Justin,

When you say "right," I read "good". Tell me one man -- other than Jesus, of course -- whose actions have been "good". Anyone is history will suffice.

I'll share with you the answer: No one. Not one person in all of history can be called good. So, why is Lincoln held to a higher standard than any leader that preceded him -- including those of Israel? I don't hear how President Polk led the way for Lincoln's abuses. I don't hear how any president to follow has corrected the abuses.

For some reason, Lincoln is demonized and all evidence points to the fact that he was the first president to openly acknowledge Jesus as Lord.

Take Paul of the New Testament as an example. He killed Christians. But we all point to the fact that he was a great Apostle -- and rightfully so. But what about the lives of those who were affected. Does your history book vilify him? Nope. But Lincoln? Oh, he's a demon.

Pish posh, I say.

Sincerely and in Christian love (Honestly, although my forum etiquette is quite brash, I don't dislike you),

Joe

Fluffy Cow:

Aw maaann... I just tripped over something! Oh look, it's a dead horse!

LOL! Was somebody beating it?

Joe Napalm:

Justin,

When you say "right," I read "good". Tell me one man -- other than Jesus, of course -- whose actions have been "good". Anyone is history will suffice.

I'll share with you the answer: No one. Not one person in all of history can be called good. So, why is Lincoln held to a higher standard than any leader that preceded him -- including those of Israel? I don't hear how President Polk led the way for Lincoln's abuses. I don't hear how any president to follow has corrected the abuses.

For some reason, Lincoln is demonized and all evidence points to the fact that he was the first president to openly acknowledge Jesus as Lord.

Take Paul of the New Testament as an example. He killed Christians. But we all point to the fact that he was a great Apostle -- and rightfully so. But what about the lives of those who were affected. Does your history book vilify him? Nope. But Lincoln? Oh, he's a demon.

Pish posh, I say.

Sincerely and in Christian love (Honestly, although my forum etiquette is quite brash, I don't dislike you),

Joe

I certainly don't mean good by right.

I agree with the answer to that question. However I feel that Washington, for example,  did much better for our country than Lincoln. I can't really think of any President that has corrected the abuses... As far as I know, the president still has the power to declare martial law, and the Federal government has far more power than it should.

Ok well, I would say that Paul did far more good than Lincoln. And I don't think that Lincoln ever repented for the damage he caused. I haven't really called him a demon though...

 I would be interested in hearing what you think he did that was so good.

I appreciate your openness. Although I have tried to hold to a basic code, I don't mind dealing bluntly and honestly also, as long as both parties know. It's just kind of hard to tell the tone with typing sometimes... Although, I may not agree with you on this subject, on the whole I think that we feel the same on several issues.

I feel that you all know my opinion on this subject. So I am willing to end, or continue it, either way. :-)

Joe Napalm:

Lincoln's words: "When I left Springfield I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ. Yes, I do love Jesus." [link]

Read carefully the above quote.  When we read a quote from someone, we have three conclusions, maybe four:

1.) The individual quoted is telling the truth
2.) The individual quoted is lying (either knowingly or not)
3.) The individual quoted is with-holding information or leading the listener to a faulty conclusion (i.e., being deceptive)
[4.) The source of the quote is not reliable (either a miscopy of the quote, manipulation of the individuals original quote, etc.)]

Let us assume that the quote Joe gave up above comes from a reliable source (so we can ignore this conclusion).

Using my judgment, correct me if you think otherwise, Lincoln does not appear to be playing-it-safe with information.  As a Christian, I know there is a time in a man's life that he can look back and say I was not a Christian.  Lincoln appears to be quite candid, especially about giving information about his son.  So I think we can neglect conclusion 3.

So we are now left with conclusion 1 or 2.  It is up to your judgment on which one it is.  But if you stand by conclusion 2 and demean or curse the man and in reality it was conclusion 1 (that he truly became a Christian), what do you think God thinks of your behavior?  However, if you take his word (conclusion 1) and in reality he was lying (knowingly or not) what harm is your ignorance?

Coming to either conclusion with absolute certainty is difficult because when we look into the past we only see snap shots at various times.  But if we align Lincoln's quotes up chronologically and transpose this ontop of a timeline, we can get a fairly accurate portrayal of this man's life.

Fluffy Cow:

Aw maaann... I just tripped over something! Oh look, it's a dead horse!

While I agree this is a dead horse, the lack of critical thinking has been very symptomatic in this forum.  And to many this Lincoln issue is very crucial to their world outlook.  But for me, more important is how we as Christians process information.  And I sense a faulty processor when it comes to this Lincoln issue.

Well, it looks like continue it is!

I agree that it is hard, at least with the information that I have, to come to a very solid conclusion one way or the other. And I was very careful to say that I can't know his heart. However, the Lincoln that affected this country the most was the one that declared war on his country. And so that is the main scope of my dealings with him.

WesleySonofCornelius:

While I agree this is a dead horse, the lack of critical thinking has been very symptomatic in this forum.  And to many this Lincoln issue is very crucial to their world outlook.  But for me, more important is how we as Christians process information.  And I sense a faulty processor when it comes to this Lincoln issue.

