanted (both the Jews and the Romans would have made hay of it had such a deconversion ever took place).
            It's not that unusual for people to believe things (even to the point of certainty) that aren't true, especially with respect to religion. See cults.

            So I don't see the conviction of early Christians as all that convincing.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Stoic View Post

              It's not that unusual for people to believe things (even to the point of certainty) that aren't true, especially with respect to religion. See cults.

              So I don't see the conviction of early Christians as all that convincing.
              Habermas spills a good deal of ink in several books discussing the differences between the conversion of the apostles from a bunch of disheartened, disillusioned followers hiding out in fear for their lives who overnight became courageous and confident champions of Christianity willing to put everything they had (including their lives) on the line in order to preach the gospel message compared with folks who join a cult. The primary difference is being the result of what you actually experienced and saw and one where you are talked into believing something. And virtually no Bible scholar or even critic thinks that the Apostles were not 100% certain that they encountered and interacted with a Risen Christ.

              And this includes someone who was viewed even by critical scholars as originally being an unbeliever and skeptic -- Jesus' own brother James (Mark 3:21-35; John 7:5). James was a skeptic and unbeliever during his brother's public ministry, but that radically changed after he met the risen Jesus. Then, in short order James becomes the pastor of the Jerusalem church (one of the three "pillars" of Christianity -- Galatians 2:9), where Paul goes to meet with him twice (Galatians 1:18-19; 2:1-10; cf. Acts 15:13-21).

              And then there was Paul, a fervent and zealous opponent of Christianity.

              Moreover, as I noted the very fact that at some point none of them ever renounced their belief is telling as well. They stood by their testimony even in the face of persecution and death. You don't typically see this in a cult where the members were talked into believing something. For example look at Jonestown. Investigators found scores of bodies in the surrounding jungle all of which had been shot from behind. After the people there started to realize what was going on many tried to escape only to be shot down.

              But there is no indication that any of the apostles or other major figures recanted. Of course it is possible that such a recantation was lost to time, but this is unlikely in the extreme in that if it had taken place (or even if there was just a rumor that it might have happened) the opponents of Christianity would have been glad to spotlight it over and over. "Well, X, who was an apostle, later said it was all B.S."

              And even though we don't have an extant copy of Celsus' Logos Alēthēs ("The True Word"), Origen basically did a point-by-point rebuttal in his Contra Celsum ("Against Celsus"), and there is no indication of any such claim. Origen would hardly have skipped over it if it existed. The Jews also had a lot riding on being able to debunk Christianity and again there is no evidence of such a claim from them either.
              Last edited by rogue06; 07-20-2021, 09:29 AM. Reason: Clarification

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #22
                When I was a kid, I had a whole collection of Lincoln Logs, and I could build all kinds of things.

                Where do you suppose those Lincoln Logs came from if Lincoln wasn't real? Eh????
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  When I was a kid, I had a whole collection of Lincoln Logs, and I could build all kinds of things.

                  Where do you suppose those Lincoln Logs came from if Lincoln wasn't real? Eh????
                  You just have to keep dragging those %#@$ Lincoln Logs up every chance you get, don't you?

                  Just because I planted charges made from matchheads that blew a hole in the wall of your reconstruction of Matsumoto Castle that you made while in the 4th grade. I mean I DID wait until after you presented in front of the class. And I've long admitted that I probably should have waited until after the teacher was awarding you that A+, but then that spinning Lincoln log woulda never arced so beautifully and hit mean old Miss Crabapple square in the snoot like that


                  So once again I implore you... Let it go.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    When I was a kid, I had a whole collection of Lincoln Logs, and I could build all kinds of things.

                    Where do you suppose those Lincoln Logs came from if Lincoln wasn't real? Eh????
                    Yeah, and all those internet memes saying not to trust anyone on the internet?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      Where do you suppose those Lincoln Logs came from if Lincoln wasn't real? Eh????
                      Nebraska?
                      When I Survey....

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                        I'll be honest, the overall topic is just not one I'm interested in. :) I am an atheist, but, it's honestly not really a part of my life and/or interests. I go through my life with as much general interest in Christianity as most of the US does with regards to the religion of Ancient Greece. This means I'm not about to jump into what I call the "bible trivia game", as, to be frank, I don't know enough of the bible to "win", and even if I did, "winning" doesn't really serve any purpose. I'm not seeking to convert you to Atheism, and "showing you up" with bible trivia would likely do more to drive up hostility towards myself and that message if I was trying to deliver it.

                        Do I think there is validity in seeking external sources to biblical stories and events? Yes. Do I think people misuse that validity? Absolutely. I particularly think that H_A, like in many of her topics, is not asking from an "honest" position. But, at the end of the day, the topic itself doesn't interest me enough to deep dive into, and I honestly don't have the knowledge to contribute anything to it.
                        That's fine, and I'll add that this thread isn't aimed specifically at any one poster. In my 15 years of posting here this demand for more contemporaneous sources pops up fairly frequently.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          More proof:


                          Ye olde photoshoppe: The first ever altered images (including two pictures stitched together to make iconic portrait of Abraham Lincoln)

                          article-2107109-11F436EE000005DC-387_470x594.jpgarticle-2107109-11F436EE000005DC-675_470x594.jpg
                          This portrait of Abraham Lincoln (left) is actually a composite of Lincoln's supposed head and the body of southern politician John Calhoun (pictured right)


                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

                            That's fine, and I'll add that this thread isn't aimed specifically at any one poster. In my 15 years of posting here this demand for more contemporaneous sources pops up fairly frequently.
                            Like I said. It really depends on the person asking. You have to judge the question by the motives of the person asking. There's often valid reasons to ask for sources that are independent of the other source.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                              Like I said. It really depends on the person asking. You have to judge the question by the motives of the person asking. There's often valid reasons to ask for sources that are independent of the other source.
                              Indeed. But in the case of Christianity, as I pointed out above, what we do possess should be considered the gold standard for having outside attestation for anything from antiquity.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                So if you are an alincolnist, doesn't that mean you believe in A. Lincoln? Abraham Lincoln?


                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                30 responses
                                103 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                79 responses
                                417 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post alaskazimm  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X