Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 1, 2024, 9:09 pm
Thread Rating:
Alincolnism?
|
The difference here, John V, is that the evidence in the history book is not the first or only spot these claims exist. That book is where it was all presented in such a manner as to teach people about it without forcing one to carry every book and letter to or from Lincoln. Otherwise students would have to carry libraries around.
Stupidest fucking comic ever. Thanks to Cinjin for making it more 'sig space' friendly. RE: Alincolnism?
November 4, 2013 at 5:59 pm
(This post was last modified: November 4, 2013 at 5:59 pm by Lion IRC.)
The New Testament writers didn't put the words..."The Bible"TM as a heading at the top of every page.
“To terrify children with the image of hell, to consider women an inferior creation—is that good for the world?”
― Christopher Hitchens "That fear first created the gods is perhaps as true as anything so brief could be on so great a subject". - George Santayana "If this is the best God can do, I'm not impressed". - George Carlin RE: Alincolnism?
November 4, 2013 at 6:58 pm
(This post was last modified: November 4, 2013 at 6:59 pm by Doubting Thomas.)
Watch out, Christians will soon be carrying two bibles around for when skeptics tell them they can't use the bible as evidence.
Oh and a history book has facts which can be verified by other means. A bible has stories of talking snakes, people coming back from the dead, and a global flood.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
The difference between the history book about Lincoln and biblical text is that these documents are backed up by laws in which Lincoln was a part of, letters he wrote, letters of people who met/worked with him wrote, and the fact that he was a goddamn president of the United States.
Comparing this to the bible is laughable because the text is only backed up by itself and claims outrageous, magical events and people. RE: Alincolnism?
November 4, 2013 at 11:57 pm
(This post was last modified: November 4, 2013 at 11:57 pm by Lemonvariable72.)
Came across this thread on there, I think this dude is having a little fun with them
https://www.facebook.com/alincolnism/pos...tif_t=like
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time; And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
It appears that they have gotten tired of the old "Socrates," "Alexander the Great," and "Julius Caesar" arguments.
(November 4, 2013 at 5:46 pm)John V Wrote:(November 4, 2013 at 4:17 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: The bible is not documentation. It is the claim which needs to be backed up with actual documentation or other evidence. Since when was the fucking bible a history book?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects! (November 4, 2013 at 5:56 pm)Owlix Wrote: The difference here, John V, is that the evidence in the history book is not the first or only spot these claims exist. That book is where it was all presented in such a manner as to teach people about it without forcing one to carry every book and letter to or from Lincoln. Otherwise students would have to carry libraries around.The bible is likewise a collection of multiple sources bound together for convenience. As noted above, they weren't putting The Bible at the top of every page as they wrote it. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)