Could you point out where the faulty processor is? Or how it comes into play? I have to say that it feels kind of the same way to me...

jt400:

WesleySonofCornelius:

While I agree this is a dead horse, the lack of critical thinking has been very symptomatic in this forum.  And to many this Lincoln issue is very crucial to their world outlook.  But for me, more important is how we as Christians process information.  And I sense a faulty processor when it comes to this Lincoln issue.

Could you point out where the faulty processor is? Or how it comes into play? I have to say that it feels kind of the same way to me...

Let me show you: give me your opinion on John Adams' signature of the Alien and Sedition Acts?  After that, based on what we know from his quotes, do you think he was a Christian?

 Ok. I will admit right off the bat that this is a relativly weak spot for me. It seems to me, that while the alien acts may have been right, I can't agree with the sedition act.

Based on what I know of Adams, I would say that his actions seem to show that he operated with a basicly Christian worldview. To answer your question I think he was a Christian in a basic sense, although I don't know his doctrine.

WesleySonofCornelius:

jt400:

WesleySonofCornelius:

While I agree this is a dead horse, the lack of critical thinking has been very symptomatic in this forum.  And to many this Lincoln issue is very crucial to their world outlook.  But for me, more important is how we as Christians process information.  And I sense a faulty processor when it comes to this Lincoln issue.

Could you point out where the faulty processor is? Or how it comes into play? I have to say that it feels kind of the same way to me...

Let me show you: give me your opinion on John Adams' signature of the Alien and Sedition Acts?  After that, based on what we know from his quotes, do you think he was a Christian?

LOL! I was about to suggest that y'all had faulty information procesessing systemns.

I have read his own words, un-edited, un-changed, and from a GOVERNMENT WEBSITE. He has all his major speeches for reading, and I have read most of them, and all of the Lincoln-Douglass debates as they are the most "interesting".

I disagree that this is a dead horse, now if it were going "It was about Slavery", "No, it was about State Sovereignty!" "No, it was about those wicked money grubbing southerners who hated those poor innocent "african americans" so they forced them as a whole to pick cotton or be tortured"  "No only 6%-10% of Southerners owned slaves, and they treated those slaves, kindly, and along the BIBLICAL guidelines for owning slaves."

etc. etc. etc.

that would be beating a dead horse, cuz EVERYONE knows we won ;).

 

So I reckon its on to the Empires "Great Messiah" unarguably the worst president in united States history.

RG

Joe Napalm:

Justin,

When you say "right," I read "good". Tell me one man -- other than Jesus, of course -- whose actions have been "good". Anyone is history will suffice.

I'll share with you the answer: No one. Not one person in all of history can be called good. So, why is Lincoln held to a higher standard than any leader that preceded him -- including those of Israel? I don't hear how President Polk led the way for Lincoln's abuses. I don't hear how any president to follow has corrected the abuses.

For some reason, Lincoln is demonized and all evidence points to the fact that he was the first president to openly acknowledge Jesus as Lord.

Take Paul of the New Testament as an example. He killed Christians. But we all point to the fact that he was a great Apostle -- and rightfully so. But what about the lives of those who were affected. Does your history book vilify him? Nope. But Lincoln? Oh, he's a demon.

Pish posh, I say.

Sincerely and in Christian love (Honestly, although my forum etiquette is quite brash, I don't dislike you),

Joe

Saul was quickened by God and went on to live a Godly life, Lincoln killed tens of thousands of Indians, and almost 300,000 of my countrymen, Lincoln was the cause for the poverty of the finest section of the continent since DeConstruction, Lincoln was a tyrant equal to most dictators, imprisoning those politicians, newspaper editors, judges, SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, and legislators at will, mostly whenever the Constitutional issue of Secession came up. And, POSSIBILY Lincoln "got saved" after gettysburg - (by the way, most of the awful war crimes were commited after then, including the massacre of innocent Women and Children, with his blessing) - but we show no evidence of change in his walk, or talk, however because of his friends writings after Lincolns death, Lincoln is all of a sudden a "Christian".

Oh, and I found 50 or more quotes of professing Christian presidents before Lincoln, unless you mean "I was unsaved yesterday, but now I feel warm and fuzzy inside, please vote for me" as the only real "profession of faith".

 Respectfully,

 

For Christ, Kirk, and the Confederacy,

 

RG

jt400:

To answer your question I think he was a Christian in a basic sense, although I don't know his doctrine.

&

 

FloridaCracker:

Oh, and I found 50 or more quotes of professing Christian presidents before Lincoln

Okay, I think we need to pause and discuss a much bigger issue than Lincoln, Civil War, Adams, etc.  What does it mean to be a Christian "in the first sense" (see Francis Schaeffer's quote above)?  Does having respect for the Bible make someone a Christian?  Or is there more to it?

Well, I thought you were going to point out a faulty processor. So you want to debate doctrine now? What happened to your quote? I forgot what Schaefer's definition of the "first sense" was...

I don't believe Wesley is leaving the subject. He's just found a place to start. What is the definition of a Christian? What makes one a Christian?

 Is that a question?